Sifrei Bamidbar Reader

(Bamidbar 18:14) "Every devoted thing (i.e., a thing dedicated to the Temple) in Israel shall be yours (the Cohein's)": This tells me only of the devoted objects of Israelites. Whence do I derive (the same for) the devoted objects of gentiles, women, and bondsmen? From "Every devoted thing in Israel." R. Yossi Haglili says: Unqualified "devotions" revert to the Cohanim, it being written (Vayikra 27:21) "As a devoted field, to the Cohein shall be his holding."

Even if he specified "for Temple maintenance"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 28) "Every devoted thing (specified as) holy of holies reverts to the L-rd." R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to Temple maintenance, it being written "Every (unqualified) "devotion" is holy of holies to the L-rd." Even if he specified "to the Cohanim"?

It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid.) "Ach" ("But" [to exclude the above instance]). R. Yehudah b. Bava says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to the Cohanim, it being written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours."

Even if he specified "to the L-rd"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Every devoted thing is holy of holies to the L-rd" (when specified as such.) R. Shimon says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to Heaven, it being written "holy of holies to the L-rd." — Even if he specified "to the Cohein"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours (the Cohein's)."

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass).

And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes.

For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes.

And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast.

I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"?

If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem."

The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything.

It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.)

Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land.

Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be."

I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated."

R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling.

What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats!

What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that?

If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)!

It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)!

What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased!

How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings.

Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name.

He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein.

Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering).

R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast."

Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born.

R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)?

Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night.

What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night?

It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations.

"It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.

(Bamidbar 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit, and you will not have a portion in their midst. I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the children of Israel.": Why is (all of) this stated? Because it is written (Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned," I would think that all are included — Cohanim, Levites, Israelites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtum (those of uncertain sex) and androgynous (hermaphrodites); it is, therefore, written: "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit" — This excludes (from inheritance) Cohanim." (Ibid. 23) "And in the midst of the children of Israel, they (the Levites) shall not inherit an inheritance" — This excludes Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit" — This excludes bondsmen and proselytes (Ibid. 54) "A man, according to his numbers shall his inheritance be given" — This excludes tumtum and androgynous. (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit" — in the division of the land. "and you will not have a portion in their midst" — ("a portion") of the spoils.

"I am your portion and your inheritance" — At My table (i.e., from the sacrifices) you eat and at My table you drink. An analogy: A king gave gifts to (all of) his sons except one, saying to him: My son, I gave you a gift. At My table you eat and at My table you drink. And thus is it written (Vayikra 6:10) "Their portion have I given to them from My fire-offerings." (Devarim 18:1) "The fire-offering of the L-rd and His inheritance shall they eat."

Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to the Cohanim, twelve in the sanctuary and twelve in the borders (i.e., outside of Jerusalem.) Twelve in the sanctuary: sin-offering, guilt-offering, the remnant of the log of oil of the leper, the remnant of the omer, the two loaves, the show-bread, the remnant of meal-offerings, the terumah of the thank-offering (viz. Vayikra 7:14), the terumah of breast and thigh, the shoulder of the ram of the Nazirite.

Twelve in the borders: Terumah, terumath ma'aser, challah, bikkurim, the first of the shearing, the gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw), the first-born of man and the first-born of a clean beast, the firstling of an ass, charamim (renunciation of one's property), an (unredeemed) field of holding, and the theft of (i.e., what is stolen from) a proselyte (viz. Bamidbar 5:8). All these twenty-four gifts were given to the Cohanim, aside from terumah-related debts.

The day when a covenant was forged with Aaron with the twenty-four gifts was a day of great joy to him. R. Yishmael says: As per the folk-proverb "My cow's leg was broken for my good." For Aaron's good did Korach come and contest the priesthood. An analogy: A king had a retainer to whom he gave a field as a gift, without recording, sealing and registering (the transaction [see above]) — wherefore, this section is juxtaposed with that of Korach.

R. Elazar Hakappar says: Whence is it derived that the Holy One Blessed be He showed our father Yaakov the Temple built and sacrifices being offered, and Cohanim officiating, and the Shechinah reposing (there)? From (Bereshit 28:12) "And he (Yaakov) dreamed, and, behold, a ladder standing on the earth, and its top reaching to heaven, and, behold, angels of G-d ascending and descending upon it." There is no dream without a portent: "And he dreamed, and, behold, a ladder standing on the earth" — the Temple. "and its top reaching to heaven" — the offered sacrifices, their scent reaching to heaven. "and, behold, angels of G-d," — the Cohanim ministering, ascending and descending on the ramp. (13) "And, behold, the L-rd standing on it" — (Amos 9:1) "I (Amos) saw the L-rd standing on the altar."

Beloved are Israel, who, when epitomized, are epitomized as "Cohanim," viz. (Isaiah 61:6) "And you, Cohanim of the L-rd shall be called; 'ministers of G-d' shall they say of you. The wealth of nations shall you eat, and in their glory shall you vaunt yourselves." Beloved are Cohanim, who are epitomized as ministering angels, viz. (Malachi 2:7) "For the lips of the Cohein shall guard knowledge, and Torah shall they seek from his mouth, for an angel of the L-rd of hosts is he."

If Torah goes forth from his mouth, he is like the ministering angels. If not, he is like an animal or a beast, which does not recognize its Creator. Beloved is Torah. When David king of Israel asked (a boon of the L-rd), he asked only for Torah, viz. (Psalms 118:68) "You are good and do good — teach me Your statutes."

Your goodness engulfs all who enter the world. Let Your goodness engulf me and teach me Your statutes. And it is written (Psalms, Ibid. 117) "Support me and I will be saved (and I will dwell in Your statutes always"): That I not learn Torah and forget it, that I not learn and the evil inclination not allow me to review it, that I not rule unclean what is clean or clean what is unclean and come to share in the world to come, that the nations of the land and the families of the earth ask me and I not know how to respond and be shamed before them.

And thus is it written (Ibid. 46) "And I will speak of Your testimonies before kings and I will not be ashamed." And (Ibid. 54) "Songs have Your statutes been to me." I might think, in repose. It, therefore, follows "in the house of my fears, in caves and in entrapments, as in (Ibid. 56:1) "… when he fled from Saul in the cave." And (Ibid. 109:119) "My soul was always in my hand, and I did not forget Your Torah."

But when David learned Torah and grew great (in it), what did he say? (Psalms 139:17) "And to me, how precious are Your loved ones (i.e., Torah scholars), O G-d! How mighty is their sum!" And (Ibid. 119:72) "Better to me is the Torah of Your mouth than thousands of gold and silver." For gold and silver take a man out of this world and the next, but Torah brings a man to life in the world to come.

(II Samuel 7:19) "This is the Torah of man": We find that there are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingdom. The crown of priesthood was merited by Aaron and he took it. The crown of kingdom was merited by David and he took it. The crown of Torah is left (vacant), so that those who enter the world be given no pretext to say: If the crown of kingdom and the crown of priesthood were left (vacant), I would merit them and take them. The crown of Torah is left (vacant) for all who enter the world. For whoever merits it, I account it to him as if all three were left (vacant) to him and he merits all of them. And whoever does not merit it, I account it to him as if all three were left (vacant) for him and he did not merit any one of them. And if you would ask: Which is the greatest of all? R. Shimon b. Elazar was wont to say: Who is greater, the crowner or the king? Certainly, the crowner. The maker of officers or the officers? Certainly, the maker of officers. All that inheres in these two crowns, comes through the power of Torah. And thus is it written (Proverbs 8:15-16) "Through me (Torah) do kings reign … Through me do princes rule." And, (in reversion to "This is the Torah of man"), (Koheleth 12:13) "The end of the matter, all has been heard. Fear G-d and do His mitzvoth. For this (Torah) is all of man."

Greater is the covenant forged with Aaron than that forged with David. Aaron merited (priesthood) for his sons — whether righteous or wicked, and David merited (kingdom only) for the righteous, but not for the wicked, viz. (Psalms 132:12) "If your children will keep My covenant … (they will sit on the throne for you.") (Bamidbar 18:19) "It is a covenant of salt … (21) and to the sons of Levi." Scripture hereby apprises us that just as the covenant is forged with the priesthood, so, is it forged with the Levites.

And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated at Mount Sinai, so, that of the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated with joy, so, that of the Levites, as it is written "and to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given, etc." "Behold" connotes joy, as in (Shemot 5:14) "And, behold, he goes out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "in exchange for their service": All the mitzvoth of the priesthood (i.e., the twenty-four priestly gifts) were acquired by the L-rd and given to the Cohanim; and these (the mitzvoth of the Levites), "in exchange for their services of the tent of meeting."

These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This, too, was acquired by the land and given to the Levites, as it is written (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land … is the L-rd's; it is holy to the L-rd." "And to the sons of Levi I have given all the tithe of Israel as an inheritance": Just as an inheritance does not change from its place, so, first tithe, (which is given to the Levite), does not change from its place, (unlike second tithe, which in the third and sixth years converts to poor-tithe.) "in exchange for the service which they perform": If he serves, he takes (the tithe); if not, he does not. (Ibid. 22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near": the exhortation. "to bear sin, to die": the punishment (at the hands of Heaven.). (Ibid. 23) "And the Levite shall serve — he": Why is this written?

From "in exchange for their service" I might understand, if he wishes, he serves, and if he does not wish, he does not serve; it is, therefore, written "And the Levite shall serve — he" — perforce. Variantly: Why is this written? From "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel (in exchange for their service, etc.") This tells me only (that they must serve) only in the years that the tithes obtain.

Whence do I derive (that they must also serve) on shemitoth and yovloth, (when the tithes do not obtain)? From "And the Levite shall serve — he" (in any event). R. Nathan says: If no Levite were there, I might think that a Cohein may serve. And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place (i.e., the priestly service), where Levites are not kasher, Cohanim are kasher, then, in a place (i.e., the Levitical service), where Levites are kasher, how much more so should Cohanim be kasher!

It is, therefore, written "And the Levite shall serve — he." "and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of not guarding property)": And others (the Israelites, who, [being unguarded, enter the sanctuary]) will not bear their (the Levites') sin. This is to say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Levites, but the Cohanim, (who enter where they should not), do bear their (the Levites') sin. It is, therefore, written "and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of improper guarding)," and not the Israelites or the Cohanim (who, as a result, enter where they should not.) "a statute forever for your generations": It obtains for all succeeding generations.

And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance": Why is this written? For, since it is written (Ibid. 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned," I would think that the Levites, too, are included; it is, therefore, written "And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance." (Ibid. 24) "For the tithe of the children of Israel which they set apart for the L-rd as terumah": Scripture refers to it as terumah until he separates terumath ma'aser from it, whereby it teaches that if he wishes to make it terumah for other (untithed) produce, he may do so. "have I given to the Levites as an inheritance": Why is this written?

Because it is written "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel in exchange for the service, etc.", I would think (that first-tithe is given to the Levites) only when the Temple, (in which service is performed), exists. Whence do I derive (that it is given) even when the Temple does not exist? From "as an inheritance." Just as "inheritance" obtains whether or not the Temple exists, so, first-tithe.

"Therefore, I have said to them that in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance": Why is this written? Is it not already written (23) "And in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance"? I might think that this applies only at the time of the apportionment of the land; but after the apportionment each tribe sets aside from its portion (a parcel of land for Levi).

It is, therefore, written "Therefore, I have said, etc." Variantly: "Therefore, I have said": Why is this written? Because it is written (Devarim 7:1) "And He will cast out many nations from before you, the Chitti, the Girgashi, etc.", but Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni are not mentioned, (so that we might think that when they are conquered, Levi can have inheritance in their land); it is, therefore, written "Therefore, I have said, etc." — forever (are they not to have inheritance). Variantly: (It is written) to exhort beth-din to this end (of their not receiving inheritance).

(Bamidbar 18:26) "And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe (ma'aser) that I have given to you from their inheritance, (then you shall separate from it the terumah of the L-rd, ma'aser from the ma'aser.") Why is this written? To teach that (Ibid. 21) "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe" speaks of (one-tenth of) the produce (of the land, and not of [one-tenth of] the land itself.)

You say, the produce, but perhaps (the reference is to) the land (itself)! It is, therefore, written (26) "And to the Levites you shall speak and you shall say to them (… that I have given to you from them in their inheritance"). "that I have given to you from them in their inheritance": Because they have not been given a portion in the land, there has been given to them one-tenth of the produce. "then you shall separate from it": From one kind (of produce) for its kind, and not from one kind for a different kind, and not from what is rooted for what is unrooted, and not from what is unrooted for what is rooted, and not from the new (crop) for the old, and not from the old for the new.

And whence is it derived that one is not to take terumah from produce of the land (Eretz Yisrael) for produce outside the land or from produce outside the land for produce of the land? From (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land, etc.)" Variantly: "from it": This is "extra" (mufneh) for formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah) viz.: It is written here "from it," and, in respect to the Paschal lamb, (Shemot 12:9) ("Do not eat) from it, etc." Just as re "with it" mentioned here (in respect to ma'aser), it (ma'aser) is forbidden to a mourner, (viz. Devarim 26:14), so, re "with it" mentioned in respect to Pesach, it (the Paschal lamb) is forbidden to a mourner.

(Bamidbar 18:27) "And your terumah will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the pit": R. Yishmael says: When is your terumah accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor? When you have taken it as prescribed (i.e., a kind for its kind, new for new, etc. [see above]). If you have not taken it as prescribed, it is not thus accounted for you. Variantly: "And your (the Levites') terumah (terumath ma'aser) will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor" (terumah gedolah).

Now what do we learn from terumah (gedolah) to terumath ma'aser? It (terumah gedolah) comes (apparently) to teach (something), and it ends up being learned (i.e.,) Just as terumath ma'aser is obligatory, so, terumah (gedolah) is obligatory. Abba Eliezer b. Gomel says: Scripture comes to teach you that just as terumah (gedolah) may be taken by estimate and by thought (i.e., without actually handling it), so, terumath ma'aser may be taken by estimate and by thought. "as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the pit": Why is this stated?

From (26) "then you shall separate from it," I might think that he could take ears (of grain as terumah) for grain; grapes, for wine; and olives, for oil; it is, therefore, written "as corn from the threshing floor," i.e., (he may take) from what is processed — whence they ruled; (He may take terumah:) from grain, from the time that it (i.e., its pile) has been evened; from wine, from the time that it is skimmed; from oil, from the time that it has dripped down into the trough. (Ibid. 28) "Thus shall you, too, separate the terumah of the L-rd": Why is this written?

From (26) "And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel, etc.", (I would say:) The children of Israel give ma'aser to the Levites, but the Cohanim do not give ma'aser to the Levites. And since they do not give ma'aser to the Levites, I might think that they could eat it (the produce) tevel (i.e., untithed); it is, therefore, written: "thus shall you separate, you (the Cohanim), too, the terumah of the L-rd." (i.e., the Cohanim separate terumah, and ma'aser, and terumath ma'aser which reverts to them.)

R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed, for if challah, which does not obtain with all produce (i.e., with all the varieties of grain), obtains with the produce of Cohanim, then ma'aser, which does obtain with all produce, how much more so should it obtain with all the produce of Cohanim! What, then, is the intent of "Thus shall you separate, you, too"? I might think that only the ma'aser of an Israelite (is subject to terumath ma'aser).

Whence do I derive the (same for) their (the Levites') own tithe (i.e., the tithe that they separate from what is theirs)? It is, therefore, written "Thus shall you separate, you, (the Levites,) too." (Ibid. 29) "From all of your gifts, etc." Scripture hereby teaches that ma'aser obtains with all (produce [see above]) — whence you rule to terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser), viz.: If ma'aser, the "lighter," (not being subject to the death penalty), obtains with all produce), then terumah, the "graver," (being subject to the death penalty, [viz. Vayikra 22:9]), how much more so does it obtain with all (produce [of first tithe])!

Variantly: If ma'aser (second tithe), which does not obtain in the third and sixth year (of shemitah, [being replaced by poor-tithe]), obtains with all (produce), then terumah, the graver, how much more so should it obtain with all (produce [of second tithe])! Issi b. Menachem says: If ma'aser (second tithe), which comes only as an incentive to fear and to learning (viz. Devarim 14:23), obtains with all (produce), how much more so does it obtain with the "graver," terumah! (Bamidbar, Ibid.)

"And you shall give of it the terumah of the L-rd to Aaron the Cohein": Just as Aaron was a chaver (a Torah scholar, so the (other) Cohanim (to receive the priestly gifts, should be chaverim) — whence it was ruled: Priestly gifts should be given only to a chaver. (Ibid. 29) "From all of your gifts shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd. From all of its best (shall you separate) its hallowed part from it."

Is Scripture here speaking of terumah gedolah or of terumath ma'aser? "from all of your tithes" (28) speaks of terumath ma'aser. How, then, is "From all of your gifts shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd" to be understood? As referring to terumath gedolah. (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him": This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional!

It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 11:29) "shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd" — It is obligatory and not optional. These are the words of R. Yonathan. "from all of its best, its hallowed part from it.": So that if it (terumath ma'aser) fell (back) into it (what it was taken from), it "hallows" it — whence they ruled: Terumah is "neutralized" (from its hallowed state) if it fell into one hundred parts of non-terumah when (it is) one to (that) one hundred.

This tells me only of terumah that is (ritually) clean. Whence do I derive (the same for) terumah that is tamei, (that if it fell into a hundred of clean terumah, it is neutralized in such a mixture?) It follows a fortiori, viz.: [Note: The translator, with all his consultation of the commentaries, has not been able to render meaningfully what follows (from here until #122)]

(Bamidbar 18:30) "And you shall say to them (the Levites): When you separate its best part from it, (then it [i.e., what remains]) shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the winepress."): This is an exhortation to the Levites to take (terumath ma'aser) only from its choicest. "then it shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the winepress": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Ibid. 27]) Because it is written (27) "And your terumah will be accounted for you, etc.", I might think that since Scripture refers to it (first tithe) as "terumah," (viz. Ibid. 24), it retains its holiness forever; it is, therefore, written "then it shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the wine press" — Just as with the produce of the threshing floor, one separates terumah, and what remains is chullin (non-terumah), so, with first tithe, he separates terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser) and what remains is chullin. (Ibid. 31) "And you may eat it in every place": even in a cemetery.

For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since "terumah" (of a Cohein) is called "terumah," and first tithe is called "terumah," then if I have learned that terumah (of a Cohein) is to be eaten only in a (ritually) clean place, so, first tithe; it is, therefore, written "And you may eat it in every place" — even in a cemetery. "you and your household": to include an Israelite woman married to a Levite as permitted to depute (a messenger) to take terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser, from her husband's first tithe). — But perhaps (this permits her) only to eat it! — Would you say that?

It follows otherwise, viz.: If she (a Cohein's wife) eats the "graver" — terumah, how much more so should (a Levite's wife) eat the "lighter" — ma'aser! It must mean, then, that an Israelite woman (married to a Levite) is permitted to be deputed to take terumah. (Ibid. 31) "For it is payment to you, in exchange for your service in the tent of meeting.": If he serves, he takes; if he does not serve, he does not take — whence it was ruled: If a Levite took upon himself every Levitical service except one, he has no portion in the Leviate. (Ibid. 32) "And you shall not bear sin because of it": And whence is it derived that if he did not separate (for terumath ma'aser) its choicest part, he does bear sin?

From "And you shall not bear sin because of it when you separate its best part from it." This tells me only of terumath ma'aser (i.e., what the Levi separates for the Cohein). Whence do I derive (the same for) terumah gedolah (i.e., what the Israelite separates for the Cohein)? From (Ibid.)

"And the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane and you shall not die." This is an exhortation to both the Levites and the Israelites.

(Bamidbar 19:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Aaron and to Moses saying: This is the statute of the Torah, which the L-rd has commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and let them take unto you a red heifer, complete, which does not have a blemish, upon which a yoke has not come." There are sections (of the Torah), which are general in the beginning and particular at the end, and (others), which are particular in the beginning and general at the end: (Shemot 19:3) "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel" — particular; (Ibid. 6) "These are the things, etc." — general. (Ibid. 12:43) "This is the statute of the Pesach" — general; (Ibid.)

"Every stranger shall not eat of it" — particular. (Bamidbar 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — general; (Ibid.) "and let them take for you a red heifer, complete" — particular. General-Particular. (The rule is:) There exists in the general only what is found in the particular. R. Eliezer says: It is written here "statute" and (relative to the Yom Kippur service, Vayikra 16:34) "statute." Just as there, (the Cohein ministers) in the white vestments; here, too, in the white vestments.

R. Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his disciples: In which vestments was the red heifer processed? He: In the golden vestments. They: But did our master not teach us (that it was processed) in the white vestments? He: If I have forgotten what my eyes have seen and what my hands have ministered, how much more so, what I have taught!

And why all this? To strengthen the disciples (in application to their learning). Others say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not being a Cohein), he could not have said "what my hands have ministered." "and let them take": from the Temple treasury. "unto you": that you be appointed over it. And just as Moses was appointed over it, so, was Aaron.

Similarly, in respect to the oil for lighting, (Shemot 21:20) "and let them take unto you" — that you be appointed over it. "a red heifer (parah)": R. Eliezer says: "eglah" signifies of the first year; "parah" signifies of the second year. The sages say: "eglah" — of the second year; "parah" — of the third or fourth year. R. Meir says: One of the fifth year, too, is valid. An old one is valid, but it is not waited for lest it sprout black hairs and become unfit. "parah": I understand black or white; it is, therefore, written "red." "whole": in redness or in (absence of) blemishes? "which does not have a blemish" accounts for blemishes.

How, then, am I to understand "whole"? That it be "whole" in redness. "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work (having been done with them), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! — No, this may be true of offerings, which must be processed (by the Cohein) in a state of cleanliness, wherefore a blemish invalidates them, as opposed to the heifer, which may be processed in a state of tumah (i.e., when the Cohein is a tvul yom), wherefore a blemish would not invalidate it. (So that the verse is needed to tell us otherwise.) — (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) the Paschal lamb, which though it may be processed in a state of tumah, a blemish invalidates it, and this would indicate of the heifer that even though it is processed in tumah, a blemish invalidates it. (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, this may be true of the Paschal lamb, which must be sacrificed at a fixed time, wherefore it is invalidated by a blemish, as opposed to the heifer, which, not having a fixed time (for its processing), should not be invalidated by a blemish.

It must, therefore, (to tell us otherwise) be written "which does not have a blemish." Issi b. Akiva says: "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by black or white (hairs), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by black or white, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish"!

If I know this a fortiori, why need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? To exclude (from invalidation by a blemish) the heifer of the broken neck (eglah arufah [viz. Devarim 21:4]). For it would follow (if not for this verse) that blemishes should invalidate the eglah arufah, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work, are invalidated by a blemish, then eglah arufah, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish!

It is, therefore, written (in respect to the red heifer), "which does not have a blemish" — It (the red heifer) is invalidated by a blemish, but the eglah arufah is not invalidated by a blemish. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: If the sin-offering of a bird, whose offerers must be tahor, is not invalidated by a blemish, then the red heifer, whose processors may be tamei (tvul yom), how much more so should it not be invalidated by a blemish! (The verse, then, is needed to tell us that it is invalidated by a blemish.) — No, this may be true of the sin-offering of a bird, which is valid if either male or female, as opposed to a heifer, (where only a female is valid.)

Why, then, need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? (lit., "when there is no blemish in it") When the blemish is in it (it is invalid), but when it has passed, it is valid. R. Yoshiyah Numithi asked before R. Yehudah b. Betheira: What is a blemish which has passed, in which instance it is valid? And he showed me between his two fingers — when(flesh) protrudes or when it has two tails. "upon which a yoke has not come": Scripture speaks of a yoke not in (the time of its) working.

And if you would say, a yoke in (the time of its working), would you say that? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, is invalidated by a yoke (in its time of working), then the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should it be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working!) — (No,) this is refuted by the offerings, which are invalidated by a blemish, but not by a yoke (in the time of working), and they would indicate about the red heifer that even though it is invalidated by a blemish, it should not be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working). — No, this may be true of offerings, which are not invalidated by black and white hairs, wherefore a yoke does not invalidate them, as opposed to the red heifer, which is invalidated by black and white, wherefore a yoke (in the time of its working) should invalidate them.

What, then, is the intent of "upon which a yoke has not come"? A yoke not in the time of its working. Whence is it derived that other labors are equated with a yoke (to invalidate the red heifer)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, (viz. Devarim 21:3 "which has never been worked, which has never pulled under a yoke"), then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke! — But perhaps it should be transposed, viz.: If (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, other labors were not equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors not be equated with a yoke!

It is, therefore, written "which has never been worked." I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been refuted and I have emerged with the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If (in the instance of) the eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke!

(Bamidbar 19:3) "And you shall give it (the red heifer) to Elazar the Cohein": Scripture comes to teach us about the red heifer that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest. Know this to be so, (that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest), for Aaron was alive and Elazar burned the heifer. "and you shall give it": This one was processed by Elazar, and others (after this) were processed by the high-priest.

These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi, R. Yehudah, R. Shimon, and R. Elazer b. Yaakov say: This one was processed by Elazar, and others, either by the high-priest or by a regular Cohein. "and he shall take it (outside the encampment"): And another (heifer) should not be taken out with it — whence they ruled: If it balked at being taken out, a black one (i.e., one with black hairs) should not be taken out with it (as an incentive for it to leave), so that they not say it was the black one that they slaughtered and not the red one, (or) that both of them were slaughtered.

R. Yossi says: This is not the reason, but (it is) because it is written "and he shall take it out" — alone. "outside the encampment": to the mount of anointment (i.e., the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, so that its blood be sprinkled opposite the door of the tent of the sanctuary.) "and he shall slaughter it": We are hereby apprised that if it became carrion in being slaughtered, it is unfit (to serve as a red heifer). "and he shall slaughter it": — whence they ruled: Two heifers are not to be slaughtered together (with a long knife). "and he shall slaughter it before him": that another slaughters and Elazar looks on. (And) Scripture apprises us about the heifer that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its slaughtering. "and Elazar the Cohein shall take": Why is this written?

Is it not already written "And you shall give it to Elazar the Cohein"? Why repeat it? (To stress) the Cohein in his priesthood (i.e., in his priestly vestments.) "shall take of its blood with his finger": Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand (i.e., he takes its blood in his hand and he sprinkles with his finger), and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. And this would follow, viz.: Since the log of the oil effects kashruth (for the leper to be cleansed for the eating of sanctified food), and the blood of the red heifer effects kashruth (for the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse), then if I have learned that the log of oil effects kashruth only via the hand, (viz. Vayikra 14:15), only via the hand (and not via a sprinkling vessel), then it follows that the blood of the red heifer, too, should effect kashruth only via the hand.

You derive it from the log of oil, and I derive it from the blood of the burnt-offering (of the leper). — Would you say that? There is a difference (between your derivation and mine.) The log of oil requires seven sprinklings and the red heifer requires seven sprinklings. If you learn about the log of oil that it is kasher only with the hand, then the blood of the red heifer should be kasher only with the hand.

But, where you are coming from, if there (vis-à-vis the guilt-offering) it is kasher only (by spilling the blood) from a vessel to the hand, then here, too, (it should be kasher only) from a vessel to the hand. It is, therefore, written "from its blood with his finger." Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand, and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. "with his finger": the right finger (i.e., the index finger) of his right hand.

You say the index finger of his right hand, but perhaps all of the fingers are valid. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:16) "Then the Cohein shall dip his right finger, etc." Since "fingers" are written in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance Scripture specifies that it is only the "yemanith" of the "yemanith," so, all "fingers" of the Torah are "yemanith" — the most skillful ("meyumeneth") of the right hand (i.e., the index finger), which is more adapted for sprinkling than all of the other fingers. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": that he direct his gaze to the door of the sanctuary when he sprinkles the blood. "and he shall sprinkle … opposite the tent of meeting": If the sanctuary were not set up or if the wind had furled the curtains the red heifer was not processed. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": Why is this repeated?

Is it not already written (Ibid.) "of its blood with his finger"? From (Ibid.) "seven times," I might understand seven sprinklings from one dipping. It is, therefore, written "of its blood seven times" — he returns to the blood seven times. "seven times": They (the sprinklings) are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one, the others are invalid.) For it would follow: Since "sprinklings" are written within (the sanctuary, on Yom Kippur), and "sprinklings" are written (re the red heifer), then just as I have learned of the inner sprinklings that they are mutually inclusive, so, the outer sprinklings should be mutually inclusive. — No, this may be true of the inner sprinklings, which effect atonement, wherefore they are mutually inclusive, as opposed to the outer sprinklings, which do not effect atonement, wherefore they should not be mutually inclusive.

It is, therefore, written (here) "seven times," and there (of the inner sprinklings) "seven times before the L-rd." Just as there, they are mutually inclusive, here, too, they are mutually inclusive.

(Bamidbar 19:5) "And he shall burn the heifer before his eyes": Scripture apprises us about the heifer that preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its burning. — But even without this being stated, I know it a fortiori, viz.: If it (preoccupation) invalidates its slaughtering (see above), should it not invalidate its burning! If I know this a fortiori, what need is there for a verse? Rather, Scripture apprises us that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates it from the time of slaughtering until it becomes ashes.

"And he shall burn the heifer before his eyes, and not the bullocks (that of Yom Kippur, etc.) that are burnt ("outside the camp"). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If with the red heifer, which is not processed within (the sanctuary), work invalidates its burning, then the bullocks, which are processed within, how much more so should work invalidate their burning! — No, this may be true of the red heifer, whose slaughtering is invalidated by work, wherefore it invalidates its burning, as opposed to the bullocks that are burnt, whose slaughtering is not invalidated by work, wherefore it should not invalidate their burning! — But let it (i.e., work) invalidate their slaughtering!

And this would, indeed, follow, viz.: If bullocks, which are not processed within, work invalidates their slaughtering, then the bullocks that are burnt, which are processed within, how much more so should work invalidate their slaughtering! It is, therefore, written "then he shall burn the heifer (before his eyes") and (Ibid. 3) "and he shall slaughter it before him," and not the bullocks that are burned.

"And he shall burn the heifer before his (Elazar's) eyes": Another burns and Elazar looks on. "Its skin, and its flesh, and its blood together with its dung": Just as the dung (remains) in its place, (i.e., it is not removed from the bowels,) so, all (of the others remain) in their place — whence they ruled: Any blood (remaining in his hand) should be returned to its place (i.e., the shechitah site), and if it is not returned, the heifer is invalidated.

What does he do? He wipes his hand on the body of the heifer. "And he shall burn the heifer": to include bits (leaping from the fire) — whence they ruled: Any amount of flesh must be returned (to the fire); if he does not return it, it (the heifer) is invalidated. Any amount of bone must be returned; if he does not return it, it is not invalidated, ("bone" not being mentioned in the verse).

If an olive-size (leapt out of the fire), he must return it (to the fire). (And if he returned it, even if a minute amount remained behind, he must return it.) If he does not return it, (the heifer) is invalidated. "he shall burn": (We have here an instance of) amplification ("he shall burn") after amplification ("And he shall burn") in which instance the rule is "diminution" — If most of it (and not necessarily all of it) has been consumed, (it is valid).

These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Yehudah says: (The intent of "he shall burn" is that) he shall not diminish the wood (supply). He adds to it bundles of hyssop and bundles of Grecian hyssop in order to increase the (amount of) ashes. (Ibid. 6) "And the Cohein shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet": It is written here "taking," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 18) "taking." Just as "taking" here is three (species), so, "taking" there, (although only "hyssop" is mentioned there.) "wood": This implies any kind of wood.

It is, therefore, written "cedar": This (alone) implies even a branch. It is, therefore, written "wood." How so? A chip of cedar wood. "hyssop": Not "Grecian" or "Kochalith" or "Desert" or "Roman" (hyssop) or any other hyssop which has an epithet. "ushni tola'ath": i.e., whose variant ("shniyatho" [something called by a "variant" name]) is tola'ath (scarlet). "and he shall cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer": I might think (that he casts it in) when the heifer has already been reduced to ashes; it is, therefore, written "the heifer" (i.e., when it is still recognizable as a heifer.)

If "the heifer," I might think (that he casts it in) even when it has not been burned. It is, therefore, written "into the midst of the burning." How is this to be reconciled? (He casts it in) when the flames have caught on to most of it. R. Akiva says: "the burning": I might think (that he casts it in) when the heifer has already been reduced to ashes; it is, therefore, written "the heifer."

If "the heifer," I might think if he splits it open and places it into its midst; it is, therefore, written "and he shall cast it into the burning of the heifer." How is this to be reconciled? (He casts it in) when it has split open (of itself because of the fire.) "And the Cohein shall wash his garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water": Scripture hereby apprises us of the caster of the hyssop that he imparts tumah to garments. "and then he shall come to the encampment": Just as here, he (the caster of the hyssop) is forbidden to come to the encampment (before he cleanses himself), so, there, he (the burner and the gatherer of the ashes) is forbidden to come to the encampment. "and the Cohein shall be unclean until the evening": Just as here (he is unclean) until the evening, so, there, he (the burner of the bullock and the he-goat of Yom Kippur, [viz. Vayikra 16:26]), (he is unclean) until the evening. (Ibid. 8) "And he who burns it shall wash his garments": Scripture hereby apprises us of the burner of the heifer that he imparts tumah to garments.

Even without the verse, I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If the caster of the hyssop imparts tumah to his garments, how much more so the burner of the heifer! Why, then, do I need the verse? Scripture hereby apprises us of those who occupy themselves with the heifer from beginning to end that they require the washing of garments and bathing of the body and the going down of the sun (to be cleansed).

"And he who burns it shall wash his garments": and not plague-garments (i.e., the garments of the one who burns the clothes of the leper or of one afflicted with plague do not become unclean.) For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If the heifer, which does not impart tumah by contact, its burning imparts tumah to garments, then plague-garments, which do impart tumah by contact, how much more so should their burner impart tumah to garments!

It is, therefore, written "And he who burns it shall wash his garments," and not plague-garments. "he shall wash his garments with water and he shall bathe his flesh in water": "in water" — twice. What is the intent of this? For it would follow: Since a man requires immersion and vessels require immersion, then just as a man immerses in (an amount of water) that is sufficient for him, i.e., forty sa'ah), so vessels are immersed in a (smaller amount of water) sufficient for them.

It is, therefore, written "in water" twice. Where man is immersed (i.e., forty sa'ah), there hands (for ritual purposes) and vessels are immersed. (Ibid. 9) "And a man who is clean shall gather the ashes": Because we find that all of the processing of the heifer is by a Cohein, I might think that the gathering of the ashes, too, is by a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "And a man who is clean" — whence we are apprised that the gathering of the ashes is kasher through any man.

"And a man who is clean" — to exclude a minor. ("a man" then) implies that both a minor and a woman are excluded; it is, therefore, written "who is clean" — to include (as kasher) a woman. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: "And a man who is clean" — to include a zar (a non-Cohein). "clean" — to validate a woman. ("clean" then) implies that both a woman and a minor are included; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and he shall place it outside the encampment": Scripture speaks only of someone who has the "mind" to "place" (with intent, excluding a minor, who does not have the mind to do so.) "a man who is clean": clean vis-à-vis ma'aser, and tamei vis-à-vis terumah.

And elsewhere (Ibid. 18) it is written "And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water." R. Akiva asks: Why is this ("clean man") written? Even if it were not written, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If the gatherer (of the ashes) must be clean, how much more so the sprinkler! What, then, is the intent of "a clean man"?

One who has left the category of "tumah." And who is that? One who immersed in the daytime (and whose cleanliness is consummated in the evening). And it is written elsewhere (Ibid. 19) "clean."

Just as there, tamei for terumah and "clean" for ma'aser, so "clean" here (Ibid. 9), tamei for terumah and clean for ma'aser. "the ashes of the heifer": and not the brands — whence they ruled: A brand which has ash is crushed and one which does not have ash is discarded. A bone, in any event, will be crushed. "outside the encampment": in the Mount of Olives — whence they ruled: It is divided into three parts: one for the chel (a place within the fortification of the Temple); one for the Mount of Olives; one to be divided among all the priestly watches. "in a clean place": its surroundings must be clean — whence R. Elazar Hakapper said: A vessel containing the cleansing (ashes of the red heifer), with an air-tight lid in the tent of a dead man is tamei, it being written "in a clean place."

And this is not a clean place. "And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping for waters of sprinkling." What is the intent of this? I might think that "work" (see above) is invalidated only vis-à-vis the heifer.

Whence do I derive (the same for) the water (that is added to the ashes)? From "And it shall be … in keeping for waters of sprinkling" (which implies that "work" is to be abstained from only when they are being made waters of sprinkling.) — But perhaps (the stricture against "work" obtains even after they have been sanctified as waters of sprinkling. — It is, therefore, written "for (i.e., to make them) waters of sprinkling."

And they are already waters of sprinkling. If a cow drank of the cleansing waters, its flesh is tamei (if it drank) within twenty-four hours (of being slaughtered). R. Yehudah says it (the water) is nullified in its intestines, it being written "And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping" (i.e., once it is no longer "in keeping," it does not confer tumah upon what comes in contact with it.)

This question ("tahor or tamei"?) was asked before thirty-two elders and they ruled its flesh "tahor." This is one of the things that R. Yossi Haglili discussed with R. Akiva, (R. Yossi holding "tahor," and R. Akiva, "tamei"), and R. Akiva dismissed him, (R. Yossi being unable to substantiate his view.) Afterwards, R. Yossi found substantiation for his view, and asked R. Akiva: May I return? R. Akiva: Shall I allow everyone to return, and not you because your name is "Yossi Haglili"?

R. Yossi (presenting his substantiation): It is written "And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping." It is only when they are "in keeping" that they are considered sprinkling waters (and confer tumah [see above].) R. Tarfon said (on Daniel 8:4) "I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward. And no beast could withstand him, and there was none to deliver from his power.

He did as he willed and grew great." This ("the ram") is R. Akiva. (Ibid. 5) "As I looked on, a he-goat came from the west, passing over the entire earth without touching the ground. And the goat had a beetling horn between its eyes": This is R. Yossi Haglili and his response. (6) "And he came up to the two-horned ram that I saw standing before the water course, and he charged at him full force. (7) And I saw him reach the ram and rage at him, and he struck the ram and broke his two horns" — R. Akiva and Shimon b. Naness — "and the ram" — R. Akiva — "was powerless to withstand him.

And he" — R. Yossi Haglili — "cast him to the ground and trampled him. And there were none" — the thirty-two elders — "to rescue him from his hand."

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It (the heifer) is a sin-offering.": We are hereby apprised that it is subject to me'ilah (abuse of what is sacred, as a sin-offering is). "it": It (the heifer) is subject to me'ilah, but not its ashes. Variantly: "It is a sin-offering": We are hereby apprised that if it is not slaughtered to its specific end, it is unfit. Variantly: "It is a sin-offering": We are hereby apprised that it (like a sin-offering) is not burned at night as it is in the daytime.

If "it is a sin-offering," I might think that it is voided by being kept overnight; it is, therefore, written "And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping." We are hereby apprised that it "keeps" day after day and year after year. (Ibid. 10) "And he who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his garments": We are hereby taught about the gatherer of the heifer's ashes that he confers tumah upon his clothing. — But even without the verse, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If the burner (of the heifer) confers tumah upon his clothing, how much more so, the gatherer (of its ashes)! (Why, then, is the verse needed?)

The verse, rather, tells us that he who gathers the ashes becomes tamei (even) by hesset (i.e., merely by moving them, even though he does not touch them.) "And it shall be for the children of Israel and for the sojourner who dwells in their midst": Because the command is to Israel, the proselytes must be (explicitly) included. "as an everlasting statute": that it obtain for succeeding generations.

(Bamidbar 19:11) "One who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean for seven days." Scripture hereby teaches about a dead body that it confers tumah by contact. — But even without a verse it follows a fortiori, viz.: If it confers tumah in a tent, how much more so by contact! Why, then, is the verse needed? To include an eight-month birth (who died).

This would include both an eight-month birth and his blood; it is, therefore, written (lit.,) "the soul (i.e., the body) of a man" — to exclude his blood (as conferring tumah). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: (It is written) "all the soul of a man" — to include his blood. "then he shall be tamei for seven days": Scripture hereby apprises us that a dead body confers tumah for seven days (unlike other instances of contact tumah, which obtain for one day only). (Ibid. 12) "He shall be cleansed with it": Why "with it"? (i.e., "it" seems superfluous). (The thrust of "it" is) with ashes that were processed as prescribed. "on the third day and on the seventh day": Scripture hereby apprises us that one who is tamei by a dead body must be sprinkled on, on the third day and the seventh day.

You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) that if he is sprinkled on, on the third day, he is clean on the seventh day, and if not, he is not clean on the seventh day. It is, therefore, written "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, he shall not be clean on the seventh day." — But still, perhaps the meaning is: Why is he not clean on the seventh day, because he was not besprinkled on the seventh day, but if he were besprinkled on the third day, then he is clean on the seventh day!

It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19) "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day." Scripture repeats it to void it (otherwise). "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day": Why is this written? (i.e., it follows from what precedes.) Because it is written (Ibid. 20) "And a man if he become tamei and he has not been sprinkled upon, etc.", does Scripture make him liable to kareth because of the defiling of the sanctuary and its holy things or because he has not been sprinkled upon?

It is, therefore, written "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day." His punishment is not being clean, and not kareth. (Ibid. 13) "Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man": As heretofore stated, to exclude an eight-month birth. "that shall die": Scripture hereby apprises us that he does not confer tumah until he dies. From here, you reason to sheretz (a creeping thing), viz.: If the "graver," a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man (actually) dies, then the "lighter," a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies!

Or, transpose it, viz.: If sheretz, the "lighter," confers tumah while convulsing, then a man, the "graver" how much more so should he confer tumah even while convulsing (and not actually dead)! It is, therefore, written "Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man that shall die." Why need "that shall die" be written? Why is it written?

To apprise us that he does not confer tumah until he (actually) dies. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been nullified and the original a fortiori argument remains, viz.: If the "graver," a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man actually dies, then the "lighter," a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! "and he not be cleansed": Rebbi says: and he not be cleansed by blood (i.e., if he has not brought his required offering, and enters the sanctuary, e.g., in the instance of a zav or a leper, who require an offering for their purification).

You say, if he has not been cleansed by blood, but perhaps (the meaning is that) he has not been cleansed by the waters (of the red heifer)! (This is not so, for) "the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him" already speaks of the waters. How, then, am I to understand "and he not be cleansed"? (As) he will not be cleansed by blood," to include one lacking atonement, (as in the above instance). "and that soul shall be cut off': Why is this written (here)?

Is it not written below? (viz. Ibid. 20). But because it is written (there) "The sanctuary ("mikdash," [i.e., the Temple]) of the L-rd he has defiled," this tells me only of the mikdash. Whence do I derive (the same for) the mishkan (i.e., the tabernacle of the desert)? From (Ibid. 13) "The tabernacle ("mishkan") of the L-rd he has defiled." "and that soul shall be cut off": And elsewhere (in the same connection [Vayikra 15:31]) "that they not die in their tumah."

Why the difference (in terminology)? To teach that "kareth" and "death" (in this regard) are one and the same. "tamei shall he be": to include other varieties of tumah (e.g., sheretz and zav). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: It (the verse) is not needed (for this teaching.)

It is already written (Vayikra, Ibid.) "And you shall separate the children of Israel from their tumah, that they not die in their tumah by making tamei My mishkan which is in their midst." Tumah through a dead body was in the category (of all the varieties of tumah), and Scripture isolated it (here for special mention), and made it liable to death and to the bringing of an offering (for unwitting transgression), to teach about the other varieties of tumah (in this connection) that they are liable to death and to the bringing of an offering.

How, then, am I to understand "tamei shall he be"? Because it is written "for the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him," I might think (that the intent is) if they had not been sprinkled upon him at all. Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled (on the third day), but did not repeat (on the seventh day)? From "tamei shall he be."

Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he repeated, but he did not immerse? From "His tumah is upon him." Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he immersed, but did not wait for "his sun to set"? From "His tumah is yet upon him."

(Bamidbar 19:14) "This is the Torah: A man if he die in a tent — all that enter the tent and all that is in the tent shall be tamei seven days." Scripture hereby comes to teach us a new tumah, that a dead man effects tent-uncleanliness. Whence do we derive that (the same obtains if he died) outside the tent (and were brought into it)? From "This is the Torah" (i.e., there is one law for both.)

These are the words of Issi b. Akavya. R. Yishmael said (This derivation) is not needed. If when he had not been tamei (before), he effects tent-uncleanliness, how much more so, when he had been tamei (before, i.e., when he died outside the tent.) Whence do we derive that all things which "tent" are considered a tent (for purposes of tent-uncleanliness, and not only a flaxen tent)?

R. Yitzchak said: If vis-à-vis a leper, the "lighter" (form of tumah), all things that "tent" (and not only flax) are considered tents, then vis-à-vis a dead man, the "graver" (form of tumah), how much more so should all things that "tent" be considered tents. "all that enter the tent": partially. "and all that is in the tent": entirely. Why need this be said? If one that enters partially is tamei, how much more so one who is in it entirely.

R. Achi phrases it otherwise, viz.: If one who enters the tent is tamei, how much more so one who is already in it! What, then, is the intent of "all that is in the tent"? To render the floor of the house until the depths like the house itself (i.e., all that is in that space is tamei.) Everyone who enters the tent from its entrance becomes tamei, but it does not impart tumah from its sides if they are open (i.e., if a man or vessels touch the tent from the outside when it is open, they do not become tamei for seven days.)

From here you can reason a fortiori to a grave, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, (being soil per se,) how much more so does it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open. — But perhaps the reverse is the case, viz.: If a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, imparts tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open!

It is, therefore, written "all that enter the tent" — It is only through its entrance that it imparts tumah, but not from all of its sides when it is open. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed (the reasoning). The transposition has been nullified and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! — But (in that case) it should not (even) impart "evening tumah" (viz. Ibid. 22) — Would you say that?

It follows a fortiori (that it does impart evening tumah), viz.: If one at a third remove from a dead body (as in Ibid. 22) is tamei, how much more so, one (as in our case) who is at a second remove! "and all that is in the tent shall be tamei": From this I understand that even straw and twigs and pieces of wood and stones are included; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18) "And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water and he shall sprinkle it upon the tent and upon all the vessels." — But I still would understand to be included vessels of ordure and vessels of earth and vessels of soil.

It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 31:20) "And every garment, and every vessel of skin, and every work of goats and every vessel of wood shall you cleanse." We learn, then, of four (types of) vessels (that are affected. Whence do we derive (the same for) metal vessels? From (Ibid. 22) "But the silver and the gold, etc." We learn, then, of four types of vessels and of metal vessels.

Whence do we derive (the same for) earthen vessels? From (Ibid. 19:15) "And every open (i.e., earthen) vessel, etc." We learn, then, of four types of vessels, of metal vessels, and of earthen vessels. — But perhaps the intent is that these (those mentioned in 30:20) and those mentioned here (19:18 "and upon all the vessels") are subject to cleansing, and the others (straw and twigs) are subject to tumah in a tent, (but not to cleansing.)

It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 11) "he shall be tamei for seven days. (12) He shall be cleansed with it." Whatever is subject to cleansing is subject to tumah; whatever is not subject to cleansing is not subject to tumah. (Ibid. 15) "And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is tamei." Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. — But perhaps it speaks of all vessels! (This is not so,) for you reason as follows: Four vessels are mentioned vis-à-vis a sheretz (a creeping thing, viz. Vayikra 11:33), and one (type of) vessel was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation (re tumah).

And four vessels are mentioned in respect to a dead body, and one was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation. Just as there, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel (viz. Ibid.), so, here, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Is Scripture (here) speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels?

It is, therefore, written "an open vessel" — a vessel that is subject to tumah at (the atmosphere of) its opening (and not at its outer surface). R. Eliezer says; Is Scripture speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is unclean" — forever, there being no cleansing for its tumah. And what is the intent of "open"?

Any amount. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: From "there is no tight covering upon it," I would understand upon all of it. It is, therefore, written "upon" — upon its opening and not upon all of it. "tight covering" ("tzamid pathil") "tzamid": This is the stopper (plugging the inside). "pathil": This is the lid. And though there is no proof for this, there is an allusion to it in (Ibid. 25:3) "And Israel adhered ("vayitzamed") to Ba'al Peor."

"And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is unclean": Vessels are protected (against tumah) in the tent of the dead with a tzamid pathil, but in (plague-spot) tents, with a covering. "a tzamid pathil upon it": and not a vessel upon a tzamid pathil — whence they ruled: A jug which he turned on its mouth and smeared with clay from the sides is susceptible of tumah, it being written "a tzamid pathil upon it," and not "it upon a tzamid pathil."

These are the words of R. Eliezer. "And every open vessel": This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive (the same for) vessels of ordure, vessels of stones, and vessels of soil? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If earthen vessels, which are subject to tumah, protect (what is in them against tumah) by a tzamid pathil, in the tent of the dead, then vessels of ordure, of stones, and of soil, which are not subject to tumah, how much more should they protect (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead!

"It is tamei" (without a tzamid pathil). Why (the stress on) "it"? What protects (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead, protects itself by a tzamid pathil (from tumah) through contact with a sheretz.

(Bamidbar 19:16) "And all who touch on the face of the field": to include a (dead) fetus in its mother's body. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: to include the top-lid and the frame of the coffin. "one slain by the sword": Scripture comes to teach about the sword that it is tamei for seven days, as is one who touches it. We have learned about implements and men (i.e., that the implement and the man who touches it are tamei for seven days.)

Whence do we derive (the same for) implements and man and implements (i.e., for implements that touched the man who touched implements)? From (Bamidbar 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean," (garments being "implements"), "one slain by the sword or a dead body": A dead body is in the category of "one slain," and Scripture removed it from that category (for special mention) to equate what separates from him (i.e., an olive-size of flesh) with the body itself.

These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: "dead body" is not in the category of "one slain," for we find each being mentioned by itself. Whence, then is it derived that what separates from it is equated with the body itself? It is derived a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, of lesser stringency, Scripture equated what separates from it with neveilah itself, then a dead body, of greater stringency, how much more so should what separates from it be equated with the body itself.— No, this may be so with neveilah, which confers "(until) evening" tumah, the preponderant (type of tumah), as opposed to a dead body, which confers seven-day tumah, the rarer type. — Would you say that?

Where is the tumah itself more stringent? Is it not in a dead body, which confers tumah for seven days, whereas neveilah confers only (until) "evening tumah"? Whence is it derived that it (a dead body) confers tumah by being carried? It follows a fortiori, viz. If neveilah, of lesser stringency confers tumah by being carried, how much more so, a dead body, of greater stringency! — But in that case, why do we not say: Just as there (neveilah), the tumah is (only until) evening, then here (dead body), too, the tumah should be (only until) evening?

Would you say that? Where touching confers seven-day tumah (i.e., with a dead body), carrying confers seven-day tumah. Where touching confers (until) evening tumah, (i.e., with neveilah), carrying confers (until) evening tumah. R. Meir says: This is not needed (for the derivation).

It is written (Bamidbar 31:19) "Whoever has killed a man, etc." Is Scripture speaking of (one who kills him with) something which is susceptible of uncleanliness or even of one who shot him with an arrow and killed him? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Whoever killed a man or whoever has touched a slain one." The killer is being equated with the toucher. Just as the toucher (becomes tamei) by connection (with the object), so, the killer, by connection.

(Bamidbar 19:16) "or the bone of a man": This refers to a limb (cut off) from a living person. — But perhaps it refers to a bone the size of a barley-corn? "and upon him who touched a bone" already speaks of a bone the size of a barley-corn. How, then, are we to understand "or the bone of a man"? As referring to a limb (cut off) from a living person. And two "bones" are being spoken of, viz.: "or the bone of a man" — a limb (cut off) from a living person "and upon him who touched a bone" — a bone the size of a barley-corn.

"or a dead body or the bone of a man": Just as a dead body — flesh, sinews, and bones, so, a limb (cut off) from a living person, flesh, sinew, and bones, as in his natural state.

"or a grave": This refers to a closed grave (i.e., one in which there is less than a tefach between the body and the lid). — But perhaps it refers to an open grave? Would you say that? It follows (otherwise), viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not confer tumah on all of its sides when it is open, how much more so, a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah! — But in that case, why do we not say that just as an open tent confers ("until) evening" tumah (when touched from the back), so, here, an open grave confers ("until) evening" tumah? Would you say that? Whence do we derive this for a tent? From an a fortiori argument (as above), and would you now come to derive something which is itself derived elsewhere? A derivation from a derivation?

(Bamidbar 19:17) "And they shall take for the unclean one from the earth of the burning (of the heifer) for cleansing." R. Shimon said: Is it earth? Is it not ashes? Why does Scripture depart from its usual meaning? To formulate an identity (gezeirah shavah). It is written here "earth," and, elsewhere, "earth," (Bamidbar 5:17). "Just as there, "earth" on the water, so, here, "earth" on the water. And just as there, if the (taking of the) earth preceded the (taking of the) water, it is valid, so, here. Variantly: If it (the ashes) changed its appearance (to that of earth) it is (still) valid.

(Bamidbar 19:17) "and he shall place upon it living waters": Scripture speaks of spring waters. You say this, but perhaps the intent is "waters which are life to the world" (and all waters are valid)? Though there is no proof (that spring waters are meant), there is support for it in (Bereshit 26:19) "And the servants of Yitzchak dug in the stream and they found there a well of living waters." What is the intent of "and he shall place upon it (the ashes) living waters which are in a vessel"?

We are hereby taught that all vessels are equated with earthenware vessels. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since water and earth are consecrated in the instance of sotah (viz. Ibid. 5:12), and water and earth are consecrated in the instance of the (red) heifer, then if I have learned about sotah that all vessels were not equated with earthenware vessels, this should be the case too with the heifer; it is, therefore, written "in a vessel" (unqualified), whereby we are taught that all vessels were equated with earthenware.

(Bamidbar 19:18) "And a clean man shall take": "Taking" is written here, and elsewhere (Ibid. 5) "Just as taking there involves three (objects), so, "taking" here. "hyssop": and not Greek hyssop, and not Kochalith hyssop, and not Roman hyssop, and not desert hyssop — and not any hyssop designated by an epithet.

(Bamidbar 19:18) "and a clean man shall dip (it) in the water": There must be enough water for "dipping" (three calyxes). "a man": to exclude a minor. This would exclude both a minor and a woman. It is, therefore, written "clean" — to include a woman. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: Why is "clean" written? Even if it were not written, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If the gatherer must be clean (viz. Ibid. 9), how much more so the sprinkler! What, then, is the intent of "clean"? Clean of all tumah. And who is he (who is not clean of all tumah)? One who immersed in the daytime. R. Akiva says: It is written here "clean," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 9), "clean." Just as (one who is) "clean" here is tamei vis-à-vis (the bringing of) a sin-offering, so, (one who is) "clean" there. "and he shall sprinkle it upon the tent." Scripture here apprises us that a tent is susceptible of tumah. Variantly: Scripture apprises us (that only those vessels require sprinkling, which were there) when the tent became tamei, (but not those which were brought in after the body was removed.) "and he shall sprinkle it … and upon him who touched a bone" — a bone the size of a barley-corn. You say this, but perhaps ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living person) is intended? (Ibid. 16) "or the bone of a man" already speaks of ever min hechai." What, then, is the intent of "and upon him who touched a bone"? A bone the size of a barley-corn. "or a slain one or a dead body or a grave": Just as all are mentioned vis-à-vis tumah (Ibid. 16), so, all are mentioned vis-à-vis sprinkling (here).

(Bamidbar 19:19) "And the clean one shall sprinkle on the unclean one": If the clean one sprinkles upon the unclean one, he becomes unclean. These are the words of R. Akiva. The sages say: Scripture is speaking only of those things which have become unclean (as being sprinkled upon, and not of things which are clean.) "on the third day and on the seventh day": Scripture comes to teach us that one who has become tamei through a dead body requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days.

You say it comes to this end, but perhaps the intent is that if he sprinkled on the third day he becomes clean on the seventh day, and if not, not? It is, therefore, written "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day." It repeats ("on the seventh day") to indicate that it is invalid otherwise (i.e., if he does not sprinkle on the seventh day.) "and he shall wash his garments and he shall bathe in water": This tells me (that he may wash his garments) only on the seventh day.

Whence do I derive (that it is also permissible on) the eighth and ninth days? From "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day," followed by "and he shall wash his garments and bathe in water and he will be clean in the evening."

(Bamidbar 19:20) "And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself": Scripture speaks of defilement of the sanctuary and its holy things, and its punishment is kareth (cutting-off). But perhaps the kareth is for (not) sprinkling? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 12) "and if he does not purify himself (with it) on the third day and on the seventh day, he shall not be clean." His punishment (for not purifying himself) is that he shall not be clean, and not kareth.

(Bamidbar 19:21) "And it (the sprinkling of the waters) shall be for them for an everlasting statute": that it be observed throughout the generations.

"And the sprinkler of the waters of sprinkling shall wash his clothing": Scripture here distinguishes between water which is sufficient for sprinkling and water which is not sufficient for sprinkling, the first rendering a man tamei to render his garments tamei; the second rendering a man tamei to render foods and drinks tamei. You say that this is the intent of the verse, but perhaps its intent is to distinguish between the sprinkler and the toucher (of the water); the sprinkler who does not touch rendering his garments unclean, and the sprinkler who touches, not rendering his garments unclean?

Now does it not follow (otherwise) a fortiori, viz.: If the sprinkler who does not touch renders his garments unclean, how much more so the sprinkler who touches! — But perhaps the intent is to distinguish between the clean and the unclean? — Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the clean one (who touches it) becomes unclean, how much more so, the unclean one! — But perhaps the intent is to distinguish between those who are fit (to sprinkle) and those who are unfit? — Would you say that?

It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the fit one becomes unclean, how much more so, the unfit one! You must perforce accept the first supposition — Scripture here distinguishes between water which is sufficient for sprinkling and water which is not sufficient for sprinkling, the first rendering a man tamei to render his garments tamei; the second rendering a man tamei to render foods and drinks tamei.

(Bamidbar 19:22) "And all that the unclean one (who touched a dead body) touches shall become unclean.": What is the intent of this? In (Ibid. 10) "one slain by the sword" Scripture teaches us about the sword that it is tamei for seven days and that one who touches it becomes tamei for seven days — We have thus learned about vessels (the sword) and the man (who touches it). Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels, man, and vessels (that the man touches)?

From (Ibid. 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments ("vessels" touched by man). We have thus learned vessels, man, and vessels. Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels and vessels (touched by them)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which touch a man who touched vessels which touched a dead body are tamei, how much more so vessels which touch vessels!

Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels which touch a man (who touched a dead body)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which touched a man who touched vessels (which touched a dead body) are tamei, how much more so vessels which touched a man (who touched a dead body)! — But perhaps a man should contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days?

And it would thus follow a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which are not rendered tamei by the bed or the seat (of a dead man), contract tumah from a dead body to render a man (who touched them) unclean for seven days, how much more so should a man, who is rendered tamei by bed or seat, contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days! It is, therefore, written "and the soul that touches him (who touched a dead body) shall be unclean until the evening."

He is rendered tamei until the evening, and he does not contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days. — But perhaps (such a man) should render one who moves him [heset] (even without touching him) tamei. And it would thus follow a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, the less stringent, renders one tamei by heset, how much more so should the more stringent, one who has become tamei through a dead body, render another tamei by heset!

It is, therefore, written "And all that the unclean one (who touched a dead body) touches shall become tamei" — and he does not render tamei by heset.

(Bamidbar 25:1) "And Israel sat in Shittim, and the people began to stray after the daughters of Moav. "sitting" in all places connotes subversion (of morality), as in (Shemot 32:6) [in connection with the golden calf] "And the people sat down to eat and to drink," and (Bereshit 37:25) [in connection with the selling of Joseph] "And they sat down to eat bread." R. Akiva says: Every section (in the Torah) which is juxtaposed with another is meant to be learned from.

It is written above (Bamidbar 24:14) "Come, I (Bilam) will counsel you" (how to undo Moav). He said to them: The G-d of this people hates harlotry, and they lust after flaxen garments. Come and I will counsel you. Put up tents for them, and seat old women outside and a young girl inside, and let them sell them flaxen garments, etc." Rebbi says: There are many adjoining sections n the Torah which are as far from each other as east from west.

To wit (Shemot 6:12) "Behold, the children of Israel have not listened to me, etc." — (Shemot 6:13) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He commanded them unto the children of Israel." What does one verse have to do with the other? What did He command them? What He had already told them, viz. (Shemot 3:18) "And they will listen to you, etc." Similarly, (Vayikra 21:9) "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profane herself by harlotry" — (Vayikra 21:10) "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers."

What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A centurion served his term but failed to enter his primipilate (a high office) and fled. The king sent and had him returned and sentenced to decapitation. Before his execution the king says: Bring a heap of golden dinars before him and tell him: If you had done as your fellows did, you would have been granted this heap and your life.

Now, you have lost both your life and your money. Likewise, the daughter of a Cohein who played the harlot. The high-priest goes out before her and says to her: If you had conducted yourself as your elders did, you would have merited bearing a high-priest such as I. Now you have lost both yourself and your honor. This is the intent of "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, etc." and "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 1:9) "You are not my people" — (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted, and in place of their being told 'You are not My people,' etc." What does one verse have to do with the other?

An analogy: A king gets angry with his wife and sends for a scribe to write her a divorce. But before the scribe arrives, the king is reconciled with his wife, whereupon the king says: "Shall the scribe leave here empty-handed? Tell him to come and write that I am doubling her kethubah." This is the intent of "for you are not My people, etc." and "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 14:1) "Shomron shall bear her guilt, for she has defied her G-d" — (Ibid. 2) "Return, O Israel to the L-rd your G-d."

What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A province rebels against the king, who sends for a general and orders him to devastate it. The general, being wise and seasoned tells them: "Put together something for me to relay to the king, or I will do to you what I did to this and this province." This is the intent of "Shomron shall bear her guilt for she has defied her G-d" and "Return, O Israel, etc."

Variantly: "And Israel sat in Shittim": in the place of sitoth ("straying" [from the L-rd]). When Israel were in the desert, a place devoid of seed, figs, wine, and pomegranates, they came and waged war against Sichon and Og, who fell into their hands, and they took all that was theirs. That kinG-dom was proud and haughty, though they had only four provinces worthy of the name — Asia, Alexandria, Carthaginia, and Antiochia, while these (Sichon and Og) had sixty cities, all worthy of "kingdom," viz. (Devarim 3:4) "… sixty cities, the entire province of the palace, the kingdom of Og in the Bashan."

Israel came and waged war against them and they fell into their (Israel's) hands. But when Israel was surfeited with the spoils, they began "spoiling" the spoils — they tore apart garments and cast them away and tore apart beasts and cast them away — for they sought only vessels of silver and gold, viz. (Devarim 3:7) "and every beast and the spoil of the cities we 'spoiled' unto ourselves." "They came and sat in Shittim," in the place of sitoth.

At that time Ammonim and Moavim arose and built markets for themselves from Beth Hayeshimoth until Har Hashaleg, where they installed harlots, old ones outside and young ones within, who sold flaxen garments. When an Israelite would eat and drink and make merry and go out to promenade and to buy something from the old one, she would offer it to him at cost, whereupon the young one would call out to him from within, saying "Come and buy it for less," and he did so.

The same, the next day and the day after. The third day she would say to him "Come inside and pick for yourself — you're like one of the family." He obliged. The pitcher near her was full of Ammoni wine, the wine of idolators having not yet been forbidden to Israelites.

She: "Would you like to drink some wine?" He obliged, and when the wine burned in him he said to her "Consent to me," at which she took an image of Peor from under her breast-band and said to him: "My master, if you want me to consent to you, bow down to this." He: "Can I bow down to idolatry?" She: "What difference does it make to you?

I am only asking that you bare yourself before him." (The sages ruled that baring oneself to Peor is its mode of worship.) The wine burned in him and he said "Consent to me." She: "If you want me to consent to you, 'veer off' from the Torah of Moses." And he did so, as it is written (Hoshea 10:10) "They veered off to shame (i.e., to idolatry); and they became detestable (to Me) in loving (the daughters of Moav)."

In the end, they reverted to (their practice of) making idolatrous banquets for them to which they invited them, as it is written (Bamidbar 25:2) "And they (the Moavite women) called the people to the sacrifices of their gods, etc." R. Elazar b. Shamua says: Just as a nail cannot be removed from a door without wood (attached), so, an Israel cannot leave Peor without souls (i.e., without adhesions thereof).

Once, Pinchas from the district of Ariach was rolling (wine-) jars, when the spirit of Peor assaulted him, whereupon he brandished the spit against it and it fled. It returned to him the second night, saying "Why did you curse me." Pinchas: "I won't do it again." Once, Sabbatia of Ullas hired out his donkey to a gentile woman.

When she came to the outskirts of the province, she said to him: "Wait until I bare myself in its temple." After she left, he said to her "Wait for me until I go in and do as you did." She: "But you are a Jew!" He: "What difference does it make to you?"

He went in, (did his "devotions,") and wiped himself on the nose of Peor — whereupon the gentiles praised him, saying "No one ever equaled you in this (worship)." Once, a governor came from abroad to bow down to Peor. When he said to them "Bring a bullock or a ram, which we sacrifice to it," they said to him "We don't worship him in that manner. All you have to do is bare yourself before it" — whereupon he loosed his cohorts upon them, who split their skulls, (the governor) saying "Woe unto you and to your error!"

Not so, (i.e., not as the governor) the Israelites, of whom it is written (Bamidbar 25:3) "And Israel attached itself to Ba'al Peor (at that time) and the L-rd was wroth with Israel." (4) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Take all the heads (i.e., judges of the people, and hang them (the Peor worshippers) up … in the face of the sun." (5) "And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Slay each (of you) his (two) men that have joined themselves to Ba'al Peor."

The tribe of Shimon came to Zimri: "You are sitting in peace while we are being slaughtered!" — whereupon he gathered 24,000 of his tribe, came to Kozbi, and said to her: "Consent to me." She: I will consent only to the greatest of you, (someone) like Moses your master." He: "I, too, am the chief of a tribe. And, what is more, I am greater than he, (Shimon) being second (of the womb of Leah), while he (Levi) is (only) third," saying which he seized her and stood her in the midst of all of Israel, viz. (Ibid. 6) "And, behold, a man of the children of Israel came, and he brought near to his brothers the Midianite woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and they wept at the door of the tent of meeting."

At that time Pinchas cried out "Is there no one here who is ready to kill and to be killed! Where are the lions?" (Bereshit 48:9) "A lion's whelp is Judah," (Devarim 33:32) "Dan is a lion's whelp" — whereupon he began to shout. Seeing that all remained silent, he arose from his sanhedrin, took out his spear and placed it (i.e., the blade) in his (hollow) belt, supported himself on its haft, and left. (Seeing him about to enter her tent,) they called out to him "Pinchas, where are you going?"

He replied: "Is Levi always to be greater than Shimon?" ("Zimri can do it, so can I,") — at which they said "Let him go in" — whereupon the perushim (the "devout" among them) permitted the thing. Once he entered, the L-rd performed six miracles: the first: Normally they would have separated (upon his entrance), but the angel kept them joined. The second: The angel sealed their mouths so that they could not cry out.

The third: He transfixed them (with the spear) in their (conjoined) genitals, for the "benefit" of the skeptics, so that they not deny their cohabitation and maintain that he had gone in for the same purpose. The fourth: They did not slide off from the spear but remained in their places. The fifth: The angel lifted the lintel so that they both could appear to all slung from his shoulders. The sixth: When he left, the men of his (Zimri's) tribe, rose up to kill him, and the angel fought them off.

When Pinchas saw that too much havoc was being wrought by the angel, he cast them to the ground and stood up and intervened, viz. (Psalms 106:30-31) "And Pinchas arose and intervened, and the plague ceased, and it was reckoned to his merit." And six more miracles were performed for him: The seventh: The blade of the spear was lengthened until it transfixed both bodies and projected upwards. The eighth: The arm of Pinchas was strengthened (to support such a burden).

The ninth: The haft did not break. The tenth: Their blood did not descend on Pinchas so that he not become tamei. The eleventh: The Holy One Blessed be He kept them alive so that they not die and cause Pinchas to become tamei. The twelfth: The uppermost (to be thrust through) is the lower on the spear (when it is lifted), but in this instance, Zimri was overturned upon Kozbi, as in the act, so that all of Israel could see that their death was ordained.

The tribe of Shimon contended against the tribe of Levi: "Would the son (Pinchas) of the daughter of this "fattener" (Yithro, who fattened calves for idolatry) seek to uproot an entire tribe (Shimon) from Israel! Don't we know whose son he is?" When the L-rd saw them cheapening him thus, He began tracing his illustrious lineage, viz. (Bamidbar 25:11) "Pinchas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron the Cohein turned My wrath away from the children of Israel" — a Cohein, the son of a Cohein; a zealot, the son of a zealot (Levi, viz. Bereshit 34:25); turner away of wrath, the son of a turner away of wrath (Aaron, viz. Bamidbar 17:13) turned My wrath away from the children of Israel."

(Bamidbar 25:12) "Therefore, say: Behold, I give to him My covenant to be to him a covenant of peace": … whereby we are apprised that there descended from him twelve high-priests in the first Temple, whereby in the second Temple there were eighty high-priests, whose lives began to be shortened because they sold the high-priesthood for money. Once, a man sent by his son two urns of silver rimmed with silver (as a bribe), and another, two urns of gold rimmed with gold" — whereupon they said "The foal has outweighed the menorah."

(Bamidbar 25:13) "And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him a covenant of eternal priesthood": This refers to the twenty-four priestly gifts bestowed upon the Cohanim. (Ibid.) "because he was wroth for his G-d": because he was ready to give his life. (Ibid.) "and he will atone for the children of Israel": It is not written "to atone for the children of Israel," but "and he will atone for the children of Israel." Until now he has not stirred (from his place), but he stands and atones until the revival of the dead.

(Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned as an inheritance according to the number of names": I would understand that all are included — Israelites, Cohanim, Levites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtumim (those of indeterminate sex), and hermaphrodites. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you shall not inherit" — to exclude Cohanim. (Ibid. 24) "In the midst of the children of Israel they shall not have an inheritance" — to exclude Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit" — to exclude proselytes and bondsmen. (Ibid. 59) "To a man, according to his numbers, shall his inheritance be given" — to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites.

R. Yoshiyah says: The land was apportioned to those who left Egypt, as it is written "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit." What, then, is the intent of "To these shall the land be apportioned"? (To such as these,) to exclude minors (below the age of twenty). R. Yonathan says: The land was apportioned according to those who came to the land, as it is written "To these shall the land be apportioned."

And what is the intent of "By the names of the tribes of their fathers"? The L-rd changed this inheritance from all the inheritances in the Torah. For in all the inheritances in the Torah the living inherit the dead, whereas here, the dead inherit the living. Rebbi says: An analogy: Two brothers, Cohanim, were in a city.

One had one son; the other, three. They go to the granary (to take their portion.) The first takes one sa'ah; the others, three, after which they go to their fathers' father and share equally. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: The land was apportioned to these and to these.

How so? If they were of those who left Egypt, they took a share with those who left Egypt. If they were of those who entered the land, they took a share with those who entered the land. If they were both of these and of the others, they took a share of both — so that both verses are satisfied.

(Bamidbar 26:54) "To the (more) numerous (tribe) you shall increase its inheritance, and to the less (numerous) you shall decrease its inheritance." If one had five sons when he left Egypt, and ten sons when he entered the land, I apply to them "To the numerous you shall increase its inheritance." If he had ten sons when he left Egypt, and five when he entered the land, I apply to them "and to the less you shall decrease its inheritance."

"To a man": to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites. "according to its numbers": We are hereby taught that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned to each tribe according to its (head-count). And thus is it written (Joshua 17:14-15) "And the children of Joseph said to Joshua: Why have you given me a single allotment as an inheritance, when we are a great multitude whom the L-rd had thus far blessed? And Joshua said to them: If you are a great multitude, go up to the forest country and clear an area for yourselves there in the land of the Perizzi and the Rephaim, the mountain of Ephraim constricting you." "shall his inheritance be given": I would understand this to mean (that each tribe took) indiscriminately.

It is, therefore, written (55) "by allotment." If "by allotment," I would understand, by themselves (i.e., by their own lottery.) It is, therefore, written (56) "By the word (of the lottery"), whereby we are apprised that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned by the Holy Spirit. I might think, by himself (i.e., the high-priest, by means of the urim vetumim). It is, therefore, written "shall its inheritance be divided," (connoting in the presence of the entire tribe).

(Bamidbar 26:25) "Only by lot shall the land be divided": ("Only") — excluding Joshua and Calev (who received special portions.) And thus is it written (Judges 15:13) "And to Calev ben Yefuneh was given a portion in the midst of the children by word of the L-rd to Joshua," and (Judges 1:20) "And they gave Chevron to Calev as Moses had spoken," and (Joshua 19:49-50) "And the children of Israel gave a portion to Joshua the son of Nun in their midst. By word of the L-rd they gave him the city that he asked for, Timnath Serach."

(Bamidbar 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers": to exclude proselytes and bondsmen. (56) "between the large and the small": We are hereby apprised that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned by estimate — beth-kor (a large measure [of relatively inferior land]) against a beth-sa'ah (a small measure [of relatively superior land]) and vice versa.

(Bamidbar 27:1) "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad": When the daughters of Tzelofchad heard that the land was to be apportioned to the tribes and not to females, they gathered together to take counsel, saying: Not as the mercies of flesh and blood are the mercies of the L-rd. The mercies of flesh and blood are greater for males than for females. Not so the mercies of He who spoke and brought the world into being. His mercies are for males and females (equally). His mercies are for all! As it is written (Psalms 145:9) "The L-rd is good to all, and His mercies are upon all of His creations." "the son of Chefer, the son of Gilad, the son of Machir, the son of Menashe": Scripture apprises us that just as Tzelofchad was a first-born, so, were all of the others first-born, and to apprise us that they (the daughters) were worthy daughters of a worthy man. For all whose deeds and the deeds of whose fathers are veiled and who Scripture traces (to their forbears) for praise are righteous ones the seed of righteous ones; and all whose deeds and the deeds of whose fathers are veiled and who Scripture traces (to their forbears) for denigration are evildoers the seed of evildoers. R. Nathan says: It is written above (26:65) "For the L-rd had said of them: They will surely die in the desert. And there was left not a man of them, etc.", followed by "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc." What is the connection? Scripture comes to teach us that the strength of the women in that generation was greater than that of the men, the men saying (Bamidbar 14:4) "Let us make a leader and return to Egypt, and the women saying (Ibid. 27:4) "Give us a holding, etc."

Likewise, (Ovadiah 1:1) "The vision of Ovadiah: Thus has said the L-rd G-d to Edom: We have heard a report, etc." Why did Ovadiah prophesy against Edom? To apprise us of the greatness of a tzaddik, who grew up in the lap of an evildoer but did not emulate his deeds, and how great the wickedness of an evildoer, who grew up between two righteous ones and did not emulate their deeds. Esav (Edom) grew up between two righteous ones, Isaac and Rivka, and did not emulate their deeds.

Ovadiah grew up between two wicked ones, Achan and Izevel, and did not emulate their deeds. Let Ovadiah come, who grew up between two wicked ones and did not emulate their deeds, and prophecy against Esav, who grew up between two righteous ones, Isaac and Rivka, and did not emulate their deeds. Thus — "The vision of Ovadiah: Thus has said the L-rd G-d to Edom, etc." "of the families of Menasheh the son of Joseph."

Just as Joseph held Eretz Yisrael dear (viz. Bereshit 50:25), so did the daughters of Tzelofchad. "And these are the names of his daughters: Machlah, Noah, Choglah, Milkah, and Tirtzah." — But perhaps all who are first in Scripture are first in worth? It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 36:11) "And Machlah, Tirtzah, Choglah, Milkah, and Noah, the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc." (the order being changed to teach us that they were all of equal worth.)

(Bamidbar 27:2) "And they stood before Moses and before Elazar the Cohein": Scripture hereby apprises us that they stood there only (after) the fortieth year (of the exodus) after Aaron had died, viz. (Ibid. 33:38) "And Aaron the Cohein went up to Hor Hahar by the 'mouth' of the L-rd, and he died there in the fortieth year, etc." "before Moses and before Elazar the Cohein": If Moses did not know (how to answer them), could Elazar know?

Invert the verse (i.e., first Elazar, then Moses,) and expound it. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: They were (all) in the house of study and they came and stood before (all of) them. R. Akiva says: It is written here (27:3) "desert," and elsewhere (Ibid. 15:32) (in respect to a man gathering wood on the Sabbath) "desert."

Just as the man here is Tzelofchad, so, the man there. "And he was not in the midst of the congregation": the cavilers (viz. Shemot 16:2). "who gathered against the L-rd": the congregation of the spies. "(nor in) the congregation of Korach." "but he died in his own sin": without inciting others (to sin) with him. "and he left no sons": for if he had a son, we would make no claim.

(Bamidbar 27:4) "Why should the name of our father be withheld from his family because he has no son?" R. Yehudah says: It is written here "name," and elsewhere (Devarim 28:6). "Just as "name" here connotes inheritance, so, "name" there. And just as "name" here connotes seed, so, "name" there. "because he has no son": Why is this written?

Is it not already written (3) "and he left no sons"? They were sage women and were expounding: But if there were a daughter of a son, we would make no claim. R. Chidka said: Shimon Hashikmoni was a colleague of mine from the disciples of R. Akiva. He said: Moses knew that daughters inherit.

Where was the question? As to whether they inherit what is fit to be inherited (in Eretz Yisrael) as well as what is already in their possession. The section on inheritance was fit to be stated by Moses, but the daughters of Tzelofchad merited that it be stated through them. "Merit is effected through the meritorious and liability through the liable."

(Bamidbar 27:6-7) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Rightly do the daughters of Tzelafchad speak": The daughters of Tzelafchad have claimed well, for thus is this section written before Me on high. Happy is the man whose words the L-rd acknowledges. Similarly, (Ibid. 36:5) "Rightly does the tribe of the sons of Joseph speak." Similarly, (Ibid. 14:20) "And the L-rd said: I have forgiven according to your words."

The peoples of the world are destined to say this: "Happy is the man whose words the L-rd acknowledges." "Given shall be given to them the holding of an inheritance": This is the inheritance of their father. "in the midst of the brothers of their father": This is the inheritance of the father of their father "and you shall pass over the inheritance of their father to them": This is the portion of the first-born — whence we are apprised that the daughters of Tzelafchad took three portions: that of their father, that of their father's father, and the double portion of the first-born. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Also that of their father's brothers, it being written "Given shall be given to them."

(Bamidbar 27:8) "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying": This tells us only of the immediate situation (i.e., that of Tzelafchad's daughters). Whence do we derive (the same for) future generations? From "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying: A man, if he die, and he have no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter." Rebbi says: In all instances (of inheritance) the term "giving" is used, but in this instance "passing" is the term employed.

For only a daughter can "pass" an inheritance (from one tribe to another), her son and her husband inheriting her (i.e., what she has inherited from her father, who may be of a different tribe.) Whence is it derived that the father (of the deceased) precedes his brothers (i.e., the brothers of the deceased) in the inheritance? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It is written "then you shall pass over his inheritance to his daughter."

Because of a daughter you pass over an inheritance from the father, and not because of the brothers. And whence is it derived that a father inherits (his son)? It follows, a fortiori, viz.: If the father's brothers who come (to inherit) only by power of the father, inherit him, then the father (himself), whose brothers come (to inherit) only by his power, how much more so should he inherit (his son)?

And whence is it derived that the son's daughter stands in place of the son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the daughters of Tzelafchad, who inherited only for a particular time (i.e., an exception was made in their case, for the land was apportioned only to those who had left Egypt and had died), how much more so (is this to obtain) for the succeeding generations! Whence is it derived that females stand in the place of males (in all the "inheritances" of the Torah)?

It follows (inductively), viz.: Since sons inherit and the brothers of the (deceased) father inherit, then just as with sons, females are equated with males, so, with all inheritors, females are equated with males. And just as with sons, males take precedence to females, so, with all inheritors, males take precedence to females. And just as with redeemers (of land) sons are equated with their fathers, (viz. Vayikra 25:49), so, with all inheritors, sons are equated with their fathers.

And whence is it derived that a daughter inherits (her mother's possessions)? It is written (Bamidbar 36:8) "And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc." This tells me only of a daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) a son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a daughter, whose power (of inheritance) is attenuated where there is a son, inherits (her mother), how much more so, a son!

And whence is it derived that a man inherits his wife? From (Ibid. 27:11) "… and he shall inherit (lit.,) her." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed.

For it is already written (Ibid. 36:8) "And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc.", and (Ibid. 7) "And an inheritance of the children of Israel shall not go around from tribe to tribe," and (Joshua 24:33) "And Elazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him on the hill of Pinchas, his son … in the mountain of Ephraim." Now whence did Pinchas have (land) in the mountain of Ephraim?

It must be that he married a woman from the children of Ephraim, who died and whom he inherited. Similarly, (I Chronicles 2:22) "And Seguv begot Yair, and he had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilad." Now whence did Yair have (land) in the land of Gilad? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Menasheh, who died and whom he inherited.

(Bamidbar 27:11) "And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his flesh who is near to him": The "nearest" takes precedence in the inheritance. "of his family": his father's family or his mother's family? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 1:2) "by their families, by their fathers' house" — the families are according to the fathers. "and he shall inherit her": (as above). "and it shall be to the children of Israel a statute of judgment." The Torah hereby authorizes the sages to adjudicate the matter (i.e., to decide who is the "nearest.") "then you shall give his inheritance to his flesh who is near to him of his family": Whoever is closest in "flesh" takes precedence in inheritance.