Midrash for Numbers 7:13

One silver basin represents the Torah which has been likened to wine, as it is stated, "And drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Mishlei 9:5). Now because it is customary to drink wine in a basin – as you may gather from the text, "They who drink wine in basins" (Amos 6:6) – therefore, he brought a basin. Why "of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary"? As the numerical value of yayin (wine) is seventy, so there are shivim panim la’Torah (seventy facets/sides of Torah).

And his offering: one silver bowl (Numbers 7:13). Behold it is written (Song of Songs 4:7) "You are all beautiful, my love, and there is no blemish in you" - this is speaking of Israel. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: at the time that Israel stood before Mount Sinai to accept the Torah, there were no blind people among them, nor deaf, nor mentally incapable, nor mutes, nor lame, nor limping. At that moment it says, "You are all beautiful, my love, there is no blemish in you." -- until they sinned with the calf, and among them were made zavim and metzoraim, as it says (Exodus 32:25) "And Moshe saw the people, that they were scattered [פרוע]", and it is also written (Leviticus 13:45) "As for the person with a leprous affection, their clothes shall be rent, their head shall be wild [פרוע],". At that moment, it says (Numbers 5:2) "Send out from the camp every tzarua and every zav". But before Mount Sinai, they were whole, as it says "You are all beautiful, my love, there is no blemish in you". Another opinion: "All of you is beautiful, my love" speaks of the tribes. And if you say, how can all of them be beautiful? For Ya'akov their father blessed the tribes, and chided Reuven, Shimon, and Levi. How can you say they "you are all beautiful"?! Rabbi Elazar says, even though he blessed the later tribes and chided the former tribes, even so he returned and blessed them, as it says (Genesis 49:28) "These are the tribes of Israel, twelve..." -- he made them nourished from each other. What is (Genesis 49:28) "And he blessed them, each according to his own blessing"? When he blessed them, he returned and blessed them again -- rather, it teaches that when Ya'akov our father blessed his children, he would compare them to animals. He compared Yehuda to a lion; "Yehuda is a lion's whelp..." (Genesis 49:9). He compared Dan to a snake; "Dan shall be a snake..." (Genesis 49:17). He compared Naftali to a hind; "Naftali is a hind let loose..." (Genesis 49:21). Binyamin to a wolf; "Binyamin is a ravenous wolf..." (Genesis 49:27). Even though this is so, he returned and called all of them lions, all snakes, all hinds, all wolves. You can know that this is so, since behold Dan was called a snake, and he returned and called him a lion; "Dan is a lion's whelp..." (Deuteronomy 33:22). So you learn that he returned and included Reuven, Shimon, and Levi in the blessing of their brothers, to uphold that which is written; "you are entirely beautiful, my love". And so the verse returns and counts Reuven, Shimon, and Levi individually in the book of Exodus, and does not count the others. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya and the rabbis [offer alternaive explanations for this]. Rabbi Yehuda says, this is why Reuven, Shimon, and Levi were counted individually: since all the tribes did not guard their lineage in Egypt, and Reuven and Shimon and Levi guarded their lineages, thus their lineages are enumerated there. Rabbi Nechemya says, all the tribes worshipped star-worship in Egypt, and tre tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Levi did not worship star-worship; thus they merited to be counted alone. And the rabbis say, all the tribes did not act with authoority/leadership [?] in Egypt, but Reuven, Shimon, and Levi acted with leadership in Egypt,. Reuven died and leadership was given to Shimon, Shimon died and it was given to Levi. Levi died and they wished to give it to Yehuda, and a Bat Kol went out and said, "Leave it, until its time comes!" When did it's time come? After the death of Yehoshua (Judges 1:1-2) "And it was after the death of Joshua that the Israelites inquired... and God said, Yehuda will go up". Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Chanin: one says "Therefore, it returned and related these three tribes, because their father had chided them." The other says, "because their lineage relates to Moshe and Aharon". And we do not know which of them said this and which of them said this, since it's from what Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Chanin in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak. "The ear that listens to the reproof of life abides among the wise" (Proverbs 15:31) -- this is Rabbi Chanin, who said, because he chided them. And because they accepted the reproof of their father, they merited to be ennumerated beside Moshe and Aharon. For this reason, it says "You are entirely beautiful, my love...". Another interpretation, "you are entirely beauutiful, my love..." according to Yirmiyahu, who said (Jeremiah 6:30) "They are called 'rejected silver'..." and Yechezkel called them dross; "O mortal, the House of Israel has become dross to Me" (Ezekiel 22:18). Zechariah came and said, "I saw, and behold, a menorah... entirely [כֻּלָּהּ] of gold.." (Zechariah 4:2), to fulfil that which is written, "all of you [כֻּלָּךְ] is beautiful, my love". Another interpreation; "you are entirely beautiful, ...": this is speaking of the princes of the tribes at the time that they brought forth for the dedication of the altar. They did not bring all together on one day, rather each and every one on individual days, as like that which is written "One prince each day" (Numbers 7:11). Could it be that the one who brought his offerings first was most beloved?! Yehuda who brought his offerings first was most beloved of all? So Rabbi Chelbo said; with all the tribes it is written "his offering", and with the prince of Yehuda it is written "and his offering" - and this is strange! He who offered first it is written of him, "and his offering" - it did not need to sppeak thus, rather of the first "his offering" and the rest "and his offering". And why is this so? Rabbi Brechya haCohen son of Rabbi said, since Yehuda ofered first, if he had come to pride himself over his brothers and say "I am more honoured than you, since I offered first", they would respond to him and say, "you are he who offered last, for thus it says 'and his offering'!" This made him lesser [and brought him down] to his brothers, and so: "all of you is beautiful".

“…seventy shekels according to the holy shekel…” (Numbers 7:13) Seventy in parallel to the seventy nations which descended from him (from Adam). Another explanation. Why seventy? In parallel to the seventy verses from the beginning of the book of Genesis to the curse of the snake. R’ Pichas said: there are two enemies who were not cursed until seventy verses had been completed about them – the snake and Haman the wicked. Regarding the snake, from “In the beginning…” (Genesis 1:1) until “…cursed be you more than all the cattle…” (Genesis 3:14) is seventy verses. Regarding Haman, from “After these events, King Ahasuerus promoted Haman…” (Esther 3:1) until “And they hanged Haman…” (Esther 7:10) is seventy verses. For the purpose of seventy he was hanged on fifty (cubits of wood). Another explanation. In parallel to the seventy holy names from ‘In the beginning’ until the story of the snake. And if you say there is one more (than seventy) “…and you will be like gods…” (Genesis 3:5) is not a holy name. Another explanation. In parallel to the seventy years before Terach gave birth to Avraham, as it says “And Terach lived seventy years…” (Genesis 11:26) Two people lived in two generations for seventy years. Kenan in the first generation, “And Kenan lived seventy years…” (Genesis 5:12) and Terach in the second generation. Another explanation. Parallel to the seventy days which they wept over Yaakov the pious, as it says “…and the Egyptians wept over him for seventy days.” (Genesis 50:3) Another explanation. Parallel to the seventy days of goodness which the Holy One gave to Israel – seven days of Passover, eight days of Sukkot, Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur, Shavuot and the fifty two days of Shabbat in the solar year make seventy. Another explanation. Parallel to the seventy names of the Holy One, the seventy names of Israel, the seventy names of the Torah, the seventy names of Jerusalem. Another explanation. Parallel to the seventy years that Adam took away from his life and gave to David ben Yishai. It was fit that he live for a thousand years, as it says “…for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17) And a day to the Holy One is a thousand years, as it says “For a thousand years are in Your eyes like yesterday, which passed, and a watch in the night.” (Psalms 90:4)

16 Another interpretation. It does not say, "And Korach dissented; and he said; and he gathered; [or] and he commanded. Rather, "And he took." What did he take? He did not take anything. But rather his heart took him. The verse said (Job 15:12), "How your heart has taken you away, how your eyes have failed you." Rabbi Levi said, "Whey did Korach dissent from Moshe? He said 'I am the son of oil, the son of Yitshar.' As it is stated (Numbers 7:13), 'your new wine (tirosh) and oil (yitsharekha), the calving of your herd and the lambing of your flock, in the land that He swore to your fathers to assign to you.' 'Tirosh is wine; 'yitsharekha' is oil. And in all drinks that you place oil, it is always found on top. And not only that, but it is written (Zachariah 4:14), 'They are the two anointed dignitaries (literally, sons of yitshar) who attend the Lord of all the earth.' And does oil have sons? Rather this is Aharon and David that were anointed by the anointing oil. Aharon took the priesthood and David the monarchy. Korach said, 'Just as these, who were only anointed by anointing oil, took priesthood and monarchy; I, that am the son of oil, need not be anointed and I shall be a priest and king.' Immediately, he dissented with Moshe."

(Bamidbar 7:13) "And his offering was one silver dish, etc.": We are hereby taught (by the uniformity of all of the items) that they were originally made for the sake of the offerings. "one silver bowl of seventy shekels in the shekel of the sanctuary": This tells me only that the bowl was in the shekel of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive the same for the dish? From ("in the shekel of the sanctuary) both of them" — Just as the bowl was in the shekel of the sanctuary, so, the dish. R. Chanania the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: There is no need (for this derivation), for it is already written (Ibid. 85) "two thousand and four hundred in the shekel of the sanctuary." What, then, is the intent of "both of them full"? From ("one silver dish) weighing one hundred and thirty shekels," I would think that since they were not equal in weight, (the bowl weighing seventy shekels), they were not equal in capacity; it is, therefore, written "both of them full." And what is the difference between dish and bowl? The plate of the dish is thick; the plate of the bowl is thin. "both of them full of fine flour": (also) donated. "one spoon": It makes what is in it "one" (for halachic purposes). "ten gold (shekels)": (Is the meaning that) it was of gold, and its weight (ten shekels) of silver, or that it was of silver, and its weight,(ten shekels) of gold? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 86) "All the gold of the spoons — one hundred and twenty (shekels.") The first assumption, then, is the correct one — It was of gold, and its weight, of silver. "full of incense": donative (and not required) incense.