Sifrei Bamidbar Reader

(Bamidbar 30:10) "And the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman": widowed or divorced after marriage. You say after marriage, but perhaps it is after betrothal? You reason thus: Since a father cannot annul the vows of his daughter once she has come of age (bogereth [twelve and a half years]), and he cannot annul the vows of his widowed daughter, then just as a bogereth is one who has entirely left her father's domain, so, the widowed and divorced woman in question must be one who has left her father's domain (i.e., widowed and divorced after marriage, as opposed to after betrothal, in which instance she is still partially in his domain.)

R. Akiva says: She is called "an orphan in her father's lifetime" (in respect to vows.) — But perhaps even if she were widowed or divorced (after marriage) and married another, I "pronounce" over her "and the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman" (her vows shall stand)? It is, therefore, written (to negate this, Ibid. 11) "and if in the house of her husband, etc." This tells me only of a woman who married an Israelite.

Whence do I derive (the same for) a widow who married a high-priest or a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who had received release from levirate marriage), who married an ordinary Cohein? From "And if in the house of her husband" — in any event. "And if in the house of her husband she vowed": This refers to a married woman. — But perhaps it refers only to a betrothed woman? (This cannot be,) for (Ibid. 7) "And if she be (betrothed) to a man" already refers to a betrothed woman. How, then, am I to understand "And if in the house of her husband she vowed"? As referring to a married woman.

(Bamidbar 30:12) "and her husband heard": to exclude one who was deaf. "And her husband heard": This tells me only of one who himself heard (the vow). Whence do I derive (the same for) his being informed by others? From (13) "on the day of his hearing," "and he was silent to her": to (the end of) confirmation.

You say this, but perhaps (the "silence" intended is the silence of) taunting. (This cannot be, for (Ibid. 15) "And if her husband be silent to her from day to day" already speaks of (the silence of) taunting. How, then, am I to understand "and he was silent to her"? As referring to (the silence of) confirmation. (Ibid. 12) "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 "and he annul her vow"? If he had not confirmed it. Or, even if he did confirm it? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 12) "shall stand."

(Bamidbar 30:13) "Her husband has annulled them": If the husband annuls, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. If she said: "I know that any vow of mine that my husband would hear of he would annul," I might think that it is annulled. It is, therefore, written "Her husband has annulled them." If the husband annuls, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled.

If he said to a caretaker: "Annul all the vows that my wife makes from now until I return from that place," and he did so, I might think that they would be annulled. It is, therefore, written "Her husband has annulled them." If the husband annuls, 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 the man himself. "and the L-rd will forgive her": If she vowed and he annulled it in his heart, and she went and broke (the vow wilfully), whence do we derive that she (still) requires forgiveness? From "and the L-rd will forgive her."

(Bamidbar 30:14) "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 9) "and he annul the vow which is upon her," I might think, whether or not it involves affliction. It is, therefore, written "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul, her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it." Scripture speaks only of vows involving affliction.

Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., that he may annul them]) for vows affecting relations between him and her? From (Ibid. 17) "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter" — whether or not they entail affliction. And just as this vow (i.e., a vow involving affliction) is a vow which is not absolved by others (i.e., sages [but annulled by the husband]), so, all vows (i.e., those between husband and wife) which are not absolved by others (are annulled by the husband.)

These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find vows which are absolved by others and which may be annulled by the husband. How so? If she said: "I forbid the fruits of the world to myself," he may annul it. (If she said:) "I forbid the fruits of the province to myself," he can bring them from a different province. (If she said:) "I forbid the fruits of this shopkeeper to me," the husband cannot annul it.

And if his livelihood came only from him, he can annul it. We find, then, that only a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows entailing affliction. Whence do we derive the same for a father (vis-à-vis his daughter)? It follows (by induction), viz. Since a father can annul and a husband can annul, then just as a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows involving affliction, so, a father. — But perhaps the reverse is true, viz.: Since a father can annul and a husband can annul, then just as a father can annul any vow, so, a husband can annul any vow.

How, then, am I to understand "Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul, her husband shall confirm it, etc."? As referring to the days of her maturity (bagruth), but in the days of her maidenhood (na'aruth), he may annul all of her vows. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17) "in her maidenhood in her father's house." (i.e., This distinction between 'na'aruth and bagruth) applies only in her father's house, but not in her husband's house.

I have reasoned and reversed. The reversal was refuted, and I have "merited" returning to the original formulation, viz.: Since a husband can annul and a father can annul, then just as a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, so, a father. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If a husband, who can annul in her maturity, can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, how much more so a father! — No, this may be true of a husband, who does not have exclusive authority (in the annulment of vows) — wherefore he can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, as opposed to a father, who does have such authority — wherefore he can annul all vows.

I have not succeeded in deriving it by reasoning; it is, therefore, written "These are the statutes, etc." likening the father to the husband, viz.: Just as the husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, so the father. "her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it": If she vowed not to eat figs and grapes, and he confirmed it for figs, it is all confirmed.

If he annulled it for figs, it is not annulled until he annulled it also for grapes. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: If he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes, it is all confirmed. If he annulled it for figs, but not for grapes, it is all annulled, it being written "her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it."

Just as "shall confirm it" (connotes even) "part of it," so, "shall annul it" (connotes even) "part of it." If she vowed not to eat figs and grapes, and a sage was consulted (for absolution) and he (explicitly) permitted it for dates, but not for grapes, or for grapes, but not for figs, it is all permitted. If he forbade it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all forbidden.

If he forbade it for figs, but not for grapes, or for grapes, but not for figs, it is forbidden. If her husband annulled it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all annulled. If he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all confirmed. When is this so?

When it is all one vow. But if she said: I vow not to eat figs, and, in addition, I vow not to eat grapes, and a sage were consulted, and he permitted it for figs, but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs — or if her husband annulled it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, or if he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes or for grapes but not for figs — (then only) what was (specifically) confirmed is confirmed, and what was (specifically) annulled is annulled.

(Bamidbar 30:14) "And if her husband be silent, silent to her from day to day": This is the silence of taunting. You say this, but perhaps it is the silence of confirmation (of the vow)? (This is not so, for Ibid. 12) "and he was silent to her" already speaks of the silence of confirmation. How, then, is "and he be silent, silent" to be understood? As referring to the silence of taunting. "from day to day": I might think, from time to time (i.e., for a twenty-four hour period); it is, therefore, written "which are upon her. He has confirmed them for he was silent to her on the day of his hearing" (i.e., until the night). R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "from time to time (i.e., a twenty-four hour period)," it being written "from day to day."

(Bamidbar 30:16) "And if he annul them after his hearing": after his confirmation of the vow. You say this, but perhaps it is "after his hearing," literally? (This cannot be, for) "for he was silent to her on the day of his hearing" already speaks of hearing. How, then, am I to understand "after his hearing"? As after his confirmation of the vow.

"And if he annul them after his hearing," i.e., after his confirmation (and she breaks her vow), "then he shall bear her sin." (i.e., he takes her place for (punishment of) the sin. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz. If in respect to G-d's measure of punishment, which (relative to that of reward) is small, one who causes his neighbor to go astray takes his place for punishment, then, in respect to His measure of good, which is (relatively) large, how much more so (is one rewarded for being instrumental in his neighbor's mitzvah)!

(Bamidbar 30:17) "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter": Father is likened to husband, and husband to father in all of the ways we have mentioned "in her maidenhood (in) the house of her father", but not "in her maidenhood" in the house of her husband (i.e., her husband, unlike her father, does have prerogatives in her vows beyond her maidenhood.) R. Yishmael says "in her maidenhood in the house of her father": Scripture here speaks of a betrothed maiden, her father and her husband (jointly) annulling her vows.

(Bamidbar 31:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Take the revenge of the children of Israel, etc.": This is in praise of the leaders of Israel. They do not depart from the world until they take Israel's revenge, which is the revenge of Him who spoke and brought the world into being. "from the Midianites": But were the Moavites not the initiators? As it is written (Bamidbar 22:4) "And Moav said to the elders of Midian, etc." and (Ibid. 7) "And the elders of Moav went and the elders of Midian, etc." They had never made peace with each other — except when it came to warring with Israel.

An analogy: Two sheep dogs were always at odds with each other, until a wolf came to snatch a lamb from the flock, when one of them, standing up against it, the other said: If I don't help him now, he will kill the lamb and then will turn against me and kill me — whereupon they made peace with each other and took on the wolf. Likewise, Moav and Midian were never at peace with each other, viz. (Bereshit 36:35) "… who smote Midian in the field of Moav."

But when they came to make war against Israel, they made peace with each other. Why, then, "from the Midianites"? For they "counseled" against Israel. "the Midianites" — they "inveighed" ("midaynin") against Israel.

(Bamidbar 31:2) "Afterwards you will be gathered unto your people": We are hereby apprised that Moses' death was contingent upon the defeat of Midian — in spite of which he entered into it with zeal, viz. (Ibid. 3) "And Moses spoke to the people, saying 'hechaltzu,'" connoting zeal, as in (Devarim 3:18) "Chalutzim shall you cross over." (Ibid.) "And let them be against Midian to execute the vengeance of the L-rd against Midian": He told them: You are not executing the vengeance of flesh and blood, but the vengeance of Him who spoke and brought the world into being, as it is written (Nachum 1:2) "the L-rd is a G-d of scorn and revenge."

(Bamidbar 31:4) "A thousand to a tribe, a thousand to a tribe": 24,000 all together, viz. (Ibid. 5) "And there were handed over … twelve thousand armed for the host, etc." R. Akiva says: "a thousand to a tribe, a thousand to a tribe." Why (add) "And there were handed over, etc." To exclude the tribe of Levi. "And there were handed over of the thousands of Israel": Scripture hereby apprises us that they were just and righteous men, who gave of themselves for the cause.

R. Nathan says: Others handed them over: "This man is kasher — Let him go! This man is a tzaddik — Let him go!" R. Elazar Hamodai says: Come and see the love (of Israel for) the shepherd of Israel. So long as they had not heard that the death of Moses was attendant upon the war with Midian, what is written of them? (Shemot 17:4) "Just a little more and they will stone me."

When they heard of it, they began hiding (to avoid conscription, so as not to be instrumental in his death) — notwithstanding which they were conscripted perforce, viz. "And there were handed over of the thousands of Israel, etc."

(Bamidbar 31:6) "And Moses sent them, a thousand to a tribe to the host, them and Pinchas": We are hereby apprised that they were as "weighty" as Pinchas, and Pinchas was over and against all of them. Why did Pinchas go and not Elazar? Because Pinchas went to take revenge (of the Midianites) for his mother's father (Yithro, viz. Shemot 2:16), it being written (Bereshit 37:36) "And the Midianites sold him (Joseph) to Egypt." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and the holy articles … in his hand": This refers to the ark, viz. (Ibid. 4:20) "And they shall not see when the 'holy' is being covered, lest they die." (Ibid. 31:6) "in his hand": "his hand" is his domain, as in (Ibid. 21:26) "and he took all his land from his hand," and (Bereshit 24:10) "and all the good of his master in his hand."

(Bamidbar 31:7) "And they warred against Midian": They surrounded it from four sides. R. Nathan says: They left a fourth side for them to flee from. (Ibid. 8) "the five kings of Midian": As they were all one in counsel, they were all one in death. "and Bilam the son of Beor they slew by the sword": Israel gave him his full reward and did not stint him. For he said to them: When you were six hundred thousand (in the days of Balak), you could not withstand them, and would you withstand them now?

Whereupon they gave him his full "reward" (for his sound advice) and did not "stint" him. R. Nathan says: With the four judicial death penalties they slew him. As it is written (Joshua 13:22) "And Bilam the son of Beor the sorcerer the children of Israel slew by the sword together with their slain." (Bamidbar 31:10) "and all tirotham": This refers to their houses of idolatry. Variantly: the posts of their sentinels. (Ibid. 31) "And they took all of the spoil … and they brought it to Moses."

Scripture here apprises us that they were just and upright and not suspect of theft, as opposed to (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel embezzled the spoils," while here "And they took all of the spoil … and they brought it to Moses." (Bamidbar 31:13) "And Moses and Elazar the Cohein went out": Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Because they saw the youth of Israel going out to snatch the spoils. (Ibid. 14) "And Moses was wroth with the commanders of the host": "the great ones bear the stigma." — whereupon Pinchas said to him: "Our teacher, we did as you commanded us." (Ibid. 15-16) "And Moses said to them: Have you let all the females live?

These are the women who were (consigned as harlots) against the children of Israel by the word of Bilam." What was that word? He said to them (the Midianites): Even if you bring all the hordes in the world against them, you will not defeat them. Are you more numerous than the Egyptians, of whom it is written (Shemot 14:7) "And he took six hundred of his picked chariots, etc."?

But come, I will counsel you as to what to do. The G-d of these detests lewdness. Consign your wives and daughters to them and steep them in lust and their G-d will war against them. For this is the rule: As long as Israel does His will, He wars for them, as it is written (Shemot 14:14) "the L-rd will war for you."

And when they do not do His will, He wars against them, viz. (Isaiah 63:10) "… and He turned into their foe." And, what is more, the Merciful One becomes cruel to them, viz. (Eichah 2:5) "The L-rd has become like a foe; He has swallowed up Israel."

(Bamidbar 31:17) "And every woman knowing a man for carnal relations, kill": Is Scripture speaking of a woman who is fit for intercourse or of one who has actually had intercourse? (Ibid. 31:18) "And all the little ones among the women who did not know carnal relations, keep alive for yourselves" makes it clear that the criterion is being fit for intercourse. (31:7) "kill": Why is this (second "kill") mentioned? (i.e., Why is the first "kill" not sufficient to include "and every woman knowing a man"?) (It is written) to conclude the subject (i.e., to be included with the preceding part of the verse.)

For otherwise, I would not know whether (the reading is to kill the women together) "with every male among the little ones" or to keep (them) alive "with all the little ones among the women." It (the second "kill") is, therefore, written (to conclude the subject of the first verse.) "And all the little ones among the women who did not know carnal relations, keep alive for yourselves": From here R. Shimon b. Yochai ruled. A proselytess who was converted at less than three years and one day is fit for (marriage to) the priesthood.

(Bamidbar 31:19) "And you, abide outside the camp seven days": What is the intent of this? From (Bamidbar 19:14) "A man if he die in a tent, all that enter the tent (while the body is still in it) … shall be unclean seven days," I would think, even straw and twigs, etc. (see Chukath #126). "you and your captives": Just as you are children of the covenant (and require sprinkling with the waters of the red heifer), so, your captives (i.e., Those girls less than three year and one day of age, who were proselytized and became unclean, require sprinkling.)

(Bamidbar 31:20) "and every garment and every vessel of skin": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 11:32) "or skin or sack," I know only of sack. Whence do I derive (the same for) every work of goats? (From the above.) Would you say that?

It follows a fortiori! (i.e., why do we need a verse?), viz.: If in dead-body tumah (our instance) the more stringent variety, every work of goats is likened to sack, then in the instance of sheretz (creeping thing) tumah, (that of Vayikra), the less stringent variety, how much more so should every work of goats be likened to sack! — Would you say that? Do we derive the less stringent from the more stringent to be more stringent with it?

Rather, why is "garment" mentioned in respect to dead body tumah? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in sheretz, the less stringent variety, garment was likened to sack, how much more so (should this obtain) in dead-body tumah! Why, then, is "garment" mentioned in dead-body tumah? It is "extra" for the purpose of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: "Garment" is written here and "garment" is written elsewhere (Vayikra).

Just as here, every work of goats is likened to sack, so, there. And just as there, (the articles must be) spun and woven, (sack being spun and woven), so, there, spun and woven. To include the band, the belt, and the saddle-band of an ass, which are spun and woven. To exclude cords or ropes, which are not spun and woven.

(Bamidbar 31:21) "And Elazar the Cohein said to the men of the host who came to the war: This is the statute of the Torah which the L-rd commanded Moses": It had been forgotten by Moses, our teacher. Because he had succumbed to anger, he succumbed to forgetfulness. R. Elazar says: In three places he succumbed to anger and he succumbed to error: (Vayikra 10:16-17) "and he was wroth with Elazar and Ithamar, the remaining sons of Aaron, saying: Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the holy place?" (Bamidbar 20:10) "And he said to them: Listen, now, you fractious ones!

Shall we bring forth water for you from this rock!" — followed by (11) "And Moses lifted his hand and smote the rock with his staff twice." Here, too, (Ibid. 31:14) "And Moses was wroth with the commanders of the host, the officers of the thousands and the officers of the hundreds, who came from the host of battle" — followed by "And Elazar the Cohein said to the men of the host who came to the war, etc." Moses, our teacher, because he had succumbed to anger, succumbed to forgetfulness.

Others say: Moses authorized Elazar the Cohein to speak, so that when he died they would not say to Elazar: "In your teacher's lifetime you did not speak. Why are you speaking now?" "which the L-rd commanded Moses": He said the thing in the name of its sayer. And thus is it written (Esther 2:22) "And Esther said to the king in the name of Mordecai."

(Bamidbar 31:22) "Only the gold and the silver": You say (finished) vessels. But perhaps (the verse is speaking of) golmim (unfinished, undifferentiated metal forms)? It follows (otherwise), viz.: The dead of Israel cause uncleanliness, and the slain of Midian cause uncleanliness. Just as with the dead of Israel (finished) vessels contract uncleanliness, and not golmim, so, with the slain of Midian. R. Yossi Haglili says; (The verse speaks of finished) vessels. You say vessels, but perhaps golmim? It is, therefore, written "Only," to distinguish (between the two.)

(Bamidbar 31:23) "Every thing that comes into the fire shall you pass through the fire": Knives, spits, and grills are whitened in fire. Pots, stew-pots, and kettles and boilers are to be boiled against absorption of idolatrous elements. "And every thing that does not come into the fire": such as spears, cups and flasks, are rinsed and immersed. And whence is (the need for) immersion (derived)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If what does not require sprinkling (with the waters of the red heifer) requires immersion, how much more so that which requires sprinkling!

(Bamidbar 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean": What is the intent of this? Since we are speaking of one slain by the sword, Scripture comes to teach us that the sword and one who touches it is tamei for seven days. Whence do we derive (the same for transfer of tumah from) vessels (i.e., appurtenances) to man to vessels (appurtenances)? From "And you shall wash your garments." "and then you shall come to the camp." Just as here, (without washing of garments and sprinkling) he is forbidden to enter the camp (of the Shechinah), so, there (vis-à-vis the red heifer, Vayikra 19:19) he is forbidden to enter the camp; and just as there, until the evening, so, here, until the evening.

(Bamidbar 35:9-10) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel … When you cross the Jordan, etc.": What is the intent of this section (on the cities of refuge)? From (Devarim 4:41) "Then Moses set aside three cities on the east side of the Jordan," we know only of these. Whence is it derived that Moses commanded Joshua to set aside cities of refuge (on the other side)? From (Bamidbar 35:11) "then you shall designate cities for yourselves."

Scripture speaks of (the time) after inheritance and settlement. — But perhaps, upon their entry to the land? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 12:29) "When the L-rd your G-d has cut down the nations, etc." Scripture speaks of (the time after inheritance and settlement). (Bamidbar 35:10) "When you cross the Jordan to the land of Canaan": From here R. Yonathan derived: The Jordan is not part of the land of Canaan.

R. Shimon b. Yochai says (Ibid. 26:3) "at the Jordan. Jericho": Just as Jericho is part of Canaan, so is Jordan. (Ibid. 35:11) "Then you shall call out cities (arim) for yourselves." "Calling out" connotes "designation." "cities": I might think, large cities; it is, therefore, written "arim" (connoting small cities). If so, I might think villages.

It is, therefore, written "arim." How was this implemented in effect? They were of such size as to have markets and a food store. "And there shall flee there a slayer": I might think, any slayer.

It is, therefore, written "a slayer, one who smites a soul unwittingly." If "one who smites a soul," I would think, even one who wounds his father and mother (unwittingly, viz. Shemot 21:15). It is, therefore, written "a slayer, one who smites a soul," Scripture hereby excluding from exile one who (unwittingly) wounds his father and mother.

(Bamidbar 35:12) "And the cities shall be for you as a refuge from the avenger. And the slayer shall not die until he stand before the congregation for judgment.": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 27) "And if the avenger kill the slayer (outside the city of refuge), he has no blood" (on his hands), I might think (he may kill him even) immediately. It is, therefore, written "And the slayer shall not die (at the hands of the avenger) until he stand before the congregation for judgment" (and is pronounced an exile.)

(Bamidbar 35:13) "And the cities which you shall provide — six cities of refuge shall there be for you.": together with the first (three designated by Moses across the Jordan). You say, together with the first. But perhaps (the meaning is) exclusive of the first? (Ibid. 14) "The three cities shall you provide across the Jordan, and the three cities shall you provide in the land of Canaan" indicates "together with the first."

And they are (Devarim 4:43) "Betzer in the desert in the land of the plain for (the tribes of) Reuven; Ramoth in Gilead for Gad; and Golan in Bashan for Menasheh. And, corresponding to them, three in the land of Canaan, viz. (Joshua 20:7) "And they set aside Kedesh in the Galil in the hill (country) of Naftali, and Shechem in the hill of Ephraim, and Kiryath Arba, which is Chevron, in the hill of Yehudah."

We find, then, the two and a half tribes across the Jordan corresponding (in this respect) to the nine and a half tribes in the land of Canaan, most of the spillers of blood residing in Gilead. As it is written (Hoshea 6:8) "Gilead, the city of the workers of wrong, steeped in blood." (Bamidbar 35:13) "cities of refuge shall there be for you": What is the intent of this? I derive that they provide refuge only for those (who killed) in the land.

Whence do I derive (the same for those) outside the land? From "shall there be for you" (— in any event). (Ibid. 15) "for the children of Israel": This tells me (that they provide refuge only) for (native) Israelites. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes and sojourners? From (Ibid.) "and for the proselyte and the sojourner in their midst."

But perhaps (the meaning is that) just as a sojourning proselyte is exiled for (unwittingly killing) another, so, he is exiled for (unwittingly killing) an Israelite, and an Israelite is exiled for (unwittingly killing) him? — It is, therefore, written "for you." How so? If an Israelite killed him, he is exempt. If he killed an Israelite, he is killed. "shall these six cities be for refuge": What is the intent of this?

From (14) "The three cities shall you provide across the Jordan," I might think that the first that is set aside provides refuge (immediately). It is, therefore, written "shall these six cities be for refuge," Scripture hereby apprising us that one (city) does not afford refuge until all have been set aside.

(Bamidbar 35:16) "And if with an iron implement he kill him (intentionally) and he die, he is a murderer.": What is the intent of this? From (17) "And if with a hand-stone … (18) Or if with a wooden implement, etc.", I might think that he is liable only if he killed him with one of these. Whence would I derive (the same for) iron? It is, therefore, written "And if with an iron implement he kill him, he is a murderer." — But (even) without this I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If he is liable for killing him with stone or wood, how much more so with iron! — But if so, I would say: Just as a stone must fill the hand (thus "hand-stone"), so, iron.

It is, therefore, written with an implement of iron, (of any size). It is revealed before the Holy One Blessed be He that iron of any size can kill, wherefore "hand" is not written (in that connection) — even a needle or a pin sufficing. This tells me only of his killing him with iron. Whence do I derive the same for his throwing at him metal balls or lumps?

From (16) "He is a murderer; die shall die the murderer" — in any event. (17) "And if with a hand-stone, whereby he can die, he strike him and he die, he is a murderer. Die shall die the murderer.": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 21:18) "And if men quarrel and a man strike his neighbor, etc." I might think (that this obtains) whether he strikes him with something which is or which is not lethal.

It is, therefore, written "And if with a hand-stone (i.e., one which fills the hand), whereby he can die, he strike him." Scripture hereby apprises us that he is not liable unless he strikes him with something which is potentially lethal. I might think, even (if he strike him) on a (body) site (a blow to) which is not mortal. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:11) "And if a man hate his neighbor … and he strike him mortally" — whereby we are apprised that he is not liable unless he strikes him with something which is potentially lethal and on a (body) site, injury to which may result in his death.

This ("And if with a hand-stone") tells me that he is liable only if he kills him with a stone. Whence do I derive (the same for) his rolling rocks or pillars over him? From (17) "he is a murderer — die shall die the murderer" — in any event.

(Bamidbar 35:18) "Or if with a wooden hand-implement, whereby he can die, he strike him, and he die, he is a murderer." What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 21:20) "And if a man strike his (Canaanite) man-servant or maid-servant with a rod, and he die under his hand, vengeance (by the sword) shall be taken," I might think, whether or not it is of killing potential. It is, therefore, written "Or if with a wooden hand-implement, whereby he can die, he strike him, etc." — only if it is of killing potential.

I might think, even on a (body) site injury to which does not result in death. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:11) "And if a man hate his neighbor and lie in wait for him, and he rise up against him and he strike him mortally," Scripture hereby apprising us that he is not liable unless he strikes him on a (body) site injury to which may result in death. This ("Or, if with a wooden implement") tells me that he is liable only if he struck him with wood.

Whence do I derive (the same for) his throwing beams or poles at him? From "he is a murderer — die shall die the murderer" — in any event.

(Bamidbar 35:19) "the avenger, he shall kill the murderer": The mitzvah is the avenger's. Whence is it derived that if he has no avenger, beth-din designates one for him? From "The avenger, he shall kill the murderer when he comes upon him" — in any event.

(Bamidbar 35:20) "And if in hatred he thrust him": What is the intent of this? From "And if with an iron implement," "And if with a hand-stone," "Or if with a wooden hand-implement," I might think that he is liable only if he killed him with these. Whence do I derive (the same for) other things? It follows by induction from all three, viz.: Stone is not like wood; wood is not like stone; and both are not like iron. And iron is not like both. What is common to all three is that they are potentially lethal, and if one killed (by them), it is a mitzvah for the avenger to kill him. This tells me only of his killing with these. Whence do I derive that he is likewise liable if he pushed him off the top of a roof and he fell and died? From "And if in hatred he thrust him" — in any event. — But perhaps even if he pushed him into water or fire or incited a dog or a snake against him? It follows (that this is not so) by induction from all three, viz.: Stone is not like wood and wood is not like stone and both are not like iron and iron is not like both. What is common to all three is that they are potentially lethal and he killed (by wielding them), in which instance he is liable — to exclude his thrusting him into fire or water or inciting a snare against him, in which instance his (the victim's) judgment is relegated to "Heaven." "or if he hurl aught at him in prey": (i.e.,) if he "hunted" him with intent to kill.

(Bamidbar 35:21) "Or if in hatred he strike him with his hand": What is the intent of this? From "And if with an iron implement," "And if with a hand-stone," "Or if with a wooden implement," I would think that he is liable only with these. Whence do I derive (that he is likewise liable) if he crushed, strangled, kicked, or trampled him? From "with his hand" — in any manner. "The avenger shall kill the murderer": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (19) "The avenger, he shall kill the murderer"? I might think that (this obtains) only with one who has an avenger. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who does not have an avenger? From "The avenger" — in any event.

(Bamidbar 35:22) "And if of a sudden, without hatred, he thrust him": to exclude (his killing) unwittingly. "or he cast upon him some instrument, but not in prey": without "hunting" or intent to kill. (22) "Or with any stone, whereby one can die," "without seeing": to include (for exile) a blind man and one who throws (a stone) at night. R. Yehudah says: "without seeing": to exclude a blind man. "and he not be his foe": Issi b. Akiva says: We find his stringency to be his lenity, and his lenity, his stringency, viz.: You cannot make him liable for the death penalty — Perhaps he killed him unwittingly.

And you cannot make him liable for exile — Perhaps he killed him wittingly. "and he not be his foe" (juxtaposed with [24] "Then the congregation shall judge"): to exclude haters from sitting in judgment. This tells me of haters. Whence do we derive the same for kin? From (24) "between the slayer and the avenger" (with no other "relationship" intervening).

Whence do I derive the same for witnesses? It follows, viz.: The Torah states: Kill through (the agency of) judges, kill through witnesses. Just as judges who are (their) haters or kin are unfit (to judge in their case), so, witnesses (who are haters or kin). Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If judges — who do not decide (the facts of the case) — haters and kin are unfit to serve (as judges), then witnesses — who decide (the facts of the case) — how much more so are haters and kin unfit to serve (as witnesses)!

This tells me only of (the instance of a murderer). Whence do I derive (the same for) all other instances of the death penalty? From [the superfluous] (Ibid.) "according to these judgments." This tells me only of Israelites.

Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? From (Vayikra 24:22) "for proselytes and native-born (Israelites) alike." This tells me only of capital cases. Whence do I derive (the same for) monetary cases?

From (Ibid.) "One (standard of) judgment shall there be for you," — But perhaps just as capital cases (are adjudicated) by twenty-three, so, monetary cases? It is, therefore, written (here) "according to these (capital) judgments." These are (adjudicated) by twenty-three, and not monetary judgments, of which it is written (Shemot 22:8) "Until elohim (counting three judges) shall come the dispute of both."

And whence is it derived that capital cases (are adjudicated) by twenty-three? From (Bamidbar 35:24) "And the congregation (ten) shall judge" (25) And the congregation (ten) shall rescue" — twenty all together. And whence is it derived that three are added? From (Shemot 23:2) "Do not be after the many to do evil," I understand that I should be with them to do good.

If so, what is the intent of (Ibid.) "After the many (i.e., the majority to incline" (judgment)? Let your judgment for good (i.e., acquittal) not be like your judgment for evil (i.e., incrimination). I still would not know how many, (but the Torah states: Kill by witnesses; kill by the inclination of the judges.

Just as witnesses are two, so, the inclination of the judges (i.e., acquittal, is with a majority of one, and incrimination by a majority of two); and since the verdict of beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, three most be added to them (the twenty). The expounders of metaphor stated: The three "eduyoth" ("congregants") written in this section (one in [24] and two in [27]) signal that capital cases are adjudicated by thirty.

(Bamidbar 35:25) "And the congregation shall return him": From here you learn that those who kill, either unwittingly or wittingly, repair to the cities of refuge, and beth-din send and bring them from there. One who is found liable for the death penalty is killed. One who is not found liable is let go. One who is found liable for exile is returned to his place, as it is written "and the congregation shall return him to his city of refuge." "and he shall dwell there until the death of the high-priest": R. Meir says: A murderer shortens a man's days, and the high-priest lengthens a man's days.

It is not fitting that the "shortener" should stand before the "lengthener." Rebbi says: A murderer defiles the land and removes the Shechinah, and the high-priest causes the Shechinah to repose on the land. It is not fitting that he who defiles the land should stand before him who causes the Shechinah to repose upon the land.

(Bamidbar 35:26) "And if the murderer go beyond the border of the city of refuge … (27) the avenger may slay the murderer": R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: If under the measure of punishment, the lesser (of the two measures), one who steps one step (beyond the permitted limits) is liable for his soul, then under the measure of reward, the greater, how much more so (is his soul ennobled by an "extra step" for a mitzvah)! (37) "And the avenger find him": any man (i.e., not only the literal "blood-avenger," his kin). (38) "For in the city of his refuge shall he dwell": whence it is derived: If one killed in that city (to which he had been exiled), he is exiled from one neighborhood (in that city) to another.

And a Levite (who lives in a city of refuge) is exiled from that city to another. "and after the death of the high-priest, the slayer shall return to the land of his holding": but not to his (previous high) position. These are the words of R Yehudah. R. Meir says: even to his position.

(Bamidbar 35:29) "And these shall be for you a statute of judgment": to obtain throughout the generations": in Eretz Yisrael and outside of it. (30) "Whoever would kill a soul, by the testimony of witnesses shall he kill the slayer": What is the intent of this? From (19) "The avenger, he shall kill him," I might think that he may kill him in beth-din without witnesses. It is, therefore, written "Whoever would kill a soul, by the testimony of witnesses, etc." He kills him only in beth-din and by witnesses. "and one witness shall not testify against a soul to have him put to death": (but) he can testify towards acquittal.

And one witness can testify towards (imposing) an oath. "and one witness": This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "witness" is written, two are understood, unless "one" is specified. (31) "And you shall not take ransom for the soul of a murderer": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 21:30) "When ransom is set for him" (one whose ox killed a man), I might think that just as "redemption" is given for those subject to death at the hands of Heaven, so, is it given for those liable to death by man (i.e., beth-din).

It is, therefore, written "And you shall not take ransom." R. Yoshiyah says: If one were taken out to be executed and he injured others, he is liable. If others injured him, they are not liable for (injuring) his person, (for he is considered "dead"), but they are liable for (damage to) his property. Whence is this derived?

From "And you shall not take ransom," (indicating that he is regarded as "dead.") — But perhaps this obtains even if his verdict has not yet been consummated? It is, therefore, written "who is liable to die." Until his verdict has been consummated, he (i.e., one who injures him) is liable. Once his verdict has been consummated, he is not liable.

R. Yonathan says: If one were being taken out to be executed, and another came forward and killed him, he is not liable. Even if his verdict has not yet been consummated? It is, therefore, written "until he is liable to die." Until his verdict has been consummated, he (i.e., one who kills him) is liable. Once his verdict has been consummated, he is not liable.

(Bamidbar 35:32) "And you shall not take ransom for one who fled to the city of his refuge, etc.": If one killed unwittingly, I might think that if he gave money (i.e., "ransom"), he would not be exiled. It is, therefore, written "And you shall not take ransom for one who has fled, etc."

(Bamidbar 35:33) "Velo tachanifu the land": This is an exhortation against flatterers ("chanafim"). Variantly: Do not cause the land to "flatter" you (i.e., not to produce fruit). "ki hadam hu yachanif eth ha'aretz": Rabbi Yoshiyah interpreted this acronymically, viz.: "ki hadam hu yachon af ba'aretz" ("for the blood will repose wrath upon the land." "and the land will not have atonement." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 21:4) "and they shall break there the neck of the heifer in the river-bed," I might think that if its neck were broken and afterwards the murderer were found, it would effect atonement. It is, therefore, written "and the land will not have atonement." We are hereby taught that the spilling of blood defiles the land and removes the Shechinah. And because of the spilling of blood the Temple was destroyed.

Once, the Cohanim of equal station were running up the ramp (to perform the sacrifice), when one of them caught up with the other in his four ells, took his knife, and thrust it into his heart. R. Tzaddok ascended the steps of the Temple hall and said: It is written (Devarim 21:1) "If there be found a slain one on the earth, etc." Come and let us measure for whom it is incumbent to bring the heifer (of the broken neck) — the Temple or the azarah (the Temple court) — whereupon all of the people burst into tears.

After that the father of the young Cohein came and said to them: "My brothers, let him be your atonement. My son is still palpitating and the (sacrificial) knife has not become unclean" — whereby we are taught that the defilement of knives was of more moment to them than the spilling of blood. And thus is it written (II Kings 21:16) "And Menasheh also shed very much innocent blood until it filled Jerusalem from mouth to mouth."

(Bamidbar 35:34) "in whose midst I dwell": Beloved are Israel, for even when they are tamei the Shechinah reposes among them — (Vayikra 16:16) "who dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanliness," and (Ibid. 15:31) "… when they defile My sanctuary which is in their midst," and (Bamidbar 5:3) "and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell." (Ibid. 35:34) "for I the L-rd dwell in the midst of the children of Israel."

R. Nathan says: Beloved are Israel, for wherever they are exiled the Shechinah is with them. They were exiled to Egypt — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (I Samuel 2:27) "Did I not reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt (enslaved to) the house of Pharaoh?" They were exiled to Bavel — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 43:14) "Because of you I was sent to Bavel." They were sent to Eilam — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Jeremiah 49:38) "I placed My throne in Eilam, and banished from there king and officers."

They were exiled to Edom — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 63:1) "Who is This, who comes from Edom, with sullied vestments, from Batzrah?" And when they return, the Shechinah will be with them, viz. (Devarim 30:3) "Then the L-rd your G-d will return with your captivity and He will have mercy upon you." It is not written "and He will return to you," but "and He will return with you!" And it is written (Song of Songs 4:8) "With Me from the Levanon, My bride — with Me from the Levanon shall you come.

You will look from the top of Amanah, from the top of Senir and Chermon, from the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards." Rebbi says: An analogy: A king says to his servant: Why do you search for me? I am with my son. Whenever you need me, I am with my son. "For I, the L-rd dwell in the midst of the children of Israel."