Halakhah zu Bamidbar 11:36

And you knew that there are many other particulars in the laws of netilah, such as water that has dripped from an animal drinking, and water which is salted, and with water that a baker rinses his hands in, and two that have taken from a fourth, and with one of one’s hands rinsing, the other taken up to wash which they call in the Talmud, Massakhet Gittin “clean hands,” and if one is permitted to accept water from a gentile or from a menstruating woman, since there are those who have written that water is not accepted from a foreigner, and so on in many other things like this. And it is the rule with the laws of “ha-motzi’”, and likewise the rest of the blessings we are going to discuss, and other blessings of the table, for which there are many other particulars that I have omitted and not written about, for if I had decided to write about these particulars, the book would have been too long. For it is my intention to speak only briefly about generally known rules. Those in the know will know the particulars that go with them.

A second blessing “Ha-motzi’ lehem min ha-aretz” is from the words of the scribes, which they derived a fortiori: “If one who has satisfied his hunger says a blessing, how much the more so ought one when he is hungry say a blessing.”⁵⁸B. Berakhot 35a. The explanation is that when one has satisfied his hunger and has already enjoyed the holy things of Heaven, which until he has said a blessing are prohibited to him as if they were hekdesh, how much the more so when he is hungry and about to enjoy the holy things of Heaven ought he say a blessing before eating them, so as not to be penalized with having to make a sacrilege offering (korban me’ilah).⁵⁹That is, the offering required for someone who has “stolen” the sacred food set aside for the priests. You would think that one should say “min ha-adamah” – “from the ground” in this blessing, but it gets the expression from Scripture: “le-hotzi’ lehem min ha-‘aretz.”⁶⁰Ps. 104:14: “to get food out of the earth.” Though ‘adamah and ‘eretz can both mean “earth,” ‘adamah is the term more commonly used when speaking about harvesting food grown in a field. And if you take issue with the precise meaning of the expression “lehem” – “bread,” you will find that it means food in general, as in “he [King Belshazzar] gave a great banquet [lehem],⁶¹Daniel 5:1 (JSB) translating the Aramaic “’avad lehem rav.” since the bread itself is not what comes forth from the earth, but rather the produce from which they make bread. And so you will find with the manna: “I will rain down bread [lehem] for you from the sky.”⁶²Ex. 16:4. It is well known that bread did not come down from the sky, but the manna out of which they made bread,” as it is said, “they would make it into cakes.”⁶³Nu. 11:8.

And thus one needs to say words of Torah over the table, because even though one has said all the blessings he is required to say, and will eventually conclude with birkat ha-mazon, saying birkat ha-mazon will not exempt him from his requirement unless he speaks words of Torah. And so our rabbis said: “Every table over which they ate and said words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the table of God [Makom], as it is said, ‘He said to me, This is the table before the Lord,’”¹³⁹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Ez 41:22. that is to say, when they spoke over it words of Torah, then “this table is before the Lord.”¹⁴⁰Ez. 41:22. “And every table over which they ate and did not say over it words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead. As it is said, ‘For all tables were full of vomit, no place [bli Makom] without excrement,”¹⁴¹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Is 28:8. that is to say, the words of Makom, i.e., God, are not mentioned there.¹⁴²R. Bahya, following M. Avot’s midrashic interpretation, also creatively attributes the use of the later rabbinic term for God – Ha-Makom – “The Place” to Isaiah’s Biblical Hebrew “bli makom,” i.e., “without God.” And all this is to instruct you that humankind [adam] was not created for eating and drink, but rather to engage in Torah. For this is what Scripture meant when it said, “for man [adam] was born for toil [‘amal].”¹⁴³Job 5:7. Our sages interpreted this in a midrash:¹⁴⁴B. Sanhedrin 99b. “’For man was born for toil’ – I don’t know if this is toil by mouth, or if it’s toiling in the Torah. When Scripture says, “The appetite of a toiler [‘amel] toils [‘amlah] for him, because his mouth craves it,”¹⁴⁵Prov 16:26. toil by the mouth is being spoken about. But this is exactly how I fulfill “For man was born for toil” when it refers to toiling in Torah, so I say it means “for toiling in Torah he was born.”¹⁴⁶In other words, R. Bahya has it both ways, since you use your mouth to “toil in Torah,” that is, by speaking words of Torah. And so they said in another midrash: Just as in the Creation, He created domestic and wild animals, birds, reptiles and swarming things, and after that created Adam, as it is said, “And God created Adam in his image,”¹⁴⁷Gen 1:27. so it was written in the Torah “This you shall eat” and “this you shall not eat,”¹⁴⁸Lev 11:9,4. and after that Adam was born. This is why Scripture connects this parashah (“Shemini”) with the next one that begins “When a woman at childbirth bears a male,”¹⁴⁹Lev 12:2. to say it is for toil in Torah he was born. And thus right after that it is written, “On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,”¹⁵⁰Ibid. 12:3. teaching that even before he was formed the Torah and commandments encircled him, and afterwards he was born. This is what it meant when it said, “When a woman at childbirth bears a male”¹⁵¹Lev 12:2. – that The Holy One Blessed be He imposed commandments before him and after him, and he is in the middle.¹⁵²In other words, even the syntax of the vv. 12:2-3 in Leviticus “sandwiches” the birth of a man between two commandments, one directed to his mother giving birth to him, the second, after he’s born, that he himself be circumcised. In other words, the man’s birth is literally surrounded by Torah and commandments. Circumscribed (and circumcised) by the Torah from his birth – of course that “proves” that’s what he was born for!This is what it meant when it said, “For man was born for toil”¹⁵³Job 5:7.– that for toil in Torah he was born.

Rav Hisda said, “if someone has eaten meat, he is forbidden to eat cheese, but if he ate cheese first, he is permitted to eat meat,¹⁶⁸Ibid., 105a. and Rav Hisda’s view is the accepted view.¹⁶⁹So the Tur and Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 89. But surely he said, “He is forbidden to eat cheese until another meal.” Indeed, for a whole day is a more stringent practice, and thus it was when Mar Ukba’s practice was to wait only until the next meal. For Mar Ukba said, “I am in this matter like ‘Hametz the son of Wine,’ for if my father would eat meat he was fastidious and wouldn’t eat cheese till the same time the next day. But while I won’t eat it at the same meal, I’ll eat it at the next meal.¹⁷⁰B. Hullin 105a. And the custom of Mar Ukba’s father to wait for a whole day is extra stringent, so accordingly we follow Mar Ukba’s practice, even though he said, “I am in this matter like Hametz the son of Wine.” And so it is our practice to wait just until the next meal. Hence, it is not sufficient just to wipe one’s mouth or to wash one’s hands, since meat is not digested after the first meal for at least six hours, and meat caught in between the teeth is still meat, as it is said, “The meat was still between their teeth.”¹⁷¹Nu 11:33, a reference to the quail meat God over-fed the Israelites in response to their complaining in the desert. But if one eats cheese, he is permitted to eat meat without any delay at all. He only has to wipe his mouth whether it’s day or night, and wash his hands if it’s at night, but not if it’s during the day, nor does it make a difference whether it’s game or meat from a domesticated animal.¹⁷²An so also the Tur and Shulhan Arukh Y.D. 89:1. Poultry and cheese are eaten “like an epicurean,”¹⁷³B. Hullin 104b, which Rashi explains to mean “without any qualms,” as libertines eat. which I found in the explanation of the Arukh to mean without wiping one’s mouth or washing their hands whether in the day or in the night.¹⁷⁴Sefer Ha-Arukh, the Dictionary of R. Natan ben Yehiel of Rome (11th century). The reason given was that mayim ahronim are an obligation, because a person eats salt after his meal, which contains Sodomite salt that blinds the eyes, even one grain in a kor of regular salt,¹⁷⁵Sodomite salt – salt from the Dead Sea. Potent stuff. Even in a mixture of one grain to a kor (about 530 liters) of regular salt would blind you ! It was customary to eat a little salt for “dessert,” presumably to “kill” anything potentially harmful in the food one has just eaten. See Rabbi Levi Cooper, “World of Our Sages: Salty Hands,” <http: www.pardes.org.il="" weekly-talmud="" 2009-02-12.php="">. though no blessing is required, except for someone who is saying a blessing over washing dirty hands. For just as a polluted priest was unfit for the Temple service, someone whose hands are polluted is unfit to say a blessing. What does it mean to be “polluted”? Anything that is not fit to be brought near the altar, such as an animal or birds, but whatever is fit does not require washing, since it isn’t something that’s polluted. However, there are some among the great teachers who are of the opinion that anything can be polluted.

The laws of the commandment - for example, interrogating [those who offer] testimony concerning the new month; instilling fear in the witnesses on occasion; the law concerning circumstances under which the Shabbat may be desecrated for this testimony; for what [considerations] we do or do not intercalate; which month they would intercalate, i.e. Adar, as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded, "'You shall observe this commandment in its proper time' (Exodus 13:10), this teaches that we only intercalate at the time near the holiday"; and they, may their memory be blessed, further expounded on this verse, "From where do we know that we only intercalate the month during daytime? [We learn this from the] verse, [which] states, 'from year to year' (yamim yemima, literally from day to day) (Sanhedrin 10b); and they, may their memory be blessed, further expounded, "'For the months of the year' (Exodus 12:2) - it is months you calculate towards the year, not days" (Megillah 5a); furthermore did they say on this matter, "'A month of days' (Numbers 11:20), it is days you calculate towards the month, not hours" (Megillah 5a); and the rest of its details - are [all] elucidated in Tractate Rosh Hashanah, and in the first chapter of Sanhedrin, and similarly in Berakhot (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sanctification of the New Month 1).

Jewish law provides for the application of criminal sanctions only upon the testimony of two qualified eyewitnesses and a guilty verdict rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction composed of adherents to Judaism and established in conformity with the relevant provisions of the statutes governing judicial bodies. Prior admonition as well as a court composed of twenty-three "ordained" judges are necessary conditions for imposition of either capital or corporal punishment. The "ordination" required is a form of licensure originating in the designation of elders by Moses as recorded in Numbers 11:24. These elders, in turn, transmitted this authority to their successors. That authority was then passed on from generation to generation in an unbroken chain of transmission over a span of centuries until it was forcibly interrupted during the period of Roman oppression subsequent to the destruction of the Second Commonwealth. The result is that, at present, there are no individuals qualified to sit on such courts and hence, as a practical matter, Jewish penal law no longer regards existing rabbinic courts as competent to impose either capital or corporal punishment.

Despite the fact that it was permitted to humans to eat meat, one should be very careful with the desire that is connected to the eating of meat, which tends to make a person go after brutishness and sin. And so we find that the desire to eat meat caused Israel to sin, as it is written (Numbers 11:4) "Now the riffraff among them craved a craving and moreover the Children of Israel wept again and said: Who will give us meat to eat?" And Moshe our teacher complained to Hashem: "From where should I [get] meat to give to this entire people, when they weep on me, saying: Give us meat so that we may eat! I am not able, I alone, to carry this entire people, for it is too heavy for me!" (Numbers 11:13-14). And so Moshe was commanded to answer Israel that their punishment was going to come in the fulfillment of their request: "for a monthful of days, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes for you something-disgusting because you have spurned Hashem who is among you, by weeping before him, saying: Why, now, did we leave Egypt?" (Numbers 11:20) " and a rush-of-wind moved from Hashem and swept in quails from the sea... the people arose all that day and all night, and all the morrow day and gathered the quail; the least gathered ten homers [a large measure, some say a homer is 30 gallons] and they slaughtered all around the camp. The meat was still between their teeth, not yet completely chewed, when the anger of Hashem flared up among the people, and Hashem struck down among the people an exceedingly great striking. So they called the name of that place: Kivrot Ha-Taava/ Burial-Places of the Craving, for there they buried the people who had-the-craving"(Numbers 11:31-34). From this we learned for the generations how severe and dangerous the exaggerated desire to eat meat is, that it extinguished the light of the soul and kills the body.

Despite the fact that it was permitted to humans to eat meat, one should be very careful with the desire that is connected to the eating of meat, which tends to make a person go after brutishness and sin. And so we find that the desire to eat meat caused Israel to sin, as it is written (Numbers 11:4) "Now the riffraff among them craved a craving and moreover the Children of Israel wept again and said: Who will give us meat to eat?" And Moshe our teacher complained to Hashem: "From where should I [get] meat to give to this entire people, when they weep on me, saying: Give us meat so that we may eat! I am not able, I alone, to carry this entire people, for it is too heavy for me!" (Numbers 11:13-14). And so Moshe was commanded to answer Israel that their punishment was going to come in the fulfillment of their request: "for a monthful of days, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes for you something-disgusting because you have spurned Hashem who is among you, by weeping before him, saying: Why, now, did we leave Egypt?" (Numbers 11:20) " and a rush-of-wind moved from Hashem and swept in quails from the sea... the people arose all that day and all night, and all the morrow day and gathered the quail; the least gathered ten homers [a large measure, some say a homer is 30 gallons] and they slaughtered all around the camp. The meat was still between their teeth, not yet completely chewed, when the anger of Hashem flared up among the people, and Hashem struck down among the people an exceedingly great striking. So they called the name of that place: Kivrot Ha-Taava/ Burial-Places of the Craving, for there they buried the people who had-the-craving"(Numbers 11:31-34). From this we learned for the generations how severe and dangerous the exaggerated desire to eat meat is, that it extinguished the light of the soul and kills the body.

Despite the fact that it was permitted to humans to eat meat, one should be very careful with the desire that is connected to the eating of meat, which tends to make a person go after brutishness and sin. And so we find that the desire to eat meat caused Israel to sin, as it is written (Numbers 11:4) "Now the riffraff among them craved a craving and moreover the Children of Israel wept again and said: Who will give us meat to eat?" And Moshe our teacher complained to Hashem: "From where should I [get] meat to give to this entire people, when they weep on me, saying: Give us meat so that we may eat! I am not able, I alone, to carry this entire people, for it is too heavy for me!" (Numbers 11:13-14). And so Moshe was commanded to answer Israel that their punishment was going to come in the fulfillment of their request: "for a monthful of days, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes for you something-disgusting because you have spurned Hashem who is among you, by weeping before him, saying: Why, now, did we leave Egypt?" (Numbers 11:20) " and a rush-of-wind moved from Hashem and swept in quails from the sea... the people arose all that day and all night, and all the morrow day and gathered the quail; the least gathered ten homers [a large measure, some say a homer is 30 gallons] and they slaughtered all around the camp. The meat was still between their teeth, not yet completely chewed, when the anger of Hashem flared up among the people, and Hashem struck down among the people an exceedingly great striking. So they called the name of that place: Kivrot Ha-Taava/ Burial-Places of the Craving, for there they buried the people who had-the-craving"(Numbers 11:31-34). From this we learned for the generations how severe and dangerous the exaggerated desire to eat meat is, that it extinguished the light of the soul and kills the body.

Despite the fact that it was permitted to humans to eat meat, one should be very careful with the desire that is connected to the eating of meat, which tends to make a person go after brutishness and sin. And so we find that the desire to eat meat caused Israel to sin, as it is written (Numbers 11:4) "Now the riffraff among them craved a craving and moreover the Children of Israel wept again and said: Who will give us meat to eat?" And Moshe our teacher complained to Hashem: "From where should I [get] meat to give to this entire people, when they weep on me, saying: Give us meat so that we may eat! I am not able, I alone, to carry this entire people, for it is too heavy for me!" (Numbers 11:13-14). And so Moshe was commanded to answer Israel that their punishment was going to come in the fulfillment of their request: "for a monthful of days, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes for you something-disgusting because you have spurned Hashem who is among you, by weeping before him, saying: Why, now, did we leave Egypt?" (Numbers 11:20) " and a rush-of-wind moved from Hashem and swept in quails from the sea... the people arose all that day and all night, and all the morrow day and gathered the quail; the least gathered ten homers [a large measure, some say a homer is 30 gallons] and they slaughtered all around the camp. The meat was still between their teeth, not yet completely chewed, when the anger of Hashem flared up among the people, and Hashem struck down among the people an exceedingly great striking. So they called the name of that place: Kivrot Ha-Taava/ Burial-Places of the Craving, for there they buried the people who had-the-craving"(Numbers 11:31-34). From this we learned for the generations how severe and dangerous the exaggerated desire to eat meat is, that it extinguished the light of the soul and kills the body.

With the destruction of the Temple, the statutory death penalty lapsed entirely. In establishing this rule the Gemara, Sanhedrin 52b, cites the biblical passage, "And you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God shall choose. And you shall come unto the priests, the Levites and the judges who shall be in those days …" (Deuteronomy 17:8-9). Judicial authority was vested in the courts, not in the priests and Levites. Reference to priests and Levites in this context is therefore incongruous. The Gemara declares that the juxtaposition of the terms "priests and Levites" with "judges" serves to teach that judges may impose the death penalty only during such periods as the priest performs his priestly functions in conjunction with the sacrificial rituals. The concluding phrase, "and go up to the place which the Lord your God shall choose," serves to establish a second condition, viz., that such penalty may be imposed by the courts only when the Great Sanhedrin sits in "the place which the Lord your God shall choose," i.e., within the precincts of the Temple.¹Citing these considerations, Rabbi Isaac ha-Levi Herzog, Yavneh, Vol. III, no. 1 (Nisan 5709), p. 10, expressed opposition to introduction of capital punishment in the State of Israel. Rambam, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 14:11, codifies both requirements in ruling that the death sentence may not be imposed in the absence of either of these two conditions.²Another impediment to imposition of capital punishment is a lack of qualified judges. In order to sit in judgment in capital cases, as well as in some areas of jurisprudence involving imposition of fines, the judges must be recipients of semikhah or ordination conferred upon them for this purpose. Semikhah was transmitted by the ordainor to the ordainee in an unbroken line of succession having its origin in the appointment by Moses of the seventy elders; see Numbers 11:16-17, 24-25 and Rambam, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:1. This chain of transmission was interrupted in the middle of the fourth century as a result of persecution; see Ramban in his gloss to Rambam’s Sefer ha-Miẓvot, miẓvot aseh, no. 153. An attempt to restore the institution of semikhah was made in Safed in 1538 by R. Jacob Berab. This scholar predicated his action upon a ruling of Rambam, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:11, to the effect that all the sages residing in Ereẓ Yisra’el even though they themselves lack semikhah, may nevertheless collectively confer ordination and any person so ordained is thereupon privileged to ordain others. This action was bitterly opposed by R. Levi ben Jacob ibn Habib, who, at the time, was the foremost scholar of Jerusalem. The latter scholar composed a treatise entitled Kuntres ha-Semikhah (Venice, 1565) detailing the reasons for his opposition. As a result no further candidates were ordained and the institution of semikhah was allowed to lapse. For a discussion of this controversy see Jacob Katz, “The Ordination Controversy between R. Jacob Berab and R. Levi b. Habib,” Ẓion, XVI (1951), 28-45. A comprehensive list of articles written in recent years dealing with the question of semikhah in conjunction with the issue of reinstitution of the Sanhedrin appears in Nahum Rakover’s Oẓar Mishpat (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 161-163.

(Chet) [Yet] I saw ‘difficult visions’: Behold, it is written in Parashat Behaalotecha (Num. 11:35-12:1), “Then the people set out from Kivrot-Hataavah to Hatserot and were in Hatserot. Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe because of the Cushite woman he had married.” And Tosafot on Yevamot 62a (s. v. dekhtiv emor lehem) asked why it is that they waited a long time after the giving of the Torah to speak about Moshe (since their problem was that he had separated from his wife earlier, from when the Torah was given). And they answered that – according to that which is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi³¹The common text of Tosafot has the citation as Sifrei and presumably refers to the account in Sifrei Zuta 12:1. – the seventy elders were chosen at Kivrot-Hataavah. And [at that time] Miriam said to Tsipporah, “Happy are the wives of these [men] that were chosen for greatness.” Tsipporah [however answered], “Woe to them, as behold my husband Moshe separated from me from the day that the Holy One, blessed be He, started speaking to him.” And then the matter became known to them. See there. And it appears [that this is connected to] that which we find there (Num. 11:4-7) that “they desired a desire […] and they said, ‘Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, etc. Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna in our eyes.’ And the manna was like coriander seed, and in color it was like bdellium.” And Rashi (Rashi on Numbers 11:7) explained, “He who said that (i.e. the previous verse) did not say this […]; but rather [it is] the Holy One, blessed be He, who had, ‘And the manna was like coriander seed,’ written in the Torah (even though no one said it).” And it is [further] written (Num. 11:10), “And Moshe heard the people weeping, each family apart, each person at the entrance of his tent.” And Rashi (on this verse) explained [that] “each family apart”³²Le’mishpechoteichem, which can also be read as, for their families. [means], “because of family affairs – because of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them.” See there. And that is astonishing; as what does the quarrel of the manna have to do with matters of sexual prohibitions? And it appears that it can be explained according to what the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said about that which is found in the Gemara (Shabbat 88a), “‘And they stood at the lowermost part of the mountain’³³Be’tachtit haHar, which can also be read as, in the lowermost part of the mountain. (Exod. 19:17) – […] teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, overturned the mountain above [the Jews] like a tub, [and said to them], ‘If you accept the Torah, excellent; but if not, there will be your burial.’” And it was asked [that] behold, they already assented and said (Exod. 24:7), “We will do and hear!”³⁴While this is essentially the same question that he cites from the Midrash Tanchuma in Paragraph Zayin, he will now proceed to give a different answer. And it is written in Gur Aryeh³⁵Gur Aryeh on Exodus 19:17. that it is not possible for the Torah to be received by choice – that they would accept it if they wanted to, and not accept it if they did not want to – but rather the Holy One, blessed be He, is showing them that the Torah is imperative for them (that it had to be accepted by them). And something imperative exists permanently; as it is found in the Midrash, that concerning a [woman] forced [to have sexual relations], it is written (Deut. 22:19), “he may not send her away all of his days.”³⁶This midrash is unknown. See Yehoshua Hartman’s edition of Gur Aryeh ad loc., Note 273; and M. Kasher’s Torah Shelemah ad loc., Note 224. See there. And behold we have found that they desired a desire; meaning that they did not have any physical desire and – as is written by (Rabbi Moshe) Alshekh (on Num. 11:4) – they desired that they would have desire. See there. And according to what I have written, the reason is that on account of the manna – that was from the minister of the Torah, and was the bread of mighty ones – all of their wish and yearning was only for Torah. And ‘their souls were dry’ and empty from all physical desire. And [so] they desired desire, such that the receiving of the Torah could be of their wish and wanting, like [when] they said, “We will do and hear” – as no one wishes forced love. Therefore they quarreled about the manna and its forcing the love of Torah [upon them]. And [when] they said, “We remember the fish that we used to eat free (chinam) in Egypt,” its explanation is [that it was] without force, but rather that [it was that] which we chose and which appealed to us. As this is the understanding of the word chinam, as is elucidated in Radak’s³⁷R. David Kimchi (Provence, 1160-1235) was a Biblical commentator and grammarian. Book of Roots under the root, chanan (graced). [And the meaning of] “Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna,” is that we were forced, and we want that the choice be in our hands. However we would also eat the manna by choice. As if the manna were not ‘good to eat and appealing to the sight,’ we would have needed force; but in fact, “the manna was like coriander seed and in color it was like bdellium,” and we would certainly eat of it.³⁸In this way, one no longer has to resort to Rashi’s answer that this phrase was added by God to the quote of the people which accordingly ended abruptly. However all of the desires would [then] not be removed from us and the receiving of the Torah would be with wanting and choice – as [when] they said, “We shall hear and do.”

(Chet) [Yet] I saw ‘difficult visions’: Behold, it is written in Parashat Behaalotecha (Num. 11:35-12:1), “Then the people set out from Kivrot-Hataavah to Hatserot and were in Hatserot. Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe because of the Cushite woman he had married.” And Tosafot on Yevamot 62a (s. v. dekhtiv emor lehem) asked why it is that they waited a long time after the giving of the Torah to speak about Moshe (since their problem was that he had separated from his wife earlier, from when the Torah was given). And they answered that – according to that which is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi³¹The common text of Tosafot has the citation as Sifrei and presumably refers to the account in Sifrei Zuta 12:1. – the seventy elders were chosen at Kivrot-Hataavah. And [at that time] Miriam said to Tsipporah, “Happy are the wives of these [men] that were chosen for greatness.” Tsipporah [however answered], “Woe to them, as behold my husband Moshe separated from me from the day that the Holy One, blessed be He, started speaking to him.” And then the matter became known to them. See there. And it appears [that this is connected to] that which we find there (Num. 11:4-7) that “they desired a desire […] and they said, ‘Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, etc. Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna in our eyes.’ And the manna was like coriander seed, and in color it was like bdellium.” And Rashi (Rashi on Numbers 11:7) explained, “He who said that (i.e. the previous verse) did not say this […]; but rather [it is] the Holy One, blessed be He, who had, ‘And the manna was like coriander seed,’ written in the Torah (even though no one said it).” And it is [further] written (Num. 11:10), “And Moshe heard the people weeping, each family apart, each person at the entrance of his tent.” And Rashi (on this verse) explained [that] “each family apart”³²Le’mishpechoteichem, which can also be read as, for their families. [means], “because of family affairs – because of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them.” See there. And that is astonishing; as what does the quarrel of the manna have to do with matters of sexual prohibitions? And it appears that it can be explained according to what the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said about that which is found in the Gemara (Shabbat 88a), “‘And they stood at the lowermost part of the mountain’³³Be’tachtit haHar, which can also be read as, in the lowermost part of the mountain. (Exod. 19:17) – […] teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, overturned the mountain above [the Jews] like a tub, [and said to them], ‘If you accept the Torah, excellent; but if not, there will be your burial.’” And it was asked [that] behold, they already assented and said (Exod. 24:7), “We will do and hear!”³⁴While this is essentially the same question that he cites from the Midrash Tanchuma in Paragraph Zayin, he will now proceed to give a different answer. And it is written in Gur Aryeh³⁵Gur Aryeh on Exodus 19:17. that it is not possible for the Torah to be received by choice – that they would accept it if they wanted to, and not accept it if they did not want to – but rather the Holy One, blessed be He, is showing them that the Torah is imperative for them (that it had to be accepted by them). And something imperative exists permanently; as it is found in the Midrash, that concerning a [woman] forced [to have sexual relations], it is written (Deut. 22:19), “he may not send her away all of his days.”³⁶This midrash is unknown. See Yehoshua Hartman’s edition of Gur Aryeh ad loc., Note 273; and M. Kasher’s Torah Shelemah ad loc., Note 224. See there. And behold we have found that they desired a desire; meaning that they did not have any physical desire and – as is written by (Rabbi Moshe) Alshekh (on Num. 11:4) – they desired that they would have desire. See there. And according to what I have written, the reason is that on account of the manna – that was from the minister of the Torah, and was the bread of mighty ones – all of their wish and yearning was only for Torah. And ‘their souls were dry’ and empty from all physical desire. And [so] they desired desire, such that the receiving of the Torah could be of their wish and wanting, like [when] they said, “We will do and hear” – as no one wishes forced love. Therefore they quarreled about the manna and its forcing the love of Torah [upon them]. And [when] they said, “We remember the fish that we used to eat free (chinam) in Egypt,” its explanation is [that it was] without force, but rather that [it was that] which we chose and which appealed to us. As this is the understanding of the word chinam, as is elucidated in Radak’s³⁷R. David Kimchi (Provence, 1160-1235) was a Biblical commentator and grammarian. Book of Roots under the root, chanan (graced). [And the meaning of] “Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna,” is that we were forced, and we want that the choice be in our hands. However we would also eat the manna by choice. As if the manna were not ‘good to eat and appealing to the sight,’ we would have needed force; but in fact, “the manna was like coriander seed and in color it was like bdellium,” and we would certainly eat of it.³⁸In this way, one no longer has to resort to Rashi’s answer that this phrase was added by God to the quote of the people which accordingly ended abruptly. However all of the desires would [then] not be removed from us and the receiving of the Torah would be with wanting and choice – as [when] they said, “We shall hear and do.”

(Chet) [Yet] I saw ‘difficult visions’: Behold, it is written in Parashat Behaalotecha (Num. 11:35-12:1), “Then the people set out from Kivrot-Hataavah to Hatserot and were in Hatserot. Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe because of the Cushite woman he had married.” And Tosafot on Yevamot 62a (s. v. dekhtiv emor lehem) asked why it is that they waited a long time after the giving of the Torah to speak about Moshe (since their problem was that he had separated from his wife earlier, from when the Torah was given). And they answered that – according to that which is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi³¹The common text of Tosafot has the citation as Sifrei and presumably refers to the account in Sifrei Zuta 12:1. – the seventy elders were chosen at Kivrot-Hataavah. And [at that time] Miriam said to Tsipporah, “Happy are the wives of these [men] that were chosen for greatness.” Tsipporah [however answered], “Woe to them, as behold my husband Moshe separated from me from the day that the Holy One, blessed be He, started speaking to him.” And then the matter became known to them. See there. And it appears [that this is connected to] that which we find there (Num. 11:4-7) that “they desired a desire […] and they said, ‘Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, etc. Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna in our eyes.’ And the manna was like coriander seed, and in color it was like bdellium.” And Rashi (Rashi on Numbers 11:7) explained, “He who said that (i.e. the previous verse) did not say this […]; but rather [it is] the Holy One, blessed be He, who had, ‘And the manna was like coriander seed,’ written in the Torah (even though no one said it).” And it is [further] written (Num. 11:10), “And Moshe heard the people weeping, each family apart, each person at the entrance of his tent.” And Rashi (on this verse) explained [that] “each family apart”³²Le’mishpechoteichem, which can also be read as, for their families. [means], “because of family affairs – because of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them.” See there. And that is astonishing; as what does the quarrel of the manna have to do with matters of sexual prohibitions? And it appears that it can be explained according to what the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said about that which is found in the Gemara (Shabbat 88a), “‘And they stood at the lowermost part of the mountain’³³Be’tachtit haHar, which can also be read as, in the lowermost part of the mountain. (Exod. 19:17) – […] teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, overturned the mountain above [the Jews] like a tub, [and said to them], ‘If you accept the Torah, excellent; but if not, there will be your burial.’” And it was asked [that] behold, they already assented and said (Exod. 24:7), “We will do and hear!”³⁴While this is essentially the same question that he cites from the Midrash Tanchuma in Paragraph Zayin, he will now proceed to give a different answer. And it is written in Gur Aryeh³⁵Gur Aryeh on Exodus 19:17. that it is not possible for the Torah to be received by choice – that they would accept it if they wanted to, and not accept it if they did not want to – but rather the Holy One, blessed be He, is showing them that the Torah is imperative for them (that it had to be accepted by them). And something imperative exists permanently; as it is found in the Midrash, that concerning a [woman] forced [to have sexual relations], it is written (Deut. 22:19), “he may not send her away all of his days.”³⁶This midrash is unknown. See Yehoshua Hartman’s edition of Gur Aryeh ad loc., Note 273; and M. Kasher’s Torah Shelemah ad loc., Note 224. See there. And behold we have found that they desired a desire; meaning that they did not have any physical desire and – as is written by (Rabbi Moshe) Alshekh (on Num. 11:4) – they desired that they would have desire. See there. And according to what I have written, the reason is that on account of the manna – that was from the minister of the Torah, and was the bread of mighty ones – all of their wish and yearning was only for Torah. And ‘their souls were dry’ and empty from all physical desire. And [so] they desired desire, such that the receiving of the Torah could be of their wish and wanting, like [when] they said, “We will do and hear” – as no one wishes forced love. Therefore they quarreled about the manna and its forcing the love of Torah [upon them]. And [when] they said, “We remember the fish that we used to eat free (chinam) in Egypt,” its explanation is [that it was] without force, but rather that [it was that] which we chose and which appealed to us. As this is the understanding of the word chinam, as is elucidated in Radak’s³⁷R. David Kimchi (Provence, 1160-1235) was a Biblical commentator and grammarian. Book of Roots under the root, chanan (graced). [And the meaning of] “Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna,” is that we were forced, and we want that the choice be in our hands. However we would also eat the manna by choice. As if the manna were not ‘good to eat and appealing to the sight,’ we would have needed force; but in fact, “the manna was like coriander seed and in color it was like bdellium,” and we would certainly eat of it.³⁸In this way, one no longer has to resort to Rashi’s answer that this phrase was added by God to the quote of the people which accordingly ended abruptly. However all of the desires would [then] not be removed from us and the receiving of the Torah would be with wanting and choice – as [when] they said, “We shall hear and do.”

(Chet) [Yet] I saw ‘difficult visions’: Behold, it is written in Parashat Behaalotecha (Num. 11:35-12:1), “Then the people set out from Kivrot-Hataavah to Hatserot and were in Hatserot. Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe because of the Cushite woman he had married.” And Tosafot on Yevamot 62a (s. v. dekhtiv emor lehem) asked why it is that they waited a long time after the giving of the Torah to speak about Moshe (since their problem was that he had separated from his wife earlier, from when the Torah was given). And they answered that – according to that which is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi³¹The common text of Tosafot has the citation as Sifrei and presumably refers to the account in Sifrei Zuta 12:1. – the seventy elders were chosen at Kivrot-Hataavah. And [at that time] Miriam said to Tsipporah, “Happy are the wives of these [men] that were chosen for greatness.” Tsipporah [however answered], “Woe to them, as behold my husband Moshe separated from me from the day that the Holy One, blessed be He, started speaking to him.” And then the matter became known to them. See there. And it appears [that this is connected to] that which we find there (Num. 11:4-7) that “they desired a desire […] and they said, ‘Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, etc. Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna in our eyes.’ And the manna was like coriander seed, and in color it was like bdellium.” And Rashi (Rashi on Numbers 11:7) explained, “He who said that (i.e. the previous verse) did not say this […]; but rather [it is] the Holy One, blessed be He, who had, ‘And the manna was like coriander seed,’ written in the Torah (even though no one said it).” And it is [further] written (Num. 11:10), “And Moshe heard the people weeping, each family apart, each person at the entrance of his tent.” And Rashi (on this verse) explained [that] “each family apart”³²Le’mishpechoteichem, which can also be read as, for their families. [means], “because of family affairs – because of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them.” See there. And that is astonishing; as what does the quarrel of the manna have to do with matters of sexual prohibitions? And it appears that it can be explained according to what the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said about that which is found in the Gemara (Shabbat 88a), “‘And they stood at the lowermost part of the mountain’³³Be’tachtit haHar, which can also be read as, in the lowermost part of the mountain. (Exod. 19:17) – […] teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, overturned the mountain above [the Jews] like a tub, [and said to them], ‘If you accept the Torah, excellent; but if not, there will be your burial.’” And it was asked [that] behold, they already assented and said (Exod. 24:7), “We will do and hear!”³⁴While this is essentially the same question that he cites from the Midrash Tanchuma in Paragraph Zayin, he will now proceed to give a different answer. And it is written in Gur Aryeh³⁵Gur Aryeh on Exodus 19:17. that it is not possible for the Torah to be received by choice – that they would accept it if they wanted to, and not accept it if they did not want to – but rather the Holy One, blessed be He, is showing them that the Torah is imperative for them (that it had to be accepted by them). And something imperative exists permanently; as it is found in the Midrash, that concerning a [woman] forced [to have sexual relations], it is written (Deut. 22:19), “he may not send her away all of his days.”³⁶This midrash is unknown. See Yehoshua Hartman’s edition of Gur Aryeh ad loc., Note 273; and M. Kasher’s Torah Shelemah ad loc., Note 224. See there. And behold we have found that they desired a desire; meaning that they did not have any physical desire and – as is written by (Rabbi Moshe) Alshekh (on Num. 11:4) – they desired that they would have desire. See there. And according to what I have written, the reason is that on account of the manna – that was from the minister of the Torah, and was the bread of mighty ones – all of their wish and yearning was only for Torah. And ‘their souls were dry’ and empty from all physical desire. And [so] they desired desire, such that the receiving of the Torah could be of their wish and wanting, like [when] they said, “We will do and hear” – as no one wishes forced love. Therefore they quarreled about the manna and its forcing the love of Torah [upon them]. And [when] they said, “We remember the fish that we used to eat free (chinam) in Egypt,” its explanation is [that it was] without force, but rather that [it was that] which we chose and which appealed to us. As this is the understanding of the word chinam, as is elucidated in Radak’s³⁷R. David Kimchi (Provence, 1160-1235) was a Biblical commentator and grammarian. Book of Roots under the root, chanan (graced). [And the meaning of] “Now our souls are dry; there is nothing at all but this manna,” is that we were forced, and we want that the choice be in our hands. However we would also eat the manna by choice. As if the manna were not ‘good to eat and appealing to the sight,’ we would have needed force; but in fact, “the manna was like coriander seed and in color it was like bdellium,” and we would certainly eat of it.³⁸In this way, one no longer has to resort to Rashi’s answer that this phrase was added by God to the quote of the people which accordingly ended abruptly. However all of the desires would [then] not be removed from us and the receiving of the Torah would be with wanting and choice – as [when] they said, “We shall hear and do.”

(Tet) [But even] ‘before they called,’ their disgrace was revealed, as it is written, (Num. 11:10), “And [Moshe] heard the people weeping, each family apart” – meaning, about the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them. And behold in Gur Aryeh on Parashat Vayigash,³⁹Gur Aryeh on Genesis 46:10. [its author] asks that since Israel had the status of converts with the receiving of the Torah – as it is found in Yevamot 46a-46b, that they required circumcision, sprinkling and immersing like the law for converts – and it is established for us that a convert [may] marry his sister, since “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant”;⁴⁰Yevamot 22a. if so, it should have been appropriate to permit sexual relations between relatives in that generation. And he answers that we only say “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant” about a convert who converted on his own, from his own will – then he is as a newly born infant. But at the time of the giving of the Torah when they were forced to receive it – in that He overturned the mountain above them like a tub – they were accordingly not as a newly born infant. See there. Therefore “they cried for their families,” because of the affairs of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives], since the manna had forced them to accept the Torah [and not have the leniency of the convert in this regard] – as I wrote in Paragraph Chet. Hence they were forbidden with their relatives. However if it had not been by force – but rather from [their own] will and from [their] choice – they would have been permitted with their relatives, as we elucidated. Yet behold in Yevamot 62b, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree about a gentile who had children and [then] converted – as Rabbi Yochanan reasons that he fulfilled [the commandment of] “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), as behold he has children; whereas Resh Lakish reasons that “a convert who converts is like a newly born infant,” and he [still] needs to fulfill “Be fruitful and multiply.” And at first glance you could ask [the following] difficulty: [In] that which they say there in the Talmud (Yevamot 61b-62a) in the argument between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, the School of Shammai reasons [that the requirement is] two male [offspring], and the School of Hillel reasons [that it is] a male and a female. And the reason of the School of Shammai there is that they learn from Moshe, as he had two sons and [then] separated from [his] wife; whereas the School of Hillel learns from the creation of the world, “male and female” (Gen. 1:27). And [the Talmud asks], “Let the School of Hillel learn from Moshe”; and answers, “Moshe separated on his own [and was not commanded by God], and [only afterward] did the Holy One, blessed be He, agree with him.” See there. But if so, according to the School of Shammai that learns from Moshe – granted that he fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply” with two males; but behold, at the time of the giving of the Torah, they had the status of converts! And [though this is not a problem for Rabbi Yochanan], for Resh Lakish, [Moshe would still have] needed to fulfill “Be fruitful and multiply,” as he was like a newly born infant. However according to what is written in Gur Aryeh – that [when the conversion] is by force, the convert is not as a newly born infant – it is fine, even according to Resh Lakish. And with this, the question of Tosafot (at the beginning of Paragraph Chet) is resolved: As Aharon and Miriam did not speak against Moshe until after [they had been at] Kivrot-Hataavah; since before then, they had reasoned that [the principle of] “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant” [applied to them] – and [so Moshe] needed to fulfill, “Be fruitful and multiply,” even if he had sons from before. And if so, Moshe certainly would not have negated the commandment [by separating from his wife] on his own; and so it was the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded him. However when they saw that sexual prohibitions [with blood-relatives] were forbidden to them at Kivrot-Hataavah – and that is from the reason that a forced convert is not as a newly born infant, as it is written in Gur Aryeh; and Moshe [accordingly] fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply” with his earlier children – they found an opening to suspect [the correctness of his decision]. As he separated on his own, since he was not negating a commandment with this – as he fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply’ with [his] two sons, even according to the School of Hillel, who only add that it is even sufficient with one male and one female according to the opinion of the Talmud Yerushalmi Yevamot 6:6, 7c. And hence they quarreled (Num. 12:2), “Has He not spoken through us as well?” [This was] until the Holy One, blessed be He, answered them (Num. 12:8), “I speak to him mouth to mouth” – I agreed to his words.

(Yod) “The dust returns to the ground as it was; and the spirit returns to God Who bestowed it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7). And our teacher Rabbi Yitschak Arama (Spain, 15th century) wrote in Akeidat Yitschak:
[This] teaches us that the goal of man and his perfection is that that at the time of his end, his two components will completely split one from the other – each one for itself, without the one having any remnant of its companion, etc. However this which the wise one (Shlomo/Kohelet) said about their complete separation – to here and to there – is only accomplished in a [person] if he [has reached] the fullest good while he is alive, such that there not be any admixture in his soul and it not connect to physical traits and their lowliness to identify with them at all; and that he inclines to this, such that he makes efforts that they should be separated. Until, in the end, “the dust returns to the dust as it was,” without any soulful admixture; “and the spirit returns to God Who bestowed it,” without any dusty admixture. This is as they say (Shabbat 152b), “Give it to Him like He gave it to you.” However this matter of separation in this way is difficult for people, as behold, their souls have a great inclination towards their physicality because of their constantly dealing with the physical, etc., to the point where they love it with a powerful love during their lives. And [so] they do not separate in their deaths, etc. and there remains with [the soul] bad and destructive matters, etc.”
And hence he says:
It is as difficult for the soul of the evil to leave [the body], as it is for wool stuck in one of the thorns, etc. – since “the dust returns to the ground as it was,” is not fulfilled with them. [See there.]
And in Maggid Mesharim of [R. Yosef Karo, he] also writes that it is [like the] the ‘hollow of a sling.’⁴¹See I Sam. 25:29. As the bodily powers with their desires that have become connected to the soul – sometimes with this sin, and sometimes with that sin; and each sin has its designated power to punish him – is ‘the hollow of a sling.’ And [so] all the designated powers fling him one to the other. See there. And it appears that with this we can resolve that which is written in the Midrash (Sifrei Bamidbar 86)⁴²The standard text of the midrash is slightly different, but different enough to make the explanation given here less compelling. “‘And He called the name of that place Kivrot-Hataavah [because the people who desired were buried there.]’ (Num. 11:34). I might think that that was because of the name of an event; it is therefore written, ‘for there they buried (kavru) the people who desired (hamitavim).’” To here [is the midrash]. And see what is written in Akeidat Yitschak – that it should have stated, “the people who had desired.” See there. And this is the explanation: “I might think that it was because of the name of an event” that happened once – this story that they desired meat – and then it stopped; however the name of the place remained from that time. And the explanation of, “it is therefore written, ‘for there they buried the people who desired,’” is that they are still desiring and it is not [just a one-time] event; rather it is happening all the time. And [it] is as he wrote – that anyone who desires [the physical] in his lifetime is [still] connected to it after the separation of the soul; and [so] they are still desiring.

(Lamed) According to our approach, this is the intention of the statement of [the Sages] may their memory be blessed, in Avot, “Do not be evil in front of yourself (bifnei atsmecha)” – the explanation of which is in your essence. As we are holy seed and we will not change in essence. And all of the sins of the Children of Israel are only their appearance, which will not be permanent, but only present from time to time. And that which they said, “But even if the whole world tells you that you are righteous, you should be like an evildoer in your eyes” – the explanation of [“in your eyes”] is in your appearance. [This is] like “and its appearance (literally, eye) was like the appearance of bdellium” (Num. 11:7) – the explanation of which is the appearance, and that is the description. And so you should increase courage, have much soap, whiten your clothes and fulfill the desire of your Creator who says, “Show me your appearance.”⁸⁵This literary allusion is also from Song of Songs (Shir HaShirim 2:14). And behold anything that is not in the essence is only in the appearance. And [that] which is in the appearance is only incidental, and that which is incidental will not be permanent. Therefore [with] the seed of Avraham, even if their hands are charred, the blackness will not be permanent; and they will necessarily be whitened and return to their beauty and their essence. Rather [it is] their good deeds [which] are their essence. And [so] behold, something impermanent is called deception (khazav), as in (Isaiah 58:11), “whose waters do not fail (yekhazvu).” And this is the intention of the midrash that said, “the deceptions and vanities that Israel does are worthwhile.” [It] means all of the sins – [both] light and severe – are only deception, since they are incidental. As their essence is pure and clean, like Avraham their bequeather, and as mentioned. And this is the intention of the statement of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, in Chapter 1 of Tractate Rosh Hashanah⁸⁶Rosh Hashanah 17b., “Ilfa brought up [a contradiction]: It is written [about God], ‘and abundant in kindness’ (Exod. 34:6); and [yet in the same verse], it is written ‘and truth.’  He answered, ‘Initially [He judges in] truth, but in the end, abundant in kindness.’” And also there (Rosh Hashanah 17a), “Beit Hillel say, ‘[He who is] abundant in kindness inclines towards kindness.’” [This is] meaning [that] since the good deeds are essential, they are lasting and they are [therefore] true; but the sins are deception. And just like ‘a little bit of light pushes off much of the darkness,’ so does a little bit of truth push off much deception. And therefore He inclines towards kindness, because of the truth.

[If] one ate meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until [waiting for] another meal. This follows the opinion of Rav Chisda (Perek Kol Habasar, Chullin 105a). This is also the opinion of Mar Ukva since the meat and fat stay in one's mouth a long time, as well as Rabeinu Baruch who says that the meat between the teeth is called meat, as it says: "the meat was still between their teeth" (Bamidbar 11:33). The time is three hours, per Rashi. For this reason it is good to pick one's teeth after the meal if one will be eating cheese. If one did not eat meat, but rather something that was fried in fat, it is acceptable to eat cheese afterwards with wiping the mouth and rinsing the hands. There is no need to inspect the hands. This is from Rabeinu Peretz.

That is that He commanded us to appoint judges and officers to force the implementation of the Torah's commandments and to bring those inclining away from the true path back towards it. And they will command to do the good and to come back from evil and will establish fences for the transgressor, such that the commandments and prohibitions of the Torah will not be decided according to the beliefs of each individual. And from the stipulations of this commandment is that these judges be one level above another. And that is when twenty-three judges are appointed in every city, all of them gathering in one place, in the gate of the city which is fit for this number. And these are the minor Sanhedrins. And the Great Court in Jerusalem is appointed of seventy judges. And one [judge] is appointed over these seventy, and he is the head of the yeshiva; and he is the one that the Sages also called the Nassi. And they are all gathered in one place designated for them. And a city with few inhabitants which is not fit for a minor Sanhedrin must appoint three [judges] to administer the minor laws; and the complicated matter they bring to the [court] above them. And they appoint officers [that] supervise the people. They go around the city, in the marketplaces and the streets, and observe the actions of the people in their carrying forth - until no injustice is done, even in a small matter. And the statement in which the commandment appears is His saying, "Judges and officers shall you appoint for yourself in all of your gates" (Deuteronomy 16:18). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 144:1-4) is, "From where [do we know] that we appoint a court [...]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Judges [and officers…].' [...] And from where [do we know] that we appoint one over all of them? [Hence] we learn to say, 'shall you appoint for yourself.' [...] And from where [do we know] that we appoint a court for each tribe? [Hence] we learn to say, 'for your tribes.' [...] 'and they shall judge the people' - [even] against their will." And this command of appointing seventy elders has already been repeated; and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Gather for Me seventy men" (Numbers 11:16). And they said (Sifrei Bamidbar 92:1), "Wherever 'for Me,' is stated, it surely endures [forever]; like [with the priests], 'that they minister for Me' (Shemot 28:41)." That means to say it is not a temporary commandment, but it is [intrinsically] fitting, and obligatory for all generations. And you should know that all of these appointments - meaning great Sanhedrins, minor Sanhedrins, courts of three and other appointments - are indeed done in the Land of Israel. And when there is ordination in the Land of Israel, it is then possible for those ordained to judge in the Land and outside of the Land. But they may not judge capital cases - whether in the Land or outside of the Land - unless the Chosen [Temple] is standing, as we explained at the beginning of the essay. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Zuta, brought in Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 788:12) about His saying [about] one who smites a soul inadvertently, "Such shall be for you," saying, "in all your settlements" - "perhaps the cities of refuge should also be practiced outside the Land of Israel. [Hence] we learn to say, 'these.' These judges practice whether in the Land or outside the Land. But cities of refuge are only practiced in the Land." And the regulations of this commandment have already all been explained in Sanhedrin. (See Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 1)

And even though the verse only mentions cattle and flocks, we have known that [wild] animals are included in [domesticated] beasts, since Scripture compares them, as it is written about [domesticated beasts] disqualified from [having been] consecrated (Deuteronomy 12:22), "But as you eat the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it" (Chullin 27b). And birds also require slaughter (Chullin 27b), since it is compared to a beast, as it is written (Leviticus 11:46), "This is the law of the beast and the bird." Yet the sages [further] made an exacting inference, and the tradition supports them, that since Scripture places the bird between the beast that requires slaughter and the fish which has no slaughter - as it is written, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - it is enough for you with one benchmark (siman, either the esophagus or the windpipe). And from where did they learn to say that there is no slaughter with fish? As it is written about them (Numbers 11:22), "if all of the fish of the sea were collected for them" - just with collection, whether they are collected alive or even dead. And so [too,] all species of locusts do not have slaughter (Keritot 21b), as the expression, collection, is written about them as well - as it is written (Isaiah 33:4), "the collection of the locusts." And also the verse (Leviticus 11:46) mentions them after the fish at the end of the Order of Bayom Hashmini, as it is stated, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - these are the fish - "and of any soul that swarms upon the earth" - these are the locusts. And also because they have scales on their bodies like fish.

To appoint judges and officers: To appoint (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 176) judges and officers that coerce [others] to do the commandments of the Torah, bring those that are veering from the path of the truth back to it against their will, order that which is fitting to do, prevent disgusting things and enforce the fences against the transgressor - so that the commandments and the preventions of the Torah not require the belief (acceptance) of each and every person. And it is from the conditions of this commandment that these judges should be one level above the other. That is that we set up twenty-three judges in each and every city that is fit for this number, all gathered together in one place from the gates of the city - and that is called a small sanhedrin. And in Jerusalem, we set up a large court of seventy judges, and we stand up one [judge] over these seventy and he is called the head of the academy - and he is the one that the Sages also called, nassi - and they would all be gathered in their place that is designated for them. And in a place that is small of number, such that it is not fit for a small sanhedrin, they should stand up three [that] should judge the small thing and they bring the difficult thing to the [court] that is above them. And likewise do they appoint supervisors among the people that circulate in the city, the markets and the streets [and] observe the matters of people in commercial buying and selling - so that there not be wrongdoing, even with a small thing. And the commandment that comes about this is that which He, may He blessed, stated (Deuteronomy 16:18), "Judges and officers shall you place for yourself in all of your gates." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 144 (and see Sanhedrin 16b), "From where [do we know] that we appoint a court for all of Israel? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Judges and officers.' And from where [do we know] that we appoint one [judge] on top of them all? [Hence] we learn to say, 'shall you place for yourself.' And from where [do we know] that we appoint a court for each and every tribe? [Hence] we learn to say, 'in all of your gates.' Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, '"For your tribes and they shall judge" - [that] is a commandment on each and every tribe to judge its tribe; "and they shall judge the people" - against their will.'" And this commandment to appoint seventy elders has already been repeated, and that is His, may He be blessed, stating to Moshe, peace be upon him, "Gather for Me seventy men" (Numbers 11:16). And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sifrei Bamidbar 92), "Every place that it is stated, 'for Me,' behold it is an observance forever; and so [is it], 'And they shall be priests for Me, etc.' (Exodus 28:41)" - meaning to say, that it is a permanent commandment and not just temporary, but rather all of the days of the earth.

We only place (Sanhedrin 17a, and Mishneh Torah, Laws of The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 2:1-2) on the sanhedrin - whether big or small - men that are wise and understanding about the wisdom of the Torah, and also know some of the other wisdoms, such as healing, mathematics, seasons, calculations, astronomy and the ways of the soothsayers, the clairvoyants and the sorcerers, so that they can judge the people in all of these ways if there is a need for it. And we only place on the Sanhedrin priests, Levites and pedigreed Israelites that are fit to marry off their daughters to the priesthood, as it is stated about Moshe (Numbers 11:16), "and they shall stand there with you" - and they, may their memory blessed, expounded (Sanhedrin 37b), "With those similar to you."