Midrasch zu Bamidbar 4:54

1) "And He called to Moses and the L–rd spoke to him, etc." "to him" — to exclude Aaron. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Thirteen dibroth (accompanied by a command) were stated in the Torah to Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to them, thirteen limitations, to teach us that they were not spoken to Aaron, but to Moses, to tell them to Aaron. (The dibroth: 1) [Shemoth 6:13]; 2) [Shemoth 7:8]; 3) [Shemoth 9:8]; 4) [Shemoth 12:1]; 5) [Shemoth 12:43]; 6) [Vayikra 11:1]; 7) [Vayikra 13:1]; 8) [Vayikra 14:33]; 9 [Vayikra 15:1]; 10 [Bamidbar 2:1]; 11 [Bamidbar 4:1]; 12 [Bamidbar 4:18]; 13) [Bamidbar 19:2].)

1) "And He called to Moses and the L–rd spoke to him, etc." "to him" — to exclude Aaron. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Thirteen dibroth (accompanied by a command) were stated in the Torah to Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to them, thirteen limitations, to teach us that they were not spoken to Aaron, but to Moses, to tell them to Aaron. (The dibroth: 1) [Shemoth 6:13]; 2) [Shemoth 7:8]; 3) [Shemoth 9:8]; 4) [Shemoth 12:1]; 5) [Shemoth 12:43]; 6) [Vayikra 11:1]; 7) [Vayikra 13:1]; 8) [Vayikra 14:33]; 9 [Vayikra 15:1]; 10 [Bamidbar 2:1]; 11 [Bamidbar 4:1]; 12 [Bamidbar 4:18]; 13) [Bamidbar 19:2].)

2) The limitations: (Bamidbar 7:89): "And when Moses came to the ohel moed (for the L–rd) to speak to 1 him, that he heard the voice speaking to 2 him … and He spoke to him." (Shemoth 25:22): "And I will be appointed for you there, and I will speak to you … all that I will charge you with to the children of Israel." (Shemoth 29:42): "… where I shall appoint a time for you (plural) to speak to you (singular) there." (Shemoth 30:6):

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."

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."

5) (He must bring a sin-offering (Bamidbar 4:2): ["if he sin unwittingly of]) all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see Bamidbar 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see Bamidbar 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see Bamidbar 5:2) (for all of which he brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]).

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.")

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.")

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.")

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.")

Observe that many miracles were performed by means of the ark. Since that is so, how were they able to carry it? Were they not afraid? That is why the sons of Kohath bore it. Two important priests bore the ark cover on a pole.¹³Numbers Rabbah 4:13. See Exod. 26:32. It was a huge curtain the thickness of a handbreadth. The curtain was woven out of seventy-two strands, and each strand was composed of twenty-four threads. Three hundred priests would wash it, and two of the highest priests would bear it on a pole before the ark. Then they placed a sealskin covering over the ark so that they would not be able to see into it, as it is said: But they shall not go in to see the holy things as they are being covered, lest they die (Num. 4:20).

10) Whence is it derived that nothing is to take precedence to the morning tamid? From "upon it the burnt-offering," (implying that nothing is to take precedence to it). Whence is it to be derived that nothing is offered up later than the afternoon tamid? From "upon it (the afternoon tamid, the shelamim, lit., the "completers," i.e., complete all of the offerings with it). (Vayikra 6:6) ("A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished.") "continuous" — (The wood pile is to be made for the temidim and the mussafim) even on the Sabbath; "continuous" — even (if the Cohanim are) in a state of tumah. "it shall not be extinguished" — even during their journeyings. What did they do (to keep the fire from going out)? They inverted a psachter (a large vessel) over it. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: In their journeyings they would remove the fire from the altar (and place it in a vessel until they camped), as it is written (Bamidbar 4:13): "And they shall remove the fire from the altar and spread upon it (the vessel) a purple cloth."

“On the seventh day…” (Bamidbar 7:48) This is what is written “You gates, lift your heads…” (Tehillim 24:7) You find that at the time when Shlomo built the Holy Temple he sought to bring the ark into the Holy of Holies, and at that moment the gates cleaved to one another. Shlomo said twenty-four songs of joy from the verse “But will God indeed dwell with man on the earth?” (Divre HaYamim II 6:18) to “And now, arise, O Lord God to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might…” (Divre HaYamim II 6:41) Twenty four verses and he was not answered. He tried again and said “You gates, lift your heads and be uplifted…” (Tehillim 24:7) and was not answered. He tried again and said “You gates, lift your heads and lift up…” (Tehillim 24:9) and was not answered. Once he said “O Lord God, do not turn back the face of Your anointed one; remember the kind deeds of David Your servant,” (Divre HaYamim II 6:42) he was answered immediately. The gates lifted up their heads, the ark entered, the Divine Presence dwelled in the House and the fire descended from heaven, as is written afterwards “And when Solomon finished praying, and the fire descended from heaven and consumed the burnt offerings and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the House.” (Divre HaYamim II 7:1) And why did Shlomo suffer all this? Because he was filled with pride and said “I have surely built You a house to dwell in…” (Melachim I 8:13)

(Numb. 4:18:) “Do not cut off.” Let our master instruct us: In the case of one who commits a transgression punishable with excision according to the Torah, how do they receive pardon [and] become freed from their excision?¹¹⁹See Numb. R. 5:4. Thus have our masters taught (in Mak. 3:15): All who are liable to excision, when they have been scourged, are exempt from their excision, as stated (in Deut. 25:2-3), “then the judge shall have him lie down…. He may give him forty lashes but no more…; then your brother would be degraded.” When he has been scourged, then he is [again] your brother. And why forty lashes? It is simply that, because this adam was forty days in creation¹²⁰The Rabbis believed that the fetus takes forty days to develop into a human shape. See Nid. 3:7; Ber. 60a; Men. 99b; also Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1:25. and transgressed against the Torah, which was forty days in the giving, he will be given forty lashes and be exempt from his punishment (i.e., from excision). And so you find in the case of the first Adam. When he was commanded and told (in Gen. 2:17), “But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat …,” he incurred the sentence of death; and the world was scourged with forty punishments: ten for Adam, ten for Eve, ten for the serpent, ten for the land. Therefore, when a person commits one of the transgressions [punishable by death], he is scourged with forty lashes. And so you find with each and every thing that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses, [there were] warnings and punishments. It is written concerning the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8), “Remember the Sabbath day,” as a warning; and as a punishment (there is Exod. 31:14), “whoever profanes it shall surely be put to death.” They came to the desert and (according to Numb. 15:32) found one gathering [wood on the Sabbath], but Moses did not know by what death he should be killed. However, (according to Lev. 24:12) “They left him in custody [because it was not clear what should be done to him.]” The Holy One, blessed be He, said (in vs. 35), “The person shall surely be put to death; [all the congregation] shall stone him with stones.” Immediately Moses rose in prayer and said, “Sovereign of the world, if a man should so sin, should he [really] be stoned? Behold, they would be destroyed. Make an [other] arrangement for them.” He said to him, “Let them be scourged with forty lashes, and they will be exempt from excision.” Similarly when the children of Aaron died, the tribe of Kohath saw them. They began yelling to Moses, saying, “Are we to die like that?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “Just as I have made an [alternate] arrangement for Aaron, as stated (in 16:3), ‘In this way shall Aaron come [into the sanctuary]…’; so also for the Kohathite families I am making a similar arrangement, lest they die, as stated (Numb. 4:19), ‘Do this for them (i.e., for the Kohathites) that they may live and not die….’” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Numb. 4:18), “Do not cut off….”

“You gates, lift your heads…” (Tehillim 24:7/9) You find that at the time when Shlomo built the Holy temple he wanted to bring the ark into the Holy of Holies, but the gate was too small. It was five cubits long and two and a half cubits wide, while the ark was one and a half cubits long, one and a half wide and one and a half tall. Can’t one and a half cubits fit into two and a half?! Rather, at that moment the gates cleaved to one another. Shlomo said twenty four songs of joy and was not answered, he said ‘you gates lift up your heads’ and was not answered. He tried again and said “You] gates, lift your heads…so that the King of Glory may enter. Who is this King of Glory?” (Tehillim 24:7-8) He was not answered. Once he said “O Lord God, do not turn back the face of Your anointed one; remember the kind deeds of David Your servant,” (Divre HaYamim II 6:42) immediately the gates lifted up their heads, the ark entered and fire descended from heaven. Why did Shlomo suffer all of this? Because he was filled with pride and said “I have surely built You a house to dwell in…” (Melachim I 8:13) Since all of Israel saw this, they immediately said ‘it is certain that the Holy One has given atonement for that sin of David.’ Immediately their expression turned black like the bottom of a pot and they were ashamed. This is what is written “Grant me a sign for good, and let my enemies see [it] and be ashamed, for You, O Lord, have helped me and comforted me.” (Tehillim 86:17) ‘Helped me’ in this world and ‘comforted me’ in the world to come.

(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.

(Numb. 4:17-48:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON, SAYING: DO NOT CUT OFF THE TRIBE OF THE KOHATHITE FAMILIES <FROM THE LEVITES>. This text is related (to Prov. 22:22): DO NOT ROB THE IMPOVERISHED BECAUSE HE IS IMPOVERISHED. R. Tanhuma bar Abba said:¹³⁶Tanh., Numb. 1:22. R. Levi said: DO NOT ROB THE IMPOVERISHED BECAUSE HE IS IMPOVERISHED. This refers to the lupine¹³⁷Gk.: thermos (“hot”). which arrives with the dessert. One should not say: There are nuts and dates before me. I will say <the blessing> over them and leave the lupine alone. The Holy One said (ibid.): DO NOT ROB THE IMPOVERISHED BECAUSE HE IS IMPOVERISHED. R. Hezekiah and R. Jeremiah bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: It is with reference to everyone who does not say something in the name of the one who said it that the text says (ibid.): DO NOT ROB THE IMPOVERISHED BECAUSE HE IS IMPOVERISHED.¹³⁸See Avot 6:3. So when a person hears something, it is necessary to cite it in the name of the one who <originally> said it, even though <doing so takes up> more than a third of a law (halakhah). Thus our masters have taught (in Pe'ah 2:6): R. NAHUM THE SCRIBE¹³⁹Livlar. Cf. Lat.: libellaris (“documentary”); libellarius (“relating to a written rental contract”); librarius (“scribe,” “copyist”). SAID: I HAVE RECEIVED FROM R. MAY'ASHA, WHO RECEIVED [FROM ABBA, WHO RECEIVED FROM THE PAIRS (zugot),¹⁴⁰Gk.: zuga (“yokes”); cf. Lat.: juga. WHO RECEIVED] FROM THE ELDERS, A LAW (halakhah) OF MOSES FROM SINAI. So it is with reference to whoever does not say something in the name of the one who said it that the text (of Prov. 22:22) says: DO NOT ROB THE IMPOVERISHED. But everyone who does say something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption into the world.¹⁴¹Meg. 15a. From whom have you learned it? From Esther. When she heard of the matter from Mordecai, she said to Ahasuerus according to what is stated (in Esth. 2:22): AND ESTHER SPOKE TO THE KING IN THE NAME OF MORDECAI. For that reason she was worthy of having Israel be redeemed at her hands. Ergo: If you hear something, cite it in the name of the one who said it.

[(Numb. 4:18:) DO NOT CUT OFF.] Let our master instruct us: In the case of one who commits a transgression punishable with excision according to the Torah, how do they receive pardon <and> become freed from their excision?¹⁴³Tanh., Numb. 1:23; see Numb. R. 5:4. Thus have our masters taught (in Mak. 3:15): ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO EXCISION, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN SCOURGED, ARE EXEMPT FROM THEIR EXCISION, AS STATED (in Deut. 25:2-3): THEN THE JUDGE SHALL HAVE HIM LIE DOWN…. HE MAY GIVE HIM FORTY LASHES BUT NO MORE…; THEN YOUR BROTHER WOULD BE DEGRADED. WHEN HE HAS BEEN SCOURGED, THEN HE IS <AGAIN> YOUR BROTHER. And why forty lashes? It is simply that, because this adam was forty days in creation¹⁴⁴The Rabbis believed that the fetus takes forty days to develop into a human shape. See Nid. 3:7; Ber. 60a; Men. 99b; also Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1:25. and transgressed against the Torah, which was forty days in the giving, he will be given forty lashes and be exempt from his punishment (i.e., from excision). And so you find in the case of the first Adam. When he was commanded and told (in Gen. 2:17): BUT FROM THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE [OF GOOD AND EVIL YOU SHALL NOT EAT …], he incurred the sentence of death; and the world was scourged with forty punishments: ten for Adam, ten for Eve, ten for the serpent, ten for the land. Therefore, when a person commits one of the transgressions <punishable by death>, he is scourged with forty lashes. And so you find with each and every thing that the Holy One commanded Moses, < there were> warnings and punishments. It is written concerning the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8): REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, as a warning; and as a punishment (there is Exod. 31:14): WHOEVER PROFANES IT SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. They came to the desert and (according to Numb. 15:32) found one gathering <wood on the Sabbath>, but Moses did not know by what death he should be killed. However, {(according to Lev. 24:12) THEY LEFT HIM IN CUSTODY <WHILE WAITING> FOR A CLARIFICATION TO THEM FROM THE MOUTH OF THE LORD.} [(according to Numb. 15:34) AND THEY LEFT HIM IN CUSTODY <BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO HIM.>] The Holy One said (in vs. 35): THE PERSON SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH; <ALL THE CONGREGATION> SHALL STONE HIM WITH STONES <OUTSIDE OF THE CAMP>. Immediately Moses rose in prayer and said: Sovereign of the World, if someone from Israel should so sin, should he <really> be stoned? Behold, <Israel> would be destroyed. Make <another> arrangement for them. He said to him: Let them be scourged with forty lashes, and they will be exempt from excision. Similarly when the children of Aaron died, the tribe of Kohath saw them. They began yelling at Moses, saying: Are we to die like that? The Holy One said to Moses: Just as I have made an <alternate> arrangement for Aaron, as stated (in 16:3): <ONLY> IN THIS WAY SHALL AARON COME <INTO THE SANCTUARY>: …; so also for the Kohathite families I am making a similar arrangement, lest they die when they come unto the Holy of Holies. (Numb. 4:19): DO THIS FOR THEM (i.e., for the Kohathites) THAT THEY MAY LIVE AND NOT DIE…. Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Numb. 4:18): DO NOT CUT OFF THE TRIBE OF THE KOHATHITE FAMILIES <FROM THE LEVITES>.

(Bamidbar 18:1) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.": R. Yishmael says: Because the thing (i.e., what follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: Whence is it derived that if he (a Cohein) sprinkled the blood without knowing in whose name he is doing so or smoked the fat without knowing in whose name he is doing so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From "You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary." R. Yonathan says: Whence is it derived that if he took the flesh (of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering) before the blood was sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the breast and the shoulder before the smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31), that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood." And thus do we find that the decree of Eli was sealed only because they (the Cohanim) abused the offerings, as it is written (I Samuel 2:15) "Even before they would burn the fat … (16) And the man would say: Let them first burn the fat today (upon the altar) … (17) And the sin of the youths (the attendants of the Cohanim was very great, etc." And similarly we find that the decree of the men of Jerusalem was decreed only because they abused the offerings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) "You abused My offerings." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.": This refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-priests] from entering the sanctuary). You say this, but perhaps it refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to beth-din, (it being their duty to exhort the Cohanim in this regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7]) "You and your sons, with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar" already speaks of what is relegated to beth-din. How, then, am I to understand "you shall bear the sin of your priesthood"? As referring to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid. 1) "And you and your sons with you": and not Israelites (i.e., they are not to guard the sanctuary.) You say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who also guard the sanctuary) do bear the sin of the Cohanim, (who are remiss in this regard.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And they (the Levites) shall bear their (own) sin" (of remissness), but not the sin of the Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) "And also your brothers": I might think that this also includes Israelites. It is, therefore, written "the tribe of Levi." I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "your brothers" — to exclude the women. "draw near with you": R. Akiva says: It is written here "with you," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) "with you." Just as here, the Levites are being referred to, so, there, the Levites are being referred to — to exhort the Levites (against defect) in the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) "and they shall be joined to you and they shall serve you": through their service. Treasurers and trustees are to be appointed from among them. You say this, but perhaps the intent is that they shall serve you (the Cohanim) in your (priestly) service. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent." — But perhaps (both are intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you in your (priestly) service and they shall serve you through their service. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd." To the L-rd are they given, and not to the Cohanim — whereby we derive that it is not to be construed in the second way (i.e., "for your [priestly] service"), but in the first way, i.e., their being appointed as treasurers and trustees. "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony": the Cohanim within, (in the court of the sanctuary,) and the Levites outside (the court). You say this, but perhaps the intent is both, within. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And they (the Levites) will join you, and they will keep (the watch of) the watch (by the Cohanim within) of the tent of meeting." How, then, am I to understand "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony"? The Cohanim within, and the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent": As stated above: They will serve you through their service, and appoint from among them treasurers and trustees. "But to the vessels of the kodesh they shall not come near." This "hakodesh" ("the holy") refers to the ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "And they (the Levites) shall not come to see (the vessels) when the kodesh is being covered and they (the Levites) die." "and to the altar": This refers to the (sacrificial) service of the altar. "they shall not come near": the exhortation. "and they shall not die": the punishment. This tells me only of the Levites, that they are punished and exhorted for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) Cohanim (appropriating) the service (i.e., singing) of the Levites? From ("so that they not die,) both they (the Levites) and you" (the Cohanim.) And it once happened that R. Yehoshua b. Chanania sought to assist R. Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for you are close to forfeiting your life! For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers. Rebbi says that this ("both they and you") is not needed (for the above learning). For it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-19) "Do not cut off the tribe of the families of the Kehathi … but do this for them and they will live," (the implication being that otherwise they will die.) This tells me only of the sons of Kehath. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid. 19) "Aaron and his sons shall come and set them (the sons of Levi), each man to his service and to his burden." This tells me only that the Levites are punished for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Cohanim (appropriating) the service of the Levites? From (Bamidbar 1:51) "And when the mishkan travels, the Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall dismantle it. And the stranger (a non-Levite) that draws near (to this service) shall be put to death." Whence do I derive (the same for) one who goes from his (assigned) service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38) "And those who encamped before the mishkan, in front, before the tent of meeting on the east" (i.e., only these being assigned to the aforementioned service) … and the stranger (to that service, [even a Levite]) that draws near shall be put to death." What, then, is the need for "so that they not die both they and you"? Because Korach came and contested Aaron's prerogative, Scripture reiterated the entire exhortation (on demarcation of bounds). Variantly: "both they and you": Just as you (the Cohanim, are thus forewarned) vis-à-vis the altar service, so, they (the Levites, are thus forewarned). R. Nathan says: Levitical singing is hereby intimated in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature) was explicated by Ezra. Chanania, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: This (intimation) is not needed, for it is already written (Shemot 19:19) "and G-d answered him (Moses, the Levite) by voice" — relative to the mitzvah of the voice, whence (the mitzvah of Levitical) singing is intimated in the Torah. (Bamidbar 18:4) "And they shall join you": As we have stated, the Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside, and the Levites, on the outside. (Ibid.) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you": Why is this written? (i.e., it has already been mentioned.) — "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death" tells us (only of) the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From "and a stranger shall not draw near to you." (Ibid. 5) "And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar.": This is an exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites to exhort the Cohanim towards the proper performance of the (sacrificial) service, which (service), when properly performed, fends off calamity from the world. (Ibid.) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He has already vented His wrath (viz. 17:11). Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) "and no more shall there be a flood." Why "no more"? For it has already happened. Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the goat-demons." Why "no more"? Because it already happened (in Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7). Similarly, (Bamidbar 18:22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near to the tent of meeting." Why "no more"? Because they had already done so (in the time of Korach, viz. Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He had already vented His wrath, as it is written (Ibid. 17:11) "for the wrath has gone forth, etc."

(Bamidbar 31:6) "And Moses sent them, a thousand to a tribe to the host, them and Pinchas": We are hereby apprised that they were as "weighty" as Pinchas, and Pinchas was over and against all of them. Why did Pinchas go and not Elazar? Because Pinchas went to take revenge (of the Midianites) for his mother's father (Yithro, viz. Shemot 2:16), it being written (Bereshit 37:36) "And the Midianites sold him (Joseph) to Egypt." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and the holy articles … in his hand": This refers to the ark, viz. (Ibid. 4:20) "And they shall not see when the 'holy' is being covered, lest they die." (Ibid. 31:6) "in his hand": "his hand" is his domain, as in (Ibid. 21:26) "and he took all his land from his hand," and (Bereshit 24:10) "and all the good of his master in his hand."