Midrasch zu Wajikra 3:18

(Lev. 9:1:) AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY…. This text is related (to Eccl. 8:5): WHOEVER OBSERVES A COMMANDMENT SHALL NOT KNOW ANYTHING EVIL. Who is this?¹Tanh., Lev. 3:1; cf. above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:4. Aaron, of whom it is said (in Lev. 8:33, 35): AND YOU (i.e., you and your sons) SHALL NOT GO OUT FROM THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING FOR SEVEN DAYS < …. > AND YOU SHALL REMAIN AT THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING DAY AND NIGHT FOR SEVEN DAYS. Moses said to them: Observe mourning for seven days. (Ibid., cont.:) AND YOU SHALL OBSERVE THE CHARGE OF THE LORD. Moses said to them: Observe THE CHARGE OF THE LORD, for so did the Holy One observe seven days of mourning before he brought the flood. Where is it shown that he mourned? Where it is stated (in Gen. 6:6): THEN THE LORD REGRETTED THAT HE HAD MADE HUMANITY ON THE EARTH, [AND HE WAS GRIEVING IN HIS HEART]. HE WAS GRIEVING can only mean "he mourned," for so it says concerning David (in II Sam. 19:3): AND THE VICTORY [ON THAT DAY] WAS TURNED INTO MOURNING FOR ALL THE PEOPLE BECAUSE [ON THAT DAY THEY HEARD IT BEING SAID:] THE KING WAS GRIEVING OVER HIS SON.²Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:4; Gen. R. 27:4. So also Ezra said to Israel, when they were weeping, each one for his brother and each one for his child (in Neh. 8:10): GO, EAT CHOICE FOODS AND DRINK SWEET DRINKS…. DO NOT BE GRIEVING, FOR THE JOY OF THE LORD IS YOUR STRENGTH. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 6:6): AND HE WAS GRIEVING IN HIS HEART. At that time the Holy One observed the seven days of mourning, before he brought the flood. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:10): AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER SEVEN DAYS [THAT THE WATERS OF THE FLOOD CAME UPON THE EARTH]. And so Moses was saying to Aaron the Priest and to his sons: Just as the Holy One mourned over his world before he brought the flood, so < you are to > observe the < required > mourning before he touches (i.e., harms) you. So they observed < the mourning >, but they did not know for what reason they were observing it. Why? (Eccl. 8:5:) WHOEVER OBSERVES A COMMANDMENT SHALL NOT KNOW ANYTHING EVIL; AND A WISE HEART SHALL KNOW < THERE IS > A TIME OF JUDGMENT.

(Lev. 16:1:) “After the death of Aaron's two sons.” This text is related (to Eccl. 9:2), “Since everything [happens] to everyone, the same lot [falls] to the righteous and to the wicked […].” Solomon looked and foresaw the righteous and the wicked in all generations, and he saw things that would happen to the righteous and happen to the wicked.¹Cf. below, Deut. 2:1; Lev. R. 20:1; Eccl. R. 9:2:1; PRK 26:1. Then he said (in vs. 3), “This is an evil in all which happens under the sun, in that the same lot [falls] to everyone.” (Vs. 2:) “Since everything [happens] to everyone, the same lot [falls] to the righteous.” This refers to Abraham, in that he was called righteous, as stated (in Gen. 18:19), “For I have chosen him [so] that he may charge [his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord], to practice righteousness.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “And to the wicked.” This refers to Nimrod, who incited all the whole world against the Holy One, blessed be He. The former is dead, and the latter is dead. (Ibid., cont.:) “To the good, to the clean, and to the unclean.” “To the good” refers to David, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 16:12), “So they sent and brought him, reddish, with beautiful eyes and good appearance.” “To the unclean” refers to Nebuchadnezzar. David [laid the foundation of] the Temple, and Nebuchadnezzar destroyed it. The former reigned forty years, and the latter reigned forty years. (Eccl., 9:2, cont.:) “To the one who sacrifices.” This refers to Solomon, of whom it is stated (in I Kings 8:63), “Solomon sacrificed [twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep] as peace offerings.” (Eccl., 9:2, cont.:) “And to the one who does not sacrifice.” This refers to Jeroboam, who stopped Israel from going up [to Jerusalem] on pilgrimage, as stated (in I Kings 12:28), “Enough of your going up to Jerusalem.” The latter one reigned after the former one. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “As it is with the good.” This refers to Moses, of whom it is stated (in Exod. 2:2), “and when she saw that he was good.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “So it is with the sinner.” This refers to the spies (in Numb. 13-14), of whom it is stated (in Prov. 13:21), “Evil pursues sinners.” Moses did not enter the land, neither did the spies enter the land. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “And the one who takes an oath (without keeping it). This refers to Zedekiah, of whom it is stated (in II Chron. 36:13), “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him take an oath of God.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “Is as the one who fears an oath.” This refers to Samson, of whom it is stated (in Jud. 15:12), “then Samson said to them, ‘Swear to me […].’” They put out the eyes of the former, and they put out the eyes of the latter. Hence Solomon said (Eccl 9:3), “This is an evil in all which happens under the sun.” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 9:2), “as it is with the good”: This refers to the children of Aaron. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “So it is with the sinner.” This refers to those who opposed Aaron, [namely] Korah and his congregation. Now they were destroyed by fire, as stated (in Numb. 16:35), “And a fire went forth from the Lord”; [also when] the children of Aaron entered to offer sacrifice, they were consumed by fire, [as stated (Lev. 10:2),] “So fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed them.” R. Abba bar Kahana opened (with Eccl. 2:2), “’Of laughter I said, “It is mad,” and of rejoicing, “What does that do?”’ How confused is the laughter of the evil,²Eccl. R. 2:2:1; PRK 26(27):2. which they produce in their theater³Gk.: theatra. [houses] and racing arenas.⁴Lat.: circi; cf. Gk.: kirkoi (“circles”). ‘And of rejoicing, what does that do?’ What enjoyment would the disciples of the sages have there?”⁵I.e., what confused, popular enjoyment can compare to the delights of Torah study? Another interpretation (of Eccl. 2:2), “Of laughter I said, ‘It is mad’”: R. Aha said, “Solomon has said, ‘There are things over which divine justice laughs (that I have confused).’ It is written (in Deut. 17:17), ‘he shall not multiply wives for himself’; but it is written (in I Kings 11:3), ‘So he had seven hundred royal wives.’⁶Cf. Tanh., (Buber) Exod. 2:2; Eccl. R. 2:2:3; PRK 26(27):2; ySanh. 2:6 (20c). It is written (in Deut. 17:16), ‘he shall not multiply horses for himself’; but it is written (in I Kings 5:6), ‘Now Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses.’ It is written (in Deut. 17:17, cont.) ‘he shall not multiply silver and gold for himself’; but it is written (in I Kings 10:27), ‘And the king made silver in Jerusalem as plentiful as stones,’ and [the ingots] were not stolen.” R. Jose bar Hanina said, “They were like stones of ten cubits and like stones of eight cubits.”⁷I.e., they were too heavy to be stolen. R. Simeon ben Johay said in a baraita, “Even the weights which they had in the days of Solomon were of gold, as it is written, (in I Kings 10:21), ‘silver was not [...] considered to be anything.’” (Eccl. 2:2:) “And of rejoicing, ‘What does that do?’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “What is this crown doing in your hand? Get down off your throne.” Immediately an angel in the likeness of Solomon descended and sat upon his throne. Then Solomon went around among the synagogues and academies in Jerusalem and said (in Eccl. 1:12), “I, Koheleth, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” But they said to him, “King Solomon is sitting on his throne, and you are getting crazier and crazier.” Then they struck him with a rod and set a bowl of grits before him.⁸I.e., they fed him like a beggar. In that hour Solomon said (in Eccl. 2:10), “And this was my portion from all my labor.” And some say [he was referring] to the cane in his hand, and some say, to his dish, and some say to his staff. At that time, Solomon said, “’Vanity of vanities,’ said Koheleth.” (Eccl. 2:2:), “Of laughter I said, ‘It is mad!’” R. Pinhas said, “How confused was the laughter, when divine justice laughed over the generation of the flood, as stated (in Job 21:10-13), ‘Their bull breeds and does not fail […].⁹TSot. 3:6-7; Eccl. R. 2:2:1; PRK 26(27):2; cf. Gen. R. 36:1. They send forth their little ones like a flock […]. They sing to timbrel and harp […]. They spend [their days] in prosperity.’ When they said (in vs. 15), ‘What is the Almighty that we should serve him,’ the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them (in Eccl. 2:2), ‘And of rejoicing, “What does that do?”’ By your life, I am destroying your memory from the world, as stated (in Gen. 7:23), “And He wiped out all living things.”’” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 2:2), “Of laughter I said, ‘It is mad’”: How confused was the laughter, when divine justice laughed over the people of Sodom,¹⁰See also TSot. 3:11. as stated (Job 28:5-8), “The earth, out of it comes forth bread…. Its stones are the place of sapphires…. No bird of prey knows a path [to it]…. Proud beasts have not trodden it.” When they said, “Let us forget the law of the traveler in our midst,” immediately (in Job 28:4), “A stream burst through from its source”; the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them (Eccl. 2:2), “’And of rejoicing, “What does that do?”’ By your life, I will make you forgotten by the world.” This is what is written (in Gen. 19:24), “Then the Lord rained down upon Sodom….” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 2:2), “Of laughter I said, ‘It is mad’”: How confused was the laughter, when divine justice laughed over Elisheba bat Amminadab,¹¹Aaron’s wife and Naashon’s sister according to Exod. 6:23. when she saw four celebrations in one day.¹²Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 3:3; Lev. R. 20:2; Eccl. R. 2:2:2. She saw her [brother-in-law] (Moses) a king, her husband a high priest, her brother (Naashon) a prince (nasi),¹³Naashon is here being identified with Nahshon ben Amminadab, whom Numb. 2:3; 7:11f.; and I Chron. 2:10 call a prince (nasi). and her two sons deputy high priests. When they went in to offer sacrifice, they came out destroyed by fire; and her celebration turned into mourning, as stated (in Lev. 16:1), “Now the Lord spoke unto Moses after the death of Aaron's two sons.”

1) (Vayikra 3:1): "And if a sacrifice of peace-offerings (shelamim) is his offering": R. Yehudah says: Whoever brings shelamim brings shalom (peace) to the world. This tells me only of shelamim. Whence do I derive a thanksgiving offering (as bringing peace)? I include it, for it is a variety of shelamim (see Vayikra 7:11-12). And whence do I derive a burnt-offering? In include it, for it is brought (in fulfillment of) a vow and (as) a gift. And whence do I derive (offerings of) the first-born, the tithe, and the pesach? I include them (as bringing peace), for they are not brought for sin. And whence do I derive a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? From (the extra) "sacrifice." And whence do I derive (offerings of) fowl, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense and wood? From (the extra) "his offering" — so that all who bring an offering bring peace to the world.

1) Why mention (both) shelamim from cattle (Vayikra 3:1) and shelamim from the flock (Vayikra 3:6)? (Why not adduce one and understand the other from it?) For there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and there obtains with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, (so that if only one were adduced, I would think it was that element which obtained with it which qualified it as shelamim.), viz.: Cattle (offerings) are (accompanied by) larger libations; flock (offerings) are (accompanied by) smaller libations (see Bamidbar 15). Flock (offerings) are abundant as communal (offerings); cattle (offerings) are (relatively) few. So that since there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, it is necessary to adduce (both) shelamim from the cattle and shelamim from the flock.

1) (Vayikra 3:12): "And if a goat (is his offering"): This is a hiatus (in the section of "lamb" [a goat being a type of lamb]) to indicate that a goat does not require the sacrifice of a fat-tail.

1) (Vayikra 3:2): ["vesamach" ("and he shall place") is written four times: once in respect to olah, thrice in respect to shelamim] "And he shall place his hand" — not the hand of his bondsman; "his hand" — not the hand of his messenger; "his hand" — not the hand of his wife. "his hand on the head" — not on the back; "his hand on the head" — not on the throat; "his hand on the head" — not on the back of the head. I would exclude all of these, but not the breast; and it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if the head, which does not require tenufah, requires semichah — the breast, which requires tenufah, should it not require semichah! It is, therefore, written "on the head" — and not on the breast.

1) (Vayikra 3:3): "And he shall present from the sacrifice (of the shelamim") — even if it were not slaughtered in its name (e.g., even if he slaughtered an olah in the name of a shelamim or vice versa). "of the shelamim" — even if he did not perform semichah. "a fire-offering" — to that end (i.e., to exclude an intent of charring it instead of burning it to ashes.) "to the L–rd" — to the Creator of the world.

1) (Vayikra 3:9): "And he shall offer of the sacrifice (of the shelamim"): even if he did not slaughter it in its name (i.e., as a shelamim). "shelamim": even if he did not perform semichah upon it. "a fire-offering": to that end. "to the L–rd": in the name of the Creator of the world.

1) Why mention (both) shelamim from cattle (Vayikra 3:1) and shelamim from the flock (Vayikra 3:6)? (Why not adduce one and understand the other from it?) For there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and there obtains with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, (so that if only one were adduced, I would think it was that element which obtained with it which qualified it as shelamim.), viz.: Cattle (offerings) are (accompanied by) larger libations; flock (offerings) are (accompanied by) smaller libations (see Bamidbar 15). Flock (offerings) are abundant as communal (offerings); cattle (offerings) are (relatively) few. So that since there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, it is necessary to adduce (both) shelamim from the cattle and shelamim from the flock.

1) Why mention (both) shelamim from cattle (Vayikra 3:1) and shelamim from the flock (Vayikra 3:6)? (Why not adduce one and understand the other from it?) For there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and there obtains with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, (so that if only one were adduced, I would think it was that element which obtained with it which qualified it as shelamim.), viz.: Cattle (offerings) are (accompanied by) larger libations; flock (offerings) are (accompanied by) smaller libations (see Bamidbar 15). Flock (offerings) are abundant as communal (offerings); cattle (offerings) are (relatively) few. So that since there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, it is necessary to adduce (both) shelamim from the cattle and shelamim from the flock.

1) (Vayikra 3:3): "And he shall present from the sacrifice (of the shelamim") — even if it were not slaughtered in its name (e.g., even if he slaughtered an olah in the name of a shelamim or vice versa). "of the shelamim" — even if he did not perform semichah. "a fire-offering" — to that end (i.e., to exclude an intent of charring it instead of burning it to ashes.) "to the L–rd" — to the Creator of the world.

1) (Vayikra 3:9): "And he shall offer of the sacrifice (of the shelamim"): even if he did not slaughter it in its name (i.e., as a shelamim). "shelamim": even if he did not perform semichah upon it. "a fire-offering": to that end. "to the L–rd": in the name of the Creator of the world.

Another interpretation (of Eccl. 2:2): OF LAUGHTER I SAID: IT IS MAD! R. Pinhas said: How confused was the laughter, when Divine Justice laughed over Elisheba bat Amminadab,¹¹Aaron’s wife and Naashon’s sister according to Exod. 6:23. when she saw four joys in one day.¹²Above, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 3:3; Lev. R. 20:2; Eccl. R. 2:2:2. She saw her brother-in-law (Moses) a king, her husband a high priest, her brother (Naashon) a prince (nasi),¹³Naashon is here being identified with Nahshon ben Amminadab, whom Numb. 2:3; 7:11f.; and I Chron. 2:10 call a prince (nasi). and her two sons deputy high priests. When they went in to offer sacrifice, they came out destroyed by fire; and her joy turned into sorrow. [This is what is written (in Lev. 16:1): NOW THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.]

2) An additional nuance: (Why are they called) "shelamim"? For all are "at peace" with them: the blood and the devoted portions are for the altar, the breast and the thigh for the Cohanim, the skin and the flesh for the owners.

2) "korbano" ("his offering") is written three times, to include (in the requirement of semichah) all the partners to an offering (one after the other). (For without the inclusion provision) would it not follow (that they would not all perform semichah?), viz.: If tenufah, which obtains both with living animals (e.g., the Atzereth lambs and the guilt-offering of the metzorah) and with slaughtered animals (e.g., the breast and thigh of peace-offerings and thanksgiving offerings), are excluded (from tenufah by all of the partners, [one performing tenufah for all of them]) — semichah, which obtains only with living animals, how much more so should all of the partners be excluded from it, (and only one perform it for all)! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — to include (as performing semichah) all of the partners to the offering.

2) "korbano" ("his offering") is written three times, to include (in the requirement of semichah) all the partners to an offering (one after the other). (For without the inclusion provision) would it not follow (that they would not all perform semichah?), viz.: If tenufah, which obtains both with living animals (e.g., the Atzereth lambs and the guilt-offering of the metzorah) and with slaughtered animals (e.g., the breast and thigh of peace-offerings and thanksgiving offerings), are excluded (from tenufah by all of the partners, [one performing tenufah for all of them]) — semichah, which obtains only with living animals, how much more so should all of the partners be excluded from it, (and only one perform it for all)! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — to include (as performing semichah) all of the partners to the offering.

2) (Vayikra 3:14): "And he shall offer from it (his offering"): while it is still attached (i.e., he shall remove the devoted portions while they are still attached to the goat, before he cuts the flesh). "his offering, a fire-offering to the L–rd, the fat that covers the innards and all the fat upon the innards.": Why mention this (again if it has already been stated above in respect to the flock?) For I might think that it (a goat) is excluded from all of these. And, indeed, it would follow (that it is excluded, viz.: Just as we find that a sheep (offering), which is augmented by (the sacrifice of) a fat-tail, is augmented by all of these (the above), so, (conversely), a goat, which is excluded from (the sacrifice of) a fat-tail, should be excluded from all of these, (so that an explicit inclusion clause is needed.) — This is refuted by cattle, which are excluded from fat-tail, yet included in all of these.

2) (Vayikra 3:9): "its fat, the fat-tail": to include the fat near the fat-tail, the fat between the loin-sinews. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah says: "its fat, the fat-tail": Just as (eating) fat comes under two interdicts ([Vayikra 3:17] "All fat and all blood you shall not eat," and [Vayikra 7:23] "All fat of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat"), so, (eating the) fat of a (consecrated) fat-tail comes under two interdicts.

2) "korbano" ("his offering") is written three times, to include (in the requirement of semichah) all the partners to an offering (one after the other). (For without the inclusion provision) would it not follow (that they would not all perform semichah?), viz.: If tenufah, which obtains both with living animals (e.g., the Atzereth lambs and the guilt-offering of the metzorah) and with slaughtered animals (e.g., the breast and thigh of peace-offerings and thanksgiving offerings), are excluded (from tenufah by all of the partners, [one performing tenufah for all of them]) — semichah, which obtains only with living animals, how much more so should all of the partners be excluded from it, (and only one perform it for all)! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — to include (as performing semichah) all of the partners to the offering.

2) — whence it is derived: The slaughterer of the sacrifice must have six things in mind: (that the shechitah be) in the name of the (particular) sacrifice, in the name of the donor (of the sacrifice), in the name of the L–rd, in the name of a fire-offering (see above), in the name of (i.e., to the end of producing) a savor (on the altar, and not with the intent of roasting it beforehand), in the name of nichoach (i.e., to give "pleasure" to the L–rd by doing His will). (In the instance of) a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, (he must perform the shechitah) in the name of (i.e., towards the atonement of) the (particular) sin. R. Yossi says: Even if one (i.e., the shochet) had none of these (six things) in mind, it is kasher; for it is a provision of beth-din (that he not verbalize his intent [lest he err in the formulation]). And "intent" (here) is that of the performer (of the act of shechitah, and not that of the owner).

2) "korbano" ("his offering") is written three times, to include (in the requirement of semichah) all the partners to an offering (one after the other). (For without the inclusion provision) would it not follow (that they would not all perform semichah?), viz.: If tenufah, which obtains both with living animals (e.g., the Atzereth lambs and the guilt-offering of the metzorah) and with slaughtered animals (e.g., the breast and thigh of peace-offerings and thanksgiving offerings), are excluded (from tenufah by all of the partners, [one performing tenufah for all of them]) — semichah, which obtains only with living animals, how much more so should all of the partners be excluded from it, (and only one perform it for all)! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — to include (as performing semichah) all of the partners to the offering.

2) (Vayikra 3:6): "male or female (without blemish shall he offer it"): a definite male or a definite female, not a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite. Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If a burnt-offering, which may be brought from fowl, may not be brought from tumtum or hermaphrodite — peace-offerings, which may not be brought from fowl, how much more so should they not be brought from tumtum or hermaphrodite! — No, this may be so with a burnt-offering, where females may not be brought as well as males, as opposed to peace-offerings, where females may be brought as well as males. — This is refuted by a sin-offering, where females may be brought as well as males, but where tumtum and hermaphrodite may not be brought.

2) "korbano" ("his offering") is written three times, to include (in the requirement of semichah) all the partners to an offering (one after the other). (For without the inclusion provision) would it not follow (that they would not all perform semichah?), viz.: If tenufah, which obtains both with living animals (e.g., the Atzereth lambs and the guilt-offering of the metzorah) and with slaughtered animals (e.g., the breast and thigh of peace-offerings and thanksgiving offerings), are excluded (from tenufah by all of the partners, [one performing tenufah for all of them]) — semichah, which obtains only with living animals, how much more so should all of the partners be excluded from it, (and only one perform it for all)! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — to include (as performing semichah) all of the partners to the offering.

2) "korbano" ("his offering") is written three times, to include (in the requirement of semichah) all the partners to an offering (one after the other). (For without the inclusion provision) would it not follow (that they would not all perform semichah?), viz.: If tenufah, which obtains both with living animals (e.g., the Atzereth lambs and the guilt-offering of the metzorah) and with slaughtered animals (e.g., the breast and thigh of peace-offerings and thanksgiving offerings), are excluded (from tenufah by all of the partners, [one performing tenufah for all of them]) — semichah, which obtains only with living animals, how much more so should all of the partners be excluded from it, (and only one perform it for all)! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — to include (as performing semichah) all of the partners to the offering.

2) (Vayikra 3:9): "its fat, the fat-tail": to include the fat near the fat-tail, the fat between the loin-sinews. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah says: "its fat, the fat-tail": Just as (eating) fat comes under two interdicts ([Vayikra 3:17] "All fat and all blood you shall not eat," and [Vayikra 7:23] "All fat of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat"), so, (eating the) fat of a (consecrated) fat-tail comes under two interdicts.

(Deut. 33:2:) THEN HE SAID: THE LORD CAME FROM SINAI…. <This> teaches you that the Holy One brought the Torah around to the nations of the world,¹⁴Above, Lev. 3:10; Tanh, Lev. 3:6; Deut. 11:4; PRK 31(suppl. 1):15; cf. Sifre, Deut. 32:8(311); AZ 2b-3a; Lev. R. 13:2. but they would not accept it, until he came to Israel; and they did accept it. Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.): AND HE SHONE UPON THEM FROM SEIR. These are the children of Esau, in that they were children of Seir. (ibid., cont.:) HE APPEARED FROM MOUNT PARAN. These are the children of Ishmael, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 21:21): HE DWELT IN THE WILDERNESS OF PARAN. It is also written (in Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH; HE LOOKED AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE (rt.: NTR, literally: LEAP). When he saw that they did not want to accept the Torah, he made them jump into Gehinnom, even as it says (in Lev. 11:21): <KNEE JOINTS ABOVE THEIR FEET> TO LEAP (rt.: NTR) WITH UPON THE GROUND. It also says in another place (in Ps. 138:4): ALL THE KINGS OF THE EARTH SHALL GIVE THANKS TO YOU, O LORD, FOR THEY HAVE HEARD THE WORDS OF YOUR MOUTH. But we still need to say: Perhaps they wanted to heed. Micah the Morashtite came and put an end to the matter, where it is stated (in Micah 5:14 [15]): IN ANGER AND WRATH WILL I EXECUTE RETRIBUTION ON THE NATIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT OBEYED. {….}: Here you learn that they did not want to receive the Torah. David came and gave thanks to the Holy One over this, where it is stated (in Ps. 77:15 [14]): YOU ARE THE GOD WHO PERFORMS WONDERS; YOU HAVE MADE YOUR STRENGTH KNOWN AMONG THE PEOPLES. David said: Sovereign of the Universe, O the wonders that you performed when you made your Torah known to the nations of the world! YOUR STRENGTH can only be Torah, since it is stated (in Ps. 29:11): THE LORD WILL GRANT STRENGTH TO HIS PEOPLE. R. Abbahu said: It was revealed and made known to the one who spoke and world came into being that the nations of the world would not accept the Torah. Then for what reason did he make them the offer? It is simply that this represents the character of the Holy One. First he made an offer to his creatures, and after that he drove them from the world, because the Holy One does not deal with his creatures in tyranny.¹⁵Gk.: tyrannia. [A second reason for his making them an offer: <It was> because they were fortunate in their ancestors.¹⁶Cf. PRK 31 (suppl. 1):15, which reads: “Because of the merit of the ancestors.” Abraham had fathered Ishmael and Isaac had fathered Esau.

(Numb. 8:2:) “When you set up the lamps.”⁷Numb. R. 15:3. You find that, when twelve tribes presented offerings at the dedication of the altar, the tribe of Levi did not offer anything. They were depressed and said, “Why were we removed from making an offering at the dedication of the altar?” A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a king who made a banquet and each day invited various artisans. Now he had a certain friend who he loved exceedingly, but he did not invite him along with them. So he was depressed saying, “Perhaps the king harbors [some grievance] against me in his heart. [Perhaps] it is for this reason that the king has not invited me to any of the feasts.” When the days of the feast had passed [the king] called the friend [and] said to him, “For all the people of the province I made [that] feast, but for you only I am making one single feast for yourself. Why? Because you are my friend.” So this king is the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. You find that the twelve tribes brought offerings for the dedication of the altar and the Holy One, blessed be He, accepted them, as stated (in Numb. 7:5), “Take it from them.” But the tribe of Levi did not bring an offering. When the dedication of the altar had passed, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Aaron and his sons, “All the tribes have made a dedication. Now you make a dedication by yourselves.” It is therefore stated (in Numb. 8:2), “Speak unto Aaron [and say unto him], ‘When you set up the lamps,’” and afterwards [it is written] (in vs. 6), “Take the Levites.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 8:2), “Speak unto Aaron [and say unto him], ‘When you set up the lamps.’” You find that Moses experienced more difficulty in making the menorah then for all the [other] vessels of the tabernacle; until the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him with [His] finger.⁸Above Lev. 3:11 and the parallels listed there; Numb. R. 15:4. Moshe experienced difficulty with three things.... What is the meaning of hammered work (mqshh)? It is meaning to say, how difficult (mh qshh) it is to make. For Moses spent a lot of effort before the menorah was made; as it says so (in Exod. 25:31), “with difficulty (mqshh, revoweled as miqqashah)⁹A typical translation of the Masoretic pointing would be: OF HAMMERED WORK. shall the menorah be made.” When it became difficult for him, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Moses, take a talent of gold and cast it into the fire. Then take it out, and it will have been made automatically.” (Ibid. cont.:) “Its base, its shaft, its cups, its knobs, and its flowers from it,”¹⁰English translations usually render the end of this verse: …SHALL BE OF ONE PIECE or something similar; however, the midrash follows the interpretation given here. [is to mean] “Make a blow with a hammer, and it will be made automatically.” It was therefore stated (in Exod. 25:31), “of hammered work (i.e. with difficulty) shall [the menorah] be made (ty'sh).” [The verb is spelled] fully with a y (yod in Hebrew) and not written [with the normal spelling] as t'sh (which could be translated, "you shall make"). [It is written with the extra letter] so as to say [that] it shall be made automatically. What did Moses do? He took a talent of gold and threw it into the fire. Then Moses said, “Master of the world, here is the talent; it is cast into the midst of the fire. Let it be made (ty'sh) in front of You just as You wish.” Immediately the menorah came forth made as it should be. It is therefore written (in Numb. 8:4 end), “according to the pattern which the Lord had shown Moses, [so did he make the menorah].” "Moses made" is not written here, but merely “he made.” [So] who did make it? The Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses to warn Aaron to light [the lamps] as stated (in Numb. 8:2), “When you set up the lamps.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “If you light [the lamps] before Me, I will preserve your souls from everything evil.” Thus their souls are likened to a lamp, as stated (in Prov. 20:27), “A person's soul is the lamp of the Lord.”

(Lev. 9:1:) AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY…. This text is related (to Ps. 75:5 [4]): I SAY TO THE MERRYMAKERS: DO NOT MAKE MERRY….⁴On this translation, See Jastrow, p. 373, s.v., WYNY’. What is the meaning of < the words >, I SAY TO THE MERRYMAKERS (rt.: HLL): DO NOT MAKE MERRY (THWLW, rt.: HLL)?⁵This root can also mean “act with abandon” and is to be taken in that sense here. So also in the parallel, Tanh., Lev. 3:2. For another interpretation of the word, see Lev. R. 20:2. < The verse refers > to whoever sings in a Mahanaim dance (MHWLH),⁶As in Cant. 7:1 [6:13]. In comparing THWLW and MHWLH, the midrash assumes that both words come from the root HLL and ignores the fact that in the first case the H is a he while in the second case the H is a het. And so it says (in Jud. 21:21): TO DANCE (LHWL) IN THE DANCES.

(Deut. 33:2:) THEN HE SAID: THE LORD CAME FROM SINAI…. <This> teaches you that the Holy One brought the Torah around to the nations of the world,¹⁴Above, Lev. 3:10; Tanh, Lev. 3:6; Deut. 11:4; PRK 31(suppl. 1):15; cf. Sifre, Deut. 32:8(311); AZ 2b-3a; Lev. R. 13:2. but they would not accept it, until he came to Israel; and they did accept it. Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.): AND HE SHONE UPON THEM FROM SEIR. These are the children of Esau, in that they were children of Seir. (ibid., cont.:) HE APPEARED FROM MOUNT PARAN. These are the children of Ishmael, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 21:21): HE DWELT IN THE WILDERNESS OF PARAN. It is also written (in Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH; HE LOOKED AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE (rt.: NTR, literally: LEAP). When he saw that they did not want to accept the Torah, he made them jump into Gehinnom, even as it says (in Lev. 11:21): <KNEE JOINTS ABOVE THEIR FEET> TO LEAP (rt.: NTR) WITH UPON THE GROUND. It also says in another place (in Ps. 138:4): ALL THE KINGS OF THE EARTH SHALL GIVE THANKS TO YOU, O LORD, FOR THEY HAVE HEARD THE WORDS OF YOUR MOUTH. But we still need to say: Perhaps they wanted to heed. Micah the Morashtite came and put an end to the matter, where it is stated (in Micah 5:14 [15]): IN ANGER AND WRATH WILL I EXECUTE RETRIBUTION ON THE NATIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT OBEYED. {….}: Here you learn that they did not want to receive the Torah. David came and gave thanks to the Holy One over this, where it is stated (in Ps. 77:15 [14]): YOU ARE THE GOD WHO PERFORMS WONDERS; YOU HAVE MADE YOUR STRENGTH KNOWN AMONG THE PEOPLES. David said: Sovereign of the Universe, O the wonders that you performed when you made your Torah known to the nations of the world! YOUR STRENGTH can only be Torah, since it is stated (in Ps. 29:11): THE LORD WILL GRANT STRENGTH TO HIS PEOPLE. R. Abbahu said: It was revealed and made known to the one who spoke and world came into being that the nations of the world would not accept the Torah. Then for what reason did he make them the offer? It is simply that this represents the character of the Holy One. First he made an offer to his creatures, and after that he drove them from the world, because the Holy One does not deal with his creatures in tyranny.¹⁵Gk.: tyrannia. [A second reason for his making them an offer: <It was> because they were fortunate in their ancestors.¹⁶Cf. PRK 31 (suppl. 1):15, which reads: “Because of the merit of the ancestors.” Abraham had fathered Ishmael and Isaac had fathered Esau.

“Your belly is a pile of wheat,” this is the book of Leviticus. Just as the belly, the heart is on this side and the legs are on the other side and it is in the middle, so is the book of Leviticus, there are two on this side and two on that side and it is in the middle.²⁶Leviticus is the third of the five books of the Pentateuch. “A pile of wheat [ḥitim],” a pile of sins [ḥata’im];²⁷Leviticus details the laws of sin-offerings (Matnot Kehuna). “hedged with lilies,” these are matters of Torah, which are as soft as lilies. How many mitzvot and details are in the book of Leviticus, how many a fortiori inferences, instances of piggul²⁸An offering is disqualified if, in the course of the four sacrificial rites, one has the intent to sprinkle the blood or eat the flesh of the offering beyond its appointed time. Such an offering is called piggul. and instances of notar²⁹This is flesh that is left over after the appointed time for its consumption. there are in the book of Leviticus.
Rabbi Levi said: It is the way of the world that a man might marry a woman at the age of thirty or forty years. After he outlays all his expenditures, he comes to consummate his marriage with her; if she says to him: I saw [a spot] like a red lily,³⁰Menstrual blood. he separates from her immediately. Who caused him not to approach her? What iron wall is between them? What iron pillar is between them? What snake bit him? What scorpion stung him so that he would not approach her? [There is but] the words of the Torah, which are as soft as lilies, in which it is stated: “You shall not approach a woman in her state of menstrual impurity” (Leviticus 18:19).
Likewise, one before whom they brought a tray of pieces [of meat]; if they say to him: [A piece of] forbidden fat fell there, he withdraws his hand and does not taste it. Who caused him to refrain from tasting? What snake bit him so that he would not taste it? What scorpion stung him so that he would not approach and taste it? The words of the Torah, which are as soft as lilies, in which it is written: “You shall not consume any fat or any blood” (Leviticus 3:17).

3) R. Shimon says: One who is whole ("shalem" in his mind) brings shelamim; a mourner does not bring shelamim. This tells me only of shelamim, which are (offerings) of joy. Whence do I derive (the same for) a thanksgiving offering? I include it, for it is brought as a shelamim (offering). And whence do I derive a burnt-offering? I include it, for it comes as vow and gift. And whence do I derive first-born, and tithe, and pesach? I include them, for they do not come for (atonement of) sin. And whence do I derive sin-offering and guilt-offering? From "sacrifice." And whence do I derive fowl, meal-offering, wine, frankincense, and wood? From "his offering." So that with all offerings — If he is "shalem," he brings them; if he is a mourner, he does not bring them.

3) ("And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): ("And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards (the entrails)." I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): "the fat that covers the innards" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)

3) — No, this may be so with cattle (offerings), which are (accompanied by) larger libations, as opposed to goats, which are (accompanied by) smaller libations. And since they are excluded from (larger) libations, they should be excluded from all (of the above). It is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards and all the fat on the innards, and the two kidneys, etc.", to include all of them.

3) ("And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): ("And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards (the entrails)." I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): "the fat that covers the innards" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)

3) ("And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): ("And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards (the entrails)." I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): "the fat that covers the innards" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)

3) "his offering," and not the offering of another; "his offering," and not the offering of a gentile; "his offering," and not the offering of his (deceased) father. These are the words of R. Yehudah, who says that an heir does not perform semichah.

3) ("And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): ("And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards (the entrails)." I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): "the fat that covers the innards" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)

3) — No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male and female are kasher. — This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), where all species of male and female are kasher as offerings, but where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher. — No, this may be so with ma'aser, which is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive), whereas shelamim are one out of one (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since they are one out of one, tumtum and hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written: "male" or "female" — a definite male or a definite female, and not tumtum or hermaphrodite.

3) ("And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): ("And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards (the entrails)." I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): "the fat that covers the innards" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)

3) "fat-tail": I might think that the mitzvah is fulfilled with it (alone); it is, therefore, written: "whole." If "whole," I would think he removed it with the spine (of which it is a part); it is, therefore, written: "above the kidneys." If "above the kidneys," I would think he should not enter (i.e., he should not remove it) anterior to the kidneys; it is, therefore, written: "he shall remove it" — anterior to the kidneys (a span above the tail).

(Deut. 33:2:) “Then he said, ‘the Lord came from Sinai […].’” [This] teaches you that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought the Torah around to all the nations of the world,¹²Above, Lev. 3:10; Tanh, Lev. 3:6; Deut. 11:4; PRK 31(suppl. 1):15; cf. Sifre, Deut. 32:8(311); AZ 2b-3a; Lev. R. 13:2. but they did not accept it, until he came to Israel; and they did accept it. Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.), “and He shone upon them from Seir.” These are the Children of Esau, in that they were children of Seir. (Ibid., cont.:) “He appeared from Mount Paran.” These are the Children of Ishmael, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 21:21), “He dwelt in the Wilderness of Paran.” It is also written (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; [He looked and made nations tremble (rt.: ntr, literally, leap)].” When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that they did not want to accept the Torah, He made them jump into Gehinnom, even as it says (in Lev. 11:21), “to leap (rt.: ntr) with upon the ground.” Yet it says in another place (in Ps. 138:4), “All the kings of the earth shall give thanks to You, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth.” And [so] we still need to learn that they did not want to heed. Micah the Morashitite came and put an end to the matter, where it is stated (in Micah 5:14), “In anger and wrath will I execute retribution on the nations [because they have not obeyed].” Here you learn that they did not want to receive the Torah. David came and gave thanks to the Holy One, blessed be He, over this, where it is stated (in Ps. 77:15), “You are the God who performs wonders; You have made Your strength known among the peoples.” David said, “Master of the World, O the wonders that You performed when You made Your Torah known to the nations of the world!” [As] “Your strength” can only be Torah, since it is stated (in Ps. 29:11), “The Lord will grant strength to His people.” R. Abbahu said, “It was revealed and made known to the One who spoke and world came into being that the nations of the world would not accept the Torah. Then for what reason did He make them the offer? It is simply that this represents the character of the Holy One, blessed be He. First He made an offer to His creatures, and after that He drove them from the world, because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deal with His creatures in tyranny.”¹³Gk.: tyrannia. A second reason for his making them an offer: [It was] on account of appeasement of [their] ancestors.¹⁴Cf. PRK 31 (suppl. 1):15, which reads: “Because of the merit of the ancestors.” Abraham had fathered Ishmael and Isaac had fathered Esau.

[Another interpretation] (of Numb. 8:2, 4): WHEN YOU SET UP THE LAMPS […. THIS IS THE MAKING OF THE MENORAH]. You find that Moses experienced more difficulty in making the menorah then for all the <other> vessels of the Tabernacle until the Holy One showed him with his finger.¹¹Above Lev. 3:11 and the parallels listed there; Tanh. Numb. 3:3 cont.; Numb. R. 15:4. It was the same concerning the hoofs of a clean animal, as it is stated (in Lev. 11:2, 4): NOW THESE ARE THE CREATURES [THAT YOU MAY EAT…. HOWEVER THESE YOU MAY NOT EAT.] And it was the same concerning the <new> moon. The Holy One had said to him (in Exod. 12:2): THIS MONTH. So it was the same concerning the making of the menorah, where it is stated (in Numb. 8:4): THIS IS THE MAKING OF THE MENORAH, HAMMERED WORK OF GOLD. What is the meaning of HAMMERED WORK (MQShh)? It is like saying: How difficult (MH QShh) it is to make; for Moses spent a lot of effort before the menorah was made, since it says so (in Exod. 25:31): WITH DIFFICULTY (MQShh revoweled as miqqashah)¹²A typical translation of the Masoretic pointing would be: OF HAMMERED WORK. SHALL THE MENORAH BE MADE. [<The situation is> like a person who says: How difficult (MHQShh) this task is for me!] When it became difficult for him, the Holy One said to him: Moses, take a talent of gold and cast it into the fire. Then take it out, and it will have been made automatically. [Thus it is stated] (ibid. cont.): {ITS KNOBS, ITS BLOSSOMS, ITS CUPS, AND ITS SHAFTS} [ITS BASE, ITS SHAFT, ITS CUPS, ITS KNOBS, AND ITS FLOWERS SHALL COME OUT OF IT.]¹³English translations usually render the end of this verse: …SHALL BE OF ONE PIECE or something similar; however, the midrash follows the interpretation given here. There was a blow with a hammer, and it was made automatically. It was therefore stated (in Exod. 25:31): OF HAMMERED WORK (i.e. with difficulty) SHALL <THE MENORAH> BE MADE (TY'SH). <The verb is spelled> fully with a Y (yod in Hebrew) and not written <with the normal spelling> as T'SH (which could be translated, "you shall make"). <It is written with the extra letter> so as to say: It SHALL BE MADE automatically. What did Moses do? He took a talent of gold and threw it into the fire. Then Moses said: Sovereign of the World here is the talent; [it is cast into the midst of the fire]. Let it be made (TY'SH) for you just as you wish. Immediately the menorah came forth made as it should be. It is therefore written (in Numb. 8:4 end): ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH THE LORD HAD SHOWN MOSES, SO DID HE MAKE THE MENORAH. "Moses made" is not written here, but merely HE MADE. So who did make it? The Holy One. Therefore, the Holy One told Moses to warn Aaron to [light <the lamps> as stated] (in Numb. 8:2): WHEN YOU SET UP <THE LAMPS >. The Holy One said to Israel: If you light <the lamps > before me, I also will preserve your souls from everything evil, so that nothing touches you. Thus their souls are likened to a lamp as stated (in Prov. 20:27): A PERSON's BREATH IS THE LAMP OF {GOD} [THE LORD SEARCHING ALL THE CHAMBERS OF THE BELLY.

[Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE.] If the woman comes first, she bears a male; if the man comes first, {he sires} [she bears] a female.¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 3:3; Ber. 60a; Nid. 31ab; see above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 8:18; cf. Sifra to Lev. 22:1–9, (217: Emor, parashah 4). R. Abbin [Berabbi] the Levite said: The text has given you a clue (in vs. 5): IF SHE BEARS A FEMALE (with no mention of her giving her seed). If the man comes first, a female is produced; < if > the woman comes first, a male is produced. Thus it is stated (in vs. 2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: Therefore, the male is dependent (for his procreation) upon the woman; and the female, upon the man. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 22:20–23): BEHOLD MILCAH, SHE ALSO HAS BORNE SONS TO YOUR BROTHER NAHOR: UZ HIS FIRST-BORN AND BUZ HIS BROTHER,… AND BETHUEL BROUGHT FORTH REBEKAH. It also says (in I Chron. 2:48–49): [MAACAH], THE CONCUBINE OF CALEB BORE¹¹Buber’s Oxford MS recorded this verb in the feminine, but Buber emended it to the grammatically incorrect masculine of the Masoretic text. {SACAR} [SHEBER] AND TIRHANAH. SHE ALSO BORE {SHATSAPH} [SHAAPH] THE FATHER OF MADMANNAH, SHEVA THE FATHER OF MACHBENAH AND THE FATHER OF {GIBEAH} [GIBEA]. AND THE DAUGHTER [OF CALEB] WAS ACHSAH. Thus females are dependent (for procreation) upon the man; and the males, upon the woman. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED. R. Ayyevu said: The Holy One performs a miraculous act with a person. When a person is put in a furnace room¹²Gk.: kaminos (“oven”). Here the word refers to the furnace room of a bathhouse. for < only > a single day, is not his life struggling < to survive > because of it? But when an infant is put in its mother's belly for nine months,¹³According to Lev. R. 14:3, a woman’s womb is at boiling temperature. the Holy One protects it. Our masters have said: The Holy One has performed a miraculous act with this person. When the person is put in a bath tub¹⁴Gk.: embate. for one day, does not his life fail because of it? But when the infant is put in its mother's womb for nine months, its life does not fail because of it. [Why? Because the Holy One is performing a miraculous act with it (i.e., with the infant).] Job said (in Job 36:3): I WILL FETCH ('S') MY KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR. Now Job saw the children of Adam with a woman ('ShH) giving birth to a man.¹⁵‘ShH and ‘S’ are more alike in Hebrew than the transliterations show. In the unpointed text S (sin) and Sh (shin) are the same letter. Also a final H (he) sounds so much like a final ‘(alef) that Rabbinic Hebrew sometimes confuses the two. Thus the midrash understands Job 36:3 to mean that the WOMAN in Lev. 12:2 was Job’s KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR. Also the ship (of Prov. 31:14) sails in the midst of the waters inch by inch.¹⁶The image suggests Prov. 31:14, according to which the heroic wife is LIKE MERCHANT SHIPS; SHE BRINGS HER FOOD FROM AFAR. So Enoch Zundel in his commentary, ‘Ets Yosef, on the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Now he was surprised over these things and said (in Job 36:3): I (like the woman of Prov. 31:14) WILL FETCH MY KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR.

(Deut. 33:2:) “Then he said, ‘the Lord came from Sinai […].’” [This] teaches you that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought the Torah around to all the nations of the world,¹²Above, Lev. 3:10; Tanh, Lev. 3:6; Deut. 11:4; PRK 31(suppl. 1):15; cf. Sifre, Deut. 32:8(311); AZ 2b-3a; Lev. R. 13:2. but they did not accept it, until he came to Israel; and they did accept it. Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.), “and He shone upon them from Seir.” These are the Children of Esau, in that they were children of Seir. (Ibid., cont.:) “He appeared from Mount Paran.” These are the Children of Ishmael, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 21:21), “He dwelt in the Wilderness of Paran.” It is also written (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; [He looked and made nations tremble (rt.: ntr, literally, leap)].” When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that they did not want to accept the Torah, He made them jump into Gehinnom, even as it says (in Lev. 11:21), “to leap (rt.: ntr) with upon the ground.” Yet it says in another place (in Ps. 138:4), “All the kings of the earth shall give thanks to You, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth.” And [so] we still need to learn that they did not want to heed. Micah the Morashitite came and put an end to the matter, where it is stated (in Micah 5:14), “In anger and wrath will I execute retribution on the nations [because they have not obeyed].” Here you learn that they did not want to receive the Torah. David came and gave thanks to the Holy One, blessed be He, over this, where it is stated (in Ps. 77:15), “You are the God who performs wonders; You have made Your strength known among the peoples.” David said, “Master of the World, O the wonders that You performed when You made Your Torah known to the nations of the world!” [As] “Your strength” can only be Torah, since it is stated (in Ps. 29:11), “The Lord will grant strength to His people.” R. Abbahu said, “It was revealed and made known to the One who spoke and world came into being that the nations of the world would not accept the Torah. Then for what reason did He make them the offer? It is simply that this represents the character of the Holy One, blessed be He. First He made an offer to His creatures, and after that He drove them from the world, because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deal with His creatures in tyranny.”¹³Gk.: tyrannia. A second reason for his making them an offer: [It was] on account of appeasement of [their] ancestors.¹⁴Cf. PRK 31 (suppl. 1):15, which reads: “Because of the merit of the ancestors.” Abraham had fathered Ishmael and Isaac had fathered Esau.

Our Rabbis were taught: Four [depressive] cries did the Temple court utter: First, "Go forth from here ye sons of Eli who have defiled the Temple of God." The second cry the Temple court uttered, "Go forth from here Issachar, the man of the village Barkai, who honors himself but desecrated the holiness of God." What did he do? He used to wrap silk around his hands and perform the divine service. Again the Temple court cried: "Raise your heads, O ye gates and let Ishmael b. Piachi, disciple of Phineas, enter and serve as High-priest." Another cry the Temple court uttered: "Raise your heads, O ye gates, and let Jochanan, the son of Narbai, the disciple of Phinkai, enter and let him fill his stomach with the sacerdotal food of God." It is related of Jochanan, the son of Narbai, that he would consume three hundred calves in his meal, drink three hundred jars of wine, and devour forty Se'ahs of young pigeons as a dessert for his meal. It was related that never during the life of Jochanan, the son of Narbai, was any part [of the sacerdotal] meat left over. What was the end of Issachar, he of the village of Barkai? It is related that at one time the king and the queen had a dispute as to which meat was better; the king said that the meat of a kid is better and the queen said the meat of a sheep. So it was suggested that a decision should be given by the High-priest, who ought to know because of the sacrifices [of every kind] made every day. Thereupon he appeared before them. "If a kid were the best," said he, waving his hand, "it would be used for the daily sacrifices, [and not lambs which are to be used]." So the king said: "Because he showed no respect for the throne [in waving his hand so freely] his right hand shall be cut off." Isaachar, having bribed the executioner, had his left hand taken off, instead. When the king became aware of this, he ordered that the right hand be cut off also [thus Issachar lost both hands]. "Blessed be the Lord," remarked R. Joseph, "who caused Issachar, the man of the village Barkai, to receive his due recompense in this world." R. Ashi said: "Issachar, he of the village Barkai, never learned our Mishnah, for we are taught that R. Simon says: 'Lamb sacrifices are always preferable to other sacrifices of kids.' One might say so because lamb meat is better; therefore, after the kid offering is mentioned it is added (Lev. 4, 33) And if a lamb, etc. From this we infer that they are equal in taste." Rabina said: "He did not even read the Scripture, where it is written (Ib. 3, 2) If a sheep or a kid is his offering, i.e., if he wants to bring a lamb, he may do so; and if he wants to bring a kid he may do so."

4) (Vayikra 3:1): ("if he offers it from the) herd": to include (as a shelamim offering) the eleventh (in the process of tithing, where he erroneously called the eleventh the tenth); "the herd": to exclude the ninth (as a substitute for the tenth). Why do you see fit to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After Scripture excludes, it includes. From when is hekdesh (i.e., that which is consecrated) susceptible of a "substitute"? Before or after (consecration)? Certainly, after. Therefore, I include (as a substitute) the eleventh, which follows the (naturally) consecrated (tenth), and I exclude the ninth, which precedes it.

4) (Vayikra 3:16): "And the Cohein shall smoke them": all at once. "the bread of a fire-offering for a sweet savor, all the fat for the L–rd": to include fat in me'ilah (the interdict against abuse of sacred objects).

4) This tells me only of (the prohibition of the) cheilev of full-breed oxen, sheep, or goats. Whence do I derive that of kilaim (hybrids) (of sheep and goats for inclusion in the prohibition)? From "of ox or sheep or goat." These are the words of R. Akiva. And if you wish, you can say that it is derived from (Vayikra 7:25) ("For all who eat cheilev) of the beast," including a hybrid. What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:23) "all cheilev"? I might think that only what is included in the punishment (kareth) is included in the exhortation (against eating cheilev), (but the cheilev of) a koi (an animal whose status is in doubt, i.e., is it "domesticated" [whose cheilev is forbidden] or "non-domesticated" [whose cheilev is permitted]?) or less than an olive-size (the minimum for kareth), (I might think that since they are not included in the punishment (kareth) they are not included in the exhortation (not to eat). It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "all cheilev."

4) "his offering" — not a bechor (first-born). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that a bechor should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, which are not consecrated from the womb, require semichah — a bechor, which is consecrated from the womb — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — not a bechor.

4) I would exclude all of the above but not the innards-fat of a sh'lil (a live embryo found in the mother's body [i.e., I would say that that fat, being innards-fat, is interdicted]); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:4): "and the two kidneys and the fat (which is upon them") in respect to a guilt-offering. Let this not be written, for it may be deduced by kal vachomer (that these must be sacrificed), viz.:

4) "the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": Why mention this? (i.e., it is already written in relation to cattle [Vayikra 3:3]) For I might think that wall-fat (of sheep) is also (to be sacrificed). — But I would reason otherwise!, viz.: If cattle, whose libations are larger are excluded from (sacrifice of) wall-fat — sheep, whose libations are smaller, how much more so should they be excluded from (sacrifice of) wall fat! — No, it may be so with cattle, which are excluded from (sacrifice of) a fat-tail, as opposed to sheep, where a fat-tail is also sacrificed! It is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, etc." Only what is specifically written (is sacrificed [and not wall-fat]). R. Yishmael says: Because it departed (from the general category) for a new learning (i.e., the fat-tail), Scripture restored it to its category. (See Baraitha d'R. Yishmael 11).

4) (Vayikra 3:7): ("If) a lamb (he offers"): Why mention this (after "flock")? To include the pesach offering (which is a lamb) for the (smoking of the) fat-tail (along with the other devoted portions). "If a lamb" — to include a pesach whose (stipulated) time (for sacrifice) has passed, and shelamim which come by virtue of a pesach (e.g., a substitute) in all the mitzvoth of shelamim, as requiring semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh. For I might think: If the "father" (i.e., the pesach offering itself) does not require semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh, then what comes because of it, how much more so should it not require semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh! It is, therefore, written: "If a lamb" to include a pesach whose time has passed and what comes by virtue of it as requiring semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh. But they are eaten only for a day and a night, as per the origin of their consecration (i.e., the pesach offering). Ben Azzai says: They are eaten only at night and only roasted (like the pesach lamb itself).

4) "the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": Why mention this? (i.e., it is already written in relation to cattle [Vayikra 3:3]) For I might think that wall-fat (of sheep) is also (to be sacrificed). — But I would reason otherwise!, viz.: If cattle, whose libations are larger are excluded from (sacrifice of) wall-fat — sheep, whose libations are smaller, how much more so should they be excluded from (sacrifice of) wall fat! — No, it may be so with cattle, which are excluded from (sacrifice of) a fat-tail, as opposed to sheep, where a fat-tail is also sacrificed! It is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, etc." Only what is specifically written (is sacrificed [and not wall-fat]). R. Yishmael says: Because it departed (from the general category) for a new learning (i.e., the fat-tail), Scripture restored it to its category. (See Baraitha d'R. Yishmael 11).

(Lev. 10:8-9:) “And the Lord spoke unto Aaron, [saying], ‘Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.’” Why did He give a commandment concerning wine?¹³Lev. R. 12:1; cf. Numb. R. 10:2; M. Prov. 23. Because anyone who drinks wine will have boils, sores, shame, and reproach come upon him. So the holy spirit cries out (in Prov. 23:29-35), “Who has woe; who has sorrow; who has contentions; who has talk; who has unexplained sores; who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry over wine [….] Do not stare at wine when it is red, [when it gives its color to the cup….] In the end it will bite like a snake; [….] Your eyes will see strange things; [….] You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, [….] They struck me, but I felt no hurt.” (Vs. 29) “Who has woe; who has sorrow” [means,] about whom do they say, “Woe?”; “who has contentions,” [means,] about whom do they say [that he is a master of] quarrels. [(ibid., cont.) “Who has talk, means,] and about whom do they talk? (ibid., cont.) “Who has unexplained sores,” [means,] whom [do they say] has boils on his face? [(ibid., cont.) “Who has redness of eyes ('ayin),” [means,] and about whom do they say that his eyes ('ayin) are bleary and red from wine? About whom do they say all these evils? (Vs. 30) “Those who tarry over wine.” (Vs. 31) “Do not stare at wine when it is red.” Its end is blood. It is fine on the outside and bad on the inside; so never say that it is beautiful on the inside, just as [it appears] on the outside. (According to ibid., cont.,) “When it gives its color ('ayin) to the cup (kos).” [This is the oral text (the qere).] The written text (ketiv) [says] “to the purse (kis).” The drunkard sets his eye on the cup, but the shopkeeper [sets his eye] on the purse. “When it gives its color to the cup.” When one sees his comrade drinking, he says, “Pour one for me to drink.” Then he drinks and defiles himself in dung and urine. (Ibid., cont.) “He/it¹⁴In the Biblical context it is the wine that goes down smoothly. goes down smoothly.” He ends in selling all the objects in his house and all his useful implements. Thus he [is left with] no clothes and no useful implements for the house, so that [he is left] with nothing and the house is empty from [having] everything. “He/it goes down smoothly.” In the end he declares transgressions permissible and makes them something accessible [to all] like a commons. He converses with a woman in the market place where he talks obscenely and says evil things in a drunken state without being ashamed, because he is confused and knows neither what he is saying nor what he is doing. (Prov. 23:32) “In the end it will bite like a snake.” When the snake bites a person, he does not feel it for a time; but after he goes home, [the poison in] the wound permeates him. “In the end it will bite like a snake,” most certainly like a snake. Just as in the case of the snake, [the Holy One, blessed be He,] cursed the land on account of it, as stated (in Gen. 3:17), “cursed is the land because of you”; so in the case of wine, Canaan, who was a third of the world was cursed on account of it, as stated (in Gen. 9:24-25), “Then Noah awoke from his wine…, [And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan].’”¹⁵As Enoch Zundel explains in his commentary on Tanh., Lev. 3:5, Canaan’s curse comes through his father Ham, upon whom the curse actually fell. Since Ham represented a third of Noah’s sons, a third of the world came from him. So also Numb. R. 10:2. Ergo (in Prov. 23:32), “In the end it will bite like a snake….” (Vs. 33) “Your eyes will see strange things.” See what wine causes one who drinks it! “Your eyes will see strange things” [is a reference to], (Ps. 81:10) “There shall not be a strange god with you.” It causes him to serve idols. So it says (in Is. 28:7), “These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink.” What is the meaning of these? [These of] which it is spoken (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel.” Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:6), “and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to engage in amorous sport.” [It was] because of wine that they said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel.” Therefore (in Prov. 23:33), “and your heart will speak deceitful things.” Thus it causes four things: idolatry, uncovering of nakedness, shedding of blood, and evil speech. See how strong wine is! So it is written (in Hab. 2:5), “And moreover, wine betrays an arrogant man.” It is also written (in Prov. 21:24), “An insolent and arrogant one, scorner is his name.” Now “insolent” must mean idolatry. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 119:21), “You rebuke the cursed insolent ones.” Moreover, “insolent ones” must [also] refer to the uncovering of nakedness. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 86:14), “O God, insolent ones have risen up over against me…”; and it says (in Ps. 19:14), “Also keep your servant from insolent ones.” Moreover, when one drinks and transgresses, he sees the whole world as a ship. It is so stated (in Prov. 23:34), “You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea.” When he lies down they smite him, but he does not feel it. Thus it is stated (in vs. 35), “They struck me, but I felt no hurt; they beat me, but I did not know it.” So when he is unknowing and unashamed, he uncovers himself. Then afterwards he returns and seeks it (i.e., wine). [Thus it is stated (ibid.),] “when I wake up, I seek it yet again.” See how evil is the end of those who drink wine. [Isaiah said (in Is. 5:11),] “Woe to those who rise early in the morning to pursue strong drink; who remain behind in the evening for wine to inflame them.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Inasmuch as wine causes such [evils], it is right for Me to command the priests not to drink wine when they minister before Me. Ergo (in Lev. 10:9:), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.” Solomon said (in Prov. 23:20), “Do not be among those who imbibe wine.” Do not cause yourself to drink [wine (yyn), which implies] seventy. Then you would face seventy [judges of the Sanhedrin] and fall into the hands of death. Y (= 10) plus y (= 10), for a subtotal of 20, plus n (= 50) results in seventy.¹⁶Cf. Sanh. 38a. So you would face seventy [members of] the Sanhedrin¹⁷Gk.: Synedrion. and cause your own death. See what is written (in Deut. 21:18-19), “If one has a defiant and rebellious son…, his father and mother shall take hold of him [and bring him out unto the elders of his town]….” Then the sentence shall be passed over him; and (in vs. 21) “[All the people of his own town] shall stone him [to death] with stones.” Why? Because he is (according to vs. 20) “a glutton and a drunkard.” So Solomon has said (in Prov. 23:20), “Do not be among those who imbibe wine, who gorge themselves on meat,”¹⁸See also Prov. 23:22, which adds an admonition to obey parents. lest you bring stoning upon yourself, the most weighty of the executions.
R. Judah bar Shallum the Levite said, “In the Hebrew language the name [for wine] is yyn, and in the Aramaic language its name is hmr. By gematria¹⁹Gk.: geometria or grammateis. Gematria is an exegetical method in which an interpretation is reached from the sum of the numerical value of the letters in a word. hmr becomes two hundred and forty-eight, corresponding to the [number of] parts in a human being. The wine enters into each and every limb, so that the body becomes weakened and knowledge becomes confounded. When wine enters, knowledge departs.” And so Eleazar Haqappar has taught, “Wine (yyn), with a numerical value of seventy enters; and secrets (swd), with a numerical value of seventy,²⁰S (= 60), W (= 6), and D (= 4) add up to 70. depart.”²¹Cf. Sanh. 38a, which attributes the teaching to R. Hiyya. Therefore, the high priest was commanded not to drink wine during the time of the service, lest it confound his knowledge; for he preserves the Torah (and preserves the service) and the knowledge. Thus it is stated (in Mal. 2:6), “The true Torah was in his mouth, and no injustice was found on his lips.” It also says (in vs. 7), “For the lips of a priest preserve knowledge.” Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Aaron (in Lev. 10:9), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor, you and your children as well.” And do [not] think that I may have commanded you [only] for the past in the beginning, at a time when the Temple was standing and you were ministering in it, since it is stated (ibid., cont.), “when you come unto the tent of witness….” [Rather,] you shall also keep yourselves from wine forever, as stated (ibid., cont.), “it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.” Therefore, keep yourselves from wine, because wine is a sign²²Gk.: semeion. of a curse. In the case of Noah, what is written about him? (In Gen. 9:21), “Then he drank of the wine and became drunk.” Cham entered and saw his nakedness. What did [Noah] say to him? He cursed his son (in vs. 25), “And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan.’” Therefore (in Lev. 10:9), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.” And so you find that the ten tribes went into exile only from wine.²³Cf. Lev. 5:3; Numb. 10:3. See what [scripture] says (in Amos 6:1), “Woe to those who are at ease in Zion,” because they were dwelling at ease in pleasure palaces. (Ibid., cont.) “and who have confidence in the mountain of Samaria,” because they were dwelling confidently in [Sebaste].²⁴The city built by Herod on the site of old Samaria. (Ibid., cont.:) “The notables of the leading nation, the ones to whom the House of Israel comes.” In what sense? The peoples of the world would sit and talk. They would say, “Who is the mightiest in Israel?” And they would answer, “Samson.” Then again they would say, “Who is the mightiest among the gentiles?” And they would answer, “Goliath,” about whom it is written (in I Sam. 17:4), “his height was six cubits and a span.” Ergo (in Amos 6:1), “The notables of the leading nation, the ones to whom the House of Israel comes.” Then again they would say, “Who is the wealthiest among the peoples of the world?” And they would answer, “Hadrian.” Then, “Who is the wealthiest in Israel?” And they would answer, “Solomon.” And these would agree with those that Solomon was the wealthiest, as stated (in I Kings 10:27), “And the king made silver [in Jerusalem as plentiful as stones].” Come and see, each and every tribe had its own May festival.²⁵Gk. Maioumas. When one wanted to go to his May festival, he would take his herd with him, so that he would eat fatlings from his flock. It is so stated (in Amos 6:4, 6), “and they would eat lambs from the flock…. Those who drink [straight] from the wine bowls….” What is their end? (Amos 6:7) “Therefore they shall now go at the head of the exiles.” Why? Because they had a passion for wine. For this reason he warns Aaron (in Lev. 10:9), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.” Blessed is the one who does not have a passion for wine, for you find such to be the case with the children of Jonadab ben Rechab, in that their ancestor had commanded them, “Do not drink wine, you and your children forever” (Jer. 35:6). But what was his reason for saying, “Do not drink wine, you and your children?” It is simply that he had heard Jeremiah prophesying that the Temple would be destroyed. He said to them, “From now on, (Jer. 35:6-7), ‘Do not drink wine… You shall not build a house, sow seed, plant a vineyard, [or own such things]; but you shall dwell in tents all your days.” Now they had mourned and observed the commandments of their ancestor; but when Jeremiah was prophesying to Israel [and] telling them to repent, they were not doing so. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jeremiah, “You are telling them to repent, and they are not doing so. Now in the case of the children of Jonadab ben Rechab, when their ancestor gave them a simple commandment, they observed it; but when I tell Israel to repent, they do not observe [My commandment].” It is so stated (in Jer. 35:14), “The words of Jonadab ben Rechab have been upheld. He commanded his children not to drink wine, and to this day they have not drunk it…. But I spoke to you from early morning to late evening, [and you did not hearken unto me].” What is written there? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jeremiah, “Say to them, ‘By your life, whereas you have heeded this commandment, your lineage shall never disappear from before Me, even as it is written (in vs. 19), “Therefore, thus says the Lord [of hosts, the God of Israel], ‘Someone belonging to Jonadab ben Rechab shall not (ever) be cut off [from standing] before Me for ever.’”’” He therefore enlightens them concerning wine (in Lev. 10:9), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.” Isaiah said (in is. 24:11), “There is a cry over wine in the streets; all gladness is obscured.” What is the meaning of “all gladness is obscured (rt.: 'rb)?”²⁶Above, Exod. 11:8. [That ] all gladness has become dark, just as you say (in Gen. 1:5),²⁷Also Gen. 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31. “and there was evening ('rb).” (Is. 24:11, cont.:) “The joy of the earth has [departed], because Zion has come to an end.” Thus it is written (in Ps. 48:3), “Beauteous landscape, joy of the whole earth, [even Mount Zion].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “In this world wine is a sign of a curse, but in the world to come I will make it into fresh grape juice. Thus it is stated (in Joel 4:18), “And it shall come to pass on that day the mountains shall flow with fresh grape juice….”

5) ("if) he (offers it"): "he": The individual brings shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation. For (if not for the exclusion) does it not follow (that the congregation, too, could bring shelamim as a gift-offering), viz.: A beast burnt-offering comes as gift or vow, and shelamim come as gift or vow. Just as a beast burnt-offering which comes as gift or vow can come as a congregational gift-offering, so, shelamim, which come as gift or vow can come as a congregational gift-offering.

5) ("If) he (offers"): The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation. If you would ask: But have they (the congregation) not already been excluded by (Vayikra 3:1): "if from the cattle he offers"? (This is no objection,) for I might think that the congregation does not bring shelamim from cattle as a gift-offering because they do not bring their like as a mandatory offering, and that they could bring shelamim from the flock as a gift-offering, because they do bring their like as a mandatory offering (i.e., the Atzereth lambs). It is, therefore, written (here) "he" — The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation.

5) (Vayikra 3:11): "And he shall smoke it": Fats (of one offering) may not be mixed with fats (of another). "the bread of a fire-offering to the L–rd": We are hereby taught that fats are called "bread."

5) It was said in the name of R. Yishmael: It is written (Bamidbar 18:17): But the bechor (the first-born) of an ox, or the bechor of a sheep, or the bechor of a goat, you shall not redeem. They are consecrated. Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar and their fat shall you smoke.": This teaches us that a bechor requires blood and fats upon the altar. Whence do we derive the same for ma'aser and pesach? From (Devarim 12:27): "And the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of your G d (first), and (then) the flesh shall you eat." This tells me only of their blood. Whence do I derive (the same for) their fat? From (Vayikra 3:16): "all the fat for the L–rd."

5) "his offering" — not ma'aser (the tithe). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that ma'aser should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, which are not required to be brought, require semichah — ma'aser, which is required to be brought — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "his offering" — not ma'aser.

5) If shelamim, whose entire category does not require the (smoking of the) fat-tail, (the fat-tail obtaining only with sheep, and shelamim being offered also from cattle and goats), do require the (smoking of) fat and two kidneys — then, a guilt-offering, whose entire category (sheep) requires the (smoking of) fat and two kidneys! Why, then, need this be written in respect to a guilt-offering? To teach: Just as (the smoking of) fat and two kidneys mentioned in respect to a guilt-offering does not apply to the sh'lil (only a male being brought as a guilt-offering), so (the smoking of) fat and two kidneys mentioned here (in respect to shelamim) does not apply to a sh'lil.

5) ("If) he (offers"): The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation. If you would ask: But have they (the congregation) not already been excluded by (Vayikra 3:1): "if from the cattle he offers"? (This is no objection,) for I might think that the congregation does not bring shelamim from cattle as a gift-offering because they do not bring their like as a mandatory offering, and that they could bring shelamim from the flock as a gift-offering, because they do bring their like as a mandatory offering (i.e., the Atzereth lambs). It is, therefore, written (here) "he" — The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation.

R. Isaac began [his discourse] (with Eccl. 7:23), “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.” It is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom and discernment in great measure, with understanding....” R. Johanan said a parable in the name of R. Simeon ben Yehozedek, “This is comparable to a king who had a friend, and the king loved him exceedingly. The king said to him, ‘Ask me anything you want and I will give it to you.’ And that friend was very wise. He said [to himself], ‘If I ask him to make me a duke, it [alone] will come to me. If I ask him to make me a duke, it [alone] will come to me.” Rather I will ask him for something that is attached to all the advantages.’ Immediately he answered and said to the king, ‘Since you asked that I should ask for something in front of you, I am asking from you that you marry off your daughter to me.’ The king said, ‘By your life, I want this. Behold my daughter is [given] into your house.’ So [too] at the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Solomon (in I Kings 3:5), ‘Ask what I should give to you,’ Solomon said [to himself], ‘What shall I ask; If I ask for silver and gold, it [alone] will come to me. If I ask for the monarchy, it [alone] will come to me. Rather I will ask for something that is attached to all the things.’ Immediately he said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the World, I only request from you wisdom.’ [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘You have asked well in asking for wisdom, as all the things are attached to it. Silver and gold are attached to it, as stated (in Prov. 8:19), “My fruit is better than gold, fine gold, and my produce than choice silver.” Monarchy is attached to it, as stated (in Prov. 8:15), “Through me kings reign.” Behold everything is given to you.’” Hence it is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom,” as He gave him wisdom as a gift. (I Kings 5:9, cont.:) “As vast as the sand of the sea.” The rabbis say, “[This] teaches that He gave him as much wisdom as all Israel, who are compared to the sand, as stated (in Hos. 2:1), ‘The number of the Children of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea.’ How is this? The sages have knowledge, the elders of knowledge and the children have knowledge, but they are different, one from the other. And [so] if all of Israel would be on one side and Solomon on the other side, his wisdom would be greater than theirs.”⁶⁴Numb. R. 19:3; Eccl. R. 7:23:1; PRK 4:3; PR 14:8. R. Levi said, “Just as sand is a wall and a fence for [the sea], that it not go out and flood the world; so that his wisdom stand in front of his [evil] impulse, that he not sin.” The proverb says, “If you lack knowledge, what have you gained? If you have gained knowledge, what do you lack?” Like (in Prov. 25:28) “A city broken into with no walls,” so “is a person who does not restrain his spirit.” (I Kings 5:10:) “Now Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the East.” And what was the wisdom of the peoples of the East?⁶⁵Above, Gen. 7:24; PR 14:9. [In that] they knew about astrology and were astute at divination (from birds). Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “I like three things about the people of the East: They do not kiss on the mouth, but only on the hand; When they cut meat, they cut only with a knife and not on the back of the hand; And when they take counsel, they take it only in the field.
It is therefore stated (in Gen. 31:4), ‘So Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field where his flock was.’” (I Kings 5:10, cont.:) “From all the wisdom of Egypt.” What was the wisdom of Egypt? You find that when Solomon wanted to build the Temple, he sent to Pharaoh Necho and said to him, “Send me craftsmen [to work] for a wage, for I want to build the Temple.” What did Pharaoh do? He gathered all his astrologers⁶⁶Gk.: astrologoi. and said to them, “Foresee which people are going to die this year and send them to him. So that I can come to him with a grievance and say to him, ‘Give me the value of the craftsmen that you killed.’” When they came to Solomon, he foresaw through the holy spirit that they would die during that year. He [therefore] gave them shrouds and sent them [back] to [Pharaoh]. He sent to him, saying, “Do you not have shrouds to bury your dead? Here they are for you with their shrouds. Go and bury your dead.” Hence it is stated, (I Kings 5:10, cont.) “from all the wisdom of Egypt.” (I Kings 5:11:) “And he was wiser than any man, than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Chalkol, and Darda the sons of Mahol.” “Wiser than any man (literally, than all of Adam),” than the first Adam. And what was his wisdom? You find that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the first Adam, he consulted with the ministering angels. He said to them (in Gen. 1:26), “Let us make humankind (Adam) in Our image.” They said to him (in Ps. 8:5), “What is a human that You are mindful of him?” He said to them, “This Adam that I want to create Adam shall have wisdom greater than yours.” What did He do? He gathered all cattle, wild beasts, and fowl pass before them. He said to them, “What are the names of these [beings]?” They, however, did not know. When He had created Adam, He made them pass before him. He said to him, “What are the names of these [beings]?” He said, “It is fitting to call this one an ox, this one a lion, this one a horse, [...]” and so on for all of them. It is so stated (in Gen. 2:20), “So Adam recited names for all the cattle.”⁶⁷The understanding of the midrash is that the creatures implicitly already possessed names. He said to him, “And you, what is your name?” Adam said to him, “Adam, because I was created out of the ground (adamah).” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I, what is My name?” He said to him, “The Lord, because you are Lord over all creatures,” namely as written (in Is. 42:8), “I am the Lord, that is My name,” which the first Adam gave me.⁶⁸Above, Lev. 3:11. “That is my name,” the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and My creatures. (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “[Wiser] than Ethan the Ezrahite.” This is Abraham, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 89:1), “A maskil (a psalm of erudition) of Ethan the Ezrahite.”⁶⁹It is assumed, of course that Abraham wrote the Psalm, an assumption based on a comparison of Ps. 89:1 and Is. 41:2: WHO HAS RAISED UP RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM THE EAST?. See BB 15a. The Ezrahite (‘ezrahi) of Ps. 89:1 is understood in the sense of “Easterner,” and Ethan (which means “steadfast”) is regarded as equivalent to “righteous.” For another argument identifying Ethan and Abraham, see PR 6:5. (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “And Heman (rt.: 'mn).” This is Moses, of whom it is stated (in Numb. 12:7 with reference to Moses), “he is trusted (rt.: 'mn) in all My house.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “Calcol (klkl).” This is Joseph, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 47:12), “And joseph sustained (rt.: klkl) [his father and his brothers].” The Egyptians said, “Has this slave come to rule over us for any reason but because of his wisdom?” What did they do to him? They brought seventy tablets⁷⁰Gk.: piyyakia; Lat.: pittacia. and wrote on them in seventy tongues. Then when they cast them before him. He read each and every one in its own tongue. And not only that, but he spoke in the holy tongue, which they did not have the ability to understand, as stated (in Ps. 81:6), “He made it a statute upon Joseph, when he went out over the land of Egypt. I hear a language I had not known.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “Darda (drd')].” This is the generation (dor) of the desert, which had knowledge (de'ah). (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “The children of Mahol,” i.e., the Children of Israel whom the Divine Presence forgave (rt.: mhl) for the deed of the calf. (I Kings 5:12:) “Moreover he composed three thousand proverbs.” R. Samuel bar Nahman said, “We have gone over all of the scriptures and have found that Solomon only uttered prophetically close to eight hundred verses.⁷¹See Cant. R. 1:1:11. Then what is meant by three thousand? [This number] teaches that each and every verse that he spoke contains two [or] three interpretations, just as it says (in Prov. 25:12), ‘Like an earring of gold, a necklace of fine gold, [so is a wise reprover to a listening ear].’”⁷²The midrash understands the WISE REPROVER TO BE Solomon himself, who is likened to both a golden earring and a golden necklace. But the rabbis say, “Every verse has three thousand proverbs, while each and every proverb has a thousand and five interpretations.” [(I Kings 5:12, cont.:) “And his song numbered a thousand and five.”] “Songs” is not written here, but “song,” the song of the proverb. (I Kings 5:13:) “And he spoke with/concerning ('al)⁷³The point of the midrash in this and in the following chapter concerns whether to understand ‘al as “with” or “concerning.” the trees.” Is it possible that a person would speak with the trees? Solomon merely said, “For what reason is a leper cleansed through the tallest among the trees (the cedar) and through the lowest of the low (the hyssop); through (according to Lev. 14:4) cedar wood, [crimson stuff,] and hyssop?’ It is simply because he had exalted himself like the cedar, that he was stricken with leprosy. As soon as he humbled himself like the hyssop, he was therefore cured through hyssop”. (I Kings 5:13, cont.:) “He also spoke with/concerning ('al) the cattle and the fowl.” Is it possible that [a person] would speak with cattle and with fowl? Rather [the passage is concerned with] why the cattle are permitted [as food] with [the cutting of] two organs⁷⁴Gk.: semeia (“signs,” “omens”). (the gullet and the windpipe); but the fowl, with [the cutting of] one organ (i.e., the gullet or the windpipe).⁷⁵See Hul. 2:1; Hul. 27b. Because cattle were created from the dry land, as stated (in Gen. 1:14), “Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after its kind, cattle, creeping things,” they are permitted with two organs. But in regard to fowl, because they were created from the mud, they were permitted with one organ. As one text says [they came] from the dry land, while another text says [they came] from the sea. [The text stating fowls came] from the dry land is what is written (in Gen. 2:19), “So from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens.” The other text says (in Gen. 1:20), “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and the fowl fly above the earth.”⁷⁶This unusual translation of Gen. 1:20 is required by the midrash. Bar Qappara said, “They were created from the mud which is in the sea.” R. Abbin said the name of R. Jose the Galilean said, “Nevertheless, the feet of the cock resemble the scaly skin⁷⁷Reading HSPNYT’ with the parallel in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Kings, 178, for Buber’s HRTsPYTYH. of the fish.”⁷⁸A fish of the genus anthias. (I Kings 5:13, cont.:) “And with/concerning ('al) the creeping things.” Is it possible that one would speak with a creeping thing? Solomon simply said, “What is the reason that in the case of the eight swarming creatures which are in the Torah, one is culpable for hunting or injuring them (on the Sabbath)⁷⁹Shab. 14:1.; but in the case of the rest of the swarming creatures, one is exempt?⁸⁰Shab. 14:1. For the reason that they (i.e. the former) have skins.”⁸¹Shab. 107ab, explains that in the case of skin, as distinct from the flesh, a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar. Thus part of the animal’s life is lost. See yShab. 14:1 (14b); also Hul. 9:2. Cf. Rashi on Shab. 14:1, according to whom cutting the skin causes blood to color it in a form of dying, an act forbidden on the Sabbath. (I Kings 5:13 cont.:) “And with/concerning ('al) the fish.” Is it possible that one would so speak? Solomon merely said, “For what reason do cattle, beasts, and birds require ritual slaughtering, while fish do not require ritual slaughtering?” Jacob the man of Kefar Gibburayya taught in Tyre with respect to fish, that they do require ritual slaughtering. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis did you decide this?” He said to him, “From here (in Gen. 1:20), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the fowl fly.’ Just as fowl require ritual slaughtering, so do the fish require ritual slaughtering.” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “On what basis?” He said to him, “From here (in Numb. 11:22), ‘Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them?’ The former require ritual slaughtering, while the latter [is taken] through gathering.” He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” And again did Jacob the man of Kefar Gibburayya teach in Tyre, [this time] with respect to an Israelite man, who came upon a foreign woman and had her bear him a son, that he should be circumcised on the Sabbath. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him, “[From this which is written] (in Numb. 1:18) ‘then they registered their lineages according to their families according to the house of their fathers.’” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “Where is it shown?” He said to him, “Lie down and listen.” He said to him, “If one of the gentiles came to you in order to become a proselyte on condition that you circumcise him on the Sabbath day or on the Day of Atonement, would you profane the Sabbath on account of him or not?” He said to him, “One does not profane the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement for him but only for the son of an Israelite woman.” He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him (in Ezra 10:3), “So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all (foreign) wives and (anyone] born of them […].” He said to him, “Would you lash me on the basis of [a non-Mosaic text]?” He said to him, “It is written (ibid.), ‘let it be done [according to] the Torah.’” He said to him, “From which [piece of] Torah?” He said to him, “From that of R. Johanan, when he said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, ‘It is written (in Deut. 7:3), “You shall not intermarry with them; do not give your daughters to their sons.” Why? (Deut. 7:4:) “Because they will turn your children away from following me.” Your child that comes from an Israelite woman is called "your child"; but that which comes from a foreign woman is called, not "your child," but "her child,” as stated (in Gen. 21:13), “And I will also make the son of the maidservant into a nation.”’" He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” Solomon said, “About all these things I have knowledge; but in the case of the parashah on the red heifer, I have investigated it, inquired into it, and examined it. Still (at the end of the verse in Eccl. 7:23), ‘I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.’” (Eccl. 8:1:) “Who is like the wise person, and who knows the explanation of a saying?” (Eccl. 8:1:) Who is like the wise person? This is the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated about Him (in Prov. 3:19), “Through wisdom the Lord founded the earth.”⁸²Numb. R. 19:4; Eccl. R. 8:1:1; PRK 4:4; PR 14:10. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “And who knows the explanation of a saying?” This [also] is the Holy One, blessed be He, who explained the Torah for Moses. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “A person's wisdom lights up his face.” R. Judan said, “Great is the power of the prophets, as they [are able to] compare the Almighty above to the form of a man, as stated (Daniel 8:16), ‘And I heard the voice of a man.’” And R. Judah bar Simon says [the proof] is from here (in Ezekiel 1:26), “and on the image of a chair was an image of a man.” (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “And the radiance ('oz) of his face is changed (for the better),” in that he changes the principle of judgment into a principle of mercy with respect to Israel. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Over each and every word that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to Moses, He spoke to him of its [related] uncleanness and of its purification.⁸³See Numb. R. 19:4. When he made known the Parashah (starting with Lev. 21:1), ‘Speak (Emor) unto the priests,’ [Moses] said to him, ‘Master of the world, if a priest becomes unclean (through touching a human corpse), what means is there for his purification?’ When [the Holy One, blessed be He,] did not answer, at that time the face of Moses turned yellow (with shame). Then when the Holy One, blessed be He, reached the parashah on the [red] heifer, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Moses, [when I gave you] that saying which I spoke to you (in Lev. 21:1), “Go, speak unto the priests,” then you said to me, “If one becomes unclean, what means will there be for his purification,” I did not answer [you at that time. Now] this is his purification (in Numb. 19:17), “They shall take some ashes from the burning of the sin offering (i.e., the red heifer).”‘”

(Lev. 9:2:) THEN HE SAID UNTO AARON; TAKE A BULLOCK < OF THE HERD FOR A SIN OFFERING >. Why was it not told him < to take > a bull instead of a bullock?¹⁴Tanh., Lev. 3:4. He said to him: Because through the bullock (of Exod. 32) the priesthood was shaken in your hand, through a bullock it is being established in your hand. And not only that, but lest Israel say there are sins < clinging > to them from the deed of the bullock, for that reason he said they should offer a bullock < for a sin offering >. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 9:3): AND YOU SHALL SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, SAYING: TAKE A MALE GOAT FOR A SIN OFFERING AND A BULLOCK…. < These things were said > so that they would know that they had been forgiven for the deed of the calf. The Holy One said to them: In this world they have been forgiven through offerings, but in the world to come I will wipe away their sins without an offering. It is so stated (in Is. 43:25): I, EVEN I, WILL PARDON¹⁵mohel; cf. the Masoretic Text which reads moheh (“wipe away.” YOUR TRANSGRESSIONS FOR MY OWN SAKE AND WILL NOT REMEMBER YOUR SINS.

Another interpretation (of Numb. 8:2), “When you set up [the lamps]”: This text is related (to Ps. 139:12), “Even darkness is not dark to You; for night shines as the day, and darkness becomes like the light.” Yet You are saying to us (in Numb. 8:2), “When you set up the lamps!”¹Numb. R. 15:8. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who had a friend. The king said to him, “You should know that I am dining with you; so make ready for me.” His friend went [and] prepared a commoner's²Gk.: idiotes. couch [and] a commoner's³Gk.: idiotes. table. When the king arrived, attendants came with him. They set around menorahs of gold before him on either side. When his friend saw all the splendor, he felt ashamed and concealed everything that he had prepared, because everything was [of the type used by] commoners. The king said to him, “What is this? Did I not tell you that I was dining with you? Why did you prepare nothing for me?” His friend said to him, “My lord king, when I saw all this splendor that came with you, I felt ashamed and concealed everything that I had prepared for you, as it consisted of commoner's utensils.” The king said to him, “By your life, I am rejecting all my utensils which I have brought with me, and out of love for you I only wish to use yours.” So it was with the Holy One, blessed be He. He is all light, as stated (in Dan. 2:22), “and the light dwells within Him.” When he says to Israel, “Prepare a menorah and lamps for Me,” what is written there (in Exod. 25:8, 31)? “And let them make Me a sanctuary and I shall dwell within them; And you shall make a menorah of pure gold.” When they had done so, immediately the Divine Presence arrived. What is written there (in Exod. 40:35)? “Now Moses could not enter the tent of meeting… [because the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle].” Immediately He called to Moses, as stated (in Lev. 1:1), “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.” And it is written (in Numb. 7:89), “When Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him.” But what did He say unto him (in Numb. 8:2)? “When you set up the lamps.” Israel said (in Ps. 43:3), “Send out Your light and Your truth; they will lead me”. Great is the light of the Holy One, blessed be He!⁴Numb. R. 15:9. The sun and the moon give light to the world, but from where do they derive their light? They snatch some sparks of celestial light. It is so stated (in Hab. 3:11), “[Sun and moon remain on high;] they go for the light of Your arrows, for the brightness of Your shining spear.” Great is the celestial light, of which only one part in a hundred has been given to mortals. It is so stated (in Dan. 2:22), “He knows what⁵MH read as M’H which means “a hundred.” is in the darkness, and the light [dwells with Him].” Therefore [the Holy One, blessed be He, says,] “I made sun and moon so that they would give you light, as stated (in Gen. 1:17), “God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” (Numb. 8:2:) “[Let the seven lamps] give their light in front of the menorah.” (David) [Solomon] said (in Prov. 16:15), “In the light of the king's face there is life.”⁶Numb. R. 15:9. R. Jacob bar Jose said, “Joy was withheld from the wicked and given to the righteous, to Israel, because the Holy One, blessed be He, was obliged to dwell among flesh and blood in the light. Thus he said to them (in Numb. 8:2), ‘[Let the seven lamps] give their light in front of the menorah.’” R. Levi said, “A pure menorah descended from the heavens.⁷Numb. R. 15:9. Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses (in Exod. 25:31), ‘And you shall make a menorah of pure gold.’ He said to Him, ‘How shall we make [it]?’ He said to him (ibid. cont.), ‘Of hammered work shall the menorah be made.’ Nevertheless Moses had difficulty; for when he descended, he had forgotten its construction.⁸See Above, Lev. 3:33; Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Piska 2; PRK 15; PR 15:21; 20:4; Exod. R. 15:28. He went up and said, ‘Master of the world, I have forgotten [it].’ He said to him (in Exod. 25:40), ‘Observe and make [it].’ Thus He took a pattern of fire and showed him its construction,⁹See Men. 29a Bar.; Sifre Numb. 8:4 (61); Numb. R. 15:4, 10. but it was still difficult for Moses. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Go to Bezalel and he will make it.’ [So] Moses went down to talk to Bezalel, [and] he made it immediately. Moses began to wonder and say, ‘In my case, how many times did the Holy One, blessed be He, show it to me; yet I had difficulty in making it. Now without seeing it, you have made it from your own knowledge. Bezalel (btsl'l), were you perhaps standing in (b) the shadow (tsl) of God ('l) when the Holy One, blessed be He, showed it to me and said (in Exod. 25:31), “And you shall make”?’ Therefore when the Temple was destroyed, the menorah was stored away.” Now this was one of the five things that were stored away: the ark, the menorah, the fire, the holy spirit, and the cherubim.¹⁰Therefore, these five things were lacking from the Second Temple. See Syr. Baruch 6:4–10; TYoma2:15; TSot. 13:1; yTa‘an. 2:1 (65a); yHor. 3:3(2) (47c); Yoma 21b; Hor. 12a; ARN, A, 41. When the Holy One, blessed be He, returns in his mercy to build His house and His Temple, He will restore them to their place and cause Jerusalem to rejoice. Thus it is stated (in Is. 35:1-2), “The desert and the arid land shall be glad, and the wilderness shall rejoice and blossom like a crocus. It shall blossom abundantly and be glad.”¹¹These five expressions of gladness in these verses correspond to the five things that will be restored in the new temple.

6) This is refuted by the meal-offering, which comes as (individual) gift or vow, but not as a communal gift-offering. — No, this may be so of a meal-offering because it does not come as a gift of two, as opposed to shelamim, which can come as a gift of two. — This is refuted by a burnt-offering of fowl, which can come as a gift of two, but not as a communal gift-offering.

6) (Vayikra 3:17): "an eternal statute": for the eternal house (i.e., the Temple). "for your generations": the thing (i.e., the interdict) obtains for all generations." "in all of your dwellings": both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it — "all fat and all blood you shall not eat." R. Yehudah says: Blood is being likened to fat. Just as fat comes under two interdicts (here and Vayikra 7:23: "All fat of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat"), so, blood. And the sages say it falls only under one exhortation.

6) "his offering" — not a pesach (offering). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that the pesach offering should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, for which Scripture did not add numerous mitzvoth, require semichah — the pesach, for which Scripture did add numerous mitzvoth — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — not the pesach.

6) (Vayikra 3:3): ("And he shall present …) all the fat that is on the innards": R. Yishmael says: to include the fat upon the stomach. R. Akiva says: to include the fat upon the small intestines.

Another interpretation (of Prov. 23:31): HE/IT GOES DOWN SMOOTHLY. In the end he declares transgressions permissible and makes them {a common like something accessible < to all >} [something accessible < to all > like a common]. He converses with a woman in the market place where he talks obscenely and says evil things in a drunken state without being ashamed, because he is confused and knows neither what he is saying nor what he is doing. (Prov. 23:32:) IN THE END IT WILL BITE LIKE A SNAKE. When the snake bites a person, he does not feel it for an time; but after he goes home, < the poison in > the wound permeates him. IN THE END IT WILL BITE LIKE A SNAKE, most certainly like a snake. Just as in the case of the snake, < the Holy One > cursed the land on account of it, as stated (in Gen. 3:17): CURSED IS THE LAND BECAUSE OF YOU; so in the case of wine, a third of the world was cursed on account of it, as stated (in Gen. 9:24–25): THEN NOAH AWOKE FROM HIS WINE…, [AND HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN].¹⁹As Enoch Zundel explains in his commentary on Tanh., Lev. 3:5, Canaan’s curse comes through his father Ham, upon whom the curse actually fell. Since Ham represented a third of Noah’s sons, a third of the world came from him. So also Numb. R. 10:2. Ergo (in Prov. 23:32): IN THE END IT WILL BITE LIKE A SNAKE…. (Vs. 33:) YOUR EYES WILL SEE STRANGE THINGS. See what wine causes one who drinks it! It causes him to serve idols. So it says (in Is. 28:7): THESE ALSO REEL WITH LIQUOR AND STAGGER WITH STRONG DRINK. What is the meaning of {REEL?} [THESE? < These of > which they spoke] (in Exod. 32:4): THESE ARE YOUR GODS, O ISRAEL. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:6): AND THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND ROSE UP TO {PLAY} [TO ENGAGE IN AMOROUS SPORT].²⁰See above, Gen. 2:21. < It was > because of wine that they said (in Exod. 32:4) THESE ARE YOUR GODS, O ISRAEL. Therefore (in Prov. 23:33): AND YOUR HEART WILL SPEAK DECEITFUL THINGS. Thus it causes four things: idolatry, uncovering of nakedness, shedding of blood, and evil speech. See how strong wine is! So it is written (in Hab. 2:5): AND MOREOVER, WINE IS TREACHEROUS. It is also written (in Prov. 21:24): A SCORNER AND ARROGANT ONE, INSOLENT IS HIS NAME.²¹In the Masoretic Text SCORNER and INSOLENT are reversed. Now INSOLENT must mean idolatry. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 119:21): YOU REBUKE THE CURSED INSOLENT ONES. Moreover, INSOLENT ONES must < also > refer to the uncovering of nakedness. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 86:14): O GOD, INSOLENT ONES HAVE RISEN UP OVER AGAINST ME….; and it says (in Ps. 19:14 [13]): ALSO KEEP YOUR SERVANT FROM INSOLENT ONES. Moreover, when one drinks and transgresses, he sees the whole world as a ship. It is so stated (in Prov. 23:34): YOU WILL BE LIKE ONE WHO LIES DOWN IN THE MIDST OF THE SEA. When he lies down they smite him, but he does not feel it. Thus it is stated (in vs. 35): THEY STRUCK ME, BUT I FELT NO HURT; THEY BEAT ME, BUT I DID NOT KNOW IT. So when he is unknowing and unashamed, he uncovers himself. Then afterwards he returns and seeks it (i.e., wine). [Thus it is stated] (ibid.): WHEN I WAKE UP, I SEEK IT YET AGAIN.

7) — No, this may be so with a burnt-offering of fowl because it does not come as a mandatory communal offering, as opposed to a shelamim, which does come as a mandatory communal offering (the Atzereth lambs, which come with the two loaves). And since they come as a mandatory communal offering, they should likewise come as a communal gift-offering; it is, therefore, written: "he" — the individual brings shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation.

7) "and he shall slaughter it" "and he shall slaughter it" (Vayikra 3:8), "and he shall slaughter it" (Vayikra 3:13): Why three times? Because it is written (Devarim 12:21): "If the place be distant from you in which the L–rd your G d shall choose to place His name, (and you will not be able to come and bring peace-offerings every day, as you can now that the mishkan travels with you), then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock … and you shall eat in your gates with all the desire of your soul" — At a distance from the place (i.e., the Temple), you may slaughter (and eat), and not in proximity to the place — to exclude chullin (a non-consecrated animal) from being slaughtered in the azarah.

7 (a reversion to R. Yehudah:) I might think that the blood of consecrated animals which have been rendered pasul (by a permanent blemish) also comes under two interdicts (that of eating blood and that of a non-Cohein eating consecrated food); it is, therefore, written (in relation to such animals, Devarim 12:16): "Only the blood you shall not eat." It comes only under one exhortation (that against eating fat, but not that against a non-Cohein eating consecrated food). This tells me only of their blood. Whence do I derive (the same for) their fat? From: "all fat and all blood you shall not eat." Just as the blood comes under one interdict, so the fat comes under one interdict (as above).

7) "and he shall slaughter it" "and he shall slaughter it" (Vayikra 3:8), "and he shall slaughter it" (Vayikra 3:13): Why three times? Because it is written (Devarim 12:21): "If the place be distant from you in which the L–rd your G d shall choose to place His name, (and you will not be able to come and bring peace-offerings every day, as you can now that the mishkan travels with you), then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock … and you shall eat in your gates with all the desire of your soul" — At a distance from the place (i.e., the Temple), you may slaughter (and eat), and not in proximity to the place — to exclude chullin (a non-consecrated animal) from being slaughtered in the azarah.

7) (Vayikra 3:4): "And the two kidneys": not an animal with one kidney and not an animal with three kidneys, (this being considered a blemish). (Vayikra 3:4): "and the fat which is upon them": not the flesh which is upon them, (this being permitted to be eaten). (Vayikra 3:4): "which is on the loins": This is the fat between the loin sinews. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: to include the fat on the coccyx. R. Yishmael says (in explanation of 6 above): Just as the fat that covers the innards is membranous and easily peeled, so only that fat which is membranous and easily peeled (is included). R. Akiva says: Just as the fat that covers the innards is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled, so only (that fat) which is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled (is included).

7) "and he shall slaughter it" "and he shall slaughter it" (Vayikra 3:8), "and he shall slaughter it" (Vayikra 3:13): Why three times? Because it is written (Devarim 12:21): "If the place be distant from you in which the L–rd your G d shall choose to place His name, (and you will not be able to come and bring peace-offerings every day, as you can now that the mishkan travels with you), then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock … and you shall eat in your gates with all the desire of your soul" — At a distance from the place (i.e., the Temple), you may slaughter (and eat), and not in proximity to the place — to exclude chullin (a non-consecrated animal) from being slaughtered in the azarah.

And so you find that the ten tribes went into exile only because of wine.²⁹Tanh., Lev. 3:5; cf. Lev. 5:3; Numb. 10:3. See what < Scripture > says (in Amos 6:1): WOE TO THOSE WHO ARE AT EASE IN ZION, because they were dwelling at ease in pleasure palaces. (Ibid., cont.:) AND WHO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE MOUNTAIN OF SAMARIA, because they were dwelling confidently in [Sebaste].³⁰The city built by Herod on the site of old Samaria. (Ibid., cont.:) THE NOTABLES OF THE LEADING NATION, THE ONES TO WHOM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL COMES. In what sense? The peoples of the world would sit and talk. They would say: Who is the mightiest in Israel? and they would answer: Samson. Then again they would say: Who is the mightiest among the gentiles? and they would answer: Goliath, about whom it is written (in I Sam. 17:4: HIS HEIGHT WAS SIX CUBITS AND A SPAN. Now these were agreeing³¹In Buber’s Oxford MSS maskim (“agree”) is spelled with a sin instead of a samekh. [with each other] and saying: Samson was the greatest is Israel. Ergo (in Amos 6:1): THE NOTABLES OF THE LEADING NATION. Then again they would say: Who is the wealthiest among the peoples of the world? and they would answer: Hadrian. Then who is the wealthiest in Israel? and they would answer Solomon, as stated (in 1 Kings 10:27): AND THE KING MADE SILVER [IN JERUSALEM AS PLENTIFUL AS STONES]. Come and see: Each and every tribe had its own May festival.³²Gk. Maioumas. When one wanted to go to his May festival, he would take his herd with him, so that he would eat fatlings from his flock. It is so stated (in Amos 6:4 & 6): AND THEY WOULD EAT LAMBS FROM THE FLOCK…. [THOSE WHO DRINK < STRAIGHT > FROM THE WINE BOWLS.] What is their end? (Amos 6:7:) THEREFORE THEY SHALL NOW GO AT THE HEAD OF THE EXILES. Why? Because they had a passion for wine. For this reason he warns Aaron (in Lev. 10:9): DRINK NO WINE OR INTOXICATING LIQUOR.

(Ps. 48:3 [2]): <BEAUTEOUS LANDSCAPE>, THE JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, <EVEN MOUNT ZION>. R. Jonathan ben Eleazar said: There is a story about a certain pragmateutes³⁹The Greek word means “trader.” {shepherd} who went to the land of Israel to sell peppers.⁴⁰Exod. R. 51:5; PR 41:2. He came and dwelt there, but he did not make a sale. He said: Is this <the city about which> they have said (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): THE JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH? In one hour he had sold all his peppers. He said: This is surely THE JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, EVEN MOUNT ZION, THE REMOTE REGIONS OF ZAPHON, THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. Now what is all this glory for? Because it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. Since Jerusalem has been destroyed, (Is. 24:11:) ALL GLADNESS IS OBSCURED; THE JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH HAS DEPARTED. What is the meaning of IS OBSCURED (rt.: 'RB)?⁴¹Below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 3:9. "Became dark," qavelah (in Aramaic). <It is> as they say (in Gen. 1:5):⁴²Also in Gen. 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31. AND THERE WAS EVENING ('RB). In this world THE JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH has ceased. When the Holy One returns and rebuilds Jerusalem, he will bring back gladness, as stated (in Is. 51:3): TRULY THE LORD HAS COMFORTED ZION; HE HAS COMFORTED ALL ITS RUINS. HE HAS ALSO MADE ITS DESERT LIKE EDEN AND ITS DRY PLAIN LIKE THE GARDEN OF THE LORD. JOY AND REJOICING SHALL BE FOUND IN IT, THANKSGIVING AND THE SOUND OF MUSIC.

8) ("whether) male (or female"): "male" — to include the offspring (of a shelamim [to be offered] as a shelamim); "female" — to include the substitute (temurah, of a shelamim as a shelamim). "male" — to include the offspring. (Why the inclusion clause?) Does it not follow (by kal vachomer that the offspring is offered?) viz.: If a substitute, which does not come from a consecrated animal, is kasher as an offering, how much more so the offspring of a consecrated animal itself! — No, it may be that this is so with a substitute, which obtains with all offerings, but not with offspring, which does not obtain with all offerings, (burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings being male). And since it does not (we would say that) it may not be offered; it is, therefore, written: "male," to include offspring.

8) Since bechor is outside the category of consecrated animals which have been rendered pasul, (in that it is eaten in its blemished state and is not redeemed), I might think that eating its blood comes under two interdicts (that of eating blood and that of a non-Cohein eating consecrated food). It is, therefore, written (of such an instance, Devarim 15:23): "Only its blood you shall not eat." It falls only under one exhortation (that against eating blood, but not that against a non-Cohein eating consecrated food). This tells me only of its blood. Whence do I derive (the same for) its fat? From: "all fat and all blood." Just as the blood comes under one interdict, so, the fat.

8) This tells me only of unblemished animals, which are kasher for sacrifice (as being excluded from "mundane" slaughter in the azarah). Whence do I derive the same for blemished animals? I include them (in the exclusion) because they are of the variety of animals that are kasher (for sacrifice). And whence do I derive the same for animals, (which are not kasher for sacrifice [as opposed to beasts])? (I include them) because shechitah obtains with them as it does with beasts. And whence do I derive the same for birds, (for which the severing of only one shechitah sign is sufficient)? From the triple repetition of "and he shall slaughter it."

8) (Vayikra 3:4): "and the lobe with the liver": This is ambiguous. I would not know whether to take part of the liver with the lobe or part of the lobe with the liver. Its being written (Vayikra 9:10): "… and the lobe from the liver of the sin-offering which he caused to smoke upon the altar" indicates that part of the liver is taken with the lobe.

9) "female" — to include a substitute. (Why the exclusion clause?) Does it not follow (by kal vachomer that a substitute may be offered?) viz.: If offspring, which do not obtain with all offerings, may be offered — a substitute, which does obtain with all offerings, how much more so should it be kasher as an offering (in this instance)! — No, this may be so with offspring, which come from a consecrated animal, but not with a substitute, which does not. And since it does not, (we would say that) it may not be offered; it is, therefore, written: "female," to include a substitute.

9) I might think that he may not slaughter it (in the azarah), but that if he does, he may eat it; it is, therefore, written: "If the place be distant from you … then you shall slaughter … and you shall eat." What you slaughter at a distance you may eat, and not what you slaughter in proximity (to the Temple) — to exclude (from eating) chullin that were slaughtered in the azarah.

9) ("he shall remove it [yesirenah]. (Vayikra 3:5) And the sons of Aaron shall smoke it"): "yesir" ("he shall remove"): "the lobe," even if the kidneys are not there (after the receiving of the blood); "the kidneys," even if the lobe is not there; "yesirenah" — even one kidney, (which makes the other's absence more conspicuous).

9) ("he shall remove it [yesirenah]. (Vayikra 3:5) And the sons of Aaron shall smoke it"): "yesir" ("he shall remove"): "the lobe," even if the kidneys are not there (after the receiving of the blood); "the kidneys," even if the lobe is not there; "yesirenah" — even one kidney, (which makes the other's absence more conspicuous).

(Lev. 11:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, SAYING: THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT…. {It is written (in Hab. 3:6):} [This text is related (to Hab. 3:6):] HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH. What is the meaning of HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH?³⁵Tanh., Lev. 3:6, below Deut. 11:3 and the note there. It is simply that, when the Holy One wanted to give the Torah, he arose and measured (MDD) the earth.³⁶Cf. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 1, 5; Lev. R. 8:2. Then he gave the Torah in public³⁷Gk.: parresia. in the desert.³⁸The sense here is that the Holy One gave the Torah openly on neutral ground, not secretly in Israel. Therefore (in Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH.

10) This tells me only of (offering) offspring and substitutes of whole animals. Whence do I derive the same for the offspring and substitutes of blemished animals? From "whether male" — to include the offspring of blemished animals; "whether female" — to include the substitutes of blemished animals. Which are considered blemished animals (in this connection)? Those whose consecration preceded their blemish (and which gave birth before they were redeemed). But if their blemish preceded their consecration and they were redeemed, they have the status of property consecration (and not body consecration; their offspring are permitted for mundane purposes, and they are not susceptible of a "substitute"). R. Yehudah says: (Similarly,) it is written (I Samuel 17:36): "Also the lion, also the bear, did your servant smite." This tells me only of the lion and the bear. Whence do I derive (that he smote) their whelps, too? From "also the lion, also the bear, did your servant smite."

10) (Vayikra 3:5) "and they shall smoke it," (Vayikra 3:11): "and he shall smoke" (Vayikra 3:16): "and he shall smoke them": Why the variations? "And they shall smoke it" — what is kasher, and not what is pasul; "And he shall smoke" — Fats (of one offering) may not be mixed with fats (of another); "and he shall smoke them" — all at the same time. It is written here: "a fire-offering," but not "bread"; and further (Vayikra 3:11): "bread," but not "a sweet savor"; and yet further (Vayikra 3:16): "a sweet savor," but not "to the L–rd." Whence do we derive that all of these elements apply to each instance? "fire-offering" (written in respect to each) indicates identity (for all of the elements).

10) (Vayikra 3:5) "and they shall smoke it," (Vayikra 3:11): "and he shall smoke" (Vayikra 3:16): "and he shall smoke them": Why the variations? "And they shall smoke it" — what is kasher, and not what is pasul; "And he shall smoke" — Fats (of one offering) may not be mixed with fats (of another); "and he shall smoke them" — all at the same time. It is written here: "a fire-offering," but not "bread"; and further (Vayikra 3:11): "bread," but not "a sweet savor"; and yet further (Vayikra 3:16): "a sweet savor," but not "to the L–rd." Whence do we derive that all of these elements apply to each instance? "fire-offering" (written in respect to each) indicates identity (for all of the elements).

10) I might think that he may not eat it but that he may feed it to a dog; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 22:30): "To the dog shall you throw it" — You shall throw it (treifah) to the dog, but not chullin which was slaughtered in the azarah.

10) (Vayikra 3:5) "and they shall smoke it," (Vayikra 3:11): "and he shall smoke" (Vayikra 3:16): "and he shall smoke them": Why the variations? "And they shall smoke it" — what is kasher, and not what is pasul; "And he shall smoke" — Fats (of one offering) may not be mixed with fats (of another); "and he shall smoke them" — all at the same time. It is written here: "a fire-offering," but not "bread"; and further (Vayikra 3:11): "bread," but not "a sweet savor"; and yet further (Vayikra 3:16): "a sweet savor," but not "to the L–rd." Whence do we derive that all of these elements apply to each instance? "fire-offering" (written in respect to each) indicates identity (for all of the elements).

Another interpretation (of Numb. 8:2): <LET THE SEVEN LAMPS> GIVE THEIR LIGHT IN FRONT OF THE MENORAH. {David} [Solomon] said (in Prov. 16:15): IN THE LIGHT OF THE KING's FACE THERE IS LIFE.²⁶Tanh. Numb. 8:2; Numb. R. 15:9. R. Jacob bar Jose said: Joy was withheld from the wicked and given to Israel, because the Holy One was obliged to dwell among flesh and blood in the light. Thus he said to them (in Numb. 8:2): <LET THE SEVEN LAMPS> GIVE THEIR LIGHT IN FRONT OF THE MENORAH. R. Levi said: A pure menorah descended from the heavens.²⁷Numb. R. 15:9. Why? Because the Holy One said to Moses (in Exod. 25:31): YOU SHALL ALSO MAKE A MENORAH OF PURE GOLD. He said to him: How shall we make <it>? He said to him (ibid. cont.): OF HAMMERED WORK SHALL THE MENORAH BE MADE. Nevertheless Moses had difficulty; for when he descended he had forgotten its construction.²⁸See Above, Lev. 3:33; Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmail, Pisha 2; PRK 15; PR 15:21; 20:4; Exod. R. 15:28. He went up and said: Sovereign of the World I have forgotten <it>. He said to him (in Exod. 25:40): OBSERVE AND MAKE <IT>. Thus he took a pattern of fire and showed him its construction,²⁹See Men. 29a Bar.; Sifre Numb. 8:4 (61); Numb. R. 15:4, 10. but it was still difficult for Moses. The Holy One said to him: Go to Bezalel and he will make it. <So> Moses went down to talk to Bezalel, <and> he made it immediately. Moses began to be wonder and say: In my case, how many times did the Holy one show it to me; yet I had difficulty in making it. Now without seeing it you have made it from your own knowledge. Bezalel (BTsL'L), were you perhaps standing in (B) the shadow (TsL) of God ('L) when the Holy One showed it to me? Therefore when the temple was destroyed, the menorah was stored away. Now this was one of the five things that were stored away: The ark, the menorah, the fire, the Holy Spirit, and the cherubim.³⁰Therefore, these five things were lacking from the Second Temple. See Syr. Baruch 6:4–10; TYoma2:15; TSot. 13:1; yTa‘an. 2:1 (65a); yHor. 3:3(2) (47c); Yoma 21b; Hor. 12a; ARN, A, 41. When the Holy One in his mercy returns to build his house and his temple, he will restore them to their place and cause Jerusalem to rejoice. Thus it is stated (in Is. 35:1–2): THE DESERT AND THE ARID LAND SHALL BE GLAD, <AND THE WILDERNESS SHALL REJOICE AND BLOSSOM LIKE A CROCUS.> It also says (in vs. 2): IT SHALL BLOSSOM ABUNDANTLY. IT SHALL ALSO BE GLAD AND GIVE PRAISE. THE GLORY OF LEBANON HAS BEEN GIVEN IT, THE SPLENDOR OF CARMEL AND SHARON. THEY SHALL BEHOLD THE GLORY OF THE LORD, THE SPLENDOR OF OUR GOD.³¹These five sentences of gladness correspond to the five things that will be restored in the new temple.

(Lev. 11:2:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT. Three things Moses found difficult, the making of the menorah, the moon, and creeping things.⁴⁵Below, Numb. 3:4; Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Mekhilta, Pisha 2; Men. 29a; PRK 5:15; PR 15:21; Numb. R. 15:4; cf. Sifre to Numb. 8:4 (61); Exod. R. 15:28; Numb. R. 15:10; also below, Numb. 3:11, and the notes there. In making of the menorah, how < was it >? When Moses ascended < Sinai >, the Holy One was showing him on the mountain how he would make the Tabernacle. When he showed him the making of the menorah, Moses found it difficult.⁴⁶Below, Numb. 3:4. The Holy One said to him: See, I am making it before you. What did the Holy One do? He showed him white fire, [red fire,] black fire, and green fire. Then from them he made the menorah, its bowls, its pomegranates, its blossoms, and the six branches. Then he said to him (in Numb. 8:4): THIS IS THE MAKING OF THE MENORAH. When the Holy One showed him with the finger, he nevertheless found it difficult. What did the Holy One do? He engraved it on the his hand. He said to him: Go down and make it just as I have engraved it on your hand. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 25:40): OBSERVE AND MAKE THEM {LIKE} [BY MEANS OF] THEIR PATTERN. But where is it shown that he engraved it on his hand? Where it is stated (in Ezek. 8:3): HE STRETCHED OUT THE PATTERN OF A HAND. Now PATTERN can only be for the making of the menorah, concerning which it is stated (in Exod. 25:40): OBSERVE AND MAKE THEM {LIKE} [BY MEANS OF] THEIR PATTERN < WHICH YOU ARE BEING SHOWN ON THE MOUNTAIN >. Even so, he found it difficult and said (in Exod. 25:31): WITH DIFFICULTY (MQShH)⁴⁷While this meaning, so understood by the midrash, is possible, a more usual English translation would read, HAMMERED WORK, or something similar. [WILL THE MENORAH BE MADE]. How difficult was it to make? The Holy One said to him: Cast the gold into the fire, and it will be made automatically. So it is stated: WITH DIFFICULTY WILL THE MENORAH BE MADE. [BE MADE (a reflexive form, in the niph'al) is what is written], < i.e., > was made of its own accord.

11) (Vayikra 3:2): "at the door of the tent of meeting," "before the tent of meeting" (Vayikra 3:8), "before the tent of meeting" (Vayikra 3:13) — to permit all the sides (of the azarah as slaughtering sites). It goes without saying that the north side (is permitted), viz.: If the other sides, which were not permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, were permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings — the north side, which was permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, how much more so should it be permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings! R. Eliezer says: "before the tent of meeting" — to permit the north side.

11) (Vayikra 3:2): "at the door of the tent of meeting," "before the tent of meeting" (Vayikra 3:8), "before the tent of meeting" (Vayikra 3:13) — to permit all the sides (of the azarah as slaughtering sites). It goes without saying that the north side (is permitted), viz.: If the other sides, which were not permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, were permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings — the north side, which was permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, how much more so should it be permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings! R. Eliezer says: "before the tent of meeting" — to permit the north side.

11) (Vayikra 3:2): "at the door of the tent of meeting," "before the tent of meeting" (Vayikra 3:8), "before the tent of meeting" (Vayikra 3:13) — to permit all the sides (of the azarah as slaughtering sites). It goes without saying that the north side (is permitted), viz.: If the other sides, which were not permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, were permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings — the north side, which was permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, how much more so should it be permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings! R. Eliezer says: "before the tent of meeting" — to permit the north side.

(I Kings 5:11 [4:31]:) FOR HE WAS WISER THAN ANYONE (literally: WISER THAN ADAM). What was his wisdom? You find that, when the Holy One wanted to create the first Adam, he consulted with the ministering Angels. He said to them (in Gen. 1:26): LET US MAKE HUMANKIND (Adam) IN OUR IMAGE. They said to him (in Ps. 8:5[4]): WHAT IS A HUMAN THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM, <AND A CHILD OF ADAM THAT YOU SHOULD THINK OF HIM>? He said to them: [Since I want to create Adam in my world,] his wisdom [shall be] greater than yours. Immediately he made all cattle, wild beasts, and fowl pass before them. He said to them: What are the names of these <beings>? They, however, did not know. When he had created the first Adam, he made them pass before him. He said to him: What are the names of these <beings>? He said: It is fitting to call this one an ox, this one a lion, this one a horse, and so on for all of them. It is so stated (in Gen. 2:20): SO ADAM RECITED NAMES FOR ALL THE CATTLE.⁷⁹The understanding of the midrash is that the creatures implicitly already possessed names.… He said to him: You, what is your name? Adam said to him: Adam, because I was created out of the ground (adamah). The Holy One said to him: I, what is my name? He said to him: The LORD, because you are lord over all creatures, namely as written (in Is. 42:8): I AM YHWH (THE LORD) THAT IS MY NAME, which the first Adam gave me.⁸⁰Above, Lev. 3:11. [That is my name, the one which I have agreed to <for use> between me and the nations of the world.]

(II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31 [30]:) AS FOR GOD, HIS WAY IS PERFECT…; for all the ways of the Holy One are perfect.⁵⁵Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Gen. R. 44:1; cf. Lev. R. 13:3. What does the Holy One care whether one ritually slaughters cattle and eats < the meat > or whether one slaughters cattle by stabbing and eats it? Will some such thing benefit him (i.e., the Holy One) or harm him? Or what does he care whether one eats what is unclean or eats what is clean? It is simply that (according to Prov. 9:12) IF YOU ARE WISE, YOU ARE WISE FOR YOURSELF; [AND IF YOU SCOFF, YOU WILL BEAR IT ALONE]. Thus, the commandments were given only to purify (rt.: TsRP) [mortals] through them, as stated (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. [18:31 [30], cont.): THE WORD OF THE LORD IS PURE (rt.: TsRP). Why? So that he might be a shield over you, [as stated] (ibid., cont.): HE IS A SHIELD FOR ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE IN HIM. Ergo (in Lev. 11:2:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT.

12) For (without the permitting clause), does it not follow (that it should be forbidden?), viz.: If the slaughtering sites of shelamim, which may be slaughtered on all sides, are not permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, then the slaughtering site of a burnt-offering, which may be slaughtered only in the north — how much more so should it not be permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "before the tent of meeting," to permit (slaughtering of lower-order offerings in) the north.

Job said (in Job 14:4): WHO CAN PRODUCE SOMETHING CLEAN OUT OF SOMETHING UNCLEAN? NO ONE. After the Holy One permitted the cow and forbade the camel, who could declare clean or declare unclean?⁵⁶Tanh., Lev. 3:8. Who has done so? No one. Not a single person in the world. Come and see: Originally at the creation of the world, everything was permitted, as stated (in Gen. 9:3): AS WITH THE GREEN GRASS, I HAVE GIVEN YOU EVERYTHING. Then after Israel stood by Mount Sinai, he increased Torah and commandments for them in order to give them a good reward. But if so, why did he not so command the first Adam? The Holy One said: When I ordained an easy commandment for him, he transgressed against it. How could he fulfill all these commandments? On the very day on which it was commanded, on that day he nullified and transgressed against them (sic).⁵⁷Cf. the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 3:8, which reads here: “Transgressed against it.” He was unable to remain obedient to the command for a single day. How < did his disobedience happen >?⁵⁸Cf. the traditional Tanhuma, which reads: “How did the Holy One create the human?” R. Judah ben Pedayah said: Twelve hours make up the day. In the first hour the first Adam arose in the thought of the Holy One < with a view > to creation.⁵⁹PRK 23:1; PR 46:2; M. Pss. 92:3; Lev. R. 29:1; cf. Sanh. 38b; ARN, A, 1; PRE 11. In the second he consulted with the ministering angels. In the third he gathered his dust. In the fourth he kneaded him. In the fifth he shaped him. In the sixth he stood him up as a golem. In the seventh he blew breath into him, as stated (in Gen. 2:7): AND HE BLEW INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE. In the eighth he brought him into the Garden of Eden. In the ninth he commanded him: Eat of this, and do not eat of that. In the tenth he sinned. In the eleventh he was judged. In the twelfth he was expelled. Thus you must conclude that he did not remain obedient to the commandment for even a single hour. R. Judah ben Pedayah said: Would that someone remove the dust from your eyes, O First Adam, you who could not persevere in your temptation for even a single hour, while here your children are keeping all the commandments which were given to them and persevering in them!⁶⁰Gen. R. 21:7; cf. Lev. R. 25:2. One of them rises to plant, till, weed, prune, take pains to irrigate, and see the fruits of his plantings when they produce first fruits. Then he folds his hands and does not taste them, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Lev. 19:23): THREE YEARS < IT SHALL BE] FORBIDDEN [TO YOU]…. But in the case of the first Adam, it was told him: Eat of this, and do not eat of that. [It is so stated (in Gen. 2:16–17): YOU MAY FREELY EAT OF ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN; BUT AS FOR THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE < OF GOOD AND EVIL, YOU MAY NOT EAT OF IT >…. ] He did not remain obedient to the commandment for a single hour. [Instead (according to Gen. 3:6), THEN SHE ALSO GAVE SOME TO HER HUSBAND, AND HE ATE.] But [when] your children were commanded to eat this and not to eat that, [they remained obedient to those < commandments >]. And < this obedience is > especially < evident > when someone from Israel takes a bovine, an ox, or a lamb, slaughters it ritually, skins it, washes it, and inspects its health. When it is found to be unfit, he holds back and does not eat it. Ergo (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31 [30], cont.): THE WORD OF THE LORD IS PURE. [For that reason, the first Adam was not given commandments, because it was revealed to the Holy One that he could not remain obedient to them; but in the case of Israel, when the Holy One gave them many commandments, they accepted them and said (in Exod. 24:7): ALL THAT THE LORD HAS SPOKEN WE WILL CARRY OUT AND OBEY. He therefore warned them (in Lev. 11:2–4:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT…. THESE, HOWEVER, YOU MAY NOT EAT.]

13) "and Aaron and his sons placed their hands on the head of the bullock of the sin-offering.": We find that Aaron and his sons perform semichah (the placing of the hands) on all of their offerings. But because they do so because they are their offerings, the offerings of partners are compared to their offerings, viz.: Just as their offerings require semichah for each of the participants, so the offerings of partners require semichah for each partner.

(Lev. 11:4–7:) < THESE, HOWEVER, YOU MAY NOT EAT…: > THE CAMEL < … >; THE ROCK BADGER< … >; THE HARE< … >; AND THE PIG.⁶¹Tanh., Lev. 3:8; cf. Lev. R. 13:5. THE CAMEL (rt.: GML) represents the kingdom of Babylon, since it is stated (in Ps. 137:8): O DAUGHTER OF BABYLON, WHO ARE TO BE DESTROYED, [BLESSED IS THE ONE WHO REPAYS YOU THE RECOMPENSE (rt.: GML) WITH WHICH YOU RECOMPENSED (rt.: GML) US. THE ROCK BADGER represents the kingdom of Media, since it is stated (in Esth. 3:6): SO HAMAN SOUGHT TO DESTROY < ALL THE JEWS >….⁶²The exact relation of the rock badger (ha’arnevet) to Media is unclear. One possibility is suggested by Lev. 11:6, according to which the rock badger has marks of both uncleanness and cleanness. Lev. R. 13:5 reports two versions of such an interpretation. The Rabbis interpreted this mix to mean that Media produced a righteous as well as a wicked person (perhaps Haman and Mordecai or Haman and Darius the Mede of Dan. 11:1). According to R. Judah b. R. Simon, the last Darius was clean on the side of his mother Esther and unclean on his father’s side. THE HARE alludes to Greece, because it brought low the Torah from the mouth of the prophets.⁶³Probably because prophecy ceased under Greek rule; but according to Lev. R. 13:5, “hare” alludes to the Greek kingdom, because Ptolemy’s mother was named “Hare.” Cf. yMeg. 1:11 (71d), according to which the Greek translaters of Lev. 11:6 emended “hare” to “short-legged one” for the same reason. Cf. also Meg. 90b, according to which it was Ptolemy’s wife who was named Hare. In actuality the person named “Hare” (Gk.: Lagos) was Ptolemy’s father. THE PIG represents the evil kingdom of Edom (i.e., Rome), since it is stated (in Ps. 80:14 [13]): THE PIG OF THE FOREST GNAWS AT IT (i.e., at Jerusalem).⁶⁴See ARN, A, 34. Why is it compared to the pig (rt.: HZR)? Because the Holy One is going to pay it back (rt.: HZR) with strict judgment. How? In the age to come the Holy One will issue a proclamation: Whoever has been engaged in the Torah may come and receive his reward. Then the gentiles also will say: Give us our reward, for we also have performed such and such a commandment. The Holy One < however > has said: Whoever has not eaten abhorrent creatures and creeping things may receive his reward. At that time they < will > receive their judgment,⁶⁵Gk.: apophasis. as stated (in Is. 66:17): THOSE WHO EAT THE FLESH OF THE PIG, THE ABHORRENT CREATURE, AND THE MOUSE SHALL BE CONSUMED TOGETHER, SAYS THE LORD.

10 R. Levi bar Rabbi said, “A pure menorah descended from the heavens. Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses (in Exod. 25:31), ‘And you shall make a menorah of pure gold.’ He said to Him, ‘How shall we make [it]?’ He said to him (ibid. cont.), ‘Of hammered work shall the menorah be made.’ Nevertheless Moses had difficulty; for when he descended, he had forgotten its construction.¹¹See Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Piska 2; PRK 15; PR 15:21; 20:4; Exod. R. 15:28. He went up and said, ‘Master of the world, I have forgotten [it].’ He showed Moses, but it was still difficult for him. He said to him (in Exod. 25:40), ‘Observe and make [it].’ Thus He took a pattern of fire and showed him its construction,¹²See Men. 29a Bar.; Sifre Numb. 8:4 (61); Numb. R. 15:4. but it was still difficult for Moses. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Go to Bezalel and he will make it.’ [So] Moses spoke to Bezalel, [and] he made it immediately. Moses began to wonder and say, ‘In my case, how many times did the Holy One, blessed be He, show it to me; yet I had difficulty in making it. Now without seeing it, you have made it from your own knowledge. Bezalel (btsl'l), were you perhaps standing in (b) the shadow (tsl) of God ('l) when the Holy One, blessed be He, showed it to me?’ Therefore when the Temple was destroyed, the menorah was stored away.” Now this was one of the five things that were stored away: the ark, the menorah, the fire, the holy spirit, and the cherubim.¹³Therefore, these five things were lacking from the Second Temple. See Syr. Baruch 6:4–10; TYoma2:15; TSot. 13:1; yTa‘an. 2:1 (65a); yHor. 3:3(2) (47c); Yoma 21b; Hor. 12a; ARN, A, 41. When the Holy One, blessed be He, returns in his mercy to build His house and His Temple, He will restore them to their place and cause Jerusalem to rejoice. Thus it is stated (in Is. 35:1-2), “The desert and the arid land shall be glad, and the wilderness shall rejoice and blossom like a crocus. It shall blossom abundantly and be glad.”¹⁴These five expressions of gladness in these verses correspond to the five things that will be restored in the new temple.

(Exod. 4:10:) THEN MOSES SAID UNTO THE LORD: PRAY (bi), LORD. You are doing me wrong (biyah).⁷⁴Gk.: bia. For this interpretation of the verse, see below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 3:5. <When> my brother Aaron is older than I, are you sending me? (Ibid.:) <THIS DOES ME > WRONG (bi), LORD, I AM NOT A MAN OF WORDS. The Holy One said to him (in Exod. 4:11): WHO HAS MADE THE HUMAN MOUTH?⁷⁵Exod. R. 3:15.

(Numb. 25:6:) “Just then one of the Children of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman unto his brothers [before the eyes of Moses and the eyes of the whole congregation of the Children of Israel].” What reason was there for him doing so?⁹⁷Numb. R. 20:24. [The incident serves] to teach you that he had respect neither for Heaven nor for mortals. It is also stated concerning him (in Prov. 21:24), “An insolent⁹⁸Heb.: Zed. Cf. above, Lev. 3:7, which argues that this word implies idolatry and the uncovering of nakedness. and arrogant one, scorner is his name; [he acts with arrogant wantonness].” She said to him, “Because I am a king's daughter, I am surrendering to no one but Moses or Eleazar.” He said to her. “I also am as great as they are, and [to show you,] I am bringing you before their eyes.” [Then] he seized her by her braid and brought her to Moses. He said to him, “Son of Amram, is this woman permitted or forbidden? Now if you say that she is forbidden [because] this woman is a Midianite, [remember that] the very woman who is under you (as your wife) is a Midianite; and who permitted you to have her?” The ruling (halakhah) slipped from his mind. They all wept bitterly. That is what is written (in Numb. 25:6), “they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting.” Why were they weeping? Because they became weak at that time. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a king's daughter who had adorned herself for entering the wedding canopy [and] for sitting in the [bridal] palanquin.⁹⁹Gk.: phoreion. When she was found indulging in immorality with another, her father and her kinsfolk became weak. So it was with Israel. At the end of forty years they had camped by the Jordan to cross into the Land of Israel, and there they became lawless through unchastity. They weakened Moses and the righteous who were with him. And why were they weakened? See that [Moses] had [previously] stood up to six hundred thousand [men] with the [golden] calf, as stated (Exod. 32:20), “And he took the calf that they had made.” It was simply so that Phinehas would come and receive his due. Moreover, because [Moses] had been indolent [in the execution of justice], (according to Deut. 34:6) “no one knows his burial place.” [This fact serves] to teach you that one must be as strong as a leopard and as swift as an eagle to do the will of his Creator. Moreover, from here you learn that the Holy One, blessed be He, is as meticulous with the righteous as a thread of hair.

Another interpretation (of Exod. 4:27): GO INTO THE DESERT TO MEET MOSES. This text is related (to Cant. 8:1): IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER. Israel is saying to the Holy One: IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER. Like which brother?¹¹⁰Tanh., Exod. 1:27; Exod. R. 5:1; PRK 16:5; PR 29/30A:6; 29/30B:1. You find that from the beginning of the creation of the world until now brothers have hated each other. Cain hated Abel and killed him, as stated (in Gen. 4:8): CAIN AROSE AGAINST HIS BROTHER ABEL AND MURDERED HIM. Ishmael hated Isaac (rt.: TsHQ), as stated (in Gen. 21:9): WHEN SARAH SAW THE SON WHOM HAGAR THE EGYPTIAN HAD BORNE TO ABRAHAM PLAYING (rt.: TsHQ). Now PLAYING can only mean that he desired to kill him, as stated (in II Sam. 2:14): PLEASE LET THE YOUNG MEN ARISE AND PLAY BEFORE US.¹¹¹The result of their “playing” was that they all killed each other. See above, Gen. 6:5; below, Numb. 6:8; 10:9. Esau also hated Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 27:41): AND ESAU SAID IN HIS HEART: <LET THE DAYS OF MOURNING FOR MY FATHER COME, AND I WILL KILL MY BROTHER JACOB>. Moreover, the tribes hated Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:4): THEY HATED HIM. So like which brother? Israel said: Like Moses and Aaron, as stated (in Ps. 133:1): SEE HOW GOOD AND HOW PLEASANT IT IS <FOR KINDRED TO DWELL TOGETHER>, since they loved each other and cherished each other. Thus when Moses received the kingship and Aaron < received > the high priesthood, they were not jealous of each other. Rather they were happy in each other's greatness.¹¹²See below, Lev. 3:5. You know yourself it to be so. You find that, when the Holy One said to Moses (in Exod. 3:10): SO COME NOW, I WILL SEND YOU UNTO PHARAOH…, Moses said to him (in Exod. 4:13): PLEASE MAKE < SOMEONE ELSE YOUR AGENT>. Do you imagine that Moses may have delayed in order not to go? He only acted out of respect for Aaron. Moses said: Before I arose, Aaron had been prophesying to them for eighty years. He <is the one> of whom it is stated (in Ezek. 20:5): I MADE MYSELF KNOWN TO THEM IN THE LAND OF EGYPT. And where is it shown that Aaron prophesied to them? Where it is stated (in I Sam. 2:27–28): NOW A MAN OF GOD CAME UNTO ELI AND SAID UNTO HIM: THUS SAYS THE LORD: I SURELY REVEALED MYSELF {TO} [UNTO] YOUR FATHER'S HOUSE IN EGYPT, WHEN THEY BELONGED TO PHARAOH'S HOUSE; AND I CHOSE HIM FROM ALL THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL TO BE MY PRIEST.¹¹³The midrash seems to ignore the fact that what the Holy One says here is introduced by an interrogative particle. He said to him: All these years Aaron has prophesied to them. So am I now to go to them in my brother's domain so that he will be upset? For that reason Moses did not desire to go. The Holy One said to him: Your brother Aaron will not be upset over this matter. Rather he will be happy. You yourself know that he is going out for a meeting¹¹⁴Gk.: apante, apantesis. with you. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:14): SEE, HE IS SETTING OUT TO MEET YOU; AND WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART: not in his mouth alone but in his heart, his heart more than his mouth. WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART. R. Simeon ben Johay said: The heart that was happy at his brother's greatness shall put on Urim and Thummim, as stated (in Exod. 28:30): AND INSIDE THE BREAST PLATE OF JUDGMENT YOU SHALL PUT THE URIM AND THUMMIM SO THAT THEY SHALL BE UPON AARON'S HEART. Ergo (In Exod. 4:14): AND ALSO SEE, HE IS SETTING OUT TO MEET YOU; AND WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART. When <the Holy One> had said this to him, <Moses> took it upon himself to go. Immediately the Holy One revealed himself to Aaron. He said to him: Go out to meet your brother Moses so that he may know that you are happy over the matter. It is therefore stated (in Exod. 4:27): GO INTO THE DESERT TO MEET MOSES. Ergo (in Cant. 8:1): IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER, like Moses and Aaron who loved each other. (Ibid., cont.:) IF I MET YOU OUTSIDE, I WOULD KISS YOU. (Exod. 4:27:) SO HE WENT TO MEET HIM ON THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD AND KISSED HIM.

[(Gen. 3:24:) SO HE DROVE OUT THE HUMAN. R. Judah said:⁶⁹See Sanh. 38b; ARN, A, 1; B, 1, 42; Lev. R. 29:1; PRK 23:1; PR 46:2; Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 3:13; M. Pss. 46; 92:3. For a comparison of the various versions, see T. Y. Saldarini, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, Version B (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 303—305. The first hour he conceived the plan. The second he consulted with the ministering angels. In the third he gathered his dust. In the fourth he kneaded him. In the fifth he shaped him. In the sixth he made him into a golem (i.e., a lifeless body). In the seventh he breathed the breath of life into him. In the eighth he brought him into the Garden of Eden. In the ninth he gave him the commandment. In the tenth he sinned. In the eleventh he was sentenced. In the twelfth he drove him out, as stated (in Gen. 3:24): SO HE DROVE OUT THE HUMAN. What is the meaning of SO HE DROVE OUT? That he drove him out in afflictions.

[(Gen. 3:24:) SO HE DROVE OUT THE HUMAN. R. Judah said:⁶⁹See Sanh. 38b; ARN, A, 1; B, 1, 42; Lev. R. 29:1; PRK 23:1; PR 46:2; Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 3:13; M. Pss. 46; 92:3. For a comparison of the various versions, see T. Y. Saldarini, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, Version B (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 303—305. The first hour he conceived the plan. The second he consulted with the ministering angels. In the third he gathered his dust. In the fourth he kneaded him. In the fifth he shaped him. In the sixth he made him into a golem (i.e., a lifeless body). In the seventh he breathed the breath of life into him. In the eighth he brought him into the Garden of Eden. In the ninth he gave him the commandment. In the tenth he sinned. In the eleventh he was sentenced. In the twelfth he drove him out, as stated (in Gen. 3:24): SO HE DROVE OUT THE HUMAN. What is the meaning of SO HE DROVE OUT? That he drove him out in afflictions.

(Numb. 25:6:) JUST THEN ONE OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL CAME AND BROUGHT A MIDIANITE WOMAN UNTO HIS FAMILY < BEFORE THE EYES OF MOSES AND THE EYES OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL>. What reason was there for him doing so?¹²¹Tanh., 7:20; Numb. R. 20:24. <The incident serves> to teach you that he had respect neither for heaven nor for mortals. It is also stated concerning him (in Prov. 21:24): AN INSOLENT¹²²Heb.: Zed. Cf. above, Lev. 3:7, which argues that this word implies idolatry and the uncovering of nakedness. AND ARROGANT ONE, SCORNER IS HIS NAME; HE ACTS WITH ARROGANT WANTONNESS. Because <the woman> was a king's daughter, she said to him: I am surrendering to no one but Moses or Eleazar. He said to her: I also am as great as they are, in that I bring you before their eyes. <Then> he seized her by her braid and brought her to Moses. He said to him: Son of Amram, is this woman permitted or forbidden? Now if you say that she is forbidden, <because> this woman is a Midianite, <remember that> the very woman who is under you (as your wife) is a Midianite; and who permitted you to have her? The ruling (halakhah) slipped from his mind. They all wept bitterly. That is what is written (in Numb. 25:6): <BEFORE THE EYES OF MOSES AND THE EYES OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, > AS THEY WERE WEEPING AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF MEETING. Why were they weeping? Because they were discouraged for the time being. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a king's daughter who had adorned herself for entering the wedding canopy <and> for sitting in the <bridal> palanquin.¹²³Gk.: phoreion. When she was found indulging in immorality with another, her beloved and her kinsfolk became discouraged. So it was with Israel. At the end of forty years they had camped by the Jordan to cross into the land of Israel, and there they became lawless through whoredom. They made Moses discouraged and the righteous who were with him. But why did the ruling (halakhah) slip from his mind? It was simply so that Phinehas would come and receive his due. Moreover, because <Moses> had been indolent (in the execution of justice), (according to Deut. 34:6) NO ONE KNOWS HIS BURIAL PLACE. <This fact serves> to teach you that one must be as strong as a leopard and as swift as an eagle to do the will of his Creator that <dwells> in the heavens. Moreover, from here you learn that the Holy One is as meticulous with the righteous as a thread of hair.

(Bamidbar 6:18) "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting": Scripture here speaks of peace-offerings (i.e., that the Nazirite shaves after the sacrifice of the peace-offerings), it being written of them (Vayikra 3:2) "and he shall 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 20:23): "Do not go up by steps, (but by a smooth ramp) upon My altar, so that your nakedness not be revealed upon it (by your having to take relatively long strides) — how much more so should he not shave (at the door of the tent of meeting)! What, then, is the intent of "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting"? Scripture refers here to the sacrifice of the peace-offerings (as above). R. Yitzchak says: Scripture speaks of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings. You say this? Perhaps it refers to (shaving at) the door of the tent of meeting, literally. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism, etc." In the place (the room) where he cooks it (the peace-offerings), there shall he shave. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting." If the door was not open, he would not shave. "and he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism and he shall place it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." This tells me only of the peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (that he can do the same) under the sin-offering and under the guilt-offering? From "under the sacrifice" — in any event. This tells me only of (his shaving his hair in) the sanctuary. Whence do I derive the same for (his doing so) outside it? From "and he shall place it on the fire" — in any event.

(Bamidbar 10:8) "And the sons of Aaron the Cohanim shall blow on the trumpets": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 3) "And they shall blow with them," I would think that Israelites, too, may do so; it is, therefore, written "the sons of Aaron." "the Cohanim": whether whole or blemished. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: whole, not blemished, viz.: It is written here "Cohanim," and, 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 (the 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) the 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.

This tells me only of unblemished animals (that they may not be slaughtered in the azarah [lest they be confused with offerings]). Whence do I derive (the same for) blemished animals? From (Vayikra 3:2) "and he shall slaughter it" (implying an offering only [and not chullin of any kind]) at the entrance of the tent of meeting" (i.e., the azarah.) Whence do I derive (the same for) animals and birds, (which cannot be confused with offerings)? From (Ibid. 8) "and he shall slaughter it (a sheep) before the tent of meeting" — it, and not animals and birds.

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") 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 a 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 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-offerings 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 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 alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-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 are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is 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 offerings, 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). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are 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 offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and 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 offerings), 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 offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of 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., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-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-offering": 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 be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon 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-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering 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 offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). 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-offering), 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-offerings). R. Tarfon 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-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. 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-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (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-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings 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 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.

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "My offering": the blood. "My bread": the devoted portions. You say this, but perhaps "My offering, My bread" is the blood? It is, therefore, written (of the devoted portions) (Vayikra 3:16) "And the Cohein shall smoke them upon the altar, the bread of a fire-offering for a sweet savor." It is not the second formulation that is to be posited, but the first — "my offering": the blood; "My bread": the devoted portions. "for My fires": the fistfuls (of the meal-offerings) and the frankincense. "My sweet savor": the libations. "shall you observe": that it be brought only from the Temple funds. "shall you observe": that Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites stand over them. "shall you observe": It is written here "shall you observe," and elsewhere (in respect to the Paschal lamb, Shemot 12:6) "shall you observe." Just as there, it had to be inspected four days prior to slaughtering, so, here. "shall you observe to offer to Me in its appointed time": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 12:6) "and they shall slaughter it (the Paschal lamb)," I might think both on a weekday and on the Sabbath. And how would I satisfy (Ibid. 31:14) "Its (the Sabbath's) desecrators shall be put to death"? In the instance of other labors, besides the slaughtering of the Pesach. Or, even including the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb. And how would I satisfy "and they shall slaughter it"? On all the other days, besides the Sabbath. Or, even on the Sabbath? It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 9:2) "And the children of Israel shall offer the Pesach in its appointed time" — even on the Sabbath. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan said: In this sense (i.e., the above) we have not yet heard it used. But, why is it written (Ibid. 28:2) "Command the children of Israel, etc." If to teach about the tamid (the daily burnt-offering) that it overrides the Sabbath, this is not necessary. For it is already written (Ibid. 9) "And on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the first year." What, then, is the intent of (2) "in its appointed time"? It is "extra" towards the formulation of an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here "in its appointed time," and elsewhere, (in respect to the Paschal lamb) "in its appointed time." Just as in this instance (of the daily burnt-offering), Sabbath is overridden, so, in that instance.