Sifrei Bamidbar Reader

(Bamidbar 11:6) "And now, our souls are dry. There is nothing": R. Shimon said: They said: It (the manna) will burst our bowels. Can a mortal ingest and not expel! They said to R. Shimon: And how do you explain (Devarim 23:14) "And you shall have a spade along with your other implements" (to cover your excrement)?

He answered: What the Canaanite merchants sold them they expelled, but the manna, never. As it is written (Psalms 78:25) "Man ate the bread of abirim" — (bread) which was absorbed in the eivarim (the limbs). "Only to the manna is our eyes. (7) The manna was (round) like coriander seed, and it looked like crystal.": You think that he who said this ("Only to the manna, etc.") said that ("The manna was round, etc."?)

This is not so. Israel said "Only to the manna is our eyes," and the L-rd "pacified" all future generations and said to them: Come and see what they are grumbling to Me about — "The manna was like coriander seed — it looked like crystal!" viz. (Bereshit 2:12) "And the gold of that land is good. There is the crystal and the onyx stone." Similarly, (i.e., another instance of "split referrent") (Ibid. 38:25) "And Judah recognized (them) and said: 'She is right.

It is by me'" (that she is with child). And Scripture (and not Judah) states that "he did not live with her again." Similarly, (Devarim 25:18) "and you (Israel) were faint and weary," "and (he, Amalek) did not fear G-d." Similarly, (Judges 5:28) "Why is his (Sisra's) chariot delayed in coming?" — This was stated by Sisra's mother, (29) "The wisest of her ladies answer her, etc." — This was said by his wife and her daughters-in-law. (Ibid.)

"She, too, returns her words to her" — there was revealed to her what was said to Devorah by the Holy Spirit — Don't wait any longer for Sisra. (Ibid. 31) "So will all of Your foes go lost, O L-rd." Similarly, (I Samuel 4:8) "Woe to us! Who will save us from the hand of this mighty G-d" — This was stated by the righteous (among them). But the wicked said: "This is the G-d who smote the Egyptians with every plague in the desert."

Their intent was: He had only ten plagues (in His arsenal) and He brought them all on the Egyptians — He has no plagues left. The L-rd responded: You say I have no plague left? I will bring upon you a plague the like of which the world has never seen. One of you will be sitting (and defecating) and a mouse will rise from the depths and will scoop out his innards and return to the depths!

And thus is it written (Ibid. 5:6) "And the hand of the L-rd was heavy against the Ashdodites … and He struck them with hemorrhoids." Similarly, (Jeremiah 26:16-25) "Then the officers and all the people said to the Cohanim: … This man (Jeremiah) does not deserve to die … And there arose men of the elders of the land and they said to the entire assemblage of the people: Michah the Monashite prophesied … Did Chizkiyahu king of Judah put him to death? …" Until here, the words of the righteous.

But the wicked among them said: "There was also a man who prophesied in the name of the L-rd, Uriah the son of Shemayahu … And King Yehoyakim heard … and the king wanted to put him to death…. And King Yehoyakim sent men to Egypt … and they took Uriah out of Egypt …" They said: Just as Uriah was killed, so Jeremiah must be killed. "But Achiram son of Shafan protected Jeremiah not to hand him over to the people to be put to death."

Similarly, (Ruth 2:13) "As the L-rd lives, lie (here) until the morning." Because the yetzer hara (the evil inclination) sat and aggrieved him (Boaz) the whole night, saying: You are single and need a wife, and she (Ruth) is single and needs a husband, and you know that a woman is acquired (as a wife) by intercourse — Arise and live with her and let her be your wife — he swore to his yetzer hara "As the L-rd lives," I will not touch her.

And to the woman he said: "Lie (here) until the morning." Here, too, "Only to the manna is our eyes." Do you think that he who said this said that ("The manna was like coriander seed, etc.")? (No!) Israel said "Only to the manna is our eyes!" and the L-rd "pacified" and said to them: Come and see about what they are railing against Me: "The manna was like coriander seed and it looked like crystal," viz. (Bereshit 2:12) "The gold of that land is good. There is crystal and the shoham stone."

(Bamidbar 11:8) "The people would stroll out and gather it": I might think that they railed against Him because it was difficult to gather; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 16:4) "And the people will go out and gather it." One would sit at the door of his house and gather his share and the share of his household, and when the sun came out, it melted. "and they would grind it in a mill": Now (did we not learn that) it never "descended" to a mill?

The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is ground in a mill. "or beat it in a mortar": Now (did we not learn that) it was never beaten in a mortar? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is beaten in a mortar. I might think that it was converted only into these things alone. Whence is it derived that all the forty years that Israel was in the desert a woman had no need of spices, but was "decorated" (i.e., perfumed) by the manna?

From "or" beat it." "or cook it in a pot": Now (did we not learn that) it never "descended" to a pot? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is cooked in a pot. "and they made cakes of it": Now (did we not learn that) it never "descended" to an oven? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is baked in an oven. I might think that it was converted only into these things alone.

Whence do I derive (the same for) all the things gathered in a field? From "and they would gather it." And it is written (Devarim 2:7) "These forty years the L-rd has been with you. You have lacked nothing."

As if a man would say I want to eat grapes, and they were given to him; I want to eat figs, and they were given to him. "and its taste was like the 'sap' (leshad) of oil": "leshad": an acronymic for three words: "layish" (dough), "shemen" (oil), and "dvash" (honey). As dough kneaded with oil and honey, such was the inherent taste of the manna, and thus (i.e., with intent for this taste) did the upright of Israel eat it.

Variantly: "and its taste was like the 'sap' (leshad) of oil": Just as the breast (shad) is "primary" to an infant, and everything else, secondary. Variantly: Just as the breast, if an infant sucks it the whole day, it does not harm it, so, the manna; if Israel ate it a whole day, it would not harm them. Variantly: Just as the breast, which produces one kind, which changes into many kinds, so, the (taste of the) manna changed for Israel into any taste that they desired, except for that of the five kinds (viz. Ibid. 5).

An analogy: (A doctor) tells a (nursing) woman: Do not eat garlic and onion for the sake of the infant. Variantly: Just as the breast, an infant suffers when it withdraws from it, so, Israel suffered when they withdrew from the manna, viz. (Joshua 5:12) "And the manna ceased the following day, when they ate from the grain of the land." An analogy: A man is asked: Why are you eating barley bread? He answers: Because I don't have wheat bread.

Why are you eating carobs? Because I don't have figs. Similarly, if Israel had that handful (of manna) that they took on the day of Moses' death, from which they ate all forty days, they would not desire to eat of the grain of the land of Canaan. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 9) "And when the dew descended upon the camp at night, the manna descended upon it.": We are hereby taught that it descended upon the thresholds and the doorposts.

I might think that the manna was eaten sullied; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 16:14) "and, behold, on the face of the desert it was spread thin." It (the dew) descended as a kind of hoarfrost and became a kind of layer upon the ground on which the manna descended. And from it Israel took and ate. This accounts for the lower level; but couldn't the reptiles and the flies infest it from above?

It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the dew layer ascended," whence it follows that it was enclosed in a kind of casing. And they would recite the Shema and pray; and one would go out to the entrance of his house and take his share and that of his household, after which the sun would come out and melt it. Similarly, R. Shimon says: Why didn't the manna descend once a year? So that their hearts turn to their Father in heaven (for their food).

An analogy: A king decreed that his son be fed once a year — and he visited his father only on the day of his stipend! Once he decreed that he be fed every day — and he visited him every day. So with Israel. If a man had five sons or five daughters, he would sit and worry, thinking: If the manna does not fall tomorrow, we will all die of hunger! — So that they all turned their hearts to their Father in heaven.

R. Dostai b. R. Yannai said: If so, the son will say: Even if I visit my father only for the sake of my stipend it is sufficient for me! So that the visit becomes entirely opportunistic. Rather, (the manna fell every day) so that it could be eaten while it was still warm. Variantly: (It did not fall once for a long period of time) so that it would not be a burden on the road.

Similarly, R. Dostai b. R. Yannai says: Why did the L-rd not create hot springs in Jerusalem as He did in Tiberias? So that one not say to his friend: Let us go up to the hot springs of Jerusalem. If we go up for only one dousing, it will be sufficient for us. So that the ascent becomes entirely opportunistic.

(Bamidbar 11:10) "And Moses heard the people weeping by its families": R. Nehorai was wont to say: From here we derive that Israel were aggrieved when Moses charged them to abstain from illicit relations. For (before this) a man would marry his sister or his father's sister or his mother's sister. "weeping by its families": Because their hearts swelled in (this) sin many families joined together and he proclaimed this in public. "each at the door of his tent": We are hereby apprised that they waited for Moses until he left the door of the house of study, and they sat and grumbled.

"And the L-rd was extremely wroth, and in the eyes of Moses it was evil. (11) "And Moses said to the L-rd, etc." Here, the Holy One Blessed be He attenuates (His manifestation of wrath) and Moses exacerbates, whereas in the instance of the golden calf, the Holy One Blessed be He exacerbates and Moses attenuates.

(Bamidbar 11:11) "And Moses said to the L-rd: Why have You done evil to Your servant … (12) "Did I conceive all this people? Did I beget them, etc.?" When did He speak thus to him? When He said to him (Shemot 32:34) "Go, now, lead the people where I told you" — the thing depends upon you. And (Ibid. 6:13) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He charged them to the children of Israel … to deliver the children of Israel from the land of Egypt."

He said to them: Know that they are recalcitrant and importunate — on the understanding that they will curse you and stone you! "Whence am I to take flesh (to give to all this people") — Are they only one or two (recalcitrants, etc.) that I can bear them? (The majority are of that kind!) (11:14) "I shall not be able to bear alone all this people." (15) "And if thus You will do to them, kill me, I pray You": The Holy One Blessed be He had shown Moses the calamity that He was going to bring upon them.

R. Shimon was wont to say: An analogy: One going out to be executed together with his sons says to the executioner: Kill me before you kill my sons — not as in the instance of Tzidkiyahu (Jeremiah 52:10-11) "And the king of Bavel slaughtered the sons of Tzidkiyahu before his eyes … and the eyes of Tzidkiyahu he blinded. Thus, Moses said before the L-rd: "And if thus You will do to them, kill me, I pray you." I would rather be killed first and not see the calamity that is to be brought upon them.

(Bamidbar 11:16) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Gather unto Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, etc.": Why (is this mentioned here)? Because Moses had said "I cannot bear alone," the L-rd responded: What you have requested, I have granted. "Gather unto Me": that the Sanhedrin be in My name. Wherever "unto Me" is written, the understanding is "forever."

The Cohanim — (Shemot 28:41) "that they minister unto Me." The Levites — (Bamidbar 8:14) "and the Levites shall be unto Me." Israel — (Vayikra 25:35) "For unto Me are the children of Israel servants." The first-born — (Bamidbar 8:17) "For unto Me are all the first-born of the children of Israel."

The sanctuary — (Shemot 25:8) "And let them make unto Me a sanctuary." The altar — (Ibid. 20:24) "An altar of earth shall you make unto Me." The oil of anointment — (Ibid. 30:31) "Holy oil of anointment shall this be unto Me." The kings — (I Samuel 16:1) "For I have seen among his sons a king unto Me."

The offerings — (Bamidbar 28:2) "to sacrifice unto Me in its appointed time." Unto Me, then, always connotes "forever." (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) "seventy men": There must be seventy in a Sanhedrin. "seventy men": They must be wise, strong, senior, and well-versed in the magic arts. "from the elders of Israel": Not in (only) one or two places does the L-rd accord honor to the elders, but in every place that you find, He does so, viz. (Shemot 3:16) "Go and assemble the elders of Israel, etc.", (Ibid. 24:1) "And to Moses He said: Ascend to the L-rd, you and Aaron and Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel," (Ibid. 14) "And to the elders He said: Wait for us here until we return to you," (Vayikra 9:1) "And it was on the eighth day that Moses called to Aaron and to his sons and to the elders of Israel" — Wherever you find elders, you find the L-rd according honor to the elders.

R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Whence do you derive that it will also be thus in time to come? From (Isaiah 24:23) "And the moon will be shamed and the sun abashed. For the L-rd of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and He will accord His elders honor." Now does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If He who spoke and brought the world into being is destined to accord honor to the elders, how much more so should creatures of flesh and blood honor them!

And thus do you find that the L-rd is aggrieved over (the suffering of) one elder over and against all of Israel, viz. (Ibid. 47:6) "I have fumed against My people; I have profaned My heritage, etc." The L-rd, as it were, "pardons" everything, but (Ibid.) "You have weighed your yoke exceedingly upon the elder" (i.e., this cannot be pardoned). (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "whom you know to be the elders of the people": You must know that they are "select" men. "that they are the elders of the people": We are hereby taught that one is not elected to sit in council until people tend to speak in praise of him, viz.: "That man is upright and pious and wise and fit to sit in council." "and its officers": those of whom it is written (Shemot 5:19) "And the officers of the children of Israel saw them in their plight."

Since they saw themselves as involved in their plight, let them come and share in their welfare. (Devarim, Ibid.) "And you shall take them to the tent of meeting": He said to them. "Take them" with words first, with words of praise, viz.: How fortunate you are to have been selected (for this honor) — and then "hard" words: Know that they are importunate and recalcitrant. Take them on this condition, that they will curse you and stone you.

And stipulate the same to them. "And have them stand there with you": Take them in with you to the tent of meeting, and let all of Israel deport themselves to them with awe and fear and honor, as they do with you. And let them say: How beloved are these, who have entered with Moses to hear the word of the Holy One Blessed be He!

(Bamidbar 11:17) "And I will go down" (veyaradeti): This is one of the ten "yeridoth" written in the Torah. "and I will speak with you": "with you," but not with them. "And I shall increase from the spirit which is upon you, and I will place it upon them.": What was Moses like at that time? Like a lamp placed upon a menorah, from which many lamps are lighted without the first losing any of its light. So, the wisdom of Moses was in no way diminished thereby. "and they will bear with you": What is the intent of this? Because Moses had said (Devarim 1:12) "How can I bear alone your contentiousness, your heresy, and your caviling," he was told "and they will bear with you the burden of the people, and you will not bear it alone."

(Bamidbar 11:18) "And to the people you shall say: Hithkadshu for tomorrow": (The connotation of) "Hithkadshu" is: Prepare yourselves for calamity, as in (Jeremiah 12:3) "Hakdishem for the day of killing," (Ibid. 22:7) "Vekidashti against your destroyers." (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) "Until a month of days": This is stated of the mediocre. They would languish in their beds for thirty days until their souls expired.

Of the wicked it is written (Ibid. 33) "The flesh was yet between their teeth" — As soon as they put it between their teeth, their souls would expire. (Ibid. 20) "and it will be loathsome to you": You will repel it more than you courted it. "for you have despised the L-rd who is in your midst.": The L-rd said to them: What caused you to say such things? My having reposed My shechinah among you. For if I had removed My shechinah from you, you would not have (swelled with pride to) utter such things.

(Bamidbar 11:21) "And Moses said: Six hundred thousand foot, etc.": R. Shimon b. Yochai said: R. Akiva expounded this in one way, and I, in two ways, and my words seem more cogent. R. Akiva expounds it plainly, viz. (Ibid. 22) "If flocks and herds are slaughtered for them will it be sufficient for them?" Even if you give them all the flocks and herds (in the world), will it be sufficient for them?

And I understand it as follows: "If flocks and herds are slaughtered for them will it be sufficient for them?" Even if you give them all the flocks and herds in the world, they would grumble. For is it because they have no meat that they are grumbling? Is it not written of the exodus from Egypt (Shemot 12:38) "And also a great mixture (of proselytes) went up with them, and flocks and herds, etc."?

I might think they ate them in the desert. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 32:1) "And the sons of Reuven and the sons of Gad had much cattle, etc." It is only that they were looking for a pretext to abandon the L-rd. (Ibid. 11:22) "If all the fish of the sea are gathered for them"? Even if you gave them all the fish in the sea they would grumble. For is it because they have no fish that they are grumbling?

Did not the well of Miriam accompany them in the desert and supply them with more than their fill of fish? It is only that they were looking for a pretext to abandon the L-rd. Variantly: Because He showed Moses the chain of calamities destined to befall them, Moses said before the L-rd: My L-rd, is it right that you give them and kill them? Does one tell an ass: Take a kor of wheat and we will cut off your head?

Does one tell a man: Take a loaf and descend to Sheol? He responded: And if not, (i.e., if I do not give them what they ask for), what will be said? (Ibid. 23) "Will the hand of the L-rd be found wanting?" Moses: Let me go and attempt to conciliate them. The L-rd: (Ibid.)

"You will see whether My word (that they will not heed you) will befall you or not." While you are here, I am telling you that they will not heed you. (Ibid. 24) "And Moses went out and told the people the words of the L-rd," viz.: When Moses went to them he said to them: "Will the hand of the L-rd be found wanting?" (They responded, Psalms 78:20) "True, He struck a rock and water flowed and streams flooded forth, but can He also give bread?

Can He supply food for His people?" They said: This (i.e., your attempt to conciliate us) is a "compromise." He lacks the strength to grant us what we ask.

(Ibid. 26) "And there remained two men in the camp": Some say: They (i.e., their ballots) remained in the ballot box. When the Holy One Blessed be He told Moses to select seventy elders, Moses asked himself: What am I to do? I must select six from each (of the tribes) and five from two tribes. Which tribe will consent to only five?

Moses did as follows: He took seventy ballots and wrote on them "elder," and two blank ballots and mixed them (with the others) in the ballot box, and he said to them: Come and take your ballots. Whoever came up with a ballot marked "zaken," was told by Moses: "The L-rd has already selected you," and whoever came up with a blank ballot was told by Moses: It is the will of Heaven — what can I do? Similarly, (Bamidbar 3:96) "And (for) the redemption (money) of the two hundred and seventy-three of the first-born of the children of Israel over and above the (number of the) Levites, etc." Moses said what am I to do now?

Each one (of the Israelite first-born) will say: A Levite has redeemed me! Moses did as follows: He took (22,000) ballots and wrote upon them "Levite," and (273) ballots and wrote upon them "five shekels," placed them in a ballot box and said to them: Come and take your ballots. Whoever came up with a ballot marked "Levite" was told by Moses: "You have already been redeemed," and whoever came up with a ballot marked "five shekalim" was told by Moses: "Go and give your redemption money (to the Cohanim).

R. Shimon says (on Bamidbar 11:26): "They (Eldad and Medad) remained in the camp, for when they saw Moses selecting elders, they said: We are not deserving of this honor, saying which, they went and hid themselves — whereupon the L-rd said to them: You lowered yourselves; I will exalt you above all the others: Of the seventy elders it is written (Ibid. 25) "And they prophesied — but (after that day), they prophesied no more," whereas of Eldad and Medad it is written (Ibid. 27) "They are prophesying in the camp" — until the day of their death. And what were they saying? "Moses will die and Joshua will bring Israel to Eretz Yisrael."

(Bamidbar 11:27) "And the youth ran and he told Moses": Some say that this is Joshua, as in (Shemot 33:11) "And his (Moses') attendant, Joshua the son of Nun, a youth." R. Shimon says: It is written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 28) "And Joshua the son of Nun the servant of Moses from his youth responded": The first one, then, (i.e., "the youth") is not Joshua. (Ibid.) "My lord, Moses, kela'em": He said: My master, end them from the world, men who utter this evil report (that Moses will die).

Rebbi says: (He said) Confine them in chains and collars, as in (Jeremiah 37:18) "… that you have put me into the prison house" ("beth hakeleh"). (Ibid. 29) "And Moses said to him: Are you zealous for my sake?" He said to him: Joshua, am I zealous for your sake? Would that you were a prophet like me (i.e., that your prophecy be directly from the L-rd), and that all of Israel be like you (in that regard) — (Ibid.)

"Would that all the L-rd's people were prophets (by direct inspiration, and not by [indirect] "increase of spirit," viz. Ibid. 25). (Ibid. 30) "And Moses retired into (his tent in) the camp, he and the elders of Israel." We are hereby taught that He did not bring the calamity upon them until there entered (his tent) all of the righteous in the camp.

(Bamidbar 11:31) "And a wind went forth from the L-rd and blew in (vayagaz) quail from the sea": We are hereby taught that it (the quail flock) "blossomed" like "puffs" of wool (gazim). "and it spread over the camp": Some say that it killed in its descent as it did in being eaten. "about a day's journey on one side": towards the north. "and a day's journey on the other side": towards the south. R. Shimon says: "about a day's journey here": from above; "and a day's journey there": from below. "and about two cubits above the face of the earth": It hovered above two cubits over the face of the earth, so that they could be easily gathered in.

(Bamidbar 11:32) "And the people rose all that day … hamamit": Read it not "hamamit" ("he that gathered least"), but "hamemuat" (the "least" among them, i.e., the indolent and the lame), gathered ten kor." (Ibid.) "Vayishtechu lahem shatoach": R. Yehudah says: Do not read it thus ("vayishtechu"), but "vayishchatu"("and they slaughtered"): We are hereby taught that what descended for them required shechitah (ritual slaughter).

Rebbi says: This (derivation) is not needed, for it is already written (Psalms 78:27) "And he rained down upon them meat like dust and winged birds like the sand of seas." What, then, is the intent of "Vayishchetu lahem shatoach"? That it came down in layers (mashtichim). I might think that just as they gathered much, so, they ate much of it; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 11:33) "The flesh was yet between their teeth."

He (the eater) did not finish biting it before his soul left him, as it is written (Psalms, Ibid. 31) "They had not yet been estranged from their craving; their food was still in their mouth, when the wrath of G-d rose against them and He smote their fattest." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And the wrath of the L-rd burned against the people, and the L-rd smote the people with a very great plague." We are hereby apprised that the L-rd sent against them a sore plague, the like of which had not been seen since the day they left Egypt." (Ibid. 34) "And he called the name of that place 'Kivroth Hata'avah' ("the graves of the lust").

I might think that this is its name of yore; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "for there they buried the people that lusted." It was thus called because of the event. (Ibid. 35) "From Kivroth Hata'avah the people traveled to Chatzeiroth, and they abode in Chatzeiroth": Now were there two Chatzeiroth, one from which they traveled and one in which they camped? But (the intent is) once Israel began to travel, they did not continue before they heard that Miriam became leprous and they turned back and camped behind them — wherefore, (Ibid. 12:16) "And afterwards the people traveled from Chatzeiroth" — "and they abode in Chatzeiroth."

(Bamidbar 12:1) "And Miriam and Aaron spoke (vatedaber) against Moses": "dibbur" in all places connotes "harsh" speech, as in (Bereshit 42:30) "The man, the lord of the land, spoke ("dibber") roughly to us," (Bamidbar 21:5) "and the people spoke ("vayedaber") against G-d and against Moses." And "amirah" in all places connotes imploration as in (Bereshit 19:7) "And he said (vayomer): Do not, I pray you, my brothers, do ill," (Bamidbar 12:6) "And He said (vayomer): Hear, I pray you, My words."

"And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses": We are hereby apprised that both spoke against him, but that Miriam spoke first. This was not her practice, but the occasion demanded it. Similarly (Jeremiah 36;6) "And you (Baruch) shall go and read from the scroll, on which you have written from my (Jeremiah's) mouth, the word of the L-rd in the ears of the people" — not that it was Baruch's practice to speak before Jeremiah, but the occasion demanded it. "and Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses": How did Miriam know that Moses had ceased from marital relations (with his wife Tzipporah)?

Seeing that Tzipporah did not adorn herself as other (married) women did, she asked her for the cause and was told: "Your brother is not 'particular' about this thing" (intercourse, [being constantly "on call" for the word of G-d]). Thus Miriam learned of the matter. She apprised Aaron of it and they both spoke of it (as being a troublesome precedent for others.) Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Miriam, whose intent was not to berate her brother, but to praise him, and not to diminish propagation (in Israel), but to increase it, and who spoke thus privately — If she was thus punished, then one who intends to speak against his brother, in defamation and not in praise, and to diminish propagation and not to increase it, and in public — how much more so (is he to be punished!)

Similarly, a fortiori from the instance of Uzziah (viz. II Chronicles 16-19) If King Uzziah, whose intent (in offering the incense) was not self-aggrandizement or personal honor but the glory of his Master, was thus punished, how much more so one who intends the opposite! (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "… Because of the Cushite woman": Scripture hereby apprises us that whoever beheld her attested to her beauty.

And thus is it written (Bereshit 11:29) "… the father of Milkah and the father of Yiskah": Yiskah is Sarah: Why was she called "Yiskah"? For all gazed upon ("sochim") her beauty, as it is written (Ibid. 12:15) "And Pharaoh's officers saw her and praised her to Pharaoh." R. Eliezer the son of R. Yossi Haglili said: "Tzipporah" (Moses' wife) — Why was she called "Tzipporah"? "Tzfu ur'uh" ("Look and see") how beautiful this woman is! "the Cushite (Ethiopian) woman": Now was she an Ethiopian?

Wasn't she a Midianite, viz. (Shemot 2:16) "And the priest of Midian had seven daughters, etc." What is the intent of "Cushite"? Just as a Cushite is exceptional in his skin, so Tzipporah was exceptional in her beauty — more so than all the women. Similarly, (Psalms 7:1) "A Shiggayon of David, which he sang to the L-rd concerning Cush (Saul), a Benjaminite." Now was he a Cushite? (The intent is:) Just as a Cushite is exceptional in his skin, so Saul was exceptional in his appearance, as it is written of him (I Samuel 9:2) "… from his shoulder and upwards, taller than all of the people."

Similarly, (Amos 9:7) "Are you not like Cushites to Me, O children of Israel?" Now were they Cushites? (The intent is:) Just as a Chushite is exceptional in his skin, so, is an Israelite exceptional in mitzvoth. Similarly, (Jeremiah 32:7) "And Eved-melech the Cushite heard": Now was he a Cushite? Was he not Baruch?

But, just as a Cushite is exceptional in his skin, so, was Baruch ben Neriah exceptional in his deeds, more so than any of the others in the king's palace. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "for he had taken a Cushite woman": Why is this written? Is it not written (immediately before) "about the Cushite woman that he had taken"? — There are those who are beautiful in appearance, but not in deed; in deed, but not in appearance, viz. (Proverbs 11:22) "Like a golden ring in the snout of a pig is a beautiful woman lacking in sense.

Tzipporah was beautiful in both — wherefore it is written "about the Cushite woman that he had taken, for he had taken a Cushite woman."

(Bamidbar 12:2) "And they said: Is it only with Moses that the L-rd has spoken?" Did He not also speak with our forefathers? And they did not separate from their wives! "Has He not spoken also with us?": And we have not separated from our spouses! "And the L-rd heard": We are hereby apprised that no one else was there, but they spoke thus between themselves. R. Nathan says: They also spoke thus to Moses' face, it being written "And the L-rd heard and the man Moses" — but Moses suppressed it.

(Bamidbar 12:3) "And the man Moses was extremely humble": "humble" in his mind (i.e., complaisant). You say humble in his mind, but perhaps (the meaning is) "humble" in his wealth; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemot 11:3) "The man Moses, also, was very great" (in context, in wealth). We find that the second tablets made by Moses were of sapphire, it being written (Devarim 10:1) "Carve out for yourself ([the fragments of the first tablets were vouchsafed to Moses]) two tablets of stone like the first."

Just as the first were of sapphire, so, these. And whence is it derived that the first were of sapphire? From (Shemot 32:16) "And the (first) tablets were the work of G-d," and (Ibid. 24:10) "… and under His feet, as the work of a pavement of sapphire." "work" is likened to "work." Just as "work" there (24:10) is of sapphire, so, "work" here (32:16). "more" (humble) than any man on the face of the earth": but not (more humble) than the forefathers.

R. Yossi says: Even (more humble) than the forefathers. And what is the intent of than any man on the face of the earth"? — but not (more humble) than the angels.

(Bamidbar, Ibid. 4) "And the L-rd said suddenly": R. Shimon b. Menassia said: Moses was frightened by "suddenly" (viz. [Shemot 3:6]), and (here) G-d spoke "suddenly." "The three of you go out to the tent of meeting!": We are hereby apprised that the three of them were called by a single utterance, something which (within the framework of nature) the mouth is not capable of uttering nor the ear of hearing.

And thus is it written (Shemot 20:1) "And the L-rd spoke all of these things, saying" — (Psalms 62:12) "One (thing) has G-d spoken; two (things) have I heard," (Jeremiah 23:29) "Behold, My word is like fire, declares the L-rd, (and like a hammer that shatters rock.") (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And the L-rd went down in a pillar of cloud": not as the measure of flesh and blood. The measure of flesh and blood: When he goes out to war, he goes out with many men, and when he goes out to peace, he goes out with only few.

But the Holy One Blessed be He, when He goes out to war, only He goes out, as it is written (Shemot 18:3) "The L-rd is a man of war"; and when He comes in peace, He comes with thousands and ten thousands, viz. (Psalms 68:18) "G-d's chariots are myriads upon myriads, thousands upon thousands." (And here He comes to make peace, accompanied by "a pillar of cloud.") (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And He called Aaron and Miriam, and the two of them came forth."

Scripture here comes to teach us proper conduct — that when one wishes to speak to someone not in the presence of another, he should not ask the other to leave, but should draw near to him the one he wishes to speak to and talk to him. And why did He not call Moses with them? So that Israel not say that Moses, too, was the object of the L-rd's anger. Variantly: So that Moses not hear the (L-rd's) criticism of Aaron.

Variantly: A man (Moses, in this instance) is not to be praised to his face. R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: We find that part of a man's praise is stated to his face. For thus do we find with Noach, (the L-rd saying to him, Bereshit 7:1) "For you have I found to be righteous before Me in this generation," whereas not to his face He says (Ibid. 6:9) "These are the progeny of Noach: Noach was a completely righteous man in his generations."

R. Elazar the son of R. Yossi Haglili says: We find that one mentions (only) part of the praise of Him who spoke and brought the world into being "to His face," as it is written (Psalms 66:3) "Say to G-d: How awesome are Your deeds!" How much more so is this true (that only partial praise is thus mentioned) with flesh and blood.

(Bamidbar 12:6) "And He said: Hear, I pray you ("na"), My words": "Na" is a term of imploration. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If He who spoke and brought the world into being speaks (thus) with the terrestrial creatures, how much more so flesh and blood (speaking to one another)! R. Shimon b. Yochai says: What is the intent of "Hear, I pray you, My words"? They wished to enter into the words of the L-rd, whereupon He asked them to wait until He had finished.

How much more so should one not enter into the words of his neighbor, (who may thereby lose his "train of thought.") (Ibid.) "If there be prophets (among you), 'the L-rd' (i.e., the immanence of My name) I invest him with in a vision; in a dream I speak to him." — But perhaps, just as I speak with the prophets in a dream and a vision, so I speak with Moses. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "Not so, My servant Moses.

In all of My household, he (alone) is to be trusted": aside from the ministering angels. R. Yossi says: even more than the ministering angels. (Ibid. 8) "Mouth to mouth I spoke to him": Mouth to mouth I told him to separate from his wife. (Ibid.) "and in (clear) revelation": This refers to the revelation of His words. You say: the revelation of his words; but perhaps (it refers to) the revelation of the Shechinah.

It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemot 33:20) "You shall not be able to see My face, for no man can see My face and live." R. Akiva says: "no man" — literally. "and live" (i.e., "and the live ones"): This refers to the ministering angels, who live forever (i.e., They, too, cannot see His face.) R. Shimon says: I do not rule out the words of my master; I add to them, viz.: "and live": Even the holy creatures, who bear the throne (of glory), do not see the glory.

R. Elazar b. R. Yossi says: Not only do they not see it, they do not even know where it is, as it is written (Ezekiel 2:12) "Then a spirit lifted me and I heard behind me a sound of great tumult. Blessed is the glory of the L-rd from His place" (wherever it may be). R. Dossa says: "For a man will not see Me vachai": "When he lives" ("vachai") he cannot see Me, but he sees Me when he dies. And thus is it written (Psalms 22:20) "Before Him shall bow down all who go down to dust, whose spirit does not live." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and not in riddles": What is the intent of this?

Because it is written (Ezekiel 17:2) "Son of man, propound a riddle," then just as I speak to the prophets in riddles, I (sometimes) speak to Moses in riddles; it is, therefore, written "and not in riddles." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and the configuration of the L-rd does he behold." This is a vision of His "back." You say it is a vision of His back, but perhaps it is a vision of His "face." It is, therefore, written (Shemot 33:23) "And I will remove My hand and you will see My back, but My face will not be seen."

Moses sought to understand the ways of the Holy One Blessed be He — whereupon He said to him: "and you will see My back, etc.": My ways in the world to come, I will reveal to you; but, as to My ways in this world — "You shall not be able to see My face," as it is written (Ezekiel 2:10) "And He spread it (the scroll in the "hand" of G-d) before me, and it was written face and back." Now don't even the light-minded and commoners do this, writing face and back?

Why mention it then? (The intent is:) "face" — (what transpires) in this world; "back" — (what transpires) in the world to come. "face" — the serenity of the righteous and the affliction of the wicked in this world; "back" — the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked in the world to come. (Ezekiel, Ibid.) "and written upon it were "kinnim, hegeh, and hi": "kinnim" — the afflictions of the righteous in this world, viz. (Ibid. 32:16) "This is a kinah (a dirge) and intone it"; "hegeh" — the reward of the righteous in the world to come, viz. (Psalms 92:4) "(Rejoice) on an assor (a ten-stringed instrument), on a psaltery, on higayon (like 'hegeh') and harp"; "and hi" — the punishment of the wicked in the world to come, viz. (Ezekiel 7:26) "hoveh (like 'hi') upon hoveh shall come." (Bamidbar, Ibid.)

"And why did you not fear to speak against My servant, against Moses": Let it not be written "against My servant." (The intent is) that in speaking against Moses, it is as if You have spoken against Me. (for he is "My servant"). An analogy: A king had a governor in a province, and the people speak against him. The king says to them: You have not spoken against My servant, but against Me! And if you say (that you are not speaking against Me), but that I do not know his (evil) ways, this (i.e., to say that I am ignorant of his ways) is even worse than your first (offense)!

(Bamidbar 12:9) "And the wrath of the L-rd burned in them, and He departed": After He apprised them of their offense, He decreed ostracism upon them. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If He who spoke and brought the world into being did not vent His wrath upon flesh and blood until He apprised them of their offense, how much more so should flesh and blood not vent his anger upon his neighbor until he apprises him of his offense! R. Nathan says: He apprised them of their offense and then decreed ostracism upon them so that they not say as Iyyov did (Iyyov 10:2) "Apprise me of what You accuse me!"

(Bamidbar 12:10) "And the cloud departed from above the tent": An analogy: A king says to a pedagogue: "Chastise my son — but not until I leave!" For a father is mercifully inclined to his son. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is mercifully inclined to the righteous in the time of His wrath, how much more so in the time of His (good) will! As it is written (Isaiah 49:8) "In a time of (good) will I (most certainly) will answer you!" (Ibid.)

"And, behold, (after the cloud had departed), Miriam was as leprous as snow": We are hereby taught that she was stricken with intense (i.e., highly visible) leprosy, and that she was fair-skinned (for which reason it looked like snow). And thus is it written (Shemot 4:6) "And the L-rd said further to him (Moses): Place now your hand into your bosom … and, behold, his hand was leprous as snow." (Ibid.)

"And Aaron 'turned'": He was "turned" from his leprosy. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: He who says that Aaron was stricken (with leprosy) is destined to pay for it. He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him (by not mentioning it explicitly in the verse) and you would reveal it! He who says that Tzelafchad was the mekoshesh ("the wood gatherer" [viz. Bamidbar 15:32]) is destined to pay for it.

He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him and you would reveal it! And he who says that the ban was placed on Akavya b. Mehalalel (viz. Berachoth 19a) is destined to pay for it. "And Aaron turned to Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous": Scripture hereby apprises us that whenever he looked at her she became leprous. (Ibid. 11) "And Aaron said to Moses: Pray, my lord, do not impute transgression to us in that we have been foolish and have sinned.": He said to him: If we have been willful (in our sin), forgive us, as if we were unwitting. (Ibid. 12) "Let her not be as a dead one": Just as a dead body imparts tumah in a tent, so, a leper imparts tumah by entrance (into a house).

Aaron hereby said: Our sister loses on all accounts: I (being her kin) cannot quarantine her nor declare her tamei nor declare her clean. In passing we learn that Aaron expounds that one (a Cohein) does not inspect the plague-spots of his kin. "who leaving his mother's womb": He should have said "who leaving our mother's womb," but Scripture here is being euphemistic. "and half his flesh has been consumed": He should have said "and half our flesh," as in (Bereshit 37:27) "for he is our brother, our flesh," but Scripture here is being euphemistic. (Ibid. 13) "And Moses cried out to the L-rd, saying: 'Lord, I pray You; heal her, I pray You.'": Scripture hereby teaches us proper conduct — that one's requests should be prefaced by two or three words, of imploration.

And what is the intent of "saying"? Moses said: Answer me whether You will heal her or not — and the Holy One Blessed be He answered him, viz. (14) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Now if her father had spat in her face, etc." R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: In four places Moses requested (to be answered by the Holy One Blessed be He), and he was answered. Similarly, (Shemot 6:12) "And Moses spoke before the L-rd, to say: "The children of Israel would not listen to me, etc." What is the intent of "to say"?

Moses asked the L-rd to answer him whether or not he would redeem them. And He did answer him (Ibid. 7:4) "And I will take out My hosts. My people, Israel, from the land of Egypt." Similarly, (Bamidbar 27:15) "And Moses spoke to the L-rd to say: (16) Let the L-rd, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation."

What is the intent of "to say"? Moses said to Him: Answer me as to whether or not You will appoint leaders (for them). And He did answer him, (Ibid. 18) "Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun." Similarly, (Devarim 3:23) "And I implored the L-rd at that time to say."

What is the intent of "to say"? He said to Him: Answer me as to whether or not I will enter the land. And He did answer him, (Ibid. 26) "It is enough for you, etc." Here, too, let "to say" not be written. But, (the intent is that) he asked Him to answer whether or not He would heal her, and He answered "Now if her father had spat in her face, etc." (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You": Why did Moses not prolong his prayer?

So that Israel not say "His sister is in distress and he stretches out his prayer." Variantly: It is not that Moses prays and the L-rd hears his prayer, but (in the order of) (Iyyov 22:28) "You (the tzaddik) will decree, and it will be fulfilled for you," (Isaiah 58:9) "Then, when you (the tzaddik) call, the L-rd will answer." R. Eliezer was asked by his disciples: How long shall a man be in his prayer?

He answered: Not longer than Moses, of whom it is written (Devarim 9:18) "And I fell down before the L-rd (in prayer) as at first, forty days and forty nights." And how short should he be in prayer? He answered: Not shorter than Moses, of whom it is written "G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You." There is a time to be short and a time to be long.

(Bamidbar 12:14) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Now if her father had spat in her face, etc." R. Achi b. R. Yoshiyah said: There were "two rebukes," viz.: If her father of flesh and blood had rebuked her, she would (sit) in shame (sequestered) for seven days, does it not follow that if (her Father) He who spoke and brought the world into being (rebuked her), (she should be sequestered) fourteen (days)!

But "it suffices that what is derived from an argument a fortiori be as that which it is derived from" — Just as her father, seven; so, He who spoke and brought the world into being, seven. (Ibid.) "Let her be sequestered seven days outside the camp, and then let her be gathered in.": The Holy One Blessed be He sequestered her, and the Holy One Blessed be He declared her tamei and the Holy One Blessed be He declared her clean. (Ibid. 12:15) "And the people did not journey until Miriam had been gathered in": to teach that "with the measure that a man measures, so is he measured."

Miriam waited for Moses a short while, viz. (Shemot 2:4) "And his sister stationed herself at a distance, etc."; therefore, the Shechinah, the ark, the Cohanim, the Levites, and the seven clouds of glory did not journey until Miriam had been gathered in. Joseph merited taking the bones of his father (for burial), and there were none among his brothers greater than he, viz. (Bereshit 50:7-9) "And Joseph went up to bury his father … and there went up with him both chariots and riders."

Who was greater among us than Joseph, only Moses meriting bringing him to burial. And there is none in Israel greater than he, viz. (Shemot 13:19) "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him." Who is greater among us than Moses, none but the Holy One Blessed be He bringing him to burial, viz. (Devarim 34:6) "And He buried him in the valley of the land of Moav": R. Yehudah says: If it (the above) were not an explicit verse, it would be impossible to say it.

Where did Moses die? In the portion of Reuven, viz. (Ibid. 1) "And Moses went up from the steppes of Moav to Mount Nevo." This is the territory of the sons of Reuven, viz. (Bamidbar 32:37-38) "And the sons of Reuven built Cheshbon and Elalei and Kiryathayim and Nevo." And he was buried only in the territory of Gad, viz. (Devarim 33:20-21) "And to Gad he said: Blessed be he who broadens Gad … and he saw the best for himself.

For there the portion of the lawgiver (Moses) is hidden." From the portion of Reuven to that of Gad is four mils. Those four mils — Who carried him"? We are hereby taught that Moses was (carried) in the "hand" of the Holy One Blessed be He the four mils from the portion of Reuven to that of Gad, while the ministering angels extolled him in song, (Ibid.)

"He wrought the righteousness of the L-rd and His judgments with Israel." And He thus gathers in not only Moses, but all of the righteous, as it is written (Isaiah 58:8) "And your righteousness shall go before you, and the glory of G-d will gather you in." (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) "And afterwards the people journeyed from Chatzeiroth": This journey was after Miriam was gathered in.

(Bamidbar 15:2) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land of your settlings which I give to you, etc.": Scripture comes to teach us that Israel were obligated to bring libations (with their offerings) only after inheritance and settlement (of the land [viz. Ibid. 15:5]). You say after inheritance and settlement, but perhaps immediately upon their entry to the land.

It is, therefore, written (Devarim 17:14) "When you come to the land that the L-rd your G-d gives to you, and you inherit it and you settle in it, etc." Since "comings" are mentioned in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance (above) it is specified, after inheritance and settlement, so all ("comings" are understood as) after inheritance and settlement, which teaches us that wherever "settlings" is written, after inheritance and settling is understood.

These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva queried him: But in respect to Shabbath it is written "settlings" (viz. Vayikra 23:3), and it obtains both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of it! R. Yishmael replied: If "lighter" mitzvoth obtain both in the land and outside it, how much more so, Shabbath, the "graver." And it ("settlings") comes to teach that in an individual altar ("bamah") there is no obligation to bring libations.

R. Akiva says: Scripture comes to teach us that libations are to be offered on a bamah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this ("When you come to the land") written? For it would follow, since we find that the vessels of the Temple were more than those of the tent of meeting (viz. I Kings 7:27), so, the libations of the Temple were more than those of the tent of meeting; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 15:2) "When you come … (3) and you shall offer, etc." to teach that even though there were more vessels in the Temple than in the tent of meeting, there were not more libations. (Ibid. 3) "and you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd": This implies that all that is offered for the fire requires libations, even a meal-offering.

It is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering." This tells me only of a burnt-offering (that it requires libations). Whence do I derive (the same for) peace-offerings? From "a sacrifice."

Whence do I derive (the same for) a thank-offering? From "or a sacrifice." This would imply (that libations are required) for these as well as for first-born, tithe, Pesach and guilt-offering. It is, therefore, written "for an expressed vow or as a guilt-offering."

Scripture speaks only of offerings that are brought as vow and gift. — But this would imply that I exclude them (from libations) as well as mandatory festival offerings! — It is, therefore, written "or in your festivals," to include these (as requiring libations). — But this would imply (that libations are required for) burnt-offerings and mandatory peace-offerings that are brought on festivals, and for a mandatory sin-offering that is brought on festivals! — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15;8) "And if you offer a bullock as a burnt-offering or as a sacrifice."

"Bullock" was included in the general category (of offerings) and departed from it (for specific mention) to teach about the category, viz.: Just as "bullock," which is brought for vow or gift (requires libations, so, all (offerings) that are brought for vow or gift require libations) — to exclude sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, which are not brought for vow or gift.

(Bamidbar 15:3) "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock": What is the intent of this? Because it is written "and you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd, a burnt-offering or a sacrifice," I might think that a burnt-offering of fowl (also) requires libations; it is, therefore, written "of the herd or of the flock" — to exclude a burnt-offering of fowl as not requiring libations.

These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yochanan says: This is not needed, for it is already written "or a sacrifice." Just as "a sacrifice" is a beast, so, a burnt-offering. What is the intent, then, of "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock"?

Because it is written (Vayikra 1:2) "A man if he offers of you an offering to the L-rd … from the herd and from the flock," I might think that if he said: I take it upon myself to bring a burnt-offering he must bring one of each; it is, therefore, written (here) "of the herd or of the flock," that he brings either one by itself. It is written in respect to the Pesach offering (Shemot 12:5) "from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it."

Either one by itself? Or, one of each? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:10) "And if of the flock is his offering, of the sheep or of the goats for a beast-offering." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a burnt-offering, the "graver" may be brought from one kind, then Pesach, the "lighter," how much more so may it be brought from one kind!

What, then, is the intent of "from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it"? Either one by itself. Issi b. Akiva says: "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd (of the herd or of the flock"): either one by itself. You say either one by itself, but perhaps (the intent is that he brings) one of each.

Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the atzereth (Shavuoth) lambs, of which two must be brought (viz. Vayikra 23:19), may come of one kind, then a burnt-offering, two of which need not be brought, how much more so may it come of one kind! — No, this may be true of the two atzereth lambs, Scripture limiting their bringing (to atzereth), for which reason they may come of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing — wherefore it must be brought from two kinds! — This is refuted by the he-goats of Yom Kippur, Scripture "expanding" their bringing (to two) and yet being brought from one kind. (And they will refute "burnt-offering" — that even though Scripture "expands" its bringing, it may be brought of one kind.) — No, this may be true of the Yom Kippur he-goats, Scripture limiting their bringing, for they are not brought the whole year, wherefore they may be brought of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing in that it may be brought the entire year — wherefore it should be permitted only of two kinds.

This is refuted by a sin-offering, which, even though Scripture "expands" its bringing to all the days of the year, may be brought of one kind — so that a burnt-offering, too, should be able to come from one kind. — No, this may be true of a sin-offering, Scripture limiting its bringing, in that it may not be brought as vow or gift, wherefore it is permitted to bring it of one kind, as opposed to burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing in that it may be brought as vow or gift — wherefore it should be permitted to bring it only of two kinds.

It must, therefore, be written (15:3) "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock" — either one by itself. (15:4) "Then the offerer shall offer": Because it is written (Vayikra 22:18) "A man, a man … who offers, etc.", this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "Then the offerer shall offer" — in any event. "Then the offerer shall offer his offering to the L-rd, a meal-offering, an issaron of flour."

R. Nathan says: This is a prototype for all who donate a meal-offering not to give less than an issaron. "mixed with a revi'ith of a hin of oil. (5) And wine for libations, a revi'ith of a hin": oil for mixing and wine for libations. "shall you present with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice": What is the intent of this? From (3) "And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd," I might think that if he said "I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings" that he may bring one libation for both; it is, therefore, written "the burnt-offering or the sacrifice (of peace-offerings)" — he brings one for each in itself.

I might think if he said ("I vow) five lambs for a burnt-offering, five lambs for peace-offerings," that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written "with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice for each lamb" — he brings for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of this ("with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice")? For I would think: If where the rule for an ox burnt-offering is the same as that for a lamb burnt-offering (i.e., that they are both burned), they are not similar in libations, (an ox requiring a half hin, and a lamb, a quarter hin,) then where the rule for a lamb burnt-offering is not the same as that of a lamb of peace-offerings, (the first being burned and the second eaten,) how much more so should they not be similar in libations!

It is, therefore, written "shall you present with the brunt-offering or the sacrifice" — Even though the rule (for the offering) is not the same, the libations are. R. Nathan says: "shall you present with the burnt-offering": This is the burnt-offering of a leper (i.e., even though it is mandatory and not vow or gift, it requires libations). "or the sacrifice": This is his (the leper's) sin-offering. "or the sacrifice": This is his guilt-offering. "for each lamb": to include the burnt-offering of a woman after birth as requiring libations. "for each lamb": to include (as requiring libations) the eleventh (which one erroneously designated as the first-born beast-tithe (instead of the tenth).

For we nowhere find in the entire Torah that the secondary (the eleventh in this instance, which requires libations,) is severer than the primary (the tenth, which does not). "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering (two esronim of flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil": Scripture here comes to differentiate between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: cattle require libations and sheep require libations.

If Scripture did not differentiate between the libations for a calf, and those for an ox, so, it would not differentiate between those for a lamb and those for a ram. It is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc." Scripture differentiates between the libations for a lamb, ("a quarter of a hin") and those of a ram ("a third of a hin"). Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written?

For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then where libations (in general) were decreased, how much more so should no differentiation be made between a lamb and a ram! It is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a lamb and a ram. (Ibid.) "mixed with oil, a third of a hin": For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the lamb of the omer requires two esronim (viz. Vayikra 23:13), and the ram of a burnt-offering requires two esronim, then just as I learned about the lamb of the omer that even though its esronim were doubled, its libations were not doubled (viz. Ibid.), so, the ram of the burnt-offering, even though its esronim were doubled, its libations should not be doubled; it is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering, etc., mixed with oil, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that just as its esronim were doubled, so, its libations were doubled (i.e., increased). "with oil a third of a hin and wine for libations": oil for mixing; wine, for libations. "shall you offer, a sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 8) "And if you offer a bullock as a burnt-offering or as a sacrifice for an expressed vow, etc.": "Bullock" was included in the general category and it departed from that category (for special mention) to teach about the category that just as a bullock comes for a vow or a gift and requires libations, so, all that come for a vow or a gift require libations. (Ibid. 9) "Then he shall present with the bullock a meal-offering": What is the intent of this?

Because it is written (Ibid. 3) "And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd," I might think that if he said "I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings," he brings one libation for both; it is, therefore, written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings)," whereby we are taught that he brings one for each in itself. Or (I might think that) even if he said "I vow to bring five oxen for a burnt-offering; five oxen for peace-offerings," I might think that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering or a sacrifice," whereby we are taught he brings one for each in itself.

Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of "or a sacrifice"? For it would follow: If (even though) what transpires with a lamb burnt-offering is the same as that which transpires with an ox burnt-offering (i.e., that they are entirely burnt), still, they are not equivalent for libations, then, where what transpires with an ox burnt-offering is not the same as that which transpires with ox peace-offerings, (which are eaten), how much more so should they not be equivalent in libations; it is, therefore, written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings)," to teach that even though they are not equivalent in what transpires with them, they are equivalent for libations. (Ibid. 10) "And wine shall you offer for libations": oil for mixing; wine, for libations — on bowls.

You say "on bowls," but perhaps (the intent is) on the fire. If you say this, you will put out the fire, and the Torah writes (Vayikra 6:6) "A perpetual fire is to be kept burning on the altar, not to go out." How, then, am I to understand "for libations"? As meaning "on bowls." "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done." (Ibid. 11) "Thus shall it be done for the one ox": Scripture here tells us that the Torah did not differentiate between the libations for a calf and those for an ox.

For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Sheep require libations and cattle require libations. If I have learned that the Torah differentiates between libations for a lamb and those for a ram, then so should it differentiate between those for a calf and those for an ox. It is, therefore, written "Thus shall it be done for the one ox," (big or small), the Torah not differentiating between the libations for a calf and those for an ox.

Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If where libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then, where libations (in general) were increased, how much more so should a differentiation be made between a calf and an ox! It is, therefore, written "Thus shall it be done for the one ox." Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox. (Ibid.) "or for the one ram": Why is this written?

For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations of a one-year old ("a lamb") and the libations of a two-year old ("a ram"), so it should differentiate between the libations of a two-year old and those of a three-year old. Scripture hereby apprises us (by "the one ram") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or for the lamb among the sheep": Why is this written?

For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a sheep and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between the libations for a ewe (female)-lamb and those for a (ewe-) sheep. We are hereby apprised (by "the [female] lamb [one year old] among the sheep [two years old]") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or among the goats": Why is this written?

For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between those for a kid and those for a (full-grown) he-goat; it is, therefore, written "or among the goats." The largest of the goats is hereby equated with the youngest of the lambs. Just as the latter, three logs (i.e., a quarter of a hin), so, the former, three logs. (Ibid. 12) "Thus shall you do for (each) one": This tells me only of these (i.e., the original sacrifices).

Whence do I derive (the same for) their exchanges? From "Thus shall you do for each one." (Ibid. "According to the number (of animals) that you offer": He may not decrease (the number of libations). — But perhaps if he wishes to increase (the number) he may do so. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "According (i.e., strictly according) to their number."

These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonah says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 15) "All the native-born shall do (precisely) thus, these things" — neither to decrease nor to increase. What, then, is the intent of "According to the number that you offer"?

I might think that if he wishes to double (the original number as a gift) he may do so. It is, therefore, written "Thus shall you offer (libations) for (each) one, according to their number." From here they ruled: It is permitted to intermix the libations for bullocks with those of rams; the libations of lambs with the libation of (other) lambs; the libations of individuals with those of the congregation; the libations of the day with those of the preceding evening (— their numbers being the same.)

But it is not permitted to intermix the libations of lambs with those of bullocks and rams (— their numbers not being the same).

(Ibid. 13) "All the native-born shall thus do, etc.": From here we learn that libations can be donated. How much? Three logs, (which suffice for a lamb). And whence is it derived that if he wishes to add he may do so?

From "shall do." I might think he can decrease; it is, therefore, written "thus." From here it was derived: One is not to donate two or five, (which do not [exactly] suffice for anything), but he may donate three or four or six or above, (which do [exactly] suffice for something). Variantly: What is the intent of "All the native-born, etc."?

Because it is written (Vayikra 22:25) "And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present (as a sacrifice) the bread of your G-d of all these (blemished animals)" — These you do not accept (from gentiles), but you do accept unblemished animals. After we have learned that a gentile may bring a burnt-offering, I can now conclude: An Israelite brings a burnt-offering and a gentile brings a burnt-offering.

Can I also conclude: Just as an Israelite brings libations, so, a gentile brings libations? It is, therefore, written "All the native-born shall thus do these (libations)" — An Israelite brings libations, but a gentile does not. I might, then, think that his burnt-offering does not require libations; it is, therefore, written "shall thus do" (to bring libations) — whence they ruled: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad and sent libations along with it, his own are used; and if not they are to be brought by the congregation.

(Bamidbar 15:14) "And if a stranger sojourn among you": This tells me (as being likened to an Israelite in this regard) only of a proselyte who had converted before (i.e., one who had left Egypt with them). Whence do I derive (the same for) one who converts now? From "and who shall be in your midst throughout your generations." "and he shall offer a fire-offering": kinds of blood (i.e., animal sacrifices involving blood).

You say sacrifices involving blood, but perhaps only a meal-offering (which is entirely burned)! — It is, therefore, written "Thus shall he do." Just as you (in the desert offered) kinds of (sacrifices involving) blood, so, converts offer kinds of blood. — (In that case,) why should we not say: Just as Israel (in the desert offered) blood of a beast ([and not of a fowl] viz. Shemot 24:5), so, converts (are inducted only) through the blood of a beast.

It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) ("One Torah and one judgment shall there be) for you (and for the stranger who sojourns with you") — To you (in general, as requiring blood for induction into Israel) have I likened him and not to (the specifics [i.e., beast versus fowl] of) your offerings. Rebbi says: Just as Israel entered the covenant only with three things — circumcision, immersion, and acceptance of the offering — so, the proselytes, like them. — But perhaps just as Israel through peace-offerings, so, proselytes, through peace-offerings.

It is, therefore, written "And he shall offer a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L-rd." Come and see: Which kind of blood (sacrifice) is relegated entirely to the fire, nothing remaining of it? Only a fowl burnt-offering ([but in a beast burnt-offering, the skin reverts to the Cohanim]). I might think (that the induction of the proselyte can be satisfied) even with a meal-offering; it is, therefore, written ("As you are) thus (shall the stranger be").

To bring one bird (as a fowl burnt-offering) is impossible. For we do not find a single bird serving as an offering in the entire Torah — whence it was stated: All the bird couples in the Torah — half is a burnt-offering; half a sin-offering, except for that of a proselyte, which is entirely (relegated) to the fire. Variantly: "As you do, thus shall he do": What is the intent of this? For it would follow (otherwise), that since we find the Torah to have differentiated his offering, (Israel bringing [beast] burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and a proselyte, a fowl burnt-offering), it is, therefore, written "Just as you do (with libations), thus shall he do" — Just as you, six (logs) for a bullock, four for a ram, and three for a lamb, thus the proselytes."

(Bamidbar 15:15) "The congregation (— one statute shall there be for you, etc."): This (Ibid. 2, "the sons of Israel") tells one only of the men (as bringing libations). Whence do I derive (the same for) the women? From "the congregation." "One statute shall there be for you and for the stranger that sojourns (among you"): Because this speaks of Israel, the proselytes must be (specially) included. "an everlasting statute unto your generations": that this (the libations) obtain in all the generations.

"As you, thus shall the stranger be before the L-rd": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 28:38) "And it (the head-plate) shall be on his (Aaron's) forehead always for acceptance for them before the L-rd," I might think that this applied only to (native-born) Israelites. Whence do I derive (the same for) proselytes? From "As you, thus shall the stranger be before the L-rd." (Ibid. 16) "One Torah and one judgment shall there be for you and for the stranger who sojourns among you": Scripture hereby likens the proselyte to the native-born in respect to all the mitzvoth of the Torah.

(Bamidbar 15:15-17) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: … upon your coming to the land whither I bring you there": R. Yishmael says: Scripture varied (linguistically) this "coming" from all the other "comings" in the Torah. For in all the other instances it is written "And it shall be, when you come to the land"; "And it shall be when the L-rd shall bring you" (all such expressions connoting permanent settlement), whereas here it is written "upon your coming" (connoting the moment of arrival), to teach that the mitzvah of challah (the Cohein's share of the dough) devolved upon them immediately upon their entering the land "whither I bring you there": From here you derive that produce grown outside the land which enters the land is subject to challah.

It is from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there that R. Eliezer ruled it subject to challah, and R. Akiva exempts it. R. Yehudah says: Produce grown outside the land which entered the land — R. Eliezer exempts it, it being written (Ibid. 19) "and it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land," and R. Akiva rules it subject to challah, it being written "there" (i.e., in Eretz Yisrael). What is the intent of "when you eat of the bread of the land"?

From (Ibid 20) "the first of your dough," I would understand even other produce (as being subject to challah). You, therefore, reason: It is written here "bread" and elsewhere (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there is of the five species: wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt, so, "bread" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "that you shall separate an offering (terumah)": This speaks of the "great terumah" (taken from one's produce [viz. Devarim 18:4]) — But perhaps it speaks of the challah offering! — (This cannot be, for) (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) "challah, you shall offer up an offering" already speaks of challah.

How, then, is "you shall offer up an offering to the L-rd to be understood? As referring to the "great terumah," (which is taken before the challah is separated). (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him" (the Cohein). This is mandatory. You say that it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional (i.e., if you separate it, you must give it to him, but you need not separate it.)

It is, therefore, written "You shall separate terumah" — It is mandatory and not optional. I might think that flours, too, are subject to challah; it is, therefore, written "the first of your dough" — when it has become dough. [From here they ruled: One may eat a chance meal of started dough of wheat before it has been rolled out, or of barley before it had been well kneaded, (after which it becomes subject to challah).

If one ate of it — of wheat flour, after it had been rolled out, or of barley flour after it had been well kneaded, (without taking challah) — he is liable to the death penalty. Once she had added the water, she must remove her challah, so long as there not remain there (in the kneading-trough) five quarter-kavs or more of flour that had not been mixed with water, (for if there did, they are subject to challah.)]

For challah is not taken from (unprocessed) flour. If one had not taken challah from the dough, I might think he may not take it from the bread; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall separate, etc." R. Akiva says: All (vis-à-vis the separation of challah) is contingent upon its forming a crust in the oven. (Ibid. 24) "As terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it" (the challah).

Just as with terumah, (the designated separation is) one (part) to a thousand, so, challah. And just as terumah of the threshing floor is "raised" (if it became intermixed) with one hundred and one times (its amount of non-terumah — which may then be eaten by non-Cohanim); and it creates a forbidden admixture for non-Cohanim if it fell into (only) a hundred of non-terumah; and it creates liability to the death penalty and to the one-fifth (chomesh) restitution penalty (viz. Vayikra 5:16) — so, with challah.

These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan "whispered" to him: You liken it to terumah of the threshing floor, (the percentage of) which is unspecified (in the Torah)? I will liken it to terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26), (the percentage of) which is explicit (in the Torah) — and one-tenth should be taken (as challah). He responded: It is written "As the terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it." It is likened to terumah of the threshing floor, and not to terumath ma'aser.

(Bamidbar 15:21) "Of the first of your dough": Why is this written? (i.e., It is already written in the preceding verse.) From (the preceding verse) "The first of your dough," I might understand it to mean the first of (all) your doughs. It is, therefore, written "Of the first of your dough" — part of it and not all of it. (Ibid. 20) "The first of your dough": To include leket (Vayikra 19:9), shikchah (Devarim 24:19), and peah (Vayikra 19:9) as subject to challah.

For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If other produce (i.e., rice and millet), which is subject to ma'aser, is exempt from challah, then leket, shikchah, and peah, which are not subject to ma'aser, how much more so should they be exempt from challah! It is, therefore, written "the first of your dough," to include leket, shikchah, and peah as subject to challah. Or, let other produce be subject to challah, viz.: If leket, shikchah, and peah, which are exempt from ma'aser, are subject to challah, then other produce, which is subject to ma'aser, how much more so should it be subject to challah!

It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there, is of the five species, so, "bread" here (which is subject to challah) is of the five species. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "The first of your dough": I would understand this to include the dough of terumah and the dough of second-tithe. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "challah shall you separate as an offering": (The connotation is:) What is separated is holy and what remains is mundane, and not (as in the above instance) where both are holy.

But they said: The dough of second-tithe in Jerusalem is subject to challah, (for second-tithe may be eaten by the owner in Jerusalem, so that it is not "holy" there). (Ibid. 21) "shall you give to the L-rd as an offering": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (20) "challah shall you separate as an offering," but we have not been apprised of the amount of the challah, it is, therefore, written "shall you give to the L-rd as an offering" — so that it comprises a "gift" to the Cohein.

From here we derive: The amount of challah for a private person — one (part) out of twenty-four; for a baker; one out of forty-eight. For the dough of a private person is little, and it (less than one twenty-fourth) does not constitute a "gift" to the Cohein, whereas the dough of a baker is (relatively) large and it (one forty-eighth) constitutes a "gift" to the Cohein. R. Yehudah says: This is not the reason; but a private person is generous with his dough and a baker is sparing of his dough, and when he minimizes, he should not minimize less than one forty-eighth.

From here it was ruled: A private person who makes a feast for his sons — one twenty-fourth; and a woman who bakes and sells in the marketplace — one forty-eighth. If her dough became tamei unwittingly or under constraint — one forty-eighth. If it became tamei willfully (i.e., if she deliberately made it tamei in order to give less challah), she takes one twenty-fourth (even though the challah is to be burned), so that "the sinner not profit."

R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Even if it came out to one-sixtieth, it is valid, so long as there was no (original) intent (for that amount). (Ibid. 21) "throughout your generations": to include the aftergrowths of shevi'ith (the sabbatical year) as being subject to challah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If other produce, which is subject to the tithe is exempt from challah, then the after-growths of shevi'ith, which are exempt from the tithe, how much more so should it be exempt from challah! — (No,) this is refuted by leket, shikchah, and peah, which, though exempt from the tithe are subject to challah. — No, this may be true of leket, shikchah, and peah, whose kind (i.e., other produce, which is not leket, etc.) is subject to the tithe — for which reason they are subject to challah, as opposed to the dough of shevi'ith, whose kind is exempt from the tithe, (ownerless produce [hefker] being exempt from the tithe) — wherefore it (the dough) should be exempt from challah.

It is, therefore, written "throughout your generations," to include the aftergrowths of shevi'ith as being subject to challah. From here they ruled: If one eats of the aftergrowths of shevi'ith before its challah has been taken, he is liable to the death penalty.

(Bamidbar 15:22) "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth for (unwitting transgression of) which the congregation (i.e., beth-din) brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 4:14), and Scripture here removed it from its category (for special mention), that the congregation bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, for which reason this section was stated.

"And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": Scripture here speaks of idolatry. You say idolatry, but perhaps (it speaks of his transgressing) all of the mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 24) "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error" — Scripture hereby singles out one mitzvah. And which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry.

You say it is idolatry, but perhaps it is (any) one of all the mitzvoth stated in the Torah. It is, therefore, written "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": This comes to define "the one mitzvah." Just as one who transgresses all of the mitzvoth divests himself of the Yoke, and breaks the covenant, and perverts the Torah, so, he who transgresses one mitzvah does the same, as it is written (Devarim 17:2-3) "to destroy His covenant (— turning to the worship of other gods.")

And "the covenant" is nothing other than Torah, as it is written (Ibid. 28:69) "These are the words of the covenant, etc." Rebbi says "all" is written here (Bamidbar 15:22), and "all" is written elsewhere, (Devarim 5:8) "all likenesses." Just as "all" there speaks of idolatry, so, "all" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "which the L-rd spoke to Moses": Whence is it derived that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments?

It is written (here, in respect to idolatry) "which the L-rd spoke to Moses," and there, (in respect to the ten commandments, Shemot 20:1) "And G-d spoke all these words, saying." (Psalms 62:12) "One thing has G-d spoken; (two things ['I am the L-rd your G-d, etc.' and 'There shall not be unto you other gods, etc.'] have I heard.") (Jeremiah 23:29) "Is My word not like fire, says the L-rd (and like a hammer shattering rock?")

Whence do I derive (the same, i.e., that one who acknowledges idolatry denies [not only what we heard from G-d,]) but also what Moses was commanded (and relayed to us)? From (Ibid. 23) "All that the L-rd commanded you by the hand of Moses." And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the forefathers? From (Ibid.) "from the day that the L-rd commanded."

And from when did the L-rd begin to command? From Adam, viz. (Bereshit 2:15) "And the L-rd G-d commanded the man, etc." And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the prophets? From (Ibid.) "and onwards throughout your generations." We are hereby apprised that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments, and what was commanded to Moses, and what was commanded to the forefathers, and what was commanded to the prophets. And one who denies idolatry acknowledges the entire Torah.

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error": This mitzvah was allotted a special section in itself. Which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. "then all the congregation shall offer one young bullock as a burnt-offering." Why mention "one"?

For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering it brings a bullock for a sin-offering, (viz. Vayikra 4:14), then here, where the congregation does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring a bullock for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written "then all the congregation shall offer (only) one young bullock." "with its meal-offering and its libation": that of the burnt-offering. — But perhaps also that of the sin-offering (is intended).

It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "as ordained" (and no libation is ordained for a sin-offering). "and one kid of goats as a sin-offering": Why mention "one"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (on Yom Kippur), where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, it brings two he-goats for a sin-offering, then here, where it does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring two he-goats for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written "and one kid of goats as a sin-offering."

(Ibid. 25) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the entire congregation of the children of Israel": Whence is it derived that if one of the tribes did not bring (its offering) atonement is withheld? From "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the entire congregation of the children of Israel." (Ibid.) "and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unwitting": I might understand (that they are forgiven) whether unwitting or witting; it is, therefore, written "for it was unwitting."

From (24) "by the eyes of the congregation (i.e., beth-din) it were done in error," I would understand that the ruling of beth-din was in error and not willful; but as to the doing (i.e., the transgression) of the congregation, willful was equated with unwitting; it is, therefore, written "the children of Israel … for it was unwitting." If some were willful, I might think that it were considered (collectively) unwitting; it is, therefore, written "for the entire congregation of the children of Israel … for it was unwitting." (Ibid.) "and they have brought their offering": R. Meir says: If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of its beth-din, I might think they bring (the offerings); it is, therefore, written "and they (i.e., all of the tribes) have brought their offering."

R. Yoshiyah says: If one tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din, whence is it derived that the other tribes bring (the offerings) because of it? From "and they (connoting all of the tribes) have brought their offering, a fire-offering to the L-rd." For R. Yoshiyah says: A tribe that transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din is liable, and the other tribes are exempt.

If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of the great beth-din (i.e., the Sanhedrin), then that tribe brings a bullock, and the other tribes bring because of it. And what do they bring because of it? Twelve bullocks. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din, it is exempt.

If it transgressed according to the ruling of the great beth-din, they bring two bullocks: one for the tribe and one for the beth-din. When is this so? With other mitzvoth; but with idolatry, they bring two bullocks and two he-goats: one bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering for that tribe, and the same for the beth-din. The majority of the congregation is reckoned as all of the congregation. "and they have brought their offering: a fire-offering to the L-rd": this is the burnt-offering; "and their sin-offering": this is the sin-offering for idolatry; "their error": this is the bullock of "concealment" of the congregation (viz. Vayikra 4:13-14). "their sin-offering … for their error": their sin-offering (i.e., the he-goats [offered] for idolatry) is like their error" the bullock of "concealment" of the congregation, in all of the procedures (of the offering). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 26) "And it shall be forgiven to the entire congregation of the sons of Israel": This tells me only of the men.

Whence do I derive (the same for) the women? From "the entire congregation of the children of Israel." "and to the stranger who sojourns in their midst": Because this section is addressed to the Israelites (viz. 15:12), proselytes had to be (specifically) included. (Ibid.) "for to all the people it was in error": to exclude the high-priest, (who offers a she-goat, as an individual (viz. Ibid. 27).

For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (transgression of) all the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for all the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring it for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) just as he brings a bullock for all the mitzvoth should bring a bullock for idolatry.

And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service) where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 16:3), here, (in respect to idolatry) where the congregation brings a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written "for to all the people it was in error" — to exclude the high-priest.

(Bamidbar 15:27) "And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth — for which the individual brings a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; the leader (nassi), a he-goat; and the high-priest and beth-din, a bullock. And here (in respect to idolatry) Scripture removes them from their category, to have an individual, a Nassi, and the high-priest bring "a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering" — for which reason this section was stated.

You say that it speaks of idolatry, but perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! Would you say that? What is the subject under discussion? Idolatry!

R. Yitzchak says: Scripture (here) speaks of idolatry. — But perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! — You reason as follows: The congregation was in the general category (of all of the mitzvoth, to bring a bullock), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed (to bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering.) And the individual was in the general category (of all the mitzvoth, etc.), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed, etc. Just as there (in respect to the congregation) Scripture speaks of idolatry; here, too, it is understood to be speaking of idolatry.

"And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error": to exclude (from the offering) one who sins willfully (without witnesses or warning). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If "light" mitzvoth are liable (for an offering), willful (transgression) as unwitting, how much more the "grave" (transgression of idolatry)! It is, therefore, written "in error" — to exclude willful (transgression). "he shall bring a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering."

This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "goat" is written, it must be of the first year. (Ibid. 28) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the soul that is unwitting in sinning": It is the sins that he has done (willfully), which have caused him to err. "unwitting in sinning": to exclude unwittingness of (its being) idolatry, (e.g., mistaking a church for a synagogue and bowing down to it.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he is liable (to bring an offering) for unwitting transgression of other mitzvoth, how much more so for the "grave" transgression of idolatry!

It is, therefore, written "unwitting in sinning," but not unwitting as to (its being) idolatry. "to atone for him": to exclude an instance of doubt (as to whether or not he had sinned). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he must bring an offering for an instance of possible transgression of "light" mitzvoth, how much more so for an instance of possible transgression of idolatry (e.g., if there is a possibility of his having bowed down to an asheirah [a tree devoted to idolatry])!

It is, therefore, written "And he shall atone" (implying that there has been a sin), to exclude (an instance of) doubt (as to whether a sin has been committed.) "and he shall be forgiven": absolute forgiveness, as with all of the other "forgivings" in the Torah, (even though the sin of idolatry [though unwitting] has been committed). (Ibid. 15:29) "The native-born among the children of Israel, etc." What is the intent of this?

Because it is written (Vayikra 24:22) "All of the native-born in Israel shall sit in succoth," I might think that only Israelites are intended. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? It is, therefore, written "the native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger that sojourns among them." This is a prototype: wherever "native-born" is written, proselytes are also included.

Variantly: What is the intent of "the native-born among the children of Israel"? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Israelites are commanded against idolatry, and gentiles are commanded against idolatry. If I have learned that Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, so, gentiles should bring an offering for unwitting idolatry. It is, therefore, written "the native-born among the children of Israel": Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, but not gentiles. (Ibid.)

"One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. For I would think (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (unwitting transgression of) all of the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for transgression of all of the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring a bullock for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) who brings a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, should bring a bullock for idolatry.

And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service), where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest does bring a bullock, then here, (in unwitting transgression of idolatry), where the congregation does bring a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written "One Torah (a she-goat of the first year) shall there be for you": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. "for him who acts unwittingly": R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: One who acts unwittingly (re idolatry) is (in principle) like one who serves idolatry, viz.: Just as serving idolatry is distinct in that it is an act in which deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off [viz. Vayikra 20:3]), and unwitting transgression, by a sin-offering (viz. Bamidbar 16:27) so, (the act of) all who act unwittingly, (in order to be liable to a sin-offering), must be an act where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering.

(Bamidbar 15:30) "And the soul who acts with a high hand": This is one who perverts the Torah, like Menasheh ben Chezkiah, who would sit and cast ridicule in the face of the L-rd, saying (for example): He should not have written in the Torah (Bereshit 30:14) "And Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest." And He should not have written (Ibid. 36:22) "And the sister of Lotan was Timna." Of one such as he it is written in the Tradition (Psalms 50:20) "You sit and speak against your brother; you cast ridicule against your mother.

These you have done and I have kept silent. You thought I was one such as you": (i.e.), you thought that perhaps as the ways of flesh and blood are the ways of the L-rd. (Ibid.) "I will reprove you and set (them) forth before your eyes." And of one such as he, Isaiah writes in the tradition (Isaiah 5:18) "Woe unto those who pull transgressions to themselves with strands of deceit, and sin as with the ropes of a wagon": In the beginning, sin is like the strands of a spider's web, and, in the end, sin is as ("stout" as) wagon ropes.

Rebbi says: If a man does one mitzvah lishmah (for the sake of Heaven), let him rejoice not only in that mitzvah alone; for in the end, it will "pull along" many mitzvoth. And if a man commits one transgression, let him not despond over it alone, for in the end, it will pull along many transgressions. For mitzvah "tows" mitzvah, and transgression, transgression. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes (megadef)."

R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: As a man would say to his neighbor: "You have scraped out the dish (of food) and 'scraped' ('megaref,' similar to 'megadef') the 'dish' itself." (i.e., this is the ultimate insult). Issi b. Akiva says: As one would say to his neighbor: "You have scraped out the entire dish and left nothing in it." (Ibid.) "and that soul will be cut off": "cutting-off" connotes cessation (of the family line, i.e., he will be childless). "that soul": who acts deliberately. "from the midst of its people": but its people will remain at peace. (Ibid. 31) "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is a Sadducee. "and His commandment he has broken": This is a heretic.

Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is one who distorts the Torah. "and His commandment he has broken": This is one who breaks the covenant of the flesh (circumcision, i.e., one who does not circumcise his sons.) From here R. Elazar Hamodai said: One who desecrates the offerings, and cheapens the festivals, and breaks the covenant (of circumcision) of our father Abraham — even if he has performed many mitzvoth, it were best to "thrust" him from the world!

Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": this is one who says there is no Torah from Heaven. And even if he says: The entire Torah is from the mouth of the Holy One (except for) this thing that Moses said on his own — And even if he said: The entire Torah I accept, except for this inference, this kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) — this is "For the word of the L-rd he has despised."

Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is one who learns, but does not teach others. R. Nechemiah says: This is one who is able to learn but does not. R. Nathan said: This is one who paid no heed at all to words of Torah. R. Yishmael says: The verse speaks of idolatry, as it is written "For the word of the L-rd he has despised" — the first commandment of the Omnipotent One — (Shemot 20:2-3) "I am the L-rd your G-d … There shall be unto you no other gods before Me." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "cut off shall be cut off": "cut off" — in this world; "shall be cut off" — in the world to come.

These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: But is it not already written (Ibid. 30) "It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes; and that soul shall be cut off'? Are there three worlds? Rather, "and that soul shall be cut off" — in this world. "cut off" — in the world to come. "cut off shall be cut off" — Torah speaks in the language of man. (Ibid. 31) "its transgression is in it": All who die are atoned for by death; but this one, "its transgression is in it."

As it is written (Ezekiel 32:27) "And their transgressions shall be upon their bones." — Even if they have repented? — It is, therefore, written (when) "its transgression is in it," and not when he has repented. Similarly, (Devarim 32:5) "They have corrupted themselves — not His children — their blemish" — When their blemish is in them, they are not His children. When their blemish is not in them, they are His children.

R. Yishmael says: "its transgression is in it": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemot 20:5) "He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon sons," I might think that (the father's sin of) idolatry, too, is visited upon sons "until the third and fourth generation"; it is, therefore, written (here, in respect to idolatry) "its transgression is in it" — in it (the soul of the doer) the transgression inheres, and it is not visited upon the sons, and not on the third and on the fourth generation.

R. Nathan says: This ("its transgression is in it") is a good sign for a man, (indicating) that his transgressions are exacted of him after his death, (so that he may merit life in the world to come.) If a dead one is not eulogized or buried, or if he is eaten by an animal, or if rain descended upon it — this is a good sign, (indicating that his transgressions are being exacted of him after his death.)

And even though there is no (Scriptural) proof for this, it is intimated in (Jeremiah 8:1-2) "At that time, says the L-rd, they will remove the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its officers … And they will spread them out under the sun and the moon, etc." R. Shimon b. Elazar said: From here ("its transgression is in it") I have exposed (as false) the books of the Samaritans. For they say: The dead do not live — whereupon I said to them: But it is written "That soul shall be cut off; its transgression is in it."

Let this not be stated (i.e., What purpose does it serve?) — It indicates that it (the soul) is destined to give an accounting on the day of judgment.

(Bamidbar 15:32) "And the children of Israel were in the desert, etc.": Scripture here speaks in disparagement of Israel, that they had observed only the first Shabbath, when they desecrated the second. "and they found a man mekoshesh wood on the Sabbath day." (mekoshesh" =) pulling (wood) up from the ground. You say that, but perhaps (the reference is to) a man himself, whose name was "Mekoshesh," (who was carrying wood).

It is, therefore, written (in negation of this assumption, Ibid. 33) "And they brought him near, those who found him mekoshesh wood." How, then, must I understand (Ibid. 32) "mekoshesh wood"? As pulling up wood from the ground. And who was that man?

Tzelafchad. It is written here (32) "desert," and elsewhere (27:23) ("Our father died in the) desert." Just as there, Tzelafchad; here, too, Tzelafchad. These are the words of R. Akiva.

R. Yehudah b. Betheira said to him: In either case, you are destined to give an accounting if it is as you say — He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him, and you bring it to light! And you are libeling that tzaddik! But who was it? It was one of "the bold ones," viz. (Ibid. 14:44) "And they made bold to go up to the top of the mountain." (Ibid. 15:32) "And they found a man pulling up wood.": We are hereby apprised that Moses appointed watchers (to this end), and they found him pulling up wood. (Ibid. 33) "And they brought him near — those who found him pulling up wood.": Why is this mentioned again?

Is not already written "And they found a man, etc."? We are hereby taught that they warned him (after finding him) and he continued doing so. R. Yitzchak says: This (repetition) is not necessary (to teach that prior warning is a prerequisite for the administration of the death penalty), viz.: If idolatry, the gravest (of all transgressions) is not liable (to the death penalty) without prior warning, how much more so does this hold for all the mitzvoth of the Torah.

What is the intent, then, of "those who found him"? We are hereby apprised that they forewarned him, specifying the forbidden labor — whence it is derived that in the instance of all the proto-labors (avoth melachoth) in the Torah, there must be forewarning, specifying the forbidden labor. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) ("And they brought him near to Moses and to Aaron and to the entire congregation": If Moses did not know, would Aaron know? — Reverse the verse (i.e., "they brought him near to Aaron [who did not know] and to Moses," and expound it.

These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Channan says in the name of R. Elazar: They (Moses and Aaron) were sitting in the house of study, and they came and stood before them.

(Bamidbar 15:34) "And they placed him in ward": We are hereby apprised that all who are liable to krithuth ("cutting off") are put in ward (pending judgment). "for it was not made clear what should be done with him": But is it not written (Shemot 31:14) "He who profanes it shall be put to death"? What, then, is the intent of "For it was not made clear"? He did not know with what specific type of death until it was told to Him by the Holy One. (Ibid. 35) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Die, shall die the man": (i.e., this is the judgment) for all the generations (and not just in this particular instance.) "stone him with stones": in this particular instance. "the entire congregation": in the presence of the entire congregation.

You say this, but perhaps it is to be understood literally (i.e., that the entire congregation is to stone him.) It is, therefore, written (Devarim 17:7) "The hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death." How, then, am I to understand "the entire congregation"? As in the presence of the entire congregation. (15:36) "And the entire congregation took him outside the camp": We are hereby taught that all those who are liable to the death penalty are put to death outside of beth-din.

"And they stoned him with stones": One verse states "with stones," and another, (Vayikra 24:23) "with a stone." How are these two verses to be reconciled? The stoning site was two stories high. One of the witnesses pushes him on his thighs.

If he turns over on his heart, he is turned over on his thighs. If he dies thereby, it is sufficient. If not, the second witness takes a stone and places it on his heart. If he dies thereby, it is sufficient.

If not, all of Israel stone him with stones, in fulfillment of "the hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death, and the hand of all the people thereafter." There are thus reconciled "stone him with stones" and "and they stoned him with a stone." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "as the L-rd commanded Moses": He said to them "Stone him," and they stoned him; "Hang him up," and they hung him up.

But we have not (yet) heard that they were to hang him up (after he had been killed.) It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:22) "If there be in a man a sin punishable by death, then he is to be put to death and you shall (thereafter) hang him on a tree." These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Chidka said: Shimon Hashikmoni was a friend of mine, of the disciples of R. Akiva, and he said: Moses knew that the mekoshesh was to be put to death, but he did not know with which specific kind of death.

It were fitting that the section of the mekoshesh be stated (entirely) through Moses but the mekoshesh, being liable had it stated through him. For "merit resolves itself through the meritorious, and liability through the liable."

(Bamidbar 15:37-38) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying … and they shall make for themselves tzitzith": Women, too, are included (in the mitzvah of tzitzith.) R. Shimon exempts women from tzitzith, it being a time-based (only in the daytime) positive commandment, from which women are exempt, this being the principle: R. Shimon said: Women are exempt from all time-based positive commandments. R. Yehudah b. Bava said: Of a certainty, the sages exempted a woman's veil from tzitzith, and they are required in a wrap only because sometimes her husband covers himself with it. "tzitzith": "tzitzith" is something which "protrudes" ("yotzeh") somewhat.

And the elders of Beth Shammai and those of Beth Hillel have already entered the upper chamber of Yonathan b. Betheira and declared: Tzitzith have no prescribed size. And they declared, similarly: A lulav has no prescribed size. "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith." I might think that one string suffices; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 22:12) "Fringes (shall you make for yourself.") How many fringes?

Not fewer than three. These are the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai say: Three of wool and the fourth of tcheleth (blue linen). And the halachah is in accordance with Beth Shammai.

When is this so (that a minimum size is required)? In the beginning (of its attachment). But for what is left over or lopped off any size (is sufficient). (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith." I might think that all of it shall be tzitzith; it is, therefore, written "fringes."

If "fringes," I might think all of it shall be fringes. It is, therefore, written "tzitzith." How is this (to be implemented)? That its fringes protrude from the corner (of the garment), and tzitzith from the fringes. "in the corners of their garments": I might think, even garments that are three-cornered, five-cornered, six-cornered, seven-cornered, and eight-cornered; it is, therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid.) "on the four corners of your garment," to exclude the aforementioned.

And whence is it derived that pillows and covers are (also) excluded (from tzitzith)? From (Ibid.) "wherewith you cover yourself." If from there, I would think that night-clothes are also included (as requiring tzitzith). It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "and you shall see it" — in the daytime and not at night.

And if it were intended both for day and night, it requires tzitzith. I might think that this excludes both the above and the garment of a blind man; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "And it shall be for you for tzitzith" — in any event (i.e., to include a blind man). (Ibid. 38) "and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner a strand of tcheleth": spun and doubled. This tells me only of the tcheleth, that it is to be spun and doubled.

Whence do I derive (the same for) the white (i.e., the wool)? You derive it by induction, viz.: Since the Torah said: "place" tcheleth and "place" white, just as tcheleth is spun and doubled, so, white is spun and doubled. "and they shall place": on the place of the weaving (i.e., the corner of the garment), and not on the place of the "growing" (i.e., the strands at the corner of the garment). If he did place it on the site of the "growing," it is (nonetheless) kasher.

R. Eliezer b. Yaakov includes it both on the "growing" and on the very edge of the garment, it being written "on the corners of their garments." "and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner": What is the intent of this? From "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith, I might think that he should weave it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment; it is, therefore, written "and they shall place."

How so? He ties it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment). (Ibid. 39) "And it shall be to you for tzitzith": The four tzitzith are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one there is no mitzvah), the four being one mitzvah. R. Yishmael says: They are four mitzvoth. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: Why is it called "tcheleth"?

Because the Egyptians were "bereaved" ("nitkelu" [like "tcheleth"]) of their first-born, viz. (Shemot 12:29) "And it was in the middle of the night, that the L-rd smote every first-born, etc." Variantly: Because the Egyptians were "destroyed" ("kalu") in the Red Sea. Why is it called "tzitzith"? Because the L-rd "looked" ("hetzith") over our fathers' houses in Egypt, as it is written (Song of Songs 2:9) "The voice of My Beloved, behold, it is coming … My Beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart … Behold, He stands behind our wall, looking through the windows, peering through the lattices."

R. Chanina b. Antignos says: One who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, what is said of him? (Zechariah 8:23) "In these days it will happen that ten men, of all the languages of the nations will take hold of the corner (i.e., of the tzitzith) of a Jewish man, saying 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you!'" And one who nullifies the mitzvah of "the corner," what is said of him? (Iyyov 38:13) "to take hold of the corners of the earth and to shake the wicked from it!"

R. Meir says: It is not written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "And you shall see them" (the tzitzith), but "And you shall see Him." Scripture hereby apprises us that if one fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, it is reckoned unto him as if he beheld the face of the Shechinah. For tcheleth is reminiscent of (the color of) the sea; the sea, of the firmament; and the firmament, of the Throne of Glory, as it is written (Ezekiel 1:26) "And above the firmament that was over their heads … (28) the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the L-rd." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and you shall see and you shall remember": See this mitzvah and remember another mitzvah, (which is contingent upon it.)

Which is that? The recitation of the Shema — But perhaps (the reference is to) one of all the other mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, written (in the section of tzitzith, Ibid. 41) "I am the L-rd your G-d," which you find to be written only in (the section of) the recitation of the Shema. "and you shall remember": Remember (i.e., recite) the section with your mouth. I might think that the section "vehaya im shamoa" (Devarim 11:13-21) should precede all of the sections. — Would you say that?

The section of Shema (Devarim 6:4-9), which contains acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven should precede "vehaya im shamoa," which contains acceptance of the yoke of mitzvoth, and "vehaya im shamoa," which obtains both in the daytime and at night, should precede the section of tzitzith ("vayomer" [Bamidbar 15:37-41]), which obtains only in the daytime. And perhaps he should recite three (sections) in the evening as he does in the daytime.

It is, therefore, written (of tzitzith [Bamidbar 15:39]) "and you shall see it" — in the daytime and not at night. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: The section of Shema, which contains (the mitzvah of) learning (Torah), should precede "vehaya im shamoa," which speaks only of teaching. And "vehaya im shamoa" should precede the section of tzitzith, which is only to do (i.e., the final stage). For thus was Torah given: to learn and to teach, to keep and to do: "And you shall see it, and you shall remember (all the mitzvoth of the L-rd, and you shall do them."): Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, (which is only a sign and a remembrance towards the doing of mitzvoth,) is accounted as one who has fulfilled all of the mitzvoth, how much more so (is this true of) one who (actively) performs (any one of) all the mitzvoth of the Torah!

"And you shall not go astray after your hearts": This is heresy, as it is written (Koheleth 7:26) "And I find more bitter than death 'the woman' (heresy), whose heart is snares and nets. Her hands are bonds. The good before G-d shall escape her." "and after your eyes": This is harlotry, as it is written (Judges 14:3) "Take her for me, for she is just in my eyes." "after which you go astray": This is idolatry, as it is written (Ibid. 8:33) "and they went astray after the ba'alim."

R. Nathan says: that one not "drink" in this "cup" (i.e., his own wife), and cast his gaze at the "cup" of another. Variantly: "And you shall not go astray after your hearts and after your eyes": This teaches us that the eyes follow the heart. — But perhaps the heart follows the eyes! Would you say that? Are there not blind men who commit all the abominations in the world?

What, then, is the intent of "And you shall not go astray after your hearts, etc."? That the eyes follow the heart. R. Yishmael says: "And you shall not go astray after your hearts": What is the intent of this? From (Koheleth 11:9) "Rejoice young man in your youth (… and walk in the ways of your heart"), (I would not know whether) in a way that is straight or in (any) way that you like; it is, therefore, written "And you shall not go astray after your hearts." (Ibid. 40) "So that you remember and you do (all of My mitzvoth): This equates remembering with doing. "and you shall be holy to your G-d": This refers to the holiness of all of the mitzvoth.

You say the holiness of (all the) mitzvoth, but perhaps the holiness of tzitzith (is intended). — Would you say that? What is the (general) context? The holiness of all the mitzvoth. Rebbi says: The reference is to the holiness of tzitzith.

You say the holiness of tzitzith, but perhaps the holiness of all the mitzvoth is intended. — (Vayikra 19:2) "Holy shall you be" already refers to the holiness of all the mitzvoth. How, then, am I to understand "and you shall be holy to your G-d"? As referring to the holiness of tzitzith — whence it is seen that tzitzith add holiness to Israel. (Ibid. 41) "I am the L-rd your G-d, who took you out of the land of Egypt.": Why is this mentioned here?

So that one not say: I will take imitation-dyed threads (and attach them to my garment) as tcheleth, and who will know the difference? If (within the framework of) the measure of punishment, the lesser measure (of the L-rd) — if one sins in secret, He exposes him in public, (as He did in Egypt), then, (within the framework of) the measure of good, the greater measure (of the L-rd) — how much more so (does this hold true)!

Variantly: Why is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in connection with every mitzvah? An analogy: The son of a king's loved one was taken captive. When he (the king) redeems him, he redeems him not as a son, but as a servant, so that if he (the son) does not accept his decree, he can say to him "You are my servant!" When they enter the province, he (the king) says to him: Put on my sandals and carry my things before me to the bath-house.

The son begins to object, whereupon the king presents him with his writ (of servitude) and says to him: "You are my servant!" Thus, when the Holy One Blessed be He redeemed the seed of His loved one, He did not redeem them as "sons," but as servants, so that if they reject His decree He says to them: "You are My servants!" When they went to the desert, He began to decree upon them some "light" mitzvoth and some formidable ones, such as Shabbath, illicit relations, tzitzith, and tefillin, and Israel began to object — whereupon He said to them: "You are My servants!

On that condition I redeemed you; on condition that I decree and you fulfill!" "I am the L-rd your G-d": Why is this stated again? Is it not already written (Shemot 20:2) "I am the L-rd your G-d who took you out of the land of Egypt"? Why state it again?

So that Israel not say: Why did the L-rd command us (to do mitzvoth)? Is it not so that we do them and receive reward? We shall not do them and we shall not receive reward! As Israel said (Ezekiel 20:1) "There came to me (Ezekiel) men of the elders of Israel to make inquiry of the L-rd, and they sat before me."

They said to him: A servant whose Master has sold him, does he not leave His domain? Ezekiel: Yes. They: Since the L-rd has sold us to the nations, we have left His domain. Ezekiel: A servant whose Master has sold him in order to return, does he leave His domain? (Ibid. 32-33) "And what enters your minds, it shall not be, your saying: We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone.

As I live, says the L-rd G-d. I swear to you that I will rule over you with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath!" "with a strong hand": pestilence, as it is written (in that regard, Shemot 9:3) "Behold, the hand of the L-rd is in your cattle, etc." "with an outstretched arm": the sword, as it is written (I Chronicles 21:16) "with his (the angel's) sword drawn in his hand, stretched over Jerusalem." "and with outpoured wrath": famine. After I bring these three calamities upon you, one after the other, I will rule over you perforce!

R. Nathan said: There is no mitzvah in the Torah whose reward is not "at its side." Go and learn this from the mitzvah of tzitzith. There was once a certain man who was particularly diligent in the mitzvah of tzitzith. Once, hearing of a ("famed") harlot in the cities of the sea, who took four hundred gold coins as her hire, he sent her that sum, and she set a time for him.

When the appointed time came, he went there and sat at the door of her house. Her maid-servant went in and said to her: That man whom you appointed a time for is sitting at the door of the house. The harlot: Let him come in. When he came in, she spread seven beds for him, six of silver and one of gold, and she was on the uppermost.

Between each one was a silver ladder, and the uppermost, of gold. When he came to the act, his four tzitzith came and struck him across his face. They seemed to him like four men. He immediately left off and sat upon the ground.

She, too, left off and sat upon the ground. She said to him "'Gapa of Rome' (an idolatrous oath), I shall not let you go until you tell me what blemish you have seen in me!" He: I swear, I have seen no blemish in you. There is no beauty like yours in all the world, but there is one mitzvah (tzitzith) concerning which it is written two times (Bamidbar 15:41) "I am the L-rd your G-d."

"I am the L-rd your G-d" — I am destined to reward; "I am the L-rd your G-d" — I am destined to punish. And now they appeared to me as four witnesses (testifying to the above). At this, she said: I swear that I will not let you go until you write for me your name, the name of your city, and the name of the place where you study Torah. He wrote for her his name, the name of his city, the name of his master, and the name of the place where he studied Torah — whereupon she arose and divided all of her wealth: a third to the authorities (for permission to convert), a third to the poor, and a third which she took with her, in addition to those spreads.

When she came to R. Meir's house of study, she said to him: My master, convert me. R. Meir: Is it possible that you have "cast your eyes" upon one of my disciples! At this, she took out the note that she had with her, and he said to her: "Go and claim your purchase!" Those spreads which she had spread for him unlawfully, she now spread for him lawfully, This was her reward in this world. As to the world to come, I do not know how much.

(Bamidbar 18:1) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.": R. Yishmael says: Because the thing (i.e., what follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: Whence is it derived that if he (a Cohein) sprinkled the blood without knowing in whose name he is doing so or smoked the fat without knowing in whose name he is doing so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for this?

From "You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary." R. Yonathan says: Whence is it derived that if he took the flesh (of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering) before the blood was sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the breast and the shoulder before the smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31), that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood."

And thus do we find that the decree of Eli was sealed only because they (the Cohanim) abused the offerings, as it is written (I Samuel 2:15) "Even before they would burn the fat … (16) And the man would say: Let them first burn the fat today (upon the altar) … (17) And the sin of the youths (the attendants of the Cohanim was very great, etc." And similarly we find that the decree of the men of Jerusalem was decreed only because they abused the offerings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) "You abused My offerings." (Bamidbar, Ibid.)

"And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.": This refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-priests] from entering the sanctuary). You say this, but perhaps it refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to beth-din, (it being their duty to exhort the Cohanim in this regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7]) "You and your sons, with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar" already speaks of what is relegated to beth-din.

How, then, am I to understand "you shall bear the sin of your priesthood"? As referring to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid. 1) "And you and your sons with you": and not Israelites (i.e., they are not to guard the sanctuary.) You say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who also guard the sanctuary) do bear the sin of the Cohanim, (who are remiss in this regard.)

It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And they (the Levites) shall bear their (own) sin" (of remissness), but not the sin of the Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) "And also your brothers": I might think that this also includes Israelites. It is, therefore, written "the tribe of Levi." I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "your brothers" — to exclude the women. "draw near with you": R. Akiva says: It is written here "with you," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) "with you."

Just as here, the Levites are being referred to, so, there, the Levites are being referred to — to exhort the Levites (against defect) in the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) "and they shall be joined to you and they shall serve you": through their service. Treasurers and trustees are to be appointed from among them. You say this, but perhaps the intent is that they shall serve you (the Cohanim) in your (priestly) service.

It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent." — But perhaps (both are intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you in your (priestly) service and they shall serve you through their service. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd."

To the L-rd are they given, and not to the Cohanim — whereby we derive that it is not to be construed in the second way (i.e., "for your [priestly] service"), but in the first way, i.e., their being appointed as treasurers and trustees. "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony": the Cohanim within, (in the court of the sanctuary,) and the Levites outside (the court). You say this, but perhaps the intent is both, within.

It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And they (the Levites) will join you, and they will keep (the watch of) the watch (by the Cohanim within) of the tent of meeting." How, then, am I to understand "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony"? The Cohanim within, and the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent": As stated above: They will serve you through their service, and appoint from among them treasurers and trustees.

"But to the vessels of the kodesh they shall not come near." This "hakodesh" ("the holy") refers to the ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "And they (the Levites) shall not come to see (the vessels) when the kodesh is being covered and they (the Levites) die." "and to the altar": This refers to the (sacrificial) service of the altar. "they shall not come near": the exhortation. "and they shall not die": the punishment.

This tells me only of the Levites, that they are punished and exhorted for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) Cohanim (appropriating) the service (i.e., singing) of the Levites? From ("so that they not die,) both they (the Levites) and you" (the Cohanim.) And it once happened that R. Yehoshua b. Chanania sought to assist R. Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for you are close to forfeiting your life!

For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers. Rebbi says that this ("both they and you") is not needed (for the above learning). For it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-19) "Do not cut off the tribe of the families of the Kehathi … but do this for them and they will live," (the implication being that otherwise they will die.) This tells me only of the sons of Kehath.

Whence do I derive (the same for) the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid. 19) "Aaron and his sons shall come and set them (the sons of Levi), each man to his service and to his burden." This tells me only that the Levites are punished for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Cohanim (appropriating) the service of the Levites?

From (Bamidbar 1:51) "And when the mishkan travels, the Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall dismantle it. And the stranger (a non-Levite) that draws near (to this service) shall be put to death." Whence do I derive (the same for) one who goes from his (assigned) service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38) "And those who encamped before the mishkan, in front, before the tent of meeting on the east" (i.e., only these being assigned to the aforementioned service) … and the stranger (to that service, [even a Levite]) that draws near shall be put to death."

What, then, is the need for "so that they not die both they and you"? Because Korach came and contested Aaron's prerogative, Scripture reiterated the entire exhortation (on demarcation of bounds). Variantly: "both they and you": Just as you (the Cohanim, are thus forewarned) vis-à-vis the altar service, so, they (the Levites, are thus forewarned). R. Nathan says: Levitical singing is hereby intimated in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature) was explicated by Ezra.

Chanania, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: This (intimation) is not needed, for it is already written (Shemot 19:19) "and G-d answered him (Moses, the Levite) by voice" — relative to the mitzvah of the voice, whence (the mitzvah of Levitical) singing is intimated in the Torah. (Bamidbar 18:4) "And they shall join you": As we have stated, the Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside, and the Levites, on the outside. (Ibid.) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you": Why is this written? (i.e., it has already been mentioned.) — "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death" tells us (only of) the punishment.

Whence do we derive the exhortation? From "and a stranger shall not draw near to you." (Ibid. 5) "And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar.": This is an exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites to exhort the Cohanim towards the proper performance of the (sacrificial) service, which (service), when properly performed, fends off calamity from the world. (Ibid.) "so that there be no more wrath."

Why "no more"? For He has already vented His wrath (viz. 17:11). Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) "and no more shall there be a flood." Why "no more"?

For it has already happened. Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the goat-demons." Why "no more"? Because it already happened (in Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7).

Similarly, (Bamidbar 18:22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near to the tent of meeting." Why "no more"? Because they had already done so (in the time of Korach, viz. Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He had already vented His wrath, as it is written (Ibid. 17:11) "for the wrath has gone forth, etc."

(Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd." They are given to the L-rd (for His service) and not to the Cohanim. (Ibid. 7) "And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar": From here, R. Eliezer Hakappar berebbi was wont to say: Whatever pertains to the altar should be only to you and your sons. "and within the parocheth (the curtain)" — whence they stated: There was a place behind the inside of the holy of holies, where the genealogy of the priests was ascertained. "and you shall serve": I might think, in concert; it is, therefore, written "a service of matanah."

Just as "matanah" (the application of the blood of the sacrifices) is by lottery, so, all of the (other) services is by lottery. "As a service of gift have I given your priesthood (to you)": This equates the eating of kodshim (i.e., terumah, etc.) in the provinces (i.e., outside of the Temple) with the service of the Temple in the Temple. And it once happened that R. Tarfon (a Cohein) was late in coming to the house of study, whereupon R. Gamliel asked him: Why are you late?

And he responded: I was serving (as a Cohein). R. Gamliel: All of your words are a puzzle. Is there (Temple) service now (that the Temple has been destroyed)? R. Tarfon: It is written "As a service of gift have I given your priesthood (to you)."

This equates the eating of kodshim in the provinces with the service of the Temple in the Temple. Rebbi says: "This equates the eating of kodshim in the provinces with the service of the Temple in the Temple" — Just as with the service of the Temple in the Temple, he first washes his hands and then serves, so, with the eating of kodshim in the provinces — he first washes his hands and then eats. — But perhaps just as there, he washes both his hands and his feet, so, here! — Would you say that?

In a place (the Temple) where he must wash his hands and his feet (in that he is standing on holy ground), he does so; but in a place where he needs to wash only his hands, that is what he does. We hereby learn the washing of the hands to be scripturally prescribed. "and the stranger (i.e., the non-priest) that draws near shall be put to death": ("that draws near") to (do) the (priestly) service. You say, to the service, but perhaps (the same obtains) to the service or not to the service, (but merely for entering).

Would you say that? Now if one (a Cohein) who is blemished, who is only under an exhortation (and not subject to the death penalty), was exhorted only for performing a service, then a stranger, who is subject to the death penalty, how much more so is he to be punished only for a service! What, then, is the intent of "and the stranger that draws near is to be put to death? ("who draws near") to the service. "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death": even if he serves in (a state of) purity. — But perhaps (the intent is) if the serves in a state of tumah. — Would you say that?

If one who (only) enters in (a state of) tumah, not for a service, is liable (to the death penalty [viz. Bamidbar 19:13]), how much more so one who serves (in a state of tumah)! What, then, is the intent of "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death"? Even if he serves in (a state of) purity. R. Yishmael says: It is written here "he shall be put to death," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 17:28) "Whoever draws near, who draws near to the mishkan of the L-rd, shall die."

Just as there, at the hands of Heaven; here, too, at the hands of Heaven. R. Akiva says: It is written here "he shall be put to death," and, elsewhere, (Devarim 13:6) "And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death." Just as there, by strangulation, here, too, by strangulation. "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death." We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 18:4) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you."

(Bamidbar 18:8) "And the L-rd spoke to Aaron": I would think (the intent is) that the speaking was to Aaron; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17:5) "A sign for the children of Israel … as the L-rd spoke to Moses about him" (Aaron, viz., that only he and his sons are to be Cohanim), whereby we are apprised that the speaking was to Moses, to tell to Aaron. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And I, behold, (I have given to you") with joy, (the twenty-four priestly gifts.)

These are the words of R. Yishmael — whereupon his disciples said to him: But master, it is written (Bereshit 6:17) "And I, behold, shall bring a flood of water, etc." Are we, then to assume that this was a joy to Him? He answered: When His angerers go lost from the world, it is a joy to Him. And thus is it written (Proverbs 11:10) "When the righteous prosper, the city exults, and when the wicked perish there is rejoicing."

And (Psalms 3:9-10) "You have broken the teeth of the wicked. Deliverance is the L-rd's. Upon Your people are Your blessings, selah." And (Ibid. 10:16) "The L-rd is King for ever and ever.

Nations have gone lost from His land." And (Ibid. 104:35) "Sinners will end from the earth, and the wicked will be no more. Bless the L-rd, O my soul, Hallelukah!" R. Nathan said to him: I will add to your words: "And I" — willingly; "behold" — with joy.

And thus is it written (Shemot 4:14) "Behold, he (Aaron) is going out to meet you (Moses; and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart."

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "For all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, etc.": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) to declare a law to make a covenant with them. And why was this necessary? For Korach arose against Aaron and contested the priesthood.

An analogy: A king of flesh and blood had a retainer to whom he gave a field of holding as a gift, without writing or sealing (the transaction) and without recording it, whereupon someone came and contested his (the retainer's) ownership of the field. At this, the king said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. Come (now) and I will write, seal, and record it. Korach came and contested his (Aaron's) claim to the priesthood, at which the L-rd said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it.

I am (now) writing and sealing and recording it — wherefore this section is juxtaposed with (the episode of) Korach. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "to you have I given them (the gifts)": in your merit "lemashchah": "meshichah" connotes greatness, as in (Vayikra 7:35) "This is mishchath Aaron and mishchath his sons, etc." R. Yitzchak says "mishchah" (here) connotes anointment, as in (Psalms 133:2) "the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and to your sons": in the merit of your sons. "as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. (Ibid. 9) "This shall be for you from the holy of holies from the fire": I would not know of what this speaks.

Go out and see: What remains (for the Cohanim) of the holy of holies, all of which is consigned to the fire? You find this as obtaining only with a beast burnt-offering, (the hide of which reverts to the Cohanim.) "all of their offerings": the two loaves and the show-bread. "all of their meal-offerings": the sinner's meal-offering and the donative meal-offering. "all of their sin-offerings": the sin-offering of the individual and the communal sin-offering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird sin-offering and the beast sin-offering. "all of their guilt-offerings": the "certain" guilt-offering, the "suspended" guilt-offering, the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. "which they shall return to Me": This refers to the theft of a proselyte, (which reverts to the Cohanim [viz. Ibid. 5:8]). "holy of holies": This refers to the leper's log of oil. "to you and to your sons": in your merit and in the merit of your sons. (Ibid. 10) "In the holy of holies shall you eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten only in a holy place, within the curtains (i.e., in the azarah [the Temple court]).

R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the azarah, they may be eaten (even) in the sanctuary? From "In the holy of holies shall you eat it." (Ibid.) "Every male shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten by males of the priesthood. "Holy shall it be to you": What is the intent of this?

I might think that only something fit for eating should be eaten in holiness. Whence do I derive (the same for) something which is not fit for eating? From "Holy shall it be to you." (Ibid. 11) "And this is for you the terumah of (i.e., what is set apart from) their gift-offerings": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included holy of holies to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include lower-order offerings.

"From all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel": This thing requires waving. "To you have I given them, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. "Every clean one in your house shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with lower-order offerings that they are to be eaten only by those who are clean.

"All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the wheat": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included the offerings of the sanctuary to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include the border offerings (i.e., those outside the sanctuary) to decree a law to make a covenant with them. "All the best of the oil": This is terumah gedolah (Devarim 18:4). "and all the best, etc.": This is terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26). "the first of them": the first of the shearing (Devarim 18:4). "which they shall give": shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3). "to the L-rd": challah (Bamidbar 15:20). (Ibid. 18:13) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land": Scripture here comes to teach us about the bikkurim that holiness "takes" upon them while they are yet attached to the ground.

For it would follow (otherwise, viz.:) Since holiness "takes" on bikkurim and holiness "takes" on terumah, then, if I have learned about terumah that holiness does not "take" on it while it is yet on the ground, so, with bikkurim. It is, therefore, written "the first-fruits of all that is in their land," to teach us otherwise. (Bamidbar 18:12) "To you have I given them": Scripture comes to teach that it is given to the Cohein. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "Every clean one of your household shall eat it": Why is this stated?

Is it not already written (Ibid. 11) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it (terumah)"? Why repeat it? To include the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as eating terumah. Does this include one who is betrothed?

Perhaps it speaks only of one who is married! — (This is not so, for) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it" already speaks of one who is married. How, then, am I to understand "Every clean one of your household"? As including the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, as eating terumah. This would seem to include (as eating terumah) a betrothed one and a toshav (a ger toshav [sojourner]) and a sachir (a hired non-Jew).

How, then, am I to understand (Shemot 12:45) "a toshav … shall not eat of it"? A toshav who is not in your domain; but one who is in your domain may eat of it. Or even a toshav who is in your domain (may eat of it). And how am I to understand "Every clean one of your household may eat of it"?

As excluding a toshav and a sachir. Or perhaps, including a toshav and a sachir! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:10) "and a sachir shall not eat the holy thing" (terumah): whether or not he is in your domain. And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in Netzivim: I heard about you that you said that the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah.

He sent back: And I held you to be expert in the recesses of Torah when you cannot even expound a kal vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse (with her master) does not acquire her (or him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, her money (i.e., the money by which he acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) causes her to eat terumah — then the daughter of an Israelite, whose intercourse (with her husband) acquires her (to him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, how much more so should her money (by which he betroths her) acquire her for (purposes of) eating terumah!

But what can I do? The sages said: The daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to a Cohein) does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah (the marriage canopy). Once she enters the chuppah, even if there were no intercourse, she eats terumah, and if she dies, her husband inherits her.