Sifrei Bamidbar Reader

(Bamidbar 27:12) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Go up to this Mount Avarim": This is the inheritance of the children of Reuven. When Moses entered the (prospective) inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, thinking "It seems to me that He has revoked His decree" (against my entering Eretz Yisrael) — whereupon he poured out supplication before the King. An analogy: A king decreed against his son that he not enter the doors of his palace.

He came to the gate and left it behind him; to the storage room, and left it behind him. As he was about to enter the inner chamber, he said to him "My son, from here on, you are forbidden." Likewise, when Moses entered the inheritance of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven, he rejoiced, thinking "It seems to me that He has revoked His decree," whereupon he began to pour out supplication before the L-rd.

Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Moses, the great sage, the father of the sages and the father of the prophets, even though he knew that a decree had gone forth against him, did not keep himself from supplication, how much more so should this hold true for other men!

(Devarim 3:23) "And I supplicated (va'ethchanan) the L-rd": "Va'ethchanan" is a term of entreaty. "at that time to say": Let "to say" not be written. The intent is: Make it known to me whether I will enter the land or not. "Adonai": the L-rd (adon) of all who enter the world. "Elokim": With (the attribute of) justice did You create the world.

"You have begun": You have begun to open the door for Your servant, in my entering the inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad. Variantly: You have profaned (i.e., broken) Your oath. You wrote in Your Torah (Shemot 22:19) "He who sacrifices to a god shall be condemned." Yet your children served idolatry and I sought mercy from You, and You forgave them. (Devarim, Ibid.) "to show Your servant": miracles and mighty acts, viz. (Shemot 3:3) "I shall turn aside and I shall see, etc." (Devarim, Ibid.)

"Your greatness": This is the attribute of Your goodness, as it is written (Bamidbar 14:17) "And now, let the power of the L-rd be made great." (Devarim, Ibid.) "And Your (mighty) hand": This is Your right hand, which is stretched out to all who enter the world, viz. (Shemot 15:6) "Your right hand, O L-rd, is exalted in power," and (Psalms 44:4) "Your right hand, and Your arm, and the light of Your countenance." (Devarim, Ibid.) "mighty": For You subdue with mercy the attribute of justice, viz. (Michah 7:18) "Who is a G-d like You, forgiving transgression and passing by offense," (19) "He will return and be merciful to us, He will subdue our transgressions," (20) "You will give truth to Yaakov," and (Isaiah 45:23) "I have sworn by Me: From My mouth has gone forth righteousness, a word that will not turn back." (Devarim, Ibid.)

"Who is mighty in heaven and earth": The attribute of flesh and blood — He who is greater than his neighbor nullifies his neighbor's decree. But You — who can overrule You? And thus is it written (Iyyov 23:13) "And He is One, and who can turn Him back?" R. Yehudah b. Bava says: Not as the measure of the Holy One Blessed be He is the measure of flesh and blood.

The measure of flesh and blood: A man registered in the royal codex — even if he gives great sums, he cannot extricate himself from it. But You say: Repent, and I will accept, as it is written (Isaiah 44:22) "I have wiped away your offenses like a cloud, your sins, like a mist." Variantly: "Who is G-d in heaven and earth, etc." — But perhaps, outside of heaven and earth, there is! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 4:39) "And you shall know this day and you shall return it to your heart … there is no other" — anywhere! (Ibid.) "who can do as Your deeds and as Your (acts of) strength": "as Your deeds" — in Egypt. "as Your strength" — at the (splitting of the) sea.

Variantly: "as Your deeds" — at the sea. "as Your strength" — at the streams of Arnon. (Ibid. 25) "Let me pass over na and see"." "Na" is a term of imploration. "the good land across the Jordan": As per R. Yehudah: The land of Canaan is "good," and not the inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad. "this good mountain": Jerusalem. "and the Levanon": the Temple, viz. (Zechariah 11:1) "Open your doors, O Levanon!" and (Isaiah 10:34) "And the Levanon shall fall by a mighty one (Nevuchadnezzar)."

Others say: "Levanon" — these are its (Israel's) kings, as in (Ezekiel 17:3) "He came to the Levanon and he took its kings," and (II Chronicles 25:18) "The thistle (i.e., the king) etc."

(Devarim 3:26) "But the L-rd was wroth with me": As one would say (to his neighbor): That man was angry with me and was filled with wrath against me. "because of you": You are the cause. Likewise (Psalms 106:32) "And they aroused the wrath (of the L-rd) at the waters of contention, and Moses was afflicted because of them." "and He did not heed me": He did not accept my prayer. R. Nathan says: It is written (Iyyov 36:5) "Behold G-d is great, and He will not despise" — the Holy One Blessed be He does not despise the prayer of the many, but here "and He did not heed me."

He did not accept my prayer. "And the L-rd said to me, etc." He said to me: "It is enough for you with this thing," (My refusal to heed You), tzaddikim being kept (by such rebuke) from a graver transgression. In this regard, R. Yishmael adduced a folk-saying: "According to the camel is the load." Variantly: If Moses, the wise, the father of the wise; the prophet, the father of the prophets, was not forgiven, how much more so lesser men who delay judgment and who pervert judgment! (lit.,) "much for you": He said to him: Much (reward) is in keeping for you; much is stored away for you, viz. (Psalms 31:20) "How much is Your good that You have stored away for those who fear You!"

And it is written (Isaiah 64:3) "And none had ever heard or given ear (to such things before). No eye had ever seen a god other than You doing (such things for those) who hope to Him." Variantly: "Much for you": He said to him: "Much have you labored; much have you toiled. Take leave, Moses, and rest," viz. (Daniel 12:13) "Go (to your reward) in the end (of days), when you will rest."

He said to him: "A king (Moses) does not enter (Eretz Yisrael) as a commoner." Moses: "If not, I will become Joshua's disciple." The L-rd: "Rav lecha" ("The station of 'Rav' is yours.") "It does not befit a Rav to become the disciple of his disciple."

Moses: "I will enter through the air or through space." The L-rd: (Devarim 32:52) "And there shall you not come." Moses: "If not, let (at least) my bones cross the Jordan." The L-rd: (Ibid. 3:27) "For you shall not cross this Jordan": Your bones, too, will not cross, viz. (Ibid. 4:22) "for I will die in this land; I will not cross the Jordan."

Now can a dead man cross? — Moses was saying: "My bones, too, will not cross." (Ibid. 3:26) "Do not speak to Me again about this thing": He said to him: "Do not ask this thing of Me, but decree a different thing upon me, and I will do it." An analogy: A king issues a difficult decree upon his son, who asks him to rescind it. The king: Do not ask this thing of me, but decree a different thing upon me and I will do it, viz. (Iyyov 22:28) "You will decree and it will be fulfilled for you."

Moses: If not, (i.e., If I cannot enter Eretz Yisrael), let me see it. The L-rd: This I will do. (Devarim, Ibid. 23) "Go up to the summit of Pisgah, etc." We are hereby apprised that the L-rd showed Moses the distant as (if it were) near; the concealed, as (if it were) revealed — all that is called "Eretz Yisrael," as it is written (Ibid. 34:1-3) "And the L-rd showed him the whole land … and all of Naftali … and the Negev and the plain, etc."

(Devarim 34:4) "And the L-rd said: This is the land, etc.": R. Akiva says: Scripture hereby apprises us that the L-rd showed Moses all the recesses of Eretz Yisrael as (if it were) a set table, viz. (Ibid. 1) "And the L-rd showed him all the land." R. Eliezer says: He empowered Moses' eyes to see from one end of the world to the other. And thus do you find with the tzaddikim — that they see from one end of the world to the other, as it is written (Isaiah 33:13) "The King in His beauty shall your eyes see.

They shall see the land roundabout." We find, then, two kinds of "seeings" — one of pleasure; the other, of pain. Of Abraham it is written (Bereshit 13:14) "Lift up your eyes and see, from the place where you find yourself, etc." — a seeing of pleasure. Of Moses it is written (Bamidbar 27:12) "Go up to this Mount Avarim, etc." (Devarim 3:27) "Go up to the summit of Pisgah, etc." — a seeing of pain.

And thus do you find two kinds of "drawing near" — one for the sake of Heaven; the other, not for the sake of heaven. (Devarim 4:11) "And you drew near and you stood at the foot of the mountain" — drawing near for the sake of Heaven. (Ibid. 1:22) "Then all of you drew near to me" — drawing near not for the sake of Heaven. (Ibid. 3:28) "And command Joshua and strengthen him and hearten him" — towards the learning (of Torah).

R. Yehudah says: Command him in respect to the Giveonites (i.e., to accept them). Variantly: Command him relative to the trials and tribulations and the contentions. "for he will pass before this people, and he will cause them to inherit, etc.": We are hereby apprised that he would not die until he had caused them to inherit the land. "the land that you will see": We are hereby apprised that Moses saw with his eyes what Moses did not traverse with his feet.

(Devarim 3:29) "And we stayed in the valley near Beth-Peor": He (Moses) said: See which sin I have sinned, how many supplications I uttered, and (still) it was not forgiven me. And you, how many sins you have sinned, yet the L-rd has said to you: "Repent and I will accept" (your penance). R. Yehudah b. Bava says: In three places Israel bordered upon grave transgression and the L-rd said to them "Repent and I will accept," viz. (Shemot 15:24) "And the people complained against Moses, saying 'What will we drink, etc.'" What is written there? (Ibid. 26) "And He said: If you hearken to the voice of the L-rd your G-d and you do what is just in His eyes, etc." Similarly, (Devarim 9:22) "And in Taveirah, and in Massah, and in Kivroth Hata'vah, you angered the L-rd, etc." What is written there? (Ibid. 10:12) "And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you, etc.?" Here, too, (Ibid. 3:29) "And we stayed in the valley near Beth-Peor, etc." … (Ibid. 4:1) "Give ear to the statutes and the judgments, etc."

(Bamidbar 27:13) "Then you will see it (Eretz Yisrael), and you will be gathered to your people — you, too — as Aaron your brother was gathered" — whence we are apprised that Moses lusted after such a death.

(Bamidbar 27:14) "when you flouted My command in the desert of Tzin in the contention of the congregation": R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Moses and Aaron, too, died by kareth ("cutting-off"), as it is written (Devarim 32:51) "because you did not sanctify My name, etc." (the implication being) if you had sanctified Me, your time would not yet have come to die.

Two leaders arose (for Israel). One of them said: Let my sin not be recorded; the other: Let my sin be recorded. David said: Let my sin not be recorded, viz. (Psalms 32:1) "Of David, a maskil. Happy is he whose offense is forgiven, whose sin is covered over."

Moses said: Let my sin be recorded — whence "when you flouted My command in the desert of Tzin in the contention of the congregation." An analogy: Two women received stripes in beth-din, one for having gone astray; the other, for having eaten pagim (unripe fruits) of shevi'ith. The latter says: Please publicize my sin, so that the bystanders not say: Just as the first is being smitten for straying, so is she — whereupon they hung such a fruit on her neck and called out before her: "This one is being smitten for (having eaten) pagim."

R. Eliezer Hamodai says: Come and see how beloved are tzaddikim by the Holy One Blessed be He. For wherever their death is mentioned, there their sin is mentioned. Why all this? So that men not have an opening for saying: They died because of some (grave) secret corruption.

Similarly, in four places the death of the sons of Aaron (Nadav and Avihu) are mentioned. And wherever their death is mentioned their sin is mentioned, to stress that it was that alone which caused their death. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is thus merciful in a time of anger, how much more so, in a time of favor, viz. (Isaiah 49:8) "In a time of favor I have answered you, and on a day of salvation I have helped you!"

(Bamidbar 27:15) "And Moses spoke to the L-rd to say, etc.": (This is mentioned) to apprise us of the virtues of the righteous, that when they are about to die they put aside their own concerns and occupy themselves with those of the congregation. "to say": What is the intent of this? Moses said to Him: Tell me whether you are appointing leaders for them or not — until the Holy One Blessed be He answered him (Ibid. 18) "Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun, a man who has spirit in him (viz. 16), and place your hand upon him."

R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: In four places Moses made requests of the Holy One Blessed be He and He responded to them, viz. (Shemot 6:12) "And Moses spoke before the L-rd, to say: The children of Israel did not hearken to me. How, then, will Pharaoh do so? And I am impeded of speech." What is the intent of "to say"?

Moses said to him: Apprise me whether or not you will redeem them — until the L-rd granted his request, viz. (Ibid. 7:4) "And I will take out My hosts, My people, the children of Israel, from the land of Egypt." Similarly, (Bamidbar 12:13) "And Moses cried out to the L-rd to say "G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray you." What is the intent of "to say"? He said before Him: Tell me, I pray You, whether or not You will heal her — until the Holy One Blessed be He answered his question, viz. (Ibid. 14) "Now if her father had spat in her face, would she not be in shame for seven days?"

Similarly, (Devarim 3:23) "And I supplicated the L-rd at that time to say": What is the intent of "to say"? He said to Him: Tell me whether or not I will enter the land — until the L-rd answered him, viz. (Ibid. 26) "It is enough for you, etc." Here, too, what is the intent of "to say"? He said to him: Tell me whether or not You are appointing leaders for them — until the L-rd answered him: "Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun."

(Bamidbar 27:16) "Let the L-rd, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, etc.": Scripture hereby apprises us that all the spirits issue only from Him. R. Eliezer the son of R. Yossi Haglili says: Let this "sign" always be in your hand: that so long as a man is alive his soul is reposited in the hand of its Owner, as it is written (Iyyov 12:10) "… that in His hand is the spirit of all living things. When he dies, it is reposited in the otzar ("the treasury,") as it is written (I Samuel 25:29) "and may the soul of my master be bound up in the bond of life."

I might think, (the soul of) both the righteous and the wicked; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and may He sling out the soul of your foes (as) in the hollow of a sling." "a man over the congregation": This is Joshua, as it is written (Psalms 78:25) "the bread of the mighty (i.e., manna) did a man eat." And why did Scripture not specify (that it was Joshua)? So as not to stir up controversy (over the appointment of Joshua) among his sons and the sons of his brother (Aaron, i.e., Elazar and Ithamar.)"

(Bamidbar 27:17) "who will go out before them and who will come in before them": Not as others, who send others in the vanguard and who bring up the rear. But as Moses did, viz. (Bamidbar 21:34) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Do not fear him (Og, [to confront him in the vanguard]) for I have delivered him into your hand." And as Joshua did, viz. (Joshua 5:13) "And Joshua went up to him, and said: 'Are you for us or for our foes?'"

And as Pinchas did, viz. (Bamidbar 31:6) "And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, to the war, them and Pinchas (in the vanguard) etc." (Ibid. 27:17) "who will go out before them" — at the head, viz. (I Chronicles 11:6) "And Yoav ben Tzeruyah went up first, and he was at the head." "who will go out before them" — in a troop. "and who will come in before them" — in a troop. "who will go out before them" — on the way. "and who will come in before them" — on the way. "and who will take them out" — in his merits. "and who will bring them back" — in his merits. "and who will take them out" — with a count. "and who will bring them back" — with a count (i.e., none missing), as it is written (Bamidbar 31:44) "And they said to Moses: Your servants have counted the men of war who were under our charge, and not one of us is missing."

And why did they need atonement (viz. Ibid. 50)? For they had "feasted their eyes" on nakedness (i.e., on the Midianite women [viz. Ibid. 16]). (Ibid. 27:17) "And let the congregation of the L-rd not be as sheep without a shepherd": On this the tradition comments (Song of Songs 1:7) "Tell me (Moses), O You, whom my soul loves, etc. for why should I be covered up," as in (Jeremiah 43:12) "And he (Nevuchadnezzar) will cover up the land of Egypt, as the shepherd covers up his cloak." (Song of Songs, Ibid.) "by the flocks of Your companions" — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Go out and see how the Holy One answers him (Song of Songs, Ibid. 8): "If you do not know, you fairest among the women (i.e., most exalted of the prophets), go out in the footsteps of the flock." (See) what I am destined to do for them in the end (of their "footsteps"), "and graze your kids by the tents of the shepherd" — whence it is derived that the L-rd showed Moses all the leaders who were destined to serve Israel from the day they left the desert until the resurrection. Thus, "Go out in the footsteps of the flock."

(Bamidbar 27:18) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun": ("for yourself") what is in your heart. Take for yourself him (Joshua), who you know to be worthy (of this high station), as per (Mishlei 27:18) "the watcher of the fig-tree will eat its fruit, and the keeper (Joshua) of his master (Moses) will be honored." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "a man who has spirit in him": one who can accommodate himself to the spirit of each individual. "and place your hand upon him": He said to him: Give Joshua an interpreter to ask and to expound and to issue rulings in your lifetime, so that when you die Israel not say: In his master's lifetime he did not rule, and now he rules! — whereupon he raised him from the ground (the place of disciples) and sat him next to him on the (judge's) bench.

R. Nathan says: When Joshua entered, he (Moses) would silence the interpreter until he had come in and sat in his place.

(Bamidbar 27:20) "And you shall place (some) of your glory (i.e., shining of countenance) upon him": and not all of your glory — whence we derive "The face of Moses was like the face of the sun; the face of Joshua was like the face of the moon."

(Bamidbar 27:21) "And before Elazar the Cohein shall he (Joshua) stand": Joshua had recourse to Elazar, and Elazar, to Joshua. "And he (Joshua) shall inquire of him (Elazar)": I might think, (that the inquiry was) "between him and himself"; it is, therefore, written "as to the judgment of the urim." I might then think, (that he inquired) in full voice. It is, therefore, written "and he shall inquire of him," (connoting in subdued voice). How so? He stood and moved his lips, and the high-priest answered his inquiries.

(Bamidbar 27:22) "And Moses did as the L-rd commanded him": He did so with joy, undiluted with regret for his son and his brother's sons (i.e., for the honor not having been accorded them.) "and he 'took' Joshua": He "took" him with words, apprising him of the reward of the leaders of Israel in the world to come.

(Bamidbar 27:23) "And he placed his hands upon him": He made him an overflowing vessel of Torah, viz. (above) "the watcher of the fig-tree will eat its fruit." For it is written (Shemot 33:11) "And his attendant, Joshua the son of Nun, a youth, did not depart from the midst of the tent," and, likewise, (Joshua 1:8) "this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Joshua, of whom it is written (Devarim 34:9) "He was full of the spirit of wisdom" — If Joshua "did not depart, etc.", then how much more so (should this hold for) other men! "And he commanded him as the L-rd had spoken by the hand of Moses": Just as the Holy One Blessed be He had commanded Moses with joy, so, Moses commanded Joshua with joy. I might think that Moses' powers waned (with age.) It is, therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid. 7) "And Moses was a hundred and twenty years old in his death. His eye had not dimmed" (in deciding) between unclean and clean, between forbidden and permitted, "and his strength had not abated" in toiling in Torah.

(Bamidbar 28:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel … My offering, My bread, etc." What is the intent of this? Because Moses said (Ibid. 27:16-17) "Let the L-rd appoint" (over Israel) "someone who will go out before them, etc." An analogy: A king had a wife who, before her death, charged him over her sons saying: I pray you, take care of my sons, etc. The king: Before you charge me over my sons, charge them over me, that they not rebel against me and not cheapen me.

Thus the Holy One Blessed be He to Moses: Before you charge Me over My sons, charge them over Me, that they not cheapen Me and that they not exchange My honor for foreign gods. And thus is it written (Devarim 31:19-20) "And now, write for yourselves this song … When I bring them to the land … and they turn to other gods and spurn Me, etc."

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "My offering": the blood. "My bread": the devoted portions. You say this, but perhaps "My offering, My bread" is the blood?

It is, therefore, written (of the devoted portions) (Vayikra 3:16) "And the Cohein shall smoke them upon the altar, the bread of a fire-offering for a sweet savor." It is not the second formulation that is to be posited, but the first — "my offering": the blood; "My bread": the devoted portions. "for My fires": the fistfuls (of the meal-offerings) and the frankincense. "My sweet savor": the libations. "shall you observe": that it be brought only from the Temple funds. "shall you observe": that Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites stand over them. "shall you observe": It is written here "shall you observe," and elsewhere (in respect to the Paschal lamb, Shemot 12:6) "shall you observe."

Just as there, it had to be inspected four days prior to slaughtering, so, here. "shall you observe to offer to Me in its appointed time": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 12:6) "and they shall slaughter it (the Paschal lamb)," I might think both on a weekday and on the Sabbath. And how would I satisfy (Ibid. 31:14) "Its (the Sabbath's) desecrators shall be put to death"? In the instance of other labors, besides the slaughtering of the Pesach.

Or, even including the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb. And how would I satisfy "and they shall slaughter it"? On all the other days, besides the Sabbath. Or, even on the Sabbath?

It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 9:2) "And the children of Israel shall offer the Pesach in its appointed time" — even on the Sabbath. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan said: In this sense (i.e., the above) we have not yet heard it used. But, why is it written (Ibid. 28:2) "Command the children of Israel, etc." If to teach about the tamid (the daily burnt-offering) that it overrides the Sabbath, this is not necessary.

For it is already written (Ibid. 9) "And on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the first year." What, then, is the intent of (2) "in its appointed time"? It is "extra" towards the formulation of an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here "in its appointed time," and elsewhere, (in respect to the Paschal lamb) "in its appointed time." Just as in this instance (of the daily burnt-offering), Sabbath is overridden, so, in that instance.

(Bamidbar 28:3) "And you shall say to them": This is an exhortation to beth-din (to charge the people). "This is the fire-offering which you shall offer up to the L-rd … two for the day." Shimon b. Azzai says: "two for the day" — opposite the "day" (i.e., opposite the sun). You say this, but perhaps the meaning is: "two for the day" — an obligation (to be slaughtered) on that day? (Ibid. 4) "The one lamb shall you offer in the morning, and the other lamb shall you offer towards evening" already speaks of the obligation for the day.

How, then, are we to understand (here) "two for the day"? As opposite the day (i.e., the sun) — whence they ruled: The morning tamid was slaughtered at the north-west corner (of the altar) at the second (slaughtering) ring, and the evening tamid at the north-east corner at the second ring.

"the one lamb, etc." Why is this written? (It seems superfluous.) Because it is written (3) "And you shall say to them: This is the fire-offering, etc." and (Shemot 29:38) "And this is what you shall offer upon the altar," I might think that he should sacrifice four. It is, therefore, written "the one lamb" — not more than one.

(Bamidbar 28:5) "and a tenth of an ephah": one of ten in an ephah. "flour": of wheat. You say this, but perhaps it may be of barley, spelt, oats or shifon (a kind of spelt). It is, therefore, written (Shemot 29:2) "Of wheat flour shall you make them." Since "flours" are mentioned in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance it is specified that it must be wheat flour, so, all "flours" in the Torah are to be only of wheat. (Bamidbar 28:5) "for the meal-offering mixed with oil of crushing": to exclude (oil that is exuded from) what is cooked. This tells me only of (oil that is kasher for) meal-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) the menorah? It is written (in that regard) (Vayikra 24:2) "Command the children of Israel that they take to you clear oil of beaten olives" — to exclude what is cooked.

(Bamidbar 28:6) "A perpetual burnt-offering offered up at Mount Sinai": The burnt-offering of Mount Sinai is being likened to the tamid burnt-offering. Just as the tamid burnt-offering required libations, so that of Mount Sinai required libations. R. Yossi Haglili says: "as a sweet savor." It is likened to the sweet savor and not to the libations.

(Bamidbar 28:7) "And its (wine) libation, a fourth of a hin for the one lamb": The libation is poured unmixed and not mixed. "On the holy place (i.e., the altar) shall it be poured, a pouring of strong drink to the L-rd." They are poured on the altar and burned on the altar. R. Nathan says: Why is it written "pouring, pouring" (twice)? To include the water libation.

(Bamidbar 28:8) "And the second lamb": Why is this written? Since it is written "the one lamb shall you offer in the morning," I might think that if it were not offered in the morning it could be offered in the evening. It is, therefore, written "the second shall you offer up towards evening," implying that if the morning tamid had not been offered, the evening tamid is not to be offered. When is this so? When the altar had not been inaugurated. But if it had been inaugurated, even the first may be offered in the evening. R. Shimon said: When is this so? When they were unwitting or under constraint (in not offering it in the morning), but if they were deliberate (in not doing so), if they did not offer the lamb in the morning, it could not be offered in the evening. If they did not smoke the frankincense in the morning, they can do so at twilight, for the altar is inaugurated only with the frankincense smoking of twilight, and the burnt-offering altar only with the morning tamid. Nor (is) the table (inaugurated) except with the show-bread of the Sabbath; nor the menorah except with the seven lamps of twilight. R. Shimon said: Even if the (pertinent) vessels were finished before their (relevant) time, they are inaugurated only in their time. And thus is it written (Shemot 39:43 - 40:1-2) "And when Moses saw all the work — that they had performed it as the L-rd had commanded them, thus did they do — that Moses blessed them, saying: On the first day of the first month shall you set up the mishkan, etc." With what blessing did he bless them? He said to them: "May it be His will that the Shechinah repose upon the work of your hands." And they responded "May the beauty of the L-rd our G-d be upon us. And establish the work of our hands upon us. The work of our hands — establish it." And though this is not written in the Torah, it is explicated in the writings, viz. (Psalms 90:16) "May Your works be beheld by Your servants, and Your glory by their children. (17) And may the beauty of the L-rd our G-d be upon us, etc." Variantly: What is the intent of "and the second lamb"? Because it is written (of the Paschal lamb, Shemot 12:6) "and they shall slaughter it at twilight," I do not know which takes precedence, the tamid or the Paschal lamb. It is, therefore, written "the second" — the second to the tamid, and not second to the Pesach (i.e., it is slaughtered before the Pesach.) From here they ruled: Nothing precedes the morning tamid but (the smoking of) the frankincense. And nothing follows the tamid of twilight but the incense, the Pesach, and those lacking atonement on Pesach eve, so that they can bring their atonement (and observe the Pesach.) (Bamidbar 28:8) "As the meal-offering of the morning and its libation shall you offer it." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 4-5) "the one lamb shall you offer in the morning and the second lamb shall you offer towards evening. And a tenth of an ephah, etc.", I might think that first the two temidim are offered. And then their libations; it is, therefore, written "As the meal-offering of the morning and its libation shall you offer it," whereby we are apprised that when each sacrifice is offered, the libations are offered with it. "a fire-offering": Though it is consigned to the fire, it is not accepted until it is completely burned. "a sweet savor": gratifying to Me, in that I spoke and My will was done. "to the L-rd": Shimon ben Azzai says: Come and see that with all of the offerings in the Torah it is not written of them "Elokim" or "Kel" or "Shakkai" or "Tzevakoth," but only Yod-Keh-Vav-Keh, the Tetragrammaton — so as not to give an opening to the heretics for their heresies (i.e., that there is a plurality of gods). And just as "a sweet savor" is written in respect to an ox, so is it written in respect to a lamb and in respect to a bird — whereby the Torah teaches us that there is no "eating" or "drinking" before the Holy One Blessed be He, but (that His) only ("gratification") is that He speaks and His will is done. And thus is it written (Psalms 50:12) "Were I hungry, I would not tell you. For Mine is the world and its fulness. (11) I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are with Me." Lest I think He eats and drinks, it is written (Ibid. 13) "Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of he-goats?" Why, then, do I ask you to sacrifice to Me? To do My will. And thus is it written (Vayikra 22:29) "When you sacrifice a thank-offering to the L-rd, it is to your favor that you sacrifice it."

(Bamidbar 28:9) "And on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the first year without blemish": It is written "The one lamb shall you offer in the morning," and the (tamid of the) Sabbath is included in that. Scripture (here) removes it from its (merely) general category for (purposes of) stringency, (i.e., the fixed (additional ["mussaf"] offering). Variantly: From (Vayikra 26:2) "My Sabbaths you shall keep and My sanctuary you shall fear" it is deduced that the sacrificial service overrides the (keeping of the) Sabbath.

You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is that) the Sabbath overrides the sacrificial service? From "And on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the first year, etc." we find the meaning of the above to be that the sacrificial service overrides the Sabbath. — But perhaps both individual and communal offerings (override it)? What is the context (of "And on the Sabbath day")? Communal offerings, (so that only communal and not individual offerings override the Sabbath.)

(Bamidbar 28:10) "the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on its Sabbath": And not the burnt-offering of Sabbath eve (i.e., its limbs and fat-pieces), on the Sabbath, (but on Sabbath eve.) "the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on its Sabbath": And not the burnt-offering of this Sabbath on another Sabbath. If one did not sacrifice (the mussaf offering) of this Sabbath, I might think that he could do so on the next Sabbath. It is, therefore, written "the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on its Sabbath" — "Once the day has passed, its sacrifice has passed." "in addition to the daily burnt-offering and its libation": We are hereby apprised that the mussafim (of Sabbath) are sacrificed between (the two daily offerings).

(Bamidbar 28:11) "And in the beginnings of your months, you shall offer a burnt-offering to the L-rd": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 4) "The one lamb shall you offer in the morning," I understand the beginning of the month (Rosh Chodesh) also to be included; therefore, Scripture removes it from the general category for greater stringency — the mussafim (of Rosh Chodesh). (But why is a special verse needed for the mussafim of Rosh Chodesh?)

Let it be derived from (the mussafim of) Sabbath? (In that case I would say:) Just as (the mussafim of) Sabbath are two lambs, so, those of Rosh Chodesh; it is, therefore, written "And in the beginning of your months, you shall offer a burnt-offering to the L-rd, etc." — Scripture adduces a different numeration. R. Elazar b. R. Tzaddok says: There was a hin (a liquid measure) in the Temple, with markings: Thus far (the libation) for a bullock; thus far for a ram; thus far for a sheep.

R. Yishmael says: There was no hin, but an additional measure of a log and a half in which was apportioned the high-priest's meal-offering, a log and a half in the evening, a log and a half in the morning.

(Bamidbar 28:14) "This is the burnt-offering of the month in its month." And not the burnt-offering of this month for a different month. If one did not sacrifice it this month, I might think he could sacrifice it on a different month. It is, therefore, written "This is the burnt-offering of the month in its month," whereby we are taught that if the day passes, its sacrifice "passes." "for the months of the year": What is the intent of this? From "And the beginnings of your months you shall offer a burnt-offering to the L-rd," I might think the minimum of months — two; it is, therefore, written "for the months of the year."

(Bamidbar 28:15) "And one kid of goats as a sin-offering to the L-rd": to atone for "a grave of the depth" (i.e., tumah which was discovered only after one had come in contact with it.) "in addition to the continual burnt-offering shall it be offered and its libation.": We are hereby apprised that the mussafim (of Rosh Chodesh) are sacrificed only between (the two temidim).

(Bamidbar 28:16) "And in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, it is Pesach to the L-rd": Scripture (here) makes it mandatory (and not optional.) (Ibid. 28:17) "for seven days matzoth shall be eaten": I might think that any matzoth (may be eaten [e.g., even those made of rice]). It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "You shall not eat chametz with it. Seven days shall you eat matzoth with it." Only that which can be matzah (unleavened) or chametz (leavened) (is forbidden in the leavened state). These are the five varieties: wheat, barley, spelt, rye, or oats. This excludes rice, millet, sesame, paragim, which never become matzah or chametz, but only decay.

(Bamidbar 28:18) "On the first day it is a calling of holiness." Celebrate it with eating and drinking and with clean garments. "All work of labor you shall not do": We are hereby apprised that working is forbidden. And whence is it derived that the work that is needed for the preparation of food is permitted?

From (Shemot 12:16) "Only (for) what is to be eaten by every person, that alone may be done for you." (Ibid. 19) "And you shall present a fire-offering, a burnt-offering to the L-rd": If one found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, I might think that he does not sacrifice any until he can sacrifice all. It is, therefore, written "And you shall present a fire-offering," implying even one.

I might then think that even if all are found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "two young bullocks, and one ram, etc."

(Bamidbar 28:24) "As these shall you offer each day for seven days.": Why is this written? For (were it not written) it would follow, (otherwise), viz.: Since Succoth requires a festival offering, and Pesach requires a festival offering, therefore, just as the offering of Succoth decreases progressively (each day [viz. Bamidbar 29:12-13]) so should that of Pesach decrease progressively. It is, therefore, written "As these shall you offer each day" — neither to increase or to decrease. "in addition to the continual burnt-offering shall it be offered, and its libation": We are hereby apprised that the mussafim (of Pesach) are sacrificed only between the two (temidim).

(Bamidbar 28:26) "And on the day of the first-fruits (Shavuoth), when you offer a new meal-offering to the L-rd": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 23:16) "Until the morrow of the seventh week shall you count fifty days," I might think (either) that he counts forty-nine days and offers the meal-offering on the fiftieth, or that he counts fifty days and offers the meal-offering on the fifty-first.

It is, therefore, written "And on the day of the first-fruits, when you offer a new meal-offering to the L-rd in (the completion of) your weeks," whence we find that it is not the second rending that is to be accepted, but the first — Count (up to) fifty, and offer the meal-offering on the fiftieth. — But I still can say: Offer the meal-offering on the fiftieth and observe the festival on the fifty-first!

It is, therefore, (to negate this), written "in your weeks" (and not after them), "a calling of holiness." "a new meal-offering to the L-rd": that it be the newest of the meal-offerings, that no other meal-offering precede it. From here it was ruled: The meal-offering of the first-fruits and the meal-offering of (i.e., accompanying) a beast is not brought (from the new crop) before the omer; and if it is brought, it is not fit.

Before the two loaves (of Shavuoth), he should not bring it; but if he brought it, it is kasher. R. Tarfon said: Since the omer permits (for eating by men), and the two loaves permit (for sacrifice to the L-rd), then if I have learned about meal-offerings that precede the omer that they are unfit, the meal-offerings that precede the two loaves are also unfit. R. Yehudah b. Nachman said to him: No, this may be true of meal-offerings that precede the omer, which are kasher neither for (sacrifice to) the L-rd nor for (eating by) men.

Would you say the same — that they are unfit — for (meal-offerings that precede) the two loaves? Even though they are not kasher for the L-rd, they are kasher for men! R. Akiva looked at him (R. Yehudah b. Nachman) and saw his face shining, whereupon he said to him: "Yehudah b. Nachman, your face is shining, for you have 'bested' the elder" (R. Tarfon). I doubt that you will live much longer."

R. Elazar b. R. Yehudah said: This happened on Pesach, and when I came for the atzereth (Shavuoth) and asked: "Where is Yehudah b. Nachman?", I was told "He has passed away."

(Bamidbar 28:27) "And you shall present a burnt-offering as a sweet savor to the L-rd": You sacrifice these aside from those mentioned in Torath Cohanim (Vayikra 27:18). "You say this; but perhaps they are the same as those mentioned there? — Can you say this? Are they similar? You cannot accept the second supposition, but the first — You sacrifice these aside from those mentioned in Torah Cohanim. "two young bullocks, one ram, etc.": If one found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, I might think that he does not sacrifice any until he finds all.

It is, therefore, written "And you shall present a burnt-offering," implying even one. I might then think that even if all are found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, written (to negate this) "two young bullocks, and one ram, etc."

(Bamidbar 28:31) "Unblemished shall they be for you, and their libations": The libations are being likened to the (sacrificial) animal. Just as the animal is rendered unfit by blemishes, by deficiency or superfluity, so, the libations.

(Bamidbar 29:12) "And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, a calling of holiness shall there be for you": Scripture makes it mandatory. (Ibid. 13) "And you shall present a burnt-offering, a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L-rd": If one found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, I might think that he does not sacrifice any until he finds all. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:36) "Seven days shall you present a fire-offering to the L-rd," implying (if he found) even one. I might think that even if all are found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, written "thirteen young bullocks, two rams, etc." Whence is derived the water libation on Succoth? R. Akiva says: It is written that the omer is to be brought on Pesach so that the grain be blessed for you, and bring bikkurim on Shavuoth so that the fruits be blessed for you. Also, (by induction), present a water libation on Succoth so that the rains of the year be blessed for you. R. Yehudah says: On the second day it is written "veniskehem" ("and their libations"); on the sixth, "unesachehah"; and on the seventh, "kemishpatam" — (superfluous) Mem Yod Mem, which spells "mayim" (water) — whence the water libation (on Succoth) is Scripturally intimated. R. Nathan says: What is the intent of (Bamidbar 28:7) "On the holy place (the altar) pour a pouring"? To include the water (libation).

(Bamidbar 29:35) "On the eighth day, a withholding ("atzereth") shall there be for you": Scripture "withheld" him from leaving. If one brought his offerings from Beth Paggai (outside of Jerusalem) to Jerusalem, I might think that he could eat them in Jerusalem and sleep in Beth Paggai. It is, therefore, written "On the eighth day, an atzereth shall there be for you" — Scripture withheld him from leaving (until the morning of the next day [viz. Devarim 16:7]). "atzirah" connotes confinement, as in (Jeremiah 36:5) "I am atzur; I cannot go to the Temple of the L-rd" and (Ibid. 33:1) "Then the word of the L-rd came to Jeremiah a second time while he was still atzur in the prison yard."

This tells me only of the last day of the festival that he is forbidden to leave. Whence do I derive (the same for) the first day? It follows inductively, viz. Since both are called "a calling of holiness," just as it is forbidden to leave the first day, so it is forbidden to leave the last day.

(Bamidbar 29:36) "And you shall present a burnt-offering": I might think that if he found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, that he does not sacrifice any until he finds all. It is, therefore, written "And you shall present a burnt-offering, a fire-offering," implying (if he found) even one. I might then think that even if all were found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "one bullock, one ram, etc."

(Bamidbar 29:39) "These shall you offer to the L-rd on your festivals, aside from, etc.": These are the vows and the gift-offerings that he vows on the festival, that he is to bring them on the festival. You say this, but perhaps Scripture speaks of the vows and the thank-offerings of the whole year? (This is not so, for Devarim 12:5-6) "And you shall come there and you shall bring there … your vows and your gifts" already speaks of the vows and gifts of the whole year. How, then, am I to understand "These shall you offer to the L-rd on your festivals"? As referring to the vows and the gift-offerings that he vows on the festival, that they are to be brought on the festival. "aside from your vows" These are the bird-pairs of the zavim and the zavoth (those with a genital flow), which (bird-pairs) the Torah permitted to be brought on a festival. "aside from your vows … (31) And Moses said to the children of Israel": (The purpose of "And Moses said" is) to conclude the foregoing. For if I read "aside from your vows … (30:2) And Moses spoke," I would not know to what it ("And Moses spoke") referred, (to what precedes or to what follows?) It is, therefore, written "from your vows … And Moses said," to conclude what precedes. These are the words of R. Yishmael.

(Bamidbar 30:2) "And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 10:3) "And when they (the Cohanim) blow (tekiah) with them (the shofaroth) then all the congregation shall gather unto you," and (Ibid. 4) "And if they blow (tekiah) with one, there shall gather unto you the chiefs," we do not know where (they are to gather). It is (therefore) written "tekiah" re the congregation, and "tekiah" re the chiefs.

Just as the congregation, (Ibid. 3) "to the door of the tent of meeting," so, the chiefs, at the door of the tent of meeting. — But perhaps all that is first in Scripture (i.e., "congregation") is first in act? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 30:2) "to the heads of the tribes" (and then to the tribes). Since "spoke" is written in the Torah unqualified (as to whom he is speaking first), and in one instance (i.e., this one) it is specified that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation, it is, likewise, assumed in all such instances that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation.

R. Yonathan says: This (derivation) is not necessary. It is already written Shemot 34:31-32) "And Moses called to them, and there returned to him all the chiefs of the congregation, and Moses would speak to them. And after that, all the children of Israel would approach and he would command them, etc." Since "speaking" is written in the Torah unqualified (as to whom he is speaking first), and in one instance it is specified that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation, so, this is assumed in all such instances.

If so, why need it be written (here) "to the heads of the tribes"? To indicate that the permitting (i.e., absolution) of vows is through experts alone.

"This is the thing": We are hereby apprised that just as the prophets prophesied by "Thus said the L-rd," so did Moses, viz. (Shemot 11:4), and, in addition, "This is the thing, etc." Variantly: This is the "word" (for the absolution of vows.) A husband "annuls" ("mefer" [his wife's vows, viz. Bamidbar 30:9]), but a sage does not annul. A sage "permits" ("matir" [viz. Bamidbar 30:3]) but a husband does not permit.

For would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If he who does not annul, permits, then he who does annul, how much more so should he permit. And if he who does not permit, annuls, then he who does permit, how much more so should he annul! It is, therefore, written "This is the 'word' that the L-rd has commanded": The husband "annuls," and a sage does not annul. A sage "permits," and the husband does not permit.

(Bamidbar 30:3) "A man, if he vow a vow, etc.": "A man": to exclude a minor. — But this would exclude (both) a minor and one who is thirteen years and one day old! — It follows (by induction that it does not), viz.: It is written here "vow," and elsewhere (Ibid. 6:2) "vow." Just as there, "ki yafli" (i.e., if he can clearly articulate his vow), so, here — whence it was ruled: If he were thirteen years and one day old, his vows stand.

If he were twelve years and one day old, his vows are examined (for the yafli factor). "if he vow a vow": (The meaning is:) If he "supports" his vow by something that is vowed (e.g., "I vow not to eat X just as (I am forbidden to eat) an offering" [i.e., something that is vowed]), it is a vow. Otherwise, it is not a vow. — But perhaps (the meaning is) that it is not a vow until he appends to it (Ibid.) "to the L-rd"?

It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6:2) "to vow a vow" — in any event (i.e., even without appending "to the L-rd.") — But perhaps, just as with vows, if he supports his vow by something which is a vow, it is a vow, and, otherwise, not — so with oaths? It is, therefore, written (in respect to oaths) (Ibid. 30:3) "to bind a bond" — in any event (i.e., even without such support). Why is there a difference between vows and oaths (in this regard)?

Vows are like vowing by the life of the king. Oaths, (in that they must be in the name of the L-rd) are like swearing by the King Himself. And even though there is no proof for this (distinction) it is intimated in (II Kings 4:20) "As the L-rd lives, and as you (King David) live." "to bind a bond upon his soul": Upon his soul he binds (i.e., forbids), but he does not bind upon others (i.e., his wife [i.e., he cannot confirm (in advance of her making them) all the vows that his wife will make (in his absence)].

For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If where he cannot annul his own vows once he has made them, he can annul his own vows before he has made them, then where he can annul his wife's vows once she has made them, how much more so can he annul his wife's vows before she has made them! And if he can do this, it follows that he can confirm them before she makes them. In the words of R. Eliezer: I might think that just as he can annul (her vows) before she makes them, so can he confirm them before she makes them — it is, therefore, written "to bind a bond upon his soul" — Upon his soul he binds, but he does not bind upon others.

Variantly: What is the intent of "to bind a bond upon his soul"? Because it is written (Ibid.) "According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do," I might think, even if he swore to eat neveiloth and treifoth, forbidden animals and reptiles. It is, therefore, written "to bind a bond" — to bind (i.e., to forbid) what is permitted, and not to permit what is forbidden.

Variantly: What is the intent of "upon his soul"? From "According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do," I might think, only if he spoke it. Whence do I derive (the same for) his accepting it upon himself (inwardly) by vow or oath? It is, therefore, written "upon his soul." "lo yachel devaro": He shall not make his word "chullin" ("profane").

If he were a sage, (even though he annuls for others), he should not annul for himself. For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If he annuls for others, should he not annul for himself? It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "He shall not make his (own) words "chullin." "lo yachel devaro": This tells us (that if he breaks his vow) he is in transgression of "lo yachel." Whence is it derived that he is also in transgression of "You shall not delay"?

From (Devarim 23:22) "If you make a vow to the L-rd your G-d, you shall not delay to pay it" — whence we derive that he is in transgression of both. R. Eliezer says: This ("You shall not delay") is to equate (verbal) expression (i.e., vowing) with swearing. R. Akiva says: "According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do" — to equate expression with swearing ("According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do.") [followed by] "And a woman, etc." A woman is hereby being likened to a man, viz.: Just as a man transgresses both ("breaking" and "delaying") so, a woman.

"And a woman": I might think, when she has matured; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 30:17) "in her maidenhood." If so, I might think, even a minor. It is, therefore written "And a woman." How is this to be resolved? (We are speaking of a stage) where she has left the status of a minor and not yet achieved maturity.

Whence is it derived that she is subject to vowing? It is written here "vow," and elsewhere (Ibid. 6:2) "vow." Just as "vowing" there connotes "hafla'ah" (distinctness of expression), so, "vow" here connotes "hafla'ah" — whence they ruled: The vows of a girl of twelve years and a day stand. Those of a girl of eleven are "examined" (for "hafla'ah"). "if she vow a vow": If she "supports" her vow by something which is vowed (see above), it is a vow.

Otherwise, it is not a vow. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) that it is not a vow until he appends to it (Ibid.) "to the L-rd"? It is, therefore, written "to vow a vow" — in any event (i.e., even without appending "to the L-rd.") It is the first assumption, then, which is to be accepted. "and she binds a bond": This connotes an oath, as it is written (Ibid. 11) "or she bound a bond on her soul by an oath." "in her father's house": in her father's domain — to include her having been widowed or divorced from betrothal (vis-à-vis her father's prerogative in her vows). — But perhaps it is to be understood literally, even after her marriage (i.e., that even then if she vowed while in her father's house, the father may annul the vow?)

It is, therefore, written "in her father's house in her youth." (Scripture is speaking of one) all of whose youth was spent in her father's house — to exclude one who was widowed or divorced in marriage, all of her youth not having been spent in her father's house.

(Bamidbar 30:5) "If her father hear her vow": to exclude one who is deaf. "If her father hear": this tells me only of her father's hearing (her vow). Whence do I derive (the same for) his being told (of it) by others? From (6) "on the day that he hears." "and he be silent to her": He must intend her.

If his daughter vowed, and he said "I thought it was my wife," he may (later) annul her vow (for it was never confirmed by his silence.) For it is written "and he be silent to her": He must intend her. "Then all of her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand": If she vowed and he confirmed it (by his silence), and then he annulled it, I might think that it is annulled.

And how would I understand "Then all of her vows shall stand"? (As meaning) if he did not (later) annul them. Or, (am I to understand it as meaning that they stand) even if he did annul them, (their having been confirmed by his original silence)? And how would I understand (6) "And if her father constrain her, (which implies that he can annul them)? If he never confirmed them (by his silence.)

Of, even if he did confirm them, (if he then annulled them, they are annulled?) It is, therefore, written "shall stand," Scripture hereby apprising us that every vow, if it were confirmed for one instant, cannot thereafter be annulled.

(Bamidbar 30:6) "And if her father constrain her": I would not know what this "constraint" was were it not written (Ibid. 9) "And if on the day that her husband hear, he constrain her and annul the vow" — whence I derive that "constraint" is annulment. — We learn vis-à-vis the husband that "constraint" is annulment. Whence do we derive (the same for) the father? And, furthermore, we find vis-à-vis the husband that (his) silence on the day of his hearing is equated with the day of the vow for confirmation.

Whence do we derive (the same for) the father? It follows (by induction), viz.: If he (the father) is permitted to confirm and he is permitted to annul, then if I have learned about annulment that silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then for confirmation, too, silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow. — No, this may be true of annulment, where there is a distinction in the rule, (annulment in the heart not being considered annulment), wherefore silence on the day of hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, as opposed to confirmation, where no such distinction exists.

Not succeeding (in deriving it in the above manner) I will derive it from (what obtains with) the husband, viz.: Since the husband annuls and the father annuls, then just as with the husband, silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then the same obtains with the father, too. Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If for the husband, who does not achieve exclusivity (of prerogative in the area of his wife's vows), silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then the father, who does (occasionally) achieve exclusivity, how much more so should silence on the day of his hearing be equated with (silence on) the day of the vow! — No, this may be true of the husband, who annuls (her vows) when she has matured, (as opposed to her father who does not), wherefore silence on the day of his hearing is not equated with (silence on) the day of the vow.

Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination (we turn to Scripture, viz.:) It is written (Ibid. 17) "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter": The father is likened to the husband, viz.: Just as with the husband, "constraint" is annulment, and silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, towards confirmation — so with the father. (Ibid. 6) "and the L-rd will forgive her": If she (one's wife) made a vow and he annulled it in his heart and she broke it (to her thinking) wilfully, whence is it derived that she requires forgiveness?

From "and the L-rd will forgive her." Now does this not follow a fortiori? If vows which are (thus) annulled require forgiveness, how much more so vows which are not annulled! An analogy: One, thinking that he was eating swine's flesh ate lamb flesh instead.

If he requires forgiveness, how much more so one who intended to eat swine's flesh and actually ate it! "for her father has constrained her": If she said: "I know that father would annul any vow that he heard," I might think it is annulled; it is, therefore, written "for her father has constrained her." If the father annuls it, it is annulled; if not, it is not annulled. If he said to a caretaker: "Any vows that my daughter makes from now until I return, annul them," and he did so, I might think that they are annulled; it is, therefore, written "for her father has constrained her."

If her father annulled them, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find in all places that a man's messenger is like himself.

(Bamidbar 30:7) "And if she be to a man, and her vows be upon her": This refers to one who is betrothed. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: In either case, (i.e., either betrothed or wed) Scripture comes to make a distinction, viz.: As long as she is in her father's house, her father and her husband (jointly) annul her vows. If she is wed, her father does not annul her vows. "and her vows be upon her": the vows that "came along" with her from her father's house to her husband's house.

Whence do I derive (the same for) vows that she made on his (her husband's) domain? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If he annuls vows that she vowed not in his domain, how much more so vows that she made in his domain! Variantly: "and her vows be upon her": (Can the husband annul only) vows which were never confirmed (in her father's house) or even vows which were confirmed there? It follows (inductively), viz.: The husband annuls and the father annuls.

Just as the father annuls only vows which were never confirmed or annulled, so, the husband. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the father, who has an exclusive prerogative (over his daughter's vows) can annul only vows which were never confirmed, how much more so, the husband, who does not have such a prerogative! — No, this may be true of the father, who does not annul in her maturity — wherefore he annuls only vows which were never confirmed, as opposed to the husband, who does annul (the vows of her) maturity — wherefore he can annul every vow, (even those confirmed in her father's house)?

Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination, we must revert to Scripture, viz.: "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter. Scripture likens the husband to the father, viz.: Just as the father can annul only those vows which were never confirmed, so, the husband. "or the utterance (mivta) of her lips": "bitui" (like "mivta") connotes an oath, as in (Vayikra 5:4) "Or if a soul swear 'levatei' with his lips."

(Bamidbar 30:8) "And her husband hear": to exclude one who is deaf. "And her husband hear": This tells me only of his own hearing. Whence do I derive (the same for) others' hearing (and reporting it to him? From (9) "And if on the day of her husband's hearing." (Ibid. 8) "and he be silent to her."

He must intend her. If his wife vowed, and he said: "I thought it was my daughter," he may annul it later (see above), it being written "and he be silent to her." He must intend her. "then all of her vows shall stand": If she vowed and he confirmed (her vow by his silence), and he later annulled it, I might think that it is annulled. And how would I understand "then all of her vows shall stand"?

If he did not annul them. Or, even if he did annul them, and how would I understand (9) "and he annul her vow"? If he had not confirmed it. Or, even if he did confirm it? (See the same discussion vis-à-vis one's daughter above.)

It is, therefore, written "they shall stand," Scripture apprising us that any vow which was confirmed at the time cannot thereafter be annulled.

(Bamidbar 30:9) "And if on the day that her husband hear, he constrain her and annul her vow": We learn vis-à-vis the husband that "constraint" is annulment and vis-à-vis the husband that silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow.

"and he annul her vow": He can annul the vows that are upon her (i.e., that she has already made), and not the vows that are not upon her (i.e., those that she is destined to make.) R. Eliezer says that he can do so, and that it follows a fortiori, viz.: If where he cannot annul the vows that he has made, he can annul the vows that he is destined to make, then where he can annul the vows that his wife has made, how much more so can he annul the vows that she is destined to make! They (the sages) said to him: No, it is written "and he annul her vow which is upon her." He can annul those vows which she has already made, but not those which are not yet upon her. Variantly (Ibid. 14) "Her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it": What (already) came to confirmation can come to annulment. What did not (yet) come to confirmation (i.e., those vows that she is destined to make) are not subject to (proactive) annulment. "and the L-rd will forgive her": If she vowed and he annulled it in his heart, and she went and broke (what she thought to be a standing vow) wilfully — whence is it derived that she requires forgiveness? From "and the L-rd will forgive her."