Midrasch zu Bamidbar 4:22

4) Why is "unwittingly" written both in respect to "se'ir" (the male kid brought by a nassi [a leader (Bamidbar 4:22)]), and "se'irah" (the female kid brought by an individual [Bamidbar 4:27])? (i.e., Why is one not deduced from the other [to exclude a sin-offering for intentional sin])? For there is that in se'ir which is not in se'irah, and that in se'irah which is not in se'ir. Se'ir is used extensively as a communal offering, as opposed to se'irah, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'irah, that would not exclude se'ir as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Se'irah is used exclusively (by the individual [whether nassi, commoner, or high-priest] for atonement of) idolatry, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'ir, that would not exclude se'irah as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Therefore, "unwittingly" must be written both in respect to "se'ir" and "se'irah."

6) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.")

(Ibid. 25) "And he cried out to the L rd, and the L rd showed him a tree, etc.": — whence we derive that tzaddikim are not averse to conciliation, and, in passing, that the prayers of tzaddikim are short. Once, a certain disciple officiated in prayer before his master, and was short in his blessings — whereupon the others mocked him, calling him "a shortening disciple" — to which the master countered: "He is not shorter than Moses, who said (Numbers 12:13) 'G d, I pray You, heal her, I pray you.'" On another occasion, a disciple officiated in prayer before R. Elazar and was long in his blessings — whereupon they said to him: "This one is an elongater" — to which he countered: "Not more so than Moses, who said (Devarim 9:25) 'And I fell (in prayer) before the L rd these forty days and forty nights.'" There is a time to be short and a time to be long. "And the L rd showed him a tree": R. Yehoshua says: a willow tree. R. Eliezer Hamodai says: an olive tree, there being no tree more bitter than an olive tree. R. Yehoshua b. Karcha says: an ivy. R. Nathan says: a cedar. Others say: He uprooted a fig and he uprooted a pomegranate. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Come and see how different are the ways of the Holy One Blessed be He from the ways of flesh and blood. (A man of) flesh and blood heals bitter with sweet, but the Holy One Blessed be He heals bitter with bitter. How so? He places something damaging into something that has been damaged so that a miracle be wrought in it, as in (Isaiah 38:21) "And Isaiah said: Let them take a cake of figs and apply it to the rash and he will recover." Now does not raw flesh, when you apply a cake of figs to it, become putrid? (The resolution:) Place something damaging into something that has been damaged so that a miracle be wrought in it. Similarly, (II Kings 2:21) "And he went to the (polluted) spring and threw salt into it, etc." Now does not even fresh water become putrid when salt is put into it? (The resolution:) Place something damaging, etc. The expounders of metaphors said: He showed him (Moses) words of Torah, which are compared to a tree, viz. (Mishlei 3:18) "It (Torah) is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it, etc." It is not written "Vayarehu etz" ("And He showed him a tree"), but "Vayorehu" ("And He taught him"), as in (Mishlei 4:4) "Vayoreni ('And He taught me') and He said to me: Let My words (of Torah) sustain your heart." "and he cast it into the waters": Others say: Israel were (hereby) imploring (mercy) and praying before their Father in heaven. As a son implores and guards himself before his father, so were Israel imploring and guarding themselves before their Father in heaven, saying before Him (as it were): "L rd of the universe, we sinned before You by caviling against You at the sea." "and the waters were sweetened": R. Yehoshua says: They were bitter for a short while and they were sweetened. R. Eliezer Hamodai says: They were bitter from the beginning, "the waters" being written twice. "There He made for them statute and judgment": "statute" — Sabbath; "judgment" — honoring of father and mother. R. Elazar Hamodai says: "statute" — illicit relations, viz. (Leviticus 18:30) "not to do according to the statutes of the abominations that were done before you." "judgment" — the laws of ravishment, penalties, and injuries. "and there nisahu": He elevated them to greatness, as in (II Kings 25:27) "Evil Merodach … elevated ("nasa") Yehoyachin, etc.", and (Numbers 4:22) "Elevate ("nasso") the sons of Gershon." These are the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Elazar Hamodai said to him: Isn't ("nasso" meaning) greatness written with a shin, but here ("nisahu") is written with a "samech"! What, then, is the intent of "and there nisahu"? There the L rd tried Israel.