Sifrei Bamidbar

Piska 1 performance! It is, therefore, (to

negate this) written "Command the
(Bamidbar 5:1-2) "And the L-rd children of Israel that they send
spoke to Moses, saying: Command (Bamidbar 19:4) "And the children of
the children of Israel that they send Israel did so, sending them outside
out of the camp every leper the camp" whence we derive that
(metzora) and everyone with a the command is for immediate
(genital discharge (zav), and performance. And whence do we
everyone that is unclean by (contact derive that it is (also) for future
with) a body (tamei meth)." Why was generations? From (Vayikra 24:2)
this section stated? (For) from "Command the children of Israel that
(Bamidbar 19:20) "A man, if he they take to you clear olive oil (3)
becomes unclean and does not purify an eternal statute for your
himself, that soul shall be cut of generations." But how do we
from the midst of the congregation, derive (the same) for all the
for he has defiled the sanctuary of commands in the Torah? R. Yishmael
the L-rd," we hear the punishment; says: Since we find unqualified
but we have not heard the commands in the Torah, and one of
exhortation. It is, therefore, written them was qualified as being for
"Command the children of Israel that present performance and for future
they send out of the camp (3) and generations, we derive the same for
they shall not make unclean their all the mitzvoth in the Torah. R.
camps in which I dwell." This (3) is Yehudah b. Bethira says: "command"
the exhortation that the unclean not in all places connotes impulsion (to
enter the sanctuary in a state of the act), as it is written (Devarim
uncleanliness. 3:28) "And command Joshua and
"Command": The command is strengthen him and fortify him"
immediately, for present whence we learn "We strengthen
performance and for future only the (internally) strengthened,"
generations. You say thus, but and "We impel only the (internally)
perhaps it is only for future impelled." R. Shimon b. Yochai says:
1
"Command" in all places
expense, as it is written (Vayikra
24:2) "Command the children
Israel that they take to you pure olive
oil," (Bamidbar 35:2) "Command the
children of Israel that they give to
the Levites from the inheritance,
etc." (Bamidbar 28:2) "Command the
children of Israel and say to them:
My ofering, My bread, for My fires"
whence we see that "command" in
all places entails expense. Except in
one; and which is that? (Bamidbar
34:2) "Command the children
Israel and say to them: When you
come to the land of Canaan, etc."
where the intent is: Impel them to
the division of the land. Rebbi says:
"Command" in all places
exhortation, as it is written (Bereshit
2:16-17) "And the L-rd
commanded (i.e., exhorted) the man,
saying but of the tree
knowledge of good and evil, you
shall not eat."
(Bamidbar 5:2) "that they send out
of the camp": I understand this to
mean from the Levite camp alone.
Whence do I derive that the Israelite
camp is also meant? From (Bamidbar
5:3) "Outside the camp shall you
send them." (Bamidbar 5:3) "and
they shall not make unclean their
camps in whose midst I dwell": This
entails is the camp of the Shechinah. But
even if this were not mentioned, I
of could derive it a fortiori, viz. If those
with dead-body tumah are ejected
from the less stringent camp, that of
the Israelites, how much more so are
they ejected from the more stringent
camp, that of the Shechinah. If so,
why is "and they shall not make
unclean their camps" needed? To
teach that we do not punish by an a
fortiori argument. R. Yehudah says:
There is no need (for the verse to
of teach that they are sent out of the
camp of the Shechinah), for it follows
a fortiori, viz.: If those with (dead-
body) tumah are ejected from the
less stringent camp, (that of) the ark
is (i.e., the camp of the Levites), how
much more so are they ejected from
G-d the more stringent camp, (that of)
the Shechinah, (R. Yehudah obviously
of holding that we do punish by an a
fortiori argument). If so, why is it
written "and they shall not make
unclean their camps?" Because from
"they shall send out from the camp
every leper and every zav and every
tamei meth," I would understand that
they are all sent to one place; it is,
therefore, written in respect to a
leper (Vayikra 13:46) "Solitary shall
he sit" that no other unclean ones
sit with him. I might then think that
2
zavim and the tamei meth are sent camps]). Wherever tvul yom (one
to one camp; it is, therefore, written who has immersed in the daytime
"and they shall not make unclean [pending purification in the evening])
their camps" to assign a separate confers tumah, tamei meth confers
camp for each. These are the words tumah. tamei meth is of greater
of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: There is stringency (than tvul yom) in that it
no need (for the above). A leper was confers tumah upon a man (who
included in the general category (of touches him, viz. [Bamidbar 19:22]
the unclean), and left the category [ wherefore a tamei meth is sent
(for special mention) to teach out of one camp]). Wherever one's
concerning the category, viz.: Just as lacking atonement (through an
a leper, whose tumah is most ofering) renders (him) unfit (for
stringent his sending is more eating consecrated food) tvul yom
stringent than that of his neighbor, renders (him) unfit. tvul yom is of
so, each one whose tumah is more greater stringency (than one's
stringent, his sending is more lacking atonement) in that he
stringent than that of his neighbor. renders terumah unfit.
This is the source for the sages' "that they send out of the camp": Is
gradations of partitions (mechitzoth). this speaking of all men or only the
Wherever zav confers tumah, Levites, the carriers of the ark? It is,
metzora (leper) confers tumah. therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "From
metzora is of greater stringency male until female shall you send out"
(than zav) in that it confers tumah Scripture speaks of all men. R.
upon one who enters (a house Yoshiyah says "that they send out of
afflicted with tzara'ath [viz. Vayikra the camp" connotes both adults and
14:46] [ wherefore a metzora is minors. You say both adults and
sent out of all three camps]). minors, but perhaps the criterion (for
Wherever tamei meth confers tumah, inclusion) should be punishment,
zav confers tumah. zav is of greater viz.: Just as we find re sanctuary
stringency (than tamei meth) in that defilement that only adults are
it confers tumah under an even punished, viz. (Ibid. 19:20) "And a
mesama (a stone beneath which man, if he becomes unclean and
there is a cavity [viz. Vayikra 15:9] does not purify himself, that soul
[ wherefore a zav is sent out of two shall be cut of" here, too, only

3
adults are intended. It is, therefore,
written "From male until female shall
you send out," both adults and
minors. R. Yochanan says: Why is it
written "From male until female shall
you send out"? Because it is written
"They shall send out of the camp," I
might think, only these (viz. (Ibid. 2).
Whence do I derive (the same for) all
the other types of tumah? From
"From male until female any (type
of tumah) that afects male or female
shall you send out." This tells me
only of male and female. Whence do
we derive the same for one whose
sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite?
From (the redundant) "Outside the
camp shall you send them." This tells
me only of one who can be sent
away (i.e., of one who can walk).
Whence do I derive (the same for)
one who cannot be sent away (i.e.,
that he must be taken by another)?
From "Outside the camp shall you
send them." This tells me only of
men. Whence do I derive (the same
for) appurtenances (that have
become tamei)? From "and they shall
not make unclean their camps." R.
Akiva says: "Outside of the camp
shall you send them" connotes both
men and appurtenances. R. Yishmael
says: It is derived by induction, viz.:
A man is subject to plague tumah
4
and garments are subject to plague
tumah. Just as a man is subject to
being sent away, so, appurtenances.
No, this may be so for a man, who
imparts tumah (to an object) by
reclining (mishkav) or sitting
(moshav [upon it]), for which reason
he must be sent away as opposed
to appurtenances, which do not
impart tumah in that manner! No,
this is refuted by (the instance of)
stones from a leprous house, which,
though they do not impart tumah
through mishkav or moshav, require
being sent away. Do not wonder,
then, if appurtenances, though they
do not impart tumah through
mishkav and moshav are to be sent
away. R. Yossi Haglili says "From male
until female shall you send them
out": Just as male and female are
distinctive in being subject to
becoming proto-tumah (av hatumah)
require being sent away, so, all that
are thus susceptible to exclude
earthenware vessels, which are not
thus susceptible.
(Vayikra 17:15) "and every soul that
eats neveilah (carcass) or treifah
(what is "torn") he shall wash his
clothes and bathe in water " R.
Yitzchak says: It is written (Ibid. 16)
"And if he does not wash (his
clothes) and he does not bathe his
flesh (and he eats kodshim or enters entrance to Jerusalem until the
the sanctuary), he shall bear his sin." Temple mount the Israelite camp.
For not bathing his body Scripture From the entrance to the Temple
makes him liable to kareth ("cutting- mount until the azarah (the Temple
of'). You say, it is for not bathing his courtyard) the Levite camp. From
body, but perhaps it is for not the entrance to the azarah and
washing his clothes! Can you say inwards the camp of the
this? If for the more stringent tumath Shechinah. (Ibid. 3) "in whose midst I
meth he is not punished (with dwell": Beloved are Israel, who, even
kareth) for not washing his clothes, when they are tamei, the Shechinah
how much more so is he not is among them, as it is written
punished for not washing his clothes (Vayikra 16:16) "who dwells with
for the less stringent eating of them in the midst of their
carcass! If so, what is the intent of uncleanliness," and (Bamidbar)
"And if he does not wash his 35:34) "And you shall not defile the
clothes"? To serve as an exhortation land which you inhabit, in which I
(against not washing them). dwell, for I, the L-rd, dwell in the
"Outside of the camp shall you send midst of the children of Israel (even
them": What is the intent of this when they are unclean)."
(after "They shall send out of the (Ibid. 5:4) "And the children of Israel
camp")? From "They shall send out of did so, and they sent them outside
the camp," I might think the intent is the camp": R. Yossi Haglili says:
(only) that they not touch the ark or Come and see how great is the
its bearers, but they should be power of transgression. For before
assigned a place for themselves they stretched forth their hands to
(inside the camp). It is, therefore, transgress (with the golden calf),
written "Outside of the camp shall there were no zavim or lepers among
you send them": "and they shall not them, and after they did so, there
make unclean their camps" were zavim and lepers among them.
whence (i.e., from the three-fold In the course (of our learning) we
repetition of "camp") they stated: learned that these three things
There were three camps: the Israelite (zavim, lepers, and tamei meth)
camp, the Levite camp, and the occurred on the same day (the day
camp of the Shechinah. From the that they made the golden calf). R.

5
Shimon b. Yochai says: Come and
see how great is the power of
transgression. For before
stretched forth their hands
transgress, what is written of them?
(Shemot 24:17) "and the sight of the
glory of the L-rd was like
consuming fire on the top of the
mountain in the eyes of the children
of Israel" They did not fear and
they did not tremble. After they
stretched forth their hands
transgress, what is written of them?
(Ibid. 34:30) "And Aaron and all of
Israel saw Moses, and, behold, the
skin of his face shone, and they were
afraid to approach him." "And the
children of Israel did so": This is to
declare the praise of Israel, that just
as Moses told them, thus did they do.
What is the intent of (the additional)
"As the L-rd spoke to Moses, so did
the children of Israel do"? To teach
that the unclean ones themselves,
(who were sent out), did not protest.
Piska 2
(Bamidbar 5:5-6) "And the L-rd
spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the
children of Israel: A man or a woman,
if they do of all the sins of man": Why
is this section mentioned? (i.e., it has
already been mentioned elsewhere.)
It is written (Vayikra 5:20-22) "If a
soul sin and commit a profanation
they against the L-rd or if he find a lost
to object and swear falsely, etc." But
the stolen property of a proselyte is
not mentioned. It is, therefore,
a written (here) "Speak to the children
of Israel: A man or a woman, if they
do all of the sins of man." Scripture
comes to teach us about the stolen
property of a proselyte that if one
to swore to him falsely (that he did not
steal it) and the proselyte died, he
pays the principal and the fifth to the
Cohanim and the guilt-ofering to the
altar, (a proselyte, halachically, not
having any heirs). This is a rule in the
Torah: Any section stated in one
place in the Torah, missing one thing,
and repeated in a diferent place is
repeated only for the sake of the
thing that is originated. R. Akiva
says: Everything stated therein must
be expounded. R. Yoshiyah (in
explication of R. Akiva) says: Why is
"a man or a woman" stated? From
(Shemot 21:3) "And if a man open a
pit or if a man dig a pit," I would
know only of a man. Whence would I
derive (the same for) a woman? From
"a man or a woman," to liken a
woman to a man in respect to all
transgressions and damages in the
Torah. R. Yonathan says: (The above
6
derivation) is not needed, for it is
already written (Ibid. 34) "The owner
(whether man or woman) of the pit
shall pay," and (Ibid. 22:5) "Pay shall
pay the kindler (whether man or
woman) of the fire." Why, then, is it
stated "a man or a woman"? For its
(own) teaching, (i.e., that the law of
theft of the proselyte" obtains both
with men and with women.) "if they
do all of the sins of man to commit a
profanation against the L-rd": Why is
this stated? (i.e., it is already written
[Vayikra 5:21] "If a soul sin and
commit a profanation, etc.") Because
it is written "If a soul sin and commit
a profanation (22) or find a lost
object, etc.", I might think that only
one who lies in respect to what is
mentioned therein is regarded as one
who lies against the L-rd Himself.
Whence do I derive (the same for)
one who lies in respect to all other
things? It is, therefore, written "if
they do all of the sins of man to
commit a profanation against the L-
rd." "to commit a profanation" ("limol
ma'al"). "me'ilah" in all places is
"lying." And thus is it written (I
Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and
they lied') against the G-d of their
fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the
children of Israel yimalu ma'al
('falsified') in respect to the ban,"
7
and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul
died because of his falsification
('bima'alo ma'al') against the L-rd."
And, in respect to Uzziyahu (II
Chronicles 26:18), "Leave the
sanctuary, for you have acted falsely
(ma'alta')," and (Bamidbar 5:12) "
and she be false (uma'ala) to him"
whence we see that "me'ilah" is
"lying." (Ibid. 6) "and that soul shall
be guilty": Why is this stated? (i.e., it
seems redundant.) "a man or a
woman" would seem to indicate
specifically these. Whence would I
derive (the same for) one whose sex
is unknown or a hermaphrodite?
From "and that soul shall be guilty"
All are included, even proselytes
and servants. But this would seem
to include all, both the above and
minors! Would you say this? If a
minor is exempt from (punishment
for) the grave sin of idolatry, how
much more so (is he exempt from
punishment for) all the mitzvoth of
the Torah! Whence is it derived that
if one stole and swore (falsely) and
went to bring the money (to repay)
and the guilt-ofering and could not
manage to bring them before he
died, that his heirs are exempt? From
"and that soul shall be guilty." But
perhaps just as they are exempt from
the guilt-ofering, so, they are
exempt from the principal. It is,
therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "and he
shall give it (the principal) to the one
to whom he is liable (for payment)."
"and that soul shall be guilty": Why is
this stated? Whence do you derive
that if one burned his neighbor's
grain sack on the Sabbath that beth-
din does not exact payment from him
because he is liable to the death
penalty? From "and that soul shall be
guilty" (i.e., in the aforementioned
instance, the life alone is taken.)
(Ibid. 7) "and they confess their sin
which they have done": This tells me
that a sin-ofering requires
confession. Whence do I derive (the
same for) a guilt-ofering? From "and
that soul be guilty and they confess."
R. Nathan says: This is a paradigm
(binyan av) for all that are put to
death that they require confession.
Piska 3
(Bamidbar 5:7) "and they confess
their sins which they have done":
and not for what his father has done.
So that if one says to him: Give me
the pledge that I deposited with your
father and he says: You did not
deposit (any pledge), and the other
says: I beswear you (to that efect),
and he says "Amen," I might think
8
that (if he confesses) he is liable; it
is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:5)
"then he shall confess wherein he
has sinned," and not for what his
father has done. "then he shall
restore his guilt at its head": Why is
this stated? Because it is written
(Ibid. 5:24) "and he shall pay it at its
head," I might think that this applies
to monetary payment (of the
principal). Whence is it derived that
he may return the theft itself? From
"then he shall restore." (Bamidbar
5:7) "and its fifth shall he add to it":
so that it and its fifth make five
(equal parts). These are the words of
R. Yoshiah. R. Yonathan says: a fifth
of the principal. "and he shall give it
to the one to whom he is liable": Why
is this stated? Because it is written
(Vayikra 5:24) "To whom it belongs
shall he give it on the day of (the
acknowledgement of) his guilt," I
might think that he must give it
either to him or to his messenger.
Whence do I derive (that he may also
give it to) the messenger of beth-din
or to the heir (of the one to whom he
is liable)? From "and he shall give it
to the one to whom he is liable." R.
Nathan says: If one stole a maneh
from his neighbor, and he came to
beth-din, and he did not manage to
pay it before the debtor of the
robbed one arrived Whence is it
derived that beth-din may take it
from the robber and give it to the
debtor? From "and he shall give it to
the one to whom he is liable" in
any manner.
Piska 4
(Bamidbar 5:8) "And if the man does
not have a redeemer (to whom to
return the debt"): R. Yishmael says:
Now is there a man in Israel who
does not have a redeemer? Scripture
(in this instance) is teaching about
one who robs a proselyte and swears
to him (falsely), after which the
proselyte dies that he pays the
principal and the fifth to the Cohanim
and the guilt-ofering to the altar, (a
proselyte, halachically, having no
heirs.) R. Nathan says: "And if the
man does not have a redeemer":
This tells me only of a man. Whence
do we derive (the same for) a
woman? From "to whom to return the
debt," (connoting either man or
woman). If so, why is it written "the
man"? For a man, a search must be
made to determine whether or not
he has a redeemer. For a minor, a
search need not be made, it being
certain that he has no redeemer (i.e.,
sons who can inherit him). ("And if
9
the man does not have a
redeemer":) Abba Chanan says in the
name of R. Eliezer. Scripture speaks
of the one who was robbed. But
perhaps it speaks of the robber.
(This cannot be, for) "to whom to
return the debt" proves that it speaks
of the one who is robbed. "the debt
(ha'asham) which is returned":
Scripture here speaks of money (and
not of the guilt-ofering proper).
But perhaps it does speak of the
guilt-ofering proper! (This cannot
be, for) "aside from the ram of
atonement whereby atonement shall
be made for him" speaks of this.
How, then, am I to understand
"ha'asham which is returned to the L-
rd"? As referring to money (i.e., the
principal and the fifth). "is the L-rd's
to the Cohein": The L-rd has acquired
it and He has given it to the Cohanim
of the officiating watch. But
perhaps he can give it to any Cohein
he wishes! It is, therefore, written
"aside from the ram of atonement
whereby atonement shall be made
for him." (He gives it) to those who
make atonement for him by it the
men of the watch.
If the thief (himself) were a Cohein, I
might think that he acquires it. And
this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If he
acquires that of others, shall he not
acquire what is his own! (That is, if
others had stolen from the proselyte,
who died without heirs, the Cohein
acquires that theft. How much more
so does he acquire the theft which he
already possesses!) R. Nathan
phrased it otherwise, viz.: If
something which I do not acquire
until it comes into my hand (i.e.,
ma'aser, and terumath ma'aser),
another cannot acquire and take it
from me, then something which I do
acquire before it comes into my hand
(i.e., what has been stolen from a
proselyte without heirs), then when it
does come into my hand, how much
more so (does it follow) that another
cannot acquire it and take it from
me! No, this may be true of
something which he does not acquire
until it comes into his hand, for just
as he has no portion in it, so, others
have no portion in it. But would you
say the same for this (what has been
stolen from a proselyte)? Just as he
has a portion in it, so, others have a
portion in it, and since this is so, it
follows that it should be taken from
his hand and be apportioned among
the men of the officiating watch.
Whence is it derived that if one
steals from a proselyte and swears
(falsely) to him and goes to bring the
money and the guilt-ofering and
10
does not manage to bring them
before the proselyte dies (Whence
is it derived that his heirs are exempt
(from the guilt-ofering)? From "aside
from the ram of atonement with
which atonement shall be made for
him." (And in the above situation, his
death has atoned for him.) Thus did
R. Akiva teach before he came from
Zifron. When he came from Zifron he
said: If he gave the money to the
men of the watch and then the
proselyte died, the heirs do not
retrieve it from the Cohein, and I
pronounce over him (the giver) (Ibid.
10) "Whatever a man gives to the
Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it
be." The Cohein says to the heir:
Bring a guilt-ofering and it will be
sacrificed, and he (the heir) says:
"whereby atonement shall be made
for him" to exclude (from the guilt-
ofering) one who died, whose death
has atoned for him.
"aside from the ram of atonement":
From "Whatever a man gives to the
Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it
be," do you say that if he gave the
money to (the watch of) Yehoyariv
and (afterwards) the guilt-ofering to
(that of) Yedayah, he has fulfilled his
obligation and I pronounce over him
(the giver) "Whatever a man gives to
the Cohein, to him shall it be," or
even if he gave the guilt-ofering
(first) to Yehoyariv, and (then) the
money to Yedayah, he has fulfilled
his obligation and I pronounce over
him "Whatever a man gives to the
Cohein, to him shall it be"? It is,
therefore, written "aside from the
ram of atonement whereby
atonement shall be made for him"
(and there is no atonement until the
money has been returned.) But, (in
the above instance), if the animal to
be ofered is still alive, it is sacrificed
by (the watch of) Yedayah, and he
(the giver) is told to ofer another
ofering and give it to Yedayah (sic.
[Yehoyariv?])
Piska 5
(Bamidbar 5:9) "And all terumah of
all the holy things of the children of
Israel which they present to the
Cohein, to him shall it be."
Yishmael says: Scripture comes to
teach you that if one dedicates (to
the Temple) his grain pile before he
levels it of and then he redeems it,
he must take terumah (from it). I
might think (he must do so) even if
he redeemed it after he leveled the
pile; it is, therefore, written
terumah, Devarim 18:4) "the first of
your corn (pile)." R. Akiva says: "and
all terumah": Scripture comes to
teach you that if he wishes to make
his entire granary terumah, he may
do so, so long as he leaves some
over. "and all terumah of all the holy
things": Scripture hereby teaches us
that the laws of terumah apply to all
varieties (of produce, and not just to
those specifically indicated). Issi b.
Yehudah says: If the ma'aser the
less stringent obtains with all
produce, how much more so,
terumah the more stringent.
Variantly: If ma'aser, which does not
obtain in the third and sixth year (of
shemitah), obtains with all produce,
how much more so, terumah, which
obtains in all years! Issi b. Menachem
says: if ma'aser, which is brought
only as an adjunct to learning and
fear (viz. Devarim 14:23), obtains
with all produce, how much more so,
the more stringent, terumah! (Ibid.
R. 5:9) "which they ofer to the Cohein,
to him shall it be": R. Yishmael says:
Now is terumah ofered to the
Cohein? (Does he not rather come to
receive it?) What, then, is the intent
of "which they ofer to the Cohein"?
Because it is written (Shemot 23:19)
"The first of the first-fruits (bikkurim)
(of of your land shall you bring to the
house of the L-rd your G-d," but we
are not told what is to be done with
11
them; it is, therefore, written "which
they ofer to the Cohein, to him shall
it be." Scripture hereby teaches us
that bikkurim, (which are presented
as oferings), are to be given to the
Cohanim.
Piska 6
(Bamidbar 5:10) "And a man, his
holy things, to him shall they be": All
kodshim ("holies") were included in
"And a man, his holy things, to him
shall they be." Scripture "pulled out"
all the kodshim and gave them to the
Cohanim, leaving over (to
owners) only ("portions") of thank-
oferings, peace-oferings,
Pesach ofering, beast-tithe, second-
tithe, and neta revai (plantings of the
fourth year). Variantly: And a man,
his holy things, to him shall they be":
From here you derive that to the
Cohein who performs the sacrifice
(even in a diferent watch),
service (i.e., its flesh) and its skin
belong "to him" (the Cohein).
Variantly: "And a man, his
things, to him shall they be": What is
the intent of this? From (Vayikra
19:24) "And in the fourth year all of
its fruit shall be holy in praise of the
L-rd," (I would not know) "holy" to
the owners or "holy" to the Cohanim?
It is, therefore, written "And a man,
his holy things, to him shall they be."
Scripture here speaks of neta revai,
that it belongs to the owners. These
are the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon
says: "holy" to the owners. You say
"holy" to the owners, but perhaps it
is "holy" to the Cohanim! You
derive it thus: second-tithe is called
"holy" (viz. Devarim 26:13) "and neta
revai is called "holy." Just as second-
tithe is "holy" to the owners, so, neta
revai should belong to the owners.
(No,) this is refuted by terumah,
which is called "holy" (viz. Vayikra
the 22:14) and yet belongs to the
Cohanim. Would you say that?
the There is a diference. Second-tithe
requires bringing to the place
(Jerusalem) and neta revai requires
bringing to the place. If I learned that
second-tithe belongs to the owners,
neta revai should belong to the
owners. (No,) this is refuted by
its bikkurim, which, even though they
require bringing to the place, belong
to the Cohanim. Would you say
holy that? There is a diference. Second-
tithe is called "holy," and requires
bringing to the place, and
redemption. And neta revai is called
"holy," and requires bringing to the
place, and redemption. And this is
not to be refuted by terumah, which,
12
even though it is called "holy," does
not require bringing to the place, nor
by bikkurim, which, even though
they require bringing to the place, do
not require redemption. I will learn a
thing from a thing, and I will reason
out a thing from a thing. I will learn a
thing of three facets from a thing
that is similar in (these) three facets,
and I will not learn a thing of three
facets from a thing which is not
similar in (these) three facets, but
only in one or two. If I have learned,
then, that second-tithe belongs to
the owners, then neta revai, too,
should belong to the owners. R. Yossi
says "holy" to the owners. You say
"holy" to the owners, but perhaps it
is "holy" to the Cohanim! It is,
therefore, written (of neta revai,
Vayikra 19:25) "And in the fifth year
you may eat its fruit to increase for
you its produce." For whom is it
increased? For him to whom it has
already been given (in the fourth
year, i.e., the owner.)
(Bamidbar 5:10) "And every man,
his holy things, to him shall they be":
What is the intent of this? Because it
is written (Ibid. 18:19) "All
terumoth of the holy things which
the children of Israel will separate for
the L-rd have I given to you (Aaron)
and to your sons, etc.", I might think
that he (a Cohein) could forcibly
seize them (the priestly gifts). It is,
therefore, written "And every man,
his holy things, to him shall they be"
He has the option of giving them
to any Cohein he wishes. "And a
man, his holy things, to him shall
they be": If one measured out
(terumah) for them (certain
Cohanim) on the ground and others
(later) joined them, I might think that
I pronounce over him "Whatever a
man gives to the Cohein, (in this
instance the Cohein for whom he
measured it out), to him (that
Cohein) shall it be"; it is, therefore,
written "And every man, his holy
things, to him (the man) shall they
be" (i.e., he retains the option of
giving it to those who came later). I
might then think that if he measured
it out (for him) in a basket and others
joined later, I still pronounce over
him "And every man, his holy things,
to him (the man) shall they be" (and
he can give it to the later ones); it is,
therefore, (for such a circumstance)
written "Whatever a man gives to the
Cohein, (in this instance, the first
the Cohein), to him (that Cohein) shall it
be." R. Yossi says if one redeemed
his (first-born) son within thirty days,
and he (the son) died, I might think
that I pronounce over him (the
13
father) "Whatever a man gives to the man, a man, if his wife go astray,
Cohein to him (the Cohein) shall it etc.", that (in the above instance)
be"; it is, therefore, written "And she must drink the bitter waters. This
every man, his holy things, to him is the intent of this section. "A man,
(the man) shall they be." (If he died) a man": to include the wife of a deaf
after thirty days, the money is not mute, an imbecile, one who has gone
taken back from the Cohein, it being abroad or been incarcerated, or a
pronounced over the father dullard that beth-din forewarns her
"Whatever a man gives to the (if she is deporting herself
Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it immodestly) to the end of
be." invalidating her kethubah (her
marriage contract). I might think,
Piska 7 even to the end of making her drink
(the bitter waters); it is, therefore,
(Bamidbar 5:12) "Speak to the written (to negate this) (Ibid. 11)
children of Israel and say to them: A "Then the man shall bring his wife."
man, a man, if his wife go astray, R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: also to the
and she be faithless to him": What is end of making her drink when her
the intent of this section? From husband is released from
(Devarim 24:1) "If a man take a incarceration. Variantly: "A man, a
woman and he cohabit with her, man": to include a woman awaiting
etc.", we hear only that if he had two levirate marriage (yibum). "if his wife
witnesses (to her adultery) and she go astray": Scripture speaks of those
had not been forewarned, that she who are fit to be "wives" to
leaves him by divorce. But if she exclude a widow married to a high-
were adulterous in the presence of priest, a divorce or a chalutzah (one
only one witness or it is in doubt who has performed the chaliztah
whether she had or had not been ceremony to break a levirate
adulterous after having been connection), who are married to a
secreted (with the one she had been regular priest, a mamzereth or a
forewarned against), we did not hear Nethinah (a descendent of the
what is to be done with her. It is, Geveonites) married to an Israelite,
therefore, written "Speak to the and a daughter of an Israelite
children of Israel and say to them: "A married to a Nathin or a mamzer.

14
And, according to Akavya b. have acted falsely (ma'alta)," and
Mehallalel, (to exclude) a woman (Vayikra 5:21) "and he (the denier)
who is a proselyte or a freed slave. ma'ala ma'al against the L-rd"
They (the sages) said to him whence we see that "me'ilah" in all
(Akavya): But there was a freed places is "lying."
slave, Charkemis, in Jerusalem, and "And a man lie with her a lying of
Shemaya and Avtalyon had her drink seed": a man, and not a minor. "And
(the bitter waters)! He replied: They a man lie with her": and not with her
dissimulated their doing so sister. For it would follow (otherwise),
whereupon they excommunicated viz.: If in a place where the forbidder
him and he died in his state of [(i.e., her husband, who forbids her
excommunication, and beth-din to all men)] does not forbid her all of
stoned his coffin. ("if his wife go his days, (for he can divorce her)
astray,) and she is guilty of ma'al she forbids her forbidder (her
against him": ("ma'al") In the area of husband) from living with her (if she
illicit relations or in the area of secretes herself), then in a place
monetary (fraudulence)? (Ibid. 5:13) where the forbidder (his wife) forbids
"And a man lie with her a lying of her (sister to him) all of his days
seed" indicates that ma'al here is in how much more so should she forbid
the area of illicit relations, and not in (to herself) her forbidder (if he
that of monetary (fraudulence). "and cohabits with her sister)! It is,
she is guilty of ma'al against him": therefore, written ("and a man lie)
"me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And with her," and not with her sister.
thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) Abba Channan says in the name of R.
"Vayimalu ('and they lied') against Eliezer: "with her": and not (if he lay
the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua with) with his mother-in-law; "with
7:1) "And the children of Israel her": and not with one of the illicit
yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to relations. For it would follow
the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) (otherwise), viz.: If one commits a
"And Saul died because of his (relatively) "light" act of forbidding,
falsification ('bema'alo ma'al') in that he does not forbid her all of
against the L-rd." And, in respect to his days she forbids her forbidder,
Uzziyahu, king of Judah, (II Chronicles then if one commits a grave act of
26:18) "Leave the sanctuary, for you forbidding, in that he forbids her all

15
of his days, how much more so
should she forbid (to herself) her
forbidder! It is, therefore, written
"with her," and not with his mother-
in-law; "with her," and not with one
of the illicit relations.
(Ibid. 5:13) "and it be hidden from
the eyes of her husband": but not if
her husband see and make himself
"unseeing." If her husband knows, he
is not permitted to scheme and make
her drink." "and she had secreted
herself and she be defiled": (Does
this mean that) there were
witnesses to defiling, but there were
witnesses for secreting, or that there
were no witnesses to both defiling
and secreting? If you say this (the
latter), she is permitted to
husband. The former, then, is the
case and not the latter. There are no
witnesses to defiling, but there are
witnesses to secreting. "and she had
secreted herself": We have not been
apprised of the (minimum) time of
secreting; it is, therefore, written
"and she had secreted herself and
she be defiled": the (minimum) time
for defilement for intercourse; for
he'arah (the initial stage) for
circling a palm tree. These are the
words of R. Yishmael. R. Eliezer says:
the (minimum) time for pouring a
cup. R. Yehoshua says: for drinking it.
Ben Azzai says: for frying an egg. R.
Akiva says: for swallowing it. R.
Yehudah b. Betheira says: for
swallowing three eggs, one after the
other. "and there be no witness in
her": Is Scripture speaking of two
witnesses or of one? It is, therefore,
written (Devarim 19:15) "There shall
not arise one witness against a man
for every transgression and for every
sin." Why (emphasize) one? To serve
as a prototype (binyan av), viz.:
Wherever "witness" (alone) is
no mentioned, two are understood,
unless Scripture specifies "one." "and
she were not seized": to exclude one
who was forced. For it would follow
(otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of
her "light" tumah (e.g., a widow
(cohabiting) with a high-priest, where
there is only a lav (transgression of a
negative commandment), forced is
equated with consenting, how much
more so, in an instance of grave
tumah, such as ours, where the
penalty is death, forced should be
equated with consenting; it is,
therefore, written "and she were not
seized." Or, I might think (that this
halachah obtains both) with (the wife
of) an Israelite or of a Cohein; it is,
therefore, written "and she (the wife
of an Israelite) were not seized" to
exclude (from being forbidden to her
16
husband) the wife of a Cohein, (who viz.: If in an instance (that of sotah),
is forbidden to him even if she were where unwittingness is not equated
forced.) (Ibid. 14) "And there pass with wittingness (to make her tamei)
over him a spirit of rancor and he or forcing to consent, doubt is
warn his wife": optional (i.e., "he may equated with certainty (to forbid her
warm his wife.") These are the words to her husband until she drinks and
of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: resolves the doubt), then in an
mandatory (i.e., "he must warn his instance where unwittingness (of
wife.") R. Akiva says: Why is contact) is equated with wittingness,
"venitma'ah" ("and she be tamei") and forcing with consent, how much
written three times, (5:14, 5:27, more so should doubt be equated
5:29)? tumah vis--vis her husband, with certainty! And just as here (for
and vis--vis her cohabitor, and vis-- tumah to obtain, the locus of the act
vis (her eating) terumah (if she is the is) a private domain, there, too, it
daughter of a Cohein). R. Yishmael must be a private domain. Just as
says: If a divorce, the "lighter," (in here we are dealing with a subject
that she may return to her divorcer), (the woman) which has the
is unfit (for marriage) to the intelligence to be questioned, there,
priesthood, how much more so too, (for tumah to obtain), we must
sotah, the "graver," (who may not be dealing with a subject (e.g., the
return to her husband; and no verse carrier of the sheretz) which has the
is needed for this.) (Ibid. 5:14) "and intelligence to be questioned
she were defiled and she were not whence they ruled: In a case of
defiled": What is the intent of this? If doubt involving a subject which has
she were (positively) defiled, why the intelligence to be questioned
does she drink? And if she were in the private domain, the ruling is
(positively) not defiled, why does he tamei; in the public domain, the
make her drink? Scripture hereby (by ruling is tahor (clean). (In a case of
this ambiguity) comes to teach us doubt involving a subject) which
that she drinks only in a case of lacks the intelligence to be
doubt (as to whether or not) she questioned, both in the public and in
were defiled. And from here you rule the private domain, the ruling is
(accordingly) in the instance of (the tahor.
tumah of sheretz) [a creeping thing],

17
Piska 8 sages say: Any ofering that permits
her to him, such as that of a zavah
(Bamidbar 5:15) "Then the man and that of a woman who has given
shall bring his wife to the Cohein": birth, she brings of what is his and it
According to the Torah, the man is not deducted from her kethubah.
brings his wife to the Cohein. But And any ofering that does not
they said: He is given two Torah permit her to him, such as that for
scholars (as chaperones) on the way taking a Nazirite vow or desecrating
so that he not live with her. R. Yossi the Sabbath, she brings of what is
says: Her husband is trusted with hers and he deducts it from her
her, a fortiori, viz. If he is trusted (to kethubah. "one-tenth of an ephah of
be alone) with his wife when she is a meal": Why state ("of meal")? For it
niddah, though the punishment for would follow, since the ofering of a
cohabiting with her is kareth, how sinner comes for a sin and this
much more so is he to be trusted comes for a sin, that since the first
with her when she is a sotah, comes only of fine flour, this, too, is
cohabitation with whom is not liable to be only of fine flour; it is,
to kareth! They replied: How much therefore, written "meal." "barley":
more so (is he not to be trusted with Why? For it would follow, since the
her!) If he is not liable to kareth he ofering of a sinner comes for a sin
will not be deterred! Variantly: (The and this comes for a sin, then this,
instance of niddah is no refutation). too, should come only from wheat; it
He may be trusted (to be alone with is, therefore, written "barley." R.
her) when she is a niddah, for she is Gamliel said: Scribes, allow me, and I
permitted to him afterwards, but not will interpret it symbolically, viz.: Just
with a sotah, who may not be as her deeds were those of a beast,
permitted to him afterwards. so, her food shall be that of a beast."
According to the Torah, the husband He shall not pour oil upon it": If he
brings his wife, it being written "and does, he transgresses a negative
the man (i.e., her husband) brings commandment. Would you say, then,
his wife to the Cohein." "and he shall that just as he transgresses (a
bring her ofering for her": Every negative commandment) with his oil
ofering devolving upon her. These so, he transgresses with his
are the words of R. Yehudah. The frankincense? Would you say that? (I

18
would say that) he transgresses with
oil, for he cannot remove it, but not
with frankincense, for he can remove
it." It is, therefore, written "He shall
not pour oil upon it" and "He shall
not place frankincense upon it" so
that if he places either oil or
frankincense upon it he transgresses
a negative commandment. Why is
that? "For it is an ofering of rancors."
"rancors": two rancors: rancor
against her and rancor against her
husband (and) just as there is rancor
below, there is rancor Above. "an
ofering of memorial": I hear (from
this, a "memorial" [i.e., a "reminder"]
both of) merit and of liability; it is,
therefore, written (afterwards, to
negate this) "a reminder of sin." All
of the "memorials" in the Torah are
for the good, except for this one,
which is for punishment. These are
the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says:
This one, too, is for the good, as it is
written (Ibid. 28) "And if the woman
had not been defiled (in this
concealment), and she be clean,
then she shall be absolved (of the
blighting waters), and she will sow
seed." This (verse) tells me only "a
reminder of sin." Whence do I derive
(that it is also) a reminder of merit?
From "an ofering of memorial" in
any event. R. Yishmael says: "an
19
ofering of memorial" general; "a
reminder of sin" specific. (This is
an instance of "general-specific,"
(where the resolution is) "There
obtains in the general only what is
stated in the specific," (i.e., that it is
a memorial of sin and not of merit.)
For, (if not for this principle) the
"contender" could argue. Which
attribute (of the L-rd) is stronger?
That for good or that for
punishment? Certainly, that for good
(viz. Shemot 34:7) If the attribute of
punishment diminished (that of
good), it would be a reminder of sin,
but since the attribute of good is
stronger, it follows that it should be a
reminder of merit. This is an attribute
of the Torah: Whenever a "general-
specific" (application) defeats an a
fortiori (application [as in the above])
If both can be satisfied, the a
fortiori (application) is not to be
defeated. How can both be satisfied
(in our instance) without the a fortiori
(application) being defeated? (As
follows:) If she had been defiled,
then punishment visits her
immediately. And if she has a certain
merit, that merit may suspend (the
operation of the bitter waters) for
three months so that the fetus is
recognizable. These are the words of
Abba Yossi b. Channan. R. Eliezer b.
Yitzchak of Kfar Darom says: For nine But (if she were guilty), then as soon
months, as it is written (Ibid. 28) as she drank, her face would turn
"and if she is clean, then she will sow green and her eyes would bulge, and
seed. Just as "seed" connotes nine her veins would swell in her, and
months, so, merit (can suspend for) they would say: Hurry and take her
nine months. R. Yishmael says: out so that she not defile the azarah
Twelve months. And even though (the Temple court)!
there is no proof for this, there is
intimation of it in (Daniel 4:24-26) "O Piska 9
king, let my counsel be acceptable to
you All this befell King (Bamidbar 5:16) "And the Cohein
Nevuchadnezzar. At the end of shall draw her near": whence it is
twelve months, etc." R. Shimon b. derived that the draught is not given
Yochai says: Merit does not suspend to two sotahs together. "and he shall
(the operation of) the blighting stand her": He shall not stand with
waters. For if you say that it does, her, her manservant and her
you "dilute" the (deterrence of the) maidservants, because she tends to
bitter waters before all women, and be callous in their presence. "before
they will drink them; and you cast an the L-rd": at the gates of Nikanor
evil name upon the clean ones who (opposite the entrance to the
drank. For people will say: They were sanctuary), whence they stated: The
really defiled, but their merit head of the watch would stand those
suspended (the operation of the who were tamei at the gates of
waters). Rebbi says: I can determine Nikanor.
(whether or not she was clean). If
she were clean, in the end, she will Piska 10
die, as all men do, and if she had
been defiled, she will die as depicted (Bamidbar 5:17) "And the Cohein
by Scripture, viz. (Bamidbar 5:27) shall take consecrated water: This
"and her belly will swell and her refers to water consecrated in a
thigh will fall." R. Shimon says: Who vessel, the waters of the laver. "in an
is going to inform all of the earthen vessel": We are hereby
standersby that she will die and her taught that all vessels are not
belly will swell and her thigh will fall? equated with earthen vessels. For it

20
would follow: Since soil and water
consecrate in the instance of the red
heifer and soil and water consecrate
in the instance of sotah, then if I
derive that all vessels are equated
with earthen vessels re the red
heifer, then re sotah, too, all vessels
should be equated with earthen
vessels; it is, therefore, written
(specifically) "in an earthen vessel"
(to negate the above derivation). "in
an earthen vessel": a new one. For it
would follow: If I have derived that re
the red heifer both a new and an old
vessel are permitted, I should derive
the same for sotah. It is, therefore,
written here "in an earthen vessel,"
and, elsewhere (Vayikra 14:5) "into
an earthen vessel." Just as there, a
new one, here, too, a new one. These
are the words of R. Yishmael. "and of
the soil that shall be on the floor of
the mishkan the Cohein shall take":
Scripture hereby teaches us that if
there were no soil there, he brings
soil from elsewhere and places it
there; for it is the place which
consecrates. Issi b. Yehudah says
("that shall be"): to include (the
same for) the soil of the Temple (in
Jerusalem). Issi b. Menachem says (in
demurral): If in respect to a lesser
form of tumah (e.g., dead-body
tumah or sheretz tumah), the Temple
21
(mikdash) was equated (vis--vis
kareth liability for entry) with the
sanctuary (mishkan), then, in respect
to a graver form of tumah, sotah,
(where death is the punishment,)
how much more so, should the
(strictures of the) mikdash be
equated with (those of) the mishkan!
Why, then, need it be written "that
shall be on the floor of the mishkan"?
That he not bring soil in his
basket, (but shall use soil that is
already there.) R. Shimon says: It is
written here "afar" ("and of the afar
that is on the floor of the mishkan"),
and, elsewhere (Ibid. 19:17) "And
they shall take for the unclean one of
the afar of the burning of the (heifer)
for cleaning." Just as "afar" here,"
"afar on the face of the water" (i.e.,
visible on the surface of the water),
so, there, afar on the face of the
water. And, just as there if the afar
preceded the water, it is valid, so,
here. "the Cohein shall take (the
afar) and place it on the water": so
that it be visible. Three "things" in
the Torah must be visible: the ashes
of the heifer (Ibid.), the afar of the
sotah, and the spittle of the yevamah
(viz. Devarim 25:9). R. Yishmael
says: Also the blood of the
(slaughtered) bird (viz. Vayikra 14:6).
Piska 11 b. Beroka says: The daughters of
Israel are not made more
(Bamidbar 5:18) "And the Cohein unattractive than the Torah
shall stand the woman before the L- prescribes, viz. " before the L-rd
rd": Where he stood her before (viz. and he shall uncover the head of the
Ibid. 16), he stands her afterwards, woman." They would spread a sheet
(after she had been moved away of linen between him and the people.
from her original position [They The Cohein would walk around her in
would walk her from place to place to order to fulfill the mitzvah of
"weary" her into confession]). "And disheveling her hair. They say to him:
he shall uncover the head of the Just as she was not solicitous of the
woman": The Cohein moves behind honor of the L-rd, so, we are not
her and uncovers her hair to fulfill solicitous of her honor wherefore
the mitzvah to do so. R. Yishmael she is demeaned in this manner. And
said: From here (i.e., from the fact all who wish to look at her may do so
that he is to uncover her hair) we except her man-servants and her
derive an exhortation for the maid-servants, for she is callous in
daughters of Israel to cover their their presence. Both men and
hair. And though there is no proof for women, kin and non-kin, may look at
this, there is an intimation of it in (II her, as it is written (Ezekiel 23:48)
Samuel 13:19) "And Tamar put earth "and all the women will be chastised
upon her head and she put her and not act according to your
hand on her head." R. Yehudah says: lewdness." (Devarim, Ibid.) "and he
If her top-knot were beautiful, he did shall place into her hands the
not expose it, and if her hair were ofering of memorial" Abba Channan
beautiful, he did not dishevel it. If says in the name of R. Eliezer: So
she were dressed in white, she is that she is "wearied" into confession.
dressed in black. If black were Now does this not follow a fortiori,
becoming to her, she is divested of it viz.: If the L-rd is so solicitous of the
and clothed in ungainly garments. If transgressors of His will, how much
there were golden ornaments upon more so, of the doers of His will! "and
her necklaces, nose-rings, and in the hand of the Cohein will be the
rings they are taken from her to bitter waters": Scripture herby
render her unattractive. R. Yochanan apprises us that the waters turn

22
bitter only in the hand of the Cohein.
Variantly: They are called "bitter"
because of their efect they impart
bitterness to the body and convulse
the eye.
Piska 12
(Bamidbar 5:19) "And the Cohein
shall beswear her": The Cohein
administers the oath and she does
not swear of herself. For it would
follow (that she does), viz.: It is
written here "swear," and, elsewhere
(Vayikra 5:4) "swear." Just as there,
he swears of himself, so, here, she
should swear of herself. It
therefore, written "And the Cohein
shall beswear her." "and he shall say
to the woman": in any language that
she understands. These are
words of R. Yoshiyah. For it would
follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the
instance of yevamah, (the instance)
of lesser stringency, the
languages are not equated with the
holy tongue (Hebrew) (viz. Devarim
25:9), then, (in the instance of)
sotah, the graver instance,
much more so should the other
languages not be equated with the
holy tongue! It is, therefore, written
"and he shall say to the woman" in
any language that she understands.
These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.
R. Yonathan says: This (derivation of
R. Yoshiyah) is not necessary; for it is
written (Bamidbar 5:22) "and the
woman shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'" If
she does not understand, how can
she say this! But perhaps she says
"Amen" only on the curse (i.e., "to
swell the belly, etc." [and not on the
oath])! (This cannot be,) for she
says Amen twice both on the
curse and on the oath. What, then, is
the intent of "and he shall say to the
women" (according to R. Yonathan)?
That the Cohein teaches her (the
import of) the order of the oath.
is, (5:19) "If no man has lain with you":
We are hereby taught that he opens
for merit. He says to her: Much wine
causes this. Much frivolity causes
the this. Much childishness causes this.
Many have preceded you and been
swept away (by lust). Do not allow
His great name written in holiness to
other be erased by the (bitter) waters. He
recounts before her things from the
tradition, things mentioned in the
early writings (Iyyov 15:18) "which
how wise men relate and which they did
not withhold from their fathers." And
he says before her things which are
not fit to be heard, by her and by all
the families of her father's house. R.
Yishmael says: In the beginning he
23
apprises her of the strength of the
bitter waters. He says to her: My
daughter, what are these
waters like? Like a dry powder placed
on raw flesh, which causes no harm,
but which, when it finds a sore spot,
penetrates and descends. You, too, if
you are clean, drink and do not
refrain, and, if you are unclean, in
the end you will be swollen by these
bitter, blighting waters.
Piska 13
(Bamidbar 5:20) "And you, if you
have gone astray": This tells me only
of the regular mode. Whence do I
derive (that the same applies for) the
irregular mode (i.e.,
intercourse)? From "and if you have
become unclean." "and a man has
put his lying in you": to include (in
these strictures) one
impotent, (where there
"lying," but no seed.) "aside from
your husband": to include the wife of
one who is impotent. He stipulates all
(contingencies) with her.
Piska 14
(Bamidbar 5:21) "Then the Cohein
shall beswear the woman with the
oath of the curse." What is the intent
of this? Because it is written (Vayikra
5:1) "and he hear the voice of a
bitter curse," this tells me only of a curse.
Whence do I derive that an oath is
like a curse? It is derived inductively,
viz.: It is written here (Bamidbar)
"curse," and it is written elsewhere
(Vayikra) "curse." Just as here "oath"
is equated with "curse," (viz. "the
oath of the curse"), so, there, "oath"
is equated with "curse." And just as
here, (the oath is administered) with
"yod-keh" (viz. Ibid. "May the L-rd
[yod-keh-vav-keh] render you, etc."),
so, all the oaths in the Torah (are
administered with) "yod-keh." "in the
midst of your people": and your
people (will remain at) peace. "in the
anal midst of your people": and not at this
time (when you are in the midst of
gentiles.) There is a (crucial)
diference between one being
who is degraded in a place where he is
is only known, and one being degraded in a
place where he is not known, (the
former degradation being more
severe).
Piska 15
(Bamidbar 5:22) "to swell the belly
and to make fall the thigh": R. Yossi
Haglili says: This refers to the belly
and the thigh of the adulterer. You
24
say the belly and the thigh of the
adulterer; but (perhaps it refers to)
the belly and the thigh
adulteress! (This cannot be, for)
[5:21] " causing your thigh to fall
and your belly to swell" already
refers to the adulteress. How, then,
am I to understand "to swell the belly
and to make fall the thigh"? As
referring to the adulterer, Scripture
apprising us that just as punishment
overtakes her, so, it overtakes him.
Now does this not follow a fortiori,
viz.: If re the attribute of punishment,
the "weaker" attribute (of the Holy
One Blessed be He), if one brings
misfortune to his neighbor, he sufers
likewise, then re the attribute of
benefaction, (the stronger attribute,
if one bring benefit to his neighbor,)
how much more so (is he benefitted
himself!) (Ibid. 22) "and the woman
shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'": "Amen"
that I have not become unclean;
"Amen" that I will not
unclean, (in which instance the bitter
waters operate retroactively). These
are the words of R. Meir. And the
sags do not agree, (but they say)
"Amen" that I have not become
unclean (i.e., acceptance of the oath)
and ("Amen" that) if I have become
unclean, they (the waters) should
enter her (i.e., acceptance of the
curse). "Amen" in respect to this man
(the suspected adulterer); "Amen" in
of the respect to any other man; "Amen"
when betrothed "Amen" when
married; "Amen" when awaiting
levirate marriage "Amen" after
levirate marriage. This is the rule: For
a woman to be lived with and
(thereby) to be forbidden (to her
husband), the stipulated conditions
must be those of that time (i.e., while
she is still married to him [and not,
e.g., before betrothal or after
divorce]).
Since oaths are mentioned in the
Torah generically, and in one case
(that of sotah) it is specifically
indicated that the oath must be
accompanied by a curse, I derive
that the same must obtain with all
oaths in the Torah. Since in one case
(that of sotah) it is specifically
indicated that the oath must be
administered under the Name "yod-
become keh," I derive the same for all oaths
in the Torah. And since oaths are
mentioned generically in the Torah,
and of one of them (sotah), it was
specified that it be (answered) with
"Amen," so, I derive that the same
holds true for all oaths in the Torah.
Abba Channan says in the name of R.
Eliezer: ("Amen" is repeated here) to
include the oath administered by the
25
judges, that it be answered
"Amen." For if it is not answered by
"Amen," it is rendered a "vain oath"
(in the name of the L-rd.) Since oaths
are mentioned generically in the
Torah, and in one case (sotah) it is
specifically indicated that a previous
oath (i.e., an oath for a previous
matter) can be "rolled" onto it (e.g.,
When she answers "Amen" to not
having been defiled by this man, she
also answers "Amen" to not having
been defiled by another, etc.), I
derive the same for all of the oaths in
the Torah. Now does this not follow a
fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of
sotah, where no previous claim has
been made against her, a previous
oath is "rolled" onto her, then, in
instances of thefts, where previous
claims have been made, how much
more so may previous oaths be
"rolled" onto them!
Piska 16
(Bamidbar 5:23) "Then the Cohein
shall write the curses (these"): I
might think, all the curses in the
Torah (written in the curses of the
covenant); it is, therefore, written
"these." "the Cohein": What is the
intent of this (i.e., is it
understood from the context?) For it
by would follow: It is written here "and
he shall write," and it is written
elsewhere (Devarim 24:1) "and he
shall write" (a scroll of divorce). Just
as there, any man may write it, so,
here, (I would say that) any man may
write it. It is, therefore, written "the
Cohein." "and erase it": (He must
write it) on something that can be
erased. Now does this not follow a
fortiori, viz.: If in order to make
peace between a man and his wife,
the L-rd said: A scroll written in
holiness let it be erased by the
waters, then the scrolls of heretics,
which inject (into the world)
contempt and hatred and envy and
contention how much more so
should they be erased from the
world! R. Yishmael says: How does
one deal with the scrolls of the
heretics? He cuts out the
"mentionings" (of G-d's name) and
burns the rest. R. Akiva says: He
burns them entire, for they were not
written in holiness. "into a scroll":
From here they ruled: It is not to be
written on a tablet, or on paper, nor
on hide, but on a scroll (of finished
parchment). And he is not to write it
with gummed ink or with vitriol, but
with ink, it being written "and erase
not it into the bitter waters" writing
that can be erased. "and erase it into
26
the bitter waters": the connotation is
that the writing makes the waters
bitter.
Piska 17
(Bamidbar 5:25) "And the Cohein
shall take from the hand of the
woman": and not from the hand of
her representative If she were in
her menstrual period, she did not
drink, (being forbidden to enter the
azarah at that time). (5:24) "And he
shall make the woman drink": Why is
it written again (Ibid. 27) "and he
shall make her drink the water"? For
if the scroll were erased and she said
"I will not drink," they shake her and
make her drink perforce. These are
the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon
says: (Ibid. 26) "and then he shall
make the woman drink": What is the
intent of this? It is written afterwards
"and he shall make her drink the
water"! (To indicate that) three things
are categorically required for (the
validity of) the sotah (procedure): the
erasure of the scroll, the ofering of
the fistful, and her acceptance of the
oath. If the scroll were erased and
she said; I am tamei, the waters are
spilled out, the ofering is scattered
in the beth hadeshen, and the scroll
is not valid for the drinking of a
27
diferent sotah. R. Achi b. R. Yoshiyah
says: It is valid. "and he shall wave
the ofering": back and forth and up
and down. Whence is this derived?
From (Shemot 29:23) "which was
waved and which was lifted": Lifting
is hereby likened to waving. Just as
waving is back and forth, so, lifting.
And just as lifting is up and down, so,
waving whence they ruled: The
mitzvah of waving back and forth,
up and down. "before the L-rd": in
the east (i.e., at the eastern side of
the altar [opposite the sanctuary]).
Wherever "before the L-rd" is written,
the east is intended unless specified
otherwise. "and he shall wave the
ofering before the L-rd, and he shall
present it at the (south-west corner
of the) altar" whereby we are
taught that the ofering of the sotah
requires waving and presentation.
(Ibid. 26) "And the Cohein shall take
a fistful from the ofering as its
'remembrance,' and he shall smoke it
on the altar.": This refers to the
smoking of the fistful, which is called
"remembrance" (viz. Vayikra 2:2)
"and then he shall make the woman
drink the water": as mentioned
above.
Piska 18
 (Bamidbar 5:27) "and her belly will began, from it the punishment
swell and her thigh will fall": This began. Now does this not follow a
tells me only of her belly and her fortiori. If re the attribute of
thigh. Whence do I derive (the same punishment, the weaker attribute
for) the rest of her limbs? From "then the limb whence the sin began, from
the blighting waters will enter into it the punishment begins, how much
her." Let only this be stated, then. more so re the attribute of
Why need it be added "and her belly benefaction, the stronger attribute,
will swell and her thigh will fall"? (the limb whence the good began,
From that limb whence the sin from it the reward begins!) "and the
began, from that limb will the woman will be a curse in the midst of
punishment begin! Similarly, her people": They will curse through
(Bereshit 7:23) "And He blotted out her "May it happen to you as it
every being upon the face of the happened to her!" "for an oath" (see
ground from man until beast." He verse 21): They will swear by her
who began the sin, from him will the ("I swear that if, etc.,) may it happen
punishment begin! Similarly, (Ibid. to me as it happen to her!" And thus
19:11) "And the men at the entrance is it written (Isaiah 65:15): "And you
of the house they smote with (the wicked) will leave your name as
blindness, from small to great." They an oath for My chosen ones"
who began the sin, from them the whence we learn that the wicked are
punishment began. Similarly, an oath for the righteous. And
(Shemot 14:4) "and I will be honored whence do we derive that the
through (the downfall of) Pharaoh righteous are a blessing for the
and all of his host." Pharaoh began wicked? (Jeremiah 4:2) "And in it
the sin from him the punishment (Israel) will nations bless themselves,
began. Similarly, (Devarim 15:16) and in it will they be praised," and
"Smite shall you smite the (Bereshit 12:3) "And there will bless
inhabitants of that city by the sword. themselves in you (Avram) all the
Lay it waste and all that is in it, etc." families of the earth." And it is
Whence the sin began, the written (Ibid. 48:20) "And he blessed
punishment began. Here, too, "and them on that day, saying: In you
her belly will swell and her thigh will (Ephraim and Menasheh) will Israel
fall." From that limb whence the sin bless, etc."

28

Piska 19
(Bamidbar 5:298) "And if the woman
had not been defiled and she be
clean": What is the intent of this?
From (Vayikra 20:10) "And a man
who lives with another man's wife,
etc.", we learn that only where there
were witnesses (to her adultery) and
she were forewarned that she is put
to death. If there were witnesses, but
she had not been forewarned, she is
not liable to the death penalty. (I
would think that) since she is not
liable to the death penalty she is
permitted to her husband; it is,
therefore, written (Devarim 24:1) "If
a man take a woman (as a wife) and
cohabit with her having found in
her a thing of nakedness he shall
write her a scroll of divorce, etc."
whence we learn that she is
forbidden to her husband. Whence is
derived (the halachah) in an instance
of doubt as to whether or not she has
been defiled? From "And the woman
had not been defiled and she be
clean." Now who defiled her that
Scripture must cleanse her? We are
being told, then, that since an evil
name has gone out against her, she
is forbidden to her husband. "and
she be clean": clean to her husband,
29
clean to the (suspected) cohabitor
(i.e., if her husband divorced her or
died, he may marry her), and clean
vis--vis (the eating of) terumah.
"then she shall be absolved": of the
curses and of the oath. "and she will
sow seed": If she were barren, she
conceives. These are the words of R.
Yishmael. R. Akiva said to him: If so,
all the barren ones will go astray
(and secrete themselves) in order to
conceive and the modest (barren)
ones will lose out! What, rather, is
the intent of "then she will be
absolved and she will sow seed"? If
she had borne only females, she will
now bear males; if she had borne
only one, she will now bear two; if
she had borne swarthy ones, she will
now bear fair ones; if she had borne
short ones, she will now bear fair
ones. R. Shimon says: Would it enter
your mind that she is rewarded for
transgression (i.e., secreting
herself)? Rather, because she had
been forbidden (to her husband) for
seed before (drinking), it is,
therefore, written "and she will sow
seed," i.e., she is now permitted for
"seed." Variantly: "and she will sow
seed" to exclude (from drinking)
an eilonith (a wombless woman) or
one who is (otherwise) unfit to bear.
Piska 20 yavam, but I would not exclude a
betrothed woman. It is, therefore,
(Bamidbar 5:29) "This is the law of written (Ibid.) "for a woman
the rancors": This tells me (that this (connoting a married woman) who
is the law) only for that time. goes astray under her husband" to
Whence do I derive (that it is also the exclude one who was (only)
law for succeeding generations? betrothed. If so, why is it written "a
From (the construction) "zoth torath," man, a man" to include the wife of
(connoting one law for all an imbecile, a deaf-mute, a dullard,
generations). These are the words of one who had gone abroad, and one
R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("zoth who had been incarcerated, in which
torath" is) conventional terminology instance beth-din forewarn her to the
(for conclusion of a subject, and not end of disqualifying her from
indicative of a new learning.) "for a (receiving) her kethubah. I might
woman who goes astray under her think, even to the end of making her
husband": to liken the woman to the drink. It is, therefore, written (in that
man and the man to the woman regard) (Ibid. 15) "Then the man
(e.g., if either the man or the woman shall bring his wife to the Cohein." R.
were blind, she does not drink). Yossi says also to the end of making
But perhaps (the thrust of "under her her drink when her husband is
husband" is) to exclude (from released from prison.
drinking,) a woman awaiting levirate
marriage (shomereth yavam). It is, Piska 21
therefore, written (5:12) "a man, a
man" (twice) to include (in drinking,) (Bamidbar 5:30) "Or a man over
a shomereth yavam. But perhaps I whom there shall pass a spirit of
should also include a betrothed rancor": What is the intent of this?
woman. It is, therefore, written (i.e., it is already written, viz. 5:14).
"under her husband" to exclude a From "and he shall have
betrothed woman. These are the forewarned his wife," (I might think
words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan that) this (i.e., forewarning) is
says (Ibid. 19) "under your husband" optional, or that just as so long as he
to exclude a shomereth yavam. I had not forewarned her, this (making
would then exclude a shomereth her drink) is optional, then here

30
(5:30), too, making her drink is
optional; it is, therefore, written "Or a
man over whom there shall pass a
spirit of rancor and he warn his wife,
then he shall stand the woman
before the L-rd, and the Cohein shall
do to her all of this law" It is
obligatory, and not optional. "and the
Cohein shall do to her all of this law
(31) and the man will be clean of
sin.": If he did so, he will be clean of
sin; if not, he will not be clean of sin.
"and the man will be clean of sin": He
should not say (if she drinks and
dies) "Woe unto me! I have killed a
daughter of Israel, Woe unto me! I
have desecrated a daughter of Israel,
Woe unto me! I have cohabited with
a defiled one." This is the intent of
"and he will be clean." Shimon b.
Azzai says: Scripture here speaks of
a woman who is clean (i.e., who has
not been defiled); but since she has
brought herself to these things (by
secreting herself), she, too, shall not
escape (some form of) punishment.
This is the intent of "and the man will
be free of sin, and that woman will
bear her sin." Rebbi says: Scripture
comes to teach you that it is the end
of this woman (one who was defiled,
even if a certain merit may suspend
her death) to die of that death
"her belly will swell and her thigh will
31
fall, and the woman will be a curse in
the midst of her people." Variantly:
Why is it written "and the man will be
clean of sin"? (To teach that) "when
the man is clean of sin, that woman
will bear her sin" as opposed to
(Hoshea 4:14) "I shall not punish
your daughters when they commit
harlotry, nor your brides, when they
fornicate. For they (themselves)
betake themselves with the whores
and sacrifice with the harlots, and a
people that does not understand will
fall!" He said to them: If you
yourselves pursue harlotry, the
waters, too, will not prove your
wives. This is the intent of "and the
man will be clean of sin" Of that
sin itself!
Piska 22
(Bamidbar 6:1-2) "And the L-rd
spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the
children of Israel and say to them: A
man or a woman, if he shall declare
to vow the vow of a Nazirite, to be a
Nazirite to the L-rd": What is the
intent of this section? (i.e., the
section of vows has already been
stated!) Because it is written (Ibid.
30:3) "A man if he vow a vow to the
L-rd, or if he take an oath to bind
upon his soul, etc.", whence if he
vows (to forbid) something for one
day it is forbidden for one day; for
two days, it is forbidden for two days;
(to forbid) a specific thing, that
specific thing is forbidden I would
think that the same is
Naziritism. It is, therefore, written
(here) "Speak to the children of
Israel, etc." that if he
(Naziritism, to forbid something to
himself) for one day or for one
moment, it is forbidden to him for
thirty days. And he is forbidden to
drink wine and to render himself
tamei for the dead and to cut his
hair. This is the intent of this section.
"a man or a woman": to equate
women with men (in respect to
Naziritism). For it would
(otherwise), viz.: If, where minors are
equated with adults, (i.e., in respect
to Cohanim not
themselves tamei for the dead, viz.
Vayikra 21:1), women
equated with men, then here (in
respect to Naziritism), where minors
are not equated with adults, how
much more so should women not be
equated with men! It is, therefore,
written "a man or a woman," to
equate women with men. "a man":
and not a minor. For it would follow
(otherwise), viz.: If, where women
are not equated with men (see
above), minors are equated with
adults, then here, (in respect to
Naziritism), where women are
equated with men, how much more
so should minors be equated with
true of adults! It is, therefore, written "a
man," and not a minor. "if he shall
declare": to include (Naziritism as
vowed obtaining with) one who knows how
to declare (i.e., one who is cognizant
of the import of what he is saying.)
From here they ruled: The vows of a
girl of eleven years and one day are
examined (for such cognizance); of
twelve years and one day her
vows stand. The vows of a boy of
twelve years and one day are
examined; of thirteen years and one
follow day his vows stand. "if he
declare": willingly, and not under
coercion. But perhaps even under
rendering coercion! It follows (that they must
be willing), viz.: It is written here
are not "declare," and, in respect to vows
and gifts (Vayikra 22:21) "declare."
Just as there, willingly; here, too,
willingly. "to vow a vow": I might
think that even if he vows to bring an
ofering he becomes a Nazirite; it is,
therefore, written "to make a
Nazirite" he must make the vow of
a Nazirite. I might think (from "to
make a Nazirite") that he may make
even others Nazirites. It is, therefore,
32
written "nazir," (which connotes that) with a dead body) but once. Once a
he makes himself a Nazirite, and not Nazirite came to me from the south.
others. If so, why is it written (lit.,) His eyes were beautiful, he was very
"nazir, to make a nazir"? To equate handsome, and his hair was wavy. I
epithets of Naziritism with Naziritism said to him: "What prompted you to
and "signals" of Naziritism with destroy this beautiful hair?" (at the
Naziritism. This tells me only of end of the Nazirite period). He
Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the answered: "I was a shepherd for my
same for) vows? From "the vow of a father in my town. Once, while
Nazirite," to equate vows with drawing water from the well, I gazed
Naziritism and Naziritism with vows, upon my reflection and my evil
viz.: Just as in Naziritism, epithets of inclination seized hold of me and
Naziritism are equated with threatened to snatch me from the
Naziritism, and signals of Naziritism world whereupon I said to it:
are equated with Naziritism, so, with 'Empty one, why do you vaunt
vows, epithets of vows are equated yourself in a world that is not yours,
with vows, and signals of vows are where you are destined to be
equated with vows. And just as vows consigned to worms and maggots? I
are subject to transgression of swear, I shall shear you in the name
(Bamidbar 30:3) "He shall not of Heaven!'" I thereupon arose, and,
profane his word" and (Devarim kissing him on the head, said to him:
23:22) "You shall not delay to pay it," "May Nazirites like you multiply in
so, Naziritism. And just as with vows Israel, doing the will of the L-rd! Of
a father may void the vows of his such as you it is written 'A man if
daughter, and a husband, the vows he shall declare to vow the vow of
of his wife, so, with Naziritism. R. the Nazirite to be a Nazirite to the L-
Yehoshua says: "to make a Nazirite": rd.'"
(to make) even others (Nazirites,
e.g., a father, vis--vis his son). "to Piska 23
make a Nazirite to the L-rd": It is a
mitzvah to become a Nazirite to the (Bamidbar 6:3) "From wine and
L-rd. Shimon Hatzaddik said: I never strong drink he shall separate
ate the guilt-ofering of a Nazirite himself": (The intent is) to equate
who had become unclean (by contact wine of mitzvah with non-mitzvah

33
(i.e., optional) wine, as being Nazirite,) viz.: If in the instance of an
forbidden to a Nazirite (viz. Ibid. 4). officiating (Cohein in the Temple),
For (without this verse) it would where the rind was not equated with
follow that since a mourner is the fruit, nor eating with drinking,
forbidden to drink wine (viz. Devarim nor the eating of grapes with the
26:14) and a Nazirite is forbidden to drinking of wine, (only the last being
drink wine, then since I have learned forbidden), mitzvah wine was
about a mourner that wine of equated with optional wine, (both
mitzvah (i.e., second-tithe wine) was being forbidden, viz. [Vayikra 10:9]),
not equated with optional wine, (the then in the instance of the Nazirite,
first being forbidden, and the second, where the rind was equated with the
permitted), also, in the instance of a fruit (both being forbidden), and
Nazirite, wine of mitzvah is not to be eating with drinking, and the eating
equated with optional wine, (i.e., the of grapes with the drinking of wine,
second, being forbidden, the first how much more so, should mitzvah
must be permitted, [wherefore the wine be equated with optional wine
verse is needed to tell us that (and be forbidden!) Why, then, is the
mitzvah wine, too, is forbidden to a verse needed? No, (i.e., it is
Nazirite]). No, this may be so in needed.) This (i.e., what you have
the instance of a mourner, where said), may be so with the officiating
mitzvah eating was not equated with (Cohein), whose punishment (for
optional eating, (the first being drinking) is death, wherefore mitzvah
forbidden, and the second, wine was equated with optional wine,
permitted,) wherefore mitzvah wine whereas in the instance of the
was not equated with optional wine. Nazirite, whose punishment (for
But in the instance of the Nazirite, drinking) is not death, we would say
we would say that just as mitzvah that mitzvah wine was not to be
eating was equated with optional equated with optional wine, (and
eating, so, mitzvah wine should be should be permitted.) It must,
equated with optional wine, (and therefore, be written "From wine and
both should be forbidden. Why, then, strong drink he shall separate
is the verse needed to tell us this?). himself," to equate mitzvah wine
And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori with optional wine (as forbidden). R.
(that mitzvah wine is forbidden to a Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent

34
of "From wine and strong drink he tumah, which voids (one's elapsed
shall separate himself"? Because it is period of Nazaritism) does not
written (Devarim 14:23) "and you equate a meth-mitzvah with a non
shall eat before the L-rd your G-d meth-mitzvah, (it being a mitzvah for
the (second-) tithe of your grain and a Nazirite to render himself tamei for
wine, etc.", I might think that even the first, but forbidden to do so for
Nazirites are included. And how the second), how much more so
would I satisfy "From wine and strong should mitzvah wine, which does not
drink he shall separate himself"? void (his lapsed Naziritism) not be
With other wines, excluding mitzvah equated with optional wine (to be
wines. Or even with mitzvah wines. forbidden)! It must, therefore, be
And how would I satisfy "and you written "From wine and strong drink
shall eat, etc."? With other men, he shall separate himself" to equate
aside from Nazirites. Or even with mitzvah wine with optional wine (as
Nazirites. It is, therefore, written forbidden). "From yayin (wine) and
"From wine and strong drink he shall shechar he shall separate himself":
separate himself" to equate Now yayin is shechar, and shechar is
mitzvah wine with optional wine (as yayin! But the Torah (sometimes)
forbidden.) Abba Chanan says in the speaks in two tongues (i.e.,
name of R. Eliezer: Why is it written synonymously). Similarly: Shechitah
"From wine and strong drink he shall (slaughtering) is zevichah, and
separate himself"? For it would zevichah is shechitah. Kemitzah
follow: Since he (a Nazirite) is (taking the fistful) is haramah, and
forbidden to defile himself (for the haramah is kemitzah. Amuka
dead) and he is forbidden (to drink) (lowland) is shefelah, and shefelah is
wine, then if I learn that (for a amukah. Oth (a sign) is mofeth, and
Nazirite) a meth-mitzvah [(one who, mofeth is oth but the Torah
lacking kin, it is a mitzvah for (sometimes) speaks in two tongues.
everyone to bury)] is not equated Here, too "From yayin and shechar
with a non-meth-mitzvah, then he shall separate himself": Now
mitzvah wine, likewise, should not be yayin is shechar and shechar is
equated with optional wine (to be yayin. But the Torah (sometimes)
forbidden.) And, further, it would speaks in two tongues. R. Elazar
follow a fortiori, viz.: If (dead-body) Hakappar says: "yayin" is diluted;

35
shechar is undiluted. You say this,
but perhaps the reverse is the case!
From(Bamidbar 28:7) "And its
libation a fourth of a hin for the one
lamb. On the holy place (i.e., the
altar) shall it be poured (connoting
"undiluted"), a pouring of shechar to
the L-rd," you must deduce that
"yayin" is diluted, and "shechar,"
undiluted. "From wine and strong
drink yazir": "nezirah" in all places
connotes separation, viz. (Vayikra
22:2) "and they shall separate
("veyinazru") from the holy things of
the children of Israel," and (Ibid.
25:5) "The after-growth of your
harvest you shall not reap (in the
sabbatical year), and the guarded
("nezirecha," lit., "separated") grapes
of your vine you shall not gather,"
and (Hoshea 9:10)) "And they came
to Baal-peor and 'separated
themselves' ('vayinazru') to shame,"
and (Zechariah 7:3) "Shall I weep in
the fifth month (Tisha B'av),
separating myself ("hinazer"), etc."
We find, then, that in all places
"nezirah" connotes separation. "From
wine and shechar he shall separate
himself": I might think, (even) from
selling wine or healing (himself with
it); it is, therefore, written "he shall
not drink," but he is permitted to sell
it or to heal himself with it. "Vinegar
36
of wine and vinegar of shechar he
shall not drink": We are hereby
taught that vinegar is equated with
wine. For (without the verse) it would
follow (otherwise), viz.: Since an
officiating Cohein may not drink
wine, then if I have learned that in
his case vinegar is not equated with
wine, then for a Nazirite, too, vinegar
should not be equated with wine.
And, furthermore, this should follow
a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of)
an officiating Cohein, whose
punishment (for drinking wine) is
death, vinegar is not equated with
wine, then (in the instance of) a
Nazirite, whose punishment is not
death, how much more so should
vinegar not be equated with wine!
(The verse then is needed) to tell us
that vinegar is equated with wine.
And just as mitzvah wine is equated
with optional wine, so, mitzvah
vinegar (i.e., second-tithe vinegar) is
equated with optional vinegar. What
is the intent of "and any steeping of
grapes he shall not eat"? We are
hereby taught that if he steeped
grapes in water, and the taste (of the
grapes) was transmitted to the
water, it is forbidden. And this serves
as a paradigm for everything
forbidden by the Torah, viz.: If (in the
instance of) a Nazirite, whose
prohibition (re wine) is not for all
time, (but only for the period of his
Naziritism), and whose prohibition
does not extend to derivation of
benefit (e.g., selling and healing),
and whose prohibition is subject to
release (by absolution of
Naziritism), the taste (of
forbidden substance) was regarded
as the substance itself, then the
other prohibitions in the
whose prohibitions are for all time,
and whose prohibition extends to
derivation of benefit, and whose
prohibition is not subject to release
how much more so should the
taste (of the forbidden substance) be
regarded as the substance itself!
"and grapes": Why is this written? It
follows (logically) even without being
stated, viz.: If he is liable for what
issues from the fruit (i.e., wine),
should he not be liable for the fruit
itself! Rather, what is the intent of
"wet" grapes"? To include
forbidden) half-ripe grapes. You say
"to include half-ripe grapes.
perhaps its intent is to exclude dry
grapes? (This cannot be) for "and
dry" includes dry grapes. What, then,
is the intent of "wet"? For (without
the verse) it would
(otherwise), viz.: He is liable for wine
and he is liable for grapes. Just as
wine is a finished fruit (i.e., product),
so, grapes must be a finished
product (and not half-ripe). It is,
therefore, written "wet" to include
half-ripe grapes (as forbidden). Issi b.
Yehudah says: What is the intent of
his "grapes wet and dry"? To impose
the liability for each in itself (i.e., eating
"wet" and "dry" grapes together is
regarded as two separate
Torah, transgressions though one kind of
fruit is eaten). (And this serves as a
paradigm for all prohibitions in the
Torah.) Let it be written "and dry
grapes he shall not eat" (i.e., "wet" is
understood from "grapes itself," and
only "dry" need be written.) If it were
stated thus, all dried fruits would be
understood (to be forbidden). "wet"
and "dry" (in this context) implies
what issues from the vine wet and
then dried up.
Piska 24
(as
(Bamidbar 6:4) "All the days of his
But Naziritism, of all that is made from
the grape-vine, from the kernels to
the husk, he shall not eat": Scripture
hereby apprises us that if he ate an
olive-size of all of them (kernel and
follow husk combined), he receives forty
lashes. And this serves as a
paradigm for all of the prohibitions of
37
the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of)
a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re
wine) is not for all time, (but only for
the period of his Naziritism), and
whose prohibition does not extend to
the derivation of benefit, and whose
prohibition is subject to release (by
absolution of his Naziritism),
separate elements (in an injunction)
combine with each other to (form the
forbidden) olive-size, then the other
prohibitions of the Torah, whose
prohibitions are for all time, and
whose prohibition extends to
derivation of benefit, and whose
prohibition is not subject to release
how much more so do they
combine with each other to (form the
forbidden) olive-size! "of all that is
made from the grape-vine": I might
think that leaves and sprouts, too,
(are included); it is, therefore, written
"from the kernels to the husk": Just
as the specific instance is of fruit
(kernel) and residue of fruit (husk),
so, only these are included (in the
prohibition), to exclude leaves and
sprouts, (which do not satisfy these
parameters). R. Eliezer says: Leaves
and sprouts are also subsumed in "of
all that is made from the grape-vine."
"from the chartzanim to the zag he
shall not eat": The minimum (amount
for transgression) two kernels, one
38
husk. These are the words of R.
Eliezer b. Azaryah. Which are the
chartzanim and which are the zagim?
"chartzanim" are the outer, and
"zagim" are the inner. These are the
words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says:
So that you not err, (they are) like
the bells ("zugim") of an animal: the
outer (part) is the "zag"; the inner
(the clapper) is the "inbal." "From the
kernels to the husk he shall not eat":
We are hereby apprised that "pained
eating" (as in eating kernels and
husk) does not free him from liability.
For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If
for the graver Yom Kippur one is
not liable for "pained eating," should
this not be so for the lesser,
Naziritism? It is, therefore, written
"From the kernels to the husk he
shall not eat.": Why is this written"
(i.e., it may be derived from the
preceding verse, viz.:) "of all that is
made of the grape-vine he shall
not eat" general. "From wine and
strong drink he shall separate
himself. Vinegar of wine and vinegar
of strong drink he shall not drink"
particular. (We have here an instance
of) general-particular. (The rule is:)
There is subsumed in the general
only what is in the particular. Just as
the particular is "fruit (wine) and
residue of fruit (vinegar)," so, I derive
(as forbidden) anything which
"fruit and residue of fruit"
including kernels and husk, which
satisfy that parameter! (Why, then is
"from the kernels to the husk"
needed?) Perhaps, just as the
particular is an "actual" fruit, so, I
may derive only an "actual" fruit.
(No!) Which "actual" fruit has not
been mentioned? You must revert,
then, to the original formulation,
(and the question remains:) If I can
derive it from the rule, why need
"from the kernels to the husk" be
stated? We are hereby taught that (in
the instance of) a "general" which
adds to the "particular," what is to be
derived is not (of necessity) to be of
the same nature as the "particular"
to remove it from the "general"
(formulation) unless Scripture
indicates it specifically, as it does in
the instance of the Nazirite.
Piska 25
(Bamidbar 6:5) "All the days of the
vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall
not pass over his head."): Scripture
now leaves the subject of wine and
comes to speak of shaving. "All the
days of the vow of his Naziritism":
His vow (i.e., his oferings)
contingent upon his Naziritism (i.e., If
is he vows to be a Nazirite, then after
his (period of) Naziritism he must
bring his oferings), and his
Naziritism is not contingent upon his
vow (i.e., If he vows to bring the
ofering, he need not become a
Nazirite.) "a blade shall not pass over
his head": to equate the shaver with
the shaved one (i.e., one who shaves
him is liable, as is the shaved one
himself). "a blade shall not pass over
his head": This tells me only of a
blade. Whence do I derive that he
also receives forty lashes for tearing,
plucking, and trimming? From "holy
shall he be," in any event. These are
the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan
says: Scripture speaks (only) of a
blade. If he tore, plucked, or
trimmed, he does not receive stripes.
"until the fulfillment of the days of
his Naziritism to the L-rd": Whence is
it derived that if one vows to be a
Nazirite without qualifying (for how
long), he shaves on the thirty-first
day, and if he shaved on the thirtieth
day he has fulfilled his obligations?
From "until the fulfillment of the day
of his Naziritism to the L-rd" and
they have been fulfilled. I might think
that even if he vowed a one hundred
day Naziritism and he shaved on the
is thirty-first day he has fulfilled his
obligation; it is, therefore, written
39
"until the fulfillment of his days," and
he has not yet fulfilled them. This
tells me (only) of one whose (period
of) Naziritism is limited. Whence do I
derive (the same for) one who vowed
"eternal" Naziritism (i.e., that he
must be a Nazirite all of his days)?
From "all the days of the vow of his
Naziritism holy shall he be." "holy
shall he be": You say that this refers
to holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the
hair. But perhaps it refers to the
holiness of the body (i.e., not to
become defiled by the dead). (This is
not so, for) (Ibid. 8) "He is holy to the
L-rd" speaks of holiness of the body.
How, then, am I to understand "holy
shall he be"? As referring to holiness
of the hair, "holy shall he be": What
is the intent of this? Because it is
written (Ibid. 18) "And the Nazirite
shall shave at the door of the tent of
meeting," I would think that only the
hair of one who shaves as prescribed
is forbidden and imposes constraints.
How would I know (that the same
applies) if vandals shaved him? From
"holy shall he be" in any event. R.
Yossi says: Why is it written "holy
shall he be"? Because it is written
"he shall let grow the locks of the
hair of his head," I might think (that
Naziritism obtains only) with one who
has hair. Whence do I derive (that it
40
also obtains) with one who does not
have hair? From "holy shall he be"
in any event. R. Yonathan says: It is
not needed (for the above), for it is
written (Ibid. 7) "for the crown of his
G-d is on his head" whether or not
he has hair. What, then, is the intent
of "holy shall he be"? As we stated
above (in respect to "eternal"
Naziritism). Unqualified Naziritism is
thirty days, it being written "holy
shall he be ("yiheyeh"): The
numerical equivalent of "yiheyeh" is
thirty. "he shall let grow the locks of
the hair of his head." Why is this
written? (i.e., it is already written "a
blade shall not pass over his head.")
It is written (of a leper, Vayikra 14:9)
"And it shall be on the seventh day
that he shall shave all of his hair."
This implies even a Nazirite (leper).
And how would I understand "he
shall let grow the locks of the hair of
his head"? As applying to other
Nazirites, excluding the leper. Or,
perhaps, even a Nazirite (leper). It is,
therefore, written "he shall let grow
the locks ('pera') of the hair of his
head." From here you learn of the
leper, of whom it is written (Vayikra
13:45) "And his head shall be parua"
that "parua" means "grown long."
You say it means that, but perhaps it
is to be taken literally (as meaning
"uncovered.") You, therefore, reason
as follows: It is written here (in
respect to a leper) "parua," and
elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite)
"parua" (i.e., "pera," like "parua").
Just as there (re Nazirite), "parua"
means growing the hair, so, "parua"
here (re leper) means growing the
hair. "All the days of the vow of his
Naziritism (a blade shall not pass
over his head."): (A Nazirite who
shaved his head at the end of his
period of Naziritism [before he
brought the ofering, etc.] is liable,) it
being written "All the days of the vow
of his Naziritism a blade shall not
pass over his head" to include the
days after the termination of his
period of Naziritism before the
bringing of his ofering (as in the
above-cited instance) as equivalent
(for liability) to the days in the midst
of his Naziritism. But perhaps he is
liable (for shaving his head) only if
he does so before he completes his
period of Naziritism! (No,) it
follows (that this is not so,) viz.:
Since he is forbidden to drink wine
and he is forbidden to shave, if I
have learned about wine that the
days after the termination of his
period of Naziritism before the
bringing of his ofering were equated
with the days in the midst of the
41
period of his Naziritism, the same
must be true of shaving. And,
furthermore, this follows a fortiori,
viz.: If re wine, the drinking of which
does not void (the count of his
preceding Nazirite days), the days
after his Nazirite period before the
bringing of his ofering were equated
(for liability) with the days in the
midst of his Nazirite period, then re
shaving, which does void (the
Nazirite count), how much more so
should this be true! (No,) this may
be true of the drinking of wine,
where no act in its category (the
drinking of wine by a Nazirite) was
permitted wherefore the days
after his Nazirite period before the
bringing of the ofering were equated
with the days in the midst of his
Nazirite period but would you say
the same for shaving, where an act
in its category (the shaving of a
Nazirite leper on the seventh day)
was permitted wherefore we
would say that the days after his
Nazirite period before the bringing of
the ofering were not equated with
the days in the midst of his Nazirite
period! (No!) This is refuted by the
instance of tumah (a Nazir's defiling
himself with a dead body), where
though there is an act in its category
which is permitted (i.e., a Nazir's
defiling himself for a meth mitzvah shaving. (6:5) "He shall let grow the
[one who has no kin to bury him]), locks of the hair of his head." Why is
still the days after his Nazirite period this written? (i.e., it is already written
before the bringing of the ofering [Ibid.] "a blade shall not pass over
were equated with the days in the his head until the fulfillment of the
midst of his Nazirite period! And this days when he is a Nazirite to the L-
would indicate about shaving, that rd.") From "until the fulfillment of the
even though there is an act in its days," I would think that this
category which is permitted, still, the ("fulfillment") is satisfied by a
days after the Nazirite period before minimum of two days; it is, therefore,
the bringing of the ofering are to be written "He shall let grow the hair of
equated with the days in the midst of the locks of his head." How long does
the Nazirite period. No, this may this take? Not less than thirty days.
be true of tumah, which voids the But (if he said: I will be a Nazirite) a
whole (previous) count, which is not month and above even a month
so with shaving, which does not void and one day or a month and two
the whole. I have not succeeded (in days, (he is a Nazirite for any period
proving the equality) with my a superadded.)
fortiori argument. It is, therefore,
written (Ibid. 20) "and thereafter Piska 26
(i.e., after bringing the ofering), the
Nazirite may drink wine." Now may a (Bamidbar 6:6) "All the days of his
Nazirite drink wine? But (the idea is Naziritism to the L-rd, upon the soul
that) it (the word "Nazirite") is of a dead one he shall not come."
"extra" to signal a gezeirah shavah Scripture now leaves the subject of
(identity), viz.: it is written here (in shaving and comes to speak of
respect to shaving [6:5]) "nazir," and tumah. "upon the soul he shall not
it is written elsewhere (20) "nazir" (in come": I might think that even
respect to the drinking of wine). Just beasts are herein subsumed, as in
as with (the "extra") "nazir" there, (Vayikra 24:18) "One who strikes the
the days after his Nazirite period soul of a beast, etc."; it is, therefore,
before the bringing of the ofering written: "upon the soul of a dead one
are equated with the days in the he shall not come," Scripture
midst of the Nazirite period, so, with referring to a human being. R.

42
Yishmael says: This (proof) is not
needed, for it is written "he shall not
come." Scripture is speaking of a
(dead) soul that confers tumah by
entry (into his tent, [i.e., the soul of a
man, and not that of a beast]). (6:7)
"For his father and his mother he
shall not become tamei" but he
does become tamei for a meth-
mitzvah (one who has no one to bury
him). Why need this be stated? It is
understood a fortiori, viz.: If the high-
priest, whose holiness is permanent,
becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah,
how much more so, a Nazirite, whose
holiness is temporary! No, this
may be true of a high-priest, who
does not bring an ofering for his
uncleanliness wherefore he
becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah,
as opposed to a Nazirite, who does
bring an ofering for his
uncleanliness wherefore he should
not become tamei for a meth-
mitzvah! It must, therefore, be
written "For his father and his mother
he shall not become tamei" but he
does become tamei for a meth-
mitzvah. But perhaps the intent of
the verse is: "For his father and his
mother he shall not become
tamei," but he does become for other
dead! Would you say such a thing?
If an ordinary Cohein, who does
43
become tamei for his kin, may not
become tamei for other dead, how
much more so a Nazirite, who may
not become tamei for his kin! What,
then, is the intent of "For his father
and his mother he shall not
become tamei? He does not become
tamei for his father and his mother,
but he does become tamei for a
meth-mitzvah. But even without
this verse, I can derive it by
reasoning, viz.: There is a general
rule for a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11:
"And upon all souls of the dead he
shall not come"), and there is a
general rule for a Nazirite ("Upon the
soul of a dead one he shall not
come.") Just as with the general rule
for the high-priest, he may not
become tamei for kin, so with the
general rule for the Nazirite, he may
not become tamei for kin. You derive
it from the high-priest, but I can
derive it from an ordinary priest, viz.:
There is a general rule for an
ordinary priest and there is a general
rule for a Nazirite. Just as with the
general rule for the ordinary priest
he does become tamei for kin, so,
with the general rule for the Nazirite,
he should become tamei for kin. It
must, therefore, be written "For his
father and his mother; for his brother
and for his sister, he shall not
become tamei, etc." R. Akiva says
(on Vayikra 21:11): "souls" these
are the distant (i.e., non-kin); "the
dead" these are kin; "for his (the
high-priest's) father and his mother"
For his father and his mother he
does not become tamei, but he does
become tamei for a meth-mitzvah.
(Bamidbar 6:7) "for his brother": If he
were a high-priest or a Nazirite, he
may not become tamei, but he does
become tamei for a meth-mitzvah.
"and for his sister": What is the
intent of this? If one (an ordinary
Cohein) were going to slaughter his
Paschal lamb or to circumcise his
son, and he hears that one of his kin
had died, I might think that he
should become tamei for them; it is,
therefore, written (Ibid.) "he shall not
become tamei." I might think that he
should (also) not become tamei for a
meth-mitzvah; it is, therefore, written
"and for his sister" He does not
become tamei for his sister, but he
does become tamei for a meth-
mitzvah. But (a verse) is not needed
for his (young) son and daughter; for
minors cannot become Nazirites. "he
shall not become tamei for them in
their death": In their death he does
not become tamei for them, but he
does become tamei for them in their
leprous or zivah (genital discharge)
44
state. This tells me only of a Nazirite.
Whence do I derive (the same for) a
high-priest? It is written in respect to
a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11) "for his
mother (he shall not) become tamei."
This is superfluous, for I can derive it
a fortiori, viz.: If in an instance where
an ordinary Cohein may become
tamei for his father's brother, a high-
priest may not become tamei for his
father, then in an instance where an
ordinary Cohein may not become
tamei for his father's brother, how
much more so may a high-priest not
become tamei for his father! If I can
derive it, then, a fortiori, why is the
verse "for his mother, etc." needed in
respect to a high-priest? It is "extra,"
to the end of formulating an identity
(gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written
"his mother" here (in respect to a
high-priest), and it is written "his
mother" elsewhere (in respect to a
Nazirite). Just as there he does
become tamei (for them) in their
leprous or zivah state, so, here.
Variantly: "He shall not become
tamei for them in their death": In
their death he may not become
tamei for them, but he may stand at
their eulogy and in the mourner's
row. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "for the crown
of his G-d is on his head": whether or
not he has hair. These are the words
of R. Yonathan.
Piska 27
(Bamidbar 6:8) "All the days of his
Naziritism, holy is he to the L-rd.":
What is the intent of this? Because it
is written (5) "until the fulfillment of
the days," I might think (that the
interdict of shaving applies) only to
one whose Naziritism has a term.
Whence do I derive (the same for) a
life-long Nazirite? To this end it is
written "All the days of his
Naziritism." "holy is he to the L-rd":
This applies to holiness of the body
(vis--vis the interdict of becoming
tamei.) But perhaps it applies to
the holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the
hair! (5) "holy shall he be" already
refers to the holiness of the hair.
How, then, am I to understand "holy
is he to the L-rd"? As referring to
holiness of the body.
Piska 28
(Bamidbar 6:9) "And if one die on
him, etc.": to exclude a doubt (i.e., a
possibility of one's having died on
him.) For it would follow (otherwise),
viz.: If (in the instance of sotah)
where inadvertency was not equated
45
with wilfullness (viz. (Bamidbar 5:13),
doubt (i.e., the possibility of her
having been adulterous while
closeted) was equated with certainty,
then here, (in the instance of the
Nazirite), where inadvertency was
equated with wilfullness, how much
more so should doubt be equated
with certainty! It is, therefore, written
"And if one died on him" (i.e., to his
certain knowledge) to exclude an
instance of doubt. "of an instant": to
include (his shaving and bringing an
ofering) (if he becomes tamei)
inadvertently. For it would follow
(otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of
sotah), where doubt was equated
with certainty, inadvertency was not
equated with wilfullness, then here,
(in the instance of the Nazirite),
where doubt was not equated with
certainty, how much more so should
inadvertency not be equated with
wilfullness! It is, therefore, written "of
an instant" (i.e., inadvertently).
"suddenly": to include (an instance of
his becoming tamei) unwittingly. For
it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, (in
the instance of sotah), where doubt
is equated with certainty,
unwittingness (of his being forbidden
to her) is not equated with
wittingness, here, (in the instance of
the Nazirite), where doubt (of his
having become tamei) is not equated of one who was clean (when he
with certainty, how much more so began his Nazirite count) and
should unwittingness (of his having became unclean. It is he who must
become tamei) not be equated with remove his hair and bring an
wittingness! And whence is it derived ofering, and not one who undertook
that he is liable (to shave and bring Naziritism in the cemetery (in which
an ofering) for wilfullness (i.e., for instance he was already unclean.)
wilfully having become tamei)? Do For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If
you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in one who was clean and became
the instance of swearing (falsely) in tamei is liable to remove his hair and
respect to (having received) a pledge to bring an ofering, how much more
(viz. Vayikra 5:22), where he is not so one who was unclean in the
liable (to bring an ofering) for beginning! It is, therefore, written (to
unwittingness, he is liable for negate this) "and he make unclean
wilfullness, then here (in the instance the head of his Naziritism." "then he
of the Nazirite), where he is liable for shall shave his head": It is his head
unwittingness, how much more so is that he shaves, and not all of his
he liable for wilfullness! No, this (bodily) hair. For it would follow
may be true of swearing in respect to (otherwise), viz.: Since a leper
a pledge, where he does not receive shaves and brings an ofering and a
stripes, as opposed to the instance of Nazirite shaves and brings an
the Nazirite, where he does receive ofering, then if I learned of a leper
stripes. And since he receives that he shaves all of his hair, then a
stripes, he should not bring an Nazirite, too, should shave all of his
ofering. It is, therefore, written hair. No, this may be true of a
(Bamidbar 6:11) "and he (the leper, who undergoes a second
Cohein) shall atone for him for shaving (Vayikra 14:9), wherefore he
having sinned against the soul." shaves all of his hair. Would you say
These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. the same for a Nazirite, who does not
R. Yonathan says "of an instant": This shave a second shaving?
refers to unwittingness. "suddenly": wherefore he should not shave all of
This refers to inadvertency. his hair. This is refuted by the
"and he make unclean the head of Levites, who, though they do not
his Naziritism": Scripture here speaks undergo a second shaving, shave all

46
of their hair. It must, therefore, be
written "then he shall shave his
head" It is his head that he shaves
and not all of his hair. ("then he shall
shave his head) on the day of his
cleansing": on the day of
sprinkling (of the waters of the red
heifer [viz. Bamidbar 19:17]). You
say, on the day of his sprinkling, on
the seventh, but perhaps
("cleansing" refers to) the day of his
ofering, on the eighth; it
therefore, written "on the seventh." If
"on the seventh," (I might think that
he shaves) even if the waters have
not been sprinkled; it is, therefore,
written ("then he shall shave") on the
day of his cleansing" the day of his
sprinkling, on the seventh. This tells
me only of the seventh. Whence do I
derive the eighth, the ninth, and the
tenth (as also valid for shaving)?
From "he shall shave it" ( in any
event). This ("on the day") tells me
only of the daytime. Whence do I
derive the night (as also valid)? From
"he shall shave it." This tells me only
of the shaving for tumah. Whence do
I derive (the same for) the shaving of
cleanliness (Ibid. 18)? From "he shall
shave it." "he shall shave it, and on
the eighth day he shall bring, etc."
From here (i.e., from
juxtaposition) they ruled: What is the
procedure of the shaving for tumah?
First he shaves and then he brings
the ofering. And if he brought the
ofering and then shaved, he has not
fulfilled his obligation.
his
Piska 29
(Bamidbar 6:10) "And on the eighth
day he shall bring, etc.": to exclude
the seventh day. You say, to exclude
is, the seventh day; but perhaps, to
exclude the ninth day? Would you
say that? If (the eighth day), which is
close to the forbidden (seventh day),
is permitted, how much more so
should (the ninth day), which is close
to the permitted (eighth day) be
permitted! This is refuted by the
time for eating the Paschal ofering,
where the time (the night of the
fifteenth of Nissan), which is close to
the forbidden (the day preceding
that night) is permitted, and (after
midnight on the night of the
fifteenth), which is close to the
permitted, is forbidden. Do not
wonder, then, about this (forbidding
of the ofering on the ninth day) that
even though what is close to the
forbidden is permitted, what is close
to the permitted is forbidden. We
the have not succeeded (with this
argument). Let us derive it from the
47
ofered (i.e., the animals ofered on
the altar.) A time has been fixed for
the ofered (viz. Vayikra 22:17) "From
the eighth day (of its birth) on it shall
be accepted as a fire-ofering"), and
a time has been fixed for the oferers
("And on the eighth day he shall
bring, etc." Just as with the ofered,
the eighth day and beyond was
permitted, so, with the oferers. And,
furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.:
If with the ofered, where Scripture
enumerates many that are unfit (for
oferings), it validates (oferings) of
the eighth day and beyond, how
much more so with the oferers,
where Scripture did not enumerate
many that are unfit, should (ofering)
be validated from the eighth day and
beyond! No, this may be so with
the ofered, this time obtaining with
all oferings, wherefore the eighth
day and beyond was permitted,
would you say the same for the
oferers, where this time does not
obtain for all, (but only for the
Nazirites) wherefore it would not
be permitted from the eighth day on.
I have not succeeded with
ratiocination; I derive it by identity
(gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written
here (in the instance of the Nazirite)
"the eighth day," and elsewhere (in
the instance of the oferings), "the
48
eighth day." Just as there, the eighth
and beyond is validated, so, here.
"two turtle-doves or two young
pigeons" whence they ruled:
Turtle-doves cannot be substituted
for pigeons nor pigeons for turtle-
doves. "to the Cohein, to the door of
the tent of meeting": We are hereby
taught that it is his obligation to care
for them until he brings them to the
door of the tent of meeting.
Piska 30
(Bamidbar 6:11) "And the Cohein
shall make one a sin-ofering and one
a burnt-ofering": The Cohein shall
designate them; one for a sin-
ofering and one for a burnt-ofering.
This tells me of designation by the
Cohein. Whence do I derive
designation by the owner? Do you
ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If one
(the Cohein), who is not permitted to
dedicate it (as an ofering), is
permitted to designate it, then one
(the owner), who is permitted to
dedicate it, how much more so is he
permitted to designate it! And thus,
(that designation is by the owner) is
it written in respect to a woman who
has given birth (Vayikra 12:8) "Then
she shall take two turtle-doves or two
young pigeons, one for a burnt-
ofering and one for a sin-ofering"
whence we find that there
designation by the Cohein
designation by the owner whence
we find that there is an unqualified
ken (the couple of sacrificial birds, [in
the instance of the Nazirite, where
the Cohein designates them]) and a
qualified ken, (in the instance of the
child-bearing woman, where
herself designates them, one as a
sin-ofering and one as a burnt-
ofering.) "and he shall atone for him
for having sinned against the soul":
Now against which soul did he sin
that he needs atonement? (His sin is)
that he deprived himself of wine.
Now does this not follow a fortiori,
viz.: If one who deprives himself of
wine needs atonement, how much
more so, one who deprives himself of
everything (by fasting)! R. Yishmael
says: Scripture speaks of a Nazirite
who made himself tamei (by a dead
body), it being written "and he shall
atone for him by having sinned (i.e.,
for having defiled himself) by the
soul" a dead soul. "and he shall
make holy his head on that day": On
the day of his shaving. These are the
words of Rebbi. R. Yossi b. Yehudah
says: On the day of the bringing of
his oferings.
Piska 31
is
and (Bamidbar 6:12) "And he shall
devote to the L-rd the days of his
Naziritism (and he shall bring a lamb
of the first-year as a guilt-ofering"):
What is the intent of this? Because
we find in respect to all the guilt-
oferings of the Torah that they are
she categorical (requirements for the
efecting of a new condition), I might
think that this (guilt-ofering of the
Nazirite) is also categorical (in
respect to the resumption of his
Naziritism), it is, therefore, written
"and he shall devote and he shall
bring, etc." Though he has not yet
brought (the guilt-ofering), he may
re-devote himself (to Naziritism). R.
Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan b.
Berokah says: This, too, is
categorical, it being written "And he
shall devote to the L-rd, etc." (the
verse being understood as ) "When
(shall he devote to the L-rd)?" when
he has brought a lamb of the first
year as a guilt-ofering. "and the first
days shall fall of": Whence is it
derived that if one declares himself a
Nazirite for a hundred days and he
becomes tamei on the ninety-ninth
day, he voids all (of the previous
count)? From "and the first days shall
fall of" One who has later days
49
voids (the first days). Perhaps even
one who becomes tamei on the
hundredth day voids all (of
previous count). It is, therefore,
written "and the first days shall fall
of" One who has later days voids
(the first days), but this one has no
later days. Perhaps even if
becomes tamei in the beginning of
the hundred (i.e., on the first day) he
voids all. It is, therefore, written "and
the first days shall fall of" One
who has first "days" (plural), voids,
but this one does not have (them).
"because his Naziritism was tamei":
Tumah voids all, but shaving does
not void all. For it would follow
(otherwise), viz.: If tumah
making himself tamei) is forbidden
and shaving is forbidden, if I have
learned that tumah voids
shaving, too, should void all. And,
furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.:
If tumah, where the defiler (i.e., one
who makes a Nazirite tamei) is not
equated (for liability) with the defiled
(i.e., the Nazirite who makes himself
tamei), (if tumah) voids all, then
shaving, where the shaver (of a
Nazirite) is equated (for liability) with
the shaved (i.e., the Nazirite who
shaves himself), how much more so
should he void all! It is, therefore,
written "because his Naziritism was
tamei" Tumah voids all, but
shaving does not void all, (but just
the the first thirty days). This (6:11 "and
he shall hallow his head to that day")
tells me only that the days of his
tumah are not counted towards his
Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the
he same for) the days of his
confirmation (as a leper)? (i.e., If the
Nazirite were a leper, and the Cohein
quarantined him, and the plague-
spot spread, and he were confirmed
as tamei Whence do I derive that
the days of his confirmation are not
counted towards his Naziritism?) And
it follows (that they should not be
counted, viz.: Since the days of his
(i.e., (Nazirite) tumah require shaving and
the bringing of an ofering, as do the
days of confirmation (as a leper),
all, then if I have learned about the days
of his tumah that they are not
counted towards his Naziritism, so
should I learn about the days of his
confirmation (as a leper). No, this
may be true of the days of his
tumah, which void the preceding
days, wherefore they are not counted
towards his Naziritism. But would you
say the same for the days of his
confirmation, which do not void the
preceding days? wherefore they
should be counted! Would you say
that? It follows a fortiori (that they
50
should not be counted), viz.: If one
who undertakes Naziritism in the
cemetery, whose hair is susceptible
of shaving (for new Naziritism after
he leaves the cemetery) If his
preceding days are not
towards his Naziritism, then the days
of his (leprosy) confirmation, when
his hair is not susceptible of the
shaving for Naziritism, how much
more so should they not be counted.
And the same (i.e., that they are not
counted towards his Naziritism) is
true for the days of his counting
(seven days outside of his tent,
Vayikra 14:8).
Or, (perhaps we should say): Just as
the days of his confirmation are not
counted, so, the days
quarantine should not be counted.
And this would follow, viz.: Just as
the days of his confirmation are
subject to the tumah of mishkav (the
couch) and moshav (the seat [of the
leper]), as are the days
quarantine, then if I have learned
about the days of his confirmation
that they are not counted (towards
his Naziritism), so, should I learn
about the days of his quarantine.
No, this may be true of the days of
his confirmation, which
shaving and an ofering (for his
leprosy), wherefore they are
counted (towards his Naziritism). But
would you say (the same for) the
days of his quarantine, which do not
require shaving or an ofering (for his
leprosy)? wherefore they should
counted be counted. From here they ruled:
The days of the confirmation of a
leper and the (seven) days of his
counting are not counted (towards
his Naziritism), but the days of zav
and zavah (a man and a woman with
a genital discharge) and the days of
quarantine of a leper are counted
(towards his Naziritism).
(6:6) "All the days of his Naziritism
to the L-rd, (upon the soul of a dead
one he shall not come."): to equate
the days after his Naziritism with the
of his days in the midst of his Naziritism
until he brings the ofering. (i.e., If he
undertook a thirty-day Naziritism and
completed it but had not yet brought
an ofering, he may not become
tamei for the dead until he does so.)
of his Or, perhaps he is liable for tumah
only until he completes his period of
Naziritism, (even if he has not yet
brought the ofering.) You reason (as
follows): Since a Nazirite is forbidden
to drink wine and to become tamei,
then if I have learned re wine that
require the days after his Naziritism are
equated with the days in the midst of
not his Naziritism until he brings the
51
ofering, so, re tumah.
furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.:
If with wine, which does not void (the
count), the days after the Naziritism
are equated with the days in the
midst of the Naziritism until he
brings the ofering, how much more
so (should this obtain) with tumah,
which does void the count! No,
this may be so with wine, where no
act in its category (the drinking of
wine) is permitted (to a Nazirite,)
wherefore the days after
Naziritism are equated with the days
in the midst of the Naziritism as
opposed to tumah, where an act in
its category (i.e., meth-mitzvah) is
permitted wherefore the days
after the Naziritism are not to be
equated with the days in the midst of
the Naziritism before the bringing of
the ofering. This is refuted
shaving (i.e., the shaving of
Nazirite leper on the seventh day),
where an act in its category (the
category of shaving) is permitted, in
spite of which the days after the
Naziritism are equated with the days
in the midst of the Naziritism before
the bringing of the ofering. And,
furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.:
If with shaving, which does not void
the whole (count), the days after the
Naziritism are equated with the days
And, in the midst of the Naziritism before
the bringing of the ofering, then with
tumah, which does void the whole,
how much more so! No, this may
be so with shaving, where the shaver
was equated (for liability) with the
shaved one (i.e., the Nazirite who
shaves himself) wherefore this
equation was made, as opposed to
tumah, where the defiler was not
equated (for liability) with the defiled
(i.e., the Nazirite who defiles himself)
the wherefore the days after the
Naziritism are not to be equated with
the days before the Naziritism before
the bringing of the ofering. This is
refuted by (the instance of) wine,
where one who causes the Nazirite to
drink was not equated (for liability)
with the drinker (i.e., the Nazirite
himself), in spite of which the
by equation was made. And this would
a indicate re tumah, that even though
the defiler is not equated with the
defiled, the days after the Naziritism
are to be equated with the days in
the midst of the Naziritism before the
bringing of the ofering. - And the
argument goes round and round. It
is, therefore, written (6:20) " and
then (after the ofering) the Nazirite
may drink wine." Now may a Nazirite
drink wine? Rather, the verse is
"extra" to the end of formulating an
52
identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is Torah as (being reflexive,) "himself"
written here (12) (in respect to (rather than accusative, "it" or
tumah) "Nazirite," and there (20) (in "him"). Similarly, (Vayikra 22:16)
respect to wine) "Nazirite." Just as "And they will bear otham the sin of
there, the days after the Naziritism guilt": Now do others bear them? Is it
are equated with the days in the not they who bear upon themselves,
midst of the Naziritism before the etc.? Similarly, (Devarim 34:6) "And
bringing of the ofering, so, there, (in he buried otho in the valley." Now did
respect to tumah). others bury him? Did he not bury
himself? Here, too, "yavi otho" he
Piska 32 brings (i.e., presents) himself, and
others do not bring him.
(Bamidbar 6:13) "This is the law of
the Nazirite": "This," for the ofering Piska 33
of purity (i.e., when the Nazirite is in
a state of purity) or also for the (Bamidbar 6:14) "And he shall ofer
ofering of tumah (i.e., when the up his sacrifice to the L-rd: one lamb
Nazirite is in a state of tumah)? of the first year, whole": to exclude
(Ibid.) "On the day of the fulfillment one that is blemished. "and one ewe-
of the days of his Naziritism" lamb of the first year, whole": to
Scripture is speaking only of one who exclude one that is blemished. "and
has an end to his Naziritism (i.e., a one ram, whole": to exclude one that
thirty-day Naziritism, a Naziritism of is blemished. We are hereby taught
purity) "This is the law of the that the Nazirite requires three
Nazirite": (i.e., the oferings that (mutually exclusive) animals (i.e.,
follow) obtain with both a Nazirite of each is a mitzvah in itself).
"days" and with an "eternal" Nazirite.
"yavi otho (to the door of the tent of Piska 34
meeting"): Now do others bring him?
([this being the usual connotation of (Bamidbar 6:150 "And a basket of
"yavi otho"]). Does he not bring (i.e., unleavened bread": general (any
present) himself? This is one of kind); "fine flour, cake mixed with
the three ethim (as in "otho") which oil": particular. general-particular
R. Yishmael would expound in the (The rule is:) There obtains in the

53
general only what is in the particular.
For it would follow (otherwise), viz.:
Since a thanksgiving
requires bread and the Nazirite ram
requires bread, then if I have learned
that one thanksgiving
requires four kinds, then the Nazirite
ram should also require four kinds; it
is, therefore, written "and a basket of
unleavened bread": general; "fine
flour, cakes mixed with
particular. general-particular
rule is:) There obtains in the general
only what is in the particular. "and
their meal-ofering and their peace-
oferings": for the burnt-ofering and
the peace-oferings." But perhaps
also for the sin-ofering and for the
guilt-ofering (of the Nazirite who has
become tamei). And this would follow
a fortiori, viz.: Since a leper shaves
and brings an ofering and a Nazirite
shaves and brings an ofering, then
just as the sin-ofering and guilt-
ofering of a leper require libations,
so should those of a Nazirite require
libations; it is, therefore,
(Ibid. 17) "And the ram shall he ofer
as a sacrifice of peace-oferings to
the L-rd for the basket of unleavened
bread, and the Cohein shall ofer its
(the ram's) meal-ofering and its
drink-ofering." The ram
included in the general rule ("and
their meal-ofering and their drink-
oferings,") and it departed from the
ofering general rule (for special mention) to
teach something about the rule
itself, viz.: Just as the ram, which is
ofering distinct in being ofered for vow and
gift requires drink-oferings, so, all
oferings for vow and gift require
drink-oferings to exclude the sin-
ofering and the guilt-ofering, which,
oil": not being ofered for vow and gift, do
(The not require drink-oferings. Variantly:
Since it (the ram) was included in the
general rule, and it departed (from
that rule) to teach about the bread,
Scripture returned it to its rule.
Piska 35
(Bamidbar 6:18) "And the Nazirite
shall shave at the door of the tent of
meeting": Scripture here speaks of
peace-oferings (i.e., that the Nazirite
shaves after the sacrifice of the
peace-oferings), it being written of
them (Vayikra 3:2) "and he shall
written slaughter it at the door of the tent of
meeting." You say this, but perhaps
the verse is to be taken literally, (i.e.,
that he shaves at the door of the tent
of meeting. If you say this, this is
demeaning. Scripture states (Shemot
was 20:23): "Do not go up by steps, (but
by a smooth ramp) upon My altar, so
54
that your nakedness not be revealed in) the sanctuary. Whence do I derive
upon it (by your having to take the same for (his doing so) outside
relatively long strides) how much it? From "and he shall place it on the
more so should he not shave (at the fire" in any event.
door of the tent of meeting)! What,
then, is the intent of "And the Piska 36
Nazirite shall shave at the door of
the tent of meeting"? Scripture refers (Bamidbar 6:19) "And the Cohein
here to the sacrifice of the peace- shall take the cooked ("beshelah")
oferings (as above). R. Yitzchak shoulder of the ram": "beshelah"
says: Scripture speaks of the connotes "whole" (i.e., it is first
sacrifice of the peace-oferings. You cooked and then separated from the
say this? Perhaps it refers to (shaving ram.) R. Shimon b. Yochai says:
at) the door of the tent of meeting, "beshelah" implies only that it must
literally. It is, therefore, written be cooked together with the ram,
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and he shall take (but it is separated before the
the hair of the head of his Naziritism, cooking.) "and one unleavened
etc." In the place (the room) where cake": If it were broken or part were
he cooks it (the peace-oferings), missing, it is invalid. "and one
there shall he shave. Abba Channan unleavened wafer": If it were broken
says in the name of R. Eliezer: "And or part were missing it is invalid.
the Nazirite shall shave at the door "and he shall place them on the
of the tent of meeting." If the door palms of the Nazirite after his
was not open, he would not shave. shaving of (the head of) his
"and he shall take the hair of the Naziritism.": This is after his shaving,
head of his Naziritism and he shall but the bringing of the oferings is
place it on the fire which is under the not after his shaving.
sacrifice of the peace-oferings." This
tells me only of the peace-oferings. Piska 37
Whence do I derive (that he can do
the same) under the sin-ofering and (Bamidbar 6:20) "And the Cohein
under the guilt-ofering? From "under shall lift them, a lifting before the L-
the sacrifice" in any event. This rd": back and forth and up and down,
tells me only of (his shaving his hair as it is written (Shemot 29:27)

55
"which was waved and which was
lifted." Lifting is being compared to
waving. Just as waving is back and
forth, so, lifting; and just as lifting is
up and down, so, waving whence
they ruled: the mitzvah of waving
back and forth, up and down. (Ibid.)
"before the L-rd": in the east. For
wherever "before the L-rd" is written,
in the east is understood unless it is
specified otherwise. "It is holy to the
Cohein, in addition to the breast of
waving and the thigh of lifting": Why
is this stated? (i.e., it is already
written [Vayikra 7:34]) "For the
breast of waving, etc.") For in "For
the breast of waving and the thigh of
the lifting have I taken from the
children of Israel from their peace-
oferings," the peace-oferings of the
Nazirite are also subsumed, and
Scripture (here) removed them from
their context for the ram's shoulder
requirement. This tells me only of the
latter. Whence do I derive (the same
for) the breast and the thigh? It
follows a fortiori, viz.: If individual
peace-oferings, which do not require
the giving (to the Cohein) of the
shoulder, do require the (giving of)
breast and thigh, then the Nazirite
peace-oferings, which do require the
giving of the shoulder, how much
more so do they require the giving of
56
breast and thigh! Now if I can derive
this a fortiori, why need it be written
(Ibid.) "It (the shoulder) is holy to the
Cohein, in addition to the breast of
waving and the thigh of lifting"? We
are hereby apprised that every thing
(in this instance, Nazirite peace-
oferings) which was included in a
general formulation and departed
from that formulation for the sake of
a new learning (in this instance, the
giving of the shoulder) may not be
returned to its general formulation
until Scripture explicitly does so.
Piska 38
(Bamidbar 6:21) "This is the law of
the Nazirite": This (i.e., what we have
learned of the oferings) tells me only
of the time (of the Temple, when
there are oferings). Whence do we
derive (that Naziritism obtains) in all
generations? From "This is the
(perpetual) law." These are the words
of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This
(i.e., "This is the law") is stated by
way of summation. "his ofering to
the L-rd for his Naziritism": i.e., his
ofering to the L-rd is contingent
upon his Naziritism, and his
Naziritism is not contingent upon his
ofering (i.e., if he vows to bring the
ofering, he does not thereby
become a Nazirite.) "his ofering to
the L-rd for his Naziritism": and not
the ofering of others for
Naziritism (i.e., if he said "I will be a
Nazirite on condition that others
bring the Nazirite ofering," he has
said nothing.) "aside from what his
hand attains": We are hereby
apprised that if he said: I am a
Nazirite on condition that I shave
over a hundred burnt-oferings and a
hundred peace-oferings, I recite
over him "According to his vow that
he vows thus shall he do." I might
think (that the same applies) even if
he said: I am a Nazirite on condition
that I shave over a hundred sin-
oferings and a hundred
oferings. It is, therefore, written
"that he vows." It applies only to
oferings that are brought as vows
and gifts (to exclude the above). I
might think that even if he said "I
undertake five Naziritisms
condition) that I shave one shaving
for all," I recite over him "according
to his vow that he vows"; it is,
therefore, written "thus shall he do
according to the law of
Naziritism" (i.e., he must shave for
each Naziritism individually).
Eliezer b. Shamua and R. Yochanan
Hasandlar asked R. Shimon b. Yochai:
If one were a clean Nazirite (as
opposed to one defiled by the dead)
and a leper, may he perform one
his shaving, which satisfies both his
Naziritism and his leprosy? He
answered: Is this possible? If each
shaved in order to grow hair, or if
each shaved in order to remove hair,
your question would be in place; but
the leper shaves in order to grow hair
(for he must shave a second time
after his count (viz. Vayikra 14:9),
and the Nazirite shaves in order to
remove hair, so how can one shaving
serve for both? If not, let it (one
shaving) suffice for the days of his
(the leper's state of) confirmation
and his (the Nazirite's) counting,
guilt- (where both shave in order to
remove hair). He answered: If both
were before the sprinkling of the
blood, your question would be in
place. But the (confirmation) shaving
of the leper is before the sprinkling of
(on the blood, and that of the Nazirite,
after the sprinkling of the blood.
They responded: If it (one shaving)
does not suffice for the days of his
leprosy and a clean Nazirite, let it
his suffice for the days of his leprosy and
an unclean (i.e., defiled) Nazirite. He
R. answered: An unclean Nazirite in the
days of his (the leper's) counting
the intent of one (the leper) is to
grow hair, and of the other (the
57
Nazirite), to remove it. An unclean permitted. It is, therefore, written
Nazirite in the days of his (the (Devarim 27:12) "These shall stand
leper's) confirmation, (even though to bless the people." Just as there, in
the intent of both is to remove it) the holy tongue, so, here, in the holy
one, (the leper, shaves) before the tongue. R. Yehudah says: This (i.e.,
administration of the waters of the the above identity) is not needed, for
red heifer; the other, (the Nazirite, wherever "aniyah" ("answering"),
shaves) after the administration of "amirah" ("saying") or "cachah"
the waters. The conditions (for a ("thus") is written, the holy tongue is
single shaving) cannot be satisfied, intended. "Thus shall you bless the
neither in the days of his (the leper's) children of Israel" standing. You
consummation nor in the days of his say, standing; but perhaps either
counting; neither with an unclean standing or not standing is
(Nazirite) nor with a clean one. permitted. It is, therefore, written
"These shall stand to bless the
Piska 39 people." It is written here "blessing"
and there, "blessing." Just as
(Bamidbar 6:22-23) "And the L-rd "blessing" there is standing, so,
spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to "blessing" here. R. Nathan says: This
Aaron and to his sons, saying: Thus (derivation) is not needed, for it is
shall you bless, etc.": Because the written (of the Cohanim, Devarim
entire section deals with Cohanim, 10:8) " to stand before the L-rd, to
Aaron and his sons are brought into minister unto Him, and to bless His
the context of "saying" (dibbur). For name." Blessing is likened to
this is the rule: Wherever the ministering. Just as ministering is
"dibbur" is to the Cohanim, the standing, so, blessing. "Thus shall
action (of that section) is that of the you bless the children of Israel": with
Cohanim. Where the "dibbur" is to raised hands. You say, with raised
Israel as a whole, the action is that of hands; but perhaps either with or
Israel. Where the "dibbur" is to all without raised hands is permitted. It
men, the proselytes are to be is, therefore, written (Vayikra 9:22)
included. "Thus shall you bless the "And Aaron lifted his hands to the
children of Israel": in the holy people and he blessed them." Just as
tongue. But perhaps any tongue is there, with raised hands, so, here. R.

58
Yonathan says: But perhaps just as
there, Rosh Chodesh, ofering, and
the high-priest, so, here
elements must obtain)!
therefore, written (Devarim
"For him (a Cohein) did the L-rd your
G-d choose from all of your tribes to
stand and minister in the name of
the L-rd, he and his sons all of the
days." His sons are likened to him.
Just as he, with raised hands, so, his
sons with raised hands. "Thus shall
you bless the children of Israel": with
the explicit name
Tetragrammaton [yod-keh-vav-keh]).
You say, with the Tetragrammaton.
But, perhaps, only with an epithet. It
is, therefore, written (Ibid. 27) "And
they shall place My name on the
children of Israel" the name that is
distinctive with Me. I might think that
this obtains even in those places
bordering (on Jerusalem).
therefore, written here "And they
shall place My name,"
elsewhere, (I Kings 11:36) "to place
My name there." Just as there, the
Temple, so, here, the Temple. In the
Temple, with the Tetragrammaton;
elsewhere, with an epithet. These are
the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan
says (Shemot 20:21) "Wherever I
mention My name, etc.": This is an
inverted verse, (to be understood as)
"Wherever I am revealed to you,
there shall you mention My name."
(these Where am I (i.e., My shechinah)
It is, revealed to you? In the Temple. You,
18:5) too, may mention My name only in
the Temple whence they ruled: It
is forbidden to utter the explicit
Name (the Tetragrammaton) in the
borders (of Jerusalem). "Thus shall
you bless the children of Israel": This
tells me only of a blessing for (the
men of) Israel. Whence do I derive
(the same for) women, proselytes,
(the and bondsmen? From "Say to them"
to all of them. Whence do I derive
a blessing for the Cohanim (by the L-
rd)? From (6:27) "and I shall bless
them (the Cohanim)." "Thus shall you
bless the children of Israel": face to
face. You say face to face, but
perhaps face to back is intended! It
is, therefore, written "Say to them"
It is, (as a man speaks to his neighbor)
face to face. "Thus shall you bless
and, the children of Israel": in a loud voice
so that the entire congregation can
hear." But perhaps in a whisper is
intended. It is, therefore, written
"Say to them" so that the entire
congregation can hear. And whence
is it derived that the prayer leader
must tell them (the Cohanim) to say?
From "Say to them."
59
Piska 40
(Bamidbar 6:24) "The L-rd bless
you": with the explicit blessing (28:3-
6) "Blessed shall you be in the city
and blessed shall you be in the field
Blessed shall be your basket and
your remainder. Blessed shall you be
in your coming in and blessed shall
you be in your going out." "The L-rd
bless you": with possessions "and
keep you": with possessions.
Nathan says: May He bless you with
possessions and keep you in body.
R. Yitzchak says "and keep you":
from the evil inclination, as it is
written (Proverbs 3:26) "For the L-rd
will be with you in your trust, and He
will guard your feet
entrapment." Variantly: "and keep
you": from all evil, viz. (Psalms
121:4-7) "He neither slumbers nor
sleeps, the Keeper of Israel at your
right hand By day the sun The
L-rd will keep you from all evil."
Variantly: "and keep you":
mazikkin (destructive agents), viz.
(Ibid. 91:11) "For His angels will He
charge for you to keep you in all your
ways." Variantly: "and keep you": He
will keep for you the covenant of
your fathers, viz. (Devarim 7:12) "
then the L-rd your G-d will keep for
you the covenant and
lovingkindness which He swore to
your fathers." Variantly: "and keep
you": He will keep for you the "end"
(i.e., the time of redemption). And
thus is it written (Isaiah 21:11-12) "A
prophecy concerning Duma (Edom):
He (Israel) calls to Me from Seir:
'Keeper, what of the night?' 'Keeper,
what of the night?' The Keeper says:
'Morning is coming and also night,
etc.'" Variantly: "and keep you": He
R. will keep your soul at the time of
death, viz. (I Samuel 25:29) "and my
master's soul will be bound up (after
death) in the bond of life." From this I
would understand both (the soul of)
the righteous and the wicked to be
intended. It is, therefore, written
from (Ibid.) "but the soul of your foes will
He hurl away from the hollow of a
sling." Variantly: "and keep you": He
will keep your feet from Gehinnom,
viz.: (Ibid. 2:9) "He will keep (from
Gehennom) the feet of His pious
ones." Variantly: "and keep you": He
from will keep you in the world to come,
viz. (Isaiah 4:31) "But those who
trust in the L-rd will renew strength.
They will lift their wings as eagles,
etc."
Piska 41
the
60
(Bamidbar 6:25) "The L-rd cause His find favor and goodly wisdom in the
countenance to shine upon you": He eyes of G-d and man." Variantly: "and
will give you "light" of the eyes. R. be gracious to you": with
Nathan says: This refers to the light understanding, insight, mussar, and
of the Shechinah, as it is written wisdom. Variantly: "and be gracious
(Isaiah 60:1-2) "Arise, shine, for your to you": in Torah study, as it is
Light has come. For the darkness will written (Proverbs 4:9) "It (Torah) will
cover the earth, and a thick mist, the set a chaplet of grace upon your
peoples, but upon you the L-rd will head," and (Ibid. 1:9) "For they
shine, and His glory will be seen (words of Torah) are a chaplet of
upon you," (Psalms 67:2) "G-d will grace to your head and a necklace to
favor us and bless us. He will cause your throat." Variantly: "and be
His countenance to shine upon us, gracious to you": with gifts of
Selah," (Ibid. 118:27) " and He "grace," as it is written (Psalms
shone for us." Variantly: "The L-rd 123:2) "Behold, as the eyes of
cause His countenance to shine upon servants to their masters; as the
you": This refers to the light of Torah, eyes of a maidservant to the hand of
as it is written (Proverbs 6:23) "For a her mistress, so are our eyes to the
mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah, L-rd our G-d, until He grants us
light." "and be gracious to you": in grace," and (Ibid. 3) "Grant us grace,
(the granting of) your requests, as it O L-rd, grant us grace, for we are
is written (Shemot 33:19) "And I shall fully sated with contempt, and
be gracious to whom I shall be (Isaiah 33:2) "O L-rd, grant us grace,
gracious, and I shall be merciful to for in You have we hoped."
whom I shall be merciful." Variantly:
Let Him grant you grace in the eyes Piska 42
of man, as it is written (Bereshit
39:21) "And He granted him grace in (Bamidbar 6:26) "The L-rd lift His
the eyes of the overseer of the countenance unto you": when you
prison," and (Esther 2:14) "And stand in prayer), as it is written (in
Esther found favor in the eyes of all respect to the prayers of Abraham,
who saw her," and (Daniel 1:9) "And Bereshit 19:21): "Behold, I have lifted
G-d granted Daniel grace and your countenance." Now does this
mercy," and (Proverbs 3:4) "You will not follow a fortiori, viz.: If I have

61
lifted the countenance for Lot for the
sake of Abraham, My beloved, shall I
not do so for you, and for the sake of
your fathers!
One verse states "The L-rd lift His
countenance unto you," and another,
(Devarim 10:17) "who does not lift
the countenance" (i.e., who does not
forgive) and who does not take a
bribe." How are these two verses to
be reconciled? When Israel do the L-
rd's will "The L-rd lift
countenance unto you"; when they
do not do the L-rd's will "who does
not lift the countenance." Variantly:
Before the decree has been sealed
"The L-rd lift His countenance unto
you"; after the decree has been
sealed "who does not lift the
countenance." One verse
(Psalms 65:3) "O, heeder of prayer,
to You does all flesh come," and
another, (Eichah 3:44) "You have
covered Yourself with a cloud against
the passing of prayer." How are these
two verses to be reconciled? Before
the decree has been sealed
"heeder of prayer"; after the decree
has been sealed "You
covered Yourself with a cloud." One
verse states (Psalms 145:18) "Close
is the L-rd to all who call upon Him,
to all who call upon Him in truth,"
and another, (Ibid. 10:1) "Why, O L-
rd, do You stand afar?" How are these
two verses to be reconciled? Before
the decree has been sealed"
"Close is the L-rd to all who call upon
Him"; after the decree has been
sealed, He is "afar." One verse states
(Eichah 3:28) "From the mouth of the
Most High there shall not issue forth
the evils and the good," and another,
(Daniel 9:14) "and the L-rd was
anxious for the evil (to materialize)."
His How are these two verses to be
reconciled? Before the decree has
been sealed "From the mouth of
the Most High there shall not issue
forth the evils and the good"; after
the decree has been sealed "and
the L-rd was anxious for the evil."
One verse states (Jeremiah 4:14)
states "Wash your heart of evil, O
Jerusalem, so that you be saved,"
and another, (Ibid. 2:22) "Though
you wash yourself with niter and add
borax, your sin is an (indelible) stain
before Me." How are these two
verses to be reconciled? Before the
decree has been sealed "Wash
your heart of evil, O Jerusalem"; after
have the decree has been sealed
"Though you wash yourself with niter
and add borax, your sin is an
(indelible) stain before Me." One
verse states (Ibid. 3:22) "Return, you
wayward sons," and another, (Ibid.
62
8:4) "If they (wish to) return, He will
not return" (to accept them.) How
are these two verses to be
reconciled? Before the decree has
been sealed "Return, you wayward
sons"; after the decree has been
sealed "If they return, He will not
return." One verse states (Isaiah
55:6) "Seek the L-rd when He is
found," and another, (Ezekiel 20:3)
"As I live (says the L-rd), will I be
sought out for you?" How are these
two verses to be reconciled? Before
the decree has been sealed "Seek
the L-rd when He is found"; after the
decree has been sealed "Will I be
sought out for you?" One verse
states (Ibid. 18:32) "For I do not
desire the death of the dead one,"
and another (I Samuel 2:25) " for
the L-rd desired to kill them." How
are these two verses to be
reconciled? Before the decree has
been sealed "For I do not desire
the death of the dead one"; after the
decree has been sealed "for the L-
rd desired to kill them." Variantly:
One verse states "The L-rd lift His
countenance unto you," and another
(Devarim 40:17) "who does not lift
the countenance." How are these two
verses to be reconciled? "The L-rd lift
His countenance" in this world;
"who does not lift the countenance"
63
in the world to come. Variantly:
"The L-rd lift His countenance" (Let
Him) remove His anger from you.
"and grant you peace": peace in your
coming in and peace in your going
out and peace with all men. R.
Chanina, the adjutant high-priest
says: "and grant you peace" in
your house. R. Nathan says: This is
the peace of the Davidic kingdom, of
which it is written (Isaiah 9:6) (the
king) "who increases the governance
(of the L-rd), and his peace will be
endless. Upon the throne of David
and upon his kingdom" (shall this
peace be). Variantly: This is the
peace of Torah, of which it is written
(Psalms 29:11) "The L-rd gives
strength (Torah) to His people; the L-
rd blesses His people with peace."
Great is peace, the Holy One Blessed
be He deviating from the truth for its
sake in the instance of Sarah, who
said "I am old" (see Bereshit 18:12-
13). Great is peace, the angel
deviating from the truth for its sake
in the instance of Manoach for its
sake (viz. Judges 13). Great is peace,
the Name written in holiness being
erased by the bitter waters (of the
sotah) to make peace between a
man and his wife. R. Elazar says:
Great is peace, the prophets having
exhorted all men for its sake. R.
Shimon b Chalafta says: Great is
peace, it being the only vessel which
contains all of the blessings, it being
written "The L-rd gives strength to
His people; the L-rd blesses His
people with peace." R. Elazar
Hakappar says: Great is peace, all of
the blessings being sealed with
peace, viz.: "The L-rd bless you and
keep you. The L-rd cause His
countenance to shine upon you and
be gracious unto you. The L-rd lift His
countenance unto you and grant you
peace." R. Elazar the son of R. Elazar
Hakappar says: Great is peace, for
even if the idolators live in peace,
the Holy One, as it were, does not
"touch" them, as it is written (Hoshea
4:17) "Ephraim (Yisrael) has bound
himself (in friendship to serve) idols
Let him be." But when they were
divided amongst themselves, what is
written of them? (Ibid. 10:2) "Their
hearts are divided Now they will
be laid waste!" How great is peace!
How abhorrent is contention!
Great is peace, for even in time of
war, peace is needed, viz. (Devarim
20:10) "If you draw near a city to do
battle with it, then you shall call out
to it for peace," (Ibid. 2:26) "And I
sent messengers from the desert of
Kedemoth to Sichon, king of Moav,
(with) words of peace," (Judges
64
11:12) "And Yiftach sent messengers
" What did he (the king of Ammon)
say? (13) "And now, return them (the
lands you took from us) in peace."
Great is peace, for even the dead
need peace, as it is written (Bereshit
15:13) "And you will come to your
fathers in peace," and (Jeremiah
34:5) "In peace will you die, and as
the burnings of your fathers, etc."
Great is peace, which is given to the
penitent, as it is written (Isaiah
57:19) "(I will) create (for him [the
penitent a new]) expression of the
lips:" Shalom Shalom! (And both will
be alike, both) the far (i.e., one who
had served the L-rd from his youth)
and the near (i.e., one who had
sinned and had just repented), etc."
Great is peace, which was given in
the portion of the righteous, as it is
written (Ibid. 2) "Let him (the
righteous one) come in peace (to the
grave). Let them (the men of
lovingkindness) rest (peacefully)
where they lie." Great is peace,
which was not given in the portion of
the wicked, viz. (Ibid. 21) "There is
no peace, says the L-rd, for the
wicked." Great is peace, which was
given to the lovers of Torah, viz.
(Psalms 119:165) "Peace in
abundance for the lovers of Your
Torah." Great is peace, which was
given to the humble,
37:11) "and the humble will inherit
the land and rejoice in an abundance
of peace." Great is peace, which was
given to the learners of Torah, viz.
(Isaiah 59:13) "And all your children
will be (as if) taught by the L-rd, and
(there will be) an abundance of
peace (among) your children." Great
is peace, which is given to the doers
of righteousness, viz. (Ibid. 32:7)
"And the reward of righteousness will
be peace." Great is peace, for the
name of the Holy One Blessed be He
is "Peace," viz. (Judges 6:24) "and he
called it (the altar) 'the L-rd is
Peace.'" R. Chanina, the adjutant
high-priest says: Great is
which is over and against the entire
creation, as it is written "who makes
peace and creates all" (viz. Isaiah
45:7). Great is peace,
needed (even) by the
creations, viz. (Job
"Governance and fear is with Him:
He makes peace in His heights." Now
does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If
in a place where there is no enmity,
or rivalry, or hatred, or hostility,
peace is needed how much more
so, in a place where all of these
obtain!
One verse states (Ibid. 3) "Is there
any number to His angelic hosts?"
viz. (Ibid. and another (Daniel 7:10) "A
thousand thousands were serving
Him, and myriad myriads were
standing before Him." How are these
two verses to be reconciled? Before
they were exiled from their land
"Is there any number to His angelic
hosts?" After they were exiled from
their land "A thousand thousands
were serving Him." As it were, the
celestial retinue was diminished.
Rebbi says in the name of Abba b.
Yossi: One verse states: "Is there any
number to His angelic hosts?" and
another, "A thousand thousands
were serving Him." How are these
two verses to be reconciled? "A
peace, thousand thousands were serving
Him" this is one host. And how
many hosts are there? "Is there
any number to His angelic hosts?"
which is One verse states (Psalms 147:4) "He
celestial counts the number of the stars,
25:22) (which implies that He calls each by
name), and another (Isaiah 40:26)
"Raise your eyes on high and see
who created these. He brings forth
their legions by number; he calls to
all of them by name," (which implies
that He calls all of them as one).
(How is this to be understood?) When
the Holy One Blessed be He calls, all
answer, something impossible for
flesh and blood, to call two names at
65
the same time. Similarly, (Shemot
20:1) "And G-d spoke all of these
things (in one utterance) saying,
etc.", and (Psalms 62:12) "One thing
has G-d spoken; these two have I
heard," and (Jeremiah 23:29) "Is My
word not like fire, says the L-rd, and
like a hammer shattering rock?"
Rebbi says in the name of Abba Yossi
b. Dostai: One verse states "He
brings forth their legions by number,
etc.", and another "He counts the
number of the stars." How are these
two verses to be reconciled? We are
hereby taught there is no changing
of the (essential) name there. The
name that it is called by now is not
the name that it will be called by
later, (but its "name" is simply a
function of its embassy.) And thus is
it written (Judges 12:18) "And the
angel of the L-rd said to him: Why do
you ask my name? It is hidden." I do
not know what "name" I will be
converted to (in the future). One
verse states (II Samuel 24:24) "And
David bought the threshing floor and
the cattle for fifty silver shekels," and
another (I Chronicles 21:25) "And
David gave Arnon for the place gold
shekels weighing six hundred." How
are these two verses to be
reconciled? For the place of the
threshing floor, six hundred; for the
66
place of the altar, fifty. Rebbi says, in
the name of Abba Yossi b. Dostai:
One verse states "And David bought
the threshing floor, etc." and another
verse states "And David gave Arnon
for the place gold shekels weighing
six hundred." How are these two
verses to be reconciled? There were
twelve tribes, and he took from each
fifty shekels, six hundred shekels in
all. R. Elazar says "And David bought
the threshing floor," as explained
elsewhere. Where? "And David gave
Arnon for the place, etc." But the
cattle for the burnt-ofering and the
threshing sledges and the cattle gear
for the wood for fifty shekalim. One
verse states (I Kings 5:6) "And
Solomon had forty thousand stables
of horses for his chariots," and
another, (II Chronicles 9:28) "four
thousand stables of horses." How are
these two verses to be reconciled?
Four thousand stables for forty
thousand (horses). One verse states
(Ibid. 4:5) "Its capacity was three
thousand bath measures," and
another (I Kings 7:26) "Its capacity
was two thousand bath measures."
How are these two verses to be
reconciled? Two thousand in wet
measure, which are three thousand
in dry measure whence the sages
ruled: Forty sa'ah in wet measure is
equal to two kor in dry measure.
(to be understood as following "how
much more so, etc." [before the
preceding paragraph]:) And thus is it
written (Isaiah 23:4) "Be ashamed, O
Tziddon, for the sea has spoken, the
fortress of the sea, saying: I have not
labored, and I have not borne, and I
have not raised youths or reared
maidens." The sea hereby says: I,
who do not fear "perhaps I will not
labor, perhaps I will not bear sons
and daughters, perhaps I will bury
sons and daughters" What shall I
say? "Will you not fear Me, says the
L-rd. Will you not tremble before Me,
who have set sand as a bound to the
sea, an eternal law, not to be broken"
Now if I (the sea), with whom all of
these trepidations do not obtain, do
the will of my Master (and do not
venture to break my bounds), how
much more so you "Be ashamed,
O Tziddon!"
Piska 43
(Bamidbar 6:27) "And they shall
place My name": Why is this stated?
It is written (Ibid. 23) "Thus shall you
bless the children of Israel" with
the explicit Name (the
Tetragrammaton). But perhaps
with an epithet (only). It is, therefore,
67
written "And they shall place My
name" My distinctive name (Yod-
Keh-Vav-Keh). I might think, even in
the borders (of Jerusalem). It is,
therefore, written here "And they
shall place My name," and elsewhere
(Devarim 12:5) "to place My name
there." Just as there, the Temple;
here, too, the Temple. In the
sanctuary, with the explicit Name; in
the province, with an epithet. "and I
shall bless them": Why is this stated?
(Ibid. 23) "Thus shall you bless, etc."
tells us only of a blessing [by the
Cohanim] to Israel. Whence do I
derive a blessing for the Cohanim
themselves? From "and I shall bless
them." Variantly: "and I shall bless
them": So that Israel not say that
their blessings are dependent upon
the Cohanim; it is written "and I shall
bless them." So that the Cohanim not
say We shall bless Israel, it is written
"and I shall bless them." I shall bless
My people Israel, as it is written
(Devarim 2:7) "For the L-rd your G-d
has blessed you in all the work of
your hands," (15:6) "as He spoke to
you," viz. (7:13) "And He will love
you and bless you and multiply you,
and bless etc.", and (28:12) "The L-rd
will open for you His goodly treasure,
the heavens," and (Ezekiel 34:14) "In
a goodly pasture will I graze them,"
and (Ibid. 15) "I will feed My flock." meeting, etc." On that day the chiefs
(of the tribes) sacrificed their
Piska 44 oferings, as it is written (Bamidbar
7:12) "And the one who presented
(Bamidbar 7:1) "And it was on the his ofering on the first day" Why
day that Moses had finished setting (emphasize) "the first day"? It was
up the mishkan" (the tabernacle): the first of all the days of the year.
Scripture here apprises us that all On that day fire descended from
the seven days of consecration heaven and consumed the oferings,
Moses would assemble the mishkan as it is written (Vayikra 9:24) "And a
every morning and anoint it and fire came forth from before the L-rd
dismantle it, and on that day (the and consumed upon the altar the
eighth) he set it up and anointed it burnt-ofering and the fats." On that
and assembled it and did not day the sons of Aaron presented a
dismantle it. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah strange fire, as it is written (Vayikra
says: On the eighth day, too, he 10:1) "And Nadav and Avihu the sons
anointed it and dismantled it. And it of Aaron took, each his censer (2)
is written (Shemot 40:17) "And it and they died before the L-rd." Their
was, in the first month (Nissan) in the death was "before the L-rd," and
second year, on the first day of the their falling was outside. How did
month that the mishkan was they leave (the inner sanctum)? R.
established whence we derive that Yossi was wont to say: An angel
on the twenty-third of Adar Aaron propped them dead until they left
and his sons began to anoint the and they fell in the azarah (the
mishkan and all of its vessels; on court), as it is written (Ibid. 4) "Draw
Rosh Chodesh (Nissan) it was near and bear your brethren from
established; on the second (of before the sanctuary out of the
Nissan) the red heifer was burned; on camp." It is not written "from before
the third, its waters were sprinkled the L-rd," but "from before the
(viz. Bamidbar 8:7). On that day sanctuary." R. Yishmael says: It is
(Rosh Chodesh Nissan), the derived from the verse itself "and
Shechinah reposed in the house, as it they died before the L-rd" that
is written (Shemot 40:35) "And their death was within (the
Moses could not enter the tent of sanctuary) and their falling was

68
within. How did they leave? They
dragged them out with iron hooks."
(Bamidbar 7:1) "and he anointed it
and consecrated it and all of its
vessels": I might think that they were
anointed and consecrated one by
one. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.)
"and he anointed them and
consecrated them" he did not
consecrate one of them until all of
them had been anointed. "and he
anointed them": from inside and
from outside. R. Yoshiyah says: Wet-
measure vessels were anointed
inside and outside, and dry-measure
vessels, on the inside only, but not
on the outside. R. Yonathan says:
Wet-measure vessels were anointed
on the inside but not on the outside,
and dry-measure vessels were
anointed neither on the inside nor on
the outside. Know this to be so, that
they were not anointed, it being
written (Vayikra 23:17) "From your
dwellings shall you bring two wave
loaves. Two-tenths of fine flour shall
they be they shall be baked as
firstlings to the L-rd." When are they
"to the L-rd"? After they have been
baked. Rebbi says: "and he anointed
them and consecrated them": Why is
this stated? Is it not already written
"and he anointed it and consecrated
it"? We are hereby apprised that with
69
the anointment of these, all the
future vessels were consecrated (i.e.,
they did not require prior
anointment).
Piska 45
(Bamidbar 7:2) "And the chiefs of
Israel presented (their oferings"): I
might think that they were common
people appointed (to their position);
it is, therefore, written "the heads of
their fathers' house." And not only
the heads of their fathers' house, but
also "the chiefs of the tribes." And
what is the thrust of "the heads of
their fathers' house"? Chiefs the sons
of chiefs. ("the heads of their fathers'
house) were they" they who were
appointed over them in Egypt, viz.
(Shemot 5:14) "And the officers of
the children of Israel were beaten,
etc." (Ibid. 3) "And they presented
their oferings before the L-rd, six
wagons tzav." "tzav" is "opulent"
they were lacking nothing. Rebbi
says: "tzav" is "covered," as
gluskaoth are. And though there is
no proof for this, it is intimated in
(Isaiah 66:20) "And they will bring all
your brothers from all the nations as
an ofering to the L-rd, on horses,
and in chariots, and in litters
("tzavim") and on mules and on
dromedaries." "six wagons tzav": I
might think, a wagon for each one
(of six, who donated them); it is,
therefore, written "a wagon for every
two chiefs." I might think an ox for
two chiefs; it is, therefore, written
"and an ox for each." They came and
stood before the mishkan, but Moses
would not accept them until it was
told to him by the Holy (Spirit): Take
it from them. Their minds are at one
with that of the Most High. R. Nathan
says: What did the chiefs see to
come first with their oferings here,
but not in the oferings for the work
of the mishkan? (In that instance)
they said: Let Israel ofer what they
will and we will make up what is
missing. When they saw that the
congregation had completed
everything, viz. (Shemot 36:7) "And
what they had was enough for all of
the work and more," they said: What
is left for us to do? And the chiefs
brought the onyx stones (viz. Ibid.
35:27) Therefore, they brought their
oferings first here.
Piska 46
(Bamidbar 7:6) "And Moses took the
wagons and the oxen and he gave
them to the Levites": Moses took
them and distributed them as he saw
70
fit: Two wagons and four oxen he
gave to the sons of Gershon, and
four wagons and eight oxen he gave
to the sons of Merari. And thus do we
find with David, that he distributed
the heads of the watches among the
Cohanim, viz. (I Chronicles 24:4-6)
"And there were more chiefs found of
the sons of Elazar than of the sons of
Ithamar, and thus were they divided.
Among the sons of Elazar there were
sixteen chiefs of the house of their
fathers, and eight among the sons of
Ithamar according to the house of
their fathers. And they were divided
by lot, these with the others and
Shemayah the son of Nathanel, of
the Levites, recorded them before
the king and the princes, and
Tzaddok the Cohein and Achimelech
the son of Avyathar, etc."
(Bamidbar 7:9) "And to the sons of
Kehath he gave no (wagons)": R.
Nathan says: This escaped David,
that the Levites bore the ark in a
wagon, as it is written (I Samuel 6:3)
"And they placed the ark of G-d on a
new wagon (7) And the L-rd was
wroth with Uzzah, and He smote him
there for erring (8) And David
grieved over the L-rd's having made
a breach in Uzzah." Achitofel said to
David: Should you not have learned
from Moses your master that the
Levites bore the ark only on their the hand of Aaron, their father, as
shoulder, as it is written "And to the the L-rd, the G-d of Israel,
sons of Kehath he gave none for the commanded him."]) They originated
burden of the holy things was theirs, nothing, but (did) all from the mouth
(wherefore) they were to be borne of Moses, and Moses from the mouth
upon the shoulder"? Therefore, David of the Omnipotent.
afterwards sent and had it borne on
the shoulder, as it is written (I Piska 47
Chronicles 15:11-15) "And David
called to Tzaddok and to Evyathar (Bamidbar 7:10) "And the chiefs
the Cohanim, and to the Levites: to presented the inauguration
Uriel, Assayah, and Yoel, Shemayah, (oferings) of the altar on the day
Eliaz, and Aminadav. And he said to that it was anointed": We are hereby
them: You are the heads of the apprised that just as the chiefs made
fathers' (houses) of the Levites. donations for the work of the
Ready yourselves and your brothers, mishkan, so, they made donations
and you shall bring up the ark of the for the inauguration of the altar. "And
L-rd, the G-d of Israel. For in the the chiefs presented": They came
beginning (when the ark was brought and stood before the altar and Moses
up from Kiryat Yearim), it was not did not accept (their oferings) from
you (who were the bearers, them until he was told by the Holy
wherefore) the L-rd our G-d made a One: Let them present their oferings
breach in us And the Cohanim and for the inauguration of the altar. And
the Levites readied themselves Moses still did not know in what
And the sons of the Levites bore the order (of precedence) they should
ark of G-d as Moses had commanded present them, if by (order of
by word of the L-rd, on their precedence in) the traveling (of the
shoulders, with staves upon them." camps, in which instance Judah
And where did he so command? "And would present first) or by (order of)
to the sons of Kehath he gave none, birth, (in which instance Reuven
etc." (Ibid. 24:19 ["These are their would present first), until he was told
numbers (i.e., the numbers of their by the Holy One Blessed be He: Let
watches) for their service, to come to them present by (the order of)
the house of the L-rd as ordained, by traveling. And Moses still did not

71
know how the chiefs would present,
all together, or each in his day, until
he was told by the Holy One: Let
each one present in his day, as it is
written (Ibid. 11) "each chief on his
day": What is the intent of (the
redundancy) "each chief on his day,
each chief on his day"? Because
Nachshon was (comparable to) a
king, and he presented first, he
should not say: Since I presented
first, I should (also) present with
each one on his day; it is, therefore,
written "each chief on his day."
Piska 48
(Bamidbar 7:12) "And the one who
presented his ofering on the first
day": What is the intent of this?
"first" of all the days of the year (i.e.,
the first of Nissan). "Nachshon ben
Aminadav of the tribe of Judah": Is
the intent of this attribution to link
him with his tribe or to indicate that
he obtained (the ofering) from his
tribe and brought it? It is, therefore,
written (Ibid. 17) "This is the ofering
of Nachshon ben Aminadav" his
personal ofering and not his tribe's.
What, then, is the intent of Nachshon
ben Aminadav of the tribe of Judah"?
To link him with his tribe.
72
Piska 49
(Bamidbar 7:13) "And his ofering
was one silver dish, etc.": We are
hereby taught (by the uniformity of
all of the items) that they were
originally made for the sake of the
oferings. "one silver bowl of seventy
shekels in the shekel of the
sanctuary": This tells me only that
the bowl was in the shekel of the
sanctuary. Whence do I derive the
same for the dish? From ("in the
shekel of the sanctuary) both of
them" Just as the bowl was in the
shekel of the sanctuary, so, the dish.
R. Chanania the son of the brother of
R. Yehoshua says: There is no need
(for this derivation), for it is already
written (Ibid. 85) "two thousand and
four hundred in the shekel of the
sanctuary." What, then, is the intent
of "both of them full"? From ("one
silver dish) weighing one hundred
and thirty shekels," I would think that
since they were not equal in weight,
(the bowl weighing seventy shekels),
they were not equal in capacity; it is,
therefore, written "both of them full."
And what is the diference between
dish and bowl? The plate of the dish
is thick; the plate of the bowl is thin.
"both of them full of fine flour": (also)
donated. "one spoon": It makes what
is in it "one" (for halachic purposes). (Bamidbar 7:16) "One he-goat for a
"ten gold (shekels)": (Is the meaning sin-ofering": to atone for (defilement
that) it was of gold, and its weight by a "grave in the depths," (i.e.,
(ten shekels) of silver, or that it was unknown tumah). "And for the
of silver, and its weight,(ten shekels) sacrifice of the peace-oferings":
of gold? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. From (Ibid. 88) "And all the cattle for
86) "All the gold of the spoons one the sacrifice of the peace-oferings," I
hundred and twenty (shekels.") The might think that "cattle," where it is
first assumption, then, is the correct explicitly stated, are valid for peace-
one It was of gold, and its weight, oferings, but not the others; it is,
of silver. "full of incense": donative therefore, written "And for the
(and not required) incense. sacrifice of the peace-oferings," to
indicate that all are valid for the
Piska 50 sacrifice of peace-oferings. "This is
the ofering of Nachshon ben
(Bamidbar 7:15) "One young Aminadav": He brings his own and
bullock": There was no other like it in not his tribe's. "this is the ofering":
its herd. "one ram": There was no This one (the chief, in the
other like it in its herd. "one lamb of inauguration of the altar) brings
its first year": (within) its first year, donative incense, but an individual
and not the (one-year) count of the (as opposed to a congregation) does
world. "one lamb for a burnt- not (otherwise) bring donative
ofering": We are hereby taught that incense. "this is the ofering": This
all are valid as a burnt-ofering. one brings a sin-ofering, not for a
But perhaps "a lamb," where it is sin, but an individual does not bring
explicitly stated, is valid, but the a sin-ofering not for a sin. (The
others not! It is, therefore, written ofering of) this one overrides the
(Ibid. 87) "All the cattle for the burnt- Sabbath and tumah, but an
ofering: twelve bullocks, etc.", to individual does not override Sabbath
indicate that all are valid as burnt- and tumah.
oferings.
Piska 52
Piska 51

73
 (Bamidbar 7:18) "On the second 33:31) "and they will come to you as
day, Nethanel ben Tzuar, the chief of a people comes, and My people will
Yissachar, presented": (Ibid. 19) "He sit (in judgment) before you," and
presented (hikriv) his ofering": What (Devarim 33:18) "Rejoice Zevulun on
is the intent of this (i.e., why the your going forth (to trade), and
redundancy?) Because Reuven came Yissachar in your tents (of Torah),"
and protested, saying: It is enough and (Bereshit 25:27) " and Yaakov
that Judah preceded me; let me was a "whole" man, sitting in the
(now) present according to the order tents (of learning)."
of (precedence) in birth, Moses
rebuked him, saying: The Holy One Piska 53
told me to present according to
(precedence) in (the order of) (Bamidbar 7:84) This is the
journeying it being written (accounting of the) inauguration of
"hakrev" (imperative - "Present"). the altar on the day that it was
"He (Nethanel) presented his anointed": What is the intent of this?
ofering." Because Nethanel merited Because it is written (Ibid. 88) "This
in counsel (i.e., to counsel the is the (accounting of the)
presentation of these oferings), inauguration of the altar after it was
Scripture accounts it to him as if he anointed," I might think after (a
had presented first and he merited relatively long period of) time; it is,
the bequest of binah (understanding) therefore, written "on the day that it
as his (Yissachar's) portion, viz. (I was anointed." If on the day that it
Chronicles 12:33) "And of the sons of was anointed, I might think that
Yissachar, knowers of understanding before it was anointed the ofering
for the times," and (Judges 5:15) was brought; it is, therefore, written
"And the leaders of Yissachar (the "after it was anointed" On the day
Sanhedrin) were with Devorah, and that it was anointed, on the very
as Yissachar, so, Barak, in the valley, same day he brought the ofering
etc." And thus does Scripture praise after it was anointed. Similarly,
him (Yissachar) in the batei-din in (Vayikra 7:35-36) "This is the (portion
Egypt, viz. (of Yissachar) "Yashuv, the of the) anointment of Aaron and of
family of the Yashuvi, "yishuv" the anointment of his sons which
connoting beth-din, as in (Ezekiel the L-rd commanded to give to them

74
on the day that he anointed them" (Bamidbar 7:85) "One hundred and
On the day that they were anointed thirty (shekels was the weight of)
they merited receiving the (priestly) each silver dish": Why is this written
gifts. But perhaps the meaning is (again)? From "his ofering was one
that on that day they were silver dish, etc." I know only that the
commanded (to give the gifts), but "bowl," where it is explicitly stated,
they did not actually receive them was "in the shekel of the sanctuary."
until a later time. It is, therefore, Whence do I derive the same for the
written (Ibid. 35) " of the fire- "dish"? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.)
oferings of the L-rd on the day that "All the silver of the vessels two
he presented them to minister to the thousand and four hundred shekels
L-rd" On the day that they were in the shekel of the sanctuary." And
anointed, they merited receiving the to teach that not as common vessels
gifts. If so, what is the intent of were the Temple vessels. Common
"which the L-rd commanded to give vessels If he weighs them one by
to them on the day that he anointed one and then weighs them all
them"? We are hereby taught that together, there is some increase or
they (Israel) were commanded (to decrease (in the resultant weight);
give them) on Mount Sinai, but they but with these (Temple vessels),
(the Cohanim) did not acquire them there is neither increase nor
until they had been anointed with decrease. R. Nathan says: Temple
the oil of anointment. (Bamidbar vessels if one weighed them and
7:84) "by the chiefs of Israel": We are then melted them into a mold, and
hereby taught that just as they were then re-made them into vessels,
all united in counsel (to bring the there would be no increase or
oferings), so, they were all "united" decrease (in the resultant weight).
in merit. "silver dishes, twelve": the
very ones that they donated, their Piska 55
not having become unfit (for
service). (Bamidbar 7:86) "Golden spoons,
twelve": Why is this mentioned?
Piska 54 (Ibid. 14) "One spoon ten gold": It is
of gold, and its weight is of silver
(shekels). You say it is of gold and its

75
weight is of silver. But perhaps it is of the same that were donated, no
silver and its weight is of gold! It is, unfitness having befallen them.
therefore, written (Ibid. 86) "All the
gold of the spoons one hundred Piska 57
and twenty." It is not the second
assumption that is correct, but the (Bamidbar 7:88) "And all the cattle
first. It is of gold, and its weight is of for the sacrifice of the peace-
silver. "Golden spoons": the same oferings": I might think that only
that were donated, no unfitness oxen, where it is explicitly written
having befallen them. And it is (viz. Ibid. 17), are valid as peace-
accounted to each one as if he had oferings, but not the others; it is,
ofered twelve dishes, twelve bowls, therefore, written "And for the
and twelve spoons. sacrifice of the peace-oferings," to
indicate that all are valid as peace-
Piska 56 oferings. And it is accounted to each
one as if he had ofered twenty-four
(Bamidbar 7:87) "All the cattle for oxen, sixty rams, and sixty lambs.
the burnt-ofering: twelve bullocks, And they were the same that were
etc." Why is this mentioned? It is donated, no unfitness having
written (Ibid. 15) "One young bullock, befallen them. "This is the
one ram, one lamb of its first year for (accounting of the) inauguration of
a burnt-ofering." We are hereby the altar after it was anointed": as
taught that they are all valid as a explained above.
burnt-ofering. But perhaps only
the lamb, where it is explicitly Piska 58
written, is valid as a burnt-ofering,
but not the others. It is, therefore, (Bamidbar 7:89) "And when Moses
written "All the cattle for the burnt- came to the tent of meeting": (Why
ofering." We are here apprised that is this mentioned? We already know
they are all valid as a burnt-ofering. that the L-rd spoke to him from the
And it is accounted to each one as if tent of meeting.) From (Vayikra 1:1)
he had ofered twelve young "and the L-rd spoke to him from the
bullocks, twelve rams, twelve lambs, tent of meeting," I understand
and twelve he-goats. And they were directly from the tent of meeting. It

76
is, therefore, written (Shemot 25:22)
"And I will be appointed for you (to
speak to you) there, and I will speak
to you from above the kaporeth (the
ark cover)." It is impossible to say
from the tent of meeting, for it is
already written "from above the
kaporeth," and it is impossible to say
"from above the kaporeth," for it is
already written "from the tent of
meeting." How, then, are these two
verses to be reconciled? This is a rule
in the Torah: Two verses which
contradict each other are to "remain
in their place" until a third verse
comes and reconciles them, (the
third verse, in this instance, being)
"And when Moses came to the tent of
meeting." Scripture hereby tells us
that Moses would enter and stand in
the tent of meeting, and the Voice
would descend from the heaven of
heavens to between the two cherubs
(on the ark cover) and he would hear
the Voice speaking to him from
within. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says:
Thirteen utterances were addressed
to (both) Moses and Aaron, and,
corresponding to these, thirteen
"exclusions" (i.e., Aaron being
excluded), to teach that they were
not addressed to Aaron, but only to
Moses to tell to Aaron. They are;
(Shemot 25:22) "And I will be
77
appointed for you there, and I will
speak with you, all that I shall
command you," (Shemot 30:6)
"where I will be appointed for you,"
(Ibid.) "to speak to you there,"
(Shemot 31:18) "to speak with him,"
(Vayikra 7:38) "on the day that he
commanded," (Bamidbar 7:89) "And
when Moses came to the tent of
meeting to speak with Him," (Ibid.)
"speaking with him," (Vayikra 1:1)
"And the L-rd spoke to him," and one
in Egypt (Shemot 6:28) "And it was
on the day that the L-rd spoke to
Moses in the land of Egypt," and one
in Sinai (Bamidbar 3:1) "on the day
the L-rd spoke to Moses on Mount
Sinai," and one in the tent of meeting
(Bamidbar 7:89) "And He spoke to
him." Thirteen exclusions, Aaron
being excluded in all instances.
"and he heard the Voice": I might
think, a low voice; it is, therefore,
written "the voice" the voice
explicated elsewhere (Devarim 5:19)
"These things the L-rd spoke to all of
your congregation a great voice,"
and (Shemot 19:16) "and there were
thunders (lit., "voices") and
lightnings, etc." One verse states "a
great voice," and another, (I Kings
19:12) "a voice, silent, thin." How are
these two verses to be reconciled?
When the Holy One Blessed be He
speaks (in His great voice), all are parallel the menorah (the central
silent, as in (Isaiah 23:2) "Fall silent, lamp), and the menorah, the (other)
you island dwellers. The merchants lamps. How so? Three in the north,
of Tziddon, the crossings of the sea, three in the south and one (the
would fill you, etc.", and (Vayikra menorah) in the middle, so that all
10:3) "and Aaron was silent." These (of the lamps) are parallel to the
are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. middle whence R. Nathan says:
Yonathan says: One verse states "a "The middle one is honored." "Speak
great voice," and another, "a voice, to Aaron": Because the entire section
silent, thin." How are these verses to deals with Aaron, the words are
be reconciled? When the Holy One directed to him. "and say to him":
Blessed be He speaks, it is with a This is an exhortation to Aaron.
great voice; and the angels, in a low "Beha'alothecha (lit., "when you
voice, as it is written (Isaiah 62:6-7) raise) the lamps": Make steps
" they are never silent. You who (ma'aloth) for it. "towards (mul) the
'remind' the L-rd (to rebuild face (panim) of the menorah": Make
Jerusalem) do not be silent," and for it "mul" (the three on each side
(Ibid. 7) "And do not allow Him to be facing) "towards" and "face" (i.e., the
silent until He re-establishes central shaft). "shall the seven lamps
Jerusalem and makes it a glory in the light": I might think that they light
land." forever; it is, therefore, written
(Vayikra 24:3) "from evening until
Piska 59 morning." If "from evening until
morning" (alone were written), I
What is the intent of this section? would think that this applied to all of
From (Shemot 25:37) "and he (the them. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 2)
artificer) shall fashion its lamps so "to cause a lamp to light
that it shall light across its face," I continuously" This is the western
might think that all the lamps should lamp, which burned continuously and
light across all of the menorah (i.e., from which the menorah was kindled
from all directions); it is, therefore, towards evening.
written (Bamidbar 8:2) "towards the
face (the central shaft) shall the Piska 60
seven lamps light" that the lamps

78
(Bamidbar 8:3) "And Aaron did so":
This is in praise of Aaron. As Moses
told him, thus did he do, without any
change. He made "mul" and "panim"
(see above). "He'elah" (lit.,
raised") its lamps" whence they
said: There was an ascent before the
menorah of three steps on which the
Cohein stood and tended to the
lamps, (after which) he placed the oil
jug on the second step and left. "as
the L-rd had commanded Moses"
(i.e., half a log for each lamp, etc.)
This tells me only of Aaron (the high-
priest). Whence do I derive the same
for his sons (i.e., ordinary Cohanim)?
From (Vayikra 24:3) "Aaron and his
sons shall arrange it." This tells me
only of the menorah, that the sons
were equated with the
Whence do I derive the same for the
(ofering of the) incense?
Shemot 34:7) "It follows,
"Service in the tent of meeting" is
written in respect to the menorah,
and it is also written in respect to the
incense. If I have learned of the first
that sons are equated with
father, so, do I learn with the second.
(No,) this is refuted by the service
of Yom Kippur, in which instance,
even though "service in the tent of
meeting" is written in respect to it,
the sons are not equated with the
father. And this refutes (the
argument for) incense, which, even
though "service in the tent of
meeting" is written thereof, we would
"he not equate the sons with the father.
Would you say that? There is a
(strategic) diference! "service in the
tent of meeting in golden vestments"
is written both in respect to the
menorah and in respect to the
incense, and this is not to be refuted
by the service of Yom Kippur, which,
even though "service in the tent of
meeting" is written thereof, is not in
golden (but in linen vestments).
This (argument) is refuted by the
instance of the bullock of
"forgetfulness" of the anointed (high-
priest [viz. Vayikra 4:3]) whereof
father. "service in the tent of meeting in
golden vestments" is written, and in
(viz. respect to which sons were not
viz.: equated with the father. And this will
refute (the argument for) incense,
which even though "service in the
tent of meeting in golden vestments"
is written thereof, we would not
the equate the sons with the father.
Would you say that? There is a
diference! I would derive it from
three terms together. In respect to
the menorah it is written "service in
the tent of meeting," and "golden
vestments," and also "continuously"
79
(tamid), and thus is it written of
incense. And this is not to be refuted
by the service of Yom Kippur, where,
even though "service in the tent of
meeting" is written thereof, it is not
in golden vestments. Nor (is it to be
refuted) by the bullock
forgetfulness of the anointed (high-
priest), where, even though "service
in the tent of meeting in golden
vestments" is written thereof,
"continuously" is not written thereof.
I will learn a thing from a (similar)
thing, and I will derive a thing from a
(similar) thing. I will learn a thing
from another thing which is similar to
it in three ways, but not from a thing
that is not similar to it in three
things, but only in one or two.
Therefore, if I have learned in respect
to the menorah that sons
equated with the father, so, I will
learn in respect to the incense that
the sons are equated with the father.
Piska 61
(Bamidbar 8:4) "And this was the
work of the menorah. (It was made of
one talent of) beaten gold, from its
base (the thickest part) until its
flower (its most delicate part) of
beaten work. According to the sight
that the L-rd had shown Moses, so
did he make the menorah.": R.
Yishmael says: This is one of the
three things which Moses had
difficulty in visualizing until the Holy
One Blessed be He showed it to him
with His "finger." Similarly (Shemot
of 12:2) "This month shall be unto you
the beginning of months," (Moses
pointing to the moon). Similarly,
(Vayikra 11:29) "And thus to you is
what is unclean," (Moses actually
pointing to the unclean animals). "of
beaten work" ("mikshah") [acronym
of] "min kasheh," from the (gold) bar
itself, with a (goldsmith's) hammer.
"from its base until its flower": This
(that it is from the bar itself) tells me
only of its base and its flower.
Whence do I derive (the same for) its
bowls, its knobs and its flowers?
are From (Shemot 25:31) "And you shall
make a menorah of pure gold. Of
beaten work shall the menorah be
made: its shaft and its branches, its
bowls, its knobs, and its flowers."
But perhaps they (bowls, knobs, and
flowers shall be made individually
(and then attached to the shaft). It is,
therefore, written (Ibid.) "From it (the
one bar) shall they be." (Bamidbar,
Ibid.) "of beaten work": Why is this
re-stated? Is it not already written
(Ibid.) "of beaten gold'? Because we
find with the trumpets that if they
80
could not be made of (one) beaten
work, they may be made of
fragments, I might think that the
same applies to the menorah; it is,
therefore, re-stated "of beaten work."
Scripture repeats to invalidate
(unbeaten work). From here they
ruled: If there were no gold (for the
menorah), it may be made of silver
or iron or lead. These are the words
of Rebbi. R. Yehudah says: even of
wood. But if they cannot make it of
one bar, they may not make it of
fragments. As opposed to the
trumpets. If they cannot make them
of silver, they may not make them of
gold; but if they cannot make them
of one bar, they may make them of
fragments. We find, then, that what
is valid with the menorah is invalid
with the trumpets, and vice versa.
This tells me only of the menorah.
Whence do I derive (the same for) its
bowls, its knobs, and its flowers?
From (Shemot 25:36) "All (of the
above) one beaten work. I might
think the same applies to its lamps
and its tongs and its snuf dishes; it
is, therefore, written (in respect to
these, Ibid. 39) "Of a talent of pure
gold shall he make it (the menorah)
with all of these (the
aforementioned) vessels. They are
made from the talent and of gold,
81
but they do not come from the (one)
beaten work. "According to the sight
that the L-rd had shown Moses":
What is the intent of this? If to teach
that the Holy One Blessed be He
showed this to Moses in a vision, is it
not already written (Shemot 25:40)
"And see and make (it) according to
their form which you were shown in
the mountain"? We are hereby
taught that the Holy One Blessed be
He showed Moses the completed
mishkan and the completed vessels
and the completed menorah. If so,
what is the intent of "According to
the sight that the L-rd had shown
Moses thus did he do"? To apprise us
of the nobility of Moses Precisely
as the L-rd said to him, thus did he
do.
Piska 62
(Bamidbar 3:24) "This is what
applies to the Levites. From the age
of twenty-five, etc." "Years" (i.e., a
deficiency in years) disqualify them
(from Levitical service), but
blemishes do not. For it would follow
(otherwise), viz.: If where years do
not disqualify (i.e., with the
Cohanim), blemishes do disqualify,
then where years do disqualify, how
much more so should blemishes
disqualify! It is, therefore, written performing all of the services; it is,
"This is what applies to the Levites, therefore, written (Ibid. 8:25-26)
etc." "Years" disqualify the Levites, "And (after the age of fifty), he shall
but not blemishes. (Bamidbar 8:24) serve no more, and he shall serve
"From the age of twenty-five and up, with his brothers, etc." I might think
etc.": One verse states "From the age (that after fifty he does no work)
of twenty-five and up," and another even in Shiloh and in the Temple; it
(Ibid. 4:23) "From thirty years and is, therefore, written (8:25-26) "And
up." How are these two verses to be from the age of fifty he shall return
reconciled? From the age of twenty- from the service of the work and
five for learning (the Levitical he shall serve his brothers but
service), and from the age of thirty, work shall he not perform" From
for serving. here they said: Before they entered
the land, "years" disqualified Levites
Piska 63 (from Levitical service), (but not after
they entered the land). And when
(Bamidbar. 8:25) "And from the age they entered, the Levites were
of fifty he shall return from the disqualified (from the service of
service of the work." I might think, singing) by (a deficiency in) voice.
from all work; it is, therefore, written (8:26) "Thus shall you do with the
(Ibid.) "and he shall work no more Levites in their watches": "Years"
and he shall serve with his brothers disqualify in Levites, but not in
in the tent of meeting." We are Cohanim. For it would follow
hereby taught that he returns to the (otherwise), viz.: If where blemishes
closing of the gates and to the do not disqualify, years do disqualify,
service of the sons of Gershon (in the then Cohanim, where blemishes do
tent of meeting [viz. Ibid. 3:25-26]). disqualify, how much more so should
Rebbi says: Since Scripture speaks of years disqualify. It is, therefore,
serving at the age of twenty-five and written: "Thus shall you do with the
not serving at the age of fifty, if I Levites" and not with the
have learned that from the age of Cohanim. Levites, from the age of
twenty-five he performs all of the thirty until fifty are fit (for service),
services, then not serving from the and Cohanim (are fit from the time
age of fifty would mean not

82
they show two (pubic) hairs and
thereafter.
Piska 64
(Bamidbar 9:1) "And the L-rd spoke
to Moses in the desert of Sinai in the
second year after their going out
from the land of Egypt, in the first
month (Nissan), saying": This verse
is in praise of Israel (to indicate) that
they were encamped before Mount
Sinai for eleven months, and to teach
that there is no "before and after"
(i.e., chronological order) in the
Torah. For in the beginning of this
Book it is written (1:1) "And the L-rd
said to Moses in the desert of Sinai in
the tent of meeting on the first day
of the second month (Iyyar), and
here it is written "in the first month"
to teach that there is no "before
and after" in the Torah. Rebbi says:
This is not needed (for this teaching),
for it is already written (Shemot
16:35) "And the children of Israel ate
the manna for forty years until they
came to an inhabited land" and
they had not yet done so.
And to teach that we count (the
years) from the exodus from Egypt, it
being written "in the second year
after their going out from the land of
Egypt." When they came to the land,
83
they began to count (shemitah, etc.)
from their coming, as it is written
(Vayikra 25:2) "When you come to
the land, etc." When the Temple was
built, they began to count from its
building, viz. (I Kings 9:10) "And it
was at the end of twenty years from
Solomon's building, etc." When the
Temple was destroyed, they began to
count from its destruction, viz.
(Ezekiel 40:1) " in the fourteenth
year of the city's being smitten."
When the captivity intensified, they
began to count from the captivity,
viz. (Daniel 2:1) "And in the second
year of the reign of Nevuchadnezzar,
etc.", and (Chaggai 1:1) "And in the
second year of King Darius, etc." And
just as they counted for years, so
they counted for months (e.g.,
[Shemot 19:1]) "In the third month of
the exodus of the children of Israel
from the land of Egypt."
Piska 65
(Bamidbar 9:2) "And the children of
Israel shall ofer the Pesach in its
appointed time": Why is this stated?
(i.e., Isn't it obvious?) From (Shemot
12:6) "and the whole congregation of
Israel shall slaughter it (the Paschal
lamb)," I might think, either on a
weekday or on Sabbath (as the case
may be). And how would I satisfy viz.: it is written here "in its
(Ibid. 31:14) "Its (Sabbath's) appointed time," and elsewhere (re
desecrators shall be put to death"? the Paschal lamb) "in its appointed
With other labors, other than time." Just as "its appointed time"
slaughtering the Paschal lamb. Or, here overrides Sabbath, so, "its
even with slaughtering the Paschal appointed time" there overrides
lamb. And how would I satisfy "and Sabbath. "On the fourteenth day of
they shall slaughter it"? (If it falls this month, towards evening shall
out) on other days, other than you ofer it, in its appointed time.":
Sabbath. It is, therefore, written "And What is the intent of this? Is it not
the children of Israel shall ofer the already written "The children of Israel
Pesach in its appointed time" ( shall ofer it in its appointed time"?
even on the Sabbath). These are the Why, again, "in its appointed time"?
words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan (to Scripture hereby comes to teach us
R. Yoshiyah): This is not sufficient (for that just as the first Pesach (as
the derivation [i.e., "in its appointed opposed to Pesach Sheni) overrides
time" may mean if it does not fall out the Sabbath, so it overrides
on a Sabbath.]) R. Yoshiyah (to R. (communal) uncleanliness. For
Yonathan): Rather, it is written (without this verse,) it would follow
(Bamidbar 28:2) "Command the otherwise, viz.: If (the slaughtering
children of Israel and say to them of) the red heifer, which does not
to ofer (the tamid) ofering to Me in override the Sabbath overrides
its appointed time." If (the intent of (communal) uncleanliness, the first
this is) to teach that the tamid Pesach, which overrides the Sabbath,
ofering overrides Sabbath, this is not how much more so should it override
needed; for it is already written (Ibid. uncleanliness? This is refuted by
9) "And on the Sabbath day, (there the second Pesach, which even
are to be sacrificed) two lambs of the though it overrides the Sabbath,
first year (10) the burnt-ofering of does not override uncleanliness. And
the Sabbath in its Sabbath in this would indicate of the first Pesach
addition to the daily burnt-ofering, that even though it overrides the
etc." What, then, is the intent (of "in Sabbath, it does not override
its appointed time")? It is "extra," to uncleanliness. It is, therefore, written
signal the formulation of an identity, "in its appointed time," to teach

84
concerning the first Pesach that just related them to Israel, and repeated
as it overrides the Sabbath it them before their performance.
overrides uncleanliness. (Bamidbar, Variantly: He told them the halachoth
Ibid.) "According to all of its of Pesach before Pesach, the
statutes": These are the mitzvoth halachoth of Shavuoth before
(directly) pertaining to its body, viz. Shavuoth, and the halachoth of
(Shemot 12:5) "an unblemished Succoth before Succoth whence
lamb, a male, of the first year." "its they said: Moses instituted for Israel
ordinances": These are the mitzvoth that they ask and expound re the
attendant upon its body, viz. festival (preceding the festival).
(Devarim 16:3) "Seven days shall
you eat matzoth 'upon' it." Piska 67
"according to all its ordinances": to
include mitzvoth not attendant upon (Bamidbar 9:5) "And they ofered
its body the eating of matzoh for the Pesach in the first (month) on the
seven days and the burning of fourteenth day of the month":
chametz. Scripture speaks in disparagement of
Israel, that all the forty years that
Piska 66 they were in the desert they ofered
only this one Paschal sacrifice. And
(Bamidbar 9:4) "And Moses spoke to thus is it written (Amos 5:25) "Did
the children of Israel to ofer the you bring sacrifices and meal-
Pesach": Why is this stated? It is oferings to Me for forty years in the
already written (Vayikra 23:44) "And desert?" R. Shimon b. Yochai says:
Moses declared the festivals of the L- Israel did not sacrifice, and who did
rd to the children of Israel." What, sacrifice? The tribe of Levi, as it is
then, is the intent of "And Moses written (Devarim 33:10) "They shall
spoke to the children of Israel to ofer place incense before You and a
the Pesach"? Keep the Pesach in its burnt-ofering upon Your altar." Israel
appointed time (viz. Devarim 16:1), served idolatry and the Levites did
so that all of the festivals fall out in not serve idolatry, as it is written
their proper season. Variantly: We are (Ibid. 9) "For they kept Your
hereby taught that he heard the commandment ("You shall have no
sections of the festivals at Sinai, other gods"). And it is written

85
(Shemot 32:26) "And Moses stood in
the gate of the camp, and he said
'Whoever is for the L-rd, (let him
come) to me!' And there gathered
unto him all the sons of Levi." Israel
did not circumcise themselves (in the
desert), as it is written (Joshua 5:5)
"and all the people who were born in
the desert were not circumcised,"
but the Levites were circumcised, viz.
(Devarim 33:10) "and Your covenant
(of circumcision) they kept."
(Bamidbar 9:5) "According to all that
the L-rd had commanded Moses": to
declare the praise of Israel. Just as
Moses told them, "thus did they do."
Piska 68
(Bamidbar 9:6) "And there were men
who were unclean by the body of a
man, and they could not ofer the
Pesach on that day": Who were those
men? They were the bearers of
Joseph's casket. These are the words
of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: They
were Mishael and Eltzafan, who had
become tamei by (the bodies of
Nadav and Avihu). R. Yitzchak says: If
they were the bearers of Joseph's
casket, they could have cleansed
themselves (in time to eat
Paschal ofering), and if they were
Mishael and Eltzafan, they could
have cleansed themselves. Rather,
they were men who had become
unclean by contact with a meth-
mitzvah (a body with none to bury it,
but themselves), their seventh (and
final) day of uncleanliness falling out
on Pesach eve. "And they drew near
before Moses and before Aaron on
that day": Is it possible that Moses
did not know (the halachah) and
Aaron did know? Invert the verse
(i.e., "they came before Aaron and
Moses") and expound it (i.e., they
came before Aaron and he did not
know and then they came before
Moses.) These are the words of R.
Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the
name of R. Eliezer: They (Moses and
Aaron) were sitting in the house of
study, and they (the men) came and
stood before them. We are hereby
(by their asking) apprised that they
were devout men, solicitous of the
mitzvah. (Ibid. 7) "and those men
said to him": Is it not already written
(Ibid. 6) "the men"? What is the
intent of "those men"? We are
hereby apprised that only the one
afected (by the question) makes the
inquiry (and not his representative).
"Why should we be held back (not to
the ofer the sacrifice of the L-rd in its
appointed time")? Moses: Oferings,
(in this instance, the Pesach
86
ofering), are not ofered in a state of
tumah. They: This may be true of
oferings which have a backup (i.e.,
which if not ofered now may be
ofered later, but is it true
oferings (i.e., the Pesach ofering)
which have no backup (and which
must be ofered on the fourteenth of
Nissan)? Moses: Oferings may not
be eaten in a state of tumah. They: If
so, let the blood (of the Pesach
ofering) be sprinkled on the unclean
ones, and the flesh be eaten by the
clean ones. And this would, indeed,
follow. If a sin-ofering, which is holy
of holies its blood is sprinkled on
the unclean ones, and its flesh is
eaten by the clean ones
Cohanim), then the Paschal ofering,
a lower-order ofering how much
more so should its blood be sprinkled
on the unclean ones and its flesh be
eaten by the clean ones! Moses; I
have not heard (the halachah). (Ibid.
8) "Stand, and I will hear (what the L-
rd will command concerning you")
as one would say: "I will hear the
thing from my teacher's mouth."
Happy the woman's son who was so
confident that whenever he wished
He would speak with him! R. Chidka
said: Shimon Hashikmoni was
colleague of mine of the disciples of
R. Akiva, and he said: Moses knew
that a tamei does not eat the Pesach
ofering. What was their dispute? As
to whether the blood is sprinkled
upon them or not. It were fitting that
of the section on the tamei'im be
related (independently) by Moses.
Why was it related through them?
For merit is conveyed through the
meritorious and liability through the
liable.
Piska 69
(Bamidbar 9:9-10) "And the L-rd
spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the
children of Israel, saying: A man if he
be unclean by a dead body, etc.":
(the This is something that he (Moses)
asked (of the L-rd). "or on a distant
way": This is something that he did
not ask. "if he be unclean by a dead
body." This tells me only of one who
is tamei by a dead body. Whence do I
derive (the same [i.e., that Pesach
Sheni is observed] for) other types of
tumah? From "or if he were on a
distant way." You induce (binyan av)
from both, viz.: "tamei by a dead
body" is not like "distant way," and
"distant way" is not like "tamei by a
dead body." What is common to both
a is that one who did not observe the
first Pesach observes Pesach Sheni
So, all who could not observe the
87
first Pesach observe Pesach Sheni.
"on a distant way": I do not know
what constitutes "a distant way." R.
Akiva says: It is written "tamei by a
dead body" and "distant way." Just as
in the fist instance, he desired to
observe but could not, so, in the
second, he desired to observe but
could not; and the sages delimited
("distant way" as applying
anyone who at the time of the
slaughtering of the Paschal lamb was
at a distance from Modi'im (fifteen
miles from Jerusalem) and beyond,
along the entire circumference. R.
Eliezer says "distant way" is stated in
respect to the tithe (viz. Devarim
14:24), and "distant way" is stated in
respect to Pesach. Just as "distant
way" in respect to the tithe connotes
outside the place where it is eaten,
so, "distant way" in respect
Pesach. Which is the place where it is
eaten? From the entrance
Jerusalem within. R. Yehudah says:
"distant way" is stated in respect to
Pesach, and "distant way" is stated in
respect to the tithe. Just as "distant
way" in respect to Pesach connotes
outside the place of its (the Paschal
lamb's) fitness, (i.e., the azarah [the
Temple court]) so, "distant way" in
respect to the tithe. And what is the
place of its fitness? (All of Jerusalem)
from the azarah outwards.
"from a distant (rechokah) way":
There is a (diacritical) dot above the
heh in "rechokah" (to indicate that he
observes Pesach Sheni) even if he
were on a non-distant way and did
not observe (the first) Pesach with
them. Similarly, (Bereshit 16;5) "May
to) the L-rd judge between me (Sarah)
and between you (Abraham)
(uvenecha)": There is a dot above
(the yod in) "uvenecha" She spoke
of Hagar alone. Others say: (She
spoke of Hagar) who engendered
strife between him and her. Similarly,
(Ibid. 18:9) "And they said to him
(eilav): Where is Sarah, your wife?"
There are dots above the aleph, yod
and vav (in "eilav") They knew
where she was. Similarly (Ibid. 19:33)
to "and he did not know in her lying and
in her rising (uvekumah)." There is a
of dot above (the vav in) "uvekumah"
He did not know in her lying and in
her rising, but he knew in her rising.
Similarly, (Ibid. 33:4) "And he (Esav)
kissed (vayishakehu) him (Jacob)":
There are dots above (all the letters
in) "vayishakehu" He did not kiss
him with all his heart. R. Shimon b.
Yochai says: It is a known halachah
that Esav hates Jacob, but his mercy
gained the ascendancy at that time
88
and he kissed him with all his heart.
(Ibid. 37:12) "And his brothers went
to graze eth their father's flock in
Shchem": There are dots above "eth"
They went only to
themselves. Similarly, (Bamidbar
21:30) "We have laid it waste until
Nofach which (asher) reaches unto
Medva": There is a dot (above the
resh in "asher") They did so
beyond that (Nofach) too, but here
they destroyed the cities,
whereas beyond that they destroyed
only the people. Similarly, (Ibid. 3:39)
"All the numbered of the Levites,
whom Moses and Aaron numbered":
There are dots above "Aaron"
Aaron was not of the numbered (of
the Levites). Similarly, (Ibid. 3:29)
"And issaron, issaron, for the one
lamb,": There is a dot above the
second vav in "And issaron" There
was one issaron alone. Similarly,
(Devarim 29:28) "The hidden things
are for the L-rd our G-d and the
revealed ones are for us and our
children (lanu ulevanenu) forever.":
There are dots (above
ulevanenu.") He said to them: If you
have done (i.e., violated) what is
revealed, I (the L-rd), likewise, will
apprise you of what is concealed.
Here, too, (in our instance,) there is a
dot (above the heh in "rechokah" to
indicate that he observes Pesach
Sheni) even if he were on a non-
distant way and did not observe (the
first) Pesach with them. (Ibid. 10) "or
graze to your generations": This provision
(of Pesach Sheni) obtains for all of
the generations. (Ibid. 11) "In the
second month, on the fourteenth
day, towards evening shall they ofer
it": These are the mitzvoth (directly)
pertaining to its body, viz. (Shemot
too, 12:5) "an unblemished lamb, a male,
of the first year." "with matzoh and
bitter herbs shall they eat it": These
are mitzvoth attendant upon its body.
(Devarim, Ibid. 12) "They shall not
leave over of it until the morning,
and a bone shall they not break in
it": Scripture hereby superadds two
mitzvoth concerning its body. This
tells me only of these (as obtaining
on Pesach Sheni). Whence do I derive
(the same for) the other mitzvoth
pertaining to its body? From (Ibid.)
"According to all the statue of the
Pesach shall they ofer it." But
perhaps this would also include (the
"lanu eating of) matzoth for seven days
and the burning of chametz! It is,
therefore, written "and a bone shall
they not break in it." "a bone, etc."
was included in the general category
(viz. "According to all the statute of
the Pesach"), and it departed from
89
the category (for special mention)
to teach about the category, viz. Just
as "a bone, etc." is a mitzvah
(directly) pertaining to its body, so,
"according to all the statute of the
Pesach" speaks of mitzvoth (directly)
pertaining to its body, (and not of the
others). Issi b. Akavya says: "shall
they ofer it": Scripture speaks of
mitzvoth pertaining to its body.
Piska 70
(Bamidbar 9:12) "shall they ofer it":
I might think that Pesach Sheni
obtains both with an individual and
with the congregation; it
therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And there
were men" (i.e., individuals). Pesach
Sheni obtains with individuals and
not with the congregation. R. Nathan
said: This (derivation) is not needed.
It is already written (Ibid. 13) "And
the man who is clean, etc.": Pesach
Sheni obtains with the individual and
not with the congregation. "and who
failed to ofer the Pesach": "who
failed" connotes one who could, but
did not. And the sages estimated this
(i.e., "one who could") as pertaining
to anyone who at the time of the
slaughtering of the Paschal lamb was
at a distance from Modi'im (fifteen
miles from Jerusalem) and within,
along the entire circumference "that
soul shall be cut of": "cutting of"
connotes a cessation. "that soul":
(who sinned) deliberately. These are
the words of R. Akiva. "from its
people": But its people will remain at
peace. "shall be cut of": This refers
to the first Pesach. "For the sacrifice
of the L-rd he did not ofer in its
appointed time. His sin shall he
bear": This refers to Pesach Sheni.
He incurs the penalty of kareth
("cutting of") for (transgression) of
both the first Pesach and of Pesach
Sheni. These are the words of Rebbi.
R. Nathan says "For the sacrifice of
is, the L-rd he did not ofer in its
appointed time." This refers to the
first Pesach. He is liable for (kareth)
for (violation of) the first Pesach, but
not for the second. "in its appointed
time": What is the intent of this? To
teach that Pesach Sheni overrides
the Sabbath. But perhaps (the
intent is that) just as the first Pesach
overrides both the Sabbath and
(congregational) tumah, so, Pesach
Sheni overrides both the Sabbath
and (individual) tumah! Would you
say that? Its entire reason for being
is his being tamei (on the first
Pesach). Shall he then come ofer it
in tumah (on Pesach Sheni)? "His sin
shall he bear, that man.": This tells
90
me only of a man. Whence do I
derive (the same for) a woman? From
(Ibid.) "then that soul shall be cut of
from its people" to include a
woman. If so, why is it written
"man"? A man, and not a minor.
Piska 71
(Bamidbar 9:14) "And if there live a
proselyte among you, and he would
ofer a Pesach to the L-rd, etc.": I
might think that as soon as he
converts he ofers a Pesach; it is,
therefore, written (Ibid.) ("One
statute shall there be for you, both)
for the proselyte (and for
native"). Just as the native (ofers) on
the fourteenth (of Nissan), so, the
proselyte. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: If
one became a proselyte between the
two Pesachs, I might think
observes Pesach Sheni; it
therefore, written "for the proselyte
and for the native." Just as the native
who (is obligated to observe the first
Pesach and) could not do
observes Pesach Sheni, so all, who
are thus obligated, (to exclude from
Pesach Sheni the proselyte in the
above instance.) "according to the
statue of the Pesach": This tells me
only of the Pesach that the proselyte
is equated with the native. Whence
do I derive (the same for) all the
mitzvoth of the Torah? From "One
statute shall there be for you, both
for the proselyte and for the native of
the land." Scripture hereby equates
the proselyte with the native in
respect to all the mitzvoth of the
Torah.
Piska 72
(Bamidbar 10:2-3) "And the L-rd
spoke to Moses, saying: Make for
yourself two trumpets of silver": Why
was this section stated? Because it is
written (Ibid. 9:23) "By word of the L-
the rd they encamped, and by word of
the L-rd they traveled," I might think
that since they traveled by the Word
and encamped by the Word, there
was no need of trumpets; it is,
he therefore, written "Make for yourself,
is, etc." Scripture hereby tells us that
even though they travel by word of
the L-rd and encamp by word of the
L-rd, trumpets are still needed.
so "Make for yourself": from what is
yours. Similarly, "Take for yourself":
from what is yours. Abba Channan
says in the name of R. Elazar: Just as
it is written (Devarim 10:1) "At that
time the L-rd said to me: Hew for
yourself two tablets of stone and
make for yourself an ark of wood,"
91
and it came only from the (Bamidbar 10:3-4) "And when they
congregation," as it is written (the Cohanim) blow with (both) of
(Shemot 25:10) "And they shall make them, then all the congregation shall
an ark of shittim wood," so, (we are gather unto you, to the door of the
to understand that in instances of) tent of meeting. And if they blow
"Make for yourself," "Take for with one, there shall gather unto you
yourself," (the materials are coming) the chiefs." But we have not heard
from the congregation. Why, then, is to where (the chiefs are to gather). It
it written "make for yourself an ark of follows (by induction), viz. "Blowing"
wood"? Here ("they shall make" [It is is written in respect to the
regarded as theirs]) when they are congregation, and "blowing" is
doing the L-rd's will. There ("make for written in respect to the chiefs. Just
yourself" [It is regarded as yours as the first (gathering) is at the door
(Moses')]) when they are not doing of the tent of meeting, so, the
the L-rd's will. "trumpets": The second. I might think that all who are
minimum of trumpets is two. But (written) first in Scripture (in this
perhaps if he wanted to add, he instance, the congregation) are first
could add. It is, therefore, written in the act (of gathering). It is,
"two trumpets" not more and not therefore, written (Bamidbar 30:2)
less. Variantly: "two trumpets": they "And Moses spoke (first) to the heads
were to be similar in appearance, of the tribes of the children of Israel":
height, and beauty. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) Since "speaking" is mentioned in the
"miksheh": from a solid bar (of Torah unqualified (as to the order of
silver). "miksheh" connotes the work speaking), and in one instance it is
of a craftsman, a hard substance, explicitly mentioned that the chiefs
and beaten work. "and they shall be take precedence, so I induce that in
for you for convoking the all instances of "speaking" the chiefs
congregation": to gather the take precedence. R. Yonathan said:
congregation for the traveling of the (The above derivation is) not needed.
camps. For it is already written (Shemot
34:31-32) "And Moses called to
Piska 73 them, and there returned to him
Aaron and all the chiefs of the
congregation and Moses spoke to

92
them. And afterwards all the children written (Ibid.) "And when you blow a
of Israel drew near, etc." Since second teruah." Let "second" not be
"speaking" is mentioned in the Torah written. Why is it written? To serve as
unqualified, and in one instance it is a prototype (binyan av) for the
mentioned that the chiefs take tekiah, that it be second (i.e., after)
precedence, so I induce that in all the teruah whence we learn that
instances of speaking the chiefs take (in sum he blows) tekiah-teruah-
precedence. What, then, is the intent tekiah. This tells me only of (the
of "And Moses spoke to the heads of order in) the desert. Whence do I
the tribes, etc."? To teach (by derive (the same for the order on)
juxtaposition with 30:3) that Rosh Hashanah? It is written "teruah"
annulment of vows is efected only here and it is written "teruah"
by experts. elsewhere (re Rosh Hashanah). Just
(Bamidbar 10:5) "And you shall as "teruah" here tekiah-teruah-
sound a blast" ("Utekatem teruah"): tekiah, so, "teruah" there tekiah-
A teruah (a rapid succession of three teruah-tekiah. Three "teruoth" are
notes, tremolo) by itself, and tekiah written in respect to Rosh Hashanah:
(a long, sustained sound) by itself. (Vayikra 23:24) "Shabbaton zichron
You say, a tekiah by itself and a teruah," (Ibid. 25:9) "Veha'avarta
teruah by itself. But perhaps (in this shofar teruah," (Bamidbar 29:1) "Yom
context) tekiah and teruah are one teruah yihiyeh lachem" two
and the same? (This cannot be, for) tekioth for each (teruah). In sum, on
(7) "And when the people are to be Rosh Hashanah there are three
gathered, you shall sound a tekiah teruoth and six tekioth two (sets
and not a teruah" indicates that of tekiah-teruah-tekiah) prescribed
tekiah and teruah are distinct by the Torah, and one by the scribes:
sounds. "utekatem teruah": We are "Shabbaton zichron teruah,"
hereby taught that a tekiah precedes "veha'avarta shofar teruah" by the
a teruah. Whence is it derived that a Torah. "Yom teruah yihiyeh lachem"
teruah (also) follows a teruah? From This comes for its teaching (that
(Ibid. 6) :"teruah yitkeu" ("a teruah the shofar is blown in the daytime
shall they blow.") R. Yishmael the son ["yom"], and not at night). R. Shmuel
of R. Yochanan b. Beroka says: This b. Nachmani says in the name of R.
(derivation) is not needed. It is Yonathan: One prescribed by the

93
Torah; two prescribed by the scribes. (Bamidbar 10:7) "And when the
"Shabbaton zichron teruah" by the assembly is to be gathered, you shall
Torah. "veha'avarta shofar teruah" blow a tekiah, but not a teruah.":
and "yom teruah yihiyeh lachem" What is the intent of this? Because it
These come for their teachings, is written (Ibid. 2) "And they (the
("veha'avarta") to teach that there is trumpets) shall be for you for
an unbroken sound (tekiah) before convoking the congregation and for
the teruah, and "yom," to teach that the traveling of the camps," just as
the shofar is blown in the daytime. the convoking of the congregation is
(Bamidbar 10:5) "And when you with two (trumpets), viz. (Ibid. 3)
blow a teruah, then there shall travel "And when they blow with them,
the eastern encampments. (6) And etc.," so, the traveling of the camps
when you blow a second teruah, then is with two. I might then think that
there shall travel the southern just as the traveling of the camps is
encampments": Perhaps just as he with tekiah-teruah-tekiah, so, the
blows (tekiah-teruah-tekiah convoking of the congregation; it is,
[separately]) for the eastern and therefore, written "And when the
southern (encampments), thus does assembly is to be gathered, you shall
he blow (them separately) for the blow a tekiah, but not a teruah."
northern and western encampments.
It is, therefore, (to negate this) Piska 75
written "a teruah (i.e., tekiah-teruah-
tekiah) shall they blow for their (Bamidbar 10:8) "And the sons of
travels" one tekiah (i.e., one set Aaron the Cohanim shall blow on the
tekiah-teruah-tekiah) for two sides trumpets": What is the intent of this?
(together, the northern and the From (Ibid. 3) "And they shall blow
western). Other say: (The meaning with them," I would think that
is) three (i.e., three blowings, tekiah- Israelites, too, may do so; it is,
teruah-tekiah) for each side therefore, written "the sons of
(northern and western individually). Aaron." "the Cohanim": whether
whole or blemished. These are the
Piska 74 words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says:
whole, not blemished, viz.: It is
written here "Cohanim," and,

94
elsewhere, (Vayikra 3:2) "Cohanim."
Just as there, whole, not blemished;
here, too, whole, not blemished. R.
Tarfon: Akiva, how long will you pile
up words against us! May I lose my
sons if I did not see Shimon, my
mother's brother, who was lame in
one leg, standing and blowing the
trumpets! R. Akiva: Might it be that
you saw this on Rosh Hashanah or on
Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year? R.
Tarfon: I swear that you have not
erred! Happy are you Abraham our
father, from whose loins Akiva came
forth! Tarfon saw and forgot (the
day). Akiva expounded of himself
and seconded the halachah. Anyone
who departs from you departs from
his life! (Ibid.) "And they
trumpets) shall be to you for a
statute forever": What is the intent of
this? From "Make for yourself two
silver trumpets," I would understand
that once he made them they would
be a heirloom for (all)
generations. It is, therefore, written
"to you for a statute forever." They
have been given as a statute and not
for (all) the generations. From here
they said: All the implements that
Moses made in the desert were
kasher for all of the generations,
except the trumpets.
Piska 76
(Bamidbar 10:9) "And if you go to
war in your land": whether you go
out against them or they come
against you. Does this speak of the
foe that assails you in the war of Gog
and Magog or of wars in general? It is
written (Ibid.) "and you will be saved
from your enemies." Go out and see:
In which war is Israel saved without
subjugation to follow? In the war of
Gog and Magog, as it is written
(Zechariah 14:3, 9) "And the L-rd will
go out and wage war against those
nations And the L-rd will be King
over all the land." R. Akiva says: This
("then you shall sound the
(the trumpets") tells me only of war.
Whence do I derive (the same for)
blast, mildew, difficult labors, and
tempest-tossed vessels? From
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "against the
oppressor that oppresses you"
the against any "oppression" that may
befall the people. "then you shall
sound the trumpets and you will be
remembered before the L-rd your G-
d." R. Akiva says: Now do the
trumpets cause remembrance
(before the L-rd)? The intent is that if
they were in a position to blow (the
trumpets) but failed to do so, it is
reckoned to them as if they were not
95
remembered before the L-rd. "and therefore, written "over your burnt-
you will be remembered and you oferings and over the sacrifices of
will be saved." Whenever Israel is your peace-oferings." Just as burnt-
"remembered," it is remembered oferings are holy of holies, so peace-
only for salvation. oferings (in this context) are holy of
holies. And just as peace-oferings
Piska 77 (to be holy of holies) are communal
oferings, so, burnt-oferings (in this
(Bamidbar 10:10) "And on the day of context) are communal oferings.
your rejoicing and on your appointed "And they shall be for you as a
times you shall sound the trumpets": remembrance before your G-d": Why
"And on the day": Sabbaths. R. is this mentioned (in this context)?
Nathan says: These are temidim (the Because it is written "you shall sound
daily burnt-oferings). "your the trumpets," I might think that
rejoicings": These are the three oferings over which the trumpets
festivals. "and in your appointed were sounded are kasher, but not
times": These are Rosh Hashanah those over which the trumpets were
and Yom Kippur. "and on your new not sounded; it is, therefore, written
moons": as stated. "over your burnt- "And they shall be for you as a
oferings and over the sacrifices of remembrance" They (the
your peace-oferings": Scripture trumpets) were given as a
speaks of the sacrifices of communal remembrance, and not to validate
peace-oferings. But perhaps (it the ofering. "I am the L-rd your G-d":
speaks of) both communal and What is the intent of this? It is
individual (oferings). Would you say written (Vayikra 23:24) "Speak to the
that? What is the context? (the children of Israel, saying: On the
blowing of the trumpets for the seventh month, on the first day of
convoking and the traveling of) the the month, there shall be for you a
congregation; here, too, the resting, remembrance, teruah":
(oferings of) the congregation (are "remembrance" These are verses
understood). R. Shimon b. Azzai of remembrance (zichronoth);
says: Scripture speaks of communal "teruah" These are verses
oferings. But perhaps both (evocative of) the shofar (teruoth).
communal and individual. It is, But malchuyoth (i.e., verses

96
evocative of His Kingship) we have the havoc comes from the city
not heard. It is, therefore, written (Jerusalem), the Voice from the
here "You shall sound the trumpets sanctuary of the L-rd, sending
and they shall be to you for a recompense to His foes!"
remembrance I am the L-rd your
G-d." "You shall sound the trumpet" Piska 78
shofaroth; "remembrance"
zichronoth; "I am the L-rd our G-d" (Bamidbar 10:29) "And Moses said
malchuyoth. Wherever there are to Chovav (Yithro) the son of Reuel
zichronoth and shofaroth, there must the Midianite, the father-in-law of
be malchuyoth along with them. R. Moses": Was Chovav the father-in-
Nathan says: This is not needed (for law of Moses, or Reuel, viz. (Shemot
the inclusion of malchuyoth), for it is 2:8) "And they came to Reuel, their
written (Bamidbar 23:21) "The L-rd, father, etc."? (Judges 4:11) "And
his G-d, is with him (Israel) and the Chever the Kenite had separated
teruah of the King is in him" This is from the Kenites, from the children of
shofaroth and malchuyoth. And why Chovav, the father-in-law of Moses"
did the sages see fit to say (indicates that) his name was Chovav
malchuyoth first, and then zichronoth and not Reuel. How, then, are we to
and shofaroth? Make Him King over understand "And they came to Reuel
your first, and then beseech Him for their father"? We are hereby
mercy to be remembered unto Him. apprised that the young children
And with what (i.e., through which called their father's father "father." R.
agency?) The shofar. For "shofar" Shimon b. Menassia says: His name
connotes freedom, as in (Isaiah was Reuel, "the friend (re'a) of G-d,"
27:13) "And it shall be on that day viz. (Shemot 5:12) "And Aaron and
that a great shofar shall be blown, all the elders of Israel came to eat
etc." But I would not know who will bread with Moses' father-in-law
blow it; it is, therefore, written before G-d." R. Dostai says: His name
(Zechariah 9:14) "And the L-rd G-d was Keini, for he had separated from
will blow with a shofar." And we still the provocative deeds of the kanai
would not know whence the tekiah ("the provokers"), who provoke the L-
would come forth. It is, therefore, rd, viz. (Devarim 32:21) "They
written (Isaiah 66:6) "The sound of provoked Me (kinuni) with a no-god,"

97
and (Ezekiel 8:3) "where was the
seat of the provocative image of
provocation ("semel hakinah
hamekaneh"). R. Yossi says:
name was Keini, for he had acquired
(kanah) Torah for himself. R. Yishmael
b. R. Yossi says: His name was Reuel,
for he had befriended G-d,
(Proverbs 27:10) "Your Friend and the
Friend of your father do not forsake."
R. Shimon b. Yochai says: He had two
names Chovav and Yithro. "Yithro,"
because he added a section
("Yithro") to the Torah, viz. (Shemot
18:21) "And (Yithro said) you shall
see from all the people men of valor,
etc." Now were these things (of
appointing judges) not known to
Moses from Sinai, viz. (Ibid. 23) "If
you do this thing and G-d commands
you"? And why did they escape
Moses? To credit the thing to Yithro.
"Chovav," because he
("chivev") the Torah. For we find no
other proselyte who loved the Torah
as Yithro did. And just as Yithro loved
the Torah, so did his descendants
love the Torah, viz. (I Chronicles
2:55) "and the families of scribes
who dwelt in Yabetz: Tirathim,
Shimathim, Suchathim. (These were
the Kenites, etc.") "Tirathim"
because they heard the teruah from
Mount Sinai. "Tirathim" because
they cried out ("mathri'im) and
fasted. "Tirathim" because they
did not shave themselves ("ta'ar" is a
His blade). "Tirathim" because they
sat in the gates ("tara" is a gate) of
Jerusalem. "Shimathim" because
they did not anoint themselves with
viz. oil (because of their mourning over
the destruction of the Temple).
"Suchathim" because they dwelt
in succoth. "who dwelt in Yabetz":
They left Yericho and went to Yabetz,
to the desert of Judah in the south of
Arad to learn Torah from him
(Yabetz), viz. (Ibid. 4:10) "And Yabetz
called out to the G-d of Israel and
G-d granted him what he requested."
They were chassidim, who entreated
G-d for someone to learn from, and
he was a chassid who entreated G-d
for someone to teach. The chassidim
came to learn from the chassid, as it
loved is written (Judges 1:16) "And the
sons of the Keini, the father-in-law of
Moses, etc.", and (Jeremiah 25:12)
"Go to the house of the Rechavim
and speak to them, and bring them
to the house of the L-rd, etc.", and
(Ibid. 6) "And they said: We will not
drink wine for Yonadav the son of
Rechav our father commanded us,
saying and a house you shall not
build and seed you shall not sow
so that you may live many years on
98
the land where you live" Since this Israelites who do the will of the L-rd,
house (the Temple) is destined to be how much more so (will He draw
destroyed, see it as if it is already them near!) And thus do you find
destroyed. (Ibid. 8-10) "And we with Rachav Hazonah. What is
heeded the vice of Yonadav ben written (of her)? (I Chronicles 4:21)
Rechav our father and we live in "And the families of the house of the
tents, for we heeded and did linen work, of the house of Ashbea":
according to everything that Yonadav "the families" Rachav Hazonah
our father commanded us." And ("the feeder"), who kept an inn to
whence is it derived that the sons of feed her family. "the linen work"
Yonadav ben Rechav were of the She hid the spies among the linens.
sons of the sons of Yithro? For it is "the house of Ashbea" The spies
written (I Chronicles 2:55) "These swore ("nisb'u") to her (to spare her
were the Keinites, who descended family). Eight prophets, issued from
from Chammath, the father of the Rachav Hazonah: Yirmiyahu,
house of the Rechavim." And what Chilkiyahu, Serayah, Machseyah,
was their reward for this? (Jeremiah Baruch, Neriah, Chanamel, and
35:18) "And to the Rechavim Shalom. R. Yehudah says: Chuldah
Jeremiah said: Thus said the L-rd of the prophetess was also of the
hosts, the G-d of Israel: Because you descendants of Rachav Hazonah, as
have heeded the command of it is written (II Kings 22:14) "And
Yonadav your father (19) there will Chilkiyahu the Cohein and Achikam
not be cut of from Yonadav ben and Achbor and Shafan and Asayah
Rechav one who stands before Me all went to Chuldah the prophetess, the
of the days." R. Yehoshua says: Now wife of Shalom the son of Tikvah,
may proselytes enter the sanctuary? etc." And it is written (Joshua 2:18)
Rather, they sat in the Sanhedrin and "behold, when we (the spies) come
taught Torah. Others say: Some of to the land, you (Rachav) shall bind
their daughters were wed to this line (tikvah) of scarlet thread,
Cohanim and their descendents etc." Now does this not follow a
entered the sanctuary. Now does this fortiori, viz.: If she, who came from a
not follow a fortiori, viz.: If those, people of whom it is written
who drew near (to Israel), were thus (Devarim 20:16) "You shall not spare
drawn near by the L-rd, then any soul," because she drew near (to

99
Israel), was thus drawn near by the
L-rd, then Israelites, who do the will
of the L-rd, how much more so (will
He draw them near!) And thus do
you find with the Giveonites. What is
written of them? (I Chronicles 4:22)
"And Yokim and the men of Chezeva.
"And Yokim" Joshua fulfilled
("kiyem") for them his oath (to spare
them). "Chezeva" they deceived
("kizvu") Joshua, saying (Joshua 9:9)
"From a very distant land did your
servants come," and not from Eretz
Yisrael." Now does this not follow a
fortiori, viz.: If these, who came from
a people consigned to destruction,
because they drew near (to Israel),
were thus drawn near by the L-rd,
then Israelites, who do the will of the
L-rd, how much more so (will He
draw them near)! And thus do you
find with Ruth the Moavitess. What
did she say to her mother-in-law
(Ruth 1:16-17) "Your people is my
people, and your G-d is my G-d.
Where you will die, I will die." The L-
rd said to her: You have lost nothing.
kingdom is yours in this world and in
the world to come. What is written
(of her)? (I Chronicles 4:22) "and
Yoash and Saraph, who had dominion
in Moav." Yoash and Saraph are
Machlon and Kilyon (viz. Ruth 1:2-6)
"Yoash" they despaired
100
(nithya'ashu) of redemption.
"Saraph" they were liable to (the
penalty of) burning, to the L-rd. "who
had dominion over Moav" they
married Moavite women and left
Eretz Yisrael and went and sojourned
in the field of Moav. (I Chronicles,
Ibid.) "and Yashuvilechem" this is
Ruth the Moavitess, who returned
and dwelt in Beth Lechem. (Ibid.)
"And these are ancient things"
each is discussed in its place. (Ibid.
23) "These are 'the keepers'" the
sons of Yonadav ben Rechav, who
kept the oath of their father. "and the
dwellers among the plants"
Solomon, who was like a (flourishing)
plant in his kingdom. "and gedeirah
("the fence") Sanhedrin, who sit
and delimit the "fences" of Torah.
"With the king in his work they sat
there" Ruth the Moavitess did not
die until she saw Solomon, the
grandson of her grandson (Yishai)
sitting on his throne of kingdom, as it
is written (I Kings 2:19) "And he
(Solomon) sat on his throne, and he
placed a seat for the mother of the
king" the mother of kingdom (i.e.,
Ruth). "and she sat at his right
hand": as he busied himself with the
work of the Temple, viz.: (I
Chronicles, Ibid.) "with the king in his
work they sat there. Now does this
not follow a fortiori, viz.: If she, who
was of the people of whom it is
written (I Kings 11:2) "You shall not
come into them, and they shall not
come into you," because she drew
near (to Israel), she was drawn near
by the L-rd, then Israelites, who do
the will of the L-rd, how much more
so! And if you would ask: But where
do we see this (that the L-rd draws
them near) with Israel? It is written
(Shemot 1:15) "And the king of Egypt
said to the Hebrew midwives, the
first of whom was named Shifrah;
and the second, Puah": Shifra is
Yocheved (Moses' mother). Puah is
Miriam (Moses' sister). "Shifra"
because she "beautifies
(meshapereth) the child. "Puah"
because she "coos" (poeh) to the
child. Variantly: "Shifra" because
Israel was fruitful (paru) and
multiplied in her days. "Puah"
because she moaned (poah) and
wept over her brother, as it is written
(Ibid. 2:4) "And his sister stood from
afar to know what would be done
with him." (Ibid. 1:16) "And he
(Pharaoh) said: When you deliver the
Hebrew women (17) and the
midwives feared G-d (21) and He
made for them (the midwives)
houses": I would not know what
these "houses" were if not for (I
101
Kings 9:10) "And it was at the end of
twenty years that Solomon built the
two houses the house of the L-rd
and the house of the king." "the
house of the L-rd" the priesthood;
"the house of the king" royalty.
Yocheved attained to priesthood, and
Miriam, to royalty. As it is written (I
Chronicles 4:4) "These were the sons
of Chur, the first-born of Efrathah,
the father of Beth-lechem":
"Efrathah" Miriam, who married
Calev, viz.: (I Chronicles 2:19) "And
Calev took Efrath, and she bore to
him Chur," and (Ibid. 50) "These
were the sons of Calev, the son of
Chur, the first-born of Efrathah, the
father of Beth-lechem. "Efrathah"
This is the (royal) house of David, as
it is written (I Samuel 17:12) "And
David was the son of an Efrati man of
Beth-lechem."
(I Chronicles 4:5) "And Ashchur, the
father of Tekoa, had two wives,
Chelah and Na'arah." Ashchur is
Calev. Why was he called "Ashchur"?
Because his face was "blackened"
(hushcharu") with fasting. "the
father" He was like a father to her
(Miriam). "Tekoa" He "pegged"
(taka) his heart to his father in
heaven. "two wives" Miriam, who
became to him like "two wives."
"Chelah and Na'arah": At first she
was sick (cholah), and then she
"awakened" (na'arah). (Ibid. 7) "And
the sons of Chelah were Tzereth,
Tzochar, and Ethnan": Tzereth she
became a "vexation" (tzarah) to her
co-wife, (who envied her). Tzochar
Her face was resplendent as mid-day
(tzoharayim). "and Ethnan"
Anyone who saw her brought an
"exchange" (for cohabitation) to his
wife. (Ibid. 8) "And Kotz begot Anuv
and Hatzovevah": "Kotz" is Calev,
who "spurned" (katzath) the counsel
of the spies. "Anuv" he generated
good in the bringing of the grape
cluster (viz. Bamidbar 13:23) for if
not for Calev they would not have
brought it. "and Hatzovevah" he
did the will (tzivyon) of the Holy One
blessed be He. "and the families of
Acharchel the son of Charum. "and
the families of Acharchel" This is
Miriam, viz. (Shemot 15:20) "and all
the women went out after ("achar")
her (Miriam) with timbrels and
dances." "and the families" He
(Calev) merited establishing families
from her. "the son of Charum" This
is Yocheved, of whom (the Cohanim)
it is written (Bamidbar 18:14) "Every
devoted thing ("cherem") in Israel
shall be yours," (the Cohanim -
Levites descending from Yocheved).
Variantly: This ("Charum") is Miriam
102
from whom there issued forth David,
whose kingdom was exalted
("romem") by the Holy One Blessed
be He, viz. (I Samuel 2:10) "And He
will give strength to His king and He
will exalt the horn of His anointed
one." We find, then, that David came
from the descendants of Miriam
whence we derive "One who draws
near (to Israel) is drawn near by
Heaven."
(Bamidbar 10:29) "the father-in-law
of Moses": This is the highest tribute
of all, to be called "the father-in-law
of Moses. "We are traveling"
(immediately to Eretz Yisrael). "We
are traveling": R. Shimon b. Yochai
says: Is it not already written
(Devarim 4:22) "For I shall not cross
the Jordan"? (To teach) that even his
bones will not cross the Jordan. Why,
then, did Moses include himself with
them? He said: Now Israel will say: If
he who took us out of Egypt and
performed all the miracles and
mighty acts for us does not enter,
we, too, will not enter. Variantly: Why
did Moses include himself with them?
So that Yithro not say, If Moses does
not enter, I, too, will not come. The
sages say: Why did Moses include
himself with them? He "lost sight" (of
having been told that he would not
enter) and he felt himself entering
with them to Eretz Yisrael. "to the
place of which the L-rd said: It will I
give to you" and proselytes have
no portion in it. How, then, am I to
satisfy (Ezekiel 47:23) "And it shall
be, with the tribe with which the
proselyte dwells, there shall you give
his portion"? If it cannot speak of
inheritance, understand it
speaking of atonement that if he
lived among the tribe of Judah, he
was atoned for with (the communal
oferings of) the tribe of Judah; (If he
lived among) the tribe of Benjamin,
he was atoned for with the tribe of
Benjamin. Variantly: If it cannot
speak of inheritance, understand it
as speaking of burial
proselytes are allotted burial in Eretz
Yisrael. "Come with us and we will do
good with you": Is there a member of
a man's household for which good is
not done? It follows a fortiori If
good is done for a member of a
man's household, how much more
so, for "a member of the household"
(i.e., Yithro) of Him who spoke and
brought the world into being! "for the
L-rd has spoken good for Israel": Now
did He not speak good for Israel until
now? The L-rd always spoke good for
Israel! (The intent is) rather, that the
L-rd commanded Israel to do good
for the proselytes and to deport
themselves to them with humility.
Piska 79
(Bamidbar 10:30) "And he said to
him: I will not go; but to my land and
to my kindred I will go": He said to
him: Both because of my land and
as because of my kindred I will not go
(with you). There are some who have
a land, but no possessions; others
who have possessions, but no family.
But I have a land, possessions, and
family, and I was a priest in my land.
If I will not go (home) because of my
land, I will go because of my
possessions; and if I will not go
that because of my possessions, I will go
because of my family.
Piska 80
(Bamidbar 10:30) "And he said: I
pray ("na") you, do not leave us."
"Na" is a term of imploration. He said
to him: If you do not take it upon
yourself (to remain with us), I decree
it upon you. For now, (if you leave,)
Israel will say: Yithro became a
proselyte not out of love, but only in
expectation of a portion in the land,
which, seeing not to be forthcoming,
he abandoned us. Variantly: (Moses
said to him:) You think you are
103
increasing G-d's honor (by planning you do this thing and G-d commands
to make conversions in your land.) you, then you will be able to bear
You are only diminishing it! How up"? And why did they escape
many (prospective) proselytes would Moses? To credit the thing to Yithro.
take shelter under the wings of the Variantly ("and you have been 'eyes'
Shechinah (if you remained.) But for us"): that he (the proselyte) be as
now, you are closing the door against beloved by us as the apple of our
them. They will say: If Yithro, the eye, viz. (Devarim 10:19) "And you
father-in-law of the king, did not take shall love the stranger," (Shemot
it upon himself (to remain with 22:2) "And a stranger you shall not
Israel), how much more so, we! taunt and you shall not oppress."
"inasmuch as you have known our
camping ('chanothenu') in the Piska 81
desert": Moses said to him: If
another, who had not seen the (Bamidbar 10:32) "And it shall be, if
miracles and wonders wrought for us you go with us, that good which the
in the desert, up and left, it might L-rd will accord to us, we shall accord
befit him, but you, who have seen to you." Now what good did they
them, can you do so? R. Yehudah accord to him? They said: When
says you who saw the "chein" Israel apportioned the land, they left
("favor" [a homiletic reading of to him the choicest land of Jericho,
"chanothenu"]) bestowed upon our five hundred by five hundred cubits.
fathers in Egypt, viz. (Shemot 12:36) Whoever would build the Temple,
"And the L-rd placed the favor of the would take that land, and (in the
people in the eyes of Egypt," would interim) it was given (as a holding) to
you pick up and leave? "and you the sons of Yithro, as it is written (I
have been 'eyes' for us": And not Kings 6:1) "And it was in the four
that alone, but in all things that were hundred and eighteenth year of the
concealed from our eyes, you exodus of the children of Israel from
enlightened us, viz. (Ibid. 18:21) the land of Egypt" (that the Temple
"And you shall see from all the was built). Deduct forty years for
people, etc." Now were these things their journeying in the desert, and
(of appointing judges) not known to we find them (the sons of Yithro) to
Moses from Sinai, viz. (Ibid. 23) "If have eaten of that land for four

104
hundred and forty years, and when
the Shechinah reposed itself in the
portion of Benjamin, the sons of
Benjamin came to take their portion,
and they (the sons of Yithro) vacated
it for them.
Piska 82
(Bamidbar 10:33) "And they
journeyed from the mountain of the
L-rd a journey of three days": Is it not
written (Devarim 1:2) "eleven days
from Chorev .. until Kadesh Barnea"?
What, then, is the intent of "And they
journeyed a journey of three
days"? They traveled on that day a
three-day journey, and the
Shechinah preceded them, so that
they could enter the land
immediately. [It is the way of men
who go to war, that when they start,
they rejoice, and the longer they
exert themselves the more they
weaken. Not so, however, with Israel
the more they exert themselves,
the more they rejoice, and they say
"Let us go and inherit Eretz Yisrael,"
viz. (Joshua 4:10) "And the people
hastened and they crossed" (the
Jordan). Our fathers said: Once they
sinned, it was decreed against them
(Bamidbar 14:29) "In this desert will
your carcasses fall." But we will not
105
sin and die; we will go and inherit
Eretz Yisrael!"] (Bamidbar 10:33)
"And the ark of the covenant of the
L-rd preceded them." This ark that
preceded them contained the broken
tablets, but the ark containing the
tablets moved in the midst of the
encampments, as it is written
(Bamidbar 14:44) "and the ark of the
covenant of Moses and the L-rd did
not stir from the midst of the camp."
R. Shimon b. Yochai says: It is not
written "And the ark of the L-rd," but
"and the ark of the covenant of the L-
rd." An analogy: A viceroy precedes
his army to prepare a camp ground
for them; thus does the Shechinah
precede Israel. "to look out a resting
place for them": This is the intent of
(Bamidbar 21:1) "And the Canaanite
heard, the king of Arad, that Israel
was coming by way of Atharim, etc.":
When they heard that Aaron had
died, they said: "The high-priest has
died and their great Lookout has
gone, and the pillar of cloud that
waged war for them this is the
time to go and fight them." R.
Shimon b. Yochai says: It was a great
degradation for Israel to say
(Devarim 1:22) "Let us send out men
before us and let them spy out the
land for us." The L-rd said to them: If
when you were in "a land of desert
and pit," I looked out the way for
you, how much more so, when you
are entering a good, broad land, a
land flowing milk and honey!
Piska 83
(Bamidbar 10:34) "And the cloud of
the L-rd was above them by day":
From here they said: There are seven
"clouds": (Bamidbar 14:14) "and in a
pillar of cloud You go before them by
day," (Shemot 14:19) "and the pillar
of cloud turned from before them,"
(Bamidbar, 14:14) "and Your cloud
stands over them," (Devarim 1:33)
"and in cloud by day," (Bamidbar
9:19) "And when the cloud lingered
over the mishkan," (Shemot 40:38)
"For the cloud of the L-rd was on the
mishkan by day," (Bamidbar 10:34)
"And the cloud of the L-rd was above
them by day." There were seven
clouds four on their four sides, one
above, one below (to cushion their
feet), and one before them, which
lowered what was high and raised
what was low, and killed the serpents
and the scorpions, and swept and
sprinkled before them. R. Yehudah
says: There were thirteen (clouds)
two on each side, two above and two
below, and one before them. R.
Yoshiyah says: Four. Rebbi says: Two.
106
"And the cloud of the L-rd was above
them by day when they set forth
from the encampment": Even over
the lame and the blind and the zavim
(those afflicted with a genital
discharge) and the lepers.
Variantly: "And the cloud of the L-rd
was above them by day": Whence is
it derived that if one of the Jews
withdrew from under the wings of the
cloud, it withdrew with him until he
returned? From "And the cloud of the
L-rd was above them." Perhaps just
as it protected them by day, so it
protected them at night. (This is not
so,) for it is written "by day" It
protected them by day and not at
night. Granted, then, that the pillar
of cloud did not protect them at
night, but perhaps the pillar of fire
provided light for them by day; it is,
therefore, (to negate this) written
(Shemot 40:38) "and fire was on it by
night" It gave light at night, but
not in the daytime. Perhaps just as it
gave light for Israel, so it gave light
for the idolators. (This is not so,) for
it is written (Shemot 40:38) "and fire
was on it by night in the sight of all
of the house of Israel" It gave light
for Israel, but not for the idolators. R.
Shimon b. Elazar says: Whence is it
derived that all the forty years that
Israel were in the desert they did not
require a lamp, but even if one
entered a room within a room, a kind
of torch entered with him until he
returned? From (Shemot 40:38) "in
the sight of all of the eyes of Israel in
all of their travels" Even if one
entered a room within a room, the
pillar of fire would give light before
him.
Piska 84
(Bamidbar 10:35) "And it was, when
the ark traveled": There are signs
(inverted nuns) before (this verse)
and after (the next verse). Rebbi
says: Because it is a book in itself
whence they ruled: A (Torah) scroll
which was erased, and there
remained eighty-five letters, as in the
section "And it was, when the ark
traveled" (imparts tumah to the
hands [a Rabbinical enactment, viz.
Shabbath 14a]). R. Shimon says:
There are signs before and after
because this is not its place. What
should have been written? (Bamidbar
10:33) "And they traveled from the
mountain of the L-rd, a journey of
three days. (And the ark of the
covenant of the L-rd preceded them
a distance of three days"). (Bamidbar
11:1) "And the people were as
seekers of a pretext." An analogy:
107
Some men say to the king: Would
you please accompany us to the
governor of Acco? They arrive at
Acco he has gone to Tyre. They
arrive at Tyre he has gone to
Tziddon. They arrive at Tziddon he
has gone to Antochia. They arrive at
Antochia some of them start
complaining against the king for
having put them to all of this trouble!
It is the king who should complain,
for having been put to all of this
trouble for their sakes! Similarly, on
that day the Shechinah traveled a
three-days journey, so that they
could (immediately) enter Eretz
Yisrael and they began to
complain before Him for having been
put to all of that trouble! It is He (if
anyone) who should have
complained! For it was for their sakes
that the Shechinah was thus
constrained!
One verse states (Bamidbar 11:35)
"And Moses said: 'Stand, O L-rd (and
let Your foes be scattered'"), and
another (Bamidbar 9:23) "By word of
the L-rd they encamped, and by word
of the L-rd they traveled." How are
these two verses to be reconciled?
An analogy: A king says to his
servant: Would you please stop me
(if I go too quickly). For I am on my
way to give an inheritance to my
son, ("and I may 'run away' with
myself!") Variantly: A king goes on a
journey and takes his lover along
with him. When he travels, he says: I
will not go further before my lover
tells me to; and when he desires to
camp, he says: I will not camp unless
my lover tells me to.
reconciled "And Moses said, etc." and
"By word of the L-rd they encamped,
and by the word of the L-rd they
traveled."
"Stand, O L-rd, and let Your foes be
scattered": "Your foes": those who
are massed to attack us. "and let
Your haters (those in pursuit) flee
before You." They will flee, and we
will not be destroyed
("before You" [lit., "before
face"]) When Your face is with us, we
will not flee before them, and if not,
we will fall before them. And thus is
it written (Shemot 33:15) "If Your
'face' does not go, do not bring us up
from here," and (Ibid. 16) "For how,
otherwise, will it be known that I and
Your people have found favor in Your
eyes," and (Joshua 10:11) "And it
was, when they fled before Israel,
they were on the descent of Beth
Choron, when the L-rd cast upon
them great stones, etc.", and (Psalms
83:115) "My G-d, make them like
whirling chaf, like stubble before the
wind, like a fire burning mountains."
"and let Your haters flee before You":
Now are there "haters" before Him
who spoke and brought the world
into being? The intent is, rather, that
all who hate the righteous are, as it
Thus is were, haters of the L-rd. Similarly,
(Shemot 15:7) "and in the greatness
of Your grandeur you destroy those
who rise against You." Now are there
any who "rise" before the L-rd? The
intent is, rather, that all who rise
against the righteous are, as it were,
"rising" against the L-rd. And,
similarly (Psalms 74:23) "Forget not
the voice of Your adversaries, the
by them. ever rising roar of those who rise
Your against You," and (Psalms 83:3) "For
Your foes are tumultuous; Your haters
have raised their heads," and
(Psalms 4) "They have been subtle in
counsel against Your people," and
(Psalms 138:21-22) "Will I not hate
Your haters, O L-rd? Will I not battle
with those who rise up against You? I
have hated them to the heights of
hatred. I have deemed them my
(own) enemies." And thus is it
written (Zechariah 2:12) "Whoever
touches you (Israel) touches the
pupil of His eye": It is not written
"the pupil of the eye," but "the pupil
of His eye" that of the L-rd, as it
108
were, Scripture resorting to a "beloved" in a man's body than his
euphemism (for "the eye of the L- eye. When a man is hit on his head,
rd"). Similarly, (Job 7:20) "Why do he closes only his eyes. And Israel is
You make me Your target for Yourself, thus compared, viz. (Zechariah 2:12)
and a burden to myself?" "Whoever touches you (Israel)
("myself") a euphemism (for "to touches the pupil of His eye." R. Yossi
You"?) Similarly, (Ezekiel 8:17) "and b. Elazar says: He (the "toucher") is
they thrust the branch to their regarded as one who sticks a finger
nostrils" a euphemism for ("My"). into His eye and gouges it out.
Similarly, (Chabakkuk 1:12) "Are You Pharaoh, who "touched," what did I
not of yore, O L-rd, my holy G-d, and do to him? (Shemot 15:4) "Pharaoh's
we shall not die" a euphemism (for chariots and his army He cast into
"You"). Similarly, (Psalms 106:20) the sea." Sisra, who "touched," what
"They exchanged their glory for the did I do to him? (Judges 5:20) "From
image of a bull feeding on grass" a heaven the stars fought. From their
euphemism (for "G-d"). Similarly, courses they fought against Sisra."
(Bamidbar 11:15) "And if You will do Sancherev, who "touched," what did I
thus to me, kill me, I pray You, if I do to him? (II Kings 19:35) "And an
have found favor in Your eyes, and angel of the L-rd went out and smote
let me not witness my evil" a in the camp of Ashur, etc."
euphemism (for "them" and "their," Nevuchadnezzar, who "touched,"
respectively). Similarly, (Ibid. 12:12) what did I do to him? (Daniel 4:30)
"who comes out of his mother's "and he ate grass like cattle."
womb, and half his flesh being Haman, who "touched," what did I do
consumed" a euphemism (for to him? (Esther 8:7) "and they
"our"). And if one helps the hanged him on a tree." And thus you
righteous, it is as if he is helping the find that as long as Israel were
L-rd, viz. (Judges 5:23) "'Curse subjugated in Egypt, the Shechinah
Meroz!' said the angel of the L-rd. was with them in their servitude, viz.
'Bitterly curse her dwellers. Because (Shemot 22:10) "And they saw the G-
they do not come to the holy of the d of Israel, and under His feet, the
L-rd, to the help of the L-rd among likeness of a sapphire brick" (viz.
the mighty.'" R. Shimon b. Elazar Ibid. 1:14) "And thus is it written
says: There is nothing more (Isaiah 63:9) "In all of their afflictions,

109
He was afflicted." This tells me only
of communal afflictions. Whence do I
derive (the same for) individual
afflictions? From (Psalms 91:15)
"When he calls Me, I will answer him.
With him will I be in affliction." And it
is written (Bereshit 39:20-21) "And
Joseph's master took him in and the
L-rd was with Joseph." And thus is it
written (II Samuel 7:23) " before
your people whom You redeemed
from Egypt a nation and its G-d"
(together with them). R. Akiva says:
If it were not explicitly written, it
would be impossible to say it
Israel said before the L-rd: "You have
redeemed Yourself!" You find that
whenever they were exiled, the
Shechinah was exiled with them, viz.
(I Samuel 2:27) "Was I not exiled to
your father's house when they were
in Egypt in the house of Pharaoh?"
When they were exiled to Bavel, the
Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah
43:14) "For your sake I was sent to
Bavel." When they were exiled to
Edom, the Shechinah was with them,
viz. (Ibid. 63:1) "Who is this, coming
from Edom, etc.?" And when they
return, the Shechinah will return with
them, as it is written (Devarim 30:3)
"And the L-rd will return, etc." It is
not written "and the L-rd will return
your captivity," but "and the L-rd will
110
return with your captivity." And it is
written (Song of Songs 4:8) "With Me,
from Levanon, My bride, with Me
from Levanon will you come."
Rebbi says: One verse states
(Bamidbar 9:23) "By the word of the
L-rd they encamped, and by the word
of the L-rd they traveled," and here
(10:35-36) it is written "And Moses
said: "Stand, O L-rd Rest, O -rd."
How are these verses to be
reconciled? Scripture is telling us
that when Israel traveled (by word of
the L-rd) the pillar of cloud was
folded and standing, and it did not
move until Moses said "Stand, O L-
rd." And when they rested (by word
of the L-rd), the pillar of cloud was
folded and standing, and it did not
spread out (over the encampment)
until Moses said "Rest, O L-rd," so
that there are satisfied both "By word
of the L-rd they encamped and by
word of the L-rd they traveled," and
"Moses said: Stand, O L-rd Rest, O
L-rd." And this is the intent of "by the
mouth of the L-rd, by the hand of
Moses." (Ibid. 36) "And when it came
to rest, he said, etc.": Scripture
(here) states that Moses said: (I will
not allow the Shechinah to rest) until
Israel travels in thousands and rests
in ten thousands, until Israel
becomes thousands of ten
thousands, like the stars of heaven. and how did I tire you? Testify
"And when it rested, he said": against Me!", (Ibid. 5) "My people,
Scripture (here) states that the remember now, etc." And the people
Shechinah rests on high only on two were kemithonenim": "mithonenim"
thousands and two ten thousands, as connotes "grumblers," seekers of a
it is written (Psalms 68:18) "the pretest to abandon the L-rd, as in the
chariots of G-d are two ten instance of Yoram the son of Achav,
thousands, two thousands." And just viz. (II Kings 5:7) "Know now and see
as the Shechinah does not rest on that he seeks a pretext (mithaneh)
high except on two thousands and against me," and in the instance of
two ten thousands, so, it does not Samson, viz. (Judges 14:4) "for he
rest below except on two thousands was seeking a pretext (toanah)
and two ten thousands. against the Philistines." R. Eliezer
says: "kemithonenim" connotes
Piska 85 "blows," as in (Proverbs 26:22) "The
words of the grumbler are like
(Bamidbar 11:1) "And the people blows," and in (Devarim 1:23) "And
were ['vayehi'] as seekers of a you 'grumbled' in your tents." What
pretext": "vayehi" connotes return to is "blows" (in our context)? They
a previous condition, i.e., they were were as strikers of blows, but a
perverse to begin with, and they "knife" descended from heaven and
reverted to their original perversity. split their innards, viz. (Proverbs,
"And the people": "the people" Ibid.) "and they descend to the
connotes the wicked ones, as in recesses of the stomach." R. Yehudah
(Shemot 17:4) "What can I do to this says: "kemithonenim" connotes
people?", (Bamidbar 14:4) "How long those who afflict themselves, as in
will this people provoke Me?" (Devarim 26:19) "I did not eat in my
(Jeremiah 13:10) "this evil people mourning (be'oni) of it." Rebbi says:
who refuse to hear My words." And "kemithonenim ra [evil]": "evil" (in
when He calls them "My people," this this context) is idolatry, as in
connotes the upright ones, as in (Devarim 31:29) "for you will do evil
(Shemot 7:16) "Send My people and in the eyes of the L-rd." "in the ears
let them serve Me," (Michah 6:3) "My of the L-rd": We are hereby taught
people, what (wrong) did I do to you, that Israel deliberately intended to

111
have Him hear (their words). R.
Shimon says: An analogy: A man is
cursing the king, when the king
passes by. They tell him: Hush! the
king might hear! And he says: Who
told you that I don't want him to
hear! So, (in this instance) Israel
wanted the L-rd to hear. He heard
and His wrath burned in them. "and
the fire of the L-rd burned in them":
Fire descended from heaven and
"rained blows" upon them until they
could not tell the diference between
the living and the dead. But whom
did the fire strike first? "and it (the
fire) devoured 'biktzei' of the camp."
Some say (this refers to)
proselytes, who were muktzim ("cast
of") in the end ("katzeh") of the
camp. R. Shimon b. Menassia says:
"and it devoured 'biktzei' of the
camp": in the ketzinim,
officers), their great men, as in
(Judges 11:11) "and the people set
him as a leader and a chief (katzin)
over them."
Piska 86
(Bamidbar 11:2) "And the people
cried out to Moses": How would
Moses help them? Should it not be
"And the people cried out to the L-
rd"? R. Shimon says: An analogy: A
king was angry with his son, and he
went to the king's loved one and said
to him: Please intercede for me with
father. Thus, Israel went to him:
Please intercede for us with the L-rd.
I might think that Moses would
demur; it is, therefore, written "and
Moses prayed to the L-rd." I might
think that the L-rd would demur; it is,
therefore, written "and the fire sank"
it sank in its place. If it returned to
the heavens, they would revert to
their wrong, and if it went to the
side, it would raze that entire side,
wherefore it sank in its place. (Ibid.
3) "And he called the name of that
the place 'Taveirah'" ("conflagration"). As
one would say: Leave that fire
burning in its place. Thus did Moses
say to Israel: Repent and the fire will
subside; if not, it is still (burning) in
(their its place. "for the fire of the L-rd
burned in them": It was called thus
because of the event, and not
because that was its name in the
past. Similarly, (Shemot 17:7) "And
he called the name of the place
Massah and Merivah." I might think
that that was its name in the past; it
is, therefore, written "because of the
quarrel (riv [as in "Merivah"]) of the
children of Israel" it was thus
called because of the event.
Similarly, (Bamidbar 11:34) "And he
112
called the name of that place Kivroth
Hata'avah." I might think that that
was its name in the past; it is,
therefore, written "for there they
buried (kavru) the people that lusted
(hamitavim)" it was thus called
because of the event. But you still do
not know who were those
incited them to this transgression.
It is written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 4) "And
the asafsuf in its midst (lusted lust").
These are the converts that were
"added on" (hanosafim [as
"asafsuf"]) to them how much
more so the common Jews (i.e., the
rabble). R. Shimon b. Menassia says:
These ("the asafsuf") are the elders,
viz. (Ibid. 11:16) "Gather (asfah) unto
me seventy men from the elders of
Israel." If thus, the elders, how much
more so, the commoners! Similarly,
(Bereshit 6:2) "And the sons of the
judges saw the daughters of man,
etc." What did they do? They would
seize women from the marketplace
and "afflict" them. If thus, the sons of
the judges, how much more so the
commoners? "they lusted lust": I
might think that they lusted
something they did not have; it is,
therefore, written "Who will feed us
flesh," (which implies that
lusted something which they had.)
"and the children of Israel also wept
again," which teaches us that the
first ones (viz. Ibid. 2) were the
children of Israel. "And they said:
'Who will feed us flesh?'" Now is it
because they did not have flesh that
they grumbled? Is it not written
(Shemot 12:38) "And also a mixed
who multitude went up with them, and
flocks and herds, etc."? I might think
that they had eaten them in the
desert, but is it not written upon their
entering the land (Bamidbar 32:1)
in "And much livestock were possessed
by the sons of Reuven and the sons
of Gad, etc."? But (the truth is that)
they were only seeking a pretext to
abandon the L-rd.
Piska 87
(Bamidbar 11:5) "We remember the
fish that we would eat in Egypt,
free": Is it possible that the Egyptians
gave them fish free? Is it not written
(Shemot 5:18) "And now, go and
work, and straw will not be given
you": If they did not give them straw
free, would they give them fish free?
How, then, are we to understand
"free"? "Free" of mitzvoth. R. Shimon
says: The manna would change for
they them to any flavor they desired,
except for (that of) these five things
(Ibid "cucumbers, melons, leeks,
113
onions, and garlic") An analogy: A
king hands his son over
pedagogue and charges him: See to
it that he does not eat or drink
anything harmful. And the
grumbles at his father, saying: It is
not because he loves me,
because he does not want me to eat!
The sages say: The manna changed
for Israel to any thing (i.e., any
flavor) they desired, but they did not
see it (the desired object) with their
eyes. And this is the intent of (Ibid.
6) "There is nothing. Only to the
manna is our eyes." To our eyes,
there is nothing only manna in the
morning, manna in the evening!
Piska 88
(Bamidbar 11:6) "And now, our souls
are dry. There is nothing": R. Shimon
said: They said: It (the manna) will
burst our bowels. Can a mortal ingest
and not expel! They said to R.
Shimon: And how do you explain
(Devarim 23:14) "And you shall have
a spade along with your
implements" (to cover
excrement)? He answered: What the
Canaanite merchants sold them they
expelled, but the manna, never. As it
is written (Psalms 78:25) "Man ate
the bread of abirim" (bread) which
was absorbed in the eivarim (the
to a limbs). "Only to the manna is our
eyes. (7) The manna was (round) like
coriander seed, and it looked like
son crystal.": You think that he who said
this ("Only to the manna, etc.") said
but that ("The manna was round, etc."?)
This is not so. Israel said "Only to the
manna is our eyes," and the L-rd
"pacified" all future generations and
said to them: Come and see what
they are grumbling to Me about
"The manna was like coriander seed
it looked like crystal!" viz.
(Bereshit 2:12) "And the gold of that
land is good. There is the crystal and
the onyx stone." Similarly, (i.e.,
another instance of "split referrent")
(Ibid. 38:25) "And Judah recognized
(them) and said: 'She is right. It is by
me'" (that she is with child). And
Scripture (and not Judah) states that
"he did not live with her again."
Similarly, (Devarim 25:18) "and you
(Israel) were faint and weary," "and
(he, Amalek) did not fear G-d."
Similarly, (Judges 5:28) "Why is his
other (Sisra's) chariot delayed in coming?"
your This was stated by Sisra's mother,
(29) "The wisest of her ladies answer
her, etc." This was said by his wife
and her daughters-in-law. (Ibid.)
"She, too, returns her words to her"
there was revealed to her what
114
was said to Devorah by the Holy
Spirit Don't wait any longer for
Sisra. (Ibid. 31) "So will all of Your
foes go lost, O L-rd." Similarly, (I
Samuel 4:8) "Woe to us! Who will
save us from the hand of this mighty
G-d" This was stated by the
righteous (among them). But the
wicked said: "This is the G-d who
smote the Egyptians with every
plague in the desert." Their intent
was: He had only ten plagues (in His
arsenal) and He brought them all on
the Egyptians He has no plagues
left. The L-rd responded: You say I
have no plague left? I will bring upon
you a plague the like of which the
world has never seen. One of you will
be sitting (and defecating) and a
mouse will rise from the depths and
will scoop out his innards and return
to the depths! And thus is it written
(Ibid. 5:6) "And the hand of the L-rd
was heavy against the Ashdodites
and He struck them with
hemorrhoids." Similarly, (Jeremiah
26:16-25) "Then the officers and all
the people said to the Cohanim:
This man (Jeremiah) does not
deserve to die And there arose
men of the elders of the land and
they said to the entire assemblage of
the people: Michah the Monashite
prophesied Did Chizkiyahu king of
115
Judah put him to death? " Until
here, the words of the righteous. But
the wicked among them said: "There
was also a man who prophesied in
the name of the L-rd, Uriah the son
of Shemayahu And King
Yehoyakim heard and the king
wanted to put him to death. And
King Yehoyakim sent men to Egypt
and they took Uriah out of Egypt "
They said: Just as Uriah was killed, so
Jeremiah must be killed. "But
Achiram son of Shafan protected
Jeremiah not to hand him over to the
people to be put to death." Similarly,
(Ruth 2:13) "As the L-rd lives, lie
(here) until the morning." Because
the yetzer hara (the evil inclination)
sat and aggrieved him (Boaz) the
whole night, saying: You are single
and need a wife, and she (Ruth) is
single and needs a husband, and you
know that a woman is acquired (as a
wife) by intercourse Arise and live
with her and let her be your wife
he swore to his yetzer hara "As the L-
rd lives," I will not touch her. And to
the woman he said: "Lie (here) until
the morning." Here, too, "Only to the
manna is our eyes." Do you think
that he who said this said that ("The
manna was like coriander seed,
etc.")? (No!) Israel said "Only to the
manna is our eyes!" and the L-rd
"pacified" and said to them: Come
and see about what they are railing
against Me: "The manna was like
coriander seed and it looked like
crystal," viz. (Bereshit 2:12) "The
gold of that land is good. There is
crystal and the shoham stone."
Piska 89
(Bamidbar 11:8) "The people would
stroll out and gather it": I might think
that they railed against Him because
it was difficult to gather; it
therefore, written (Shemot 16:4)
"And the people will go out and
gather it." One would sit at the door
of his house and gather his share
and the share of his household, and
when the sun came out, it melted.
"and they would grind it in a mill":
Now (did we not learn that) it never
"descended" to a mill? The intent is,
rather, that it was converted for
them to everything that is ground in
a mill. "or beat it in a mortar": Now
(did we not learn that) it was never
beaten in a mortar? The intent is,
rather, that it was converted for
them to everything that is beaten in
a mortar. I might think that it was
converted only into these things
alone. Whence is it derived that all
the forty years that Israel was in the
desert a woman had no need of
spices, but was "decorated" (i.e.,
perfumed) by the manna? From "or"
beat it." "or cook it in a pot": Now
(did we not learn that) it never
"descended" to a pot? The intent is,
rather, that it was converted for
them to everything that is cooked in
a pot. "and they made cakes of it":
Now (did we not learn that) it never
"descended" to an oven? The intent
is, rather, that it was converted for
them to everything that is baked in
is, an oven. I might think that it was
converted only into these things
alone. Whence do I derive (the same
for) all the things gathered in a field?
From "and they would gather it." And
it is written (Devarim 2:7) "These
forty years the L-rd has been with
you. You have lacked nothing." As if a
man would say I want to eat grapes,
and they were given to him; I want to
eat figs, and they were given to him.
"and its taste was like the 'sap'
(leshad) of oil": "leshad": an
acronymic for three words: "layish"
(dough), "shemen" (oil), and "dvash"
(honey). As dough kneaded with oil
and honey, such was the inherent
taste of the manna, and thus (i.e.,
with intent for this taste) did the
upright of Israel eat it. Variantly: "and
its taste was like the 'sap' (leshad) of
116
oil": Just as the breast (shad) is
"primary" to an infant, and
everything else, secondary. Variantly:
Just as the breast, if an infant sucks it
the whole day, it does not harm it,
so, the manna; if Israel ate it a whole
day, it would not harm them.
Variantly: Just as the breast, which
produces one kind, which changes
into many kinds, so, the (taste of
the) manna changed for Israel into
any taste that they desired, except
for that of the five kinds (viz. Ibid. 5).
An analogy: (A doctor) tells
(nursing) woman: Do not eat garlic
and onion for the sake of the infant.
Variantly: Just as the breast, an infant
sufers when it withdraws from it, so,
Israel sufered when they withdrew
from the manna, viz. (Joshua 5:12)
"And the manna ceased the following
day, when they ate from the grain of
the land." An analogy: A man is
asked: Why are you eating barley
bread? He answers: Because I don't
have wheat bread. Why are you
eating carobs? Because I don't have
figs. Similarly, if Israel had that
handful (of manna) that they took on
the day of Moses' death, from which
they ate all forty days, they would
not desire to eat of the grain of the
land of Canaan. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 9)
"And when the dew descended upon
the camp at night, the manna
descended upon it.": We are hereby
taught that it descended upon the
thresholds and the doorposts. I might
think that the manna was eaten
sullied; it is, therefore, written
(Shemot 16:14) "and, behold, on the
face of the desert it was spread thin."
It (the dew) descended as a kind of
hoarfrost and became a kind of layer
upon the ground on which the manna
descended. And from it Israel took
and ate. This accounts for the lower
a level; but couldn't the reptiles and
the flies infest it from above? It is,
therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the
dew layer ascended," whence it
follows that it was enclosed in a kind
of casing. And they would recite the
Shema and pray; and one would go
out to the entrance of his house and
take his share and that of his
household, after which the sun would
come out and melt it. Similarly, R.
Shimon says: Why didn't the manna
descend once a year? So that their
hearts turn to their Father in heaven
(for their food). An analogy: A king
decreed that his son be fed once a
year and he visited his father only
on the day of his stipend! Once he
decreed that he be fed every day
and he visited him every day. So with
Israel. If a man had five sons or five
117
daughters, he would sit and worry, sister or his father's sister or his
thinking: If the manna does not fall mother's sister. "weeping by its
tomorrow, we will all die of hunger! families": Because their hearts
So that they all turned their hearts swelled in (this) sin many families
to their Father in heaven. R. Dostai b. joined together and he proclaimed
R. Yannai said: If so, the son will say: this in public. "each at the door of his
Even if I visit my father only for the tent": We are hereby apprised that
sake of my stipend it is sufficient for they waited for Moses until he left
me! So that the visit becomes the door of the house of study, and
entirely opportunistic. Rather, (the they sat and grumbled. "And the L-rd
manna fell every day) so that it could was extremely wroth, and in the eyes
be eaten while it was still warm. of Moses it was evil. (11) "And Moses
Variantly: (It did not fall once for a said to the L-rd, etc." Here, the Holy
long period of time) so that it would One Blessed be He attenuates (His
not be a burden on the road. manifestation of wrath) and Moses
Similarly, R. Dostai b. R. Yannai says: exacerbates, whereas in the instance
Why did the L-rd not create hot of the golden calf, the Holy One
springs in Jerusalem as He did in Blessed be He exacerbates and
Tiberias? So that one not say to his Moses attenuates.
friend: Let us go up to the hot
springs of Jerusalem. If we go up for Piska 91
only one dousing, it will be sufficient
for us. So that the ascent becomes (Bamidbar 11:11) "And Moses said
entirely opportunistic. to the L-rd: Why have You done evil
to Your servant (12) "Did I
Piska 90 conceive all this people? Did I beget
them, etc.?" When did He speak thus
(Bamidbar 11:10) "And Moses heard to him? When He said to him
the people weeping by its families": (Shemot 32:34) "Go, now, lead the
R. Nehorai was wont to say: From people where I told you" the thing
here we derive that Israel were depends upon you. And (Ibid. 6:13)
aggrieved when Moses charged them "And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to
to abstain from illicit relations. For Aaron, and He charged them to the
(before this) a man would marry his children of Israel to deliver the

118
children of Israel from the land of (Bamidbar 11:16) "And the L-rd said
Egypt." He said to them: Know that to Moses: Gather unto Me seventy
they are recalcitrant and men from the elders of Israel, etc.":
importunate on the understanding Why (is this mentioned here)?
that they will curse you and stone Because Moses had said "I cannot
you! "Whence am I to take flesh (to bear alone," the L-rd responded:
give to all this people") Are they What you have requested, I have
only one or two (recalcitrants, etc.) granted. "Gather unto Me": that the
that I can bear them? (The majority Sanhedrin be in My name. Wherever
are of that kind!) (11:14) "I shall not "unto Me" is written, the
be able to bear alone all this people." understanding is "forever." The
(15) "And if thus You will do to them, Cohanim (Shemot 28:41) "that
kill me, I pray You": The Holy One they minister unto Me." The Levites
Blessed be He had shown Moses the (Bamidbar 8:14) "and the Levites
calamity that He was going to bring shall be unto Me." Israel (Vayikra
upon them. R. Shimon was wont to 25:35) "For unto Me are the children
say: An analogy: One going out to be of Israel servants." The first-born
executed together with his sons says (Bamidbar 8:17) "For unto Me are all
to the executioner: Kill me before the first-born of the children of
you kill my sons not as in the Israel." The sanctuary (Shemot
instance of Tzidkiyahu (Jeremiah 25:8) "And let them make unto Me a
52:10-11) "And the king of Bavel sanctuary." The altar (Ibid. 20:24)
slaughtered the sons of Tzidkiyahu "An altar of earth shall you make
before his eyes and the eyes of unto Me." The oil of anointment
Tzidkiyahu he blinded. Thus, Moses (Ibid. 30:31) "Holy oil of anointment
said before the L-rd: "And if thus You shall this be unto Me." The kings (I
will do to them, kill me, I pray you." I Samuel 16:1) "For I have seen
would rather be killed first and not among his sons a king unto Me." The
see the calamity that is to be oferings (Bamidbar 28:2) "to
brought upon them. sacrifice unto Me in its appointed
time." Unto Me, then, always
Piska 92 connotes "forever." (Bamidbar, Ibid.
16) "seventy men": There must be
seventy in a Sanhedrin. "seventy

119
men": They must be wise, strong,
senior, and well-versed in the magic
arts. "from the elders of Israel": Not
in (only) one or two places does the
L-rd accord honor to the elders, but
in every place that you find, He does
so, viz. (Shemot 3:16) "Go and
assemble the elders of Israel, etc.",
(Ibid. 24:1) "And to Moses He said:
Ascend to the L-rd, you and Aaron
and Nadav and Avihu and seventy of
the elders of Israel," (Ibid. 14) "And
to the elders He said: Wait for us
here until we return to you," (Vayikra
9:1) "And it was on the eighth day
that Moses called to Aaron and to his
sons and to the elders of Israel"
Wherever you find elders, you find
the L-rd according honor to the
elders. R. Shimon b. Yochai says:
Whence do you derive that it will also
be thus in time to come? From
(Isaiah 24:23) "And the moon will be
shamed and the sun abashed. For
the L-rd of hosts will reign on Mount
Zion and in Jerusalem, and He will
accord His elders honor." Now does it
not follow a fortiori, viz.: If He who
spoke and brought the world into
being is destined to accord honor to
the elders, how much more so should
creatures of flesh and blood honor
them! And thus do you find that the
L-rd is aggrieved over (the sufering
120
of) one elder over and against all of
Israel, viz. (Ibid. 47:6) "I have fumed
against My people; I have profaned
My heritage, etc." The L-rd, as it
were, "pardons" everything, but
(Ibid.) "You have weighed your yoke
exceedingly upon the elder" (i.e., this
cannot be pardoned). (Bamidbar,
Ibid.) "whom you know to be the
elders of the people": You must know
that they are "select" men. "that
they are the elders of the people":
We are hereby taught that one is not
elected to sit in council until people
tend to speak in praise of him, viz.:
"That man is upright and pious and
wise and fit to sit in council." "and its
officers": those of whom it is written
(Shemot 5:19) "And the officers of
the children of Israel saw them in
their plight." Since they saw
themselves as involved in their
plight, let them come and share in
their welfare. (Devarim, Ibid.) "And
you shall take them to the tent of
meeting": He said to them. "Take
them" with words first, with words of
praise, viz.: How fortunate you are to
have been selected (for this honor)
and then "hard" words: Know that
they are importunate and
recalcitrant. Take them on this
condition, that they will curse you
and stone you. And stipulate the
same to them. "And have them stand
there with you": Take them in with
you to the tent of meeting, and let all
of Israel deport themselves to them
with awe and fear and honor, as they
do with you. And let them say: How
beloved are these, who have entered
with Moses to hear the word of the
Holy One Blessed be He!
Piska 93
(Bamidbar 11:17) "And I will go
down" (veyaradeti): This is one of the
ten "yeridoth" written in the Torah.
"and I will speak with you": "with
you," but not with them. "And I shall
increase from the spirit which is upon
you, and I will place it upon them.":
What was Moses like at that time?
Like a lamp placed upon a menorah,
from which many lamps are lighted
without the first losing any of its
light. So, the wisdom of Moses was in
no way diminished thereby. "and
they will bear with you": What is the
intent of this? Because Moses had
said (Devarim 1:12) "How can I bear
alone your contentiousness, your
heresy, and your caviling," he was
told "and they will bear with you the
burden of the people, and you will
not bear it alone."
121
Piska 94
(Bamidbar 11:18) "And to the people
you shall say: Hithkadshu for
tomorrow": (The connotation of)
"Hithkadshu" is: Prepare yourselves
for calamity, as in (Jeremiah 12:3)
"Hakdishem for the day of killing,"
(Ibid. 22:7) "Vekidashti against your
destroyers." (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20)
"Until a month of days": This is
stated of the mediocre. They would
languish in their beds for thirty days
until their souls expired. Of the
wicked it is written (Ibid. 33) "The
flesh was yet between their teeth"
As soon as they put it between their
teeth, their souls would expire. (Ibid.
20) "and it will be loathsome to you":
You will repel it more than you
courted it. "for you have despised
the L-rd who is in your midst.": The L-
rd said to them: What caused you to
say such things? My having reposed
My shechinah among you. For if I had
removed My shechinah from you,
you would not have (swelled with
pride to) utter such things.
Piska 95
(Bamidbar 11:21) "And Moses said:
Six hundred thousand foot, etc.": R.
Shimon b. Yochai said: R. Akiva
expounded this in one way, and I, in
two ways, and my words seem more
cogent. R. Akiva expounds it plainly,
viz. (Ibid. 22) "If flocks and herds are
slaughtered for them will it
sufficient for them?" Even if you give
them all the flocks and herds (in the
world), will it be sufficient for them?
And I understand it as follows: "If
flocks and herds are slaughtered for
them will it be sufficient for them?"
Even if you give them all the flocks
and herds in the world, they would
grumble. For is it because they have
no meat that they are grumbling? Is
it not written of the exodus from
Egypt (Shemot 12:38) "And also a
great mixture (of proselytes) went up
with them, and flocks and herds,
etc."? I might think they ate them in
the desert. It is, therefore, written
(Bamidbar 32:1) "And the sons of
Reuven and the sons of Gad had
much cattle, etc." It is only that they
were looking for a pretext
abandon the L-rd. (Ibid. 11:22) "If all
the fish of the sea are gathered for
them"? Even if you gave them all the
fish in the sea they would grumble.
For is it because they have no fish
that they are grumbling? Did not the
well of Miriam accompany them in
the desert and supply them with
more than their fill of fish? It is only
that they were looking for a pretext
to abandon the L-rd. Variantly:
Because He showed Moses the chain
of calamities destined to befall them,
be Moses said before the L-rd: My L-rd,
is it right that you give them and kill
them? Does one tell an ass: Take a
kor of wheat and we will cut of your
head? Does one tell a man: Take a
loaf and descend to Sheol? He
responded: And if not, (i.e., if I do not
give them what they ask for), what
will be said? (Ibid. 23) "Will the hand
of the L-rd be found wanting?"
Moses: Let me go and attempt to
conciliate them. The L-rd: (Ibid.) "You
will see whether My word (that they
will not heed you) will befall you or
not." While you are here, I am telling
you that they will not heed you. (Ibid.
24) "And Moses went out and told
the people the words of the L-rd,"
viz.: When Moses went to them he
said to them: "Will the hand of the L-
to rd be found wanting?" (They
responded, Psalms 78:20) "True, He
struck a rock and water flowed and
streams flooded forth, but can He
also give bread? Can He supply food
for His people?" They said: This (i.e.,
your attempt to conciliate us) is a
"compromise." He lacks the strength
to grant us what we ask.
122
 (Ibid. 26) "And there remained two
men in the camp": Some say: They
(i.e., their ballots) remained in the
ballot box. When the Holy One
Blessed be He told Moses to select
seventy elders, Moses asked himself:
What am I to do? I must select six
from each (of the tribes) and five
from two tribes. Which tribe will
consent to only five? Moses did as
follows: He took seventy ballots and
wrote on them "elder," and two blank
ballots and mixed them (with the
others) in the ballot box, and he said
to them: Come and take your ballots.
Whoever came up with a ballot
marked "zaken," was told by Moses:
"The L-rd has already selected you,"
and whoever came up with a blank
ballot was told by Moses: It is the will
of Heaven what can I do?
Similarly, (Bamidbar 3:96) "And (for)
the redemption (money) of the two
hundred and seventy-three of the
first-born of the children of Israel
over and above the (number of the)
Levites, etc." Moses said what am I
to do now? Each one (of the Israelite
first-born) will say: A Levite has
redeemed me! Moses did as follows:
He took (22,000) ballots and wrote
upon them "Levite," and (273) ballots
and wrote upon them "five shekels,"
placed them in a ballot box and said
123
to them: Come and take your ballots.
Whoever came up with a ballot
marked "Levite" was told by Moses:
"You have already been redeemed,"
and whoever came up with a ballot
marked "five shekalim" was told by
Moses: "Go and give your
redemption money (to the Cohanim).
R. Shimon says (on Bamidbar 11:26):
"They (Eldad and Medad) remained
in the camp, for when they saw
Moses selecting elders, they said: We
are not deserving of this honor,
saying which, they went and hid
themselves whereupon the L-rd
said to them: You lowered
yourselves; I will exalt you above all
the others: Of the seventy elders it is
written (Ibid. 25) "And they
prophesied but (after that day),
they prophesied no more," whereas
of Eldad and Medad it is written (Ibid.
27) "They are prophesying in the
camp" until the day of their death.
And what were they saying? "Moses
will die and Joshua will bring Israel to
Eretz Yisrael."
Piska 96
(Bamidbar 11:27) "And the youth
ran and he told Moses": Some say
that this is Joshua, as in (Shemot
33:11) "And his (Moses') attendant,
Joshua the son of Nun, a youth." R.
Shimon says: It is written (Bamidbar,
Ibid. 28) "And Joshua the son of Nun
the servant of Moses from his youth
responded": The first one, then, (i.e.,
"the youth") is not Joshua. (Ibid.) "My
lord, Moses, kela'em": He said: My
master, end them from the world,
men who utter this evil report (that
Moses will die). Rebbi says: (He said)
Confine them in chains and collars,
as in (Jeremiah 37:18) " that you
have put me into the prison house"
("beth hakeleh"). (Ibid. 29)
Moses said to him: Are you zealous
for my sake?" He said to him: Joshua,
am I zealous for your sake? Would
that you were a prophet like me (i.e.,
that your prophecy be directly from
the L-rd), and that all of Israel be like
you (in that regard) (Ibid.) "Would
that all the L-rd's people
prophets (by direct inspiration, and
not by [indirect] "increase of spirit,"
viz. Ibid. 25). (Ibid. 30) "And Moses
retired into (his tent in) the camp, he
and the elders of Israel." We are
hereby taught that He did not bring
the calamity upon them until there
entered (his tent) all of the righteous
in the camp.
Piska 97
(Bamidbar 11:31) "And a wind went
forth from the L-rd and blew in
(vayagaz) quail from the sea": We
are hereby taught that it (the quail
flock) "blossomed" like "pufs" of
wool (gazim). "and it spread over the
camp": Some say that it killed in its
descent as it did in being eaten.
"about a day's journey on one side":
towards the north. "and a day's
journey on the other side": towards
the south. R. Shimon says: "about a
day's journey here": from above;
"And "and a day's journey there": from
below. "and about two cubits above
the face of the earth": It hovered
above two cubits over the face of the
earth, so that they could be easily
gathered in.
Piska 98
were
(Bamidbar 11:32) "And the people
rose all that day hamamit": Read it
not "hamamit" ("he that gathered
least"), but "hamemuat" (the "least"
among them, i.e., the indolent and
the lame), gathered ten kor." (Ibid.)
"Vayishtechu lahem shatoach": R.
Yehudah says: Do not read it thus
("vayishtechu"), but
"vayishchatu"("and they
slaughtered"): We are hereby taught
that what descended for them
124
required shechitah (ritual slaughter). lusted." It was thus called because of
Rebbi says: This (derivation) is not the event. (Ibid. 35) "From Kivroth
needed, for it is already written Hata'avah the people traveled to
(Psalms 78:27) "And he rained down Chatzeiroth, and they abode in
upon them meat like dust and Chatzeiroth": Now were there two
winged birds like the sand of seas." Chatzeiroth, one from which they
What, then, is the intent of traveled and one in which they
"Vayishchetu lahem shatoach"? That camped? But (the intent is) once
it came down in layers (mashtichim). Israel began to travel, they did not
I might think that just as they continue before they heard that
gathered much, so, they ate much of Miriam became leprous and they
it; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, turned back and camped behind
Ibid. 11:33) "The flesh was yet them wherefore, (Ibid. 12:16) "And
between their teeth." He (the eater) afterwards the people traveled from
did not finish biting it before his soul Chatzeiroth" "and they abode in
left him, as it is written (Psalms, Ibid. Chatzeiroth."
31) "They had not yet been
estranged from their craving; their Piska 99
food was still in their mouth, when
the wrath of G-d rose against them (Bamidbar 12:1) "And Miriam and
and He smote their fattest." Aaron spoke (vatedaber) against
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And the wrath of Moses": "dibbur" in all places
the L-rd burned against the people, connotes "harsh" speech, as in
and the L-rd smote the people with a (Bereshit 42:30) "The man, the lord
very great plague." We are hereby of the land, spoke ("dibber") roughly
apprised that the L-rd sent against to us," (Bamidbar 21:5) "and the
them a sore plague, the like of which people spoke ("vayedaber") against
had not been seen since the day G-d and against Moses." And
they left Egypt." (Ibid. 34) "And he "amirah" in all places connotes
called the name of that place 'Kivroth imploration as in (Bereshit 19:7)
Hata'avah' ("the graves of the lust"). "And he said (vayomer): Do not, I
I might think that this is its name of pray you, my brothers, do ill,"
yore; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) (Bamidbar 12:6) "And He said
"for there they buried the people that (vayomer): Hear, I pray you, My

125
words." "And Miriam and Aaron
spoke against Moses": We are hereby
apprised that both spoke against
him, but that Miriam spoke first. This
was not her practice, but the
occasion demanded it. Similarly
(Jeremiah 36;6) "And you (Baruch)
shall go and read from the scroll, on
which you have written from my
(Jeremiah's) mouth, the word of the
L-rd in the ears of the people" not
that it was Baruch's practice to speak
before Jeremiah, but the occasion
demanded it. "and Miriam and Aaron
spoke against Moses": How did
Miriam know that Moses had ceased
from marital relations (with his wife
Tzipporah)? Seeing that Tzipporah
did not adorn herself as other
(married) women did, she asked her
for the cause and was told: "Your
brother is not 'particular' about this
thing" (intercourse, [being constantly
"on call" for the word of G-d]). Thus
Miriam learned of the matter. She
apprised Aaron of it and they both
spoke of it (as being a troublesome
precedent for others.) Now does this
not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Miriam,
whose intent was not to berate her
brother, but to praise him, and not to
diminish propagation (in Israel), but
to increase it, and who spoke thus
privately If she was thus punished,
126
then one who intends to speak
against his brother, in defamation
and not in praise, and to diminish
propagation and not to increase it,
and in public how much more so
(is he to be punished!) Similarly, a
fortiori from the instance of Uzziah
(viz. II Chronicles 16-19) If King
Uzziah, whose intent (in ofering the
incense) was not self-
aggrandizement or personal honor
but the glory of his Master, was thus
punished, how much more so one
who intends the opposite!
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) " Because of the
Cushite woman": Scripture hereby
apprises us that whoever beheld her
attested to her beauty. And thus is it
written (Bereshit 11:29) " the
father of Milkah and the father of
Yiskah": Yiskah is Sarah: Why was
she called "Yiskah"? For all gazed
upon ("sochim") her beauty, as it is
written (Ibid. 12:15) "And Pharaoh's
officers saw her and praised her to
Pharaoh." R. Eliezer the son of R.
Yossi Haglili said: "Tzipporah" (Moses'
wife) Why was she called
"Tzipporah"? "Tzfu ur'uh" ("Look and
see") how beautiful this woman is!
"the Cushite (Ethiopian) woman":
Now was she an Ethiopian? Wasn't
she a Midianite, viz. (Shemot 2:16)
"And the priest of Midian had seven
daughters, etc." What is the intent of in deed; in deed, but not in
"Cushite"? Just as a Cushite is appearance, viz. (Proverbs 11:22)
exceptional in his skin, so Tzipporah "Like a golden ring in the snout of a
was exceptional in her beauty pig is a beautiful woman lacking in
more so than all the women. sense. Tzipporah was beautiful in
Similarly, (Psalms 7:1) "A Shiggayon both wherefore it is written "about
of David, which he sang to the L-rd the Cushite woman that he had
concerning Cush (Saul), a taken, for he had taken a Cushite
Benjaminite." Now was he a Cushite? woman."
(The intent is:) Just as a Cushite is
exceptional in his skin, so Saul was Piska 100
exceptional in his appearance, as it is
written of him (I Samuel 9:2) " from (Bamidbar 12:2) "And they said: Is it
his shoulder and upwards, taller than only with Moses that the L-rd has
all of the people." Similarly, (Amos spoken?" Did He not also speak with
9:7) "Are you not like Cushites to Me, our forefathers? And they did not
O children of Israel?" Now were they separate from their wives! "Has He
Cushites? (The intent is:) Just as a not spoken also with us?": And we
Chushite is exceptional in his skin, have not separated from our
so, is an Israelite exceptional in spouses! "And the L-rd heard": We
mitzvoth. Similarly, (Jeremiah 32:7) are hereby apprised that no one else
"And Eved-melech the Cushite was there, but they spoke thus
heard": Now was he a Cushite? Was between themselves. R. Nathan says:
he not Baruch? But, just as a Cushite They also spoke thus to Moses' face,
is exceptional in his skin, so, was it being written "And the L-rd heard
Baruch ben Neriah exceptional in his and the man Moses" but Moses
deeds, more so than any of the suppressed it.
others in the king's palace.
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "for he had taken a Piska 101
Cushite woman": Why is this written?
Is it not written (immediately before) (Bamidbar 12:3) "And the man
"about the Cushite woman that he Moses was extremely humble":
had taken"? There are those who "humble" in his mind (i.e.,
are beautiful in appearance, but not complaisant). You say humble in his

127
mind, but perhaps (the meaning is)
"humble" in his wealth; it
therefore, (to negate this) written
(Shemot 11:3) "The man Moses, also,
was very great" (in context,
wealth). We find that the second
tablets made by Moses were of
sapphire, it being written (Devarim
10:1) "Carve out for yourself ([the
fragments of the first tablets were
vouchsafed to Moses]) two tablets of
stone like the first." Just as the first
were of sapphire, so, these. And
whence is it derived that the first
were of sapphire? From (Shemot
32:16) "And the (first) tablets were
the work of G-d," and (Ibid. 24:10)
" and under His feet, as the work of
a pavement of sapphire." "work" is
likened to "work." Just as "work"
there (24:10) is of sapphire, so,
"work" here (32:16). "more"
(humble) than any man on the face
of the earth": but not (more humble)
than the forefathers. R. Yossi says:
Even (more humble) than
forefathers. And what is the intent of
than any man on the face of the
earth"? but not (more humble)
than the angels.
Piska 102
(Bamidbar, Ibid. 4) "And the L-rd
is, said suddenly": R. Shimon b.
Menassia said: Moses was frightened
by "suddenly" (viz. [Shemot 3:6]),
in and (here) G-d spoke "suddenly."
"The three of you go out to the tent
of meeting!": We are hereby apprised
that the three of them were called by
a single utterance, something which
(within the framework of nature) the
mouth is not capable of uttering nor
the ear of hearing. And thus is it
written (Shemot 20:1) "And the L-rd
spoke all of these things, saying"
(Psalms 62:12) "One (thing) has G-d
spoken; two (things) have I heard,"
(Jeremiah 23:29) "Behold, My word is
like fire, declares the L-rd, (and like a
hammer that shatters rock.")
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And the L-rd went
down in a pillar of cloud": not as the
measure of flesh and blood. The
measure of flesh and blood: When he
goes out to war, he goes out with
many men, and when he goes out to
the peace, he goes out with only few. But
the Holy One Blessed be He, when
He goes out to war, only He goes
out, as it is written (Shemot 18:3)
"The L-rd is a man of war"; and when
He comes in peace, He comes with
thousands and ten thousands, viz.
(Psalms 68:18) "G-d's chariots are
myriads upon myriads, thousands
128
upon thousands." (And here He
comes to make peace, accompanied
by "a pillar of cloud.") (Bamidbar,
Ibid.) "And He called Aaron and
Miriam, and the two of them came
forth." Scripture here comes to teach
us proper conduct that when one
wishes to speak to someone not in
the presence of another, he should
not ask the other to leave, but should
draw near to him the one he wishes
to speak to and talk to him. And why
did He not call Moses with them? So
that Israel not say that Moses, too,
was the object of the L-rd's anger.
Variantly: So that Moses not hear the
(L-rd's) criticism of Aaron. Variantly:
A man (Moses, in this instance) is not
to be praised to his face. R. Elazar b.
Azaryah says: We find that part of a
man's praise is stated to his face. For
thus do we find with Noach, (the L-rd
saying to him, Bereshit 7:1) "For you
have I found to be righteous before
Me in this generation," whereas not
to his face He says (Ibid. 6:9) "These
are the progeny of Noach: Noach was
a completely righteous man in his
generations." R. Elazar the son of R.
Yossi Haglili says: We find that one
mentions (only) part of the praise of
Him who spoke and brought the
world into being "to His face," as it is
written (Psalms 66:3) "Say to G-d:
129
How awesome are Your deeds!" How
much more so is this true (that only
partial praise is thus mentioned) with
flesh and blood.
Piska 103
(Bamidbar 12:6) "And He said: Hear,
I pray you ("na"), My words": "Na" is
a term of imploration. Now does this
not follow a fortiori, viz.: If He who
spoke and brought the world into
being speaks (thus) with the
terrestrial creatures, how much more
so flesh and blood (speaking to one
another)! R. Shimon b. Yochai says:
What is the intent of "Hear, I pray
you, My words"? They wished to
enter into the words of the L-rd,
whereupon He asked them to wait
until He had finished. How much
more so should one not enter into
the words of his neighbor, (who may
thereby lose his "train of thought.")
(Ibid.) "If there be prophets (among
you), 'the L-rd' (i.e., the immanence
of My name) I invest him with in a
vision; in a dream I speak to him."
But perhaps, just as I speak with the
prophets in a dream and a vision, so I
speak with Moses. It is, therefore,
written (Ibid. 7) "Not so, My servant
Moses. In all of My household, he
(alone) is to be trusted": aside from
the ministering angels. R. Yossi says:
even more than the ministering
angels. (Ibid. 8) "Mouth to mouth I
spoke to him": Mouth to mouth I told
him to separate from his wife. (Ibid.)
"and in (clear) revelation": This refers
to the revelation of His words. You
say: the revelation of his words; but
perhaps (it refers to) the revelation
of the Shechinah. It is, therefore, (to
negate this) written (Shemot 33:20)
"You shall not be able to see My face,
for no man can see My face and
live." R. Akiva says: "no man"
literally. "and live" (i.e., "and the live
ones"): This refers to the ministering
angels, who live forever (i.e., They,
too, cannot see His face.) R. Shimon
says: I do not rule out the words of
my master; I add to them, viz.: "and
live": Even the holy creatures, who
bear the throne (of glory), do not see
the glory. R. Elazar b. R. Yossi says:
Not only do they not see it, they do
not even know where it is, as it is
written (Ezekiel 2:12) "Then a spirit
lifted me and I heard behind me a
sound of great tumult. Blessed is the
glory of the L-rd from His place"
(wherever it may be). R. Dossa says:
"For a man will not see Me vachai":
"When he lives" ("vachai") he cannot
see Me, but he sees Me when he
dies. And thus is it written (Psalms
130
22:20) "Before Him shall bow down
all who go down to dust, whose spirit
does not live." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and
not in riddles": What is the intent of
this? Because it is written (Ezekiel
17:2) "Son of man, propound a
riddle," then just as I speak to the
prophets in riddles, I (sometimes)
speak to Moses in riddles; it is,
therefore, written "and not in
riddles." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and the
configuration of the L-rd does he
behold." This is a vision of His
"back." You say it is a vision of His
back, but perhaps it is a vision of His
"face." It is, therefore, written
(Shemot 33:23) "And I will remove
My hand and you will see My back,
but My face will not be seen." Moses
sought to understand the ways of the
Holy One Blessed be He
whereupon He said to him: "and you
will see My back, etc.": My ways in
the world to come, I will reveal to
you; but, as to My ways in this world
"You shall not be able to see My
face," as it is written (Ezekiel 2:10)
"And He spread it (the scroll in the
"hand" of G-d) before me, and it was
written face and back." Now don't
even the light-minded and
commoners do this, writing face and
back? Why mention it then? (The
intent is:) "face" (what transpires)
in this world; "back"
transpires) in the world to come.
"face" the serenity of
righteous and the affliction of the
wicked in this world; "back" the
reward of the righteous and the
punishment of the wicked in the
world to come. (Ezekiel, Ibid.) "and
written upon it were "kinnim, hegeh,
and hi": "kinnim" the afflictions of
the righteous in this world, viz. (Ibid.
32:16) "This is a kinah (a dirge) and
intone it"; "hegeh" the reward of
the righteous in the world to come,
viz. (Psalms 92:4) "(Rejoice) on an
assor (a ten-stringed instrument), on
a psaltery, on higayon (like 'hegeh')
and harp"; "and hi"
punishment of the wicked in the
world to come, viz. (Ezekiel 7:26)
"hoveh (like 'hi') upon hoveh shall
come." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And why
did you not fear to speak against My
servant, against Moses": Let it not be
written "against My servant." (The
intent is) that in speaking against
Moses, it is as if You have spoken
against Me. (for he is "My servant").
An analogy: A king had a governor in
a province, and the people speak
against him. The king says to them:
You have not spoken against My
servant, but against Me! And if you
say (that you are not speaking
(what against Me), but that I do not know
his (evil) ways, this (i.e., to say that I
the am ignorant of his ways) is even
worse than your first (ofense)!
Piska 104
(Bamidbar 12:9) "And the wrath of
the L-rd burned in them, and He
departed": After He apprised them of
their ofense, He decreed ostracism
upon them. Now does this not follow
a fortiori, viz.: If He who spoke and
brought the world into being did not
vent His wrath upon flesh and blood
until He apprised them of their
ofense, how much more so should
the flesh and blood not vent his anger
upon his neighbor until he apprises
him of his ofense! R. Nathan says:
He apprised them of their ofense
and then decreed ostracism upon
them so that they not say as Iyyov
did (Iyyov 10:2) "Apprise me of what
You accuse me!"
Piska 105
(Bamidbar 12:10) "And the cloud
departed from above the tent": An
analogy: A king says to a pedagogue:
"Chastise my son but not until I
leave!" For a father is mercifully
inclined to his son. Now does this not
131
follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is
mercifully inclined to the righteous in
the time of His wrath, how much
more so in the time of His (good)
will! As it is written (Isaiah 49:8) "In a
time of (good) will I (most certainly)
will answer you!" (Ibid.) "And,
behold, (after the cloud had
departed), Miriam was as leprous as
snow": We are hereby taught that
she was stricken with intense (i.e.,
highly visible) leprosy, and that she
was fair-skinned (for which reason it
looked like snow). And thus is it
written (Shemot 4:6) "And the L-rd
said further to him (Moses): Place
now your hand into your bosom
and, behold, his hand was leprous as
snow." (Ibid.) "And Aaron 'turned'":
He was "turned" from his leprosy. R.
Yehudah b. Betheira says: He who
says that Aaron was stricken (with
leprosy) is destined to pay for it. He
who spoke and brought the world
into being covered up for him (by not
mentioning it explicitly in the verse)
and you would reveal it! He who says
that Tzelafchad was the mekoshesh
("the wood gatherer" [viz. Bamidbar
15:32]) is destined to pay for it. He
who spoke and brought the world
into being covered up for him and
you would reveal it! And he who says
that the ban was placed on Akavya
132
b. Mehalalel (viz. Berachoth 19a) is
destined to pay for it. "And Aaron
turned to Miriam, and, behold, she
was leprous": Scripture hereby
apprises us that whenever he looked
at her she became leprous. (Ibid. 11)
"And Aaron said to Moses: Pray, my
lord, do not impute transgression to
us in that we have been foolish and
have sinned.": He said to him: If we
have been willful (in our sin), forgive
us, as if we were unwitting. (Ibid. 12)
"Let her not be as a dead one": Just
as a dead body imparts tumah in a
tent, so, a leper imparts tumah by
entrance (into a house). Aaron
hereby said: Our sister loses on all
accounts: I (being her kin) cannot
quarantine her nor declare her tamei
nor declare her clean. In passing we
learn that Aaron expounds that one
(a Cohein) does not inspect the
plague-spots of his kin. "who leaving
his mother's womb": He should have
said "who leaving our mother's
womb," but Scripture here is being
euphemistic. "and half his flesh has
been consumed": He should have
said "and half our flesh," as in
(Bereshit 37:27) "for he is our
brother, our flesh," but Scripture here
is being euphemistic. (Ibid. 13) "And
Moses cried out to the L-rd, saying:
'Lord, I pray You; heal her, I pray
You.'": Scripture hereby teaches us
proper conduct that one's
requests should be prefaced by two
or three words, of imploration. And
what is the intent of "saying"? Moses
said: Answer me whether You will
heal her or not and the Holy One
Blessed be He answered him, viz.
(14) "And the L-rd said to Moses:
Now if her father had spat in her
face, etc." R. Elazar b. Azaryah says:
In four places Moses requested (to be
answered by the Holy One Blessed
be He), and he was answered.
Similarly, (Shemot 6:12) "And Moses
spoke before the L-rd, to say: "The
children of Israel would not listen to
me, etc." What is the intent of "to
say"? Moses asked the L-rd to answer
him whether or not he would redeem
them. And He did answer him (Ibid.
7:4) "And I will take out My hosts. My
people, Israel, from the land
Egypt." Similarly, (Bamidbar 27:15)
"And Moses spoke to the L-rd to say:
(16) Let the L-rd, the G-d of the
spirits of all flesh, appoint a man
over the congregation." What is the
intent of "to say"? Moses said to Him:
Answer me as to whether or not You
will appoint leaders (for them). And
He did answer him, (Ibid. 18) "Take
for yourself Joshua the son of Nun."
Similarly, (Devarim 3:23) "And
implored the L-rd at that time to say."
What is the intent of "to say"? He
said to Him: Answer me as to
whether or not I will enter the land.
And He did answer him, (Ibid. 26) "It
is enough for you, etc." Here, too, let
"to say" not be written. But, (the
intent is that) he asked Him to
answer whether or not He would heal
her, and He answered "Now if her
father had spat in her face, etc."
(Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "G-d, I pray You;
heal her, I pray You": Why did Moses
not prolong his prayer? So that Israel
not say "His sister is in distress and
he stretches out his prayer."
Variantly: It is not that Moses prays
and the L-rd hears his prayer, but (in
the order of) (Iyyov 22:28) "You (the
tzaddik) will decree, and it will be
fulfilled for you," (Isaiah 58:9) "Then,
when you (the tzaddik) call, the L-rd
of will answer." R. Eliezer was asked by
his disciples: How long shall a man
be in his prayer? He answered: Not
longer than Moses, of whom it is
written (Devarim 9:18) "And I fell
down before the L-rd (in prayer) as at
first, forty days and forty nights."
And how short should he be in
prayer? He answered: Not shorter
than Moses, of whom it is written "G-
d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You."
I There is a time to be short and a
133
time to be long.
Piska 106
(Bamidbar 12:14) "And the L-rd said
to Moses: Now if her father had spat
in her face, etc." R. Achi b. R.
Yoshiyah said: There were
rebukes," viz.: If her father of flesh
and blood had rebuked her, she
would (sit) in shame (sequestered)
for seven days, does it not follow
that if (her Father) He who spoke and
brought the world into being
(rebuked her), (she should
sequestered) fourteen (days)! But "it
suffices that what is derived from an
argument a fortiori be as that which
it is derived from" Just as her
father, seven; so, He who spoke and
brought the world into being, seven.
(Ibid.) "Let her be sequestered seven
days outside the camp, and then let
her be gathered in.": The Holy One
Blessed be He sequestered her, and
the Holy One Blessed be He declared
her tamei and the Holy One Blessed
be He declared her clean. (Ibid.
12:15) "And the people did
journey until Miriam had
gathered in": to teach that "with the
measure that a man measures, so is
he measured." Miriam waited for
Moses a short while, viz. (Shemot
2:4) "And his sister stationed herself
at a distance, etc."; therefore, the
Shechinah, the ark, the Cohanim, the
Levites, and the seven clouds of
glory did not journey until Miriam had
been gathered in. Joseph merited
taking the bones of his father (for
"two burial), and there were none among
his brothers greater than he, viz.
(Bereshit 50:7-9) "And Joseph went
up to bury his father and there
went up with him both chariots and
riders." Who was greater among us
than Joseph, only Moses meriting
be bringing him to burial. And there is
none in Israel greater than he, viz.
(Shemot 13:19) "And Moses took the
bones of Joseph with him." Who is
greater among us than Moses, none
but the Holy One Blessed be He
bringing him to burial, viz. (Devarim
34:6) "And He buried him in the
valley of the land of Moav": R.
Yehudah says: If it (the above) were
not an explicit verse, it would be
impossible to say it. Where did Moses
die? In the portion of Reuven, viz.
(Ibid. 1) "And Moses went up from
not the steppes of Moav to Mount Nevo."
been This is the territory of the sons of
Reuven, viz. (Bamidbar 32:37-38)
"And the sons of Reuven built
Cheshbon and Elalei and Kiryathayim
and Nevo." And he was buried only in
134
the territory of Gad, viz. (Devarim libations (with their oferings) only
33:20-21) "And to Gad he said: after inheritance and settlement (of
Blessed be he who broadens Gad the land [viz. Ibid. 15:5]). You say
and he saw the best for himself. For after inheritance and settlement, but
there the portion of the lawgiver perhaps immediately upon their
(Moses) is hidden." From the portion entry to the land. It is, therefore,
of Reuven to that of Gad is four mils. written (Devarim 17:14) "When you
Those four mils Who carried him"? come to the land that the L-rd your
We are hereby taught that Moses G-d gives to you, and you inherit it
was (carried) in the "hand" of the and you settle in it, etc." Since
Holy One Blessed be He the four mils "comings" are mentioned in the
from the portion of Reuven to that of Torah unqualified, and in one
Gad, while the ministering angels instance (above) it is specified, after
extolled him in song, (Ibid.) "He inheritance and settlement, so all
wrought the righteousness of the L- ("comings" are understood as) after
rd and His judgments with Israel." inheritance and settlement, which
And He thus gathers in not only teaches us that wherever "settlings"
Moses, but all of the righteous, as it is written, after inheritance and
is written (Isaiah 58:8) "And your settling is understood. These are the
righteousness shall go before you, words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva
and the glory of G-d will gather you queried him: But in respect to
in." (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) "And Shabbath it is written "settlings" (viz.
afterwards the people journeyed Vayikra 23:3), and it obtains both in
from Chatzeiroth": This journey was Eretz Yisrael and outside of it! R.
after Miriam was gathered in. Yishmael replied: If "lighter" mitzvoth
obtain both in the land and outside
Piska 107 it, how much more so, Shabbath, the
"graver." And it ("settlings") comes to
(Bamidbar 15:2) "Speak to the teach that in an individual altar
children of Israel and say to them: ("bamah") there is no obligation to
When you come to the land of your bring libations. R. Akiva says:
settlings which I give to you, etc.": Scripture comes to teach us that
Scripture comes to teach us that libations are to be ofered on a
Israel were obligated to bring bamah. Abba Channan says in the

135
name of R. Eliezer: Why is this
("When you come to the land")
written? For it would follow, since we
find that the vessels of the Temple
were more than those of the tent of
meeting (viz. I Kings 7:27), so, the
libations of the Temple were more
than those of the tent of meeting; it
is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 15:2)
"When you come (3) and you shall
ofer, etc." to teach that even though
there were more vessels in the
Temple than in the tent of meeting,
there were not more libations. (Ibid.
3) "and you shall ofer a fire-ofering
to the L-rd": This implies that all that
is ofered for the fire requires
libations, even a meal-ofering. It is,
therefore, written "a burnt-ofering."
This tells me only of a burnt-ofering
(that it requires libations). Whence
do I derive (the same for) peace-
oferings? From "a sacrifice." Whence
do I derive (the same for) a thank-
ofering? From "or a sacrifice." This
would imply (that libations are
required) for these as well as for
first-born, tithe, Pesach and guilt-
ofering. It is, therefore, written "for
an expressed vow or as a guilt-
ofering." Scripture speaks only of
oferings that are brought as vow
and gift. But this would imply that
I exclude them (from libations) as
136
well as mandatory festival oferings!
It is, therefore, written "or in your
festivals," to include these (as
requiring libations). But this would
imply (that libations are required for)
burnt-oferings and mandatory
peace-oferings that are brought on
festivals, and for a mandatory sin-
ofering that is brought on festivals!
It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15;8)
"And if you ofer a bullock as a burnt-
ofering or as a sacrifice." "Bullock"
was included in the general category
(of oferings) and departed from it
(for specific mention) to teach about
the category, viz.: Just as "bullock,"
which is brought for vow or gift
(requires libations, so, all (oferings)
that are brought for vow or gift
require libations) to exclude sin-
oferings and guilt-oferings, which
are not brought for vow or gift.
(Bamidbar 15:3) "to present a sweet
savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of
the flock": What is the intent of this?
Because it is written "and you shall
ofer a fire-ofering to the L-rd, a
burnt-ofering or a sacrifice," I might
think that a burnt-ofering of fowl
(also) requires libations; it is,
therefore, written "of the herd or of
the flock" to exclude a burnt-
ofering of fowl as not requiring
libations. These are the words of R.
Yoshiyah. R. Yochanan says: This is
not needed, for it is already written
"or a sacrifice." Just as "a sacrifice" is
a beast, so, a burnt-ofering. What is
the intent, then, of "to present a
sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd
or of the flock"? Because it is written
(Vayikra 1:2) "A man if he ofers of
you an ofering to the L-rd from
the herd and from the flock," I might
think that if he said: I take it upon
myself to bring a burnt-ofering he
must bring one of each; it
therefore, written (here) "of the herd
or of the flock," that he brings either
one by itself. It is written in respect
to the Pesach ofering (Shemot 12:5)
"from the sheep and from the goats
shall you take it." Either one by
itself? Or, one of each? It
therefore, written (Vayikra 1:10) "And
if of the flock is his ofering, of the
sheep or of the goats for a beast-
ofering." Now does this not follow a
fortiori, viz.: If a burnt-ofering, the
"graver" may be brought from one
kind, then Pesach, the "lighter," how
much more so may it be brought
from one kind! What, then, is the
intent of "from the sheep and from
the goats shall you take it"? Either
one by itself. Issi b. Akiva says: "to
present a sweet savor to the L-rd (of
the herd or of the flock"): either one
by itself. You say either one by itself,
but perhaps (the intent is that he
brings) one of each. Would you say
that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise),
viz.: If the atzereth (Shavuoth)
lambs, of which two must be brought
(viz. Vayikra 23:19), may come of
one kind, then a burnt-ofering, two
of which need not be brought, how
much more so may it come of one
kind! No, this may be true of the
two atzereth lambs, Scripture limiting
is, their bringing (to atzereth), for which
reason they may come of one kind,
as opposed to a burnt-ofering,
Scripture "expanding" its bringing
wherefore it must be brought from
two kinds! This is refuted by the
he-goats of Yom Kippur, Scripture
is, "expanding" their bringing (to two)
and yet being brought from one kind.
(And they will refute "burnt-ofering"
that even though Scripture
"expands" its bringing, it may be
brought of one kind.) No, this may
be true of the Yom Kippur he-goats,
Scripture limiting their bringing, for
they are not brought the whole year,
wherefore they may be brought of
one kind, as opposed to a burnt-
ofering, Scripture "expanding" its
bringing in that it may be brought
the entire year wherefore it should
be permitted only of two kinds. This
137
is refuted by a sin-ofering, which,
even though Scripture "expands" its
bringing to all the days of the year,
may be brought of one kind so
that a burnt-ofering, too, should be
able to come from one kind. No,
this may be true of a sin-ofering,
Scripture limiting its bringing, in that
it may not be brought as vow or gift,
wherefore it is permitted to bring it of
one kind, as opposed to burnt-
ofering, Scripture "expanding" its
bringing in that it may be brought as
vow or gift wherefore it should be
permitted to bring it only of two
kinds. It must, therefore, be written
(15:3) "to present a sweet savor to
the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock"
either one by itself. (15:4) "Then
the oferer shall ofer": Because it is
written (Vayikra 22:18) "A man, a
man who ofers, etc.", this tells me
only of a man. Whence do I derive
(the same for) a woman? From "Then
the oferer shall ofer" in any
event. "Then the oferer shall ofer
his ofering to the L-rd, a meal-
ofering, an issaron of flour." R.
Nathan says: This is a prototype for
all who donate a meal-ofering not to
give less than an issaron. "mixed
with a revi'ith of a hin of oil. (5) And
wine for libations, a revi'ith of a hin":
oil for mixing and wine for libations.
138
"shall you present with the burnt-
ofering or the sacrifice": What is the
intent of this? From (3) "And you
shall ofer a fire-ofering to the L-rd,"
I might think that if he said "I vow to
bring a burnt-ofering; I vow to bring
peace-oferings" that he may bring
one libation for both; it is, therefore,
written "the burnt-ofering or the
sacrifice (of peace-oferings)" he
brings one for each in itself. I might
think if he said ("I vow) five lambs for
a burnt-ofering, five lambs for
peace-oferings," that he brings one
libation for all; it is, therefore, written
"with the burnt-ofering or the
sacrifice for each lamb" he brings
for each in itself. Abba Channan says
in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the
intent of this ("with the burnt-ofering
or the sacrifice")? For I would think: If
where the rule for an ox burnt-
ofering is the same as that for a
lamb burnt-ofering (i.e., that they
are both burned), they are not similar
in libations, (an ox requiring a half
hin, and a lamb, a quarter hin,) then
where the rule for a lamb burnt-
ofering is not the same as that of a
lamb of peace-oferings, (the first
being burned and the second eaten,)
how much more so should they not
be similar in libations! It is, therefore,
written "shall you present with the
brunt-ofering or the sacrifice" diferentiate between those for a
Even though the rule (for the lamb and those for a ram. It is,
ofering) is not the same, the therefore, written "And if it is a ram,
libations are. R. Nathan says: "shall then you shall present as a meal-
you present with the burnt-ofering": ofering, etc." Scripture diferentiates
This is the burnt-ofering of a leper between the libations for a lamb, ("a
(i.e., even though it is mandatory quarter of a hin") and those of a ram
and not vow or gift, it requires ("a third of a hin"). Abba Channan
libations). "or the sacrifice": This is says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is
his (the leper's) sin-ofering. "or the this written? For it would follow
sacrifice": This is his guilt-ofering. (otherwise), viz.: If where libations (in
"for each lamb": to include the burnt- general) were increased, no
ofering of a woman after birth as diferentiation was made between a
requiring libations. "for each lamb": calf and an ox, then where libations
to include (as requiring libations) the (in general) were decreased, how
eleventh (which one erroneously much more so should no
designated as the first-born beast- diferentiation be made between a
tithe (instead of the tenth). For we lamb and a ram! It is, therefore,
nowhere find in the entire Torah that written "And if it is a ram, then you
the secondary (the eleventh in this shall present as a meal-ofering, etc."
instance, which requires libations,) is Scripture hereby apprises us that
severer than the primary (the tenth, even though libations (in general)
which does not). "And if it is a ram, were decreased, a diferentiation was
then you shall present as the meal- made between a lamb and a ram.
ofering (two esronim of flour mixed (Ibid.) "mixed with oil, a third of a
with a third of a hin of oil": Scripture hin": For it would follow (otherwise),
here comes to diferentiate between viz.: Since the lamb of the omer
the libations for a lamb and those for requires two esronim (viz. Vayikra
a ram. For it would follow 23:13), and the ram of a burnt-
(otherwise), viz.: cattle require ofering requires two esronim, then
libations and sheep require libations. just as I learned about the lamb of
If Scripture did not diferentiate the omer that even though its
between the libations for a calf, and esronim were doubled, its libations
those for an ox, so, it would not were not doubled (viz. Ibid.), so, the

139
ram of the burnt-ofering, even
though its esronim were doubled, its
libations should not be doubled; it is,
therefore, written "And if it is a ram,
then you shall present as the meal-
ofering, etc., mixed with oil, etc."
Scripture hereby apprises us that just
as its esronim were doubled, so, its
libations were doubled (i.e.,
increased). "with oil a third of a hin
and wine for libations": oil for mixing;
wine, for libations. "shall you ofer, a
sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me
pleasure that I say, and My will is
done. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 8) "And if you
ofer a bullock as a burnt-ofering or
as a sacrifice for an expressed vow,
etc.": "Bullock" was included in the
general category and it departed
from that category (for special
mention) to teach about the category
that just as a bullock comes for a
vow or a gift and requires libations,
so, all that come for a vow or a gift
require libations. (Ibid. 9) "Then he
shall present with the bullock a meal-
ofering": What is the intent of this?
Because it is written (Ibid. 3) "And
you shall ofer a fire-ofering to the L-
rd," I might think that if he said "I
vow to bring a burnt-ofering; I vow
to bring peace-oferings," he brings
one libation for both; it is, therefore,
written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-
140
oferings)," whereby we are taught
that he brings one for each in itself.
Or (I might think that) even if he said
"I vow to bring five oxen for a burnt-
ofering; five oxen for peace-
oferings," I might think that he
brings one libation for all; it is,
therefore, written "a burnt-ofering or
a sacrifice," whereby we are taught
he brings one for each in itself. Abba
Channan says in the name of R.
Eliezer: What is the intent of "or a
sacrifice"? For it would follow: If
(even though) what transpires with a
lamb burnt-ofering is the same as
that which transpires with an ox
burnt-ofering (i.e., that they are
entirely burnt), still, they are not
equivalent for libations, then, where
what transpires with an ox burnt-
ofering is not the same as that
which transpires with ox peace-
oferings, (which are eaten), how
much more so should they not be
equivalent in libations; it is,
therefore, written "or as a sacrifice
(of peace-oferings)," to teach that
even though they are not equivalent
in what transpires with them, they
are equivalent for libations. (Ibid. 10)
"And wine shall you ofer for
libations": oil for mixing; wine, for
libations on bowls. You say "on
bowls," but perhaps (the intent is) on
the fire. If you say this, you will put
out the fire, and the Torah writes
(Vayikra 6:6) "A perpetual fire is to
be kept burning on the altar, not to
go out." How, then, am
understand "for libations"?
meaning "on bowls." "a sweet savor
to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that
I say, and My will is done." (Ibid. 11)
"Thus shall it be done for the one
ox": Scripture here tells us that the
Torah did not diferentiate between
the libations for a calf and those for
an ox. For it would follow (otherwise),
viz.: Sheep require libations
cattle require libations. If I have
learned that the Torah diferentiates
between libations for a lamb and
those for a ram, then so should it
diferentiate between those for a calf
and those for an ox. It is, therefore,
written "Thus shall it be done for the
one ox," (big or small), the Torah not
diferentiating between the libations
for a calf and those for an ox. Abba
Channan says in the name of R.
Eliezer: Why is this written? For it
would follow otherwise, viz.: If where
libations (in general)
decreased, a diferentiation
made between a calf and an ox,
then, where libations (in general)
were increased, how much more so
should a diferentiation be made
between a calf and an ox! It is,
therefore, written "Thus shall it be
done for the one ox." Scripture
hereby apprises us that even though
I to libations (in general) were increased,
As no diferentiation was made between
a calf and an ox. (Ibid.) "or for the
one ram": Why is this written? For it
would follow otherwise, viz.: Since
we find that the Torah diferentiated
between the libations of a one-year
old ("a lamb") and the libations of a
two-year old ("a ram"), so it should
diferentiate between the libations of
and a two-year old and those of a three-
year old. Scripture hereby apprises
us (by "the one ram") that no such
diferentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or
for the lamb among the sheep": Why
is this written? For it would follow
otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the
Torah diferentiated between the
libations for a sheep and those for a
ram, so it should diferentiate
between the libations for a ewe
(female)-lamb and those for a (ewe-)
sheep. We are hereby apprised (by
"the [female] lamb [one year old]
were among the sheep [two years old]")
was that no such diferentiation was
made. (Ibid.) "or among the goats":
Why is this written? For it would
follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find
that the Torah diferentiated between
141
the libations for a lamb and those for
a ram, so it should diferentiate
between those for a kid and those for
a (full-grown) he-goat; it is, therefore,
written "or among the goats." The
largest of the goats is hereby
equated with the youngest of the
lambs. Just as the latter, three logs
(i.e., a quarter of a hin), so, the
former, three logs. (Ibid. 12) "Thus
shall you do for (each) one": This
tells me only of these (i.e., the
original sacrifices). Whence do
derive (the same for)
exchanges? From "Thus shall you do
for each one." (Ibid. "According to
the number (of animals) that you
ofer": He may not decrease (the
number of libations). But perhaps
if he wishes to increase (the number)
he may do so. It is, therefore, (to
negate this) written "According (i.e.,
strictly according) to their number."
These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.
R. Yonah says: This (derivation) is not
needed. For it is already written (Ibid.
15) "All the native-born shall do
(precisely) thus, these things"
neither to decrease nor to increase.
What, then, is the intent
"According to the number that you
ofer"? I might think that if he wishes
to double (the original number as a
gift) he may do so. It is, therefore,
written "Thus shall you ofer
(libations) for (each) one, according
to their number." From here they
ruled: It is permitted to intermix the
libations for bullocks with those of
rams; the libations of lambs with the
libation of (other) lambs; the
libations of individuals with those of
the congregation; the libations of the
day with those of the preceding
evening ( their numbers being the
same.) But it is not permitted to
I intermix the libations of lambs with
their those of bullocks and rams ( their
numbers not being the same).
(Ibid. 13) "All the native-born shall
thus do, etc.": From here we learn
that libations can be donated. How
much? Three logs, (which suffice for
a lamb). And whence is it derived
that if he wishes to add he may do
so? From "shall do." I might think he
can decrease; it is, therefore, written
"thus." From here it was derived: One
is not to donate two or five, (which
do not [exactly] suffice for anything),
but he may donate three or four or
six or above, (which do [exactly]
suffice for something). Variantly:
of What is the intent of "All the native-
born, etc."? Because it is written
(Vayikra 22:25) "And from the hand
of a gentile you shall not present (as
a sacrifice) the bread of your G-d of
142
all these (blemished animals)" be in your midst throughout your
These you do not accept (from generations." "and he shall ofer a
gentiles), but you do accept fire-ofering": kinds of blood (i.e.,
unblemished animals. After we have animal sacrifices involving blood).
learned that a gentile may bring a You say sacrifices involving blood,
burnt-ofering, I can now conclude: but perhaps only a meal-ofering
An Israelite brings a burnt-ofering (which is entirely burned)! It is,
and a gentile brings a burnt-ofering. therefore, written "Thus shall he do."
Can I also conclude: Just as an Just as you (in the desert ofered)
Israelite brings libations, so, a gentile kinds of (sacrifices involving) blood,
brings libations? It is, therefore, so, converts ofer kinds of blood.
written "All the native-born shall thus (In that case,) why should we not
do these (libations)" An Israelite say: Just as Israel (in the desert
brings libations, but a gentile does ofered) blood of a beast ([and not of
not. I might, then, think that his a fowl] viz. Shemot 24:5), so,
burnt-ofering does not require converts (are inducted only) through
libations; it is, therefore, written the blood of a beast. It is, therefore,
"shall thus do" (to bring libations) written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) ("One
whence they ruled: If a gentile sent Torah and one judgment shall there
his burnt-ofering from abroad and be) for you (and for the stranger who
sent libations along with it, his own sojourns with you") To you (in
are used; and if not they are to be general, as requiring blood for
brought by the congregation. induction into Israel) have I likened
him and not to (the specifics [i.e.,
Piska 108 beast versus fowl] of) your oferings.
Rebbi says: Just as Israel entered the
(Bamidbar 15:14) "And if a stranger covenant only with three things
sojourn among you": This tells me circumcision, immersion, and
(as being likened to an Israelite in acceptance of the ofering so, the
this regard) only of a proselyte who proselytes, like them. But perhaps
had converted before (i.e., one who just as Israel through peace-
had left Egypt with them). Whence oferings, so, proselytes, through
do I derive (the same for) one who peace-oferings. It is, therefore,
converts now? From "and who shall written "And he shall ofer a fire-

143
ofering, a sweet savor to the L-rd."
Come and see: Which kind of blood (Bamidbar 15:15) "The congregation
(sacrifice) is relegated entirely to the ( one statute shall there be for you,
fire, nothing remaining of it? Only a etc."): This (Ibid. 2, "the sons of
fowl burnt-ofering ([but in a beast Israel") tells one only of the men (as
burnt-ofering, the skin reverts to the bringing libations). Whence do I
Cohanim]). I might think (that the derive (the same for) the women?
induction of the proselyte can be From "the congregation." "One
satisfied) even with a meal-ofering; statute shall there be for you and for
it is, therefore, written ("As you are) the stranger that sojourns (among
thus (shall the stranger be"). To bring you"): Because this speaks of Israel,
one bird (as a fowl burnt-ofering) is the proselytes must be (specially)
impossible. For we do not find a included. "an everlasting statute
single bird serving as an ofering in unto your generations": that this (the
the entire Torah whence it was libations) obtain in all the
stated: All the bird couples in the generations. "As you, thus shall the
Torah half is a burnt-ofering; half stranger be before the L-rd": What is
a sin-ofering, except for that of a the intent of this? From (Shemot
proselyte, which is entirely 28:38) "And it (the head-plate) shall
(relegated) to the fire. Variantly: "As be on his (Aaron's) forehead always
you do, thus shall he do": What is the for acceptance for them before the L-
intent of this? For it would follow rd," I might think that this applied
(otherwise), that since we find the only to (native-born) Israelites.
Torah to have diferentiated his Whence do I derive (the same for)
ofering, (Israel bringing [beast] proselytes? From "As you, thus shall
burnt-oferings and peace-oferings, the stranger be before the L-rd."
and a proselyte, a fowl burnt- (Ibid. 16) "One Torah and one
ofering), it is, therefore, written "Just judgment shall there be for you and
as you do (with libations), thus shall for the stranger who sojourns among
he do" Just as you, six (logs) for a you": Scripture hereby likens the
bullock, four for a ram, and three for proselyte to the native-born in
a lamb, thus the proselytes." respect to all the mitzvoth of the
Torah.
Piska 109

144
Piska 110
(Bamidbar 15:15-17) "And the L-rd
spoke to Moses, saying: upon your
coming to the land whither I bring
you there": R. Yishmael says:
Scripture varied (linguistically) this
"coming" from all the other
"comings" in the Torah. For in all the
other instances it is written "And it
shall be, when you come to the
land"; "And it shall be when the L-rd
shall bring you" (all such expressions
connoting permanent settlement),
whereas here it is written "upon your
coming" (connoting the moment of
arrival), to teach that the mitzvah of
challah (the Cohein's share of the
dough) devolved upon them
immediately upon their entering the
land "whither I bring you there":
From here you derive that produce
grown outside the land which enters
the land is subject to challah. It is
from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there that
R. Eliezer ruled it subject to challah,
and R. Akiva exempts it. R. Yehudah
says: Produce grown outside the land
which entered the land R. Eliezer
exempts it, it being written (Ibid. 19)
"and it shall be, when you eat of the
bread of the land," and R. Akiva rules
it subject to challah, it being written
"there" (i.e., in Eretz Yisrael). What is
145
the intent of "when you eat of the
bread of the land"? From (Ibid 20)
"the first of your dough," I would
understand even other produce (as
being subject to challah). You,
therefore, reason: It is written here
"bread" and elsewhere (Devarim
16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there is
of the five species: wheat, barley,
rye, oats, and spelt, so, "bread" here.
(Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "that you shall
separate an ofering (terumah)": This
speaks of the "great terumah" (taken
from one's produce [viz. Devarim
18:4]) But perhaps it speaks of the
challah ofering! (This cannot be,
for) (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) "challah,
you shall ofer up an ofering"
already speaks of challah. How, then,
is "you shall ofer up an ofering to
the L-rd to be understood? As
referring to the "great terumah,"
(which is taken before the challah is
separated). (Devarim 18:4) "The first
of your corn, your wine, and your oil
shall you give to him" (the
Cohein). This is mandatory. You say
that it is mandatory, but perhaps it is
optional (i.e., if you separate it, you
must give it to him, but you need not
separate it.) It is, therefore, written
"You shall separate terumah" It is
mandatory and not optional. I might
think that flours, too, are subject to
challah; it is, therefore, written "the
first of your dough" when it has
become dough. [From here
ruled: One may eat a chance meal of
started dough of wheat before it has
been rolled out, or of barley before it
had been well kneaded, (after which
it becomes subject to challah). If one
ate of it of wheat flour, after it had
been rolled out, or of barley flour
after it had been well kneaded,
(without taking challah) he is
liable to the death penalty. Once she
had added the water, she must
remove her challah, so long as there
not remain there (in the kneading-
trough) five quarter-kavs or more of
flour that had not been mixed with
water, (for if there did, they are
subject to challah.)] For challah is not
taken from (unprocessed) flour. If one
had not taken challah from
dough, I might think he may not take
it from the bread; it is, therefore,
written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "And it
shall be when you eat of the bread of
the land, you shall separate, etc." R.
Akiva says: All (vis--vis
separation of challah) is contingent
upon its forming a crust in the oven.
(Ibid. 24) "As terumah of
threshing floor, so shall you ofer it"
(the challah). Just as with terumah,
(the designated separation is) one
(part) to a thousand, so, challah. And
just as terumah of the threshing floor
they is "raised" (if it became intermixed)
with one hundred and one times (its
amount of non-terumah which
may then be eaten by non-Cohanim);
and it creates a forbidden admixture
for non-Cohanim if it fell into (only) a
hundred of non-terumah; and it
creates liability to the death penalty
and to the one-fifth (chomesh)
restitution penalty (viz. Vayikra 5:16)
so, with challah. These are the
words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan
"whispered" to him: You liken it to
terumah of the threshing floor, (the
percentage of) which is unspecified
(in the Torah)? I will liken it to
terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26),
(the percentage of) which is explicit
(in the Torah) and one-tenth
the should be taken (as challah). He
responded: It is written "As the
terumah of the threshing floor, so
shall you ofer it." It is likened to
terumah of the threshing floor, and
not to terumath ma'aser.
the (Bamidbar 15:21) "Of the first of
your dough": Why is this written?
(i.e., It is already written in the
the preceding verse.) From (the
preceding verse) "The first of your
dough," I might understand it to
mean the first of (all) your doughs. It
146
is, therefore, written "Of the first of
your dough" part of it and not all
of it. (Ibid. 20) "The first of your
dough": To include leket (Vayikra
19:9), shikchah (Devarim 24:19), and
peah (Vayikra 19:9) as subject to
challah. For it would follow
(otherwise), viz.: If other produce
(i.e., rice and millet), which is subject
to ma'aser, is exempt from challah,
then leket, shikchah, and peah,
which are not subject to ma'aser,
how much more so should they be
exempt from challah! It is, therefore,
written "the first of your dough," to
include leket, shikchah, and peah as
subject to challah. Or, let other
produce be subject to challah, viz.: If
leket, shikchah, and peah, which are
exempt from ma'aser, are subject to
challah, then other produce, which is
subject to ma'aser, how much more
so should it be subject to challah! It
is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3)
"bread." Just as "bread" there, is of
the five species, so, "bread" here
(which is subject to challah) is of the
five species. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "The
first of your dough": I would
understand this to include the dough
of terumah and the dough of second-
tithe. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.)
"challah shall you separate as an
ofering": (The connotation is:) What
147
is separated is holy and what
remains is mundane, and not (as in
the above instance) where both are
holy. But they said: The dough of
second-tithe in Jerusalem is subject
to challah, (for second-tithe may be
eaten by the owner in Jerusalem, so
that it is not "holy" there). (Ibid. 21)
"shall you give to the L-rd as an
ofering": What is the intent of this?
Because it is written (20) "challah
shall you separate as an ofering,"
but we have not been apprised of the
amount of the challah, it is,
therefore, written "shall you give to
the L-rd as an ofering" so that it
comprises a "gift" to the Cohein.
From here we derive: The amount of
challah for a private person one
(part) out of twenty-four; for a baker;
one out of forty-eight. For the dough
of a private person is little, and it
(less than one twenty-fourth) does
not constitute a "gift" to the Cohein,
whereas the dough of a baker is
(relatively) large and it (one forty-
eighth) constitutes a "gift" to the
Cohein. R. Yehudah says: This is not
the reason; but a private person is
generous with his dough and a baker
is sparing of his dough, and when he
minimizes, he should not minimize
less than one forty-eighth. From here
it was ruled: A private person who
makes a feast for his sons one subject to challah, as opposed to the
twenty-fourth; and a woman who dough of shevi'ith, whose kind is
bakes and sells in the marketplace exempt from the tithe, (ownerless
one forty-eighth. If her dough produce [hefker] being exempt from
became tamei unwittingly or under the tithe) wherefore it (the dough)
constraint one forty-eighth. If it should be exempt from challah. It is,
became tamei willfully (i.e., if she therefore, written "throughout your
deliberately made it tamei in order to generations," to include the
give less challah), she takes one aftergrowths of shevi'ith as being
twenty-fourth (even though the subject to challah. From here they
challah is to be burned), so that "the ruled: If one eats of the aftergrowths
sinner not profit." R. Shimon b. of shevi'ith before its challah has
Yochai says: Even if it came out to been taken, he is liable to the death
one-sixtieth, it is valid, so long as penalty.
there was no (original) intent (for
that amount). (Ibid. 21) "throughout Piska 111
your generations": to include the
aftergrowths of shevi'ith (the (Bamidbar 15:22) "And if you err
sabbatical year) as being subject to and do not do all of these mitzvoth":
challah. For it would follow Idolatry was in the category of all the
(otherwise), viz.: If other produce, mitzvoth for (unwitting transgression
which is subject to the tithe is of) which the congregation (i.e.,
exempt from challah, then the after- beth-din) brings a bullock (viz.
growths of shevi'ith, which are Vayikra 4:14), and Scripture here
exempt from the tithe, how much removed it from its category (for
more so should it be exempt from special mention), that the
challah! (No,) this is refuted by congregation bring a bullock for a
leket, shikchah, and peah, which, burnt-ofering and a he-goat for a
though exempt from the tithe are sin-ofering, for which reason this
subject to challah. No, this may be section was stated. "And if you err
true of leket, shikchah, and peah, and do not do all of these mitzvoth":
whose kind (i.e., other produce, Scripture here speaks of idolatry. You
which is not leket, etc.) is subject to say idolatry, but perhaps (it speaks
the tithe for which reason they are of his transgressing) all of the

148
mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore,
(to negate this) written (Ibid. 24)
"And it shall be, if by the eyes of the
congregation it were done in error"
Scripture hereby singles out one
mitzvah. And which is that? (the
injunction against) idolatry. You say it
is idolatry, but perhaps it is (any) one
of all the mitzvoth stated in the
Torah. It is, therefore, written "And if
you err and do not do all of these
mitzvoth": This comes to define "the
one mitzvah." Just as one
transgresses all of the mitzvoth
divests himself of the Yoke, and
breaks the covenant, and perverts
the Torah, so, he who transgresses
one mitzvah does the same, as it is
written (Devarim 17:2-3) "to destroy
His covenant ( turning to
worship of other gods.") And "the
covenant" is nothing other
Torah, as it is written (Ibid. 28:69)
"These are the words of
covenant, etc." Rebbi says "all" is
written here (Bamidbar 15:22), and
"all" is written elsewhere, (Devarim
5:8) "all likenesses." Just as "all"
there speaks of idolatry, so, "all"
here. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "which the L-
rd spoke to Moses": Whence is it
derived that one who acknowledges
idolatry denies the
commandments? It is written (here,
in respect to idolatry) "which the L-rd
spoke to Moses," and there, (in
respect to the ten commandments,
Shemot 20:1) "And G-d spoke all
these words, saying." (Psalms 62:12)
"One thing has G-d spoken; (two
things ['I am the L-rd your G-d, etc.'
and 'There shall not be unto you
other gods, etc.'] have I heard.")
(Jeremiah 23:29) "Is My word not like
fire, says the L-rd (and like a hammer
shattering rock?") Whence do I
who derive (the same, i.e., that one who
acknowledges idolatry denies [not
only what we heard from G-d,]) but
also what Moses was commanded
(and relayed to us)? From (Ibid. 23)
"All that the L-rd commanded you by
the hand of Moses." And whence do I
the derive (the same for) what was
commanded to the forefathers? From
than (Ibid.) "from the day that the L-rd
commanded." And from when did the
the L-rd begin to command? From Adam,
viz. (Bereshit 2:15) "And the L-rd G-d
commanded the man, etc." And
whence do I derive (the same for)
what was commanded to the
prophets? From (Ibid.) "and onwards
throughout your generations." We
are hereby apprised that one who
acknowledges idolatry denies the ten
ten commandments, and what was
commanded to Moses, and what was
149
commanded to the forefathers, and where the congregation does not
what was commanded to the bring a bullock for a burnt-ofering, it
prophets. And one who denies brings two he-goats for a sin-ofering,
idolatry acknowledges the entire then here, where it does bring a
Torah. bullock for a burnt-ofering, how
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And it shall be, if much more so should it bring two he-
by the eyes of the congregation it goats for a sin-ofering! It is,
were done in error": This mitzvah therefore, written "and one kid of
was allotted a special section in goats as a sin-ofering."
itself. Which is that? (the injunction (Ibid. 25) "And the Cohein shall
against) idolatry. "then all the make atonement for the entire
congregation shall ofer one young congregation of the children of
bullock as a burnt-ofering." Why Israel": Whence is it derived that if
mention "one"? For it would follow one of the tribes did not bring (its
(otherwise), viz.: If where the ofering) atonement is withheld?
congregation does not bring a From "And the Cohein shall make
bullock for a burnt-ofering it brings a atonement for the entire
bullock for a sin-ofering, (viz. congregation of the children of
Vayikra 4:14), then here, where the Israel." (Ibid.) "and it shall be
congregation does bring a bullock for forgiven them, for it was unwitting": I
a burnt-ofering, how much more so might understand (that they are
should it bring a bullock for a sin- forgiven) whether unwitting or
ofering! It is, therefore, written "then witting; it is, therefore, written "for it
all the congregation shall ofer (only) was unwitting." From (24) "by the
one young bullock." "with its meal- eyes of the congregation (i.e., beth-
ofering and its libation": that of the din) it were done in error," I would
burnt-ofering. But perhaps also understand that the ruling of beth-
that of the sin-ofering (is intended). din was in error and not willful; but
It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "as as to the doing (i.e., the
ordained" (and no libation is transgression) of the congregation,
ordained for a sin-ofering). "and one willful was equated with unwitting; it
kid of goats as a sin-ofering": Why is, therefore, written "the children of
mention "one"? For it would follow Israel for it was unwitting." If some
(otherwise), viz.: If (on Yom Kippur), were willful, I might think that it were

150
considered (collectively) unwitting; it to the ruling of the great beth-din,
is, therefore, written "for the entire they bring two bullocks: one for the
congregation of the children of Israel tribe and one for the beth-din. When
for it was unwitting." (Ibid.) "and is this so? With other mitzvoth; but
they have brought their ofering": R. with idolatry, they bring two bullocks
Meir says: If a tribe transgressed and two he-goats: one bullock for a
according to the (erroneous) ruling of burnt-ofering and a he-goat for a
its beth-din, I might think they bring sin-ofering for that tribe, and the
(the oferings); it is, therefore, same for the beth-din. The majority
written "and they (i.e., all of the of the congregation is reckoned as all
tribes) have brought their ofering." of the congregation. "and they have
R. Yoshiyah says: If one tribe brought their ofering: a fire-ofering
transgressed according to the to the L-rd": this is the burnt-ofering;
(erroneous) ruling of beth-din, "and their sin-ofering": this is the
whence is it derived that the other sin-ofering for idolatry; "their error":
tribes bring (the oferings) because this is the bullock of "concealment"
of it? From "and they (connoting all of the congregation (viz. Vayikra
of the tribes) have brought their 4:13-14). "their sin-ofering for
ofering, a fire-ofering to the L-rd." their error": their sin-ofering (i.e.,
For R. Yoshiyah says: A tribe that the he-goats [ofered] for idolatry) is
transgressed according to the like their error" the bullock of
(erroneous) ruling of beth-din is "concealment" of the congregation,
liable, and the other tribes are in all of the procedures (of the
exempt. If a tribe transgressed ofering). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 26) "And it
according to the (erroneous) ruling of shall be forgiven to the entire
the great beth-din (i.e., the congregation of the sons of Israel":
Sanhedrin), then that tribe brings a This tells me only of the men.
bullock, and the other tribes bring Whence do I derive (the same for)
because of it. And what do they bring the women? From "the entire
because of it? Twelve bullocks. R. congregation of the children of
Shimon b. Yochai says: If a tribe Israel." "and to the stranger who
transgressed according to the sojourns in their midst": Because this
(erroneous) ruling of beth-din, it is section is addressed to the Israelites
exempt. If it transgressed according (viz. 15:12), proselytes had to be

151
(specifically) included. (Ibid.) "for to
all the people it was in error": to
exclude the high-priest, (who ofers a
she-goat, as an individual (viz. Ibid.
27). For it would follow (otherwise),
viz.: Since the congregation bring a
bullock for (transgression of) all the
mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings
a bullock for all the mitzvoth, then if I
have learned about the congregation
that just as they bring a bullock for
all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring it
for idolatry, then the high-priest,
(too,) just as he brings a bullock for
all the mitzvoth should bring
bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore,
it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom
Kippur service) where
congregation does not bring
bullock, the high-priest brings
bullock (viz. Vayikra 16:3), here, (in
respect to idolatry) where
congregation brings a bullock, how
much more so should the high-priest
bring a bullock! It is, therefore,
written "for to all the people it was in
error" to exclude the high-priest.
Piska 112
(Bamidbar 15:27) "And if one soul
sin (the sin of idolatry) in error":
Idolatry was in the category of all the
mitzvoth for which the individual
brings a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; the
leader (nassi), a he-goat; and the
high-priest and beth-din, a bullock.
And here (in respect to idolatry)
Scripture removes them from their
category, to have an individual, a
Nassi, and the high-priest bring "a
she-goat of the first year as a sin-
ofering" for which reason this
section was stated. You say that it
speaks of idolatry, but perhaps it
speaks of (any) one of all the
mitzvoth written in the Torah! Would
you say that? What is the subject
a under discussion? Idolatry! R.
Yitzchak says: Scripture (here)
speaks of idolatry. But perhaps it
the speaks of (any) one of all the
a mitzvoth written in the Torah! You
a reason as follows: The congregation
was in the general category (of all of
the the mitzvoth, to bring a bullock), and
(in respect to idolatry) its oferings
were changed (to bring a bullock for
a burnt-ofering and a he-goat for a
sin-ofering.) And the individual was
in the general category (of all the
mitzvoth, etc.), and (in respect to
idolatry) its oferings were changed,
etc. Just as there (in respect to the
congregation) Scripture speaks of
idolatry; here, too, it is understood to
be speaking of idolatry. "And if one
soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error":
152
to exclude (from the ofering) one must bring an ofering for an
who sins willfully (without witnesses instance of possible transgression of
or warning). For it would follow "light" mitzvoth, how much more so
(otherwise), viz.: If "light" mitzvoth for an instance of possible
are liable (for an ofering), willful transgression of idolatry (e.g., if
(transgression) as unwitting, how there is a possibility of his having
much more the "grave" bowed down to an asheirah [a tree
(transgression of idolatry)! It is, devoted to idolatry])! It is, therefore,
therefore, written "in error" to written "And he shall atone"
exclude willful (transgression). "he (implying that there has been a sin),
shall bring a she-goat of the first to exclude (an instance of) doubt (as
year as a sin-ofering." This is a to whether a sin has been
prototype, viz.: Wherever "goat" is committed.) "and he shall be
written, it must be of the first year. forgiven": absolute forgiveness, as
(Ibid. 28) "And the Cohein shall make with all of the other "forgivings" in
atonement for the soul that is the Torah, (even though the sin of
unwitting in sinning": It is the sins idolatry [though unwitting] has been
that he has done (willfully), which committed). (Ibid. 15:29) "The
have caused him to err. "unwitting in native-born among the children of
sinning": to exclude unwittingness of Israel, etc." What is the intent of
(its being) idolatry, (e.g., mistaking a this? Because it is written (Vayikra
church for a synagogue and bowing 24:22) "All of the native-born in Israel
down to it.) For it would follow shall sit in succoth," I might think
(otherwise), viz.: If he is liable (to that only Israelites are intended.
bring an ofering) for unwitting Whence do I derive the same for
transgression of other mitzvoth, how proselytes? It is, therefore, written
much more so for the "grave" "the native-born among the children
transgression of idolatry! It is, of Israel and for the stranger that
therefore, written "unwitting in sojourns among them." This is a
sinning," but not unwitting as to (its prototype: wherever "native-born" is
being) idolatry. "to atone for him": to written, proselytes are also included.
exclude an instance of doubt (as to Variantly: What is the intent of "the
whether or not he had sinned). For it native-born among the children of
would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he Israel"? For it would follow otherwise,

153
viz.: Israelites are commanded
against idolatry, and gentiles are
commanded against idolatry. If I have
learned that Israelites bring
ofering) for unwitting idolatry, so,
gentiles should bring an ofering for
unwitting idolatry. It is, therefore,
written "the native-born among the
children of Israel": Israelites bring (an
ofering) for unwitting idolatry, but
not gentiles. (Ibid.) "One Torah shall
there be for you for him who acts
unwittingly": for the individual, and
for the Nassi, and for the high-priest.
For I would think (otherwise), viz.:
Since the congregation bring
bullock for (unwitting transgression
of) all of the mitzvoth, and the high-
priest brings a bullock
transgression of all of the mitzvoth,
then if I have learned about the
congregation that just as they bring
a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so,
they bring a bullock for idolatry, then
the high-priest, (too,) who brings a
bullock for all of the mitzvoth, should
bring a bullock for idolatry. And,
furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.:
If (in the Yom Kippur service), where
the congregation does not bring a
bullock, the high-priest does bring a
bullock, then here, (in unwitting
transgression of idolatry), where the
congregation does bring a bullock,
how much more so should the high-
priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore,
written "One Torah (a she-goat of the
(an first year) shall there be for you": for
the individual, and for the Nassi, and
for the high-priest. "for him who acts
unwittingly": R. Yehudah b. Betheira
says: One who acts unwittingly (re
idolatry) is (in principle) like one who
serves idolatry, viz.: Just as serving
idolatry is distinct in that it is an act
in which deliberate transgression is
punishable by kareth (cutting-of [viz.
Vayikra 20:3]), and unwitting
transgression, by a sin-ofering (viz.
a Bamidbar 16:27) so, (the act of) all
who act unwittingly, (in order to be
liable to a sin-ofering), must be an
for act where deliberate transgression is
punishable by kareth and unwitting
transgression by a sin-ofering.
(Bamidbar 15:30) "And the soul who
acts with a high hand": This is one
who perverts the Torah, like
Menasheh ben Chezkiah, who would
sit and cast ridicule in the face of the
L-rd, saying (for example): He should
not have written in the Torah
(Bereshit 30:14) "And Reuven went
in the days of the wheat harvest."
And He should not have written (Ibid.
36:22) "And the sister of Lotan was
Timna." Of one such as he it is
written in the Tradition (Psalms
154
50:20) "You sit and speak against ('megaref,' similar to 'megadef') the
your brother; you cast ridicule 'dish' itself." (i.e., this is the ultimate
against your mother. These you have insult). Issi b. Akiva says: As one
done and I have kept silent. You would say to his neighbor: "You have
thought I was one such as you": scraped out the entire dish and left
(i.e.), you thought that perhaps as nothing in it." (Ibid.) "and that soul
the ways of flesh and blood are the will be cut of": "cutting-of" connotes
ways of the L-rd. (Ibid.) "I will reprove cessation (of the family line, i.e., he
you and set (them) forth before your will be childless). "that soul": who
eyes." And of one such as he, Isaiah acts deliberately. "from the midst of
writes in the tradition (Isaiah 5:18) its people": but its people will remain
"Woe unto those who pull at peace. (Ibid. 31) "For the word of
transgressions to themselves with the L-rd he has despised": This is a
strands of deceit, and sin as with the Sadducee. "and His commandment
ropes of a wagon": In the beginning, he has broken": This is a heretic.
sin is like the strands of a spider's Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he
web, and, in the end, sin is as has despised": This is one who
("stout" as) wagon ropes. Rebbi says: distorts the Torah. "and His
If a man does one mitzvah lishmah commandment he has broken": This
(for the sake of Heaven), let him is one who breaks the covenant of
rejoice not only in that mitzvah the flesh (circumcision, i.e., one who
alone; for in the end, it will "pull does not circumcise his sons.) From
along" many mitzvoth. And if a man here R. Elazar Hamodai said: One
commits one transgression, let him who desecrates the oferings, and
not despond over it alone, for in the cheapens the festivals, and breaks
end, it will pull along many the covenant (of circumcision) of our
transgressions. For mitzvah "tows" father Abraham even if he has
mitzvah, and transgression, performed many mitzvoth, it were
transgression. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is best to "thrust" him from the world!
the L-rd whom he blasphemes Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he
(megadef)." R. Eliezer b. Azaryah has despised": this is one who says
says: As a man would say to his there is no Torah from Heaven. And
neighbor: "You have scraped out the even if he says: The entire Torah is
dish (of food) and 'scraped' from the mouth of the Holy One

155
(except for) this thing that Moses
said on his own And even if he
said: The entire Torah I accept,
except for this inference, this kal
vachomer (a fortiori argument)
this is "For the word of the L-rd he
has despised." Variantly: "For the
word of the L-rd he has despised":
This is one who learns, but does not
teach others. R. Nechemiah says:
This is one who is able to learn but
does not. R. Nathan said: This is one
who paid no heed at all to words of
Torah. R. Yishmael says: The verse
speaks of idolatry, as it is written
"For the word of the L-rd he has
despised" the first commandment
of the Omnipotent One (Shemot
20:2-3) "I am the L-rd your G-d
There shall be unto you no other
gods before Me." (Bamidbar, Ibid.)
"cut of shall be cut of": "cut of"
in this world; "shall be cut of" in
the world to come. These are the
words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says:
But is it not already written (Ibid. 30)
"It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes;
and that soul shall be cut of'? Are
there three worlds? Rather, "and that
soul shall be cut of" in this world.
"cut of" in the world to come. "cut
of shall be cut of" Torah speaks in
the language of man. (Ibid. 31) "its
transgression is in it": All who die are
156
atoned for by death; but this one, "its
transgression is in it." As it is written
(Ezekiel 32:27) "And their
transgressions shall be upon their
bones." Even if they have
repented? It is, therefore, written
(when) "its transgression is in it," and
not when he has repented. Similarly,
(Devarim 32:5) "They have corrupted
themselves not His children
their blemish" When their blemish
is in them, they are not His children.
When their blemish is not in them,
they are His children. R. Yishmael
says: "its transgression is in it": What
is the intent of this? Because it is
written (Shemot 20:5) "He visits the
iniquity of the fathers upon sons," I
might think that (the father's sin of)
idolatry, too, is visited upon sons
"until the third and fourth
generation"; it is, therefore, written
(here, in respect to idolatry) "its
transgression is in it" in it (the soul
of the doer) the transgression
inheres, and it is not visited upon the
sons, and not on the third and on the
fourth generation. R. Nathan says:
This ("its transgression is in it") is a
good sign for a man, (indicating) that
his transgressions are exacted of him
after his death, (so that he may merit
life in the world to come.) If a dead
one is not eulogized or buried, or if
he is eaten by an animal, or if rain
descended upon it this is a good
sign, (indicating that
transgressions are being exacted of
him after his death.) And
though there is no (Scriptural) proof
for this, it is intimated in (Jeremiah
8:1-2) "At that time, says the L-rd,
they will remove the bones of the
kings of Judah, and the bones of its
officers And they will spread them
out under the sun and the moon,
etc." R. Shimon b. Elazar said: From
here ("its transgression is in it") I
have exposed (as false) the books of
the Samaritans. For they say: The
dead do not live whereupon I said
to them: But it is written "That soul
shall be cut of; its transgression is in
it." Let this not be stated (i.e., What
purpose does it serve?)
indicates that it (the soul) is destined
to give an accounting on the day of
judgment.
Piska 113
(Bamidbar 15:32) "And the children
of Israel were in the desert, etc.":
Scripture here speaks
disparagement of Israel, that they
had observed only the
Shabbath, when they desecrated the
second. "and they found a man
mekoshesh wood on the Sabbath
day." (mekoshesh" =) pulling (wood)
his up from the ground. You say that, but
perhaps (the reference is to) a man
even himself, whose name was
"Mekoshesh," (who was carrying
wood). It is, therefore, written (in
negation of this assumption, Ibid. 33)
"And they brought him near, those
who found him mekoshesh wood."
How, then, must I understand (Ibid.
32) "mekoshesh wood"? As pulling up
wood from the ground. And who was
that man? Tzelafchad. It is written
here (32) "desert," and elsewhere
(27:23) ("Our father died in the)
desert." Just as there, Tzelafchad;
here, too, Tzelafchad. These are the
words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah b.
Betheira said to him: In either case,
It you are destined to give an
accounting if it is as you say He
who spoke and brought the world
into being covered up for him, and
you bring it to light! And you are
libeling that tzaddik! But who was it?
It was one of "the bold ones," viz.
(Ibid. 14:44) "And they made bold to
go up to the top of the mountain."
in (Ibid. 15:32) "And they found a man
pulling up wood.": We are hereby
first apprised that Moses appointed
watchers (to this end), and they
found him pulling up wood. (Ibid. 33)
157
"And they brought him near those Aaron) were sitting in the house of
who found him pulling up wood.": study, and they came and stood
Why is this mentioned again? Is not before them.
already written "And they found a
man, etc."? We are hereby taught Piska 114
that they warned him (after finding
him) and he continued doing so. R. (Bamidbar 15:34) "And they placed
Yitzchak says: This (repetition) is not him in ward": We are hereby
necessary (to teach that prior apprised that all who are liable to
warning is a prerequisite for the krithuth ("cutting of") are put in
administration of the death penalty), ward (pending judgment). "for it was
viz.: If idolatry, the gravest (of all not made clear what should be done
transgressions) is not liable (to the with him": But is it not written
death penalty) without prior warning, (Shemot 31:14) "He who profanes it
how much more so does this hold for shall be put to death"? What, then, is
all the mitzvoth of the Torah. What is the intent of "For it was not made
the intent, then, of "those who found clear"? He did not know with what
him"? We are hereby apprised that specific type of death until it was told
they forewarned him, specifying the to Him by the Holy One. (Ibid. 35)
forbidden labor whence it is "And the L-rd said to Moses: Die,
derived that in the instance of all the shall die the man": (i.e., this is the
proto-labors (avoth melachoth) in the judgment) for all the generations
Torah, there must be forewarning, (and not just in this particular
specifying the forbidden labor. instance.) "stone him with stones": in
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) ("And they brought this particular instance. "the entire
him near to Moses and to Aaron and congregation": in the presence of the
to the entire congregation": If Moses entire congregation. You say this, but
did not know, would Aaron know? perhaps it is to be understood
Reverse the verse (i.e., "they brought literally (i.e., that the entire
him near to Aaron [who did not congregation is to stone him.) It is,
know] and to Moses," and expound therefore, written (Devarim 17:7)
it. These are the words of R. "The hand of the witnesses shall be
Yoshiyah. R. Channan says in the against him first to put him to
name of R. Elazar: They (Moses and death." How, then, am I to

158
understand "the entire
congregation"? As in the presence of
the entire congregation. (15:36) "And
the entire congregation took him
outside the camp": We are hereby
taught that all those who are liable to
the death penalty are put to death
outside of beth-din. "And they stoned
him with stones": One verse states
"with stones," and another, (Vayikra
24:23) "with a stone." How are these
two verses to be reconciled? The
stoning site was two stories high.
One of the witnesses pushes him on
his thighs. If he turns over on his
heart, he is turned over on his thighs.
If he dies thereby, it is sufficient. If
not, the second witness takes a
stone and places it on his heart. If he
dies thereby, it is sufficient. If not, all
of Israel stone him with stones, in
fulfillment of "the hand of the
witnesses shall be against him first
to put him to death, and the hand of
all the people thereafter." There are
thus reconciled "stone him with
stones" and "and they stoned him
with a stone." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "as
the L-rd commanded Moses": He said
to them "Stone him," and they
stoned him; "Hang him up," and they
hung him up. But we have not (yet)
heard that they were to hang him up
(after he had been killed.) It is,
159
therefore, written (Devarim 21:22) "If
there be in a man a sin punishable
by death, then he is to be put to
death and you shall (thereafter) hang
him on a tree." These are the words
of R. Eliezer. R. Chidka said: Shimon
Hashikmoni was a friend of mine, of
the disciples of R. Akiva, and he said:
Moses knew that the mekoshesh was
to be put to death, but he did not
know with which specific kind of
death. It were fitting that the section
of the mekoshesh be stated (entirely)
through Moses but the mekoshesh,
being liable had it stated through
him. For "merit resolves itself
through the meritorious, and liability
through the liable."
Piska 115
(Bamidbar 15:37-38) "And the L-rd
spoke to Moses, saying and they
shall make for themselves tzitzith":
Women, too, are included (in the
mitzvah of tzitzith.) R. Shimon
exempts women from tzitzith, it
being a time-based (only in the
daytime) positive commandment,
from which women are exempt, this
being the principle: R. Shimon said:
Women are exempt from all time-
based positive commandments. R.
Yehudah b. Bava said: Of a certainty,
the sages exempted a woman's veil this (to be implemented)? That its
from tzitzith, and they are required in fringes protrude from the corner (of
a wrap only because sometimes her the garment), and tzitzith from the
husband covers himself with it. fringes. "in the corners of their
"tzitzith": "tzitzith" is something garments": I might think, even
which "protrudes" ("yotzeh") garments that are three-cornered,
somewhat. And the elders of Beth five-cornered, six-cornered, seven-
Shammai and those of Beth Hillel cornered, and eight-cornered; it is,
have already entered the upper therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid.)
chamber of Yonathan b. Betheira and "on the four corners of your
declared: Tzitzith have no prescribed garment," to exclude the
size. And they declared, similarly: A aforementioned. And whence is it
lulav has no prescribed size. "and derived that pillows and covers are
they shall make for themselves (also) excluded (from tzitzith)? From
tzitzith." I might think that one string (Ibid.) "wherewith you cover
suffices; it is, therefore, written yourself." If from there, I would think
(Devarim 22:12) "Fringes (shall you that night-clothes are also included
make for yourself.") How many (as requiring tzitzith). It is, therefore,
fringes? Not fewer than three. These written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "and you
are the words of Beth Hillel. Beth shall see it" in the daytime and
Shammai say: Three of wool and the not at night. And if it were intended
fourth of tcheleth (blue linen). And both for day and night, it requires
the halachah is in accordance with tzitzith. I might think that this
Beth Shammai. When is this so (that excludes both the above and the
a minimum size is required)? In the garment of a blind man; it is,
beginning (of its attachment). But for therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid.
what is left over or lopped of any 39) "And it shall be for you for
size (is sufficient). (Bamidbar, Ibid.) tzitzith" in any event (i.e., to
"and they shall make for themselves include a blind man). (Ibid. 38) "and
tzitzith." I might think that all of it they shall place on the tzitzith (on)
shall be tzitzith; it is, therefore, the corner a strand of tcheleth": spun
written "fringes." If "fringes," I might and doubled. This tells me only of
think all of it shall be fringes. It is, the tcheleth, that it is to be spun and
therefore, written "tzitzith." How is doubled. Whence do I derive (the

160
same for) the white (i.e., the wool)? Because the Egyptians were
You derive it by induction, viz.: Since "bereaved" ("nitkelu" [like
the Torah said: "place" tcheleth and "tcheleth"]) of their first-born, viz.
"place" white, just as tcheleth is spun (Shemot 12:29) "And it was in the
and doubled, so, white is spun and middle of the night, that the L-rd
doubled. "and they shall place": on smote every first-born, etc."
the place of the weaving (i.e., the Variantly: Because the Egyptians
corner of the garment), and not on were "destroyed" ("kalu") in the Red
the place of the "growing" (i.e., the Sea. Why is it called "tzitzith"?
strands at the corner of the Because the L-rd "looked" ("hetzith")
garment). If he did place it on the over our fathers' houses in Egypt, as
site of the "growing," it is it is written (Song of Songs 2:9) "The
(nonetheless) kasher. R. Eliezer b. voice of My Beloved, behold, it is
Yaakov includes it both on the coming My Beloved is like a
"growing" and on the very edge of gazelle or a young hart Behold, He
the garment, it being written "on the stands behind our wall, looking
corners of their garments." "and they through the windows, peering
shall place on the tzitzith (on) the through the lattices." R. Chanina b.
corner": What is the intent of this? Antignos says: One who fulfills the
From "and they shall make for mitzvah of tzitzith, what is said of
themselves tzitzith, I might think that him? (Zechariah 8:23) "In these days
he should weave it (the tzitzith) it will happen that ten men, of all the
together with it (the garment; it is, languages of the nations will take
therefore, written "and they shall hold of the corner (i.e., of the tzitzith)
place." How so? He ties it (the of a Jewish man, saying 'Let us go
tzitzith) together with it (the with you, for we have heard that G-d
garment). (Ibid. 39) "And it shall be is with you!'" And one who nullifies
to you for tzitzith": The four tzitzith the mitzvah of "the corner," what is
are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the said of him? (Iyyov 38:13) "to take
absence of one there is no mitzvah), hold of the corners of the earth and
the four being one mitzvah. R. to shake the wicked from it!" R. Meir
Yishmael says: They are four says: It is not written (Bamidbar, Ibid.
mitzvoth. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon 39) "And you shall see them" (the
says: Why is it called "tcheleth"? tzitzith), but "And you shall see Him."

161
Scripture hereby apprises us that if
one fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, it is
reckoned unto him as if he beheld
the face of the Shechinah.
tcheleth is reminiscent of (the color
of) the sea; the sea, of
firmament; and the firmament, of the
Throne of Glory, as it is written
(Ezekiel 1:26) "And above
firmament that was over their heads
(28) the appearance of
likeness of the glory of the L-rd."
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and you shall see
and you shall remember": See this
mitzvah and remember another
mitzvah, (which is contingent upon
it.) Which is that? The recitation of
the Shema But perhaps
reference is to) one of all the other
mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore,
written (in the section of tzitzith, Ibid.
41) "I am the L-rd your G-d," which
you find to be written only in (the
section of) the recitation of the
Shema. "and you shall remember":
Remember (i.e., recite) the section
with your mouth. I might think that
the section "vehaya im shamoa"
(Devarim 11:13-21) should precede
all of the sections. Would you say
that? The section of Shema (Devarim
6:4-9), which contains acceptance of
the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven
should precede "vehaya im shamoa,"
which contains acceptance of the
yoke of mitzvoth, and "vehaya im
shamoa," which obtains both in the
For daytime and at night, should precede
the section of tzitzith ("vayomer"
the [Bamidbar 15:37-41]), which obtains
only in the daytime. And perhaps he
should recite three (sections) in the
the evening as he does in the daytime. It
is, therefore, written (of tzitzith
the [Bamidbar 15:39]) "and you shall see
it" in the daytime and not at night.
R. Shimon b. Yochai says: The section
of Shema, which contains (the
mitzvah of) learning (Torah), should
precede "vehaya im shamoa," which
speaks only of teaching. And "vehaya
(the im shamoa" should precede the
section of tzitzith, which is only to do
(i.e., the final stage). For thus was
Torah given: to learn and to teach, to
keep and to do: "And you shall see it,
and you shall remember (all the
mitzvoth of the L-rd, and you shall do
them."): Now does this not follow a
fortiori, viz.: If one who fulfills the
mitzvah of tzitzith, (which is only a
sign and a remembrance towards the
doing of mitzvoth,) is accounted as
one who has fulfilled all of the
mitzvoth, how much more so (is this
true of) one who (actively) performs
(any one of) all the mitzvoth of the
Torah! "And you shall not go astray
162
after your hearts": This is heresy, as
it is written (Koheleth 7:26) "And I
find more bitter than death 'the
woman' (heresy), whose heart is
snares and nets. Her hands are
bonds. The good before G-d shall
escape her." "and after your eyes":
This is harlotry, as it is written
(Judges 14:3) "Take her for me, for
she is just in my eyes." "after which
you go astray": This is idolatry, as it
is written (Ibid. 8:33) "and they went
astray after the ba'alim." R. Nathan
says: that one not "drink" in this
"cup" (i.e., his own wife), and cast his
gaze at the "cup" of another.
Variantly: "And you shall not go
astray after your hearts and after
your eyes": This teaches us that the
eyes follow the heart. But perhaps
the heart follows the eyes! Would
you say that? Are there not blind
men who commit all the
abominations in the world? What,
then, is the intent of "And you shall
not go astray after your hearts,
etc."? That the eyes follow the heart.
R. Yishmael says: "And you shall not
go astray after your hearts": What is
the intent of this? From (Koheleth
11:9) "Rejoice young man in your
youth ( and walk in the ways of
your heart"), (I would not know
whether) in a way that is straight or
163
in (any) way that you like; it is,
therefore, written "And you shall not
go astray after your hearts." (Ibid.
40) "So that you remember and you
do (all of My mitzvoth): This equates
remembering with doing. "and you
shall be holy to your G-d": This refers
to the holiness of all of the mitzvoth.
You say the holiness of (all the)
mitzvoth, but perhaps the holiness of
tzitzith (is intended). Would you
say that? What is the (general)
context? The holiness of all the
mitzvoth. Rebbi says: The reference
is to the holiness of tzitzith. You say
the holiness of tzitzith, but perhaps
the holiness of all the mitzvoth is
intended. (Vayikra 19:2) "Holy
shall you be" already refers to the
holiness of all the mitzvoth. How,
then, am I to understand "and you
shall be holy to your G-d"? As
referring to the holiness of tzitzith
whence it is seen that tzitzith add
holiness to Israel. (Ibid. 41) "I am the
L-rd your G-d, who took you out of
the land of Egypt.": Why is this
mentioned here? So that one not say:
I will take imitation-dyed threads
(and attach them to my garment) as
tcheleth, and who will know the
diference? If (within the framework
of) the measure of punishment, the
lesser measure (of the L-rd) if one
sins in secret, He exposes him in
public, (as He did in Egypt), then,
(within the framework
measure of good,
measure (of the L-rd) how much
more so (does this
Variantly: Why is the exodus from
Egypt mentioned in connection with
every mitzvah? An analogy: The son
of a king's loved one was taken
captive. When he (the king) redeems
him, he redeems him not as a son,
but as a servant, so that if he (the
son) does not accept his decree, he
can say to him "You are my servant!"
When they enter the province, he
(the king) says to him: Put on my
sandals and carry my things before
me to the bath-house.
begins to object, whereupon the king
presents him with
servitude) and says to him: "You are
my servant!" Thus, when the Holy
One Blessed be He redeemed the
seed of His loved one, He did not
redeem them as "sons," but as
servants, so that if they reject His
decree He says to them: "You are My
servants!" When they went to the
desert, He began to decree upon
them some "light" mitzvoth
some formidable ones,
Shabbath, illicit relations,
and tefillin, and Israel began to
object whereupon He said to
them: "You are My servants! On that
of) the condition I redeemed you; on
the greater condition that I decree and you
fulfill!" "I am the L-rd your G-d": Why
hold true)! is this stated again? Is it not already
written (Shemot 20:2) "I am the L-rd
your G-d who took you out of the
land of Egypt"? Why state it again?
So that Israel not say: Why did the L-
rd command us (to do mitzvoth)? Is it
not so that we do them and receive
reward? We shall not do them and
we shall not receive reward! As Israel
said (Ezekiel 20:1) "There came to
me (Ezekiel) men of the elders of
Israel to make inquiry of the L-rd,
and they sat before me." They said
The son to him: A servant whose Master has
sold him, does he not leave His
his writ (of domain? Ezekiel: Yes. They: Since the
L-rd has sold us to the nations, we
have left His domain. Ezekiel: A
servant whose Master has sold him
in order to return, does he leave His
domain? (Ibid. 32-33) "And what
enters your minds, it shall not be,
your saying: We will be like the
nations, like the families of the lands,
to serve wood and stone. As I live,
and says the L-rd G-d. I swear to you that
such as I will rule over you with a strong
tzitzith, hand and with an outstretched arm
and with outpoured wrath!" "with a
164
strong hand": pestilence, as it is
written (in that regard, Shemot 9:3)
"Behold, the hand of the L-rd is in
your cattle, etc." "with an
outstretched arm": the sword, as it is
written (I Chronicles 21:16) "with his
(the angel's) sword drawn in his
hand, stretched over Jerusalem."
"and with outpoured wrath": famine.
After I bring these three calamities
upon you, one after the other, I will
rule over you perforce!
R. Nathan said: There is no mitzvah
in the Torah whose reward is not "at
its side." Go and learn this from the
mitzvah of tzitzith. There was once a
certain man who was particularly
diligent in the mitzvah of tzitzith.
Once, hearing of a ("famed") harlot
in the cities of the sea, who took four
hundred gold coins as her hire, he
sent her that sum, and she set a time
for him. When the appointed time
came, he went there and sat at the
door of her house. Her maid-servant
went in and said to her: That man
whom you appointed a time for is
sitting at the door of the house. The
harlot: Let him come in. When he
came in, she spread seven beds for
him, six of silver and one of gold, and
she was on the uppermost. Between
each one was a silver ladder, and the
uppermost, of gold. When he came
165
to the act, his four tzitzith came and
struck him across his face. They
seemed to him like four men. He
immediately left of and sat upon the
ground. She, too, left of and sat
upon the ground. She said to him
"'Gapa of Rome' (an idolatrous oath),
I shall not let you go until you tell me
what blemish you have seen in me!"
He: I swear, I have seen no blemish
in you. There is no beauty like yours
in all the world, but there is one
mitzvah (tzitzith) concerning which it
is written two times (Bamidbar
15:41) "I am the L-rd your G-d." "I am
the L-rd your G-d" I am destined to
reward; "I am the L-rd your G-d" I
am destined to punish. And now they
appeared to me as four witnesses
(testifying to the above). At this, she
said: I swear that I will not let you go
until you write for me your name, the
name of your city, and the name of
the place where you study Torah. He
wrote for her his name, the name of
his city, the name of his master, and
the name of the place where he
studied Torah whereupon she
arose and divided all of her wealth: a
third to the authorities (for
permission to convert), a third to the
poor, and a third which she took with
her, in addition to those spreads.
When she came to R. Meir's house of
study, she said to him: My master, sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the
convert me. R. Meir: Is it possible breast and the shoulder before the
that you have "cast your eyes" upon smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31),
one of my disciples! At this, she took that the Cohanim bear the sin for
out the note that she had with her, this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you
and he said to her: "Go and claim and your sons with you shall bear the
your purchase!" Those spreads which sin of your priesthood." And thus do
she had spread for him unlawfully, we find that the decree of Eli was
she now spread for him lawfully, This sealed only because they (the
was her reward in this world. As to Cohanim) abused the oferings, as it
the world to come, I do not know how is written (I Samuel 2:15) "Even
much. before they would burn the fat
(16) And the man would say: Let
Piska 116 them first burn the fat today (upon
the altar) (17) And the sin of the
(Bamidbar 18:1) "And the L-rd said youths (the attendants of the
to Aaron: You and your sons and the Cohanim was very great, etc." And
house of your father shall bear the similarly we find that the decree of
sin of the sanctuary.": R. Yishmael the men of Jerusalem was decreed
says: Because the thing (i.e., what only because they abused the
follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he oferings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) "You
that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: abused My oferings." (Bamidbar,
Whence is it derived that if he (a Ibid.) "And you and your sons with
Cohein) sprinkled the blood without you shall bear the sin of your
knowing in whose name he is doing priesthood.": This refers to a sin (in
so or smoked the fat without the area of) what is relegated to the
knowing in whose name he is doing Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-
so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for priests] from entering the sanctuary).
this? From "You and your sons and You say this, but perhaps it refers to
the house of your father shall bear a sin (in the area of) what is
the sin of the sanctuary." R. Yonathan relegated to beth-din, (it being their
says: Whence is it derived that if he duty to exhort the Cohanim in this
took the flesh (of a sin-ofering or a regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7])
burnt-ofering) before the blood was "You and your sons, with you shall

166
guard your priesthood for every thing
of the altar" already speaks of what
is relegated to beth-din. How, then,
am I to understand "you shall bear
the sin of your priesthood"?
referring to a sin (in the area of) what
is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid.
1) "And you and your sons with you":
and not Israelites (i.e., they are not
to guard the sanctuary.) You say that
Israelites do not bear the sin of the
Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who
also guard the sanctuary) do bear
the sin of the Cohanim, (who are
remiss in this regard.) It is, therefore,
written (Ibid. 23) "And they (the
Levites) shall bear their (own) sin" (of
remissness), but not the sin of the
Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) "And also your
brothers": I might think that this also
includes Israelites. It is, therefore,
written "the tribe of Levi." I might
think that the women, too,
included. It is, therefore, written
"your brothers" to exclude the
women. "draw near with you": R.
Akiva says: It is written here "with
you," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) "with
you." Just as here, the Levites are
being referred to, so, there, the
Levites are being referred to to
exhort the Levites (against defect) in
the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) "and
they shall be joined to you and they
shall serve you": through their
service. Treasurers and trustees are
to be appointed from among them.
You say this, but perhaps the intent
As is that they shall serve you (the
Cohanim) in your (priestly) service. It
is, therefore, (to negate this) written
(Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your
charge and the charge of all the
tent." But perhaps (both are
intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you
in your (priestly) service and they
shall serve you through their service.
It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And
I, behold, I have taken your brothers,
the Levites, from the midst of the
children of Israel, for you as a gift,
given to the L-rd." To the L-rd are
they given, and not to the Cohanim
whereby we derive that it is not to
be construed in the second way (i.e.,
"for your [priestly] service"), but in
are the first way, i.e., their being
appointed as treasurers and trustees.
"and you and your sons with you,
before the tent of Testimony": the
Cohanim within, (in the court of the
sanctuary,) and the Levites outside
(the court). You say this, but perhaps
the intent is both, within. It is,
therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And they
(the Levites) will join you, and they
will keep (the watch of) the watch
(by the Cohanim within) of the tent
167
of meeting." How, then, am I to
understand "and you and your sons
with you, before the tent of
Testimony"? The Cohanim within, and
the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) "And
they shall keep your charge and the
charge of all the tent": As stated
above: They will serve you through
their service, and appoint from
among them treasurers and trustees.
"But to the vessels of the kodesh
they shall not come near." This
"hakodesh" ("the holy") refers to the
ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "And
they (the Levites) shall not come to
see (the vessels) when the kodesh is
being covered and they (the Levites)
die." "and to the altar": This refers to
the (sacrificial) service of the altar.
"they shall not come near": the
exhortation. "and they shall not die":
the punishment. This tells me only of
the Levites, that they are punished
and exhorted for (appropriating) the
service of the Cohanim. Whence do I
derive (the same for) Cohanim
(appropriating) the service (i.e.,
singing) of the Levites? From ("so
that they not die,) both they (the
Levites) and you" (the Cohanim.) And
it once happened that R. Yehoshua b.
Chanania sought to assist R.
Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R.
Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for
168
you are close to forfeiting your life!
For I am of the gatekeepers and you
are of the singers. Rebbi says that
this ("both they and you") is not
needed (for the above learning). For
it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-
19) "Do not cut of the tribe of the
families of the Kehathi but do this
for them and they will live," (the
implication being that otherwise they
will die.) This tells me only of the
sons of Kehath. Whence do I derive
(the same for) the sons of Gershon
and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid.
19) "Aaron and his sons shall come
and set them (the sons of Levi), each
man to his service and to his
burden." This tells me only that the
Levites are punished for
(appropriating) the service of the
Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the
same for) the Cohanim
(appropriating) the service of the
Levites? From (Bamidbar 1:51) "And
when the mishkan travels, the
Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall
dismantle it. And the stranger (a
non-Levite) that draws near (to this
service) shall be put to death."
Whence do I derive (the same for)
one who goes from his (assigned)
service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38)
"And those who encamped before
the mishkan, in front, before the tent
of meeting on the east" (i.e., only
these being assigned to
aforementioned service) and the
stranger (to that service, [even a
Levite]) that draws near shall be put
to death." What, then, is the need for
"so that they not die both they and
you"? Because Korach came and
contested Aaron's prerogative,
Scripture reiterated the
exhortation (on demarcation
bounds). Variantly: "both they and
you": Just as you (the Cohanim, are
thus forewarned) vis--vis the altar
service, so, they (the Levites, are
thus forewarned). R. Nathan says:
Levitical singing is hereby intimated
in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature)
was explicated by Ezra. Chanania,
the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua
says: This (intimation) is not needed,
for it is already written (Shemot
19:19) "and G-d answered
(Moses, the Levite) by voice"
relative to the mitzvah of the voice,
whence (the mitzvah of Levitical)
singing is intimated in the Torah.
(Bamidbar 18:4) "And they shall join
you": As we have stated,
Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside,
and the Levites, on the outside.
(Ibid.) "and a stranger shall not draw
near to you": Why is this written?
(i.e., it has already been mentioned.)
"and the stranger that draws near
the shall be put to death" tells us (only
of) the punishment. Whence do we
derive the exhortation? From "and a
stranger shall not draw near to you."
(Ibid. 5) "And you shall keep the
charge of the sanctuary and the
charge of the altar.": This is an
exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites
entire to exhort the Cohanim towards the
of proper performance of the
(sacrificial) service, which (service),
when properly performed, fends of
calamity from the world. (Ibid.) "so
that there be no more wrath." Why
"no more"? For He has already
vented His wrath (viz. 17:11).
Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) "and no
more shall there be a flood." Why "no
more"? For it has already happened.
Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) "And they
shall no more ofer their sacrifices to
him the goat-demons." Why "no more"?
Because it already happened (in
Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7). Similarly,
(Bamidbar 18:22) "And the children
of Israel shall no more draw near to
the tent of meeting." Why "no
the more"? Because they had already
done so (in the time of Korach, viz.
Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5)
"so that there be no more wrath."
Why "no more"? For He had already
vented His wrath, as it is written
169
(Ibid. 17:11) "for the wrath has gone
forth, etc."
(Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken
your brothers, the Levites, from the
midst of the children of Israel, for you
as a gift, given to the L-rd." They are
given to the L-rd (for His service) and
not to the Cohanim. (Ibid. 7) "And
you and your sons with you shall
guard your priesthood for every thing
of the altar": From here, R. Eliezer
Hakappar berebbi was wont to say:
Whatever pertains to the altar should
be only to you and your sons. "and
within the parocheth (the curtain)"
whence they stated: There was a
place behind the inside of the holy of
holies, where the genealogy of the
priests was ascertained. "and you
shall serve": I might think, in concert;
it is, therefore, written "a service of
matanah." Just as "matanah" (the
application of the blood of the
sacrifices) is by lottery, so, all of the
(other) services is by lottery. "As a
service of gift have I given your
priesthood (to you)": This equates
the eating of kodshim (i.e., terumah,
etc.) in the provinces (i.e., outside of
the Temple) with the service of the
Temple in the Temple. And it once
happened that R. Tarfon (a Cohein)
was late in coming to the house of
study, whereupon R. Gamliel asked
170
him: Why are you late? And he
responded: I was serving (as a
Cohein). R. Gamliel: All of your words
are a puzzle. Is there (Temple)
service now (that the Temple has
been destroyed)? R. Tarfon: It is
written "As a service of gift have I
given your priesthood (to you)." This
equates the eating of kodshim in the
provinces with the service of the
Temple in the Temple. Rebbi says:
"This equates the eating of kodshim
in the provinces with the service of
the Temple in the Temple" Just as
with the service of the Temple in the
Temple, he first washes his hands
and then serves, so, with the eating
of kodshim in the provinces he
first washes his hands and then eats.
But perhaps just as there, he
washes both his hands and his feet,
so, here! Would you say that? In a
place (the Temple) where he must
wash his hands and his feet (in that
he is standing on holy ground), he
does so; but in a place where he
needs to wash only his hands, that is
what he does. We hereby learn the
washing of the hands to be
scripturally prescribed. "and the
stranger (i.e., the non-priest) that
draws near shall be put to death":
("that draws near") to (do) the
(priestly) service. You say, to the
service, but perhaps (the same there, at the hands of Heaven; here,
obtains) to the service or not to the too, at the hands of Heaven. R. Akiva
service, (but merely for entering). says: It is written here "he shall be
Would you say that? Now if one (a put to death," and, elsewhere,
Cohein) who is blemished, who is (Devarim 13:6) "And that prophet or
only under an exhortation (and not that dreamer of dreams shall be put
subject to the death penalty), was to death." Just as there, by
exhorted only for performing a strangulation, here, too, by
service, then a stranger, who is strangulation. "and the stranger that
subject to the death penalty, how draws near shall be put to death."
much more so is he to be punished We have heard the punishment, but
only for a service! What, then, is the not the exhortation. It is, therefore,
intent of "and the stranger that written (Devarim 18:4) "and a
draws near is to be put to death? stranger shall not draw near to you."
("who draws near") to the service.
"and the stranger that draws near Piska 117
shall be put to death": even if he
serves in (a state of) purity. But (Bamidbar 18:8) "And the L-rd spoke
perhaps (the intent is) if the serves in to Aaron": I would think (the intent
a state of tumah. Would you say is) that the speaking was to Aaron; it
that? If one who (only) enters in (a is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17:5) "A
state of) tumah, not for a service, is sign for the children of Israel as
liable (to the death penalty [viz. the L-rd spoke to Moses about him"
Bamidbar 19:13]), how much more (Aaron, viz., that only he and his sons
so one who serves (in a state of are to be Cohanim), whereby we are
tumah)! What, then, is the intent of apprised that the speaking was to
"and the stranger that draws near Moses, to tell to Aaron. (Bamidbar,
shall be put to death"? Even if he Ibid.) "And I, behold, (I have given to
serves in (a state of) purity. R. you") with joy, (the twenty-four
Yishmael says: It is written here "he priestly gifts.) These are the words of
shall be put to death," and, R. Yishmael whereupon his
elsewhere, (Ibid. 17:28) "Whoever disciples said to him: But master, it is
draws near, who draws near to the written (Bereshit 6:17) "And I,
mishkan of the L-rd, shall die." Just as behold, shall bring a flood of water,

171
etc." Are we, then to assume that
this was a joy to Him? He answered:
When His angerers go lost from the
world, it is a joy to Him. And thus is it
written (Proverbs 11:10) "When the
righteous prosper, the city exults,
and when the wicked perish there is
rejoicing." And (Psalms 3:9-10) "You
have broken the teeth of the wicked.
Deliverance is the L-rd's. Upon Your
people are Your blessings, selah."
And (Ibid. 10:16) "The L-rd is King for
ever and ever. Nations have gone
lost from His land." And
104:35) "Sinners will end from the
earth, and the wicked will be no
more. Bless the L-rd, O my soul,
Hallelukah!" R. Nathan said to him: I
will add to your words: "And I"
willingly; "behold" with joy. And
thus is it written (Shemot 4:14)
"Behold, he (Aaron) is going out to
meet you (Moses; and when he sees
you, he will rejoice in his heart."
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "For all
hallowed things of the children of
Israel, etc.": Scripture forged
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
(Ibid. 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
the 133:2) "the goodly oil upon the head,
running down the beard, the beard of
a 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
172
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-
ofering, (the hide of which reverts to
the Cohanim.) "all of their oferings":
the two loaves and the show-bread.
"all of their meal-oferings":
sinner's meal-ofering and
donative meal-ofering. "all of their
sin-oferings": the sin-ofering of the
individual and the communal sin-
ofering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird
sin-ofering and the beast
ofering. "all of their guilt-oferings":
the "certain" guilt-ofering,
"suspended" guilt-ofering, the guilt-
ofering of the Nazirite and the guilt-
ofering 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
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
the intent of this? I might think that only
the 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
sin- you the terumah of (i.e., what is set
apart from) their gift-oferings":
the 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 oferings. "From all the wave-
oferings 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 oferings
that they are to be eaten only by
Temple 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
173
included the oferings of
sanctuary to decree a law to make a
covenant with them, so, did it include
the border oferings (i.e.,
outside the sanctuary) to decree a
law to make a covenant with them.
"All the best of the oil": This is
terumah gedolah (Devarim
"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.:)
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,
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
household shall eat it": Why is this
the stated? Is it not already written (Ibid.
11) "Every clean one in your house
shall eat it (terumah)"? Why repeat
those it? To include the daughter of an
Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as
eating terumah. Does this include
one who is betrothed? Perhaps it
18:4). 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
Since 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
with 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
your not eat the holy thing" (terumah):
whether or not he is in your domain.
174
And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Cohein's)": This tells me only of the
Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in devoted objects of Israelites. Whence
Netzivim: I heard about you that you do I derive (the same for) the
said that the daughter of an Israelite devoted objects of gentiles, women,
betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah. and bondsmen? From "Every devoted
He sent back: And I held you to be thing in Israel." R. Yossi Haglili says:
expert in the recesses of Torah when Unqualified "devotions" revert to the
you cannot even expound a kal Cohanim, it being written (Vayikra
vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a 27:21) "As a devoted field, to the
Canaanite maidservant, whose Cohein shall be his holding." Even if
intercourse (with her master) does he specified "for Temple
not acquire her (or him) for maintenance"? It is, therefore, (to
(purposes of) eating terumah, her negate this) written (Ibid. 28) "Every
money (i.e., the money by which he devoted thing (specified as) holy of
acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) holies reverts to the L-rd." R.
causes her to eat terumah then Yehudah b. Betheirah says: All
the daughter of an Israelite, whose unqualified "devotions" revert to
intercourse (with her husband) Temple maintenance, it being written
acquires her (to him) for (purposes "Every (unqualified) "devotion" is
of) eating terumah, how much more holy of holies to the L-rd." Even if he
so should her money (by which he specified "to the Cohanim"? It is,
betroths her) acquire her for therefore, (to negate this) written
(purposes of) eating terumah! But (Ibid.) "Ach" ("But" [to exclude the
what can I do? The sages said: The above instance]). R. Yehudah b. Bava
daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to says: All unqualified "devotions"
a Cohein) does not eat terumah until revert to the Cohanim, it being
she enters the chuppah (the written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "Every
marriage canopy). Once she enters devoted thing in Israel shall be
the chuppah, even if there were no yours." Even if he specified "to the L-
intercourse, she eats terumah, and if rd"? It is, therefore, (to negate this)
she dies, her husband inherits her. written "Every devoted thing is holy
(Bamidbar 18:14) "Every devoted of holies to the L-rd" (when specified
thing (i.e., a thing dedicated to the as such.) R. Shimon says: All
Temple) in Israel shall be yours (the unqualified "devotions" revert to

175
Heaven, it being written "holy of
holies to the L-rd." Even if he
specified "to the Cohein"? It
therefore, (to negate this) written
"Every devoted thing in Israel shall
be yours (the Cohein's)."
Piska 118
(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the
womb of all flesh": I would think an
animal, too, is included
redemption of the first-born); it is,
therefore, written "which they ofer
to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) to
exclude an animal (as opposed to a
beast, which is not ofered). This
("which they ofer") implies that both
an animal and a blemished (beast)
are excluded (from redemption); it is,
therefore, written ("in man) and in
beast" to include a blemished
(beast) in redemption, (as
blemished man is included). "in man
and in beast"; What obtains with the
man (i.e., redemption) obtains with
his beast" to exclude Levites:
Redemption not obtaining with them,
it does not obtain with their
(unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the
first-born of a man is likened to the
first-born of a beast, and the first-
born of a best to the first-born of a
man. Just as with the first-born of a
beast, a miscarriage is exempt from
the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with
is, the first-born of a man. Just as the
(redemption money) for a man is
given to a Cohein in whichever place
he (the man) wishes, so, he may give
the first-born of a beast to a Cohein
in whichever place he wishes. For I
would think that since it is written
(Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring
there (to the Temple) your burnt-
(in oferings and your sacrifices," then
even if he were distant from it, he
must exert himself and bring it (the
first-born beast) to the Temple; it is,
therefore, written "in man and in
beast." Just as the redemption
money for a man may be given to a
Cohein in whichever place he wishes,
so, he may give the first-born of a
beast to a Cohein in whichever place
he wishes. And just as the first-born
a of a man must be cared for for thirty
days (before redemption [viz.
Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born
of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem
shall you redeem": This is what was
asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the
sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it
to be redeemed and fed to the dogs?
R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem
shall you redeem, etc." You redeem
the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and
you do not redeem the clean, neither
176
alive nor dead. "and the first-born of days). It is, therefore, (to negate this)
the unclean beast shall you redeem": written (Ibid. 16) "And his
I would think that this applied to all redemption (that of a human first-
the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, born), from one month shall you
written (Shemot 13:13) "And every redeem." The first-born of a man is
first-born of an ass you shall redeem redeemed with five shekalim and is
with a sheep" You redeem an ass, redeemed after (one month's) time;
but you do not redeem the first-born but the first-born of an ass is
of any other unclean beast. I might redeemed immediately or at any
think that the first-born of an ass is time (thereafter). "And his
redeemed with a sheep, and the redemption, from one month shall
first-born of all other unclean beasts, you redeem": "money, five shekalim"
with clothing and vessels; it is, tells me only of money. Whence do I
therefore, written again (Shemot derive (the same for something that
34:20) "And the first-born of an ass has) the value of money? From "And
you shall redeem with a sheep." The his redemption, etc." I might think,
first-born of an ass you redeem with (his redemption) with anything. It is,
a sheep, but the first-born of all other therefore, written "And his
unclean beasts you do not redeem at redemption" general; "money, five
all. If so, what is the intent of shekalim" particular. "general-
(Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of particular." (The rule is) there is in
the unclean beast you shall the general only what is in the
redeem"? If it does not apply to the particular (i.e., "money," literally).
first-born, understand it as applying "you shall redeem" again general.
to dedication to Temple But perhaps it (the particular)
maintenance, an unclean beast reverts to the first "general" (viz.
being dedicated to Temple Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born
maintenance, whence it is then of man among your sons you shall
redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). redeem," (so that we have an
(Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born instance of general particular.) Would
of the unclean beast) shall you you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely
redeem": immediately. You say, because the particular is too far
immediately, but perhaps the intent removed from that "general.") We
is after some time (i.e., after thirty have, then, an instance of general-

177
particular-general (as stated above).
And (the rule is:) We follow the
nature of the particular, viz.: Just as
the particular is movable property,
worth money, so, the general is of
that nature whence they ruled:
The first-born of a man may be
redeemed with all things, except with
bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi
says: The first-born of a man may be
redeemed with all things, except with
writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty
gerah": What is the intent of this?
(i.e., it is already written [Vayikra
27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel
be.") Whence is it derived that if he
wishes to increase (the amount) he
may do so? From "it shall be." I might
think that if he wishes to decrease,
he may do so. It is, therefore, written
"shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the
first-born of an ox": It must look like
an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a
sheep. "a goat": It must look like a
goat to exclude a hybrid or a
nidmeh (superficially similar). "you
shall not redeem": I might think that
if he redeemed it, it remains
redeemed; it is, therefore, written
"They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah
says: Why is this ("they
consecrated") written? (i.e., it
already written [Shemot 13:2]
"Consecrate unto Me every first-
born") To include a (beast-) tithe and
the Paschal lamb as requiring one
spilling (of blood on the altar),
something which was not spelled out
in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says:
This (derivation) is not needed. For it
is already written (Devarim 12:27)
"and the blood of your sacrifices shall
be spilled out" to include the tithe
and the Pesach as requiring one
spilling. What, then, is the intent of
"They are consecrated"? To include
the tithe and the Pesach as requiring
smoking of the fats, something which
was not spelled out in all of the
Torah. Abba Channan says in the
name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation)
is not needed. For it follows a fortiori,
viz.: If other oferings, which are not
similar in their applications of blood,
are similar in their smoking of fats,
then the tithe and the Pesach, which
are similar (in a first-born) in their
application of blood, how much more
so should they be similar in their
smoking of fats! What, then, is the
intent of "They are consecrated"?
What we have mentioned heretofore
(i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as
requiring one spilling of blood).
are "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon
is the altar": one application. You say
one application, but perhaps (the
intent is) two applications that are
178
four (i.e., one on the north-east
corner and one on the south-west
corner.) Would you say that? If in a
place (i.e., with other
where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra
3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only
two applications that are four), then
here (with first-born,
Pesach), where fats are decreased,
how much more so should blood be
decreased (to only one application)!
Or, conversely, if in a place (first-
born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats
are decreased, blood is increased (to
two applications that are four), then
in a place (i.e., with other oferings),
where fats are increased, how much
more so should blood be increased
(to more than two applications that
are four)! It is, therefore, written (of
the other oferings) (Vayikra 1:11)
"And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle
roundabout" two applications that
are four. I have reasoned a fortiori
and adduced the converse.
converse has been rejected and I
return to the original
argument, viz.: If in a place where
fats are increased,
decreased, then here, where fats are
decreased, how much
should blood be decreased (to only
one application)! What, then, is the
intent of "Their blood
sprinkle"? One application.
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall
you smoke": Does Scripture speak of
oferings), an (even) layer of fat (covered with)
a membrane and (easily) peeled, or
also with the fats of the rib cage?
Would you say that? If in a place (i.e.,
tithe and with other oferings), where blood is
increased, fats are decreased, (the
rib-cage fats, not being smoked)
then here, (vis--vis the first-born,
where blood is decreased, how much
more so should fats be decreased!
How, then, am I to understand "and
their fats shall you smoke"? As
referring to an (even) layer of fat
(covered with) a membrane and
(easily) peeled. "a fire-ofering": Even
though you consign it to the wood
pile, it is not acceptable until it is
consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor
to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I
have spoken and My will has been
done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall
The be for you as the wave-breast":
Scripture came and likened first-born
a fortiori to breast and shoulder of peace-
oferings. Just as breast and shoulder
blood is of peace-oferings are eaten for two
days and one night, so, first-born is
more so eaten for two days and one night.
This question was asked before the
sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how
shall you long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon
179
answered and said: For two days and
one night. There was a certain
disciple there, who had come to
serve in the house of study first, R.
Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him:
My master, how do you know this? R.
Tarfon: First-born is kodshim
(consecrated) and peace-oferings
are kodshim. Just as peace-oferings
are eaten for two days and one
night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My
master, a sin-ofering is a gift to the
Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to
the Cohein. Just as a sin-ofering is
eaten for one day and one night, so,
a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will
learn a thing from a thing, and I will
derive a thing from a thing. I will
learn a thing that is a lower-order
ofering (first-born) from a thing
which is a lower-order ofering
(peace-oferings), and I will not learn
a thing which is a lower-order
ofering from a thing which is holy of
holies (a sin-ofering). R. Yossi: My
master, I will learn a thing from a
thing and I will derive a thing from a
thing. I will learn a thing which is a
gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a
thing which is a gift to the Cohein
(sin-ofering), and I will not learn a
thing which is a gift to the Cohein
from a thing which is not a gift to the
Cohein (peace-oferings). R. Tarfon
180
kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up
and said to him: My son, this is how I
expound it; "and its flesh shall be for
you as the wave-breast." Scripture
came and likened first-born to breast
and shoulder of peace-oferings. Just
as breast and shoulder of peace-
oferings are eaten for two days and
one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You
liken it to breast and shoulder of
peace-oferings, and I liken it to
breast and shoulder of thank-
oferings. Just as these are eaten for
one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra
7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son,
this is how I expound it: "And their
flesh shall be for you as wave-
breast." There is no need to add
(Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for
you shall it be') is adding another
"being" (of one day), that it (first-
born) be eaten for two days and one
night ( like peace-oferings, and
not like thank-oferings). R. Yishmael
said: Now where is thank-ofering
derived from (i.e., that breast and
shoulder be given to the Cohanim)?
Is it not from (its being likened to)
peace-oferings? And something (i.e.,
first-born), which is derived from
something else (i.e., peace-
oferings), you (R. Yossi) would come
and liken it (first-born) to something
else (i.e., thank-oferings, that it
[first-born] be eaten for one day and
one night as thank-oferings are)?
Would you learn something (i.e., that
first-born be eaten for one day and
one night) from something (thank-
ofering), which is itself learned from
something else (i.e., peace-
oferings)? (In sum,) you are not to
learn as per the latter version (that
of R. Yossi), but as per the former
version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of
first-born) shall be for you, etc."
Scripture hereby comes to liken first-
born to breast and shoulder of
peace-oferings Just as breast and
shoulder of peace-oferings are eaten
for two days and one night, so, first-
born is eaten for two days and one
night. What, then, is the intent of
(the redundant) "for you shall it be"?
To include a blemished first-born as
reverting to the Cohein, something
which was not spelled out in the all
of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-
born may be eaten) for two days and
one night. You say for two days and
one night, but perhaps it is for a day
and a night? It is, therefore, written
(Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd
your G-d shall you eat it (the first-
born), year in year," which implies
that it may be eaten for two days
and one night (i.e., the last day of
the preceding year and the first day
181
of the next year and the intervening
night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the
terumah of the holy things, which the
children of Israel will separate":
There are sections which generalize
in the beginning and specify at the
end; (others) which specify in the
beginning and generalize at the end;
and this one generalizes in the
beginning (18:8) and generalizes at
the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies
in the middle. "have I given to you
and to your sons and to your
daughters with you as an everlasting
statute": that it continue for all the
succeeding generations. "It is a
covenant of salt forever before the L-
rd": Scripture forged a covenant with
Aaron with something (salt), which
preserves, and which, furthermore,
preserves other things.
Piska 119
(Bamidbar 18:20) "And the L-rd said
to Aaron: In their land you will not
inherit, and you will not have a
portion in their midst. I am your
portion and your inheritance in the
midst of the children of Israel.": Why
is (all of) this stated? Because it is
written (Bamidbar 26:53) "To these
shall the land be apportioned," I
would think that all are included
Cohanim, Levites, Israelites, fire-ofering of the L-rd and His
proselytes, women, bondsmen, inheritance shall they eat." Twenty-
tumtum (those of uncertain sex) and four priestly gifts were given to the
androgynous (hermaphrodites); it is, Cohanim, twelve in the sanctuary
therefore, written: "And the L-rd said and twelve in the borders (i.e.,
to Aaron: In their land you will not outside of Jerusalem.) Twelve in the
inherit" This excludes (from sanctuary: sin-ofering, guilt-ofering,
inheritance) Cohanim." (Ibid. 23) the remnant of the log of oil of the
"And in the midst of the children of leper, the remnant of the omer, the
Israel, they (the Levites) shall not two loaves, the show-bread, the
inherit an inheritance" This remnant of meal-oferings, the
excludes Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By terumah of the thank-ofering (viz.
the names of the tribes of their Vayikra 7:14), the terumah of breast
fathers shall they inherit" This and thigh, the shoulder of the ram of
excludes bondsmen and proselytes the Nazirite.
(Ibid. 54) "A man, according to his Twelve in the borders: Terumah,
numbers shall his inheritance be terumath ma'aser, challah, bikkurim,
given" This excludes tumtum and the first of the shearing, the gifts
androgynous. (Ibid. 18:20) "And the (shoulder, cheeks, and maw), the
L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you first-born of man and the first-born of
will not inherit" in the division of a clean beast, the firstling of an ass,
the land. "and you will not have a charamim (renunciation of one's
portion in their midst" ("a portion") property), an (unredeemed) field of
of the spoils. "I am your portion and holding, and the theft of (i.e., what is
your inheritance" At My table (i.e., stolen from) a proselyte (viz.
from the sacrifices) you eat and at Bamidbar 5:8). All these twenty-four
My table you drink. An analogy: A gifts were given to the Cohanim,
king gave gifts to (all of) his sons aside from terumah-related debts.
except one, saying to him: My son, I The day when a covenant was forged
gave you a gift. At My table you eat with Aaron with the twenty-four gifts
and at My table you drink. And thus was a day of great joy to him. R.
is it written (Vayikra 6:10) "Their Yishmael says: As per the folk-
portion have I given to them from My proverb "My cow's leg was broken for
fire-oferings." (Devarim 18:1) "The my good." For Aaron's good did

182
Korach come and contest
priesthood. An analogy: A king had a
retainer to whom he gave a field as a
gift, without recording, sealing and
registering (the transaction
above]) wherefore, this section is
juxtaposed with that of Korach. R.
Elazar Hakappar says: Whence is it
derived that the Holy One Blessed be
He showed our father Yaakov the
Temple built and sacrifices being
ofered, and Cohanim officiating, and
the Shechinah reposing (there)? From
(Bereshit 28:12) "And he (Yaakov)
dreamed, and, behold, a ladder
standing on the earth, and its top
reaching to heaven, and, behold,
angels of G-d ascending
descending upon it." There is no
dream without a portent: "And he
dreamed, and, behold, a ladder
standing on the earth" the Temple.
"and its top reaching to heaven"
the ofered sacrifices, their scent
reaching to heaven. "and, behold,
angels of G-d," the Cohanim
ministering, ascending
descending on the ramp. (13) "And,
behold, the L-rd standing on it"
(Amos 9:1) "I (Amos) saw the L-rd
standing on the altar." Beloved are
Israel, who, when epitomized, are
epitomized as "Cohanim," viz. (Isaiah
61:6) "And you, Cohanim of the L-rd
the shall be called; 'ministers of G-d'
shall they say of you. The wealth of
nations shall you eat, and in their
glory shall you vaunt yourselves."
[see Beloved are Cohanim, who are
epitomized as ministering angels,
viz. (Malachi 2:7) "For the lips of the
Cohein shall guard knowledge, and
Torah shall they seek from his mouth,
for an angel of the L-rd of hosts is
he." If Torah goes forth from his
mouth, he is like the ministering
angels. If not, he is like an animal or
a beast, which does not recognize its
Creator. Beloved is Torah. When
David king of Israel asked (a boon of
the L-rd), he asked only for Torah,
and viz. (Psalms 118:68) "You are good
and do good teach me Your
statutes." Your goodness engulfs all
who enter the world. Let Your
goodness engulf me and teach me
Your statutes. And it is written
(Psalms, Ibid. 117) "Support me and I
will be saved (and I will dwell in Your
statutes always"): That I not learn
and Torah and forget it, that I not learn
and the evil inclination not allow me
to review it, that I not rule unclean
what is clean or clean what is
unclean and come to share in the
world to come, that the nations of
the land and the families of the earth
ask me and I not know how to

183
respond and be shamed before
them. And thus is it written (Ibid. 46)
"And I will speak of Your testimonies
before kings and I will not
ashamed." And (Ibid. 54) "Songs
have Your statutes been to me." I
might think, in repose. It, therefore,
follows "in the house of my fears, in
caves and in entrapments, as in
(Ibid. 56:1) " when he fled from
Saul in the cave." And (Ibid. 109:119)
"My soul was always in my hand, and
I did not forget Your Torah."
But when David learned Torah and
grew great (in it), what did he say?
(Psalms 139:17) "And to me, how
precious are Your loved ones (i.e.,
Torah scholars), O G-d! How mighty
is their sum!" And (Ibid. 119:72)
"Better to me is the Torah of Your
mouth than thousands of gold and
silver." For gold and silver take a man
out of this world and the next, but
Torah brings a man to life in the
world to come.
(II Samuel 7:19) "This is the Torah of
man": We find that there are three
crowns: the crown of Torah, the
crown of priesthood and the crown of
kingdom. The crown of priesthood
was merited by Aaron and he took it.
The crown of kingdom was merited
by David and he took it. The crown of
Torah is left (vacant), so that those
who enter the world be given no
pretext to say: If the crown of
kingdom and the crown of priesthood
be were left (vacant), I would merit
them and take them. The crown of
Torah is left (vacant) for all who enter
the world. For whoever merits it, I
account it to him as if all three were
left (vacant) to him and he merits all
of them. And whoever does not merit
it, I account it to him as if all three
were left (vacant) for him and he did
not merit any one of them. And if you
would ask: Which is the greatest of
all? R. Shimon b. Elazar was wont to
say: Who is greater, the crowner or
the king? Certainly, the crowner. The
maker of officers or the officers?
Certainly, the maker of officers. All
that inheres in these two crowns,
comes through the power of Torah.
And thus is it written (Proverbs 8:15-
16) "Through me (Torah) do kings
reign Through me do princes rule."
And, (in reversion to "This is the
Torah of man"), (Koheleth 12:13)
"The end of the matter, all has been
heard. Fear G-d and do His mitzvoth.
For this (Torah) is all of man."
Greater is the covenant forged with
Aaron than that forged with David.
Aaron merited (priesthood) for his
sons whether righteous or wicked,
and David merited (kingdom only) for
184
the righteous, but not for the wicked,
viz. (Psalms 132:12) "If your children
will keep My covenant (they will sit
on the throne for you.") (Bamidbar
18:19) "It is a covenant of salt (21)
and to the sons of Levi." Scripture
hereby apprises us that just as the
covenant is forged with the
priesthood, so, is it forged with the
Levites. And just as the mitzvah of
the priesthood was stated at Mount
Sinai, so, that of the Levites. And just
as the mitzvah of the priesthood was
stated with joy, so, that of the
Levites, as it is written "and to the
sons of Levi, behold, I have given,
etc." "Behold" connotes joy, as in
(Shemot 5:14) "And, behold, he goes
out to meet you, and when he sees
you, he will rejoice in his heart."
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "in exchange for
their service": All the mitzvoth of the
priesthood (i.e., the twenty-four
priestly gifts) were acquired by the L-
rd and given to the Cohanim; and
these (the mitzvoth of the Levites),
"in exchange for their services of the
tent of meeting." These are the
words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan
says: This, too, was acquired by the
land and given to the Levites, as it is
written (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the
tithe of the land is the L-rd's; it is
holy to the L-rd." "And to the sons of
185
Levi I have given all the tithe of Israel
as an inheritance": Just as an
inheritance does not change from its
place, so, first tithe, (which is given
to the Levite), does not change from
its place, (unlike second tithe, which
in the third and sixth years converts
to poor-tithe.) "in exchange for the
service which they perform": If he
serves, he takes (the tithe); if not, he
does not. (Ibid. 22) "And the children
of Israel shall no more draw near":
the exhortation. "to bear sin, to die":
the punishment (at the hands of
Heaven.). (Ibid. 23) "And the Levite
shall serve he": Why is this
written? From "in exchange for their
service" I might understand, if he
wishes, he serves, and if he does not
wish, he does not serve; it is,
therefore, written "And the Levite
shall serve he" perforce.
Variantly: Why is this written? From
"And to the sons of Levi, behold, I
have given every tithe in Israel (in
exchange for their service, etc.") This
tells me only (that they must serve)
only in the years that the tithes
obtain. Whence do I derive (that they
must also serve) on shemitoth and
yovloth, (when the tithes do not
obtain)? From "And the Levite shall
serve he" (in any event). R.
Nathan says: If no Levite were there,
I might think that a Cohein may
serve. And this would follow
fortiori, viz.: If in a place (i.e., the
priestly service), where Levites are
not kasher, Cohanim are kasher,
then, in a place (i.e., the Levitical
service), where Levites are kasher,
how much more so should Cohanim
be kasher! It is, therefore, written
"And the Levite shall serve he."
"and they (the Levites) will bear their
sin (of not guarding property)": And
others (the Israelites, who, [being
unguarded, enter the sanctuary]) will
not bear their (the Levites') sin. This
is to say that Israelites do not bear
the sin of the Levites, but
Cohanim, (who enter where they
should not), do bear their
Levites') sin. It is, therefore, written
"and they (the Levites) will bear their
sin (of improper guarding)," and not
the Israelites or the Cohanim (who,
as a result, enter where they should
not.) "a statute forever for your
generations": It obtains for
succeeding generations. And in the
midst of the children of Israel, they
shall not inherit an inheritance": Why
is this written? For, since it is written
(Ibid. 26:53) "To these shall the land
be apportioned," I would think that
the Levites, too, are included; it is,
therefore, written "And in the midst
of the children of Israel, they shall
a not inherit an inheritance." (Ibid. 24)
"For the tithe of the children of Israel
which they set apart for the L-rd as
terumah": Scripture refers to it as
terumah until he separates terumath
ma'aser from it, whereby it teaches
that if he wishes to make it terumah
for other (untithed) produce, he may
do so. "have I given to the Levites as
an inheritance": Why is this written?
Because it is written "And to the sons
of Levi, behold, I have given every
tithe in Israel in exchange for the
service, etc.", I would think (that
first-tithe is given to the Levites) only
the when the Temple, (in which service is
performed), exists. Whence do I
(the derive (that it is given) even when
the Temple does not exist? From "as
an inheritance." Just as "inheritance"
obtains whether or not the Temple
exists, so, first-tithe. "Therefore, I
have said to them that in the midst
of the children of Israel they shall not
all inherit an inheritance": Why is this
written? Is it not already written (23)
"And in the midst of the children of
Israel they shall not inherit an
inheritance"? I might think that this
applies only at the time of the
apportionment of the land; but after
the apportionment each tribe sets
aside from its portion (a parcel of
186
land for Levi). It is, therefore, written
"Therefore, I have said,
Variantly: "Therefore, I have said":
Why is this written? Because it is
written (Devarim 7:1) "And He will
cast out many nations from before
you, the Chitti, the Girgashi, etc.",
but Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni are
not mentioned, (so that we might
think that when they are conquered,
Levi can have inheritance in their
land); it is, therefore,
"Therefore, I have said, etc."
forever (are they not to
inheritance). Variantly: (It is written)
to exhort beth-din to this end (of
their not receiving inheritance).
Piska 120
(Bamidbar 18:26) "And
Levites shall you speak, and you
shall say to them: When you take
from the children of Israel the tithe
(ma'aser) that I have given to you
from their inheritance, (then you
shall separate from it the terumah of
the L-rd, ma'aser from the ma'aser.")
Why is this written? To teach that
(Ibid. 21) "And to the sons of Levi,
behold, I have given every tithe"
speaks of (one-tenth of) the produce
(of the land, and not of [one-tenth of]
the land itself.) You say, the produce,
but perhaps (the reference is to) the
etc." land (itself)! It is, therefore, written
(26) "And to the Levites you shall
speak and you shall say to them (
that I have given to you from them in
their inheritance"). "that I have given
to you from them in their
inheritance": Because they have not
been given a portion in the land,
there has been given to them one-
tenth of the produce. "then you shall
written separate from it": From one kind (of
produce) for its kind, and not from
have one kind for a diferent kind, and not
from what is rooted for what is
unrooted, and not from what is
unrooted for what is rooted, and not
from the new (crop) for the old, and
not from the old for the new. And
whence is it derived that one is not
to the to take terumah from produce of the
land (Eretz Yisrael) for produce
outside the land or from produce
outside the land for produce of the
land? From (Vayikra 27:30) "And all
the tithe of the land, etc.)" Variantly:
"from it": This is "extra" (mufneh) for
formulating an identity (gezeirah
shavah ) viz.: It is written here "from
it," and, in respect to the Paschal
lamb, (Shemot 12:9) ("Do not eat)
from it, etc." Just as re "with it"
mentioned here (in respect to
ma'aser), it (ma'aser) is forbidden to
187
a mourner, (viz. Devarim 26:14), so, handling it), so, terumath ma'aser
re "with it" mentioned in respect to may be taken by estimate and by
Pesach, it (the Paschal lamb) is thought. "as corn from the threshing
forbidden to a mourner. floor and as the fullness of the pit":
Why is this stated? From (26) "then
Piska 121 you shall separate from it," I might
think that he could take ears (of
(Bamidbar 18:27) "And your grain as terumah) for grain; grapes,
terumah will be accounted for you as for wine; and olives, for oil; it is,
corn from the threshing floor and as therefore, written "as corn from the
the fullness of the pit": R. Yishmael threshing floor," i.e., (he may take)
says: When is your terumah from what is processed whence
accounted for you as corn from the they ruled; (He may take terumah:)
threshing floor? When you have from grain, from the time that it (i.e.,
taken it as prescribed (i.e., a kind for its pile) has been evened; from wine,
its kind, new for new, etc. [see from the time that it is skimmed;
above]). If you have not taken it as from oil, from the time that it has
prescribed, it is not thus accounted dripped down into the trough. (Ibid.
for you. Variantly: "And your (the 28) "Thus shall you, too, separate the
Levites') terumah (terumath terumah of the L-rd": Why is this
ma'aser) will be accounted for you as written? From (26) "And to the
corn from the threshing floor" Levites shall you speak, and you
(terumah gedolah). Now what do we shall say to them: When you take
learn from terumah (gedolah) to from the children of Israel, etc.", (I
terumath ma'aser? It (terumah would say:) The children of Israel
gedolah) comes (apparently) to give ma'aser to the Levites, but the
teach (something), and it ends up Cohanim do not give ma'aser to the
being learned (i.e.,) Just as terumath Levites. And since they do not give
ma'aser is obligatory, so, terumah ma'aser to the Levites, I might think
(gedolah) is obligatory. Abba Eliezer that they could eat it (the produce)
b. Gomel says: Scripture comes to tevel (i.e., untithed); it is, therefore,
teach you that just as terumah written: "thus shall you separate, you
(gedolah) may be taken by estimate (the Cohanim), too, the terumah of
and by thought (i.e., without actually the L-rd." (i.e., the Cohanim separate

188
terumah, and ma'aser, and terumath third and sixth year (of shemitah,
ma'aser which reverts to them.) R. [being replaced by poor-tithe]),
Yishmael says: This (derivation) is obtains with all (produce), then
not needed, for if challah, which does terumah, the graver, how much more
not obtain with all produce (i.e., with so should it obtain with all (produce
all the varieties of grain), obtains [of second tithe])! Issi b. Menachem
with the produce of Cohanim, then says: If ma'aser (second tithe), which
ma'aser, which does obtain with all comes only as an incentive to fear
produce, how much more so should it and to learning (viz. Devarim 14:23),
obtain with all the produce of obtains with all (produce), how much
Cohanim! What, then, is the intent of more so does it obtain with the
"Thus shall you separate, you, too"? I "graver," terumah! (Bamidbar, Ibid.)
might think that only the ma'aser of "And you shall give of it the terumah
an Israelite (is subject to terumath of the L-rd to Aaron the Cohein": Just
ma'aser). Whence do I derive the as Aaron was a chaver (a Torah
(same for) their (the Levites') own scholar, so the (other) Cohanim (to
tithe (i.e., the tithe that they receive the priestly gifts, should be
separate from what is theirs)? It is, chaverim) whence it was ruled:
therefore, written "Thus shall you Priestly gifts should be given only to
separate, you, (the Levites,) too." a chaver. (Ibid. 29) "From all of your
(Ibid. 29) "From all of your gifts, etc." gifts shall you separate all the
Scripture hereby teaches that terumah of the L-rd. From all of its
ma'aser obtains with all (produce best (shall you separate) its hallowed
[see above]) whence you rule to part from it." Is Scripture here
terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser), speaking of terumah gedolah or of
viz.: If ma'aser, the "lighter," (not terumath ma'aser? "from all of your
being subject to the death penalty), tithes" (28) speaks of terumath
obtains with all produce), then ma'aser. How, then, is "From all of
terumah, the "graver," (being subject your gifts shall you separate all the
to the death penalty, [viz. Vayikra terumah of the L-rd" to be
22:9]), how much more so does it understood? As referring to terumath
obtain with all (produce [of first gedolah. (Devarim 18:4) "The first of
tithe])! Variantly: If ma'aser (second your corn, your wine, and your oil
tithe), which does not obtain in the shall you give to him": This is

189
obligatory. You say it is obligatory, the winepress."): This is an
but perhaps it is optional! It is, exhortation to the Levites to take
therefore, written (Bamidbar 11:29) (terumath ma'aser) only from its
"shall you separate all the terumah choicest. "then it shall be reckoned
of the L-rd" It is obligatory and not to the Levites as produce of the
optional. These are the words of R. threshing floor and as produce of the
Yonathan. "from all of its best, its winepress": Why is this stated? (i.e.,
hallowed part from it.": So that if it it is already written [Ibid. 27])
(terumath ma'aser) fell (back) into it Because it is written (27) "And your
(what it was taken from), it "hallows" terumah will be accounted for you,
it whence they ruled: Terumah is etc.", I might think that since
"neutralized" (from its hallowed Scripture refers to it (first tithe) as
state) if it fell into one hundred parts "terumah," (viz. Ibid. 24), it retains
of non-terumah when (it is) one to its holiness forever; it is, therefore,
(that) one hundred. This tells me written "then it shall be reckoned to
only of terumah that is (ritually) the Levites as produce of the
clean. Whence do I derive (the same threshing floor and as produce of the
for) terumah that is tamei, (that if it wine press" Just as with the
fell into a hundred of clean terumah, produce of the threshing floor, one
it is neutralized in such a mixture?) It separates terumah, and what
follows a fortiori, viz.: [Note: The remains is chullin (non-terumah), so,
translator, with all his consultation of with first tithe, he separates terumah
the commentaries, has not been able (i.e., terumath ma'aser) and what
to render meaningfully what follows remains is chullin. (Ibid. 31) "And you
(from here until #122)] may eat it in every place": even in a
cemetery. For it would follow
Piska 122 (otherwise), viz.: Since "terumah" (of
a Cohein) is called "terumah," and
(Bamidbar 18:30) "And you shall say first tithe is called "terumah," then if
to them (the Levites): When you I have learned that terumah (of a
separate its best part from it, (then it Cohein) is to be eaten only in a
[i.e., what remains]) shall be (ritually) clean place, so, first tithe; it
reckoned to the Levites as produce of is, therefore, written "And you may
the threshing floor and as produce of eat it in every place" even in a

190
cemetery. "you and your household":
to include an Israelite woman
married to a Levite as permitted to
depute (a messenger) to take
terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser,
from her husband's first tithe). But
perhaps (this permits her) only to eat
it! Would you say that? It follows
otherwise, viz.: If she (a Cohein's
wife) eats the "graver" terumah,
how much more so should (a Levite's
wife) eat the "lighter" ma'aser! It
must mean, then, that an Israelite
woman (married to a Levite) is
permitted to be deputed to take
terumah. (Ibid. 31) "For it is payment
to you, in exchange for your service
in the tent of meeting.": If he serves,
he takes; if he does not serve, he
does not take whence it was ruled:
If a Levite took upon himself every
Levitical service except one, he has
no portion in the Leviate. (Ibid. 32)
"And you shall not bear sin because
of it": And whence is it derived that if
he did not separate (for terumath
ma'aser) its choicest part, he does
bear sin? From "And you shall not
bear sin because of it when you
separate its best part from it." This
tells me only of terumath ma'aser
(i.e., what the Levi separates for the
Cohein). Whence do I derive (the
same for) terumah gedolah (i.e.,
191
what the Israelite separates for the
Cohein)? From (Ibid.) "And the holy
things of the children of Israel you
shall not profane and you shall not
die." This is an exhortation to both
the Levites and the Israelites.
Piska 123
(Bamidbar 19:1-2) "And the L-rd
spoke to Aaron and to Moses saying:
This is the statute of the Torah, which
the L-rd has commanded, saying:
Speak to the children of Israel and let
them take unto you a red heifer,
complete, which does not have a
blemish, upon which a yoke has not
come." There are sections (of the
Torah), which are general in the
beginning and particular at the end,
and (others), which are particular in
the beginning and general at the
end: (Shemot 19:3) "Thus shall you
say to the house of Jacob and declare
to the children of Israel" particular;
(Ibid. 6) "These are the things, etc."
general. (Ibid. 12:43) "This is the
statute of the Pesach" general;
(Ibid.) "Every stranger shall not eat
of it" particular. (Bamidbar 19:2)
"This is the statute of the Torah"
general; (Ibid.) "and let them take for
you a red heifer, complete"
particular. General-Particular. (The
rule is:) There exists in the general The sages say: "eglah" of the
only what is found in the particular. second year; "parah" of the third
R. Eliezer says: It is written here or fourth year. R. Meir says: One of
"statute" and (relative to the Yom the fifth year, too, is valid. An old one
Kippur service, Vayikra 16:34) is valid, but it is not waited for lest it
"statute." Just as there, (the Cohein sprout black hairs and become unfit.
ministers) in the white vestments; "parah": I understand black or white;
here, too, in the white vestments. R. it is, therefore, written "red."
Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his "whole": in redness or in (absence of)
disciples: In which vestments was blemishes? "which does not have a
the red heifer processed? He: In the blemish" accounts for blemishes.
golden vestments. They: But did our How, then, am I to understand
master not teach us (that it was "whole"? That it be "whole" in
processed) in the white vestments? redness. "which does not have a
He: If I have forgotten what my eyes blemish": Why need this be stated?
have seen and what my hands have Even if it were not stated, I would
ministered, how much more so, what know it a fortiori, viz.: If oferings,
I have taught! And why all this? To which are not invalidated by work
strengthen the disciples (in (having been done with them), are
application to their learning). Others invalidated by a blemish, then the
say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not heifer, which is invalidated by work,
being a Cohein), he could not have how much more so should it be
said "what my hands have invalidated by a blemish! No, this
ministered." "and let them take": may be true of oferings, which must
from the Temple treasury. "unto you": be processed (by the Cohein) in a
that you be appointed over it. And state of cleanliness, wherefore a
just as Moses was appointed over it, blemish invalidates them, as
so, was Aaron. Similarly, in respect to opposed to the heifer, which may be
the oil for lighting, (Shemot 21:20) processed in a state of tumah (i.e.,
"and let them take unto you" that when the Cohein is a tvul yom),
you be appointed over it. "a red wherefore a blemish would not
heifer (parah)": R. Eliezer says: invalidate it. (So that the verse is
"eglah" signifies of the first year; needed to tell us otherwise.) (No,)
"parah" signifies of the second year. this is refuted by (the instance of)

192
the Paschal lamb, which though it should invalidate the eglah arufah,
may be processed in a state of viz.: If oferings, which are not
tumah, a blemish invalidates it, and invalidated by work, are invalidated
this would indicate of the heifer that by a blemish, then eglah arufah,
even though it is processed in which is invalidated by work, how
tumah, a blemish invalidates it. much more so should it be
(Why, then, is a verse needed to tell invalidated by a blemish! It is,
us this?) No, this may be true of therefore, written (in respect to the
the Paschal lamb, which must be red heifer), "which does not have a
sacrificed at a fixed time, wherefore blemish" It (the red heifer) is
it is invalidated by a blemish, as invalidated by a blemish, but the
opposed to the heifer, which, not eglah arufah is not invalidated by a
having a fixed time (for its blemish. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says:
processing), should not be If the sin-ofering of a bird, whose
invalidated by a blemish. It must, oferers must be tahor, is not
therefore, (to tell us otherwise) be invalidated by a blemish, then the
written "which does not have a red heifer, whose processors may be
blemish." Issi b. Akiva says: "which tamei (tvul yom), how much more so
does not have a blemish": Why need should it not be invalidated by a
this be stated? Even if it were not blemish! (The verse, then, is needed
stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: to tell us that it is invalidated by a
If oferings, which are not invalidated blemish.) No, this may be true of
by black or white (hairs), are the sin-ofering of a bird, which is
invalidated by a blemish, then the valid if either male or female, as
heifer, which is invalidated by black opposed to a heifer, (where only a
or white, how much more so should it female is valid.) Why, then, need it
be invalidated by a blemish"! If I be stated "which does not have a
know this a fortiori, why need it be blemish"? (lit., "when there is no
stated "which does not have a blemish in it") When the blemish is in
blemish"? To exclude (from it (it is invalid), but when it has
invalidation by a blemish) the heifer passed, it is valid. R. Yoshiyah
of the broken neck (eglah arufah [viz. Numithi asked before R. Yehudah b.
Devarim 21:4]). For it would follow (if Betheira: What is a blemish which
not for this verse) that blemishes has passed, in which instance it is

193
valid? And he showed me between Whence is it derived that other
his two fingers when(flesh) labors are equated with a yoke (to
protrudes or when it has two tails. invalidate the red heifer)? It follows a
"upon which a yoke has not come": fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of)
Scripture speaks of a yoke not in (the eglah arufah, which is not invalidated
time of its) working. And if you would by a blemish, other labors are
say, a yoke in (the time of its equated with a yoke, (viz. Devarim
working), would you say that? It 21:3 "which has never been worked,
follows a fortiori, viz.: If eglah arufah, which has never pulled under a
which is not invalidated by a yoke"), then (in the instance of) the
blemish, is invalidated by a yoke (in red heifer, which is invalidated by a
its time of working), then the red blemish, how much more so should
heifer, which is invalidated by a other labors be equated with a yoke!
blemish, how much more so should it But perhaps it should be
be invalidated by a yoke (in the time transposed, viz.: If (in the instance
of its working!) (No,) this is refuted of) the red heifer, which is
by the oferings, which are invalidated by a blemish, other
invalidated by a blemish, but not by labors were not equated with a yoke,
a yoke (in the time of working), and then (in the instance of) eglah
they would indicate about the red arufah, which is not invalidated by a
heifer that even though it is blemish, how much more so should
invalidated by a blemish, it should other labors not be equated with a
not be invalidated by a yoke (in the yoke! It is, therefore, written "which
time of its working). No, this may has never been worked." I have
be true of oferings, which are not reasoned a fortiori and I have
invalidated by black and white hairs, transposed. The transposition has
wherefore a yoke does not invalidate been refuted and I have emerged
them, as opposed to the red heifer, with the original a fortiori argument,
which is invalidated by black and viz.: If (in the instance of) the eglah
white, wherefore a yoke (in the time arufah, which is not invalidated by a
of its working) should invalidate blemish, other labors are equated
them. What, then, is the intent of with a yoke, then (in the instance of)
"upon which a yoke has not come"? the red heifer, which is invalidated
A yoke not in the time of its working. by a blemish, how much more so

194
should other labors be equated with
a yoke!
(Bamidbar 19:3) "And you shall give
it (the red heifer) to Elazar the
Cohein": Scripture comes to teach us
about the red heifer that it is
processed by the adjutant high-
priest. Know this to be so, (that it is
processed by the adjutant high-
priest), for Aaron was alive and
Elazar burned the heifer. "and you
shall give it": This one was processed
by Elazar, and others (after this)
were processed by the high-priest.
These are the words of R. Meir. R.
Yossi, R. Yehudah, R. Shimon, and R.
Elazer b. Yaakov say: This one was
processed by Elazar, and others,
either by the high-priest or by a
regular Cohein. "and he shall take it
(outside the encampment"): And
another (heifer) should not be taken
out with it whence they ruled: If it
balked at being taken out, a black
one (i.e., one with black hairs) should
not be taken out with it (as an
incentive for it to leave), so that they
not say it was the black one that
they slaughtered and not the red
one, (or) that both of them were
slaughtered. R. Yossi says: This is not
the reason, but (it is) because it is
written "and he shall take it out"
alone. "outside the encampment": to
195
the mount of anointment (i.e., the
Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem,
so that its blood be sprinkled
opposite the door of the tent of the
sanctuary.) "and he shall slaughter
it": We are hereby apprised that if it
became carrion in being slaughtered,
it is unfit (to serve as a red heifer).
"and he shall slaughter it": whence
they ruled: Two heifers are not to be
slaughtered together (with a long
knife). "and he shall slaughter it
before him": that another slaughters
and Elazar looks on. (And) Scripture
apprises us about the heifer that
(preoccupation with some other)
work invalidates its slaughtering.
"and Elazar the Cohein shall take":
Why is this written? Is it not already
written "And you shall give it to
Elazar the Cohein"? Why repeat it?
(To stress) the Cohein in his
priesthood (i.e., in his priestly
vestments.) "shall take of its blood
with his finger": Its mitzvah is a
mitzvah of the hand (i.e., he takes its
blood in his hand and he sprinkles
with his finger), and it is not a
mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel.
And this would follow, viz.: Since the
log of the oil efects kashruth (for the
leper to be cleansed for the eating of
sanctified food), and the blood of the
red heifer efects kashruth (for the
ashes of the red heifer to cleanse),
then if I have learned that the log of
oil efects kashruth only via the
hand, (viz. Vayikra 14:15), only via
the hand (and not via a sprinkling
vessel), then it follows that the blood
of the red heifer, too, should efect
kashruth only via the hand. You
derive it from the log of oil, and I
derive it from the blood of the burnt-
ofering (of the leper). Would you
say that? There is a diference
(between your derivation and mine.)
The log of oil requires seven
sprinklings and the red heifer
requires seven sprinklings. If you
learn about the log of oil that it is
kasher only with the hand, then the
blood of the red heifer should be
kasher only with the hand. But,
where you are coming from, if there
(vis--vis the guilt-ofering) it
kasher only (by spilling the blood)
from a vessel to the hand, then here,
too, (it should be kasher only) from a
vessel to the hand. It is, therefore,
written "from its blood with
finger." Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of
the hand, and it is not a mitzvah of
the (sprinkling) vessel. "with
finger": the right finger (i.e., the
index finger) of his right hand. You
say the index finger of his right hand,
but perhaps all of the fingers are
valid. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra
14:16) "Then the Cohein shall dip his
right finger, etc." Since "fingers" are
written in the Torah unqualified, and
in one instance Scripture specifies
that it is only the "yemanith" of the
"yemanith," so, all "fingers" of the
Torah are "yemanith" the most
skillful ("meyumeneth") of the right
hand (i.e., the index finger), which is
more adapted for sprinkling than all
of the other fingers. "and he shall
sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent
of meeting": that he direct his gaze
to the door of the sanctuary when he
sprinkles the blood. "and he shall
sprinkle opposite the tent of
meeting": If the sanctuary were not
set up or if the wind had furled the
curtains the red heifer was not
processed. "and he shall sprinkle of
is its blood opposite the tent of
meeting": Why is this repeated? Is it
not already written (Ibid.) "of its
blood with his finger"? From (Ibid.)
"seven times," I might understand
his seven sprinklings from one dipping. It
is, therefore, written "of its blood
seven times" he returns to the
his blood seven times. "seven times":
They (the sprinklings) are mutually
inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one,
the others are invalid.) For it would
follow: Since "sprinklings" are written
196
within (the sanctuary, on Yom (preoccupation with some other)
Kippur), and "sprinklings" are written work invalidates it from the time of
(re the red heifer), then just as I have slaughtering until it becomes ashes.
learned of the inner sprinklings that "And he shall burn the heifer before
they are mutually inclusive, so, the his eyes, and not the bullocks (that
outer sprinklings should be mutually of Yom Kippur, etc.) that are burnt
inclusive. No, this may be true of ("outside the camp"). For it would
the inner sprinklings, which efect follow (otherwise), viz.: If with the
atonement, wherefore they are red heifer, which is not processed
mutually inclusive, as opposed to the within (the sanctuary), work
outer sprinklings, which do not efect invalidates its burning, then the
atonement, wherefore they should bullocks, which are processed within,
not be mutually inclusive. It is, how much more so should work
therefore, written (here) "seven invalidate their burning! No, this
times," and there (of the inner may be true of the red heifer, whose
sprinklings) "seven times before the slaughtering is invalidated by work,
L-rd." Just as there, they are mutually wherefore it invalidates its burning,
inclusive, here, too, they are as opposed to the bullocks that are
mutually inclusive. burnt, whose slaughtering is not
invalidated by work, wherefore it
Piska 124 should not invalidate their burning!
But let it (i.e., work) invalidate
(Bamidbar 19:5) "And he shall burn their slaughtering! And this would,
the heifer before his eyes": Scripture indeed, follow, viz.: If bullocks, which
apprises us about the heifer that are not processed within, work
preoccupation with some other) work invalidates their slaughtering, then
invalidates its burning. But even the bullocks that are burnt, which are
without this being stated, I know it a processed within, how much more so
fortiori, viz.: If it (preoccupation) should work invalidate their
invalidates its slaughtering (see slaughtering! It is, therefore, written
above), should it not invalidate its "then he shall burn the heifer (before
burning! If I know this a fortiori, what his eyes") and (Ibid. 3) "and he shall
need is there for a verse? Rather, slaughter it before him," and not the
Scripture apprises us that bullocks that are burned. "And he

197
shall burn the heifer before his
(Elazar's) eyes": Another burns and
Elazar looks on. "Its skin, and its
flesh, and its blood together with its
dung": Just as the dung (remains) in
its place, (i.e., it is not removed from
the bowels,) so, all (of the others
remain) in their place whence they
ruled: Any blood (remaining in his
hand) should be returned to its place
(i.e., the shechitah site), and if it is
not returned, the heifer is
invalidated. What does he do? He
wipes his hand on the body of the
heifer. "And he shall burn the heifer":
to include bits (leaping from the fire)
whence they ruled: Any amount of
flesh must be returned (to the fire); if
he does not return it, it (the heifer) is
invalidated. Any amount of bone
must be returned; if he does not
return it, it is not invalidated, ("bone"
not being mentioned in the verse). If
an olive-size (leapt out of the fire),
he must return it (to the fire). (And if
he returned it, even if a minute
amount remained behind, he must
return it.) If he does not return it,
(the heifer) is invalidated. "he shall
burn": (We have here an instance of)
amplification ("he shall burn") after
amplification ("And he shall burn") in
which instance the rule is
"diminution" If most of it (and not
198
necessarily all of it) has been
consumed, (it is valid). These are the
words of R. Yishmael. R. Yehudah
says: (The intent of "he shall burn" is
that) he shall not diminish the wood
(supply). He adds to it bundles of
hyssop and bundles of Grecian
hyssop in order to increase the
(amount of) ashes. (Ibid. 6) "And the
Cohein shall take cedar wood, and
hyssop, and scarlet": It is written
here "taking," and, elsewhere, (Ibid.
18) "taking." Just as "taking" here is
three (species), so, "taking" there,
(although only "hyssop" is mentioned
there.) "wood": This implies any kind
of wood. It is, therefore, written
"cedar": This (alone) implies even a
branch. It is, therefore, written
"wood." How so? A chip of cedar
wood. "hyssop": Not "Grecian" or
"Kochalith" or "Desert" or "Roman"
(hyssop) or any other hyssop which
has an epithet. "ushni tola'ath": i.e.,
whose variant ("shniyatho"
[something called by a "variant"
name]) is tola'ath (scarlet). "and he
shall cast it into the midst of the
burning of the heifer": I might think
(that he casts it in) when the heifer
has already been reduced to ashes; it
is, therefore, written "the heifer" (i.e.,
when it is still recognizable as a
heifer.) If "the heifer," I might think
(that he casts it in) even when it has Kippur, [viz. Vayikra 16:26]), (he is
not been burned. It is, therefore, unclean) until the evening. (Ibid. 8)
written "into the midst of the "And he who burns it shall wash his
burning." How is this to be garments": Scripture hereby apprises
reconciled? (He casts it in) when the us of the burner of the heifer that he
flames have caught on to most of it. imparts tumah to garments. Even
R. Akiva says: "the burning": I might without the verse, I can derive it a
think (that he casts it in) when the fortiori, viz.: If the caster of the
heifer has already been reduced to hyssop imparts tumah to his
ashes; it is, therefore, written "the garments, how much more so the
heifer." If "the heifer," I might think if burner of the heifer! Why, then, do I
he splits it open and places it into its need the verse? Scripture hereby
midst; it is, therefore, written "and he apprises us of those who occupy
shall cast it into the burning of the themselves with the heifer from
heifer." How is this to be reconciled? beginning to end that they require
(He casts it in) when it has split open the washing of garments and bathing
(of itself because of the fire.) "And of the body and the going down of
the Cohein shall wash his garments, the sun (to be cleansed). "And he
and he shall bathe his flesh in who burns it shall wash his
water": Scripture hereby apprises us garments": and not plague-garments
of the caster of the hyssop that he (i.e., the garments of the one who
imparts tumah to garments. "and burns the clothes of the leper or of
then he shall come to the one afflicted with plague do not
encampment": Just as here, he (the become unclean.) For it would follow
caster of the hyssop) is forbidden to otherwise, viz.: If the heifer, which
come to the encampment (before he does not impart tumah by contact,
cleanses himself), so, there, he (the its burning imparts tumah to
burner and the gatherer of the garments, then plague-garments,
ashes) is forbidden to come to the which do impart tumah by contact,
encampment. "and the Cohein shall how much more so should their
be unclean until the evening": Just as burner impart tumah to garments! It
here (he is unclean) until the is, therefore, written "And he who
evening, so, there, he (the burner of burns it shall wash his garments,"
the bullock and the he-goat of Yom and not plague-garments. "he shall

199
wash his garments with water and he
shall bathe his flesh in water": "in
water" twice. What is the intent of
this? For it would follow: Since a man
requires immersion and
require immersion, then just as a
man immerses in (an amount of
water) that is sufficient for him, i.e.,
forty sa'ah), so vessels are immersed
in a (smaller amount of
sufficient for them. It is, therefore,
written "in water" twice. Where man
is immersed (i.e., forty sa'ah), there
hands (for ritual purposes)
vessels are immersed. (Ibid. 9) "And
a man who is clean shall gather the
ashes": Because we find that all of
the processing of the heifer is by a
Cohein, I might think that
gathering of the ashes, too, is by a
Cohein; it is, therefore, written "And
a man who is clean" whence we
are apprised that the gathering of
the ashes is kasher through any
man. "And a man who is clean" to
exclude a minor. ("a man" then)
implies that both a minor and a
woman are excluded; it is, therefore,
written "who is clean" to include
(as kasher) a woman. These are the
words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says:
"And a man who is clean" to
include a zar (a non-Cohein). "clean"
to validate a woman. ("clean"
then) implies that both a woman and
a minor are included; it is, therefore,
written (Ibid.) "and he shall place it
outside the encampment": Scripture
vessels speaks only of someone who has the
"mind" to "place" (with intent,
excluding a minor, who does not
have the mind to do so.) "a man who
is clean": clean vis--vis ma'aser, and
water) tamei vis--vis terumah. And
elsewhere (Ibid. 18) it is written "And
a clean man shall take hyssop and
dip it in the water." R. Akiva asks:
and Why is this ("clean man") written?
Even if it were not written, I would
know it a fortiori, viz.: If the gatherer
(of the ashes) must be clean, how
much more so the sprinkler! What,
the then, is the intent of "a clean man"?
One who has left the category of
"tumah." And who is that? One who
immersed in the daytime (and whose
cleanliness is consummated in the
evening). And it is written elsewhere
(Ibid. 19) "clean." Just as there, tamei
for terumah and "clean" for ma'aser,
so "clean" here (Ibid. 9), tamei for
terumah and clean for ma'aser. "the
ashes of the heifer": and not the
brands whence they ruled: A
brand which has ash is crushed and
one which does not have ash is
discarded. A bone, in any event, will
be crushed. "outside the
200
encampment": in the Mount of Olives
whence they ruled: It is divided
into three parts: one for the chel (a
place within the fortification of the
Temple); one for the Mount of Olives;
one to be divided among all the
priestly watches. "in a clean place":
its surroundings must be clean
whence R. Elazar Hakapper said: A
vessel containing the cleansing
(ashes of the red heifer), with an air-
tight lid in the tent of a dead man is
tamei, it being written "in a clean
place." And this is not a clean place.
"And it shall be for the congregation
of the children of Israel in keeping for
waters of sprinkling." What is the
intent of this? I might think that
"work" (see above) is invalidated
only vis--vis the heifer. Whence do I
derive (the same for) the water (that
is added to the ashes)? From "And it
shall be in keeping for waters of
sprinkling" (which implies that "work"
is to be abstained from only when
they are being made waters
sprinkling.) But perhaps
stricture against "work" obtains even
after they have been sanctified as
waters of sprinkling. It
therefore, written "for (i.e., to make
them) waters of sprinkling." And they
are already waters of sprinkling. If a
cow drank of the cleansing waters,
its flesh is tamei (if it drank) within
twenty-four hours (of being
slaughtered). R. Yehudah says it (the
water) is nullified in its intestines, it
being written "And it shall be for the
congregation of the children of Israel
in keeping" (i.e., once it is no longer
"in keeping," it does not confer
tumah upon what comes in contact
with it.) This question ("tahor or
tamei"?) was asked before thirty-two
elders and they ruled its flesh
"tahor." This is one of the things that
R. Yossi Haglili discussed with R.
Akiva, (R. Yossi holding "tahor," and
R. Akiva, "tamei"), and R. Akiva
dismissed him, (R. Yossi being unable
to substantiate his view.) Afterwards,
R. Yossi found substantiation for his
view, and asked R. Akiva: May I
return? R. Akiva: Shall I allow
everyone to return, and not you
because your name is "Yossi Haglili"?
R. Yossi (presenting his
substantiation): It is written "And it
of shall be for the congregation of the
(the children of Israel in keeping." It is
only when they are "in keeping" that
they are considered sprinkling waters
is, (and confer tumah [see above].) R.
Tarfon said (on Daniel 8:4) "I saw the
ram butting westward, northward,
and southward. And no beast could
withstand him, and there was none
201
to deliver from his power. He did as
he willed and grew great." This ("the
ram") is R. Akiva. (Ibid. 5) "As I
looked on, a he-goat came from the
west, passing over the entire earth
without touching the ground. And the
goat had a beetling horn between its
eyes": This is R. Yossi Haglili and his
response. (6) "And he came up to the
two-horned ram that I saw standing
before the water course, and he
charged at him full force. (7) And I
saw him reach the ram and rage at
him, and he struck the ram and
broke his two horns" R. Akiva and
Shimon b. Naness "and the ram"
R. Akiva "was powerless to
withstand him. And he" R. Yossi
Haglili "cast him to the ground and
trampled him. And there were none"
the thirty-two elders "to rescue
him from his hand."
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It (the heifer) is a
sin-ofering.": We are hereby
apprised that it is subject to me'ilah
(abuse of what is sacred, as a sin-
ofering is). "it": It (the heifer) is
subject to me'ilah, but not its ashes.
Variantly: "It is a sin-ofering": We are
hereby apprised that if it is not
slaughtered to its specific end, it is
unfit. Variantly: "It is a sin-ofering":
We are hereby apprised that it (like a
sin-ofering) is not burned at night as
202
it is in the daytime. If "it is a sin-
ofering," I might think that it is
voided by being kept overnight; it is,
therefore, written "And it shall be for
the congregation of the children of
Israel in keeping." We are hereby
apprised that it "keeps" day after day
and year after year. (Ibid. 10) "And
he who gathers the ashes of the
heifer shall wash his garments": We
are hereby taught about the gatherer
of the heifer's ashes that he confers
tumah upon his clothing. But even
without the verse, I would know it a
fortiori, viz.: If the burner (of the
heifer) confers tumah upon his
clothing, how much more so, the
gatherer (of its ashes)! (Why, then, is
the verse needed?) The verse,
rather, tells us that he who gathers
the ashes becomes tamei (even) by
hesset (i.e., merely by moving them,
even though he does not touch
them.) "And it shall be for the
children of Israel and for the
sojourner who dwells in their midst":
Because the command is to Israel,
the proselytes must be (explicitly)
included. "as an everlasting statute":
that it obtain for succeeding
generations.
Piska 125
(Bamidbar 19:11) "One who touches
the dead body of any man shall be
unclean for seven days." Scripture
hereby teaches about a dead body
that it confers tumah by contact.
But even without a verse it follows a
fortiori, viz.: If it confers tumah in a
tent, how much more so by contact!
Why, then, is the verse needed? To
include an eight-month birth (who
died). This would include both an
eight-month birth and his blood; it is,
therefore, written (lit.,) "the soul (i.e.,
the body) of a man" to exclude his
blood (as conferring tumah). These
are the words of R. Yishmael. R.
Akiva says: (It is written) "all the soul
of a man" to include his blood.
"then he shall be tamei for seven
days": Scripture hereby apprises us
that a dead body confers tumah for
seven days (unlike other instances of
contact tumah, which obtain for one
day only). (Ibid. 12) "He shall be
cleansed with it": Why "with it"? (i.e.,
"it" seems superfluous). (The thrust
of "it" is) with ashes that were
processed as prescribed. "on the
third day and on the seventh day":
Scripture hereby apprises us that one
who is tamei by a dead body must be
sprinkled on, on the third day and
the seventh day. You say this, but
perhaps (the meaning is) that if he is
203
sprinkled on, on the third day, he is
clean on the seventh day, and if not,
he is not clean on the seventh day. It
is, therefore, written "And if he is not
cleansed on the third day, he shall
not be clean on the seventh day."
But still, perhaps the meaning is:
Why is he not clean on the seventh
day, because he was not besprinkled
on the seventh day, but if he were
besprinkled on the third day, then he
is clean on the seventh day! It is,
therefore, written (Ibid. 19) "and he
shall cleanse him on the seventh
day." Scripture repeats it to void it
(otherwise). "And if he is not
cleansed on the third day, then he
shall not be clean on the seventh
day": Why is this written? (i.e., it
follows from what precedes.)
Because it is written (Ibid. 20) "And a
man if he become tamei and he has
not been sprinkled upon, etc.", does
Scripture make him liable to kareth
because of the defiling of the
sanctuary and its holy things or
because he has not been sprinkled
upon? It is, therefore, written "And if
he is not cleansed on the third day,
then he shall not be clean on the
seventh day." His punishment is not
being clean, and not kareth. (Ibid.
13) "Everyone who touches a dead
body in the soul of a man": As
heretofore stated, to exclude an brought his required ofering, and
eight-month birth. "that shall die": enters the sanctuary, e.g., in the
Scripture hereby apprises us that he instance of a zav or a leper, who
does not confer tumah until he dies. require an ofering for their
From here, you reason to sheretz (a purification). You say, if he has not
creeping thing), viz.: If the "graver," been cleansed by blood, but perhaps
a dead body, does not confer tumah (the meaning is that) he has not
until the man (actually) dies, then been cleansed by the waters (of the
the "lighter," a sheretz, how much red heifer)! (This is not so, for) "the
more so should it not confer tumah waters of sprinkling have not been
until it (actually) dies! Or, transpose sprinkled upon him" already speaks
it, viz.: If sheretz, the "lighter," of the waters. How, then, am I to
confers tumah while convulsing, then understand "and he not be
a man, the "graver" how much more cleansed"? (As) he will not be
so should he confer tumah even cleansed by blood," to include one
while convulsing (and not actually lacking atonement, (as in the above
dead)! It is, therefore, written instance). "and that soul shall be cut
"Everyone who touches a dead body of': Why is this written (here)? Is it
in the soul of a man that shall die." not written below? (viz. Ibid. 20). But
Why need "that shall die" be written? because it is written (there) "The
Why is it written? To apprise us that sanctuary ("mikdash," [i.e., the
he does not confer tumah until he Temple]) of the L-rd he has defiled,"
(actually) dies. I have reasoned a this tells me only of the mikdash.
fortiori and I have transposed. The Whence do I derive (the same for)
transposition has been nullified and the mishkan (i.e., the tabernacle of
the original a fortiori argument the desert)? From (Ibid. 13) "The
remains, viz.: If the "graver," a dead tabernacle ("mishkan") of the L-rd he
body, does not confer tumah until has defiled." "and that soul shall be
the man actually dies, then the cut of": And elsewhere (in the same
"lighter," a sheretz, how much more connection [Vayikra 15:31]) "that
so should it not confer tumah until it they not die in their tumah." Why the
(actually) dies! "and he not be diference (in terminology)? To teach
cleansed": Rebbi says: and he not be that "kareth" and "death" (in this
cleansed by blood (i.e., if he has not regard) are one and the same.

204
"tamei shall he be": to include other he repeated, but he did not
varieties of tumah (e.g., sheretz and immerse? From "His tumah is upon
zav). These are the words of R. him." Whence do I derive the same
Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: It (the for (an instance where) he sprinkled
verse) is not needed (for this and he immersed, but did not wait
teaching.) It is already written for "his sun to set"? From "His tumah
(Vayikra, Ibid.) "And you shall is yet upon him."
separate the children of Israel from
their tumah, that they not die in their Piska 126
tumah by making tamei My mishkan
which is in their midst." Tumah (Bamidbar 19:14) "This is the Torah:
through a dead body was in the A man if he die in a tent all that
category (of all the varieties of enter the tent and all that is in the
tumah), and Scripture isolated it tent shall be tamei seven days."
(here for special mention), and made Scripture hereby comes to teach us a
it liable to death and to the bringing new tumah, that a dead man efects
of an ofering (for unwitting tent-uncleanliness. Whence do we
transgression), to teach about the derive that (the same obtains if he
other varieties of tumah (in this died) outside the tent (and were
connection) that they are liable to brought into it)? From "This is the
death and to the bringing of an Torah" (i.e., there is one law for
ofering. How, then, am I to both.) These are the words of Issi b.
understand "tamei shall he be"? Akavya. R. Yishmael said (This
Because it is written "for the waters derivation) is not needed. If when he
of sprinkling have not been sprinkled had not been tamei (before), he
upon him," I might think (that the efects tent-uncleanliness, how much
intent is) if they had not been more so, when he had been tamei
sprinkled upon him at all. Whence do (before, i.e., when he died outside
I derive the same for (an instance the tent.) Whence do we derive that
where) he sprinkled (on the third all things which "tent" are considered
day), but did not repeat (on the a tent (for purposes of tent-
seventh day)? From "tamei shall he uncleanliness, and not only a flaxen
be." Whence do I derive the same for tent)? R. Yitzchak said: If vis--vis a
(an instance where) he sprinkled and leper, the "lighter" (form of tumah),

205
all things that "tent" (and not only
flax) are considered tents, then vis--
vis a dead man, the "graver" (form of
tumah), how much more so should
all things that "tent" be considered
tents. "all that enter the
partially. "and all that is in the tent":
entirely. Why need this be said? If
one that enters partially is tamei,
how much more so one who is in it
entirely. R. Achi phrases it otherwise,
viz.: If one who enters the tent is
tamei, how much more so one who is
already in it! What, then, is the intent
of "all that is in the tent"? To render
the floor of the house until the
depths like the house itself (i.e., all
that is in that space is tamei.)
Everyone who enters the tent from
its entrance becomes tamei, but it
does not impart tumah from its sides
if they are open (i.e., if a man or
vessels touch the tent from the
outside when it is open, they do not
become tamei for seven days.) From
here you can reason a fortiori to a
grave, viz.: If a tent, which
susceptible of tumah, does
impart tumah from all of its sides
when it is open, then a grave, which
is not susceptible of tumah, (being
soil per se,) how much more so does
it not impart tumah from all of its
sides when it is open. But perhaps
the reverse is the case, viz.: If a
grave, which is not susceptible of
tumah, imparts tumah from all of its
sides when it is open, then a tent,
which is susceptible of tumah, how
tent": much more so should it impart
tumah from all of its sides when it is
open! It is, therefore, written "all that
enter the tent" It is only through
its entrance that it imparts tumah,
but not from all of its sides when it is
open. I have reasoned a fortiori and I
have transposed (the reasoning). The
transposition has been nullified and I
return to the original a fortiori
argument, viz.: If a tent, which is
susceptible of tumah, does not
impart tumah from all of its sides
when it is open, then a grave, which
is not susceptible of tumah, how
much more so should it not impart
tumah from all of its sides when it is
open! But (in that case) it should
not (even) impart "evening tumah"
(viz. Ibid. 22) Would you say that?
It follows a fortiori (that it does
is impart evening tumah), viz.: If one at
not a third remove from a dead body (as
in Ibid. 22) is tamei, how much more
so, one (as in our case) who is at a
second remove! "and all that is in the
tent shall be tamei": From this I
understand that even straw and
twigs and pieces of wood and stones
206
are included; it is, therefore, written cleansed with it." Whatever is
(Ibid. 18) "And a clean man shall take subject to cleansing is subject to
hyssop and dip it in the water and he tumah; whatever is not subject to
shall sprinkle it upon the tent and cleansing is not subject to tumah.
upon all the vessels." But I still (Ibid. 15) "And every open vessel
would understand to be included whose cover is not fastened upon it
vessels of ordure and vessels of is tamei." Scripture speaks of an
earth and vessels of soil. It is, earthen vessel. But perhaps it
therefore, written (Bamidbar 31:20) speaks of all vessels! (This is not so,)
"And every garment, and every for you reason as follows: Four
vessel of skin, and every work of vessels are mentioned vis--vis a
goats and every vessel of wood shall sheretz (a creeping thing, viz.
you cleanse." We learn, then, of four Vayikra 11:33), and one (type of)
(types of) vessels (that are afected. vessel was excluded for both
Whence do we derive (the same for) attenuation and exacerbation (re
metal vessels? From (Ibid. 22) "But tumah). And four vessels are
the silver and the gold, etc." We mentioned in respect to a dead body,
learn, then, of four types of vessels and one was excluded for both
and of metal vessels. Whence do we attenuation and exacerbation. Just as
derive (the same for) earthen there, Scripture speaks of an earthen
vessels? From (Ibid. 19:15) "And vessel (viz. Ibid.), so, here, Scripture
every open (i.e., earthen) vessel, speaks of an earthen vessel. These
etc." We learn, then, of four types of are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R.
vessels, of metal vessels, and of Yonathan says: Is Scripture (here)
earthen vessels. But perhaps the speaking of an earthen vessel or of
intent is that these (those mentioned all vessels? It is, therefore, written
in 30:20) and those mentioned here "an open vessel" a vessel that is
(19:18 "and upon all the vessels") subject to tumah at (the atmosphere
are subject to cleansing, and the of) its opening (and not at its outer
others (straw and twigs) are subject surface). R. Eliezer says; Is Scripture
to tumah in a tent, (but not to speaking of an earthen vessel or of
cleansing.) It is, therefore, written all vessels? It is unclean" forever,
(Ibid. 11) "he shall be tamei for there being no cleansing for its
seven days. (12) He shall be tumah. And what is the intent of

207
"open"? Any amount. Abba Channan
says in the name of R. Eliezer: From
"there is no tight covering upon it," I
would understand upon all of it. It is,
therefore, written "upon" upon its
opening and not upon all of it. "tight
covering" ("tzamid pathil") "tzamid":
This is the stopper (plugging the
inside). "pathil": This is the lid. And
though there is no proof for this,
there is an allusion to it in (Ibid. 25:3)
"And Israel adhered ("vayitzamed")
to Ba'al Peor." "And every open
vessel whose cover is not fastened
upon it is unclean": Vessels are
protected (against tumah) in the tent
of the dead with a tzamid pathil, but
in (plague-spot) tents, with
covering. "a tzamid pathil upon it":
and not a vessel upon a tzamid pathil
whence they ruled: A jug which he
turned on its mouth and smeared
with clay from the sides
susceptible of tumah, it being written
"a tzamid pathil upon it," and not "it
upon a tzamid pathil." These are the
words of R. Eliezer. "And every open
vessel": This tells me only of an
earthen vessel. Whence do I derive
(the same for) vessels of ordure,
vessels of stones, and vessels of soil?
It follows a fortiori, viz.: If earthen
vessels, which are subject to tumah,
protect (what is in them against
tumah) by a tzamid pathil, in the tent
of the dead, then vessels of ordure,
of stones, and of soil, which are not
subject to tumah, how much more
should they protect (against tumah)
by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the
dead! "It is tamei" (without a tzamid
pathil). Why (the stress on) "it"?
What protects (against tumah) by a
tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead,
protects itself by a tzamid pathil
(from tumah) through contact with a
sheretz.
Piska 127
(Bamidbar 19:16) "And all who touch
a on the face of the field": to include a
(dead) fetus in its mother's body.
These are the words of R. Yishmael.
R. Akiva says: to include the top-lid
and the frame of the coffin. "one
is slain by the sword": Scripture comes
to teach about the sword that it is
tamei for seven days, as is one who
touches it. We have learned about
implements and men (i.e., that the
implement and the man who touches
it are tamei for seven days.) Whence
do we derive (the same for)
implements and man and
implements (i.e., for implements that
touched the man who touched
implements)? From (Bamidbar 31:24)
208
"And you shall wash your garments
on the seventh day and you shall be
clean," (garments
"implements"), "one slain by the
sword or a dead body": A dead body
is in the category of "one slain," and
Scripture removed it from
category (for special mention) to
equate what separates from him
(i.e., an olive-size of flesh) with the
body itself. These are the words of R.
Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: "dead
body" is not in the category of "one
slain," for we find each
mentioned by itself. Whence, then is
it derived that what separates from it
is equated with the body itself? It is
derived a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, of
lesser stringency, Scripture equated
what separates from it with neveilah
itself, then a dead body, of greater
stringency, how much more
should what separates from it be
equated with the body itself. No,
this may be so with neveilah, which
confers "(until) evening" tumah, the
preponderant (type of tumah), as
opposed to a dead body, which
confers seven-day tumah, the rarer
type. Would you say that? Where
is the tumah itself more stringent? Is
it not in a dead body, which confers
tumah for seven days, whereas
neveilah confers only (until) "evening
tumah"? Whence is it derived that it
(a dead body) confers tumah by
being being carried? It follows a fortiori, viz.
If neveilah, of lesser stringency
confers tumah by being carried, how
much more so, a dead body, of
that greater stringency! But in that
case, why do we not say: Just as
there (neveilah), the tumah is (only
until) evening, then here (dead
body), too, the tumah should be
(only until) evening? Would you say
that? Where touching confers seven-
being day tumah (i.e., with a dead body),
carrying confers seven-day tumah.
Where touching confers (until)
evening tumah, (i.e., with neveilah),
carrying confers (until) evening
tumah. R. Meir says: This is not
needed (for the derivation). It is
written (Bamidbar 31:19) "Whoever
so has killed a man, etc." Is Scripture
speaking of (one who kills him with)
something which is susceptible of
uncleanliness or even of one who
shot him with an arrow and killed
him? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.)
"Whoever killed a man or whoever
has touched a slain one." The killer is
being equated with the toucher. Just
as the toucher (becomes tamei) by
connection (with the object), so, the
killer, by connection.
209
(Bamidbar 19:16) "or the bone of a here, an open grave confers ("until)
man": This refers to a limb (cut of) evening" tumah? Would you say
from a living person. But perhaps that? Whence do we derive this for a
it refers to a bone the size of a tent? From an a fortiori argument (as
barley-corn? "and upon him who above), and would you now come to
touched a bone" already speaks of a derive something which is itself
bone the size of a barley-corn. How, derived elsewhere? A derivation from
then, are we to understand "or the a derivation?
bone of a man"? As referring to a (Bamidbar 19:17) "And they shall
limb (cut of) from a living person. take for the unclean one from the
And two "bones" are being spoken of, earth of the burning (of the heifer)
viz.: "or the bone of a man" a limb for cleansing." R. Shimon said: Is it
(cut of) from a living person "and earth? Is it not ashes? Why does
upon him who touched a bone" a Scripture depart from its usual
bone the size of a barley-corn. meaning? To formulate an identity
"or a dead body or the bone of a (gezeirah shavah ). It is written here
man": Just as a dead body flesh, "earth," and, elsewhere, "earth,"
sinews, and bones, so, a limb (cut (Bamidbar 5:17). "Just as there,
of) from a living person, flesh, sinew, "earth" on the water, so, here,
and bones, as in his natural state. "earth" on the water. And just as
"or a grave": This refers to a closed there, if the (taking of the) earth
grave (i.e., one in which there is less preceded the (taking of the) water, it
than a tefach between the body and is valid, so, here. Variantly: If it (the
the lid). But perhaps it refers to an ashes) changed its appearance (to
open grave? Would you say that? It that of earth) it is (still) valid.
follows (otherwise), viz.: If a tent,
which is susceptible of tumah, does Piska 128
not confer tumah on all of its sides
when it is open, how much more so, (Bamidbar 19:17) "and he shall
a grave, which is not susceptible of place upon it living waters": Scripture
tumah! But in that case, why do speaks of spring waters. You say this,
we not say that just as an open tent but perhaps the intent is "waters
confers ("until) evening" tumah which are life to the world" (and all
(when touched from the back), so, waters are valid)? Though there is no

210
proof (that spring waters are meant),
there is support for it in (Bereshit
26:19) "And the servants of Yitzchak
dug in the stream and they found
there a well of living waters." What is
the intent of "and he shall place upon
it (the ashes) living waters which are
in a vessel"? We are hereby taught
that all vessels are equated with
earthenware vessels. For it would
follow (otherwise), viz.: Since water
and earth are consecrated in the
instance of sotah (viz. Ibid. 5:12),
and water and earth are consecrated
in the instance of the (red) heifer,
then if I have learned about sotah
that all vessels were not equated
with earthenware vessels, this should
be the case too with the heifer; it is,
therefore, written "in a vessel"
(unqualified), whereby we are taught
that all vessels were equated with
earthenware.
(Bamidbar 19:18) "And a clean man
shall take": "Taking" is written here,
and elsewhere (Ibid. 5) "Just as
taking there involves three (objects),
so, "taking" here. "hyssop": and not
Greek hyssop, and not Kochalith
hyssop, and not Roman hyssop, and
not desert hyssop and not any
hyssop designated by an epithet.
Piska 129
211
(Bamidbar 19:18) "and a clean man
shall dip (it) in the water": There
must be enough water for "dipping"
(three calyxes). "a man": to exclude
a minor. This would exclude both a
minor and a woman. It is, therefore,
written "clean" to include a
woman. These are the words of R.
Yishmael. R. Akiva says: Why is
"clean" written? Even if it were not
written, I would know it a fortiori,
viz.: If the gatherer must be clean
(viz. Ibid. 9), how much more so the
sprinkler! What, then, is the intent of
"clean"? Clean of all tumah. And who
is he (who is not clean of all tumah)?
One who immersed in the daytime.
R. Akiva says: It is written here
"clean," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 9),
"clean." Just as (one who is) "clean"
here is tamei vis--vis (the bringing
of) a sin-ofering, so, (one who is)
"clean" there. "and he shall sprinkle
it upon the tent." Scripture here
apprises us that a tent is susceptible
of tumah. Variantly: Scripture
apprises us (that only those vessels
require sprinkling, which were there)
when the tent became tamei, (but
not those which were brought in after
the body was removed.) "and he
shall sprinkle it and upon him who
touched a bone" a bone the size of
a barley-corn. You say this,
perhaps ever min hechai (a limb torn
from a living person) is intended?
(Ibid. 16) "or the bone of a man"
already speaks of ever min hechai."
What, then, is the intent of "and
upon him who touched a bone"? A
bone the size of a barley-corn. "or a
slain one or a dead body or a grave":
Just as all are mentioned vis--vis
tumah (Ibid. 16), so, all
mentioned vis--vis sprinkling (here).
(Bamidbar 19:19) "And the clean
one shall sprinkle on the unclean
one": If the clean one sprinkles upon
the unclean one, he becomes
unclean. These are the words of R.
Akiva. The sages say: Scripture is
speaking only of those things which
have become unclean (as
sprinkled upon, and not of things
which are clean.) "on the third day
and on the seventh day": Scripture
comes to teach us that one who has
become tamei through a dead body
requires sprinkling on the third and
seventh days. You say it comes to
this end, but perhaps the intent is
that if he sprinkled on the third day
he becomes clean on the seventh
day, and if not, not? It is, therefore,
written "and he shall cleanse him on
the seventh day." It repeats ("on the
seventh day") to indicate that it is
but invalid otherwise (i.e., if he does not
sprinkle on the seventh day.) "and he
shall wash his garments and he shall
bathe in water": This tells me (that
he may wash his garments) only on
the seventh day. Whence do I derive
(that it is also permissible on) the
eighth and ninth days? From "and he
shall cleanse him on the seventh
day," followed by "and he shall wash
are his garments and bathe in water and
he will be clean in the evening."
(Bamidbar 19:20) "And a man, if he
becomes unclean and does not purify
himself": Scripture speaks of
defilement of the sanctuary and its
holy things, and its punishment is
kareth (cutting-of). But perhaps the
kareth is for (not) sprinkling? It is,
being therefore, written (Ibid. 12) "and if he
does not purify himself (with it) on
the third day and on the seventh
day, he shall not be clean." His
punishment (for not purifying
himself) is that he shall not be clean,
and not kareth.
(Bamidbar 19:21) "And it (the
sprinkling of the waters) shall be for
them for an everlasting statute": that
it be observed throughout the
generations.
"And the sprinkler of the waters of
sprinkling shall wash his clothing":
Scripture here distinguishes between
212
water which is sufficient for Scripture here distinguishes between
sprinkling and water which is not water which is sufficient for
sufficient for sprinkling, the first sprinkling and water which is not
rendering a man tamei to render his sufficient for sprinkling, the first
garments tamei; the second rendering a man tamei to render his
rendering a man tamei to render garments tamei; the second
foods and drinks tamei. You say that rendering a man tamei to render
this is the intent of the verse, but foods and drinks tamei.
perhaps its intent is to distinguish
between the sprinkler and the Piska 130
toucher (of the water); the sprinkler
who does not touch rendering his (Bamidbar 19:22) "And all that the
garments unclean, and the sprinkler unclean one (who touched a dead
who touches, not rendering his body) touches shall become
garments unclean? Now does it not unclean.": What is the intent of this?
follow (otherwise) a fortiori, viz.: If In (Ibid. 10) "one slain by the sword"
the sprinkler who does not touch Scripture teaches us about the sword
renders his garments unclean, how that it is tamei for seven days and
much more so the sprinkler who that one who touches it becomes
touches! But perhaps the intent is tamei for seven days We have
to distinguish between the clean and thus learned about vessels (the
the unclean? Would you say that? sword) and the man (who touches it).
It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If Whence do we derive (the same for)
the clean one (who touches it) vessels, man, and vessels (that the
becomes unclean, how much more man touches)? From (Ibid. 31:24)
so, the unclean one! But perhaps "And you shall wash your garments
the intent is to distinguish between ("vessels" touched by man). We have
those who are fit (to sprinkle) and thus learned vessels, man, and
those who are unfit? Would you vessels. Whence do we derive (the
say that? It follows a fortiori same for) vessels and vessels
(otherwise), viz.: If the fit one (touched by them)? It follows a
becomes unclean, how much more fortiori, viz.: If vessels which touch a
so, the unfit one! You must perforce man who touched vessels which
accept the first supposition touched a dead body are tamei, how

213
much more so vessels which touch
vessels! Whence do we derive (the
same for) vessels which touch a man
(who touched a dead body)?
follows a fortiori, viz.: If vessels
which touched a man who touched
vessels (which touched a dead body)
are tamei, how much more
vessels which touched a man (who
touched a dead body)!
perhaps a man should contract
tumah from a dead body to render
his neighbor (who touches
tamei for seven days? And it would
thus follow a fortiori, viz.: If vessels
which are not rendered tamei by the
bed or the seat (of a dead man),
contract tumah from a dead body to
render a man (who touched them)
unclean for seven days, how much
more so should a man, who is
rendered tamei by bed or seat,
contract tumah from a dead body to
render his neighbor (who touches
him) tamei for seven days! It is,
therefore, written "and the soul that
touches him (who touched a dead
body) shall be unclean until the
evening." He is rendered tamei until
the evening, and he does
contract tumah from a dead body to
render his neighbor (who touches
him) tamei for seven days. But
perhaps (such a man) should render
one who moves him [heset] (even
without touching him) tamei. And it
would thus follow a fortiori, viz.: If
It neveilah, the less stringent, renders
one tamei by heset, how much more
so should the more stringent, one
who has become tamei through a
so dead body, render another tamei by
heset! It is, therefore, written "And
But all that the unclean one (who
touched a dead body) touches shall
become tamei" and he does not
him) render tamei by heset.
Piska 131
(Bamidbar 25:1) "And Israel sat in
Shittim, and the people began to
stray after the daughters of Moav.
"sitting" in all places connotes
subversion (of morality), as in
(Shemot 32:6) [in connection with
the golden calf] "And the people sat
down to eat and to drink," and
(Bereshit 37:25) [in connection with
the selling of Joseph] "And they sat
down to eat bread." R. Akiva says:
Every section (in the Torah) which is
juxtaposed with another is meant to
not be learned from. It is written above
(Bereshit 24:14) "Come, I (Bilam) will
counsel you" (how to undo Moav). He
said to them: The G-d of this people
hates harlotry, and they lust after
214
flaxen garments. Come and I will
counsel you. Put up tents for them,
and seat old women outside and a
young girl inside, and let them sell
them flaxen garments, etc." Rebbi
says: There are many adjoining
sections n the Torah which are as far
from each other as east from west.
To wit (Shemot 6:12) "Behold, the
children of Israel have not listened to
me, etc." (Shemot 6:13) "And the
L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron,
and He commanded them unto the
children of Israel." What does one
verse have to do with the other?
What did He command them? What
He had already told them,
(Shemot 3:18) "And they will listen to
you, etc." Similarly, (Vayikra 21:9)
"And the daughter of a man who is a
Cohein, if she profane herself by
harlotry" (Vayikra 21:10) "And the
Cohein who is exalted over
brothers." What does one verse have
to do with the other? An analogy: A
centurion served his term but failed
to enter his primipilate (a high office)
and fled. The king sent and had him
returned and sentenced
decapitation. Before his execution
the king says: Bring a heap of golden
dinars before him and tell him: If you
had done as your fellows did, you
would have been granted this heap
and your life. Now, you have lost
both your life and your money.
Likewise, the daughter of a Cohein
who played the harlot. The high-
priest goes out before her and says
to her: If you had conducted yourself
as your elders did, you would have
merited bearing a high-priest such as
I. Now you have lost both yourself
and your honor. This is the intent of
"And the daughter of a man who is a
Cohein, etc." and "And the Cohein
who is exalted over his brothers,
etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 1:9) "You are
not my people" (Hoshea 2:1) "And
the number of the people of Israel
viz. shall be as the sand of the sea, which
cannot be measured or counted, and
in place of their being told 'You are
not My people,' etc." What does one
verse have to do with the other? An
analogy: A king gets angry with his
his wife and sends for a scribe to write
her a divorce. But before the scribe
arrives, the king is reconciled with
his wife, whereupon the king says:
"Shall the scribe leave here empty-
handed? Tell him to come and write
to that I am doubling her kethubah."
This is the intent of "for you are not
My people, etc." and "And the
number of the people of Israel shall
be as the sand of the sea, etc."
Similarly, (Hoshea 14:1) "Shomron
215
shall bear her guilt, for she has
defied her G-d" (Ibid. 2) "Return, O
Israel to the L-rd your G-d." What
does one verse have to do with the
other? An analogy: A province rebels
against the king, who sends for a
general and orders him to devastate
it. The general, being wise and
seasoned tells them: "Put together
something for me to relay to the
king, or I will do to you what I did to
this and this province." This is the
intent of "Shomron shall bear her
guilt for she has defied her G-d" and
"Return, O Israel, etc."
Variantly: "And Israel sat in Shittim":
in the place of sitoth ("straying"
[from the L-rd]). When Israel were in
the desert, a place devoid of seed,
figs, wine, and pomegranates, they
came and waged war against Sichon
and Og, who fell into their hands,
and they took all that was theirs.
That kinG-dom was proud and
haughty, though they had only four
provinces worthy of the name
Asia, Alexandria, Carthaginia, and
Antiochia, while these (Sichon and
Og) had sixty cities, all worthy of
"kingdom," viz. (Devarim 3:4) "
sixty cities, the entire province of the
palace, the kingdom of Og in the
Bashan." Israel came and waged war
against them and they fell into their
216
(Israel's) hands. But when Israel was
surfeited with the spoils, they began
"spoiling" the spoils they tore
apart garments and cast them away
and tore apart beasts and cast them
away for they sought only vessels
of silver and gold, viz. (Devarim 3:7)
"and every beast and the spoil of the
cities we 'spoiled' unto ourselves."
"They came and sat in Shittim," in
the place of sitoth. At that time
Ammonim and Moavim arose and
built markets for themselves from
Beth Hayeshimoth until Har
Hashaleg, where they installed
harlots, old ones outside and young
ones within, who sold flaxen
garments. When an Israelite would
eat and drink and make merry and
go out to promenade and to buy
something from the old one, she
would ofer it to him at cost,
whereupon the young one would call
out to him from within, saying "Come
and buy it for less," and he did so.
The same, the next day and the day
after. The third day she would say to
him "Come inside and pick for
yourself you're like one of the
family." He obliged. The pitcher near
her was full of Ammoni wine, the
wine of idolators having not yet been
forbidden to Israelites. She: "Would
you like to drink some wine?" He
obliged, and when the wine burned
in him he said to her "Consent to
me," at which she took an image of
Peor from under her breast-band and
said to him: "My master, if you want
me to consent to you, bow down to
this." He: "Can I bow
idolatry?" She: "What diference does
it make to you? I am only asking that
you bare yourself before him." (The
sages ruled that baring oneself to
Peor is its mode of worship.) The
wine burned in him and he said
"Consent to me." She: "If you want
me to consent to you, 'veer of' from
the Torah of Moses." And he did so,
as it is written (Hoshea 10:10) "They
veered of to shame (i.e., to idolatry);
and they became detestable (to Me)
in loving (the daughters of Moav)." In
the end, they reverted to (their
practice of) making idolatrous
banquets for them to which they
invited them, as it is
(Bamidbar 25:2) "And they
Moavite women) called the people to
the sacrifices of their gods, etc." R.
Elazar b. Shamua says: Just as a nail
cannot be removed from a door
without wood (attached),
Israel cannot leave Peor
souls (i.e., without adhesions
thereof). Once, Pinchas from the
district of Ariach was rolling (wine-)
jars, when the spirit of Peor assaulted
him, whereupon he brandished the
spit against it and it fled. It returned
to him the second night, saying "Why
did you curse me." Pinchas: "I won't
do it again." Once, Sabbatia of Ullas
down to hired out his donkey to a gentile
woman. When she came to the
outskirts of the province, she said to
him: "Wait until I bare myself in its
temple." After she left, he said to her
"Wait for me until I go in and do as
you did." She: "But you are a Jew!"
He: "What diference does it make to
you?" He went in, (did his
"devotions,") and wiped himself on
the nose of Peor whereupon the
gentiles praised him, saying "No one
ever equaled you in this (worship)."
Once, a governor came from abroad
to bow down to Peor. When he said
to them "Bring a bullock or a ram,
which we sacrifice to it," they said to
written him "We don't worship him in that
(the manner. All you have to do is bare
yourself before it" whereupon he
loosed his cohorts upon them, who
split their skulls, (the governor)
saying "Woe unto you and to your
so, an error!" Not so, (i.e., not as the
without governor) the Israelites, of whom it is
written (Bamidbar 25:3) "And Israel
attached itself to Ba'al Peor (at that
time) and the L-rd was wroth with
217
Israel." (4) "And the L-rd said to lion's whelp" whereupon he began
Moses: Take all the heads (i.e., to shout. Seeing that all remained
judges of the people, and hang them silent, he arose from his sanhedrin,
(the Peor worshippers) up in the took out his spear and placed it (i.e.,
face of the sun." (5) "And Moses said the blade) in his (hollow) belt,
to the judges of Israel: Slay each (of supported himself on its haft, and
you) his (two) men that have joined left. (Seeing him about to enter her
themselves to Ba'al Peor." The tribe tent,) they called out to him
of Shimon came to Zimri: "You are "Pinchas, where are you going?" He
sitting in peace while we are being replied: "Is Levi always to be greater
slaughtered!" whereupon he than Shimon?" ("Zimri can do it, so
gathered 24,000 of his tribe, came to can I,") at which they said "Let him
Kozbi, and said to her: "Consent to go in" whereupon the perushim
me." She: I will consent only to the (the "devout" among them)
greatest of you, (someone) like permitted the thing. Once he
Moses your master." He: "I, too, am entered, the L-rd performed six
the chief of a tribe. And, what is miracles: the first: Normally they
more, I am greater than he, (Shimon) would have separated (upon his
being second (of the womb of Leah), entrance), but the angel kept them
while he (Levi) is (only) third," saying joined. The second: The angel sealed
which he seized her and stood her in their mouths so that they could not
the midst of all of Israel, viz. (Ibid. 6) cry out. The third: He transfixed
"And, behold, a man of the children them (with the spear) in their
of Israel came, and he brought near (conjoined) genitals, for the "benefit"
to his brothers the Midianite woman of the skeptics, so that they not deny
in the sight of Moses and in the sight their cohabitation and maintain that
of the entire congregation of the he had gone in for the same purpose.
children of Israel, and they wept at The fourth: They did not slide of
the door of the tent of meeting." At from the spear but remained in their
that time Pinchas cried out "Is there places. The fifth: The angel lifted the
no one here who is ready to kill and lintel so that they both could appear
to be killed! Where are the lions?" to all slung from his shoulders. The
(Bereshit 48:9) "A lion's whelp is sixth: When he left, the men of his
Judah," (Devarim 33:32) "Dan is a (Zimri's) tribe, rose up to kill him,

218
and the angel fought them of. When
Pinchas saw that too much havoc
was being wrought by the angel, he
cast them to the ground and stood
up and intervened, viz. (Psalms
106:30-31) "And Pinchas arose and
intervened, and the plague ceased,
and it was reckoned to his merit."
And six more miracles were
performed for him: The seventh: The
blade of the spear was lengthened
until it transfixed both bodies and
projected upwards. The eighth: The
arm of Pinchas was strengthened (to
support such a burden). The ninth:
The haft did not break. The tenth:
Their blood did not descend on
Pinchas so that he not become
tamei. The eleventh: The Holy One
Blessed be He kept them alive so
that they not die and cause Pinchas
to become tamei. The twelfth: The
uppermost (to be thrust through) is
the lower on the spear (when it is
lifted), but in this instance, Zimri was
overturned upon Kozbi, as in the act,
so that all of Israel could see that
their death was ordained.
The tribe of Shimon contended
against the tribe of Levi: "Would the
son (Pinchas) of the daughter of this
"fattener" (Yithro , who fattened
calves for idolatry) seek to uproot an
entire tribe (Shimon) from Israel!
219
Don't we know whose son he is?"
When the L-rd saw them cheapening
him thus, He began tracing his
illustrious lineage, viz. (Bamidbar
25:11) "Pinchas, the son of Elazar,
the son of Aaron the Cohein turned
My wrath away from the children of
Israel" a Cohein, the son of a
Cohein; a zealot, the son of a zealot
(Levi, viz. Bereshit 34:25); turner
away of wrath, the son of a turner
away of wrath (Aaron, viz. Bamidbar
17:13) turned My wrath away from
the children of Israel."
(Bamidbar 25:12) "Therefore, say:
Behold, I give to him My covenant to
be to him a covenant of peace":
whereby we are apprised that there
descended from him twelve high-
priests in the first Temple, whereby in
the second Temple there were eighty
high-priests, whose lives began to be
shortened because they sold the
high-priesthood for money. Once, a
man sent by his son two urns of
silver rimmed with silver (as a bribe),
and another, two urns of gold
rimmed with gold" whereupon
they said "The foal has outweighed
the menorah."
(Bamidbar 25:13) "And it shall be
unto him and to his seed after him a
covenant of eternal priesthood": This
refers to the twenty-four priestly gifts
bestowed upon the Cohanim. (Ibid.)
"because he was wroth for his G-d":
because he was ready to give his life.
(Ibid.) "and he will atone for the
children of Israel": It is not written "to
atone for the children of Israel," but
"and he will atone for the children of
Israel." Until now he has not stirred
(from his place), but he stands and
atones until the revival of the dead.
Piska 132
(Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the
land be apportioned as an
inheritance according to the number
of names": I would understand that
all are included Israelites,
Cohanim, Levites, proselytes,
women, bondsmen, tumtumim
(those of indeterminate sex), and
hermaphrodites. It is, therefore,
written (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd
said to Aaron: In their land you shall
not inherit" to exclude Cohanim.
(Ibid. 24) "In the midst of the children
of Israel they shall not have an
inheritance" to exclude Levites.
(Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the
tribes of their fathers shall they
inherit" to exclude proselytes and
bondsmen. (Ibid. 59) "To a man,
according to his numbers, shall his
inheritance be given" to exclude
220
women, tumtumim, and
hermaphrodites. R. Yoshiyah says:
The land was apportioned to those
who left Egypt, as it is written "By
the names of the tribes of their
fathers shall they inherit." What,
then, is the intent of "To these shall
the land be apportioned"? (To such
as these,) to exclude minors (below
the age of twenty). R. Yonathan says:
The land was apportioned according
to those who came to the land, as it
is written "To these shall the land be
apportioned." And what is the intent
of "By the names of the tribes of
their fathers"? The L-rd changed this
inheritance from all the inheritances
in the Torah. For in all the
inheritances in the Torah the living
inherit the dead, whereas here, the
dead inherit the living. Rebbi says:
An analogy: Two brothers, Cohanim,
were in a city. One had one son; the
other, three. They go to the granary
(to take their portion.) The first takes
one sa'ah; the others, three, after
which they go to their fathers' father
and share equally. R. Shimon b.
Elazar says: The land was
apportioned to these and to these.
How so? If they were of those who
left Egypt, they took a share with
those who left Egypt. If they were of
those who entered the land, they
took a share with those who entered mountain of Ephraim constricting
the land. If they were both of these you." "shall his inheritance be given":
and of the others, they took a share I would understand this to mean
of both so that both verses are (that each tribe took)
satisfied. indiscriminately. It is, therefore,
(Bamidbar 26:54) "To the (more) written (55) "by allotment." If "by
numerous (tribe) you shall increase allotment," I would understand, by
its inheritance, and to the less themselves (i.e., by their own
(numerous) you shall decrease its lottery.) It is, therefore, written (56)
inheritance." If one had five sons "By the word (of the lottery"),
when he left Egypt, and ten sons whereby we are apprised that Eretz
when he entered the land, I apply to Yisrael was apportioned by the Holy
them "To the numerous you shall Spirit. I might think, by himself (i.e.,
increase its inheritance." If he had the high-priest, by means of the urim
ten sons when he left Egypt, and five vetumim). It is, therefore, written
when he entered the land, I apply to "shall its inheritance be divided,"
them "and to the less you shall (connoting in the presence of the
decrease its inheritance." "To a entire tribe).
man": to exclude women, tumtumim, (Bamidbar 26:25) "Only by lot shall
and hermaphrodites. "according to the land be divided": ("Only")
its numbers": We are hereby taught excluding Joshua and Calev (who
that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned to received special portions.) And thus
each tribe according to its (head- is it written (Judges 15:13) "And to
count). And thus is it written (Joshua Calev ben Yefuneh was given a
17:14-15) "And the children of Joseph portion in the midst of the children
said to Joshua: Why have you given by word of the L-rd to Joshua," and
me a single allotment as an (Judges 1:20) "And they gave
inheritance, when we are a great Chevron to Calev as Moses had
multitude whom the L-rd had thus far spoken," and (Joshua 19:49-50) "And
blessed? And Joshua said to them: If the children of Israel gave a portion
you are a great multitude, go up to to Joshua the son of Nun in their
the forest country and clear an area midst. By word of the L-rd they gave
for yourselves there in the land of him the city that he asked for,
the Perizzi and the Rephaim, the Timnath Serach."

221
(Bamidbar 26:55) "By the names of
the tribes of their fathers": to
exclude proselytes and bondsmen.
(56) "between the large and the
small": We are hereby apprised that
Eretz Yisrael was apportioned by
estimate beth-kor (a large
measure [of relatively inferior land])
against a beth-sa'ah (a small
measure [of relatively superior land])
and vice versa.
Piska 133
(Bamidbar 27:1) "And there drew
near the daughters of Tzelofchad":
When the daughters of Tzelofchad
heard that the land was to be
apportioned to the tribes and not to
females, they gathered together to
take counsel, saying: Not as the
mercies of flesh and blood are the
mercies of the L-rd. The mercies of
flesh and blood are greater for males
than for females. Not so the mercies
of He who spoke and brought the
world into being. His mercies are for
males and females (equally). His
mercies are for all! As it is written
(Psalms 145:9) "The L-rd is good to
all, and His mercies are upon all of
His creations." "the son of Chefer,
the son of Gilad, the son of Machir,
the son of Menashe": Scripture
222
apprises us that just as Tzelofchad
was a first-born, so, were all of the
others first-born, and to apprise us
that they (the daughters) were
worthy daughters of a worthy man.
For all whose deeds and the deeds of
whose fathers are veiled and who
Scripture traces (to their forbears) for
praise are righteous ones the seed of
righteous ones; and all whose deeds
and the deeds of whose fathers are
veiled and who Scripture traces (to
their forbears) for denigration are
evildoers the seed of evildoers. R.
Nathan says: It is written above
(26:65) "For the L-rd had said of
them: They will surely die in the
desert. And there was left not a man
of them, etc.", followed by "And
there drew near the daughters of
Tzelofchad, etc." What is the
connection? Scripture comes to
teach us that the strength of the
women in that generation was
greater than that of the men, the
men saying (Bamidbar 14:4) "Let us
make a leader and return to Egypt,
and the women saying (Ibid. 27:4)
"Give us a holding, etc."
Likewise, (Ovadiah 1:1) "The vision
of Ovadiah: Thus has said the L-rd G-
d to Edom: We have heard a report,
etc." Why did Ovadiah prophesy
against Edom? To apprise us of the
greatness of a tzaddik, who grew up
in the lap of an evildoer but did not
emulate his deeds, and how great
the wickedness of an evildoer, who
grew up between two righteous ones
and did not emulate their deeds.
Esav (Edom) grew up between two
righteous ones, Isaac and Rivka, and
did not emulate their deeds. Ovadiah
grew up between two wicked ones,
Achan and Izevel, and did not
emulate their deeds. Let Ovadiah
come, who grew up between two
wicked ones and did not emulate
their deeds, and prophecy against
Esav, who grew up between two
righteous ones, Isaac and Rivka, and
did not emulate their deeds. Thus
"The vision of Ovadiah: Thus has said
the L-rd G-d to Edom, etc." "of the
families of Menasheh the son of
Joseph." Just as Joseph held Eretz
Yisrael dear (viz. Bereshit 50:25), so
did the daughters of Tzelofchad.
"And these are the names of his
daughters: Machlah, Noah, Choglah,
Milkah, and Tirtzah." But perhaps
all who are first in Scripture are first
in worth? It is, therefore, written
(Bamidbar 36:11) "And Machlah,
Tirtzah, Choglah, Milkah, and Noah,
the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc."
(the order being changed to teach us
that they were all of equal worth.)
223
(Bamidbar 27:2) "And they stood
before Moses and before Elazar the
Cohein": Scripture hereby apprises
us that they stood there only (after)
the fortieth year (of the exodus) after
Aaron had died, viz. (Ibid. 33:38)
"And Aaron the Cohein went up to
Hor Hahar by the 'mouth' of the L-rd,
and he died there in the fortieth
year, etc." "before Moses and before
Elazar the Cohein": If Moses did not
know (how to answer them), could
Elazar know? Invert the verse (i.e.,
first Elazar, then Moses,) and
expound it. These are the words of R.
Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the
name of R. Eliezer: They were (all) in
the house of study and they came
and stood before (all of) them. R.
Akiva says: It is written here (27:3)
"desert," and elsewhere (Ibid. 15:32)
(in respect to a man gathering wood
on the Sabbath) "desert." Just as the
man here is Tzelofchad, so, the man
there. "And he was not in the midst
of the congregation": the cavilers
(viz. Shemot 16:2). "who gathered
against the L-rd": the congregation of
the spies. "(nor in) the congregation
of Korach." "but he died in his own
sin": without inciting others (to sin)
with him. "and he left no sons": for if
he had a son, we would make no
claim.
 (Bamidbar 27:4) "Why should the Tzelafchad speak": The daughters of
name of our father be withheld from Tzelafchad have claimed well, for
his family because he has no son?" thus is this section written before Me
R. Yehudah says: It is written here on high. Happy is the man whose
"name," and elsewhere (Devarim words the L-rd acknowledges.
28:6). "Just as "name" here connotes Similarly, (Ibid. 36:5) "Rightly does
inheritance, so, "name" there. And the tribe of the sons of Joseph
just as "name" here connotes seed, speak." Similarly, (Ibid. 14:20) "And
so, "name" there. "because he has the L-rd said: I have forgiven
no son": Why is this written? Is it not according to your words." The
already written (3) "and he left no peoples of the world are destined to
sons"? They were sage women and say this: "Happy is the man whose
were expounding: But if there were a words the L-rd acknowledges."
daughter of a son, we would make no "Given shall be given to them the
claim. R. Chidka said: Shimon holding of an inheritance": This is the
Hashikmoni was a colleague of mine inheritance of their father. "in the
from the disciples of R. Akiva. He midst of the brothers of their father":
said: Moses knew that daughters This is the inheritance of the father
inherit. Where was the question? As of their father "and you shall pass
to whether they inherit what is fit to over the inheritance of their father to
be inherited (in Eretz Yisrael) as well them": This is the portion of the first-
as what is already in their born whence we are apprised that
possession. The section on the daughters of Tzelafchad took
inheritance was fit to be stated by three portions: that of their father,
Moses, but the daughters of that of their father's father, and the
Tzelofchad merited that it be stated double portion of the first-born. R.
through them. "Merit is efected Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Also that of
through the meritorious and liability their father's brothers, it being
through the liable." written "Given shall be given to
them."
Piska 134 (Bamidbar 27:8) "And to the children
of Israel shall you speak, saying":
(Bamidbar 27:6-7) "And the L-rd said This tells us only of the immediate
to Moses: Rightly do the daughters of situation (i.e., that of Tzelafchad's

224
daughters). Whence do we derive derived that the son's daughter
(the same for) future generations? stands in place of the son? It follows
From "And to the children of Israel a fortiori, viz.: If the daughters of
shall you speak, saying: A man, if he Tzelafchad, who inherited only for a
die, and he have no son, then you particular time (i.e., an exception
shall pass his inheritance to his was made in their case, for the land
daughter." Rebbi says: In all was apportioned only to those who
instances (of inheritance) the term had left Egypt and had died), how
"giving" is used, but in this instance much more so (is this to obtain) for
"passing" is the term employed. For the succeeding generations! Whence
only a daughter can "pass" an is it derived that females stand in the
inheritance (from one tribe to place of males (in all the
another), her son and her husband "inheritances" of the Torah)? It
inheriting her (i.e., what she has follows (inductively), viz.: Since sons
inherited from her father, who may inherit and the brothers of the
be of a diferent tribe.) Whence is it (deceased) father inherit, then just
derived that the father (of the as with sons, females are equated
deceased) precedes his brothers with males, so, with all inheritors,
(i.e., the brothers of the deceased) in females are equated with males. And
the inheritance? R. Yishmael was just as with sons, males take
wont to say: It is written "then you precedence to females, so, with all
shall pass over his inheritance to his inheritors, males take precedence to
daughter." Because of a daughter females. And just as with redeemers
you pass over an inheritance from (of land) sons are equated with their
the father, and not because of the fathers, (viz. Vayikra 25:49), so, with
brothers. And whence is it derived all inheritors, sons are equated with
that a father inherits (his son)? It their fathers. And whence is it
follows, a fortiori, viz.: If the father's derived that a daughter inherits (her
brothers who come (to inherit) only mother's possessions)? It is written
by power of the father, inherit him, (Bamidbar 36:8) "And every
then the father (himself), whose daughter who receives an
brothers come (to inherit) only by his inheritance from the tribes of the
power, how much more so should he children of Israel, etc." This tells me
inherit (his son)? And whence is it only of a daughter. Whence do I

225
derive (the same for) a son? It
follows a fortiori, viz.: If a daughter,
whose power (of inheritance)
attenuated where there is a son,
inherits (her mother), how much
more so, a son! And whence is it
derived that a man inherits his wife?
From (Ibid. 27:11) " and he shall
inherit (lit.,) her." These are the
words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says:
This (derivation) is not needed. For it
is already written (Ibid. 36:8) "And
every daughter who receives
inheritance from the tribes of the
children of Israel, etc.", and (Ibid. 7)
"And an inheritance of the children of
Israel shall not go around from tribe
to tribe," and (Joshua 24:33) "And
Elazar the son of Aaron died, and
they buried him on the
Pinchas, his son in the mountain of
Ephraim." Now whence did Pinchas
have (land) in the mountain
Ephraim? It must be that he married
a woman from the children
Ephraim, who died and whom he
inherited. Similarly, (I Chronicles
2:22) "And Seguv begot Yair, and he
had twenty-three cities in the land of
Gilad." Now whence did Yair have
(land) in the land of Gilad? It must be
that he married a woman from the
children of Menasheh, who died and
whom he inherited.
(Bamidbar 27:11) "And if his father
has no brothers, then you shall give
is his inheritance to his flesh who is
near to him": The "nearest" takes
precedence in the inheritance. "of his
family": his father's family or his
mother's family? It is, therefore,
written (Ibid. 1:2) "by their families,
by their fathers' house" the
families are according to the fathers.
"and he shall inherit her": (as above).
"and it shall be to the children of
an Israel a statute of judgment." The
Torah hereby authorizes the sages to
adjudicate the matter (i.e., to decide
who is the "nearest.") "then you shall
give his inheritance to his flesh who
is near to him of his family":
Whoever is closest in "flesh" takes
hill of precedence in inheritance.
(Bamidbar 27:12) "And the L-rd said
to Moses: Go up to this Mount
of Avarim": This is the inheritance of
the children of Reuven. When Moses
of entered the (prospective) inheritance
of the children of Reuven and the
children of Gad, he rejoiced, thinking
"It seems to me that He has revoked
His decree" (against my entering
Eretz Yisrael) whereupon he
poured out supplication before the
King. An analogy: A king decreed
against his son that he not enter the
doors of his palace. He came to the
226
gate and left it behind him; to the
storage room, and left it behind him.
As he was about to enter the inner
chamber, he said to him "My son,
from here on, you are forbidden."
Likewise, when Moses entered the
inheritance of the children of Gad
and the children of Reuven, he
rejoiced, thinking "It seems to me
that He has revoked His decree,"
whereupon he began to pour out
supplication before the L-rd. Now
does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If
Moses, the great sage, the father of
the sages and the father of the
prophets, even though he knew that
a decree had gone forth against him,
did not keep himself from
supplication, how much more so
should this hold true for other men!
(Devarim 3:23) "And I supplicated
(va'ethchanan) the L-rd":
"Va'ethchanan" is a term of entreaty.
"at that time to say": Let "to say" not
be written. The intent is: Make it
known to me whether I will enter the
land or not. "Adonai": the L-rd (adon)
of all who enter the world. "Elokim":
With (the attribute of) justice did You
create the world. "You have begun":
You have begun to open the door for
Your servant, in my entering the
inheritance of the children of Reuven
and the children of Gad. Variantly:
227
You have profaned (i.e., broken) Your
oath. You wrote in Your Torah
(Shemot 22:19) "He who sacrifices to
a god shall be condemned." Yet your
children served idolatry and I sought
mercy from You, and You forgave
them. (Devarim, Ibid.) "to show Your
servant": miracles and mighty acts,
viz. (Shemot 3:3) "I shall turn aside
and I shall see, etc." (Devarim, Ibid.)
"Your greatness": This is the attribute
of Your goodness, as it is written
(Bamidbar 14:17) "And now, let the
power of the L-rd be made great."
(Devarim, Ibid.) "And Your (mighty)
hand": This is Your right hand, which
is stretched out to all who enter the
world, viz. (Shemot 15:6) "Your right
hand, O L-rd, is exalted in power,"
and (Psalms 44:4) "Your right hand,
and Your arm, and the light of Your
countenance." (Devarim, Ibid.)
"mighty": For You subdue with mercy
the attribute of justice, viz. (Michah
7:18) "Who is a G-d like You,
forgiving transgression and passing
by ofense," (19) "He will return and
be merciful to us, He will subdue our
transgressions," (20) "You will give
truth to Yaakov," and (Isaiah 45:23) "I
have sworn by Me: From My mouth
has gone forth righteousness, a word
that will not turn back." (Devarim,
Ibid.) "Who is mighty in heaven and
earth": The attribute of flesh and per R. Yehudah: The land of Canaan
blood He who is greater than his is "good," and not the inheritance of
neighbor nullifies his neighbor's the children of Reuven and the
decree. But You who can overrule children of Gad. "this good
You? And thus is it written (Iyyov mountain": Jerusalem. "and the
23:13) "And He is One, and who can Levanon": the Temple, viz.
turn Him back?" R. Yehudah b. Bava (Zechariah 11:1) "Open your doors,
says: Not as the measure of the Holy O Levanon!" and (Isaiah 10:34) "And
One Blessed be He is the measure of the Levanon shall fall by a mighty
flesh and blood. The measure of flesh one (Nevuchadnezzar)." Others say:
and blood: A man registered in the "Levanon" these are its (Israel's)
royal codex even if he gives great kings, as in (Ezekiel 17:3) "He came
sums, he cannot extricate himself to the Levanon and he took its
from it. But You say: Repent, and I kings," and (II Chronicles 25:18) "The
will accept, as it is written (Isaiah thistle (i.e., the king) etc."
44:22) "I have wiped away your
ofenses like a cloud, your sins, like a Piska 135
mist." Variantly: "Who is G-d in
heaven and earth, etc." But (Devarim 3:26) "But the L-rd was
perhaps, outside of heaven and wroth with me": As one would say (to
earth, there is! It is, therefore, his neighbor): That man was angry
written (Devarim 4:39) "And you with me and was filled with wrath
shall know this day and you shall against me. "because of you": You
return it to your heart there is no are the cause. Likewise (Psalms
other" anywhere! (Ibid.) "who can 106:32) "And they aroused the wrath
do as Your deeds and as Your (acts (of the L-rd) at the waters of
of) strength": "as Your deeds" in contention, and Moses was afflicted
Egypt. "as Your strength" at the because of them." "and He did not
(splitting of the) sea. Variantly: "as heed me": He did not accept my
Your deeds" at the sea. "as Your prayer. R. Nathan says: It is written
strength" at the streams of Arnon. (Iyyov 36:5) "Behold G-d is great,
(Ibid. 25) "Let me pass over na and and He will not despise" the Holy
see"." "Na" is a term of imploration. One Blessed be He does not despise
"the good land across the Jordan": As the prayer of the many, but here

228
"and He did not heed me." He did not
accept my prayer. "And the L-rd said
to me, etc." He said to me: "It is
enough for you with this thing," (My
refusal to heed You), tzaddikim being
kept (by such rebuke) from a graver
transgression. In this regard,
Yishmael adduced a folk-saying:
"According to the camel is the load."
Variantly: If Moses, the wise, the
father of the wise; the prophet, the
father of the prophets, was not
forgiven, how much more so lesser
men who delay judgment and who
pervert judgment! (lit.,) "much for
you": He said to him: Much (reward)
is in keeping for you; much is stored
away for you, viz. (Psalms 31:20)
"How much is Your good that You
have stored away for those who fear
You!" And it is written (Isaiah 64:3)
"And none had ever heard or given
ear (to such things before). No eye
had ever seen a god other than You
doing (such things for those) who
hope to Him." Variantly: "Much for
you": He said to him: "Much have
you labored; much have you toiled.
Take leave, Moses, and rest," viz.
(Daniel 12:13) "Go (to your reward)
in the end (of days), when you will
rest." He said to him: "A king (Moses)
does not enter (Eretz Yisrael) as a
commoner." Moses: "If not, I will
become Joshua's disciple." The L-rd:
"Rav lecha" ("The station of 'Rav' is
yours.") "It does not befit a Rav to
become the disciple of his disciple."
Moses: "I will enter through the air or
through space." The L-rd: (Devarim
R. 32:52) "And there shall you not
come." Moses: "If not, let (at least)
my bones cross the Jordan." The L-rd:
(Ibid. 3:27) "For you shall not cross
this Jordan": Your bones, too, will not
cross, viz. (Ibid. 4:22) "for I will die in
this land; I will not cross the Jordan."
Now can a dead man cross? Moses
was saying: "My bones, too, will not
cross." (Ibid. 3:26) "Do not speak to
Me again about this thing": He said
to him: "Do not ask this thing of Me,
but decree a diferent thing upon me,
and I will do it." An analogy: A king
issues a difficult decree upon his son,
who asks him to rescind it. The king:
Do not ask this thing of me, but
decree a diferent thing upon me and
I will do it, viz. (Iyyov 22:28) "You will
decree and it will be fulfilled for you."
Moses: If not, (i.e., If I cannot enter
Eretz Yisrael), let me see it. The L-rd:
This I will do. (Devarim, Ibid. 23) "Go
up to the summit of Pisgah, etc." We
are hereby apprised that the L-rd
showed Moses the distant as (if it
were) near; the concealed, as (if it
were) revealed all that is called
229
"Eretz Yisrael," as it is written (Ibid.
34:1-3) "And the L-rd showed him the
whole land and all of Naftali and
the Negev and the plain, etc."
Piska 136
(Devarim 34:4) "And the L-rd said:
This is the land, etc.": R. Akiva says:
Scripture hereby apprises us that the
L-rd showed Moses all the recesses
of Eretz Yisrael as (if it were) a set
table, viz. (Ibid. 1) "And the L-rd
showed him all the land." R. Eliezer
says: He empowered Moses' eyes to
see from one end of the world to the
other. And thus do you find with the
tzaddikim that they see from one
end of the world to the other, as it is
written (Isaiah 33:13) "The King in
His beauty shall your eyes see. They
shall see the land roundabout." We
find, then, two kinds of "seeings"
one of pleasure; the other, of pain. Of
Abraham it is written (Bereshit
13:14) "Lift up your eyes and see,
from the place where you find
yourself, etc." a seeing of
pleasure. Of Moses it is written
(Bamidbar 27:12) "Go up to this
Mount Avarim, etc." (Devarim 3:27)
"Go up to the summit of Pisgah, etc."
a seeing of pain. And thus do you
find two kinds of "drawing near"
230
one for the sake of Heaven; the
other, not for the sake of heaven.
(Devarim 4:11) "And you drew near
and you stood at the foot of the
mountain" drawing near for the
sake of Heaven. (Ibid. 1:22) "Then all
of you drew near to me" drawing
near not for the sake of Heaven.
(Ibid. 3:28) "And command Joshua
and strengthen him and hearten
him" towards the learning (of
Torah). R. Yehudah says: Command
him in respect to the Giveonites (i.e.,
to accept them). Variantly: Command
him relative to the trials and
tribulations and the contentions. "for
he will pass before this people, and
he will cause them to inherit, etc.":
We are hereby apprised that he
would not die until he had caused
them to inherit the land. "the land
that you will see": We are hereby
apprised that Moses saw with his
eyes what Moses did not traverse
with his feet.
(Devarim 3:29) "And we stayed in
the valley near Beth-Peor": He
(Moses) said: See which sin I have
sinned, how many supplications I
uttered, and (still) it was not forgiven
me. And you, how many sins you
have sinned, yet the L-rd has said to
you: "Repent and I will accept" (your
penance). R. Yehudah b. Bava says:
In three places Israel bordered upon
grave transgression and the L-rd said
to them "Repent and I will accept,"
viz. (Shemot 15:24) "And the people
complained against Moses, saying
'What will we drink, etc.'" What is
written there? (Ibid. 26) "And He
said: If you hearken to the voice of
the L-rd your G-d and you do what is
just in His eyes, etc." Similarly,
(Devarim 9:22) "And in Taveirah, and
in Massah, and in Kivroth Hata'vah,
you angered the L-rd, etc." What is
written there? (Ibid. 10:12) "And
now, O Israel, what does the L-rd
your G-d ask of you, etc.?" Here, too,
(Ibid. 3:29) "And we stayed in the
valley near Beth-Peor, etc." (Ibid.
4:1) "Give ear to the statutes and the
judgments, etc."
(Bamidbar 27:13) "Then you will see
it (Eretz Yisrael), and you will be
gathered to your people you, too
as Aaron your brother was
gathered" whence we are apprised
that Moses lusted after such a death.
Piska 137
(Bamidbar 27:14) "when you flouted
My command in the desert of Tzin in
the contention of the congregation":
R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Moses and
Aaron, too, died by kareth ("cutting-
231
of"), as it is written (Devarim 32:51)
"because you did not sanctify My
name, etc." (the implication being) if
you had sanctified Me, your time
would not yet have come to die.
Two leaders arose (for Israel). One of
them said: Let my sin not be
recorded; the other: Let my sin be
recorded. David said: Let my sin not
be recorded, viz. (Psalms 32:1) "Of
David, a maskil. Happy is he whose
ofense is forgiven, whose sin is
covered over." Moses said: Let my sin
be recorded whence "when you
flouted My command in the desert of
Tzin in the contention of the
congregation." An analogy: Two
women received stripes in beth-din,
one for having gone astray; the
other, for having eaten pagim
(unripe fruits) of shevi'ith. The latter
says: Please publicize my sin, so that
the bystanders not say: Just as the
first is being smitten for straying, so
is she whereupon they hung such
a fruit on her neck and called out
before her: "This one is being smitten
for (having eaten) pagim." R. Eliezer
Hamodai says: Come and see how
beloved are tzaddikim by the Holy
One Blessed be He. For wherever
their death is mentioned, there their
sin is mentioned. Why all this? So
that men not have an opening for
saying: They died because of some
(grave) secret corruption. Similarly,
in four places the death of the sons
of Aaron (Nadav and Avihu) are
mentioned. And wherever their death
is mentioned their sin is mentioned,
to stress that it was that alone which
caused their death. Now does this
not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is
thus merciful in a time of anger, how
much more so, in a time of favor, viz.
(Isaiah 49:8) "In a time of favor I
have answered you, and on a day of
salvation I have helped you!"
Piska 138
(Bamidbar 27:15) "And Moses spoke
to the L-rd to say, etc.": (This is
mentioned) to apprise us of the
virtues of the righteous, that when
they are about to die they put aside
their own concerns and occupy
themselves with those of the
congregation. "to say": What is the
intent of this? Moses said to Him: Tell
me whether you are appointing
leaders for them or not until the
Holy One Blessed be He answered
him (Ibid. 18) "Take for yourself
Joshua the son of Nun, a man who
has spirit in him (viz. 16), and place
your hand upon him." R. Eliezer b.
Azaryah says: In four places Moses
232
made requests of the Holy One
Blessed be He and He responded to
them, viz. (Shemot 6:12) "And Moses
spoke before the L-rd, to say: The
children of Israel did not hearken to
me. How, then, will Pharaoh do so?
And I am impeded of speech." What
is the intent of "to say"? Moses said
to him: Apprise me whether or not
you will redeem them until the L-
rd granted his request, viz. (Ibid. 7:4)
"And I will take out My hosts, My
people, the children of Israel, from
the land of Egypt." Similarly,
(Bamidbar 12:13) "And Moses cried
out to the L-rd to say "G-d, I pray
You; heal her, I pray you." What is
the intent of "to say"? He said before
Him: Tell me, I pray You, whether or
not You will heal her until the Holy
One Blessed be He answered his
question, viz. (Ibid. 14) "Now if her
father had spat in her face, would
she not be in shame for seven days?"
Similarly, (Devarim 3:23) "And I
supplicated the L-rd at that time to
say": What is the intent of "to say"?
He said to Him: Tell me whether or
not I will enter the land until the L-
rd answered him, viz. (Ibid. 26) "It is
enough for you, etc." Here, too, what
is the intent of "to say"? He said to
him: Tell me whether or not You are
appointing leaders for them until
the L-rd answered him: "Take for
yourself Joshua the son of Nun."
Piska 139
(Bamidbar 27:16) "Let the L-rd, the
G-d of the spirits of all flesh, etc.":
Scripture hereby apprises us that all
the spirits issue only from Him. R.
Eliezer the son of R. Yossi Haglili
says: Let this "sign" always be in
your hand: that so long as a man is
alive his soul is reposited in the hand
of its Owner, as it is written (Iyyov
12:10) " that in His hand is the
spirit of all living things. When he
dies, it is reposited in the otzar ("the
treasury,") as it is written (I Samuel
25:29) "and may the soul of my
master be bound up in the bond of
life." I might think, (the soul of) both
the righteous and the wicked; it is,
therefore, written (Ibid.) "and may He
sling out the soul of your foes (as) in
the hollow of a sling." "a man over
the congregation": This is Joshua, as
it is written (Psalms 78:25) "the
bread of the mighty (i.e., manna) did
a man eat." And why did Scripture
not specify (that it was Joshua)? So
as not to stir up controversy (over
the appointment of Joshua) among
his sons and the sons of his brother
(Aaron, i.e., Elazar and Ithamar.)"
233
(Bamidbar 27:17) "who will go out
before them and who will come in
before them": Not as others, who
send others in the vanguard and who
bring up the rear. But as Moses did,
viz. (Bamidbar 21:34) "And the L-rd
said to Moses: Do not fear him (Og,
[to confront him in the vanguard]) for
I have delivered him into your hand."
And as Joshua did, viz. (Joshua 5:13)
"And Joshua went up to him, and
said: 'Are you for us or for our foes?'"
And as Pinchas did, viz. (Bamidbar
31:6) "And Moses sent them to the
war, a thousand of every tribe, to the
war, them and Pinchas (in the
vanguard) etc." (Ibid. 27:17) "who
will go out before them" at the
head, viz. (I Chronicles 11:6) "And
Yoav ben Tzeruyah went up first, and
he was at the head." "who will go out
before them" in a troop. "and who
will come in before them" in a
troop. "who will go out before them"
on the way. "and who will come in
before them" on the way. "and
who will take them out" in his
merits. "and who will bring them
back" in his merits. "and who will
take them out" with a count. "and
who will bring them back" with a
count (i.e., none missing), as it is
written (Bamidbar 31:44) "And they
said to Moses: Your servants have
counted the men of war who were
under our charge, and not one of us
is missing." And why did they need
atonement (viz. Ibid. 50)? For they
had "feasted their eyes" on
nakedness (i.e., on the Midianite
women [viz. Ibid. 16]). (Ibid. 27:17)
"And let the congregation of the L-rd
not be as sheep without a shepherd":
On this the tradition comments
(Song of Songs 1:7) "Tell me (Moses),
O You, whom my soul loves, etc. for
why should I be covered up," as in
(Jeremiah 43:12) "And he
(Nevuchadnezzar) will cover up the
land of Egypt, as the shepherd
covers up his cloak." (Song of Songs,
Ibid.) "by the flocks of Your
companions" Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob. Go out and see how the Holy
One answers him (Song of Songs,
Ibid. 8): "If you do not know, you
fairest among the women (i.e., most
exalted of the prophets), go out in
the footsteps of the flock." (See)
what I am destined to do for them in
the end (of their "footsteps"), "and
graze your kids by the tents of the
shepherd" whence it is derived
that the L-rd showed Moses all the
leaders who were destined to serve
Israel from the day they left the
desert until the resurrection. Thus,
"Go out in the footsteps of the flock."
234
Piska 140
(Bamidbar 27:18) "And the L-rd said
to Moses: Take for yourself Joshua
the son of Nun": ("for yourself") what
is in your heart. Take for yourself him
(Joshua), who you know to be worthy
(of this high station), as per (Mishlei
27:18) "the watcher of the fig-tree
will eat its fruit, and the keeper
(Joshua) of his master (Moses) will be
honored." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "a man
who has spirit in him": one who can
accommodate himself to the spirit of
each individual. "and place your
hand upon him": He said to him: Give
Joshua an interpreter to ask and to
expound and to issue rulings in your
lifetime, so that when you die Israel
not say: In his master's lifetime he
did not rule, and now he rules!
whereupon he raised him from the
ground (the place of disciples) and
sat him next to him on the (judge's)
bench. R. Nathan says: When Joshua
entered, he (Moses) would silence
the interpreter until he had come in
and sat in his place.
(Bamidbar 27:20) "And you shall
place (some) of your glory (i.e.,
shining of countenance) upon him":
and not all of your glory whence
we derive "The face of Moses was
like the face of the sun; the face of will eat its fruit." For it is written
Joshua was like the face of the (Shemot 33:11) "And his attendant,
moon." Joshua the son of Nun, a youth, did
not depart from the midst of the
Piska 141 tent," and, likewise, (Joshua 1:8) "this
book of the Torah shall not depart
(Bamidbar 27:21) "And before Elazar from your mouth." Now does this not
the Cohein shall he (Joshua) stand": follow a fortiori, viz.: If Joshua, of
Joshua had recourse to Elazar, and whom it is written (Devarim 34:9)
Elazar, to Joshua. "And he (Joshua) "He was full of the spirit of wisdom"
shall inquire of him (Elazar)": I might If Joshua "did not depart, etc.",
think, (that the inquiry was) then how much more so (should this
"between him and himself"; it is, hold for) other men! "And he
therefore, written "as to the commanded him as the L-rd had
judgment of the urim." I might then spoken by the hand of Moses": Just
think, (that he inquired) in full voice. as the Holy One Blessed be He had
It is, therefore, written "and he shall commanded Moses with joy, so,
inquire of him," (connoting in Moses commanded Joshua with joy. I
subdued voice). How so? He stood might think that Moses' powers
and moved his lips, and the high- waned (with age.) It is, therefore,
priest answered his inquiries. written (Devarim, Ibid. 7) "And Moses
(Bamidbar 27:22) "And Moses did as was a hundred and twenty years old
the L-rd commanded him": He did so in his death. His eye had not
with joy, undiluted with regret for his dimmed" (in deciding) between
son and his brother's sons (i.e., for unclean and clean, between
the honor not having been accorded forbidden and permitted, "and his
them.) "and he 'took' Joshua": He strength had not abated" in toiling in
"took" him with words, apprising him Torah.
of the reward of the leaders of Israel
in the world to come. Piska 142
(Bamidbar 27:23) "And he placed his
hands upon him": He made him an (Bamidbar 28:1-2) "And the L-rd
overflowing vessel of Torah, viz. spoke to Moses, saying: Command
(above) "the watcher of the fig-tree the children of Israel My ofering,

235
My bread, etc." What is the intent of portions. "for My fires": the fistfuls (of
this? Because Moses said (Ibid. the meal-oferings) and the
27:16-17) "Let the L-rd appoint" frankincense. "My sweet savor": the
(over Israel) "someone who will go libations. "shall you observe": that it
out before them, etc." An analogy: A be brought only from the Temple
king had a wife who, before her funds. "shall you observe": that
death, charged him over her sons Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites
saying: I pray you, take care of my stand over them. "shall you
sons, etc. The king: Before you observe": It is written here "shall you
charge me over my sons, charge observe," and elsewhere (in respect
them over me, that they not rebel to the Paschal lamb, Shemot 12:6)
against me and not cheapen me. "shall you observe." Just as there, it
Thus the Holy One Blessed be He to had to be inspected four days prior
Moses: Before you charge Me over to slaughtering, so, here. "shall you
My sons, charge them over Me, that observe to ofer to Me in its
they not cheapen Me and that they appointed time": What is the intent
not exchange My honor for foreign of this? From (Shemot 12:6) "and
gods. And thus is it written (Devarim they shall slaughter it (the Paschal
31:19-20) "And now, write for lamb)," I might think both on a
yourselves this song When I bring weekday and on the Sabbath. And
them to the land and they turn to how would I satisfy (Ibid. 31:14) "Its
other gods and spurn Me, etc." (the Sabbath's) desecrators shall be
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "My ofering": the put to death"? In the instance of
blood. "My bread": the devoted other labors, besides the
portions. You say this, but perhaps slaughtering of the Pesach. Or, even
"My ofering, My bread" is the blood? including the slaughtering of the
It is, therefore, written (of the Paschal lamb. And how would I
devoted portions) (Vayikra 3:16) satisfy "and they shall slaughter it"?
"And the Cohein shall smoke them On all the other days, besides the
upon the altar, the bread of a fire- Sabbath. Or, even on the Sabbath? It
ofering for a sweet savor." It is not is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 9:2)
the second formulation that is to be "And the children of Israel shall ofer
posited, but the first "my ofering": the Pesach in its appointed time"
the blood; "My bread": the devoted even on the Sabbath. These are the

236
words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan speaks of the obligation for the day.
said: In this sense (i.e., the above) How, then, are we to understand
we have not yet heard it used. But, (here) "two for the day"? As opposite
why is it written (Ibid. 28:2) the day (i.e., the sun) whence they
"Command the children of Israel, ruled: The morning tamid was
etc." If to teach about the tamid (the slaughtered at the north-west corner
daily burnt-ofering) that it overrides (of the altar) at the second
the Sabbath, this is not necessary. (slaughtering) ring, and the evening
For it is already written (Ibid. 9) "And tamid at the north-east corner at the
on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the second ring.
first year." What, then, is the intent "the one lamb, etc." Why is this
of (2) "in its appointed time"? It is written? (It seems superfluous.)
"extra" towards the formulation of an Because it is written (3) "And you
identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is shall say to them: This is the fire-
written here "in its appointed time," ofering, etc." and (Shemot 29:38)
and elsewhere, (in respect to the "And this is what you shall ofer upon
Paschal lamb) "in its appointed time." the altar," I might think that he
Just as in this instance (of the daily should sacrifice four. It is, therefore,
burnt-ofering), Sabbath is written "the one lamb" not more
overridden, so, in that instance. than one.
(Bamidbar 28:3) "And you shall say (Bamidbar 28:5) "and a tenth of an
to them": This is an exhortation to ephah": one of ten in an ephah.
beth-din (to charge the people). "This "flour": of wheat. You say this, but
is the fire-ofering which you shall perhaps it may be of barley, spelt,
ofer up to the L-rd two for the oats or shifon (a kind of spelt). It is,
day." Shimon b. Azzai says: "two for therefore, written (Shemot 29:2) "Of
the day" opposite the "day" (i.e., wheat flour shall you make them."
opposite the sun). You say this, but Since "flours" are mentioned in the
perhaps the meaning is: "two for the Torah unqualified, and in one
day" an obligation (to be instance it is specified that it must be
slaughtered) on that day? (Ibid. 4) wheat flour, so, all "flours" in the
"The one lamb shall you ofer in the Torah are to be only of wheat.
morning, and the other lamb shall (Bamidbar 28:5) "for the meal-
you ofer towards evening" already ofering mixed with oil of crushing":

237
to exclude (oil that is exuded from)
what is cooked. This tells me only of
(oil that is kasher for) meal-oferings.
Whence do I derive (the same for)
the menorah? It is written (in that
regard) (Vayikra 24:2) "Command the
children of Israel that they take to
you clear oil of beaten olives" to
exclude what is cooked.
Piska 143
(Bamidbar 28:6) "A perpetual burnt-
ofering ofered up at Mount Sinai":
The burnt-ofering of Mount Sinai is
being likened to the tamid burnt-
ofering. Just as the tamid burnt-
ofering required libations, so that of
Mount Sinai required libations. R.
Yossi Haglili says: "as a sweet savor."
It is likened to the sweet savor and
not to the libations.
(Bamidbar 28:7) "And its (wine)
libation, a fourth of a hin for the one
lamb": The libation is poured
unmixed and not mixed. "On the holy
place (i.e., the altar) shall it be
poured, a pouring of strong drink to
the L-rd." They are poured on the
altar and burned on the altar. R.
Nathan says: Why is it written
"pouring, pouring" (twice)? To include
the water libation.
238
(Bamidbar 28:8) "And the second
lamb": Why is this written? Since it is
written "the one lamb shall you ofer
in the morning," I might think that if
it were not ofered in the morning it
could be ofered in the evening. It is,
therefore, written "the second shall
you ofer up towards evening,"
implying that if the morning tamid
had not been ofered, the evening
tamid is not to be ofered. When is
this so? When the altar had not been
inaugurated. But if it had been
inaugurated, even the first may be
ofered in the evening. R. Shimon
said: When is this so? When they
were unwitting or under constraint
(in not ofering it in the morning), but
if they were deliberate (in not doing
so), if they did not ofer the lamb in
the morning, it could not be ofered
in the evening. If they did not smoke
the frankincense in the morning,
they can do so at twilight, for the
altar is inaugurated only with the
frankincense smoking of twilight, and
the burnt-ofering altar only with the
morning tamid. Nor (is) the table
(inaugurated) except with the show-
bread of the Sabbath; nor the
menorah except with the seven
lamps of twilight. R. Shimon said:
Even if the (pertinent) vessels were
finished before their (relevant) time,
they are inaugurated only in their
time. And thus is it written (Shemot
39:43 - 40:1-2) "And when Moses
saw all the work that they had
performed it as the L-rd had
commanded them, thus did they do
that Moses blessed them, saying:
On the first day of the first month
shall you set up the mishkan, etc."
With what blessing did he bless
them? He said to them: "May it be
His will that the Shechinah repose
upon the work of your hands." And
they responded "May the beauty of
the L-rd our G-d be upon us. And
establish the work of our hands upon
us. The work of our hands
establish it." And though this is not
written in the Torah, it is explicated
in the writings, viz. (Psalms 90:16)
"May Your works be beheld by Your
servants, and Your glory by their
children. (17) And may the beauty of
the L-rd our G-d be upon us, etc."
Variantly: What is the intent of "and
the second lamb"? Because it is
written (of the Paschal lamb, Shemot
12:6) "and they shall slaughter it at
twilight," I do not know which takes
precedence, the tamid or the Paschal
lamb. It is, therefore, written "the
second" the second to the tamid,
and not second to the Pesach (i.e., it
is slaughtered before the Pesach.)
239
From here they ruled: Nothing
precedes the morning tamid but (the
smoking of) the frankincense. And
nothing follows the tamid of twilight
but the incense, the Pesach, and
those lacking atonement on Pesach
eve, so that they can bring their
atonement (and observe the Pesach.)
(Bamidbar 28:8) "As the meal-
ofering of the morning and its
libation shall you ofer it." What is
the intent of this? Because it is
written (Ibid. 4-5) "the one lamb shall
you ofer in the morning and the
second lamb shall you ofer towards
evening. And a tenth of an ephah,
etc.", I might think that first the two
temidim are ofered. And then their
libations; it is, therefore, written "As
the meal-ofering of the morning and
its libation shall you ofer it,"
whereby we are apprised that when
each sacrifice is ofered, the libations
are ofered with it. "a fire-ofering":
Though it is consigned to the fire, it
is not accepted until it is completely
burned. "a sweet savor": gratifying to
Me, in that I spoke and My will was
done. "to the L-rd": Shimon ben Azzai
says: Come and see that with all of
the oferings in the Torah it is not
written of them "Elokim" or "Kel" or
"Shakkai" or "Tzevakoth," but only
Yod-Keh-Vav-Keh, the
Tetragrammaton so as not to give
an opening to the heretics for their
heresies (i.e., that there is a plurality
of gods). And just as "a sweet savor"
is written in respect to an ox, so is it
written in respect to a lamb and in
respect to a bird whereby the
Torah teaches us that there is no
"eating" or "drinking" before the Holy
One Blessed be He, but (that His)
only ("gratification") is that He
speaks and His will is done. And thus
is it written (Psalms 50:12) "Were I
hungry, I would not tell you. For Mine
is the world and its fulness. (11) I
know every bird in the mountains,
and the creatures of the field are
with Me." Lest I think He eats and
drinks, it is written (Ibid. 13) "Do I eat
the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of
he-goats?" Why, then, do I ask you to
sacrifice to Me? To do My will. And
thus is it written (Vayikra 22:29)
"When you sacrifice a thank-ofering
to the L-rd, it is to your favor that
you sacrifice it."
Piska 144
(Bamidbar 28:9) "And on the
Sabbath day, two lambs of the first
year without blemish": It is written
"The one lamb shall you ofer in the
morning," and the (tamid of the)
240
Sabbath is included in that. Scripture
(here) removes it from its (merely)
general category for (purposes of)
stringency, (i.e., the fixed (additional
["mussaf"] ofering). Variantly: From
(Vayikra 26:2) "My Sabbaths you
shall keep and My sanctuary you
shall fear" it is deduced that the
sacrificial service overrides the
(keeping of the) Sabbath. You say
this, but perhaps (the meaning is
that) the Sabbath overrides the
sacrificial service? From "And on the
Sabbath day, two lambs of the first
year, etc." we find the meaning of
the above to be that the sacrificial
service overrides the Sabbath. But
perhaps both individual and
communal oferings (override it)?
What is the context (of "And on the
Sabbath day")? Communal oferings,
(so that only communal and not
individual oferings override the
Sabbath.)
(Bamidbar 28:10) "the burnt-ofering
of the Sabbath on its Sabbath": And
not the burnt-ofering of Sabbath eve
(i.e., its limbs and fat-pieces), on the
Sabbath, (but on Sabbath eve.) "the
burnt-ofering of the Sabbath on its
Sabbath": And not the burnt-ofering
of this Sabbath on another Sabbath.
If one did not sacrifice (the mussaf
ofering) of this Sabbath, I might
think that he could do so on the next adduces a diferent numeration. R.
Sabbath. It is, therefore, written "the Elazar b. R. Tzaddok says: There was
burnt-ofering of the Sabbath on its a hin (a liquid measure) in the
Sabbath" "Once the day has Temple, with markings: Thus far (the
passed, its sacrifice has passed." "in libation) for a bullock; thus far for a
addition to the daily burnt-ofering ram; thus far for a sheep. R.
and its libation": We are hereby Yishmael says: There was no hin, but
apprised that the mussafim (of an additional measure of a log and a
Sabbath) are sacrificed between (the half in which was apportioned the
two daily oferings). high-priest's meal-ofering, a log and
a half in the evening, a log and a half
Piska 145 in the morning.
(Bamidbar 28:14) "This is the burnt-
(Bamidbar 28:11) "And in the ofering of the month in its month."
beginnings of your months, you shall And not the burnt-ofering of this
ofer a burnt-ofering to the L-rd": month for a diferent month. If one
What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. did not sacrifice it this month, I might
4) "The one lamb shall you ofer in think he could sacrifice it on a
the morning," I understand the diferent month. It is, therefore,
beginning of the month (Rosh written "This is the burnt-ofering of
Chodesh) also to be included; the month in its month," whereby we
therefore, Scripture removes it from are taught that if the day passes, its
the general category for greater sacrifice "passes." "for the months of
stringency the mussafim (of Rosh the year": What is the intent of this?
Chodesh). (But why is a special verse From "And the beginnings of your
needed for the mussafim of Rosh months you shall ofer a burnt-
Chodesh?) Let it be derived from (the ofering to the L-rd," I might think the
mussafim of) Sabbath? (In that case I minimum of months two; it is,
would say:) Just as (the mussafim of) therefore, written "for the months of
Sabbath are two lambs, so, those of the year."
Rosh Chodesh; it is, therefore, (Bamidbar 28:15) "And one kid of
written "And in the beginning of your goats as a sin-ofering to the L-rd": to
months, you shall ofer a burnt- atone for "a grave of the depth" (i.e.,
ofering to the L-rd, etc." Scripture tumah which was discovered only

241
after one had come in contact with (Bamidbar 28:18) "On the first day it
it.) "in addition to the continual is a calling of holiness." Celebrate it
burnt-ofering shall it be ofered and with eating and drinking and with
its libation.": We are hereby apprised clean garments. "All work of labor
that the mussafim (of Rosh Chodesh) you shall not do": We are hereby
are sacrificed only between (the two apprised that working is forbidden.
temidim). And whence is it derived that the
work that is needed for the
Piska 146 preparation of food is permitted?
From (Shemot 12:16) "Only (for)
(Bamidbar 28:16) "And in the first what is to be eaten by every person,
month, on the fourteenth day of the that alone may be done for you."
month, it is Pesach to the L-rd": (Ibid. 19) "And you shall present a
Scripture (here) makes it mandatory fire-ofering, a burnt-ofering to the L-
(and not optional.) (Ibid. 28:17) "for rd": If one found bullocks but not
seven days matzoth shall be eaten": rams, or rams but not lambs, I might
I might think that any matzoth (may think that he does not sacrifice any
be eaten [e.g., even those made of until he can sacrifice all. It is,
rice]). It is, therefore, written therefore, written "And you shall
(Devarim 16:3) "You shall not eat present a fire-ofering," implying
chametz with it. Seven days shall even one. I might then think that
you eat matzoth with it." Only that even if all are found, (he may
which can be matzah (unleavened) present only one). It is, therefore, (to
or chametz (leavened) (is forbidden negate this) written "two young
in the leavened state). These are the bullocks, and one ram, etc."
five varieties: wheat, barley, spelt, (Bamidbar 28:24) "As these shall
rye, or oats. This excludes rice, you ofer each day for seven days.":
millet, sesame, paragim, which never Why is this written? For (were it not
become matzah or chametz, but only written) it would follow, (otherwise),
decay. viz.: Since Succoth requires a festival
ofering, and Pesach requires a
Piska 147 festival ofering, therefore, just as
the ofering of Succoth decreases
progressively (each day [viz.

242
Bamidbar 29:12-13]) so should that
of Pesach decrease progressively. It
is, therefore, written "As these shall
you ofer each day" neither to
increase or to decrease. "in addition
to the continual burnt-ofering shall it
be ofered, and its libation": We are
hereby apprised that the mussafim
(of Pesach) are sacrificed only
between the two (temidim).
Piska 148
(Bamidbar 28:26) "And on the day of
the first-fruits (Shavuoth), when you
ofer a new meal-ofering to the L-
rd": What is the intent of this? From
(Vayikra 23:16) "Until the morrow of
the seventh week shall you count
fifty days," I might think (either) that
he counts forty-nine days and ofers
the meal-ofering on the fiftieth, or
that he counts fifty days and ofers
the meal-ofering on the fifty-first. It
is, therefore, written "And on the day
of the first-fruits, when you ofer a
new meal-ofering to the L-rd in (the
completion of) your weeks," whence
we find that it is not the second
rending that is to be accepted, but
the first Count (up to) fifty, and
ofer the meal-ofering on the fiftieth.
But I still can say: Ofer the meal-
ofering on the fiftieth and observe
243
the festival on the fifty-first! It is,
therefore, (to negate this), written "in
your weeks" (and not after them), "a
calling of holiness." "a new meal-
ofering to the L-rd": that it be the
newest of the meal-oferings, that no
other meal-ofering precede it. From
here it was ruled: The meal-ofering
of the first-fruits and the meal-
ofering of (i.e., accompanying) a
beast is not brought (from the new
crop) before the omer; and if it is
brought, it is not fit. Before the two
loaves (of Shavuoth), he should not
bring it; but if he brought it, it is
kasher. R. Tarfon said: Since the omer
permits (for eating by men), and the
two loaves permit (for sacrifice to the
L-rd), then if I have learned about
meal-oferings that precede the omer
that they are unfit, the meal-
oferings that precede the two loaves
are also unfit. R. Yehudah b.
Nachman said to him: No, this may
be true of meal-oferings that
precede the omer, which are kasher
neither for (sacrifice to) the L-rd nor
for (eating by) men. Would you say
the same that they are unfit for
(meal-oferings that precede) the two
loaves? Even though they are not
kasher for the L-rd, they are kasher
for men! R. Akiva looked at him (R.
Yehudah b. Nachman) and saw his
face shining, whereupon he said to
him: "Yehudah b. Nachman, your
face is shining, for you have 'bested'
the elder" (R. Tarfon). I doubt that
you will live much longer." R. Elazar
b. R. Yehudah said: This happened on
Pesach, and when I came for the
atzereth (Shavuoth) and asked:
"Where is Yehudah b. Nachman?", I
was told "He has passed away."
Piska 149
(Bamidbar 28:27) "And you shall
present a burnt-ofering as a sweet
savor to the L-rd": You sacrifice these
aside from those mentioned in Torath
Cohanim (Vayikra 27:18). "You say
this; but perhaps they are the same
as those mentioned there? Can
you say this? Are they similar? You
cannot accept the second
supposition, but the first You
sacrifice these aside from those
mentioned in Torah Cohanim. "two
young bullocks, one ram, etc.": If one
found bullocks but not rams, or rams
but not lambs, I might think that he
does not sacrifice any until he finds
all. It is, therefore, written "And you
shall present a burnt-ofering,"
implying even one. I might then think
that even if all are found, (he may
present only one). It is, therefore,
244
written (to negate this) "two young
bullocks, and one ram, etc."
(Bamidbar 28:31) "Unblemished
shall they be for you, and their
libations": The libations are being
likened to the (sacrificial) animal. Just
as the animal is rendered unfit by
blemishes, by deficiency or
superfluity, so, the libations.
Piska 150
(Bamidbar 29:12) "And on the
fifteenth day of the seventh month, a
calling of holiness shall there be for
you": Scripture makes it mandatory.
(Ibid. 13) "And you shall present a
burnt-ofering, a fire-ofering, a
sweet savor to the L-rd": If one found
bullocks but not rams, or rams but
not lambs, I might think that he does
not sacrifice any until he finds all. It
is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:36)
"Seven days shall you present a fire-
ofering to the L-rd," implying (if he
found) even one. I might think that
even if all are found, (he may
present only one). It is, therefore,
written "thirteen young bullocks, two
rams, etc." Whence is derived the
water libation on Succoth? R. Akiva
says: It is written that the omer is to
be brought on Pesach so that the
grain be blessed for you, and bring
bikkurim on Shavuoth so that the confinement, as in (Jeremiah 36:5) "I
fruits be blessed for you. Also, (by am atzur; I cannot go to the Temple
induction), present a water libation of the L-rd" and (Ibid. 33:1) "Then the
on Succoth so that the rains of the word of the L-rd came to Jeremiah a
year be blessed for you. R. Yehudah second time while he was still atzur
says: On the second day it is written in the prison yard." This tells me only
"veniskehem" ("and their libations"); of the last day of the festival that he
on the sixth, "unesachehah"; and on is forbidden to leave. Whence do I
the seventh, "kemishpatam" derive (the same for) the first day? It
(superfluous) Mem Yod Mem, which follows inductively, viz. Since both
spells "mayim" (water) whence are called "a calling of holiness," just
the water libation (on Succoth) is as it is forbidden to leave the first
Scripturally intimated. R. Nathan day, so it is forbidden to leave the
says: What is the intent of (Bamidbar last day.
28:7) "On the holy place (the altar) (Bamidbar 29:36) "And you shall
pour a pouring"? To include the water present a burnt-ofering": I might
(libation). think that if he found bullocks but
not rams, or rams but not lambs,
Piska 151 that he does not sacrifice any until
he finds all. It is, therefore, written
(Bamidbar 29:35) "On the eighth "And you shall present a burnt-
day, a withholding ("atzereth") shall ofering, a fire-ofering," implying (if
there be for you": Scripture he found) even one. I might then
"withheld" him from leaving. If one think that even if all were found, (he
brought his oferings from Beth may present only one). It is,
Paggai (outside of Jerusalem) to therefore, written (Ibid.) "one bullock,
Jerusalem, I might think that he could one ram, etc."
eat them in Jerusalem and sleep in
Beth Paggai. It is, therefore, written Piska 152
"On the eighth day, an atzereth shall
there be for you" Scripture (Bamidbar 29:39) "These shall you
withheld him from leaving (until the ofer to the L-rd on your festivals,
morning of the next day [viz. aside from, etc.": These are the vows
Devarim 16:7]). "atzirah" connotes and the gift-oferings that he vows

245
on the festival, that he is to bring
them on the festival. You say this,
but perhaps Scripture speaks of the
vows and the thank-oferings of the
whole year? (This is not so, for
Devarim 12:5-6) "And you shall come
there and you shall bring there
your vows and your gifts" already
speaks of the vows and gifts of the
whole year. How, then, am I to
understand "These shall you ofer to
the L-rd on your festivals"?
referring to the vows and the gift-
oferings that he vows on
festival, that they are to be brought
on the festival. "aside from your
vows" These are the bird-pairs of the
zavim and the zavoth (those with a
genital flow), which (bird-pairs) the
Torah permitted to be brought on a
festival. "aside from your vows
(31) And Moses said to the children
of Israel": (The purpose of "And
Moses said" is) to conclude the
foregoing. For if I read "aside from
your vows (30:2) And Moses
spoke," I would not know to what it
("And Moses spoke") referred, (to
what precedes or to what follows?) It
is, therefore, written "from your vows
And Moses said," to conclude what
precedes. These are the words of R.
Yishmael.
Piska 153
(Bamidbar 30:2) "And Moses spoke
to the heads of the tribes": What is
the intent of this? From (Ibid. 10:3)
"And when they (the Cohanim) blow
(tekiah) with them (the shofaroth)
then all the congregation shall gather
unto you," and (Ibid. 4) "And if they
blow (tekiah) with one, there shall
gather unto you the chiefs," we do
As not know where (they are to gather).
It is (therefore) written "tekiah" re
the the congregation, and "tekiah" re the
chiefs. Just as the congregation,
(Ibid. 3) "to the door of the tent of
meeting," so, the chiefs, at the door
of the tent of meeting. But
perhaps all that is first in Scripture
(i.e., "congregation") is first in act? It
is, therefore, written (Ibid. 30:2) "to
the heads of the tribes" (and then to
the tribes). Since "spoke" is written
in the Torah unqualified (as to whom
he is speaking first), and in one
instance (i.e., this one) it is specified
that the chiefs take precedence to
the congregation, it is, likewise,
assumed in all such instances that
the chiefs take precedence to the
congregation. R. Yonathan says: This
(derivation) is not necessary. It is
already written Shemot 34:31-32)
"And Moses called to them, and there
246
returned to him all the chiefs of the
congregation, and Moses would
speak to them. And after that, all the
children of Israel would approach and
he would command them, etc." Since
"speaking" is written in the Torah
unqualified (as to whom he is
speaking first), and in one instance it
is specified that the chiefs take
precedence to the congregation, so,
this is assumed in all such instances.
If so, why need it be written (here)
"to the heads of the tribes"? To
indicate that the permitting (i.e.,
absolution) of vows is through
experts alone.
"This is the thing": We are hereby
apprised that just as the prophets
prophesied by "Thus said the L-rd,"
so did Moses, viz. (Shemot 11:4),
and, in addition, "This is the thing,
etc." Variantly: This is the "word" (for
the absolution of vows.) A husband
"annuls" ("mefer" [his wife's vows,
viz. Bamidbar 30:9]), but a sage does
not annul. A sage "permits" ("matir"
[viz. Bamidbar 30:3]) but a husband
does not permit. For would it not
follow otherwise, viz.: If he who does
not annul, permits, then he who does
annul, how much more so should he
permit. And if he who does not
permit, annuls, then he who does
permit, how much more so should he
247
annul! It is, therefore, written "This is
the 'word' that the L-rd has
commanded": The husband "annuls,"
and a sage does not annul. A sage
"permits," and the husband does not
permit.
(Bamidbar 30:3) "A man, if he vow a
vow, etc.": "A man": to exclude a
minor. But this would exclude
(both) a minor and one who is
thirteen years and one day old! It
follows (by induction that it does
not), viz.: It is written here "vow,"
and elsewhere (Ibid. 6:2) "vow." Just
as there, "ki yafli" (i.e., if he can
clearly articulate his vow), so, here
whence it was ruled: If he were
thirteen years and one day old, his
vows stand. If he were twelve years
and one day old, his vows are
examined (for the yafli factor). "if he
vow a vow": (The meaning is:) If he
"supports" his vow by something that
is vowed (e.g., "I vow not to eat X
just as (I am forbidden to eat) an
ofering" [i.e., something that is
vowed]), it is a vow. Otherwise, it is
not a vow. But perhaps (the
meaning is) that it is not a vow until
he appends to it (Ibid.) "to the L-rd"?
It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6:2) "to
vow a vow" in any event (i.e.,
even without appending "to the L-
rd.") But perhaps, just as with
vows, if he supports his vow by
something which is a vow, it is a
vow, and, otherwise, not so with
oaths? It is, therefore, written (in
respect to oaths) (Ibid. 30:3) "to bind
a bond" in any event (i.e., even
without such support). Why is there a
diference between vows and oaths
(in this regard)? Vows are like vowing
by the life of the king. Oaths, (in that
they must be in the name of the L-rd)
are like swearing by the King Himself.
And even though there is no proof for
this (distinction) it is intimated in (II
Kings 4:20) "As the L-rd lives, and as
you (King David) live." "to bind a
bond upon his soul": Upon his soul he
binds (i.e., forbids), but he does not
bind upon others (i.e., his wife [i.e.,
he cannot confirm (in advance of her
making them) all the vows that his
wife will make (in his absence)]. For
it would follow otherwise, viz.: If
where he cannot annul his own vows
once he has made them, he can
annul his own vows before he has
made them, then where he can annul
his wife's vows once she has made
them, how much more so can he
annul his wife's vows before she has
made them! And if he can do this, it
follows that he can confirm them
before she makes them. In the words
of R. Eliezer: I might think that just as
248
he can annul (her vows) before she
makes them, so can he confirm them
before she makes them it is,
therefore, written "to bind a bond
upon his soul" Upon his soul he
binds, but he does not bind upon
others.
Variantly: What is the intent of "to
bind a bond upon his soul"? Because
it is written (Ibid.) "According to all
that issues from his mouth shall he
do," I might think, even if he swore
to eat neveiloth and treifoth,
forbidden animals and reptiles. It is,
therefore, written "to bind a bond"
to bind (i.e., to forbid) what is
permitted, and not to permit what is
forbidden. Variantly: What is the
intent of "upon his soul"? From
"According to all that issues from his
mouth shall he do," I might think,
only if he spoke it. Whence do I
derive (the same for) his accepting it
upon himself (inwardly) by vow or
oath? It is, therefore, written "upon
his soul." "lo yachel devaro": He shall
not make his word "chullin"
("profane"). If he were a sage, (even
though he annuls for others), he
should not annul for himself. For it
would follow otherwise, viz.: If he
annuls for others, should he not
annul for himself? It is, therefore,
written (to negate this): "He shall not
make his (own) words "chullin." "lo
yachel devaro": This tells us (that if
he breaks his vow) he
transgression of "lo yachel." Whence
is it derived that he is also in
transgression of "You
delay"? From (Devarim 23:22) "If you
make a vow to the L-rd your G-d, you
shall not delay to pay it" whence
we derive that he is in transgression
of both. R. Eliezer says: This ("You
shall not delay") is to equate (verbal)
expression (i.e., vowing)
swearing. R. Akiva says: "According
to all that issues from his mouth shall
he do" to equate expression with
swearing ("According to
issues from his mouth shall he do.")
[followed by] "And a woman, etc." A
woman is hereby being likened to a
man, viz.: Just as a man transgresses
both ("breaking" and "delaying") so,
a woman. "And a woman": I might
think, when she has matured; it is,
therefore, written (Bamidbar 30:17)
"in her maidenhood." If so, I might
think, even a minor. It is, therefore
written "And a woman." How is this
to be resolved? (We are speaking of
a stage) where she has left the
status of a minor and
achieved maturity. Whence
derived that she is subject
vowing? It is written here "vow," and
elsewhere (Ibid. 6:2) "vow." Just as
"vowing" there connotes "hafla'ah"
is in (distinctness of expression), so,
"vow" here connotes "hafla'ah"
whence they ruled: The vows of a girl
shall not of twelve years and a day stand.
Those of a girl of eleven are
"examined" (for "hafla'ah"). "if she
vow a vow": If she "supports" her
vow by something which is vowed
(see above), it is a vow. Otherwise, it
is not a vow. You say this, but
with perhaps (the meaning is) that it is
not a vow until he appends to it
(Ibid.) "to the L-rd"? It is, therefore,
written "to vow a vow" in any
all that event (i.e., even without appending
"to the L-rd.") It is the first
assumption, then, which is to be
accepted. "and she binds a bond":
This connotes an oath, as it is written
(Ibid. 11) "or she bound a bond on
her soul by an oath." "in her father's
house": in her father's domain to
include her having been widowed or
divorced from betrothal (vis--vis her
father's prerogative in her vows).
But perhaps it is to be understood
literally, even after her marriage (i.e.,
that even then if she vowed while in
not yet her father's house, the father may
is it annul the vow?) It is, therefore,
to written "in her father's house in her
youth." (Scripture is speaking of one)
249
all of whose youth was spent in her can annul them)? If he never
father's house to exclude one who confirmed them (by his silence.) Of,
was widowed or divorced in even if he did confirm them, (if he
marriage, all of her youth not having then annulled them, they are
been spent in her father's house. annulled?) It is, therefore, written
(Bamidbar 30:5) "If her father hear "shall stand," Scripture hereby
her vow": to exclude one who is deaf. apprising us that every vow, if it
"If her father hear": this tells me only were confirmed for one instant,
of her father's hearing (her vow). cannot thereafter be annulled.
Whence do I derive (the same for) (Bamidbar 30:6) "And if her father
his being told (of it) by others? From constrain her": I would not know
(6) "on the day that he hears." "and what this "constraint" was were it not
he be silent to her": He must intend written (Ibid. 9) "And if on the day
her. If his daughter vowed, and he that her husband hear, he constrain
said "I thought it was my wife," he her and annul the vow" whence I
may (later) annul her vow (for it was derive that "constraint" is
never confirmed by his silence.) For annulment. We learn vis--vis the
it is written "and he be silent to her": husband that "constraint" is
He must intend her. "Then all of her annulment. Whence do we derive
vows shall stand, and every bond (the same for) the father? And,
wherewith she bound her soul shall furthermore, we find vis--vis the
stand": If she vowed and he husband that (his) silence on the day
confirmed it (by his silence), and of his hearing is equated with the
then he annulled it, I might think that day of the vow for confirmation.
it is annulled. And how would I Whence do we derive (the same for)
understand "Then all of her vows the father? It follows (by induction),
shall stand"? (As meaning) if he did viz.: If he (the father) is permitted to
not (later) annul them. Or, (am I to confirm and he is permitted to annul,
understand it as meaning that they then if I have learned about
stand) even if he did annul them, annulment that silence on the day of
(their having been confirmed by his his hearing is equated with (silence
original silence)? And how would I on) the day of the vow, then for
understand (6) "And if her father confirmation, too, silence on the day
constrain her, (which implies that he of his hearing is equated with

250
(silence on) the day of the vow.
No, this may be true of annulment,
where there is a distinction in the
rule, (annulment in the heart not
being considered annulment),
wherefore silence on the day of
hearing is equated with (silence on)
the day of the vow, as opposed to
confirmation, where no such
distinction exists. Not succeeding (in
deriving it in the above manner) I will
derive it from (what obtains with) the
husband, viz.: Since the husband
annuls and the father annuls, then
just as with the husband, silence on
the day of his hearing is equated
with (silence on) the day of the vow,
then the same obtains with the
father, too. Furthermore, it follows a
fortiori, viz.: If for the husband, who
does not achieve exclusivity (of
prerogative in the area of his wife's
vows), silence on the day of his
hearing is equated with (silence on)
the day of the vow, then the father,
who does (occasionally) achieve
exclusivity, how much more so
should silence on the day of his
hearing be equated with (silence on)
the day of the vow! No, this may
be true of the husband, who annuls
(her vows) when she has matured,
(as opposed to her father who does
not), wherefore silence on the day of
251
his hearing is not equated with
(silence on) the day of the vow. Not
having succeeded with (pure)
ratiocination (we turn to Scripture,
viz.:) It is written (Ibid. 17) "These
are the statutes which the L-rd
commanded Moses, between a man
and his wife, between a father and
his daughter": The father is likened
to the husband, viz.: Just as with the
husband, "constraint" is annulment,
and silence on the day of his hearing
is equated with (silence on) the day
of the vow, towards confirmation
so with the father. (Ibid. 6) "and the
L-rd will forgive her": If she (one's
wife) made a vow and he annulled it
in his heart and she broke it (to her
thinking) wilfully, whence is it
derived that she requires
forgiveness? From "and the L-rd will
forgive her." Now does this not follow
a fortiori? If vows which are (thus)
annulled require forgiveness, how
much more so vows which are not
annulled! An analogy: One, thinking
that he was eating swine's flesh ate
lamb flesh instead. If he requires
forgiveness, how much more so one
who intended to eat swine's flesh
and actually ate it! "for her father
has constrained her": If she said: "I
know that father would annul any
vow that he heard," I might think it is
annulled; it is, therefore, written "for domain, how much more so vows
her father has constrained her." If the that she made in his domain!
father annuls it, it is annulled; if not, Variantly: "and her vows be upon
it is not annulled. If he said to a her": (Can the husband annul only)
caretaker: "Any vows that my vows which were never confirmed (in
daughter makes from now until I her father's house) or even vows
return, annul them," and he did so, I which were confirmed there? It
might think that they are annulled; it follows (inductively), viz.: The
is, therefore, written "for her father husband annuls and the father
has constrained her." If her father annuls. Just as the father annuls only
annulled them, they are annulled; if vows which were never confirmed or
not, they are not annulled. These are annulled, so, the husband. And,
the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.:
says: We find in all places that a If the father, who has an exclusive
man's messenger is like himself. prerogative (over his daughter's
(Bamidbar 30:7) "And if she be to a vows) can annul only vows which
man, and her vows be upon her": were never confirmed, how much
This refers to one who is betrothed. more so, the husband, who does not
These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. have such a prerogative! No, this
R. Yonathan says: In either case, (i.e., may be true of the father, who does
either betrothed or wed) Scripture not annul in her maturity
comes to make a distinction, viz.: As wherefore he annuls only vows which
long as she is in her father's house, were never confirmed, as opposed to
her father and her husband (jointly) the husband, who does annul (the
annul her vows. If she is wed, her vows of her) maturity wherefore
father does not annul her vows. "and he can annul every vow, (even those
her vows be upon her": the vows that confirmed in her father's house)? Not
"came along" with her from her having succeeded with (pure)
father's house to her husband's ratiocination, we must revert to
house. Whence do I derive (the same Scripture, viz.: "These are the
for) vows that she made on his (her statutes which the L-rd commanded
husband's) domain? Do you ask? It Moses, between a man and his wife,
follows a fortiori, viz.: If he annuls between a father and his daughter.
vows that she vowed not in his Scripture likens the husband to the

252
father, viz.: Just as the father can
annul only those vows which were
never confirmed, so, the husband.
"or the utterance (mivta) of her lips":
"bitui" (like "mivta") connotes an
oath, as in (Vayikra 5:4) "Or if a soul
swear 'levatei' with his lips."
(Bamidbar 30:8) "And her husband
hear": to exclude one who is deaf.
"And her husband hear": This tells
me only of his own hearing. Whence
do I derive (the same for) others'
hearing (and reporting it to him?
From (9) "And if on the day of her
husband's hearing." (Ibid. 8) "and he
be silent to her." He must intend her.
If his wife vowed, and he said: "I
thought it was my daughter," he may
annul it later (see above), it being
written "and he be silent to her." He
must intend her. "then all of her vows
shall stand": If she vowed and he
confirmed (her vow by his silence),
and he later annulled it, I might think
that it is annulled. And how would I
understand "then all of her vows
shall stand"? If he did not annul
them. Or, even if he did annul them,
and how would I understand (9) "and
he annul her vow"? If he had not
confirmed it. Or, even if he did
confirm it? (See the same discussion
vis--vis one's daughter above.) It is,
therefore, written "they shall stand,"
253
Scripture apprising us that any vow
which was confirmed at the time
cannot thereafter be annulled.
(Bamidbar 30:9) "And if on the day
that her husband hear, he constrain
her and annul her vow": We learn vis-
-vis the husband that "constraint" is
annulment and vis--vis the husband
that silence on the day of his hearing
is equated with (silence on) the day
of the vow.
"and he annul her vow": He can
annul the vows that are upon her
(i.e., that she has already made), and
not the vows that are not upon her
(i.e., those that she is destined to
make.) R. Eliezer says that he can do
so, and that it follows a fortiori, viz.:
If where he cannot annul the vows
that he has made, he can annul the
vows that he is destined to make,
then where he can annul the vows
that his wife has made, how much
more so can he annul the vows that
she is destined to make! They (the
sages) said to him: No, it is written
"and he annul her vow which is upon
her." He can annul those vows which
she has already made, but not those
which are not yet upon her. Variantly
(Ibid. 14) "Her husband shall confirm
it and her husband shall annul it":
What (already) came to confirmation
can come to annulment. What did
not (yet) come to confirmation (i.e.,
those vows that she is destined to
make) are not subject to (proactive)
annulment. "and the L-rd will forgive
her": If she vowed and he annulled it
in his heart, and she went and broke
(what she thought to be a standing
vow) wilfully whence is it derived
that she requires forgiveness? From
"and the L-rd will forgive her."
Piska 154
(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
254
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 divorce 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
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."
Piska 155
(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
is 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
255
annul them]) for vows afecting
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 diferent 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--vis his daughter)? It
follows (by induction), viz. Since a
256
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 and
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,
257
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.
Piska 156
(Bamidbar 30:14) "And if her
husband be silent, silent to her from
day to day": This is the silence of this not follow a fortiori, viz. If in
taunting. You say this, but perhaps it respect to G-d's measure of
is the silence of confirmation (of the punishment, which (relative to that
vow)? (This is not so, for Ibid. 12) of reward) is small, one who causes
"and he was silent to her" already his neighbor to go astray takes his
speaks of the silence of confirmation. place for punishment, then, in
How, then, is "and he be silent, respect to His measure of good,
silent" to be understood? As referring which is (relatively) large, how much
to the silence of taunting. "from day more so (is one rewarded for being
to day": I might think, from time to instrumental in his neighbor's
time (i.e., for a twenty-four hour mitzvah)!
period); it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 30:17) "These are the
"which are upon her. He has statutes which the L-rd commanded
confirmed them for he was silent to Moses, between a man and his wife,
her on the day of his hearing" (i.e., between a father and his daughter":
until the night). R. Shimon b. Yochai Father is likened to husband, and
says: "from time to time (i.e., a husband to father in all of the ways
twenty-four hour period)," it being we have mentioned "in her
written "from day to day." maidenhood (in) the house of her
(Bamidbar 30:16) "And if he annul father", but not "in her maidenhood"
them after his hearing": after his in the house of her husband (i.e., her
confirmation of the vow. You say this, husband, unlike her father, does
but perhaps it is "after his hearing," have prerogatives in her vows
literally? (This cannot be, for) "for he beyond her maidenhood.) R.
was silent to her on the day of his Yishmael says "in her maidenhood in
hearing" already speaks of hearing. the house of her father": Scripture
How, then, am I to understand "after here speaks of a betrothed maiden,
his hearing"? As after his her father and her husband (jointly)
confirmation of the vow. "And if he annulling her vows.
annul them after his hearing," i.e.,
after his confirmation (and she Piska 157
breaks her vow), "then he shall bear
her sin." (i.e., he takes her place for (Bamidbar 31:1-2) "And the L-rd
(punishment of) the sin. Now does spoke to Moses, saying: Take the

258
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"
259
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 "And they shall not see when the
handed them over: "This man is 'holy' is being covered, lest they die."
kasher Let him go! This man is a (Ibid. 31:6) "in his hand": "his hand"
tzaddik Let him go!" R. Elazar is his domain, as in (Ibid. 21:26) "and
Hamodai says: Come and see the he took all his land from his hand,"
love (of Israel for) the shepherd of and (Bereshit 24:10) "and all the
Israel. So long as they had not heard good of his master in his hand."
that the death of Moses was (Bamidbar 31:7) "And they warred
attendant upon the war with Midian, against Midian": They surrounded it
what is written of them? (Shemot from four sides. R. Nathan says: They
17:4) "Just a little more and they will left a fourth side for them to flee
stone me." When they heard of it, from. (Ibid. 8) "the five kings of
they began hiding (to avoid Midian": As they were all one in
conscription, so as not to be counsel, they were all one in death.
instrumental in his death) "and Bilam the son of Beor they slew
notwithstanding which they were by the sword": Israel gave him his
conscripted perforce, viz. "And there full reward and did not stint him. For
were handed over of the thousands he said to them: When you were six
of Israel, etc." hundred thousand (in the days of
(Bamidbar 31:6) "And Moses sent Balak), you could not withstand
them, a thousand to a tribe to the them, and would you withstand them
host, them and Pinchas": We are now? Whereupon they gave him his
hereby apprised that they were as full "reward" (for his sound advice)
"weighty" as Pinchas, and Pinchas and did not "stint" him. R. Nathan
was over and against all of them. says: With the four judicial death
Why did Pinchas go and not Elazar? penalties they slew him. As it is
Because Pinchas went to take written (Joshua 13:22) "And Bilam
revenge (of the Midianites) for his the son of Beor the sorcerer the
mother's father (Yithro, viz. Shemot children of Israel slew by the sword
2:16), it being written (Bereshit together with their slain." (Bamidbar
37:36) "And the Midianites sold him 31:10) "and all tirotham": This refers
(Joseph) to Egypt." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) to their houses of idolatry. Variantly:
"and the holy articles in his hand": the posts of their sentinels. (Ibid. 31)
This refers to the ark, viz. (Ibid. 4:20) "And they took all of the spoil and

260
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
261
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 say that? It follows a fortiori! (i.e.,
the women." It (the second "kill") is, why do we need a verse?), viz.: If in
therefore, written (to conclude the dead-body tumah (our instance) the
subject of the first verse.) "And all more stringent variety, every work of
the little ones among the women goats is likened to sack, then in the
who did not know carnal relations, instance of sheretz (creeping thing)
keep alive for yourselves": From here tumah, (that of Vayikra), the less
R. Shimon b. Yochai ruled. A stringent variety, how much more so
proselytess who was converted at should every work of goats be
less than three years and one day is likened to sack! Would you say
fit for (marriage to) the priesthood. that? Do we derive the less stringent
(Bamidbar 31:19) "And you, abide from the more stringent to be more
outside the camp seven days": What stringent with it? Rather, why is
is the intent of this? From (Bamidbar "garment" mentioned in respect to
19:14) "A man if he die in a tent, all dead body tumah? It follows a
that enter the tent (while the body is fortiori, viz.: If in sheretz, the less
still in it) shall be unclean seven stringent variety, garment was
days," I would think, even straw and likened to sack, how much more so
twigs, etc. (see Chukath #126). "you (should this obtain) in dead-body
and your captives": Just as you are tumah! Why, then, is "garment"
children of the covenant (and require mentioned in dead-body tumah? It is
sprinkling with the waters of the red "extra" for the purpose of
heifer), so, your captives (i.e., Those formulating an identity (gezeirah
girls less than three year and one shavah ), viz.: "Garment" is written
day of age, who were proselytized here and "garment" is written
and became unclean, require elsewhere (Vayikra). Just as here,
sprinkling.) every work of goats is likened to
(Bamidbar 31:20) "and every sack, so, there. And just as there,
garment and every vessel of skin": (the articles must be) spun and
What is the intent of this? From woven, (sack being spun and
(Vayikra 11:32) "or skin or sack," I woven), so, there, spun and woven.
know only of sack. Whence do I To include the band, the belt, and the
derive (the same for) every work of saddle-band of an ass, which are
goats? (From the above.) Would you spun and woven. To exclude cords or

262
ropes, which are not spun and authorized Elazar the Cohein to
woven. speak, so that when he died they
(Bamidbar 31:21) "And Elazar the would not say to Elazar: "In your
Cohein said to the men of the host teacher's lifetime you did not speak.
who came to the war: This is the Why are you speaking now?" "which
statute of the Torah which the L-rd the L-rd commanded Moses": He said
commanded Moses": It had been the thing in the name of its sayer.
forgotten by Moses, our teacher. And thus is it written (Esther 2:22)
Because he had succumbed to "And Esther said to the king in the
anger, he succumbed to name of Mordecai."
forgetfulness. R. Elazar says: In three
places he succumbed to anger and Piska 158
he succumbed to error: (Vayikra
10:16-17) "and he was wroth with (Bamidbar 31:22) "Only the gold and
Elazar and Ithamar, the remaining the silver": You say (finished) vessels.
sons of Aaron, saying: Why did you But perhaps (the verse is speaking
not eat the sin-ofering in the holy of) golmim (unfinished,
place?" (Bamidbar 20:10) "And he undiferentiated metal forms)? It
said to them: Listen, now, you follows (otherwise), viz.: The dead of
fractious ones! Shall we bring forth Israel cause uncleanliness, and the
water for you from this rock!" slain of Midian cause uncleanliness.
followed by (11) "And Moses lifted his Just as with the dead of Israel
hand and smote the rock with his (finished) vessels contract
staf twice." Here, too, (Ibid. 31:14) uncleanliness, and not golmim, so,
"And Moses was wroth with the with the slain of Midian. R. Yossi
commanders of the host, the officers Haglili says; (The verse speaks of
of the thousands and the officers of finished) vessels. You say vessels,
the hundreds, who came from the but perhaps golmim? It is, therefore,
host of battle" followed by "And written "Only," to distinguish
Elazar the Cohein said to the men of (between the two.)
the host who came to the war, etc." (Bamidbar 31:23) "Every thing that
Moses, our teacher, because he had comes into the fire shall you pass
succumbed to anger, succumbed to through the fire": Knives, spits, and
forgetfulness. Others say: Moses grills are whitened in fire. Pots, stew-

263
pots, and kettles and boilers are to (Bamidbar 35:9-10) "And the L-rd
be boiled against absorption of spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the
idolatrous elements. "And every children of Israel When you cross
thing that does not come into the the Jordan, etc.": What is the intent
fire": such as spears, cups and flasks, of this section (on the cities of
are rinsed and immersed. And refuge)? From (Devarim 4:41) "Then
whence is (the need for) immersion Moses set aside three cities on the
(derived)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If east side of the Jordan," we know
what does not require sprinkling only of these. Whence is it derived
(with the waters of the red heifer) that Moses commanded Joshua to set
requires immersion, how much more aside cities of refuge (on the other
so that which requires sprinkling! side)? From (Bamidbar 35:11) "then
(Bamidbar 31:24) "And you shall you shall designate cities for
wash your garments on the seventh yourselves." Scripture speaks of (the
day and you shall be clean": What is time) after inheritance and
the intent of this? Since we are settlement. But perhaps, upon
speaking of one slain by the sword, their entry to the land? It is,
Scripture comes to teach us that the therefore, written (Devarim 12:29)
sword and one who touches it is "When the L-rd your G-d has cut
tamei for seven days. Whence do we down the nations, etc." Scripture
derive (the same for transfer of speaks of (the time after inheritance
tumah from) vessels (i.e., and settlement). (Bamidbar 35:10)
appurtenances) to man to vessels "When you cross the Jordan to the
(appurtenances)? From "And you land of Canaan": From here R.
shall wash your garments." "and Yonathan derived: The Jordan is not
then you shall come to the camp." part of the land of Canaan. R. Shimon
Just as here, (without washing of b. Yochai says (Ibid. 26:3) "at the
garments and sprinkling) he is Jordan. Jericho": Just as Jericho is part
forbidden to enter the camp (of the of Canaan, so is Jordan. (Ibid. 35:11)
Shechinah), so, there (vis--vis the "Then you shall call out cities (arim)
red heifer, Vayikra 19:19) he is for yourselves." "Calling out"
forbidden to enter the camp; and just connotes "designation." "cities": I
as there, until the evening, so, here, might think, large cities; it is,
until the evening. therefore, written "arim" (connoting

264
small cities). If so, I might think
villages. It is, therefore, written
"arim." How was this implemented in
efect? 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.
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.
Piska 159
Piska 160
(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
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.)
It is, (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 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
265
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
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
(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 aford
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,
I 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
for 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,
266
whereby he can die, he strike him he can die, he strike him, and he die,
and he die, he is a murderer. Die he is a murderer." What is the intent
shall die the murderer.": What is the of this? From (Shemot 21:20) "And if
intent of this? From (Shemot 21:18) a man strike his (Canaanite) man-
"And if men quarrel and a man strike servant or maid-servant with a rod,
his neighbor, etc." I might think (that and he die under his hand,
this obtains) whether he strikes him vengeance (by the sword) shall be
with something which is or which is taken," I might think, whether or not
not lethal. It is, therefore, written it is of killing potential. It is,
"And if with a hand-stone (i.e., one therefore, written "Or if with a
which fills the hand), whereby he can wooden hand-implement, whereby
die, he strike him." Scripture hereby he can die, he strike him, etc."
apprises us that he is not liable only if it is of killing potential. I might
unless he strikes him with something think, even on a (body) site injury to
which is potentially lethal. I might which does not result in death. It is,
think, even (if he strike him) on a therefore, written (Devarim 19:11)
(body) site (a blow to) which is not "And if a man hate his neighbor and
mortal. It is, therefore, written lie in wait for him, and he rise up
(Devarim 19:11) "And if a man hate against him and he strike him
his neighbor and he strike him mortally," Scripture hereby apprising
mortally" whereby we are apprised us that he is not liable unless he
that he is not liable unless he strikes strikes him on a (body) site injury to
him with something which is which may result in death. This ("Or,
potentially lethal and on a (body) if with a wooden implement") tells
site, injury to which may result in his me that he is liable only if he struck
death. This ("And if with a hand- him with wood. Whence do I derive
stone") tells me that he is liable only (the same for) his throwing beams or
if he kills him with a stone. Whence poles at him? From "he is a murderer
do I derive (the same for) his rolling die shall die the murderer" in
rocks or pillars over him? From (17) any event.
"he is a murderer die shall die the (Bamidbar 35:19) "the avenger, he
murderer" in any event. shall kill the murderer": The mitzvah
(Bamidbar 35:18) "Or if with a is the avenger's. Whence is it derived
wooden hand-implement, whereby that if he has no avenger, beth-din

267
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
of 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
268
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
stringency to be his lenity, and his
lenity, his stringency, viz.:
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
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
his superfluous] (Ibid.) "according to
these judgments." This tells me only
You 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,"
in 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
269
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
270
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
271
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 that the spilling of blood defiles the
been consummated, he (i.e., one land and removes the Shechinah.
who kills him) is liable. Once his And because of the spilling of blood
verdict has been consummated, he is the Temple was destroyed.
not liable. Once, the Cohanim of equal station
(Bamidbar 35:32) "And you shall not were running up the ramp (to
take ransom for one who fled to the perform the sacrifice), when one of
city of his refuge, etc.": If one killed them caught up with the other in his
unwittingly, I might think that if he four ells, took his knife, and thrust it
gave money (i.e., "ransom"), he into his heart. R. Tzaddok ascended
would not be exiled. It is, therefore, the steps of the Temple hall and said:
written "And you shall not take It is written (Devarim 21:1) "If there
ransom for one who has fled, etc." be found a slain one on the earth,
(Bamidbar 35:33) "Velo tachanifu etc." Come and let us measure for
the land": This is an exhortation whom it is incumbent to bring the
against flatterers ("chanafim"). heifer (of the broken neck) the
Variantly: Do not cause the land to Temple or the azarah (the Temple
"flatter" you (i.e., not to produce court) whereupon all of the people
fruit). "ki hadam hu yachanif eth burst into tears. After that the father
ha'aretz": Rabbi Yoshiyah interpreted of the young Cohein came and said
this acronymically, viz.: "ki hadam hu to them: "My brothers, let him be
yachon af ba'aretz" ("for the blood your atonement. My son is still
will repose wrath upon the land." palpitating and the (sacrificial) knife
"and the land will not have has not become unclean" whereby
atonement." What is the intent of we are taught that the defilement of
this? Because it is written (Devarim knives was of more moment to them
21:4) "and they shall break there the than the spilling of blood. And thus is
neck of the heifer in the river-bed," I it written (II Kings 21:16) "And
might think that if its neck were Menasheh also shed very much
broken and afterwards the murderer innocent blood until it filled
were found, it would efect Jerusalem from mouth to mouth."
atonement. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 35:34) "in whose
"and the land will not have midst I dwell": Beloved are Israel, for
atonement." We are hereby taught even when they are tamei the

272
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
273
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."