, guided by the ancient text of Sifrei Bamidbar.
The text opens by highlighting a special covenant forged between God and Aaron, the High Priest, regarding the kodesh hakodashim, the holy of holies. Why was such a covenant even necessary? Because, as the text explains, Korach challenged Aaron's priesthood. Imagine a king giving a field to a loyal servant without any written agreement. Someone could easily come along and dispute the servant's ownership. So, what does the king do? He formalizes the gift with a written, sealed, and recorded document. Similarly, when Korach contested Aaron's claim, God essentially said, "I am now writing, sealing, and recording it," thus establishing Aaron's right to the priesthood. It’s all about establishing the legitimacy and permanence of the divine appointment.
The text emphasizes that these gifts to Aaron and his sons are given "lemashchah," which implies both greatness and anointment. R. Yitzchak connects mishchah to the anointing oil, beautifully described in (Psalms 133:2) as "the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron." This anointment wasn't just a symbolic act; it was a physical manifestation of divine favor and authority, passed down through generations as "an everlasting statute."
Now, let’s talk about the practical side of things: What exactly did the priests get to eat? The text delves into the various offerings that became the priests' portion. We read about the olah, the burnt offering, where the hide went to the kohanim, the priests. We also learn about the two loaves, the showbread, the meal offerings (minchah), the sin offerings (chatat), and the guilt offerings (asham). Even the theft of a proselyte's possessions, if unclaimed, would revert to the priests! And the log of oil from a leper's purification process? That too was designated as kodesh hakodashim, belonging to Aaron and his descendants.
But where could they eat these sacred foods? Sifrei Bamidbar makes it clear: "In the holy of holies shall you eat it," meaning within the sacred confines of the Temple court, the azarah. Interestingly, R. Yehudah suggests that even if gentiles surrounded the azarah, the priests could still consume the offerings within the sanctuary. And who was allowed to partake? Only the male members of the priesthood. "Every male shall eat it."
The text extends the discussion to include terumah, the portion set apart from the harvest as an offering. Just as God made a covenant regarding the holy offerings, so too did He include the "lower-order offerings," like the wave offerings, in this divine agreement. These offerings were given "to you, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute," but with a crucial condition: "Every clean one in your house shall eat it." Purity was paramount.
What about the best of the oil, wine, and wheat? These were also included, representing the terumah gedolah (the great offering) and the terumat ma'aser (the tithe of the tithe). The first of the shearing, the shoulder, cheeks, and maw of slaughtered animals, and even the challah (the portion of dough set aside) were all designated for the priests. And then there are the bikkurim, the first fruits, which had a special status: holiness "takes" upon them even while they’re still attached to the ground. This is different from terumah, where holiness doesn’t apply until after it's harvested.
A fascinating debate arises regarding who exactly is permitted to eat terumah. The text questions whether a betrothed daughter of an Israelite, engaged to a priest, can partake. Some argue that since a married woman can eat terumah, surely a betrothed woman should be allowed as well. However, the sages ultimately decided that she can only eat terumah after entering the chuppah, the marriage canopy.
The text even recounts a story involving R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag and R. Yehudah, where the former challenges the latter's ruling on this matter. R. Yehudah cleverly uses a kal vachomer, an "a fortiori" argument, comparing a Canaanite maidservant (whose money allows her to eat terumah) to an Israelite daughter. Despite the compelling logic, the established ruling remained: betrothed women could only eat terumah after the chuppah.
What can we take away from this deep dive into Sifrei Bamidbar? It's a testament to the meticulous nature of ancient Israelite law, the importance of maintaining purity and holiness, and the enduring covenant between God and the priestly lineage of Aaron. It reminds us that even seemingly small details can hold profound significance when it comes to matters of faith and tradition. And perhaps, it also prompts us to reflect on the ways we honor and uphold the sacred in our own lives.
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "For all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, etc.": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) to declare a law to make a covenant with them. And why was this necessary? For Korach arose against Aaron and contested the priesthood. An analogy: A king of flesh and blood had a retainer to whom he gave a field of holding as a gift, without writing or sealing (the transaction) and without recording it, whereupon someone came and contested his (the retainer's) ownership of the field. At this, the king said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. Come (now) and I will write, seal, and record it. Korach came and contested his (Aaron's) claim to the priesthood, at which the L-rd said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. I am (now) writing and sealing and recording it — wherefore this section is juxtaposed with (the episode of) Korach. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "to you have I given them (the gifts)": in your merit "lemashchah": "meshichah" connotes greatness, as in (Vayikra 7:35) "This is mishchath Aaron and mishchath his sons, etc." R. Yitzchak says "mishchah" (here) connotes anointment, as in (Psalms 133:2) "the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and to your sons": in the merit of your sons. "as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. (Ibid. 9) "This shall be for you from the holy of holies from the fire": I would not know of what this speaks. Go out and see: What remains (for the Cohanim) of the holy of holies, all of which is consigned to the fire? You find this as obtaining only with a beast burnt-offering, (the hide of which reverts to the Cohanim.) "all of their offerings": the two loaves and the show-bread. "all of their meal-offerings": the sinner's meal-offering and the donative meal-offering. "all of their sin-offerings": the sin-offering of the individual and the communal sin-offering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird sin-offering and the beast sin-offering. "all of their guilt-offerings": the "certain" guilt-offering, the "suspended" guilt-offering, the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. "which they shall return to Me": This refers to the theft of a proselyte, (which reverts to the Cohanim [viz. Ibid. 5:8]). "holy of holies": This refers to the leper's log of oil. "to you and to your sons": in your merit and in the merit of your sons. (Ibid. 10) "In the holy of holies shall you eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten only in a holy place, within the curtains (i.e., in the azarah [the Temple court]). R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the azarah, they may be eaten (even) in the sanctuary? From "In the holy of holies shall you eat it." (Ibid.) "Every male shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten by males of the priesthood. "Holy shall it be to you": What is the intent of this? I might think that only something fit for eating should be eaten in holiness. Whence do I derive (the same for) something which is not fit for eating? From "Holy shall it be to you." (Ibid. 11) "And this is for you the terumah of (i.e., what is set apart from) their gift-offerings": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included holy of holies to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include lower-order offerings. "From all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel": This thing requires waving. "To you have I given them, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. "Every clean one in your house shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with lower-order offerings that they are to be eaten only by those who are clean. "All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the wheat": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included the offerings of the sanctuary to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include the border offerings (i.e., those outside the sanctuary) to decree a law to make a covenant with them. "All the best of the oil": This is terumah gedolah (Devarim 18:4). "and all the best, etc.": This is terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26). "the first of them": the first of the shearing (Devarim 18:4). "which they shall give": shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3). "to the L-rd": challah (Bamidbar 15:20). (Ibid. 18:13) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land": Scripture here comes to teach us about the bikkurim that holiness "takes" upon them while they are yet attached to the ground. For it would follow (otherwise, viz.:) Since holiness "takes" on bikkurim and holiness "takes" on terumah, then, if I have learned about terumah that holiness does not "take" on it while it is yet on the ground, so, with bikkurim. It is, therefore, written "the first-fruits of all that is in their land," to teach us otherwise. (Bamidbar 18:12) "To you have I given them": Scripture comes to teach that it is given to the Cohein. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "Every clean one of your household shall eat it": Why is this stated? Is it not already written (Ibid. 11) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it (terumah)"? Why repeat it? To include the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as eating terumah. Does this include one who is betrothed? Perhaps it speaks only of one who is married! — (This is not so, for) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it" already speaks of one who is married. How, then, am I to understand "Every clean one of your household"? As including the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, as eating terumah. This would seem to include (as eating terumah) a betrothed one and a toshav (a ger toshav [sojourner]) and a sachir (a hired non-Jew). How, then, am I to understand (Shemot 12:45) "a toshav … shall not eat of it"? A toshav who is not in your domain; but one who is in your domain may eat of it. Or even a toshav who is in your domain (may eat of it). And how am I to understand "Every clean one of your household may eat of it"? As excluding a toshav and a sachir. Or perhaps, including a toshav and a sachir! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:10) "and a sachir shall not eat the holy thing" (terumah): whether or not he is in your domain. And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in Netzivim: I heard about you that you said that the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah. He sent back: And I held you to be expert in the recesses of Torah when you cannot even expound a kal vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse (with her master) does not acquire her (or him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, her money (i.e., the money by which he acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) causes her to eat terumah — then the daughter of an Israelite, whose intercourse (with her husband) acquires her (to him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, how much more so should her money (by which he betroths her) acquire her for (purposes of) eating terumah! But what can I do? The sages said: The daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to a Cohein) does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah (the marriage canopy). Once she enters the chuppah, even if there were no intercourse, she eats terumah, and if she dies, her husband inherits her.
