Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

"And you, bring near to yourself Aaron your brother" (Exodus 28:1). This is what Scripture says, "Happy is the one You choose and bring near" (Psalms 65:5). Happy is the one whom the Holy One, blessed be He, chose even though He did not draw him near, and happy is the one whom He drew near even though He did not choose him. Who is the one He chose? This is Abraham, as it is said, "You are the LORD, the God who chose Abram" (Nehemiah 9:7); yet He did not draw him near, and Abraham drew himself near. Jacob, the Holy One, blessed be He, chose him, as it is said, "Israel, in whom I take pride" and, "for the LORD has chosen Jacob for Himself" (Psalms 135:4); yet He did not draw him near, and Jacob drew himself near, as it is said, "And Jacob was a wholehearted man, dwelling in tents" (Genesis 25:27). Moses, He chose him, as it is said, "Moses His chosen one" (Psalms 106:23), and Moses drew himself near. David, He chose him, as it is said, "And He chose David His servant" (Psalms 78:70), and David drew himself near, as it is said, "I am a companion to all who fear You" (Psalms 119:63). Happy are these whom the Holy One, blessed be He, chose even though He did not draw them near. And there are those whom He drew near though He did not choose them: Jethro, the Holy One, blessed be He, drew near though He did not choose him; Rahab the harlot, the Holy One, blessed be He, drew near though He did not choose her. Happy is Aaron in double measure, for the Holy One, blessed be He, chose him and drew him near, as it is said, "and to choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be a priest to Me" (1 Samuel 2:28), and it is written, "And you, bring near to yourself Aaron your brother." Therefore David praises them, "Happy is the one You choose and bring near, that he may dwell in Your courts" (Psalms 65:5). "To serve Me as priest" (Exodus 28:1): in every place where "to Me" is said, it is forever and to all eternity.

"And these are the garments that they shall make" (Exodus 28:4). Our Rabbis taught: A person should always be humble like Hillel and not impatient like Shammai, and so forth. There was another incident concerning a certain gentile who was passing behind a synagogue and heard a scribe reading aloud, "And these are the garments that they shall make." He came to the scribe and said to him, "Explain these to me." He explained them to him. He said to him, "For whom are these?" He said to him, "For the High Priest." That gentile said to himself, "I will go and convert so that they will appoint me High Priest." He came before Shammai and said, "Convert me on the condition that you appoint me High Priest." Shammai pushed him away with the builder's measuring rod that was in his hand. He came before Hillel, who converted him. Hillel said to him, "Does one appoint before the king anyone but one who knows the protocols of royalty? Go and learn the protocols of the kingship." He went and read, and when he reached "and the stranger who draws near shall be put to death" (Numbers 1:51), he asked, "About whom is this verse said?" They told him, "Even about David king of Israel." That convert reasoned a fortiori about himself. He said, "If Israel, who are called children of the Omnipresent, and because He loved them He called them, 'Israel is My firstborn son' (Exodus 4:22), yet of them it is written, 'and the stranger who draws near shall be put to death,' then how much more so a mere convert who comes with his staff and his bag," and so forth.

"And they shall take the gold" (Exodus 28:5). Our Rabbis taught: The charity fund is collected by two and distributed by three. It is collected by two, because one does not exercise authority over the community with fewer than two. And it is distributed by three, because that is like cases of monetary law [which require three judges]. One does not exercise authority with fewer than two, for the verse says, "And they shall take the gold" [in the plural]. It is authority that they should not exercise [alone], but as for being trusted, a single person is trusted. This supports Rabbi Hanina, who said: There was an incident, and Rabbi appointed two brothers over the fund. What authority is involved? Because they take pledges for the fund even on the eve of the Sabbath. "Is that so? But is it not written, 'And I will punish all who oppress them' (Jeremiah 30:20), and these are the charity collectors?" It is not difficult: this case is where the person is well-off [and able to give], and that case is where he is not well-off. As in the case where Rava compelled Rav Natan bar Ami and took from him four hundred zuz for charity.

It was taught: One may not write upon these stones [of the breastplate] with ink, because it is said, "engravings of a signet" (Exodus 28:11), and one may not score them with a chisel, because it is said, "in their fullness" (Exodus 28:20) [they must lose nothing of their substance]. Rather, one writes upon them with ink and shows them the shamir from the outside, and they split open of their own accord, like a fig that splits in the summer days and loses nothing, and like a valley that cracks in the rainy season and loses nothing. Our Rabbis taught: This shamir, its creation is like that of a barley grain, and it was created during the seven days of Creation, and no hard thing can stand before it. With what do they keep it? They wrap it in sponges of wool and place it in a leaden tube full of bran and barley.

"Six of their names on the one stone" (Exodus 28:10). The High Priest had two precious stones upon his shoulders, one on this side and one on that, and the names of the twelve tribes were written upon them, six on this stone and six on that stone, as it is said, "Six of their names" and so forth. "And the names of the six that remain on the second stone, according to their birth" (Exodus 28:10): the second stone follows their birth order. "According to their birth" but not the first stone according to their birth, because Judah is placed first. There were fifty letters, twenty-five on one stone and twenty-five on one stone. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: they were not divided on the stones of the ephod the way they are divided in the Book of Numbers, but rather the way they are divided in the second book: the sons of Leah in their order, the sons of Rachel one here and one there, and the sons of the handmaids in the middle. If so, what does Scripture teach by saying "according to their birth"? In the manner their father called them and not in the manner Moses called them: Reuben and not Reubeni, Simeon and not Simeoni. These fifty letters are fifty less one [forty-nine]. Rabbi Yitzchak said: they added one letter to Joseph, as it is said, "He appointed it as a testimony for Yehosef" (Psalms 81:6) [spelling Joseph with an extra letter]. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: "according to their birth" teaches that throughout the whole Torah Benjamin is written defectively, but here Benjamin is written in full, as in "and his father called him Binyamin" (Genesis 35:18, cf. 45:14).

(Exodus 28:13-35) "And you shall make settings of gold." This is what Scripture says: "All glorious is the king's daughter within" (Psalms 45:14). Kimchit had seven sons, and all of them served in the High Priesthood. The Sages sent to her and said to her, "What are your deeds [that merited this]?" She said to them, "May such and such come upon me if the beams of my house ever saw the hairs of my head in all my days." They said, "All flour is flour, but the flour of Kimchit is fine flour," and they applied to her the verse "All glorious is the king's daughter within" (Psalms 45:14). What was her reward? "Her clothing is of golden settings" (Psalms 45:14), these are the High Priests who serve in the priestly garments, as it is said, "And you shall make settings of gold."

Our Rabbis taught: regarding the items in which "fine linen" (shesh) is stated, their thread is doubled six-fold. "Twisted" (mashzar) means eight; the robe, twelve; the curtain, twenty-four; the breastplate and ephod, twenty-eight. From where do we know that "fine linen" means thread doubled six-fold? Abaye said: five verses are written, "And they made the tunics of fine linen... and the turban-ornaments of fine linen, and the linen breeches of twisted fine linen" (Exodus 39:27-28). How many verses are there? Five: one for itself, that it be of linen; one that the thread be doubled six-fold; one that they be twisted; one for the other garments in which "fine linen" is not stated; and one to make it indispensable. How do we know that "shesh" means linen? Scripture says "bad," a thing that grows from the ground as a single stalk (bad b'bad). And say it means wool? Wool splits. Linen also splits. Linen splits only through beating. Ravina said: from here, "linen turbans shall be on their head" (Ezekiel 44:18), and so forth; it was a received tradition and Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse. "Twisted, eight," from where? As it is said, "And they made upon the hem of the robe pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet, twisted" (Exodus 39:24), and one derives "twisted" "twisted" from the curtain: just as there it is twenty-four, here too twenty-four, each strand being eight. And let us derive it from the breastplate and ephod, that just as there twenty-eight, here too twenty-eight. We derive a thing in which gold is not mentioned from a thing in which gold is not mentioned, and we do not derive it from a thing in which gold is mentioned. On the contrary, derive a garment from a garment, to exclude the curtain which belongs to the Tent. Rather, from the sash, deriving a garment in which gold is not mentioned from a garment in which gold is not mentioned. Rav Mari said: "you shall make it" (Exodus 28:32), for this and not for another. Rav Ashi said: "and you shall make" teaches that all its makings be equal. How shall we do it? Three threads of ten each is thirty; shall we make two of nine and one of ten? "You shall make," said the Merciful One, that all its makings be equal. The robe, twelve, from where? As it is written, "and you shall make the robe of the ephod entirely of blue" (Exodus 28:31), and one derives "blue" "blue" from the curtain: just as there six, here too six (so that each strand is twelve). And let us derive from its hem, that just as there eight, here too eight. We derive a vessel from a vessel and we do not derive a vessel from an ornament of a vessel. The curtain is twenty-four, four of six each, neither subject to law nor judge. The breastplate and ephod, twenty-eight, from where? As it is written, "and you shall make a breastplate of judgment... like the work of the ephod you shall make it" (Exodus 28:15), four of six each, that is twenty-four, and gold four, that is twenty-eight. And say the gold is also six? Scripture says, "and he cut threads" (Exodus 39:3): "thread," "threads," four. Rav Ashi said: Scripture says "and you shall make," that all its makings be equal; therefore it is impossible. Rabbi Elazar said: one who detaches the breastplate from upon the ephod, or who removes the staves of the Ark, is flogged, as it is said, "the breastplate shall not be loosened" (Exodus 28:28), "they shall not be removed from it" (Exodus 25:15). And perhaps the Merciful One means thus: fasten them and make them well so that they not loosen and not be removed? Is it written, "that it shall not be loosened"? Rabbi Yehuda said: one who tears the priestly garments is flogged, as it is said, "it shall not be torn" (Exodus 28:32). And perhaps the Merciful One means thus: make a hem so that it not tear? Is it written, "that it shall not be torn"? Is that so? But Rabbi Anani bar Sason said: why was the section of the priestly garments placed next to the section of the offerings? To tell you: just as the offerings atone, so the priestly garments atone. The tunic atones for bloodshed, as it says, "and they dipped the tunic in the blood" (Genesis 37:31). The breeches atone for forbidden relations, as it says, "make for them linen breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness" (Exodus 28:42). The turban atones for arrogance, as Rabbi Hanina said: let a thing worn high come and atone for an act of haughtiness. The sash atones for the thoughts of the heart, from where it lies. The breastplate atones for the judges, as it is written, "breastplate of judgment." The ephod atones for idolatry, as it is written, "and without ephod or teraphim" (Hosea 3:4). The robe atones for slander; Rabbi Hanina said: let a thing of sound come and atone for an act of sound. The frontlet atones for brazenness; it is written here, "and it shall be upon Aaron's forehead" (Exodus 28:38), and it is written there, "and you had the forehead of a harlot" (Jeremiah 3:3). It is not difficult: this one is where his deeds had effect, that one where his deeds had no effect. If his deeds had effect, plagues come upon him; if his deeds had no effect, the robe atones. But Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: two things we do not find atonement for through offerings, yet we find atonement for them through another means: bloodshed and slander. Bloodshed through the broken-necked heifer, and slander through the incense.

And Rabbi Hanina said: we have learned that the incense atones, as it is said, "and he put on the incense" and so forth (Numbers 17:12). The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: the incense atones for slander. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: let a thing done in secret come and atone for a deed done in secret. There is a difficulty of bloodshed against bloodshed, and a difficulty of slander against slander. Bloodshed against bloodshed is not difficult: this is where the killer is known, that is where the killer is not known. Where the killer is known, he is liable to death. Where it was done deliberately but no one warned him [the broken-necked heifer atones]. Slander against slander is not difficult: this is in private, that is in public.

"The breastplate of judgment upon his heart" (Exodus 28:30). Rabbi Simlai said: as a reward for "and when he sees you he will rejoice in his heart" (Exodus 4:14), he merited the breastplate of judgment upon his heart. Resh Lakish said: a robe that became defiled, one inserts it [into the laundering process] with less than a three-by-three handbreadth area and launders it, because it is said, "it shall not be torn" (Exodus 28:32). Rav Adda bar Ahava objected: the thick and the thin garments are not subject to the law of three-by-three. Because of their thickness they are considered significant. But it requires seven ingredients, for Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: blood-stains of a menstruant and the colors of plagues require seven ingredients, and it was taught that one may not bring urine into the Temple. And if you say that one absorbs them along with the seven ingredients, passing them all over it at once, but we learned: if he passed them out of order, or passed the seven of them at once, he has done nothing. And if you say that one absorbs it along with one of the ingredients, but one is required to rub three times with each and every one. One absorbs it with insipid saliva, for Resh Lakish said: saliva is required with each and every one.

Our Rabbis taught: the priestly garments are not made by the work of a needle but by the work of a weaver, as it is said, "the work of a weaver" (Exodus 28:32). If they became soiled, one does not launder them with natron nor with bohl-soap. Does this imply that with water one may launder them? Abaye said: this is what it means: if they were soiled with water, one launders them; with natron and bohl-soap, if they were soiled with natron and bohl-soap, even with water one may not launder them. And some say: one does not launder them at all, for there is no poverty in a place of wealth. Our Rabbis taught: the robe was entirely of blue, as it is said, "entirely of blue" (Exodus 28:31). Its hem, how was it made? One brings blue and purple and scarlet twisted, and makes them like pomegranates that have not opened their mouths and like the cones of helmets that are on children's heads, and hangs it on the robe. And one brings seventy-two bells with seventy-two clappers in them and hangs them on it, thirty-six on this side and thirty-six on that side. Rabbi Dosa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: there were thirty-six, eighteen on this side and eighteen on that side. Rabbi Anani bar Sason said: as the dispute is here, so is the dispute regarding the appearances of plagues, for we learned: the appearances of plagues, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says there were thirty-six, Akavya ben Mahalalel says there were seventy-two.

"And its sound shall be heard when he enters the holy place" (Exodus 28:35). Rabbi Yochanan, when he would go up to inquire after the welfare of Rabbi Hanina, would clear his throat, on account of "and its sound shall be heard." Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakhinai and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai went to study Torah with Rabbi Akiva in Bnei Brak. They stayed there thirteen years. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai sent word and knew what was happening in his house. Rabbi Hananiah ben Hakhinai did not know what was happening in his house. His wife sent to him: "Your daughter has come of age; come and marry her off." Even so, Rabbi Akiva foresaw it through the holy spirit and said to them: "Whoever has a grown daughter, let him go and marry her off." He arose, took permission, and went. He sought her at his house and found that it opened to a different corner. What did he do? He went and sat at the gathering-place of the women and heard the voices of the people saying, "Daughter of Hakhinai, fill your jug and go up." He walked behind her until she entered his house, and he entered after her suddenly. His wife did not have time to see him before her soul departed. He said before Him: "Master of the universe, this poor woman, is this her reward after thirteen years?" Her soul returned to her body. Rabbi Shimon said: four things the Holy One, blessed be He, hates, and I too do not love them: one who grasps his member and urinates, one who has relations naked, one who speaks of matters between himself and his wife in public, and one who enters his fellow's house suddenly. "The engravings of a signet, holy to the LORD" (Exodus 28:36). The frontlet resembled a kind of plate of gold, two fingers wide, encircling from ear to ear, and upon it were written two lines: "Yod-Heh" above and "holy" below. And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yose said: I saw it in Rome, and upon it was written "holy to the LORD" in one line. When Rav Dimi came he said: from where do we know that any ornament whatsoever is susceptible to impurity? From the frontlet. That any woven thing whatsoever is impure, from "or a garment" (Leviticus 11:32); that any woven thing or ornament whatsoever, from "any vessel." And although it is written regarding Midian, one derives "vessel" "vessel" from there. Sackcloth is added to garment, that although it is not woven, it is impure. For what is it fit? Rabbi Yochanan said: a poor man braids three threads and hangs it on his daughter's neck. It was taught: a cap of wool was placed on the head of the High Priest, and upon it the frontlet was set, to fulfill what is said, "and you shall put it on a thread of blue" (Exodus 28:37).

"And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things" and so forth (Exodus 28:38). And which iniquity does he bear? If the iniquity of piggul (improper intention), it is already said "it shall not be accepted" (Leviticus 19:7). If the iniquity of notar (leftover), it is already said "it shall not be counted" (Leviticus 7:18). So he bears only the iniquity of impurity, which is permitted in part for the community. What impurity? If you say a creeping thing, where was it permitted? Rather, it must be the impurity of a corpse, in a case where the owners became impure through a corpse, which shows that owners who became impure through a corpse may send their offerings. In what case? If a nazirite, it is written "and if someone dies beside him" (Numbers 6:9). Rather, it must be one who offers the Passover, in a case where the owners became impure through a corpse. Rabbi Zeira objected: say it is the iniquity of an offering that went outside, which was permitted in part on a high place. Abaye said: Scripture says "for favor for them before the LORD" (Exodus 28:38); an iniquity that is before the LORD, yes; one that went outside, no. Rabbi Ilfa objected: say it is the iniquity of the left hand, permitted in part on the Day of Atonement. Abaye said to him: Scripture says "iniquity," an iniquity that was in it and I set it aside, excluding the Day of Atonement, whose fitness is with the left. Rav Ashi said: Scripture says "the iniquity of the holy things" and not the iniquity of those who sanctify. Rav Sama son of Rav Idi said to Rav Ashi: say it is the iniquity of blemished animals, permitted in part among birds. He said to him: concerning you Scripture says, "it shall not be accepted" and "it shall not be for favor for you" (Leviticus 22:20, 25). Our Rabbis taught: blood that became impure and one tossed it unwittingly, it is accepted; deliberately, it is not accepted. In what case? With an individual, but with the community, whether unwitting or deliberate, it is accepted; and with a Samaritan, whether unwitting or deliberate, whether under compulsion or willingly, it is not accepted. And they raised a contradiction: for what does the frontlet secure favor? For blood, flesh, and fat that became impure, whether unwitting or deliberate, whether under compulsion or willingly, whether of an individual or of the community. Rav Yosef said: it is not difficult; this is the Rabbis, that is Rabbi Yose. It is written, "and every female child among the women who have not known lying with a male, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31:18). How did they know? They passed them before the frontlet: whoever's face turned pale, it was known her time to be intimate had come; whoever's face did not turn pale, it was known her time had not come. A mnemonic: a sign for the passing-before is dropsy. Similarly you say, "and they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known a man by lying with a male" (Judges 21:12). How did they know? They seated them upon barrels of wine: a non-virgin, her scent wafts; a virgin, her scent does not waft. And let them pass before the frontlet? Scripture says "for favor," and not for punishment. If so, in Midian also? Rav Ashi said: it is written "for favor for them," and not for punishment, but for the nations of the world even for punishment. The frontlet, its writing was not sunken but raised, like a gold dinar whose lettering is raised, yet not like a dinar, for there it is from within and here from without.

"And it shall be upon his forehead continually" (Exodus 28:38). It was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: A man may go out wearing tefillin on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight. What is the reason? Since Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to touch his tefillin at all times, this is derived by an argument from minor to major from the frontplate [tzitz]: if the frontplate, which contains only a single mention [of the divine Name], the Torah says of it "it shall be upon his forehead continually," then tefillin, which contain many mentions, all the more so. Therefore one keeps them in mind constantly. It was taught: The frontplate, whether it is upon his forehead or not upon his forehead, effects acceptance [for the people's offerings]; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehudah says: while it is still upon his forehead it effects acceptance; when it is not upon his forehead it does not effect acceptance. Rabbi Shimon said to him: the High Priest on the Day of Atonement proves the point, for it is not upon his forehead and yet it effects acceptance. Rabbi Yehudah said to him: leave aside the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, since ritual impurity is permitted in a public context. From this it follows that Rabbi Shimon holds that impurity is merely set aside in a public context [not outright permitted]. Abaye said: where the frontplate has broken, all agree it does not effect acceptance; where they disagree is where it hangs on a peg. Rabbi Yehudah holds it must be "upon his forehead, and he shall bear"; Rabbi Shimon holds it is "continually, for acceptance for them." What is meant by "continually"? If you say continually upon his forehead, can you find such a case? Does he not need to sleep? Does he not need to go to the privy? Rather, "continually" means it continually effects acceptance. And for Rabbi Yehudah too is it not written "continually"? That teaches that he should not divert his attention from it, as Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: a person is obligated to touch his tefillin, and so forth. And for Rabbi Shimon, who said "continually" means it continually effects acceptance, is it not written "upon his forehead, and he shall bear"? That comes to fix a place for it. And Rabbi Yehudah, from where does he derive that it must have a fixed place? From "upon his forehead." And Rabbi Shimon too, let him derive it from "upon his forehead"! Indeed it is so. Then what does he do with "upon his forehead, and he shall bear"? He could say to you: it is fit for the forehead that effects acceptance, to exclude a broken frontplate, which does not effect acceptance. And Rabbi Yehudah, from where does he derive the case of a broken frontplate? He derives it from "forehead, his forehead." And Rabbi Shimon does not expound "forehead, his forehead."

"And make for them linen breeches" (Exodus 28:42). It was taught: To what are the priests' breeches comparable? To the riding-trousers of horsemen: above, up to the loins; below, down to the thighs; and they have cords. They have neither an opening behind nor an opening in front. "And they shall be upon Aaron and upon his sons" (Exodus 29). Any offering whose blood was received by a priest lacking his garments is invalid. From where do we know this? As it is written, "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons" (Exodus 29:9): when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them. But is this derived from here? It is derived from there, as it was taught: From where do we know that a priest who served while intoxicated with wine has profaned his service? Scripture states, "Drink no wine nor strong drink... that you may distinguish between the holy and the common" (Leviticus 10:9-10). And from where do we know the same of one lacking his garments, or one whose hands and feet were not washed? Scripture uses the word "statute," "statute," for an analogy of equal wording [gezeira shava: the shared term links the cases]. Were it derived only from there I would have said this applies only to a service for which a non-priest is liable to death, but a service for which a non-priest is not liable to death, say it does not apply; therefore it teaches us otherwise. And still, is it derived from here? It is derived from there: "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire" (Leviticus 1:7), a priest in his priesthood, teaching that a High Priest who wore the garments of an ordinary priest and served, his service is invalid. Were it derived only from there I would have said this applies to a service that is indispensable for atonement, but not to a service that is not indispensable. And still, is it derived from there: "And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the pieces" (Leviticus 1:8), the priests in their priesthood, teaching that an ordinary priest who wore the garments of a High Priest and served, his service is invalid. Were it derived only from there I would have said this applies to lacking a garment, but not to wearing an extra one; therefore it teaches us otherwise. Our Rabbis taught: If his garments were drawn up, trailing, or worn thin, and he served, his service is valid. If he wore two tunics, two pairs of breeches, two sashes, or lacked one, or added one, or had a bandage on his flesh beneath his garment, or they were soiled or patched, and he served, his service is invalid. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: trailing garments are valid, drawn-up garments are invalid. But it was taught that drawn-up garments are valid! Rami bar Chama said: this is not difficult; here it means he drew them up by means of the sash, there it means they were too short from the outset. Rav said: both this and that are invalid. Rava inquired: if wind entered his garment, what is the law? We require it to be "upon his flesh" (Leviticus 6:3), and here it is not; or perhaps, since nothing interposes, it is acceptable. Another version: a louse, does it interpose? A dead louse need not be asked about, for it certainly interposes; what of a living one? Do we say that since it crawls about it is part of his bodily life and does not interpose, or, since he is fastidious about it, it does interpose? Dust, does it interpose? Dust certainly interposes; but what of a film of dust? The armpit, does it interpose? We require "upon his flesh," and here it is not; or perhaps that is the normal manner of wearing. If he put his hand into his bosom, what is the law: does his body interpose or not? A loose thread certainly interposes; what of a dangling one? Mar Rav, Rabbi Ashi, inquired: if his hair came out through his garment, what is the law? Is hair like his body or not? Rabbi Zeira inquired: do tefillin interpose? According to the one who says night is not the time for tefillin, do not ask, for if they interpose at night they interpose by day too; ask rather according to the one who says night is the time for tefillin: what then? Does a commandment performed on the body itself interpose or not? The matter circulated and came before Rabbi Ammi. He said: it is an established teaching; the hand-tefillin interpose. Why specifically the hand? Because it is written, "he shall put upon his flesh" (Leviticus 6:3), that nothing interpose between it and the flesh. And of the head is it not also written, "And you shall set the turban upon his head" (Exodus 29:6)? It was taught: his hair was visible between the frontplate and the turban, and there he placed the head-tefillin. How did he clothe them? What was, was. Rather, how will he clothe them in the time to come? In the time to come too, when Aaron and his sons and Moses our teacher come with them, they will say. Rather, how did he clothe them? To understand the verses. The sons of Rabbi Chiyya and Rabbi Yochanan: one said Aaron and afterward his sons; one said Aaron and his sons together. Abaye said: regarding the tunic and the turban all agree it was Aaron and afterward his sons, for both in command and in performance Aaron came first; they disagree about the sash. The one who said Aaron and afterward his sons cites "and he girded him with the sash" and then "and he girded them with sashes." The one who said Aaron and his sons together cites "and you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons" (Exodus 29:9). [Each then reconciles the opposing verse by distinguishing the High Priest's sash from the ordinary priest's, or by noting the order of precedence.] It was taught: when they gird themselves, they gird neither below their loins nor above their elbows, but level with their elbows, as it is said, "they shall not gird themselves in a place that sweats" (Ezekiel 44:18). Abaye said: in a place where they sweat.

"And you shall take of the blood of the bull and put it upon the horns of the altar with your finger" (Exodus 29:12). Our Rabbis taught: "with his finger, and he shall take" (Leviticus 4:34) teaches that receiving the blood may be done only with the right hand. "With his finger, and he shall put" (Leviticus 4:34) teaches that placing the blood may be done only with the right hand. Rabbi Shimon said: but was a "hand" mentioned in connection with receiving? Since no "hand" was mentioned regarding receiving, if he received with the left hand it is valid. Abaye said: they disagree as to whether a verse is expounded in reference to what precedes it and what follows it. Abaye said: this ruling of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon contradicts both his father and the Rabbis, for it was taught: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: wherever "finger" is mentioned regarding receiving, if he deviated in the receiving it is invalid, but in the placing it is valid; and wherever "finger" is mentioned regarding placing, if he deviated in the placing it is invalid, but in the receiving it is valid. And where is "finger" mentioned regarding placing? As it is written, "and you shall take of the blood of the bull and put it upon the horns of the altar with your finger." He holds that a verse is expounded in reference to what precedes it, but not to what precedes that, nor to what follows it. Rabbah said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: wherever "finger" and "priesthood" are mentioned, it means only the right hand. "Finger" does not require "priesthood," but "priesthood" requires "finger." Then why do I need "priest" mentioned at all? To teach that he must be in his priesthood [wearing the priestly garments].

"And the holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them" (Exodus 29:28-36). Rav Chisda said: the priestly gifts may be eaten only roasted, and only with mustard. What is the reason? "Le-moshcha" [for anointing] is read as "for greatness," in the manner that kings eat. "And it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons" (Leviticus 24:9). Our Rabbis taught: how does a High Priest offer a portion as the foremost? He says, "this burnt offering I am offering, this meal offering I am offering." How does he take a portion as the foremost? He says, "this sin offering I am offering," and he eats it; and he takes one loaf of the two loaves, and four or five of the showbread. Rabbi says: always five, as it is said, "and it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons," half to Aaron and half to his sons.

There was a certain Caesar who hated the Jews. He said to the notables of his kingdom: One who has a sore grown on his foot, should he cut it off and live, or leave it and suffer? They said to him: let him cut it off and live. Ketia bar Shalom said to him: First, you cannot destroy them all, for it is written, "for I have spread you abroad like the four winds of the heavens" (Zechariah 2:10). And further, you will be called a maimed kingdom. He said to him: You have spoken well; but whoever bests the king is to be thrown into a furnace full of [burning] reeds. As they were taking him away, a certain noblewoman said to him: Woe to the ship that sails without paying its toll. He fell upon his foreskin and cut it off, saying: I have paid my toll, I will pass and cross over. As they cast him in, he said: all my property to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. Rabbi Akiva went out and expounded: "and it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons" (Leviticus 24:9), half to Aaron and half to his sons. A heavenly voice went out and said: Ketia bar Shalom is destined for the life of the world to come. Rabbi wept and said: there is one who acquires his world in a single hour, and there is one who acquires his world in many years.

A certain man said to his wife: my property is to you and to your children. Rav Yosef said: she acquires a half. Rav Yosef said: from where do I derive this? As it was taught, Rabbi says: "and it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons," half to Aaron and half to his sons. And the law follows Rav Yosef in the case of a field of acquisition and a half. It was stated: regarding the offerings of investiture, Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chanina disagreed. One said: everything written about them is indispensable in them. The other said: only what is indispensable for the generations is indispensable in them, but what is not indispensable for the generations is not indispensable in them. What is the practical difference between them? Rav Yosef said: laying on of hands is the difference. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: waving is the difference. Rav Pappa said: separation for seven days is the difference. Ravina said: anointing for seven days and consecrating for seven days is the difference. How do we know laying on of hands is not indispensable for the generations? As it was taught: "and he shall lay his hand... and it shall be accepted" (Leviticus 1:4): does laying on of hands atone? Surely there is no atonement except by the blood, as it is said, "for it is the blood that atones by means of the life" (Leviticus 17:11). Then why does Scripture say "and he shall lay... and it shall be accepted"? To teach that if one treated the laying on of hands as a leftover [neglected] commandment, Scripture regards him as though he had not atoned, though he has atoned. Rav Ashi said: "for so I have been commanded" (Leviticus 8:35) indicates indispensability. Rabbi Akiva visited Ginzak. They asked him three questions: are gentiles' vessels forbidden or permitted; does one fast for part of a day; and in what did Moses serve during the seven days of investiture? He did not have the answers. He came and asked in the study hall. They told him: the law is that one fasts for part of a day; gentiles' vessels are permitted after twelve months; and as for what Moses wore during the seven days of investiture, it was a white robe without a hem.

"And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made" (Exodus 29:33). This teaches that the priests eat and the owners are atoned for. "And you shall burn the leftover in fire" (Exodus 29:34). Rabbi Simai said: do not let the verbal analogy [gezeira shava] be light in your eyes, for the law of "leftover" [notar] is one of the essentials of the Torah, and Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy. What is the reason? It derives "holy," "holy": it is written here "and whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy thing of the LORD" (and so forth), and it is written there "and you shall burn the leftover in fire; it shall not be eaten, for it is holy." "It shall not be eaten, for it is holy." We learned there: piggul [an offering rendered invalid by improper intent] and notar [leftover] do not combine. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: they taught this only regarding impurity of the hands, which is of rabbinic origin; but regarding eating they do combine. As it was taught, Rabbi Eliezer says: "it shall not be eaten, for it is holy": anything disqualified within what is holy, Scripture comes to place a prohibition upon eating it.

(Exodus 29:37-39) It was taught: Rabbi Yose says: since it is said "whatever touches the altar shall become holy" (Exodus 29:37), I might think this applies whether the items are fit or unfit; Scripture therefore says "lambs" (Exodus 29:38): just as lambs are distinctive in that they are fit, so too anything that is fit. And Rabbi Akiva says: "burnt offering": just as a burnt offering is fit, so too anything fit. What is the difference between them? Rav Adda bar Ahavah said: an invalid bird burnt offering is the difference between them; one master derives the rule from "burnt offering" and the other from "lambs." And according to the one who derives it from "lambs," is it not written "burnt offering"? Had "lambs" been written and not "burnt offering," I would have said this applies even to living animals; the Merciful One wrote "burnt offering." And according to the one who derives it from "burnt offering," is it not written "lambs"? Had "burnt offering" been written and not "lambs," I would have said even a meal offering; the Merciful One wrote "lambs." What is the difference between these Tannaim and the Tannaim of our Mishnah? As we learned: the altar sanctifies whatever is fit for it; if it went up, it shall not come down, as it is said "this is the burnt offering on the firewood" (Leviticus 6:2): just as a burnt offering, which is fit for the fires, if it went up does not come down, so too anything fit for the fires, if it went up does not come down. Rabban Gamliel says: whatever is fit for the altar, and so forth. The only difference between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua concerns the blood and the libations, for Rabban Gamliel says they do not come down and Rabbi Yehoshua says they come down. Rabbi Shimon says: whether the sacrifice is valid and the libations invalid, or the libations valid and the sacrifice invalid, or even both invalid, the sacrifice does not come down but the libations come down. What is the difference between these Tannaim and the Tannaim of our Mishnah? Rav Pappa said: handfuls that were sanctified in the vessels are the difference between them. According to our own Tannaim they do not come down, and so forth. These, if they went up, do not come down: those that became disqualified by being kept overnight, or by leaving the courtyard, and so forth. This passage is well expounded in the portion of Pinchas. "And this is what you shall offer upon the altar" (Exodus 29:38) is written at reference 188.

"Lambs" (Numbers 28:3). The fewest that "lambs" can mean is two. Why then does Scripture add the word "two"? To teach that the two should be alike, equal to one another. And from where do we learn that even if they are not alike they are still valid? Scripture says "lamb, lamb" (repeating the singular), which extends the law: alike is the preferred way of fulfilling the commandment, yet unequal lambs are acceptable. But that verse is needed for what was taught elsewhere: "two each day" (Numbers 28:3) means corresponding to the day. How is this? The morning daily offering was slaughtered at the northwestern corner on the second ring, and the offering of the afternoon at the northeastern corner on the second ring. As for the additional (musaf) offerings, they certainly must be alike. "The one lamb" (Exodus 29:39) — this is written about in the verse "and when the sun grew hot it melted" (Exodus 16:21), at hint 261. "And a tenth of fine flour" — this is written above at the verse "pure olive oil." "And its libation, a quarter of a hin for the one lamb" (Exodus 29:40). One learns the law of the morning offering from that of the evening. Rabbi says: one learns the evening from the morning. Granted, the Sages hold their view, for this verse is written concerning the afternoon daily offering. But Rabbi — what is his reasoning? The verse says "for the one lamb": the lamb of which "one" is said, you must say this is the morning daily offering. And the Sages — what do they make of "one"? It means the choicest of its flock. That teaching is derived instead from "from the choicest of your vows." One verse speaks of an obligatory offering and one of a freewill offering, and both are necessary. "To speak to you there, and I will meet there with the children of Israel" (Exodus 29:42-43) — this is written at hint 285.

"And you shall make an altar for burning incense" (Exodus 30:1-3). The incense altar was a cubit long, a cubit wide, and two cubits high, as it says "and you shall make an altar," and so forth. It was overlaid with gold, as it says "and you shall overlay it with pure gold." Three names were given to it: the incense altar, the golden altar, and the inner altar. The burnt-offering altar that Moses made was ten cubits high. A line of red dye girded it across the middle to separate the upper blood from the lower blood. From the red line downward was five cubits: one cubit for the base and three cubits for the surrounding ledge and one cubit for the circuit, and there they placed the blood that is given below. From the red line upward was five cubits: one cubit for the horns and three cubits for the ledge and one cubit for the raven-scarer, and there they placed the blood that is given above. Blood meant to be placed from the red line downward, if one placed it from the red line upward, is invalid; and blood meant to be placed from the red line upward, if one placed it from the red line downward, is invalid. The altar that Solomon made was ten cubits high. And the one the returnees from exile made was ten cubits and set in the center of the courtyard, with the ramp to its south, the laver to its west, the place of slaughter to its north, and all Israel to its east, as it says "and all the congregation drew near and stood before the LORD" (Leviticus 9:5). In the time to come as well it will be ten cubits high. Three names were given to it: the burnt-offering altar, the bronze altar, and the outer altar.

"And he shall burn upon it" (Exodus 30:7-8). Resh Lakish said: the fire of Gehinnom has no power over the sinners of Israel. This is argued by a fortiori reasoning from the golden altar, and so forth, as stated above.

"In the morning, in the morning, when he tends them" (Exodus 30:7). We learned in a mishnah: he shall not tend the lamps and afterward burn the incense; rather he shall burn the incense and afterward tend the lamps. Abba Shaul says: he tends them and afterward burns the incense. What is Abba Shaul's reasoning? Because it is written "in the morning, in the morning, when he tends the lamps," and afterward "he shall burn it." And the Sages — what is the Merciful One saying? That at the time of tending he shall be burning the incense. For if you do not say so, then concerning the afternoon, where it is written "and when Aaron lights the lamps toward evening he shall burn it" (Exodus 30:8), would you likewise say that there too he first kindles the lamps and then burns the afternoon incense? And if you would say yes indeed it is so — but was it not taught: "from evening until morning" (Exodus 27:21) means give the lamp its measure of oil so that it will burn steadily on from evening until morning,

Another interpretation: there is no rite valid from evening until morning except this one alone. Rather, what is the Merciful One saying? That at the time of kindling he shall be burning the incense. The tending of five lamps comes before the tending of the two lamps. Resh Lakish said: why does he tend, then turn back and tend again? In order to stir the whole courtyard into awareness. And Rabbi Yochanan said: "in the morning, in the morning" — divide it between two mornings. If they did not burn the incense in the morning, they burn it toward evening. Rabbi Shimon said: the whole of it was offered toward evening, for one does not inaugurate the golden altar except with the incense of spices, nor the burnt-offering altar except with the morning daily offering, nor the table except with the showbread on the Sabbath, nor the menorah except with its seven lamps toward evening. Rabbi Shimon said: and the whole of it was offered, and so forth. But was it not taught: with the morning incense of spices? This is a dispute among the Tannaim. Abaye said: it stands to reason like the one who says with the evening incense of spices, for it is written "in the morning, in the morning when he tends the lamps he shall burn it," and if he did not perform a kindling the previous evening, from where would there be a tending in the morning? And according to the one who says with the morning incense of spices, he derives it from the burnt-offering altar: just as there the inauguration was with the morning daily offering, so here with the morning incense of spices. Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: Ben Beteira would declare valid a Passover offering slaughtered on the fourteenth in the morning for its own sake. But is it not written "between the evenings" (Exodus 12:6), between the two evenings? Then incense too should be valid all day long! Incense is different, for it is compared to the lamps.

"And Aaron shall make atonement upon its horns once in the year" (Exodus 30:10). Where there was awareness of impurity at the beginning but no awareness at the end, the inner goat offered on Yom Kippur and the Day itself suspend the matter until it becomes known to him, and then he brings the sliding-scale offering. Where there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end, the outer goat and Yom Kippur make atonement, as it says "besides the sin-offering of atonements" (Numbers 29:11): for what the one atones, the other atones. Just as the inner goat atones only for a matter in which there is awareness, so the outer goat atones only for a matter in which there is awareness. Now since they are compared to one another, let the inner goat atone both for its own case and for the outer goat's case — which would matter where no outer goat was offered, or to protect the sinner in the meantime. The verse says "once": it makes one atonement and does not make two atonements. And let the outer goat atone both for its own case and for the inner goat's case — which would matter for an impurity that occurred between the offering of the one and the other. The verse says "once in the year": this atonement shall be only once in the year. Then for what law are the outer and inner goats compared? Just as the inner goat does not atone for other transgressions, so the outer goat does not atone for other transgressions. Rabbi Shimon says: the goats of the New Moons atone for one who was pure and ate consecrated food while impure; the goats of the festivals atone for a case where there was no awareness either at the beginning or at the end; and the goat of Yom Kippur for a case where there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end. They said to him: may one be offered in place of another? He said to them: they may be offered. They said to him: since their atonement is not the same, how can one be offered in place of another? He said to them: all of them come to atone for the impurity of the sanctuary and its holy things. Granted the New Moon goats do not atone for the festival cases, for the verse says "iniquity" (Leviticus 10:17): it bears one iniquity and not two iniquities. But let the festival goats atone for the New Moon cases? The verse says "it": it bears the iniquity, and no other bears that iniquity. Granted the festival goats do not atone for Yom Kippur, for the verse says "once in the year." But let the Yom Kippur goat atone for the festival cases? The verse says "once": it makes one atonement, not two. But where "once" is written, it is written of the inner goat. The verse says "besides the sin-offering of atonements" (Numbers 29:11), and so the outer goat is compared to the inner. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in his name: the New Moon goats atone for one who was pure and ate impure food; the festival goats add atonement for a case with no awareness at beginning or end; and the Yom Kippur goat adds atonement for a case with no awareness at the beginning but awareness at the end. They said to him: may one be offered in place of another? He said to them: yes. They said: if so, the Yom Kippur goat may be offered on the New Moon, but how may the New Moon goat be offered on Yom Kippur to make an atonement that is not its own? He said to them: all of them come to atone for the impurity of the sanctuary and its holy things.

"And Aaron shall make atonement upon its horns" (Exodus 30:10), and adjacent to it is "when you take up the sum" (Exodus 30:12). This is what Scripture says: "choice silver is the tongue of the righteous" (Proverbs 10:20) — this refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, who chose His tongue and said to Moses "when you take up." Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the universe, when Israel has merit, leave it to them; and when they have no merit, raise it up and carry it for them just once, so that Yom Kippur may come and atone, as it says "for on this day He shall make atonement for you" (Leviticus 16:30) — this is written at hint 576.

"When you take up the sum of the children of Israel" (Exodus 30:12-16). This is what Scripture says: "your belly is a heap of wheat" (Song of Songs 7:3). Why are Israel compared to wheat? Rabbi Resh Lakish said: just as wheat is all gathered in by measure, so Israel are all gathered in by the count of the elders, the pious, and the wise. Rabbi Yitzchak said: a man does not command his household over baskets of dung, nor of chaff, nor of straw; over what does he command his household? Over baskets of wheat. As for the dung, what does he do with it? He dissolves it in water; and so the generation of the Flood, what is written of it? "And the LORD said, I will blot out," and so forth (Genesis 6:7). As for baskets of chaff, he scatters them to the wind; and so the generation of the Dispersion, "and the LORD scattered them" (Genesis 11:8). And so with bundles of straw — what does he do? He puts them in the oven; and so He did to Egypt, "it consumes them like straw" (Exodus 15:7). But what does he count? Baskets of wheat: "when you take up the sum of the children of Israel." What is written just before this matter? "And Aaron shall make atonement upon its horns" (Exodus 30:10). Once Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: go and atone for them. He said before Him: Master of the universe, did You not say "once in the year"? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: go, set them upright now. "When you take up the sum of the children of Israel." Rabbi Yehoshua the Priest son of Nachman said: the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: go, count Israel. Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: it is written "your seed shall be like the dust of the earth," and it is written "the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea" (Hosea 2:1), and You say go count Israel — I cannot arrive at their number. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Moses, it is not as you think; rather, if you wish to arrive at the number of Israel, take the initial letters of the tribes and you will arrive at their number. Resh from Reuben, Shin from Simeon, Lamed from Levi, and so for each and every tribe. A parable: to what is this like? To a money-changer who had a lad; he said to him, count me these coins. He said, how can I count them? He said, count the heads of the rows of coins and you will arrive at the reckoning. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Resh from Reuben, two hundred thousand; Nun from Naphtali, fifty thousand; Shin from Simeon, three hundred thousand; Yod from Judah, Yod from Issachar, Yod from Joseph, thirty thousand; Zayin of Zebulun, seven thousand; Dalet of Dan, four thousand; Gimel of Gad, three thousand; Bet of Benjamin, two thousand; Alef of Asher, one thousand — thus five hundred ninety-seven thousand. Where are the three thousand? These are the ones who fell over the calf, as it says "and the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses... and there fell of the people about three thousand men" (Exodus 32:28). Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: count Israel to know how many were lost. "And they shall give every man a ransom for his soul." When Moses heard this, he was afraid. He said: "skin for skin, and all that a man has he will give for his soul" (Job 2:4). Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Ilai says: Moses said, we have found that a man's soul-redemption is a talent of silver, as it says "then your life shall be for his life, or you shall weigh out a talent of silver." Rabbi Yose says: you learn it from one who spreads an evil name, as it says "and they shall fine him a hundred pieces of silver" (Deuteronomy 22:19); and we spread an evil name and said "these are your gods, O Israel," so each one of us must give a hundred pieces of silver. Resh Lakish said: learn it from the seducer, for it is written "and the man who lay with her shall give," and so forth; and we forced the commandment that is written "you shall have no other gods" and made idolatry, so each one of us must give fifty pieces of silver. Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Simon said: learn it from the goring ox, as it says "if the ox gores a manservant," and we exchanged His glory for an ox, as it says "and they exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox" (Psalms 106:20), so each one of us must give thirty shekels. The Holy One, blessed be He, knew what was in Moses' heart. He said to him: by your life, neither a talent of silver, nor a hundred pieces, nor fifty shekels, nor thirty shekels, but this they shall give. Rabbi Meir said: the Holy One, blessed be He, took a coin of fire from beneath the throne of glory and showed it to Moses and said to him, this they shall give. Moses said, who can give it? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, everyone who passes through the sea. "Half a shekel." Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemyah: Rabbi Yehudah says, because they sinned at the sixth hour of the day they shall give half a shekel, which makes six small coins. Rabbi Yehudah bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, because Israel transgressed the Ten Commandments they shall give ten gerah, which is half a shekel. Rabbi Berekhyah in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: the Holy One, blessed be He, said, you sold the firstborn of Rachel for twenty pieces of silver, therefore every firstborn of yours, his redemption shall be five shekels of silver, as it says "and you shall take five shekels each," and so forth (Numbers 3:47).

Another interpretation. "This they shall give" (Exodus 30:13). How many tribes shall give? The word zeh ["this"] has the numerical value seven and five, which makes twelve tribes. You find that Israel was counted ten times. Once at their descent into Egypt, "seventy souls" (Exodus 1:5); and once at their going up, "And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth"; and once in the portion of Ki Tisa; and once at the standards [in the wilderness]; and once at the dividing of the Land; and twice in the days of Saul, "and he numbered them in Bezek" (1 Samuel 11:8), "and he numbered them with lambs" (1 Samuel 15:4); and once in the days of David, "and Joab gave the sum of the number of the people"; and once at their going up from the exile, as it is said, "the whole assembly together was forty-two thousand" (Ezra 2:64); and once in the time to come, as it is said, "the flocks shall again pass under the hands of him that counts them" (Jeremiah 33:13). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: In this world human beings counted you, but in the world to come I will count you, and no one will be able to count you, as it is said, "And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered."

Rabbi Jacob opened: "The way of the sluggard is as a hedge of thorns" (Proverbs 15:19). This is the wicked Esau, who is like a thorn-stake: when you pull it loose from here, it tears free from there. So too is the wicked Esau, twisting about: "Bring your poll-tax, bring your land-tax, bring your annual-tax." If a man has nothing, Esau fleeces him and impoverishes him. "But the path of the upright is a highway" (ibid.). This is the Holy One, blessed be He, of whom it is written, "For the ways of the LORD are upright," who made His tongue gracious to Moses and said "Ki Tisa" ["When you lift up"]. Rabbi Yochanan opened: "And man is bowed down, and the man is brought low" (Isaiah 2:9). "And man is bowed down"—these are Israel, of whom it is written, "And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men." "And the man is brought low"—this is Moses, of whom it is written, "Now the man Moses was very humble" (Numbers 12:3). Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the world, I know that Israel was bowed down over the calf and that I was brought low: "and forgive them not" (the continuation of "When you lift up"). This is what the verse says, "For God is judge: He brings one low and lifts up another" (Psalms 78... [text uncertain]). Rabbi Yonah interpreted the verse concerning Israel: with the word "this" they were brought low, "For this Moses, the man" (Exodus 32:1), and with the word "this" they were raised up, "This they shall give, every one that passes." "Charity exalts a nation": through the freewill offering that Israel brought for the work of the Tabernacle, a lifting up of the head was granted them through Moses, and He said, "When you lift up the head." Rabbi Eliezer in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Zimra said: Whenever Israel was counted for a purpose, they did not diminish; when not for a purpose, they diminished. And when were they counted for a purpose? In the days of Moses. And not for a purpose? In the days of David. Rabbi Samuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: "And they shall give every man a ransom for his soul"—in the days of Moses; "that there be no plague among them"—in the days of David. "Every one that passes among them that are numbered." A platform of wood was set in the courtyard, and none passed in front of it except one twenty years old and upward. Rabbi Yehudah says: whoever passed through the sea shall give. And Rabbi Nechemiah said: whoever passed the count shall give. Three contributions are written here (this is written in "Take for Me an offering"). Rabbi Yehudah said: Ben Bukhri testified at Yavneh that any priest who pays the shekel does not sin. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said to him: Not so; rather, any priest who does not pay sins. But the priests expounded this verse for their own benefit: "And every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten" (Leviticus 6:16). They reasoned: since the omer, the two loaves, and the showbread are ours, how can they be eaten? What is Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's reason? "This they shall give"—the twelve tribes shall give. And as for Ben Bukhri: since from the outset a priest is not obligated to bring it, when he does bring it he is a sinner, for he brings unconsecrated produce into the courtyard. But he brings it and hands it over to the community. Thus the Sages reply to Rabbi Yehudah: an individual's meal-offering is wholly burnt, but a community's meal-offering is not wholly burnt; once it is handed to the community it is like a community freewill offering. It is written, "Every one that passes among them that are numbered." Rabbi Yehudah, who says whoever passed through the sea gives, supports Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai; and Rabbi Nechemiah, who says whoever passed the count gives, supports Ben Bukhri. Rabbi Meir said: The Holy One, blessed be He, brought forth a kind of coin of fire from beneath His throne of glory, and showed it to Moses, and said to him, "This they shall give"—they shall give one like this.

Rabbi Pinchas ben Levi said: Because they sold the birthright of Rachel [Joseph], and a tav-coin fell to the share of each one of them, therefore let each one's shekel be a tav-coin. "And they shall give every man a ransom for his soul." "Twenty gerah is the shekel" (Exodus 30:13). Rava said: The biblical sela is three and a third [dinars], for it is written "twenty gerah is the shekel," and we translate this as "twenty ma'in," and it is taught that six ma'ah of silver make a dinar. They raised an objection: But is not the sela of the Sanctuary forty-eight pundyon? What is the nature of this pundyon? It is the surcharge added for the breaking of small coin. This was after they added to it, as it is taught: "twenty gerah is the shekel"—we have learned that the shekel is twenty gerah; and from where do we learn that if one wishes to add, he may add? Scripture teaches, saying "it shall be." One might think that if he wishes to reduce, he may reduce; Scripture teaches, "it [is]" [a fixed amount].

On the first of Adar they make announcement concerning the shekels. On the fifteenth of it, the moneychangers' tables were set up in the provinces. On the twenty-fifth they sat in the Temple. Once they sat in the Temple, they began to take pledges [from those who had not paid]. From whom do they take pledges? From Levites and Israelites and converts and freed slaves; but not from women and slaves and minors. Any minor whose father has begun to pay the shekel on his behalf may no longer stop. They do not take pledges from the priests, for the sake of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yehudah said: Ben Bukhri testified, and so forth. And these are obligated in the surcharge: Levites and Israelites and converts and freed slaves; but not priests, nor minors, nor women, nor slaves. One who pays on behalf of a priest, on behalf of a woman, on behalf of a slave, on behalf of a minor, is exempt [from the surcharge]. But if he paid on his own behalf and on his fellow's behalf together, he is liable for two surcharges. One who pays on behalf of a poor man, on behalf of his neighbor, on behalf of a townsman, is exempt; but if he lent it to them, he is liable. Brothers who are partners and are liable for the surcharge are exempt from the tithe of cattle, and so forth. And how much is the surcharge? A ma'ah of silver, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say, half a ma'ah.

And why on the first of Adar? So that Israel may bring their shekels in their proper season, and the contribution of the chamber may be set aside from the new [shekels] at its appointed time, on the first of Nisan. Rabbi Yitzchak said: At the outset, "And it came to pass in the first month" (Exodus 40:17), and it is taught concerning it: on the day that the Tabernacle was erected, on that very day the contribution was set aside.

On the first of Adar they make announcement concerning the shekels, for the verse says, "This is the burnt-offering of each month in its month" (Numbers 28:14). The Torah said: renew it and bring Me an offering from a new contribution. And since in Nisan we require the offering to be brought from a new contribution, we anticipate and make the announcement on the first of Adar, so that the shekels may come to the Temple in time. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It was revealed and known before the Holy One, blessed be He, that the wicked Haman was destined to weigh out shekels against Israel; therefore He set their shekels before his shekels.

Thirteen shofar-shaped chests were in the Temple, and upon them was written: new shekels, old shekels, bird-nests [for sin-offerings], young birds for burnt-offerings, wood, frankincense, gold for the cover, and six for freewill offerings. "New shekels"—these are the shekels of the whole current year. "Old shekels"—one who did not pay last year pays for the coming year. "Six for freewill offerings": Chizkiyah said, corresponding to the six priestly clans, which the Sages instituted so that there might be peace among them. Rabbi Yochanan said: since the freewill offerings were abundant, they instituted many chests so that the coins would not grow moldy. And Ze'iri said: corresponding to bull and calf, ram and lamb, kid and he-goat. It was taught: these chests were curved, narrow above and wide below, on account of swindlers. Once they sat in the Temple, they began to take pledges from Israel for their shekels, so that the communal sacrifices might be offered from them. They told a parable: To what may the matter be compared? To one who had a wound break out on his foot, and the physician bound him and cut into his foot in order to heal him. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, said: let Israel be pledged for their shekels, so that the communal sacrifices may be offered from them, because the communal sacrifices appease and atone between Israel and their Father in heaven.

They convert shekels into darics [gold coins] because of the burden of the road. May they make them into a pearl? Lest the pearl fall in value and the sanctuary suffer loss. Townsmen who sent their shekels and they were stolen by an armed bandit or lost when their ship sank at sea: if it was after the contribution had been set aside, they swear to the treasurers to take the benefit of their payment from the townsmen [and need not pay again]; and if not, they swear to the townsmen, and the townsmen pay shekels in their stead. If the shekels were found, or the thieves returned them, both these and those are shekels [for two years], but they do not count for the coming year. Rabbi Eleazar says: This oath is an ordinance of the Sages, so that people should not treat consecrated property with contempt. One who pays a shekel is liable for the surcharge, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say: one who pays a shekel is exempt; for two dinars, he is liable. One who gave a sela to receive a shekel in change is liable for two surcharges, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say, one surcharge. And guardians who paid on behalf of orphans are liable for the surcharges. And how much is the surcharge? A ma'ah of silver, one twenty-fourth of a sela, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the Sages say, half a ma'ah. And these surcharges, what did they do with them? They fell to the shekels, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eleazar says: to the freewill offerings. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: beaten gold, a covering for the Holy of Holies. Ben Azzai says: the moneychangers took them as their wage. At three seasons they set aside the contribution of the chamber: about Passover, about Pentecost, about the Festival; about, meaning fifteen days before the festival. The one who sets aside the contribution may not enter to do so in a bordered garment, nor in a leather sandal, and needless to say in a shoe or sandal, for one does not enter the courtyard in them. Nor may one with long hair set aside. When he enters to set aside the contribution of the chamber, they search him on entering and on leaving, and they speak with him from the moment he enters until the moment he leaves, to fulfill what is said, "And you shall be clear before the LORD and before Israel" (Numbers 32:22), "and you shall do what is right and good," "and find favor and good understanding [in the sight of God and man]" (Proverbs 3:4). He says, "Let me set aside," and they say, "Set aside," three times.

Three baskets, each holding three seah, were used to set aside the chamber-offering from the treasury, and on them were written aleph, bet, gimel [one, two, three], because they begin with the first. When the first was finished, they would take from the second; when the second was finished, they would take from the third. Once all three had been used and the season for setting aside the offering came around again, they would set aside from the new collection; and if not, they would set aside from the old. He set aside the first basket in the name of the Land of Israel on behalf of all Israel, and covered it with leather cloths, because the men of Syria would come and weigh in upon it. He set aside from the second and would say, 'This is from Ammon and Moab and from the towns that surround the Land of Israel,' and covered it with leather cloths, because the men of Babylonia would come and weigh in upon it. He set aside the third and would say, 'This is from Babylonia and from Media and from the distant provinces,' and would not cover it. This one was the richest of them all, for in it were staters of gold and darics of gold, because they would convert shekels into darics on account of the burden of the road, which is not so with the coins of the second tithe, as it is written, 'and you shall bind up the money in your hand' (Deuteronomy 14:25). When he removed the leather covering and the leftover funds became mixed together, he would not mix them with those of the previous year, lest he should need to set aside an offering and would then be setting aside from the old. They set aside the offering against a pledge, against what was already collected, and against what was yet to be collected. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: they did not do this in the latter generations, lest one of the children of Israel should need to contribute his shekel and would be found contributing along with the men of Babylonia. One incurs the law of sacrilege regarding these funds throughout their year; once their year has passed, one does not incur sacrilege regarding them, since they were given over to be benefited from, for the Torah was not given to the ministering angels; indeed the city wall and its towers were built from the remainders of the chamber. As for the chamber-offering, what would they do with it? They would purchase with it the daily and additional offerings, the libations, the omer, the two loaves, the showbread, the communal peace-offerings, and all the communal sacrifices. Those who guarded the aftergrowth in the seventh year would take their wages from the chamber-offering. The red heifer and the crimson thread placed on the head of the scapegoat came from the chamber-offering. The ramp of the heifer, the ramp of the scapegoat, the thread tied between its horns, the water channel, the city wall and its towers, and all the needs of the city came from the remainders of the chamber. Abba Shaul says: the ramp of the heifer the high priests would make from their own funds. As for the surplus of the chamber's remainders, what would they do with it? They would buy wines, oils, and fine flours, and the profit went to the Sanctuary, the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: one does not make a profit from that which belongs to the Sanctuary, nor even from that which belongs to the poor. As for the surplus of the chamber-offering, what would they do with it? Beaten plates of gold as an overlay for the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yishmael says: the surplus of the offering went for the service-vessels. Rabbi Hanina the deputy high priest says: the surplus of the offering went for the altar's supplemental burnt-offerings. The scholars who taught the priests the laws of slaughter, of receiving the blood, and of sprinkling, would take their wages from the chamber-offering. Those who inspected the sacrifices for blemishes and those who corrected the Torah scrolls would take their wages from the chamber-offering. The women who wove the curtain would take their wages from the chamber-offering.

(Exodus 30:18-21) It is written, 'Go to the people and sanctify them' (Exodus 19:10). Our masters taught: 'and sanctify them' refers to immersion. We learn the washing of hands from Moses, Aaron, and his sons, as it is said, 'And you shall make a basin of bronze... and they shall wash their hands and their feet.' And concerning Israel, what does it say? 'And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy.' From here Rabban Gamliel used to eat ordinary food in a state of ritual purity. He said: holiness was given at Sinai not to the priests alone, but to all Israel, as it is said, 'Speak to the whole congregation of the children of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy' (Leviticus 19:2). From here they said: anyone who eats without washing his hands, it is a bad sign for him, and of him it says, 'and it shall be, when he hears the words of this curse... the LORD will not be willing to forgive him.' From here they said: anyone who eats without the washing of hands is as one who has relations with a married woman.

'And you shall make a basin of bronze.' Moses made one basin, as it is said, 'And you shall make a basin of bronze.' Solomon made ten basins, as it is said, 'And he made ten basins' (II Chronicles 4:6). And what does Scripture teach by saying 'five on the right and five on the left'? Five on the right corresponding to the basin of Moses, and five on the left corresponding to the basin of Moses. Solomon added further, in that he made the Sea, as it is said, 'And he made the molten Sea, ten cubits' (I Kings 7:23) and so on. It is impossible to say 'two thousand' (I Kings 7:26), for it is already said 'three thousand' (II Chronicles 4:5). How can this be? Two thousand in liquid measure, which is three thousand in dry measure. But you do not know how much a bat is, as it is said, 'the ephah and the bat shall be of one measure,' and it says 'ten bat make a homer'; reckon ten bat to each kor and you have two hundred kor; subtract from them fifty kor, set the fifty against the other fifty and you have a hundred and fifty ritual baths of purification, for each ritual bath holds forty seah. And from where do we know it held a hundred and fifty ritual baths of purification? If you say it was a square vessel, it held even more than that. And from where do we know it was round above? As it is said, 'and its thickness was a handbreadth, and its brim was like the work of the brim of a cup' (I Kings 7:26); from here you learn it was round above. And from where do we know it was square below? As it is said, 'standing upon twelve oxen' (II Chronicles 4:4). And what does Scripture teach by saying 'facing' four times? Rather, it teaches: one who enters the Sanctuary turns to the right, to the courtyard turns to the right, to the Temple Mount turns to the right, to the top of the altar turns to the right, as it is said, 'and the likeness of oxen was beneath... encircling it ten cubits, surrounding the Sea all around,' so that the heads of the oxen were in sets of four at their base, and the vessel was cast solid from the legs of the ox.

Any sacrifices whose blood was received by one whose hands and feet were not washed are invalid; this is derived through the [shared term] 'statute, statute' from the case of one lacking the proper garments. Our masters taught: a high priest who did not immerse and did not sanctify his hands and feet between one garment and the next, or between one service and the next, and performed the service, his service is valid. But whether a high priest or an ordinary priest, one who did not sanctify his hands and feet in the morning and performed the service, his service is invalid. Rav Asi said to Rabbi Yohanan: now, the five immersions and ten sanctifications are biblical, and 'statute' is written concerning them, so let them be indispensable. He said to him: Scripture says 'and they shall put them on' (Exodus 29:30), teaching that putting on the garments is indispensable but nothing else is indispensable. His face lit up. Rav Asi said: a single vav has been written for you against a whole tractate. If so, the morning sanctification too should not be indispensable. Hezekiah said: Scripture says, 'and it shall be for them a perpetual statute, to him and to his offspring throughout their generations,' meaning a matter that is indispensable for his offspring is indispensable for him, and a matter that is not indispensable for his offspring is not indispensable for him. Rabbi Yonatan says: it is derived from here, 'and Moses and Aaron and his sons washed from it' (Exodus 40:31), meaning a matter indispensable for his sons is indispensable for him, and a matter not indispensable for his sons is not indispensable for him. Why did Rabbi Yonatan not derive it from the first verse? He could say to you: that verse is written for the generations. And why did the other not derive it from this verse? He needs it for the teaching of Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Hanina, who said: any basin that does not contain enough to sanctify four priests from it, they do not sanctify from it, as it is said, 'and Moses and Aaron and his sons washed from it.'