Midrash sobre Exodo 34:7

(Fol. 36b) Our Rabbis were taught: How did the High-priest confess? "I have committed iniquities, transgressed, and sinned;" and so says Scripture regarding the scapegoat (Lev. 16, 21) And confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins. And this arrangement is also used by Moses (Ex. 34, 7) Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; so says R. Meir. The sages, however, say. Iniquities (Avonoth) refers to intentional transgressions; and so says Scripture (Num. 15, 31) That person shall be cut off, his iniquity (Avono) is upon him; transgressions (P'sha'im) refers to rebellion, and so says Scripture (II Kings 3, 7) The King of Moab hath rebelled (Pasha) against me. There is also another passage (Ib. 8, 22) Then did Libnah revolt in that time; sin (Chata'oth) refers to unintentional wrong (done in ignorance), and so says Scripture (Lev. 4, 2) If any person sin through ignorance (Yekheta). But, according to the sages, how is it possible that after he has confessed the intentional and rebellious sins, he will confess the unintentional? Therefore we must say that he said them in this order: I have sinned, committed iniquities, and transgressed. And so says David (Ps. 106, 6) We have sinned together with our fathers, ive have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly. And so also says Solomon (I Kings 8, 47; II Chr. 6) We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have acted wickedly. So also says Daniel (Dan. 9, 5) We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly, and we have rebelled. If so, then, why did Moses say (Ex. 34, 6) Forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin. Moses said thus to the Holy One, praised be He! "Sovereign of the Universe, when the children of Israel will sin before thee, and then repent, consider their conscious sins as mere inadvertant acts."

(Fol. 27b) (Deut. 24, 16) Fathers shall not be put to death for the children..... for his son's sin, etc. For what purpose is this written? If only to teach us the meaning of it taken literally, we know this from the end of the verse — for his own sin shall every man be put to death. It must therefore be interpreted, fathers should not die by the testimony of their children, and children shall not die by the testimony of their fathers. And children, you say, should not die by the sin of their fathers? Is there not a passage (Ex. 34, 7) Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children? That passage refers to children who hold in their hands the deeds of their fathers, (follow their fathers' example), as we are taught (Lev. 26, 39) And also through the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them; i.e., when they hold in their hands the deeds of their fathers. But perhaps this refers even to those who do not follow the example of their fathers? Since the passage reads (Deut. 24, 16) For his own sin shall every man be put to death, it includes even those who follow the deeds of their fathers. And when they do not follow the example of their fathers you say they cannot be punished? Indeed it is written (Lev. 26, 37) And they shall stumble one over another. Infer from tins that all (Israel) are responsible for one another. That deals with a case when they had an opportunity to protest [against the evil] and they did not, [they are therefore responsible].

Said R. Jose b. Chanina: "Four decrees did Moses decree upon Israel, and four prophets came and abolished them. Moses said (Deut. 33, 28) And Israel dwelt in safety, the fountain of Jacob alone. Amos, however, abolished it, as it is said (7, 5) I beseech Thee; How should Jacob stand? For he is small. Then immediately in (Ib. 6) The Lord bethought … this also shall not be. Moses said (Deut. 28, 65) And among these nations shalt thou have no repose. Jeremiah came and abolished it, as it is written (31, 2) Even Israel, when I go to cause him to rest. Moses said (Ex. 34, 7) Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. Ezekiel, however, came and abolished it, by saying (18, 4)The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Moses said (Lev. 26, 38) And ye shall perish among the nations. Isaiah came and abolished it by saying (27, 13) And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great horn shall be blown; and they shall come that were lost in the land of Assyria, etc." Rab said: "I am [nevertheless] afraid of the passage, Ye shall be lost among the nations," whereupon R. Papa remarked: "Perhaps this means like a lost article, which is looked after by the owner, as the passage says (Ps. 119, 176) I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Thy servant." We must say that he refers to the end of same, The land of your enemies shall consume you. Mar Zutra, and according to others, R. Ashi, opposed this, contending that it may refer to the consummation of pumpkins and cucumbers [which are only eaten partly].

6) As to Moses' saying (in different order) (Shemoth 34:7) "He forgives transgression, offense, and sin, and absolves" and (Vayikra 16:21) "And he shall confess over it all the transgressions of the children of Israel, and all their offenses of all of their sins" — Once he confesses his transgressions and sins of rebellion, they are regarded as unwitting sins before Him.

(Bamidbar 5:15) "Then the man shall bring his wife to the Cohein": According to the Torah, the man brings his wife to the Cohein. But they said: He is given two Torah scholars (as chaperones) on the way so that he not live with her. R. Yossi says: Her husband is trusted with her, a fortiori, viz. If he is trusted (to be alone) with his wife when she is a niddah, though the punishment for cohabiting with her is kareth, how much more so is he to be trusted with her when she is a sotah, cohabitation with whom is not liable to kareth! They replied: How much more so (is he not to be trusted with her!) If he is not liable to kareth he will not be deterred! Variantly: (The instance of niddah is no refutation). He may be trusted (to be alone with her) when she is a niddah, for she is permitted to him afterwards, but not with a sotah, who may not be permitted to him afterwards. According to the Torah, the husband brings his wife, it being written "and the man (i.e., her husband) brings his wife to the Cohein." "and he shall bring her offering for her": Every offering devolving upon her. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: Any offering that permits her to him, such as that of a zavah and that of a woman who has given birth, she brings of what is his and it is not deducted from her kethubah. And any offering that does not permit her to him, such as that for taking a Nazirite vow or desecrating the Sabbath, she brings of what is hers and he deducts it from her kethubah. "one-tenth of an ephah of meal": Why state ("of meal")? For it would follow, since the offering of a sinner comes for a sin and this comes for a sin, that since the first comes only of fine flour, this, too, is to be only of fine flour; it is, therefore, written "meal." "barley": Why? For it would follow, since the offering of a sinner comes for a sin and this comes for a sin, then this, too, should come only from wheat; it is, therefore, written "barley." R. Gamliel said: Scribes, allow me, and I will interpret it symbolically, viz.: Just as her deeds were those of a beast, so, her food shall be that of a beast." He shall not pour oil upon it": If he does, he transgresses a negative commandment. Would you say, then, that just as he transgresses (a negative commandment) with his oil so, he transgresses with his frankincense? Would you say that? (I would say that) he transgresses with oil, for he cannot remove it, but not with frankincense, for he can remove it." It is, therefore, written "He shall not pour oil upon it" and "He shall not place frankincense upon it" — so that if he places either oil or frankincense upon it he transgresses a negative commandment. Why is that? "For it is an offering of rancors." "rancors": two rancors: rancor against her and rancor against her husband (and) just as there is rancor below, there is rancor Above. "an offering of memorial": I hear (from this, a "memorial" [i.e., a "reminder"] both of) merit and of liability; it is, therefore, written (afterwards, to negate this) "a reminder of sin." All of the "memorials" in the Torah are for the good, except for this one, which is for punishment. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: This one, too, is for the good, as it is written (Ibid. 28) "And if the woman had not been defiled (in this concealment), and she be clean, then she shall be absolved (of the blighting waters), and she will sow seed." This (verse) tells me only "a reminder of sin." Whence do I derive (that it is also) a reminder of merit? From "an offering of memorial" — in any event. R. Yishmael says: "an offering of memorial" — general; "a reminder of sin" — specific. (This is an instance of "general-specific," (where the resolution is) — "There obtains in the general only what is stated in the specific," (i.e., that it is a memorial of sin and not of merit.) For, (if not for this principle) the "contender" could argue. Which attribute (of the L-rd) is stronger? That for good or that for punishment? Certainly, that for good (viz. Shemot 34:7) If the attribute of punishment diminished (that of good), it would be a reminder of sin, but since the attribute of good is stronger, it follows that it should be a reminder of merit. This is an attribute of the Torah: Whenever a "general-specific" (application) defeats an a fortiori (application [as in the above]) — If both can be satisfied, the a fortiori (application) is not to be defeated. How can both be satisfied (in our instance) without the a fortiori (application) being defeated? (As follows:) If she had been defiled, then punishment visits her immediately. And if she has a certain merit, that merit may suspend (the operation of the bitter waters) for three months so that the fetus is recognizable. These are the words of Abba Yossi b. Channan. R. Eliezer b. Yitzchak of Kfar Darom says: For nine months, as it is written (Ibid. 28) "and if she is clean, then she will sow seed. Just as "seed" connotes nine months, so, merit (can suspend for) nine months. R. Yishmael says: Twelve months. And even though there is no proof for this, there is intimation of it in (Daniel 4:24-26) "O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you … All this befell King Nevuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months, etc." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Merit does not suspend (the operation of) the blighting waters. For if you say that it does, you "dilute" the (deterrence of the) bitter waters before all women, and they will drink them; and you cast an evil name upon the clean ones who drank. For people will say: They were really defiled, but their merit suspended (the operation of the waters). Rebbi says: I can determine (whether or not she was clean). If she were clean, in the end, she will die, as all men do, and if she had been defiled, she will die as depicted by Scripture, viz. (Bamidbar 5:27) "and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall." R. Shimon says: Who is going to inform all of the standersby that she will die and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall? But (if she were guilty), then as soon as she drank, her face would turn green and her eyes would bulge, and her veins would swell in her, and they would say: Hurry and take her out so that she not defile the azarah (the Temple court)!

You shall offer it terms of peace (Deuteronomy 20:10): Rabbi Levi said, "Moshe did three things and the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him. And these are them: It is written (Exodus 34:7), 'visits the iniquity of the fathers upon children.' But Moshe said (Deuteronomy 24:10), 'Fathers will not be put to death for children [and children will not be put to death for fathers].' And from where [do we know] that the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him? As it is stated (II Kings 14:6), 'But he did not put to death the children of the assassins, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Torah of Moshe, [...] "Parents shall not be put to death for children, etc."' And the second was when he broke the tablets. And [the third] was in the days of Sichon and Og. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'Go and fight with him, block his acqueduct.' But Moshe did not do so, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 2:26), 'And I sent messengers.' The Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'By your life, you have done as is fitting, as I agree with you.'" Therefore Moshe warns Israel and says to them (Deuteronomy 20:10), "When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace." "You shall offer it terms of (for) peace (leshalom)." In peace (beshalom) is not written here, so that they would go forth with peace and return in peace. As Avner and Avshalom about whom it is written, "in peace," did not return. But Moshe to whom Yitro said, "for peace," went and returned. Another interpretation [of] "You shall offer it terms of peace": It is speaking about the days of the king messiah, who opens to them with peace, as it is stated (Zechariah 9:10), "He shall speak peace to the nations, and his rule shall extend from sea to sea." "If it responds peaceably" (Deuteronomy 20:11); if they bind themselves, as it is stated (Isaiah 2:4), "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not take up sword against nation; they shall never again learn war." "All the people present there shall be as tribute and serve you"(Deuteronomy 20:11); that they should bring you tribute. As it is stated (Psalms 68:32), "Tribute-bearers (chasmanim) shall come from Egypt," as they shall hurry (chasim) and bring their gifts; "Cush shall hasten (tarits) its gifts to God," as they shall run (ratsim) and bring their gifts. "But if it shall not make peace with you" (Deuteronomy 20:12). [If] a strange spirit enters into them and they rebel against the king messiah, he kills them immediately; as it is stated (Isaiah 11:4), "he shall strike down a land with the rod of his mouth, and slay the wicked with the breath of his lips." And he shall only leave Israel, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 32:12), "The Lord guided him alone, and there is no alien god with him."

33 Another interpretation of (Numb. 21:17), "Then Israel sang": This is one of the three things that Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He, and He said [back] to him, "You have taught me." He said in front of Him, "Master of the Universe, from where does Israel know what they did (was wrong)? Did they not grow up in Egypt? And all of Egypt are idolaters. And when You gave the Torah, You did not give it to them, and they were also not standing there, as it is stated (Exod. 20:18), 'And the people stood from afar.' And You only gave it to me, as it is stated (Exod. 24:1), 'And He said to Moses, "Ascend to the Lord.'" And when You gave the statements (Ten Commandments), You did not give [them] to them. You did not say, 'I am the Lord, your (plural) God'; but rather I am the Lord, your (singular) God. [Hence] You said it to me. Did I sin?" The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "By your life, you have spoken well. You have taught Me! From now on, I will say the expression, 'I am the Lord, your (plural) God.'" The second one is when the Holy One, blessed be He, said ( in Numb. 34:7), "visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children": Moses said, "Master of the Universe, how many evildoers begat righteous ones; should they be removed by the iniquities of their parents? Terach was an idol-maker, but his son, Abraham, was righteous; so too Hezekiah was righteous, but Ahaz, his father was an evildoer; Josiah was righteous, but Amon, his father, was an evildoer. Is this proper, that the righteous be struck for the iniquities of their parents?" The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Behold, you have taught Me! By your life, I will nullify My words and preserve your words, as it is stated (Deut. 24:15), ‘The parents shall not die for the children, and the children shall not die for the parents'; and it is by your life that I shall write [these things] in your name, as it is stated (II Kings 14:6), 'as it is written in the Torah of Moses, which God commanded ....'" The third one is when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Make war on Sichon; even if he does not want to engage with you, wage war with him, as stated (Deut. 2:24), 'Get up, go and cross the Arnon .'" But Moses did not do like this. Rather what is written above? "And I sent messengers" (Deut. 2:26). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "By your life, I will nullify My words and preserve your words, as it is stated (Deut. 20:11), 'When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace.'" Once Sichon did not accept, the Holy One, blessed be He, felled him in front of them, as it is stated (Deut. 20:33), "and we smote him." And not only that, but even [with] those that were hiding themselves in the caves to kill [the Israelites], the Holy One, blessed be He, signaled to the mountain and it crushed them, as it is stated (Ps. 74:13-14), "who smashed the heads of the monsters in the waters. It was You who crushed the heads of Leviathan." A common proverb says [that] if you gave bread to an infant, let his mother know. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, "From where will Israel know the favor I did for them?" What did He do? He distanced the mountains from each other and the streams swept down [the corpses], as it is stated (Numb 21:17), "And the streams poured." And the Israelites passed by and sang song - "then Israel sang" (Numb. 21:17). Israel said, "It is for You to do miracles for us, but it is for us to bless and laud Your name" - "Salvation is to the Lord; upon Your people is Your blessing, Selah" (Ps. 3:9). Upon the waters was it decreed against Moses, so he was not mentioned in the song. Moses said, "Master of the Universe, "I am dying because of them. You gave them the Torah from the wilderness, as it is stated, (Numb. 21:18), 'and from the wilderness, Matanah (which is also the word for gift).' And they possessed (nachalu) it from my hands, as it is stated (Numb. 21:19), 'And from Matanah, Nachliel.'" And from when they possessed it, You decreed death upon me, as it is stated (Numb. 21:19), "and from Nachliel, Bamot" - and from possession comes death (menachal, ba mot). "And from Bamot, Haggai in the field of Moav" (Numb. 21:20), as it is stated (Deut. 34:6), "And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moav." Job said, "He is not partial to princes; the noble are not preferred to the wretched; for all of them are the work of His hands" (Job 34:19).

Zavday ben Levi said: Two thousand cubits (of manna) came down each day⁶⁹Cf. M. Pss. 78:3, according to which Zavday ben Levi said: Enough food for two thousand years came down every day as manna to feed Israel. and remained four hours. As soon as the sun rose over it, it melted and became countless torrents as it flooded and ran down. For whom is it destined now? For the righteous in the age to come. Whoever believes has the right to eat of it, but whoever does not believe, (according to Job 20:17): MAY NOT LOOK UPON THE STREAMS, <THE TORRENTIAL RIVERS OF HONEY AND CREAM>. As soon as it ran down in rivers, the peoples of the world came to drink from it; but it became wormwood and gall in their mouths, as stated (in Numb. 11:7): NOW THE MANNA WAS LIKE BITTER (gad)⁷⁰While Bible translations of Numb. 11:7 commonly render gad as CORIANDER, in the context of this midrash the word must denote something unfit to eat. SEED…. For Israel, however, <the manna > became honey within their mouths, just as it says: (in Exod. 16:31): <AND ITS TASTE WAS> LIKE WAFERS IN HONEY. R. Judah b. R. Shallum the Levite said: There is a calculation that < enough > manna came down to Israel [on every day] <to provide > food for two thousand years, and it was sixty cubits deep.⁷¹Cf. Yoma 76a; Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Wayyassa‘, 4, 6. It is written concerning the flood (in Gen. 7:11): ON THAT DAY ALL THE SPRINGS <OF THE GREAT ABYSS > BURST FORTH <AND THE WINDOWS OF THE HEAVENS WERE OPENED>. It is also written concerning the manna (in Ps. 78:23): SO HE COMMANDED THE SKIES ABOVE, AND HE OPENED THE DOORS OF HEAVEN. The doors equal four windows. It is also written (concerning the Holy One in Exod. 34:7): PRESERVING STEADFAST LOVE <FOR THOUSANDS>. And it is written (ibid.): VISITING THE INIQUITY OF PARENTS <UPON CHILDREN AND UPON CHILDREN'S CHILDREN >…. From here it is shown that a good measure is five hundred times greater than a measure of divine punishment.⁷²The plural of “thousand” denotes at least two thousand with reference to steadfast love, while children and children’s children denote at least four. Therefore, steadfast love is five hundredfold greater than the punishment for iniquity. When two windows were opened during the flood, all those rains came down for twelve months. Now it is written here (concerning the manna in Ps. 78:23): AND HE OPENED THE DOORS OF HEAVEN. From here it is shown that < enough > manna came down on every day <to provide > food for two thousand years.⁷³Since the doors have four windows and a measure of good (i.e., the manna) is five hundred times greater than a measure of evil (i.e., the flood), the daily manna coming down through the heavenly doors, i.e., equivalent of four heavenly windows, was two thousand times (4 X 500) greater than the one year of flood that came down through the heavenly windows.

(Bamidbar 8:3) "And Aaron did so": This is in praise of Aaron. As Moses told him, thus did he do, without any change. He made "mul" and "panim" (see above). "He'elah" (lit., "he raised") its lamps" — whence they said: There was an ascent before the menorah of three steps on which the Cohein stood and tended to the lamps, (after which) he placed the oil jug on the second step and left. "as the L-rd had commanded Moses" (i.e., half a log for each lamp, etc.) This tells me only of Aaron (the high-priest). Whence do I derive the same for his sons (i.e., ordinary Cohanim)? From (Vayikra 24:3) "Aaron and his sons shall arrange it." This tells me only of the menorah, that the sons were equated with the father. Whence do I derive the same for the (offering of the) incense? (viz. Shemot 34:7) "It follows, viz.: "Service in the tent of meeting" is written in respect to the menorah, and it is also written in respect to the incense. If I have learned of the first that sons are equated with the father, so, do I learn with the second. — (No,) this is refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, in which instance, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written in respect to it, the sons are not equated with the father. And this refutes (the argument for) incense, which, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. — Would you say that? There is a (strategic) difference! "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written both in respect to the menorah and in respect to the incense, and this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, which, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, is not in golden (but in linen vestments). — This (argument) is refuted by the instance of the bullock of "forgetfulness" of the anointed (high-priest [viz. Vayikra 4:3]) whereof "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written, and in respect to which sons were not equated with the father. And this will refute (the argument for) incense, which even though "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. Would you say that? There is a difference! I would derive it from three terms together. In respect to the menorah it is written "service in the tent of meeting," and "golden vestments," and also "continuously" (tamid), and thus is it written of incense. And this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, where, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, it is not in golden vestments. Nor (is it to be refuted) by the bullock of forgetfulness of the anointed (high-priest), where, even though "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written thereof, "continuously" is not written thereof. I will learn a thing from a (similar) thing, and I will derive a thing from a (similar) thing. I will learn a thing from another thing which is similar to it in three ways, but not from a thing that is not similar to it in three things, but only in one or two. Therefore, if I have learned in respect to the menorah that sons are equated with the father, so, I will learn in respect to the incense that the sons are equated with the father.