Midrash sur Les Nombres 5:33

(Bamidbar 5:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp every leper (metzora) and everyone with a (genital discharge (zav), and everyone that is unclean by (contact with) a body (tamei meth)." Why was this section stated? (For) from (Bamidbar 19:20) "A man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the congregation, for he has defiled the sanctuary of the L-rd," we hear the punishment; but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written "Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp … (3) and they shall not make unclean their camps in which I dwell." This (3) is the exhortation that the unclean not enter the sanctuary in a state of uncleanliness.

(Numb. 5:11–12):¹Neither the Buber nor the traditional Tanhuma have a parashah, the beginning of which coincides with the beginning of Naso (Numb. 4:21-7:89) from the annual cycle. Such a parashah is also missing in other sources for the so-called “triennial cycle.” See B.Z. Wacholder, “prolegomenon,” in The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, by Jacob Mann (“Library of biblical Studies”; New York: Ktav, 1971), p. LX. THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: IF ANYONE HAS HIS WIFE GO ASTRAY. Let our master instruct us: When someone wanted to accuse his wife (of infidelity), how did he accuse her?²Tanh., Numb. 2:1. Thus have our masters taught (in Sot. 1:4–5; 2:2–3.):³The Mishnah quotation has several variants from the standard text. See also TSot. 1:3-4. ONE ACCUSING HIS WIFE BROUGHT HER TO THE GREAT COURT WHICH WAS IN JERUSALEM, AND THEY WOULD ADMONISH HER IN THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD ADMONISH WITNESSES IN CAPITAL CASES< … >.⁴See Sanh. 4:5. Then afterwards: THEY WOULD BRING HER UP TO THE EASTERN GATE, TO < … > THE GATE OF NICANOR, WHERE THEY WOULD PURIFY THE LEPERS AND GIVE DRINK TO SUSPECTED ADULTERESSES< … >. A PRIEST WOULD BRING AN EARTHENWARE BOWL⁵Gk.: phiale; Lat.: fiala. AND PUT A HALF LOG OF WATER INTO IT FROM THE BASIN< … >. HE WOULD ENTER THE TEMPLE AND TURN TO HIS RIGHT. NOW A PLACE WAS THERE ONE CUBIT SQUARE WITH A MARBLE FLAGSTONE⁶Gk.: tabla (“tablet”); Lat.: tabula. THERE AND A RING FIXED IN IT. HE WOULD RAISE IT, TAKE DUST FROM UNDERNEATH, AND PUT IT UPON THE WATER, AS STATED (in Numb. 5:17): AND TAKING SOME OF THE DUST WHICH IS IN THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE, THE PRIEST SHALL PUT IT INTO THE WATER. THEN HE WOULD WRITE THE SCROLL (in the wording of Numb. 5:19): AND IF NO ONE HAS SLEPT WITH YOU…. From here (Numb. 5:19) our masters have taught: When one opens capital cases, you begin with <the case for> acquittal. Then he writes further (in vss. 20–21): AND IF YOU HAVE GONE ASTRAY …, MAY THE LORD MAKE YOU A CURSE…. And so Solomon has said (in I Kings 8:31–32 // II Chron. 6:22–23): WHENEVER ONE SINS AGAINST HIS NEIGHBOR, AND HE GIVES HIM AN OATH FOR HIM TO SWEAR; THEN WHEN HE COMES FOR THE OATH BEFORE YOUR ALTAR IN THIS HOUSE, YOU WILL HEARKEN IN HEAVEN, TAKE ACTION, AND JUDGE YOUR SERVANT, IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE WICKED SO AS TO SET HIS CONDUCT UPON HIS OWN HEAD AND JUSTIFY THE RIGHTEOUS SO AS TO RENDER TO HIM ACCORDING TO HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. In the parashah on the adulteress the text says what is stated (in Numb. 5:23): THEN <THE PRIEST> SHALL WRITE DOWN THESE CURSES <IN A SCROLL>. (I Kings 8:32 // II Chron. 6:23:) YOU WILL HEARKEN IN HEAVEN, TAKE ACTION, AND JUDGE YOUR SERVANT, IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE WICKED SO AS TO SET HIS CONDUCT UPON HIS OWN HEAD. (Numb. 5:27:) SO THAT HER BELLY SHALL DISTEND AND HER THIGH SHALL SAG. (I Kings 8:32/II Chron. 6:23:) AND JUSTIFY THE RIGHTEOUS SO AS TO RENDER TO HIM ACCORDING TO HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Numb. 5:28): BUT IF THE WOMAN HAS NOT DEFILED HERSELF AND IS PURE, SHE SHALL BE GUILTLESS AND SHALL CONCEIVE SEED. If she was defiled, (according to Sot. 3:4; 5:1) SHE WOULD NOT HAVE FINISHED DRINKING BEFORE HER FACE TURNS GREEN, HER EYES PROTRUDE, AND SHE IS FULL OF <SWOLLEN> VEINS. THEN THE PRIEST SAYS: TAKE HER OUT, TAKE HER OUT, SO THAT SHE DOES NOT DEFLE THE TEMPLE COURT< … >. JUST AS THE WATER TESTS THE WOMAN, SO DOES THE WATER TEST THE MAN, SINCE IT IS STATED <TWICE> (in Numb. 5:22 & 24): AND IT (i.e., the water that causes the curse> SHALL GO< … >. AND IT SHALL GO <INTO HER … >. JUST AS SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND, SO IS SHE FORBIDDEN TO THE LOVER, SINCE IT IS STATED <TWICE> (in Numb. 5:13 & 14): SHE HAS DEFILED HERSELF< … >. SHE HAS DEFILED HERSELF.⁷The gemara ([Sot. 28a) explains these double usages more fully. Cf. also ibid., 26b. If, however, she drinks <the potion> and is found pure, then if she was barren, she is <now> visited (i.e., given conception).⁸Sot. 26a. <If> she used [to] bear ugly <children>, she <now> bears beautiful ones. <Instead of> dark <children>, she bears fair ones. <Instead of> short <children>, she bears tall ones. <Instead of> females, she bears males. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 5:28): BUT IF THE WOMAN HAS NOT DEFILED HERSELF AND IS PURE, SHE SHALL BE GUILTLESS AND SHALL CONCEIVE SEED. The Holy One said to Moses: Write a section on the adulteress so that she may know which name the priest blots out for her,⁹On the scroll of Numb. 5:23, where the priest put down the curses in writing and then rubbed them off into the bitter water. See also Sot. 2:4. what is to be her death, and how it will be made public.¹⁰Gk.: parresiazesthai. Where is it shown? {Where it is stated} [from what they have read on the matter] (in Numb. 5:12): IF ANYONE HAS HIS WIFE GO ASTRAY.

(Numb. 5:11–12):¹Neither the Buber nor the traditional Tanhuma have a parashah, the beginning of which coincides with the beginning of Naso (Numb. 4:21-7:89) from the annual cycle. Such a parashah is also missing in other sources for the so-called “triennial cycle.” See B.Z. Wacholder, “prolegomenon,” in The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, by Jacob Mann (“Library of biblical Studies”; New York: Ktav, 1971), p. LX. THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: IF ANYONE HAS HIS WIFE GO ASTRAY. Let our master instruct us: When someone wanted to accuse his wife (of infidelity), how did he accuse her?²Tanh., Numb. 2:1. Thus have our masters taught (in Sot. 1:4–5; 2:2–3.):³The Mishnah quotation has several variants from the standard text. See also TSot. 1:3-4. ONE ACCUSING HIS WIFE BROUGHT HER TO THE GREAT COURT WHICH WAS IN JERUSALEM, AND THEY WOULD ADMONISH HER IN THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD ADMONISH WITNESSES IN CAPITAL CASES< … >.⁴See Sanh. 4:5. Then afterwards: THEY WOULD BRING HER UP TO THE EASTERN GATE, TO < … > THE GATE OF NICANOR, WHERE THEY WOULD PURIFY THE LEPERS AND GIVE DRINK TO SUSPECTED ADULTERESSES< … >. A PRIEST WOULD BRING AN EARTHENWARE BOWL⁵Gk.: phiale; Lat.: fiala. AND PUT A HALF LOG OF WATER INTO IT FROM THE BASIN< … >. HE WOULD ENTER THE TEMPLE AND TURN TO HIS RIGHT. NOW A PLACE WAS THERE ONE CUBIT SQUARE WITH A MARBLE FLAGSTONE⁶Gk.: tabla (“tablet”); Lat.: tabula. THERE AND A RING FIXED IN IT. HE WOULD RAISE IT, TAKE DUST FROM UNDERNEATH, AND PUT IT UPON THE WATER, AS STATED (in Numb. 5:17): AND TAKING SOME OF THE DUST WHICH IS IN THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE, THE PRIEST SHALL PUT IT INTO THE WATER. THEN HE WOULD WRITE THE SCROLL (in the wording of Numb. 5:19): AND IF NO ONE HAS SLEPT WITH YOU…. From here (Numb. 5:19) our masters have taught: When one opens capital cases, you begin with <the case for> acquittal. Then he writes further (in vss. 20–21): AND IF YOU HAVE GONE ASTRAY …, MAY THE LORD MAKE YOU A CURSE…. And so Solomon has said (in I Kings 8:31–32 // II Chron. 6:22–23): WHENEVER ONE SINS AGAINST HIS NEIGHBOR, AND HE GIVES HIM AN OATH FOR HIM TO SWEAR; THEN WHEN HE COMES FOR THE OATH BEFORE YOUR ALTAR IN THIS HOUSE, YOU WILL HEARKEN IN HEAVEN, TAKE ACTION, AND JUDGE YOUR SERVANT, IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE WICKED SO AS TO SET HIS CONDUCT UPON HIS OWN HEAD AND JUSTIFY THE RIGHTEOUS SO AS TO RENDER TO HIM ACCORDING TO HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. In the parashah on the adulteress the text says what is stated (in Numb. 5:23): THEN <THE PRIEST> SHALL WRITE DOWN THESE CURSES <IN A SCROLL>. (I Kings 8:32 // II Chron. 6:23:) YOU WILL HEARKEN IN HEAVEN, TAKE ACTION, AND JUDGE YOUR SERVANT, IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE WICKED SO AS TO SET HIS CONDUCT UPON HIS OWN HEAD. (Numb. 5:27:) SO THAT HER BELLY SHALL DISTEND AND HER THIGH SHALL SAG. (I Kings 8:32/II Chron. 6:23:) AND JUSTIFY THE RIGHTEOUS SO AS TO RENDER TO HIM ACCORDING TO HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Numb. 5:28): BUT IF THE WOMAN HAS NOT DEFILED HERSELF AND IS PURE, SHE SHALL BE GUILTLESS AND SHALL CONCEIVE SEED. If she was defiled, (according to Sot. 3:4; 5:1) SHE WOULD NOT HAVE FINISHED DRINKING BEFORE HER FACE TURNS GREEN, HER EYES PROTRUDE, AND SHE IS FULL OF <SWOLLEN> VEINS. THEN THE PRIEST SAYS: TAKE HER OUT, TAKE HER OUT, SO THAT SHE DOES NOT DEFLE THE TEMPLE COURT< … >. JUST AS THE WATER TESTS THE WOMAN, SO DOES THE WATER TEST THE MAN, SINCE IT IS STATED <TWICE> (in Numb. 5:22 & 24): AND IT (i.e., the water that causes the curse> SHALL GO< … >. AND IT SHALL GO <INTO HER … >. JUST AS SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND, SO IS SHE FORBIDDEN TO THE LOVER, SINCE IT IS STATED <TWICE> (in Numb. 5:13 & 14): SHE HAS DEFILED HERSELF< … >. SHE HAS DEFILED HERSELF.⁷The gemara ([Sot. 28a) explains these double usages more fully. Cf. also ibid., 26b. If, however, she drinks <the potion> and is found pure, then if she was barren, she is <now> visited (i.e., given conception).⁸Sot. 26a. <If> she used [to] bear ugly <children>, she <now> bears beautiful ones. <Instead of> dark <children>, she bears fair ones. <Instead of> short <children>, she bears tall ones. <Instead of> females, she bears males. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 5:28): BUT IF THE WOMAN HAS NOT DEFILED HERSELF AND IS PURE, SHE SHALL BE GUILTLESS AND SHALL CONCEIVE SEED. The Holy One said to Moses: Write a section on the adulteress so that she may know which name the priest blots out for her,⁹On the scroll of Numb. 5:23, where the priest put down the curses in writing and then rubbed them off into the bitter water. See also Sot. 2:4. what is to be her death, and how it will be made public.¹⁰Gk.: parresiazesthai. Where is it shown? {Where it is stated} [from what they have read on the matter] (in Numb. 5:12): IF ANYONE HAS HIS WIFE GO ASTRAY.

(Numb. 5:11–12):¹Neither the Buber nor the traditional Tanhuma have a parashah, the beginning of which coincides with the beginning of Naso (Numb. 4:21-7:89) from the annual cycle. Such a parashah is also missing in other sources for the so-called “triennial cycle.” See B.Z. Wacholder, “prolegomenon,” in The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, by Jacob Mann (“Library of biblical Studies”; New York: Ktav, 1971), p. LX. THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: IF ANYONE HAS HIS WIFE GO ASTRAY. Let our master instruct us: When someone wanted to accuse his wife (of infidelity), how did he accuse her?²Tanh., Numb. 2:1. Thus have our masters taught (in Sot. 1:4–5; 2:2–3.):³The Mishnah quotation has several variants from the standard text. See also TSot. 1:3-4. ONE ACCUSING HIS WIFE BROUGHT HER TO THE GREAT COURT WHICH WAS IN JERUSALEM, AND THEY WOULD ADMONISH HER IN THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD ADMONISH WITNESSES IN CAPITAL CASES< … >.⁴See Sanh. 4:5. Then afterwards: THEY WOULD BRING HER UP TO THE EASTERN GATE, TO < … > THE GATE OF NICANOR, WHERE THEY WOULD PURIFY THE LEPERS AND GIVE DRINK TO SUSPECTED ADULTERESSES< … >. A PRIEST WOULD BRING AN EARTHENWARE BOWL⁵Gk.: phiale; Lat.: fiala. AND PUT A HALF LOG OF WATER INTO IT FROM THE BASIN< … >. HE WOULD ENTER THE TEMPLE AND TURN TO HIS RIGHT. NOW A PLACE WAS THERE ONE CUBIT SQUARE WITH A MARBLE FLAGSTONE⁶Gk.: tabla (“tablet”); Lat.: tabula. THERE AND A RING FIXED IN IT. HE WOULD RAISE IT, TAKE DUST FROM UNDERNEATH, AND PUT IT UPON THE WATER, AS STATED (in Numb. 5:17): AND TAKING SOME OF THE DUST WHICH IS IN THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE, THE PRIEST SHALL PUT IT INTO THE WATER. THEN HE WOULD WRITE THE SCROLL (in the wording of Numb. 5:19): AND IF NO ONE HAS SLEPT WITH YOU…. From here (Numb. 5:19) our masters have taught: When one opens capital cases, you begin with <the case for> acquittal. Then he writes further (in vss. 20–21): AND IF YOU HAVE GONE ASTRAY …, MAY THE LORD MAKE YOU A CURSE…. And so Solomon has said (in I Kings 8:31–32 // II Chron. 6:22–23): WHENEVER ONE SINS AGAINST HIS NEIGHBOR, AND HE GIVES HIM AN OATH FOR HIM TO SWEAR; THEN WHEN HE COMES FOR THE OATH BEFORE YOUR ALTAR IN THIS HOUSE, YOU WILL HEARKEN IN HEAVEN, TAKE ACTION, AND JUDGE YOUR SERVANT, IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE WICKED SO AS TO SET HIS CONDUCT UPON HIS OWN HEAD AND JUSTIFY THE RIGHTEOUS SO AS TO RENDER TO HIM ACCORDING TO HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. In the parashah on the adulteress the text says what is stated (in Numb. 5:23): THEN <THE PRIEST> SHALL WRITE DOWN THESE CURSES <IN A SCROLL>. (I Kings 8:32 // II Chron. 6:23:) YOU WILL HEARKEN IN HEAVEN, TAKE ACTION, AND JUDGE YOUR SERVANT, IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE WICKED SO AS TO SET HIS CONDUCT UPON HIS OWN HEAD. (Numb. 5:27:) SO THAT HER BELLY SHALL DISTEND AND HER THIGH SHALL SAG. (I Kings 8:32/II Chron. 6:23:) AND JUSTIFY THE RIGHTEOUS SO AS TO RENDER TO HIM ACCORDING TO HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Numb. 5:28): BUT IF THE WOMAN HAS NOT DEFILED HERSELF AND IS PURE, SHE SHALL BE GUILTLESS AND SHALL CONCEIVE SEED. If she was defiled, (according to Sot. 3:4; 5:1) SHE WOULD NOT HAVE FINISHED DRINKING BEFORE HER FACE TURNS GREEN, HER EYES PROTRUDE, AND SHE IS FULL OF <SWOLLEN> VEINS. THEN THE PRIEST SAYS: TAKE HER OUT, TAKE HER OUT, SO THAT SHE DOES NOT DEFLE THE TEMPLE COURT< … >. JUST AS THE WATER TESTS THE WOMAN, SO DOES THE WATER TEST THE MAN, SINCE IT IS STATED <TWICE> (in Numb. 5:22 & 24): AND IT (i.e., the water that causes the curse> SHALL GO< … >. AND IT SHALL GO <INTO HER … >. JUST AS SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND, SO IS SHE FORBIDDEN TO THE LOVER, SINCE IT IS STATED <TWICE> (in Numb. 5:13 & 14): SHE HAS DEFILED HERSELF< … >. SHE HAS DEFILED HERSELF.⁷The gemara ([Sot. 28a) explains these double usages more fully. Cf. also ibid., 26b. If, however, she drinks <the potion> and is found pure, then if she was barren, she is <now> visited (i.e., given conception).⁸Sot. 26a. <If> she used [to] bear ugly <children>, she <now> bears beautiful ones. <Instead of> dark <children>, she bears fair ones. <Instead of> short <children>, she bears tall ones. <Instead of> females, she bears males. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 5:28): BUT IF THE WOMAN HAS NOT DEFILED HERSELF AND IS PURE, SHE SHALL BE GUILTLESS AND SHALL CONCEIVE SEED. The Holy One said to Moses: Write a section on the adulteress so that she may know which name the priest blots out for her,⁹On the scroll of Numb. 5:23, where the priest put down the curses in writing and then rubbed them off into the bitter water. See also Sot. 2:4. what is to be her death, and how it will be made public.¹⁰Gk.: parresiazesthai. Where is it shown? {Where it is stated} [from what they have read on the matter] (in Numb. 5:12): IF ANYONE HAS HIS WIFE GO ASTRAY.

"Command": The command is immediately, for present performance and for future generations. You say thus, but perhaps it is only for future performance! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Command the children of Israel that they send … (Bamidbar 19:4) "And the children of Israel did so, sending them outside the camp" — whence we derive that the command is for immediate performance. And whence do we derive that it is (also) for future generations? From (Vayikra 24:2) "Command the children of Israel that they take to you clear olive oil … (3) … an eternal statute for your generations." — But how do we derive (the same) for all the commands in the Torah? R. Yishmael says: Since we find unqualified commands in the Torah, and one of them was qualified as being for present performance and for future generations, we derive the same for all the mitzvoth in the Torah. R. Yehudah b. Bethira says: "command" in all places connotes impulsion (to the act), as it is written (Devarim 3:28) "And command Joshua and strengthen him and fortify him" — whence we learn "We strengthen only the (internally) strengthened," and "We impel only the (internally) impelled." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "Command" in all places entails expense, as it is written (Vayikra 24:2) "Command the children of Israel that they take to you pure olive oil," (Bamidbar 35:2) "Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites from the inheritance, etc." (Bamidbar 28:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread, for My fires" — whence we see that "command" in all places entails expense. Except in one; and which is that? (Bamidbar 34:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land of Canaan, etc." — where the intent is: Impel them to the division of the land. Rebbi says: "Command" in all places is exhortation, as it is written (Bereshit 2:16-17) "And the L-rd G-d commanded (i.e., exhorted) the man, saying … but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat."

(Bamidbar 5:2) "that they send out of the camp": I understand this to mean from the Levite camp alone. Whence do I derive that the Israelite camp is also meant? From (Bamidbar 5:3) "Outside the camp shall you send them." (Bamidbar 5:3) "and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell": This is the camp of the Shechinah. — But even if this were not mentioned, I could derive it a fortiori, viz. If those with dead-body tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, that of the Israelites, how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, that of the Shechinah. If so, why is "and they shall not make unclean their camps" needed? To teach that we do not punish by an a fortiori argument. R. Yehudah says: There is no need (for the verse to teach that they are sent out of the camp of the Shechinah), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If those with (dead-body) tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, (that of) the ark (i.e., the camp of the Levites), how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, (that of) the Shechinah, (R. Yehudah obviously holding that we do punish by an a fortiori argument). If so, why is it written "and they shall not make unclean their camps?" Because from "they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav and every tamei meth," I would understand that they are all sent to one place; it is, therefore, written in respect to a leper (Vayikra 13:46) "Solitary shall he sit" — that no other unclean ones sit with him. I might then think that zavim and the tamei meth are sent to one camp; it is, therefore, written "and they shall not make unclean their camps" — to assign a separate camp for each. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: There is no need (for the above). A leper was included in the general category (of the unclean), and left the category (for special mention) to teach concerning the category, viz.: Just as a leper, whose tumah is most stringent — his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor, so, each one whose tumah is more stringent, his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor.

(Bamidbar 5:2) "that they send out of the camp": I understand this to mean from the Levite camp alone. Whence do I derive that the Israelite camp is also meant? From (Bamidbar 5:3) "Outside the camp shall you send them." (Bamidbar 5:3) "and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell": This is the camp of the Shechinah. — But even if this were not mentioned, I could derive it a fortiori, viz. If those with dead-body tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, that of the Israelites, how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, that of the Shechinah. If so, why is "and they shall not make unclean their camps" needed? To teach that we do not punish by an a fortiori argument. R. Yehudah says: There is no need (for the verse to teach that they are sent out of the camp of the Shechinah), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If those with (dead-body) tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, (that of) the ark (i.e., the camp of the Levites), how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, (that of) the Shechinah, (R. Yehudah obviously holding that we do punish by an a fortiori argument). If so, why is it written "and they shall not make unclean their camps?" Because from "they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav and every tamei meth," I would understand that they are all sent to one place; it is, therefore, written in respect to a leper (Vayikra 13:46) "Solitary shall he sit" — that no other unclean ones sit with him. I might then think that zavim and the tamei meth are sent to one camp; it is, therefore, written "and they shall not make unclean their camps" — to assign a separate camp for each. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: There is no need (for the above). A leper was included in the general category (of the unclean), and left the category (for special mention) to teach concerning the category, viz.: Just as a leper, whose tumah is most stringent — his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor, so, each one whose tumah is more stringent, his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor.

This is the source for the sages' gradations of partitions (mechitzoth). Wherever zav confers tumah, metzora (leper) confers tumah. metzora is of greater stringency (than zav) in that it confers tumah upon one who enters (a house afflicted with tzara'ath [viz. Vayikra 14:46] [— wherefore a metzora is sent out of all three camps]). Wherever tamei meth confers tumah, zav confers tumah. zav is of greater stringency (than tamei meth) in that it confers tumah under an even mesama (a stone beneath which there is a cavity [viz. Vayikra 15:9] [— wherefore a zav is sent out of two camps]). Wherever tvul yom (one who has immersed in the daytime [pending purification in the evening]) confers tumah, tamei meth confers tumah. tamei meth is of greater stringency (than tvul yom) in that it confers tumah upon a man (who touches him, viz. [Bamidbar 19:22] [— wherefore a tamei meth is sent out of one camp]). Wherever one's lacking atonement (through an offering) renders (him) unfit (for eating consecrated food) tvul yom renders (him) unfit. tvul yom is of greater stringency (than one's lacking atonement) in that he renders terumah unfit.

The master said above: "All the seventy had prophesied once, and ceased; but these two did not cease to prophecy." Whence do we infer this? Shall we assume it from the following passage (Num. 11, 25) They prophesied V'lo yassoff, which means they never prophesied again. If so, then how will you explain the passage (Deut. 5, 19) "With a great voice V'lo yassoff?" Does this also mean that it was never heard again? [The Shechina was surely heard in later times]. We must therefore say Yassoff means "not ceased;" if so, then the above inference is gone! We infer it from this passage: "And they prophesied [in the past] while concerning Eldad and Medad it is written, "are prophesying" [present tense]. In regard to the statement that their prophecy was "Moses shall die," it is readily understood, for it is written (Num. 11, 28) My Lord Moses, forbid them. But according to him who said they prophesied about other things, why, then, should they be forbidden? Because it was not seemly for them thus to prophesy in the presence of Moses, which appears as if a scholar decides a question in the presence of his teacher. What is meant by the words, forbid them? He said to Moses: "Throw upon them the care for the public, and they will cease [to prophesy] by themselves."

1) (Vayikra 5:15) ("A soul, if it profanes, and sins unwittingly of the sanctified things of the L–rd, then he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd"): "a soul": to include the anointed (high-) priest as subject to profanation (me'ilah). (For I would think: It is written (Shemoth 30:33): "If a man compounds its (the anointing oil's) like and places of it upon a stranger," but not upon the anointed priest, who is no stranger to it, (it is, therefore, written, to negate this, "a soul," i.e., any soul). "if it profanes (timol ma'al). "Meilah" is a change (from the sacred to the profane), viz. (Chronicles 5:25): "And they profaned (vayimalu) the G d of their fathers, and went astray after the ba'alim," and (Bamidbar 5:12): "A man, if his wife goes astray and profanes him."

1) (Vayikra 23:27) ("Only on the tenth day of this seventh month it is the day of atonement. A holy calling shall it be for you. And you shall afflict your souls and you shall present a fire-offering to the L–rd.") "the day of atonement, a holy calling," "the day of atonement and you shall afflict your souls," (Vayikra 23:28) "And all work you shall not do for it is a day of atonement." (Why three times?) For I might think that Yom Kippur does not atone unless he made it a holy calling (in the blessings of the day), and afflicted himself, and abstained from labor. Whence do I derive that even if he did not do these, the day atones? From "It is the day of atonement." I might think that Yom Kippur atoned only with the offerings and with the he-goats. Whence do I derive that the day atones even without them? From "It is the day of atonement." I might think that it atones both for those who repent and those who do not. — No would this follow? A sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone. Just as they atone only for penitents (viz. Bamidbar 5:7), so, Yom Kippur should atone only for penitents!

(Bamidbar 5:5-6) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do of all the sins of man": Why is this section mentioned? (i.e., it has already been mentioned elsewhere.) — It is written (Vayikra 5:20-22) "If a soul sin and commit a profanation against the L-rd … or if he find a lost object and swear falsely, etc." But the stolen property of a proselyte is not mentioned. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do all of the sins of man." Scripture comes to teach us about the stolen property of a proselyte that if one swore to him falsely (that he did not steal it) and the proselyte died, he pays the principal and the fifth to the Cohanim and the guilt-offering to the altar, (a proselyte, halachically, not having any heirs). This is a rule in the Torah: Any section stated in one place in the Torah, missing one thing, and repeated in a different place is repeated only for the sake of the thing that is originated. R. Akiva says: Everything stated therein must be expounded. R. Yoshiyah (in explication of R. Akiva) says: Why is "a man or a woman" stated? From (Shemot 21:3) "And if a man open a pit or if a man dig a pit," I would know only of a man. Whence would I derive (the same for) a woman? From "a man or a woman," to liken a woman to a man in respect to all transgressions and damages in the Torah. R. Yonathan says: (The above derivation) is not needed, for it is already written (Ibid. 34) "The owner (whether man or woman) of the pit shall pay," and (Ibid. 22:5) "Pay shall pay the kindler (whether man or woman) of the fire." Why, then, is it stated "a man or a woman"? For its (own) teaching, (i.e., that the law of theft of the proselyte" obtains both with men and with women.) "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 5:21] "If a soul sin and commit a profanation, etc.") Because it is written "If a soul sin and commit a profanation… (22) or find a lost object, etc.", I might think that only one who lies in respect to what is mentioned therein is regarded as one who lies against the L-rd Himself. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who lies in respect to all other things? It is, therefore, written "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd." "to commit a profanation" ("limol ma'al"). "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bima'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu (II Chronicles 26:18), "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta')," and (Bamidbar 5:12) "… and she be false (uma'ala) to him" — whence we see that "me'ilah" is "lying." (Ibid. 6) "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? (i.e., it seems redundant.) "a man or a woman" would seem to indicate specifically these. Whence would I derive (the same for) one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From "and that soul shall be guilty" — All are included, even proselytes and servants. — But this would seem to include all, both the above and minors! — Would you say this? If a minor is exempt from (punishment for) the grave sin of idolatry, how much more so (is he exempt from punishment for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! Whence is it derived that if one stole and swore (falsely) and went to bring the money (to repay) and the guilt-offering and could not manage to bring them before he died, that his heirs are exempt? From "and that soul shall be guilty." — But perhaps just as they are exempt from the guilt-offering, so, they are exempt from the principal. — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "and he shall give it (the principal) to the one to whom he is liable (for payment)." "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? Whence do you derive that if one burned his neighbor's grain sack on the Sabbath that beth-din does not exact payment from him because he is liable to the death penalty? From "and that soul shall be guilty" (i.e., in the aforementioned instance, the life alone is taken.) (Ibid. 7) "and they confess their sin which they have done": This tells me that a sin-offering requires confession. Whence do I derive (the same for) a guilt-offering? From "and that soul be guilty and they confess." R. Nathan says: This is a paradigm (binyan av) for all that are put to death that they require confession.

(Bamidbar 5:5-6) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do of all the sins of man": Why is this section mentioned? (i.e., it has already been mentioned elsewhere.) — It is written (Vayikra 5:20-22) "If a soul sin and commit a profanation against the L-rd … or if he find a lost object and swear falsely, etc." But the stolen property of a proselyte is not mentioned. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do all of the sins of man." Scripture comes to teach us about the stolen property of a proselyte that if one swore to him falsely (that he did not steal it) and the proselyte died, he pays the principal and the fifth to the Cohanim and the guilt-offering to the altar, (a proselyte, halachically, not having any heirs). This is a rule in the Torah: Any section stated in one place in the Torah, missing one thing, and repeated in a different place is repeated only for the sake of the thing that is originated. R. Akiva says: Everything stated therein must be expounded. R. Yoshiyah (in explication of R. Akiva) says: Why is "a man or a woman" stated? From (Shemot 21:3) "And if a man open a pit or if a man dig a pit," I would know only of a man. Whence would I derive (the same for) a woman? From "a man or a woman," to liken a woman to a man in respect to all transgressions and damages in the Torah. R. Yonathan says: (The above derivation) is not needed, for it is already written (Ibid. 34) "The owner (whether man or woman) of the pit shall pay," and (Ibid. 22:5) "Pay shall pay the kindler (whether man or woman) of the fire." Why, then, is it stated "a man or a woman"? For its (own) teaching, (i.e., that the law of theft of the proselyte" obtains both with men and with women.) "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 5:21] "If a soul sin and commit a profanation, etc.") Because it is written "If a soul sin and commit a profanation… (22) or find a lost object, etc.", I might think that only one who lies in respect to what is mentioned therein is regarded as one who lies against the L-rd Himself. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who lies in respect to all other things? It is, therefore, written "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd." "to commit a profanation" ("limol ma'al"). "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bima'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu (II Chronicles 26:18), "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta')," and (Bamidbar 5:12) "… and she be false (uma'ala) to him" — whence we see that "me'ilah" is "lying." (Ibid. 6) "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? (i.e., it seems redundant.) "a man or a woman" would seem to indicate specifically these. Whence would I derive (the same for) one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From "and that soul shall be guilty" — All are included, even proselytes and servants. — But this would seem to include all, both the above and minors! — Would you say this? If a minor is exempt from (punishment for) the grave sin of idolatry, how much more so (is he exempt from punishment for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! Whence is it derived that if one stole and swore (falsely) and went to bring the money (to repay) and the guilt-offering and could not manage to bring them before he died, that his heirs are exempt? From "and that soul shall be guilty." — But perhaps just as they are exempt from the guilt-offering, so, they are exempt from the principal. — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "and he shall give it (the principal) to the one to whom he is liable (for payment)." "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? Whence do you derive that if one burned his neighbor's grain sack on the Sabbath that beth-din does not exact payment from him because he is liable to the death penalty? From "and that soul shall be guilty" (i.e., in the aforementioned instance, the life alone is taken.) (Ibid. 7) "and they confess their sin which they have done": This tells me that a sin-offering requires confession. Whence do I derive (the same for) a guilt-offering? From "and that soul be guilty and they confess." R. Nathan says: This is a paradigm (binyan av) for all that are put to death that they require confession.

2) R. Eliezer says: If zavim and lepers, (who had been sent out of the camp) pushed their way in and entered the azarah, I might think they were liable (for kareth in the above instance, as they are at other times); it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 5:2): "And they shall send out of the camp every leper and every zav, and everyone who has become tamei by a dead body" — When those who are tamei by a dead body are liable, zavim and lepers are liable; when those who are tamei by a dead body are not liable, (as in an instance of congregational tumah), zavim and lepers are not liable.

2) You, too, do not wonder that even though one who tells his neighbor "Let us go and serve idolatry" is not liable, the hearer (if he does not testify to this) is liable. To this end, it is written "and he heard the voice of an alah," an alah being an oath, viz. (Bamidbar 5:21): "Then the Cohein shall beswear the woman with the oath of the alah." This tells me only of an oath accompanied by an alah (lit., a curse). Whence do I derive the same for an oath unaccompanied by an alah? From "and heard the alah" - "and heard the voice" ("of an oath"), equating an oath unaccompanied by an alah to an oath accompanied by an alah.

(Bamidbar 5:7) "and they confess their sins which they have done": and not for what his father has done. So that if one says to him: Give me the pledge that I deposited with your father and he says: You did not deposit (any pledge), and the other says: I beswear you (to that effect), and he says "Amen," I might think that (if he confesses) he is liable; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:5) "then he shall confess wherein he has sinned," and not for what his father has done. "then he shall restore his guilt at its head": Why is this stated? Because it is written (Ibid. 5:24) "and he shall pay it at its head," I might think that this applies to monetary payment (of the principal). Whence is it derived that he may return the theft itself? From "then he shall restore." (Bamidbar 5:7) "and its fifth shall he add to it": so that it and its fifth make five (equal parts). These are the words of R. Yoshiah. R. Yonathan says: a fifth of the principal. "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable": Why is this stated? Because it is written (Vayikra 5:24) "To whom it belongs shall he give it on the day of (the acknowledgement of) his guilt," I might think that he must give it either to him or to his messenger. Whence do I derive (that he may also give it to) the messenger of beth-din or to the heir (of the one to whom he is liable)? From "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable." R. Nathan says: If one stole a maneh from his neighbor, and he came to beth-din, and he did not manage to pay it before the debtor of the robbed one arrived — Whence is it derived that beth-din may take it from the robber and give it to the debtor? From "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable" — in any manner.

(Deut. 29:11:) “To enter into the covenant with the Lord your God....” Three covenants did the Holy One, blessed be He, make with Israel when they came out of Egypt, one when they stood before Mount Sinai, (one at Horeb,) and one here. But why did he make [a covenant] with them here? Because they had revoked the one which He had made with them at Sinai, when they said (of the golden calf in Exod. 32:4), “This is your god, O Israel.” For that reason He made [another covenant] with them at Horeb⁵The text should probably read: “With them here,” in accord with Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34. and established a curse over it for whoever would go back on his words. Now the word, enter (rt.: 'br), [can] only be in the sense of one who says to his companion, “May this curse come (rt.: 'br) upon you, if you go back on me in this thing.” And so you find that, when Israel provoked [the Holy One, blessed be He], and they went into captivity, what did Daniel say (in Dan. 9:11)? “And all Israel has transgressed (rt.: 'br) Your Torah [...] so the curse (alah) and the oath are poured down upon us.” Now alah can only be a curse,⁶Alah can also mean “oath” and “covenant.” as where it is stated (in Numb. 5:27), “and the woman shall become a curse (alah).” [This is] to teach you that just as one imposes an oath on the suspect adulteress, so the Holy One, blessed be He, imposed an oath upon Israel. But perhaps you will say, “Why all this bother?” It is not because I need you? Rather what shall I do to you, when I have already sworn to your ancestors, that I will never replace you and your children? It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:12), “In order to establish you today as his people […] as he swore to your ancestors.” It [also] says (in Cant. 7:6), “a king is bound by his tresses.” Now bound [indicates] nothing except an oath. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 30:4), “[When a woman vows a vow to the Lord] and binds herself with a bond.” Therefore, He cannot break his oath. And so you find, when they sought to get rid of the yoke of His oath in the days of Ezekiel, it is written (in Ezek: 20:1), “some elders of Israel came to consult the Lord.” They said to him, “When the son of a priest buys a slave, is it legal for him to eat the terumah?”⁷The priestly tithe on produce. He said to them, “He may eat it.” They said to him, “If a priest returned and sold him to an [ordinary] Israelite, has he not left his jurisdiction?” He told them, “Yes.” They said to him, “We too have left the jurisdiction of [the Holy One, blessed be He]; are we not [now] like the all the [rest of the] world?” Ezekiel said to them (in Ezek. 20:32-33), “But that which you have in mind shall never come to pass, that should you say: let us become like the gentiles…. ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘surely I will [reign] over you with a powerful hand....’” He said to them, “As long as one has not sold [a slave], he is in his jurisdiction; and you have not been sold for a price.” It is so stated (in Is. 52:3), “For thus says the Lord, ‘You were sold for free, [and you shall be redeemed for no money].’” (Deut. 29:12:) “In order to establish you today as his people…,” so that I would not go back on the word that I swore to your ancestors. Deut. 29:13), “And not only with you [have I made this covenant and this oath].” But rather the generations that have yet to come were also there at that time, as stated (in vs. 14), “But with those who are [standing ('md)] here with us [today… and with those who are not here with us today].” R. Abahu said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahmani, “Why does it say, ‘those who are [standing ('md)] here [...]; and those who are not here’ (without using the word, standing)? Because all the souls were there, [even] when [their] bodies had still not been created. It is for that reason [their] existence (literally, standing, rt.: 'md) is not stated here.” R. Eliezer said, “A curse will come upon Laban, because he said to Jacob (in Gen. 31:30), ‘Why did you steal my gods?’ It (i.e., such an idol) could not save itself from theft. [So] how could it save others? But Israel is not like that, as they serve the Holy One, blessed be He, about whom it is stated (in Deut. 10:21), “He is your praise, and He is your God, [who has done these great and awful things for you that your own eyes have seen].” He [also] watches over Israel like a father who watches over his son, as stated (in Ps. 121:4), “Behold the One keeping Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.”

MISHNAH: The king Munbaz made all the handles of the vessels that were used on the Day of Atonement, of Gold. Helen, his mother, made a golden candelabrum over the Temple-gate. She likewise made a golden table, whereon was inscribed the chapter concerning the Sotah (Num. 5, 12-31). Miracles happened on the gates which Nicanor brought. They are all mentioned in token of praise.

R. Nachman b. R. Chisda said to R. Nachman b. Isaac: "Let the master come and settle among us [so that we may study together]." We are taught in a Mishnah, answered the latter, "Not the place in which he lives distinguishes the man, but the man marks the place. And thus we find that with respect to Mount Sinai, as long as the Shechina rested there, the Torah admonishes (Ex. 34, 3) Neither let flocks or herds feed near the mount, but as soon the Shechina had withdrawn from the mount, it is said (Ex. 19, 13) They may come up to the mount. A similar instance can be found with respect to the Tabernacle, which was erected in the wilderness, that so long as the Tabernacle was pitched the Torah warned (Num. 5, 2)They send out of the camp every leper, etc. When the curtains [of the Tabernacle] were folded up immediately the lepers and Zab were allowed to enter the place." "If this be so," said R. Nachman b. R. Chisda "then I will go to the place where the master dwellest." Whereupon R. Nachman b. Isaac answered: "It is better that a Maneh son of a P'ras (half a Maneh), i.e., a distinguished son of a less distinguished father — should come to be a Maneh son of a Maneh, i.e., a distinguished son of a distinguished father, rather than the contrary."

3) If it were written "The hair he shall not dishevel and the garment he shall not rend, I might think that this refers to the hair and to the garment of a sotah (See Bamidbar 5:18); it is, therefore, written "his (the high-priest's) hair" and "his garments." R. Meir says: "his hair he shall not dishevel and his garments he shall not rend" — for his dead, as others do for their dead. How so? The high-priest rends from the bottom (of his garment), and others, from the top.

3) How does he execute (tenufah)? He (a Cohein) brings the fats (from the slaughtering site) to the hand of the owner, the two kidneys and the lobe of the liver above them, and the breast and shok above them. and if there were bread (as in the terumah of the thanksgiving loaves and the ram of the Nazirite and of the miluim), he places the bread above them.) And he (a second Cohein, places his hand under the hand of the owner and) brings it forward and back, and up and down, as it is written (Shemoth 24:27): "which was waved and which was lifted." Tenufah was in the east (of the altar), and hagashah (presentation at the corner of the altar, in the instance of the meal-offering of the omer and the meal-offering of rancor) in the west. Tenufah preceded hagashah (viz. Bamidbar 5:25). "before the L–rd" — in the east.

(Bamidbar 5:8) "And if the man does not have a redeemer (to whom to return the debt"): R. Yishmael says: Now is there a man in Israel who does not have a redeemer? Scripture (in this instance) is teaching about one who robs a proselyte and swears to him (falsely), after which the proselyte dies — that he pays the principal and the fifth to the Cohanim and the guilt-offering to the altar, (a proselyte, halachically, having no heirs.) R. Nathan says: "And if the man does not have a redeemer": This tells me only of a man. Whence do we derive (the same for) a woman? From "to whom to return the debt," (connoting either man or woman). If so, why is it written "the man"? For a man, a search must be made to determine whether or not he has a redeemer. For a minor, a search need not be made, it being certain that he has no redeemer (i.e., sons who can inherit him). ("And if the man does not have a redeemer":) Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Eliezer. Scripture speaks of the one who was robbed. — But perhaps it speaks of the robber. — (This cannot be, for) "to whom to return the debt" proves that it speaks of the one who is robbed. "the debt (ha'asham) which is returned": Scripture here speaks of money (and not of the guilt-offering proper). — But perhaps it does speak of the guilt-offering proper! — (This cannot be, for) "aside from the ram of atonement whereby atonement shall be made for him" speaks of this. How, then, am I to understand "ha'asham which is returned to the L-rd"? As referring to money (i.e., the principal and the fifth). "is the L-rd's to the Cohein": The L-rd has acquired it and He has given it to the Cohanim of the officiating watch. — But perhaps he can give it to any Cohein he wishes! — It is, therefore, written "aside from the ram of atonement whereby atonement shall be made for him." (He gives it) to those who make atonement for him by it — the men of the watch.

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

(Fol. 26) We are taught in a Baraitha, (Num. 5, 28) Then shall she remain unharmed, and she shall conceive seed; i.e., if she was impotent she will bear children, so is the opinion of R. Akiba. Whereupon R. Ishmael said to him: "If so then all the impotent women will become Sota, so that they should be able to bear children, and such a one who will not commit herself to such an action shall lose such an opportunity?" "How then should the passage then shall she remain unharmed, etc., be explained?" "This means that if she gave birth with pain, she will hence give birth without any pain; if she bore daughters, she will hence bare sons; if she bore short children she will hence bare tall ones; if she bore dark ones, she will hence bore blond ones."

In the case of (Exod. 20:2 = Deut. 5:6:) I <AM THE LORD YOUR GOD>, because anyone who commits adultery with the wife of his acquaintance is, as it were, denying the Holy One. It is so stated (in Jer. 5:8, 12): <THEY WERE WELL-FED, LUSTY STALLIONS, EACH NEIGHING AT HIS NEIGHBOR'S WIFE…. > THEY HAVE DENIED THE LORD AND SAID: HE DOES NOT EXIST.
(Exod. 20:2 = Deut. 5:7:) <YOU> SHALL HAVE NO <OTHER GODS>, since it is written of him (in Exod. 20:5 = Deut. 5:9): FOR [I] THE LORD YOUR GOD AM A JEALOUS GOD. Also it is stated two times concerning the adulteress (in Numb. 5:14): IF THE SPIRIT OF JEALOUSY CAME OVER HIM, AND HE IS JEALOUS OF HIS WIFE. But why two times? Because it (i.e., the meal offering of the next verse)¹⁶So Rashi on Numb. 5:15. excites jealousy for the Holy One and for her husband, as stated (in Numb. 5:15): FOR IT IS A MEAL OFFERING OF JEALOUSY. Thus it is a case of two jealousies.
(Exod. 20:7 = Deut. 5:11:) YOU SHALL NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD <IN VAIN>. <One breaks this commandment> because he commits adultery and swears in vain that he has not done so.
(On this commandment, see the end of the paragraph.)
(Exod. 20:12 = Deut. 5:16:) HONOR YOUR FATHER. When one commits adultery with the adulteress, she becomes pregnant from him. Then she says to her husband: I am pregnant from you. When the fetus is grown, it honors her husband, <since it> thinks that he is its father. Moreover, <the grown child> passes through the market and scorns the adulterer, since he thinks that he is not his father.
(Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17:) YOU SHALL NOT MURDER. The adulterer goes in on condition that, if he is caught, he will kill or be killed.
(Exod. 20:13, cont. = Deut. 5:17, cont.:) YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. Obviously <this commandment is broken>, because he is committing adultery.
(Exod. 20:13, cont. = Deut. 5:17, cont.:) YOU SHALL NOT STEAL. <This commandment is broken> because he is stealing his neighbor's spring (i.e., his wife's womb), and so it says (in Prov. 9:17): STOLEN WATERS ARE SWEET….
(Exod. 20:13, cont. // Deut. 5:17, cont.:) YOU SHALL NOT BEAR <FALSE WITNESS> AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR. <The commandment is broken> in that <the adulteress> bears false witness [to her husband] and says: I am pregnant from you.
(Exod. 20:14; cf. Deut. 5:18:) YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR's HOUSE, AND YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR's WIFE. <The commandment is broken> because whoever covets his friend's wife and commits adultery with her, covets everything that belongs to his friend.¹⁷Cf. Lev. R. 23:12; Matthew 5:28. How? When he continues committing adultery with her and she bears <a child> from him, her husband thinks that it came from himself. When he comes to depart from the world, he thinks that this son is his and writes him a will¹⁸Gk.: diatheke. of all his assets. So he bequeaths to him whatever he has without knowing that he is not his son. It turns out that the adulterer covets whatever belongs to his friend.

4) Whence is it derived that the breast and the shok do not revert to Aaron and his sons until after the smoking of the fats? From (Bamidbar 5:31) "And he shall smoke the cheilev upon the altar" followed by "and the breast shall be for Aaron and for his sons."

(Bamidbar 5:9) "And all terumah of all the holy things of the children of Israel which they present to the Cohein, to him shall it be." R. Yishmael says: Scripture comes to teach you that if one dedicates (to the Temple) his grain pile before he levels it off and then he redeems it, he must take terumah (from it). I might think (he must do so) even if he redeemed it after he leveled the pile; it is, therefore, written (of terumah, Devarim 18:4) "the first of your corn (pile)." R. Akiva says: "and all terumah": Scripture comes to teach you that if he wishes to make his entire granary terumah, he may do so, so long as he leaves some over. "and all terumah of all the holy things": Scripture hereby teaches us that the laws of terumah apply to all varieties (of produce, and not just to those specifically indicated). Issi b. Yehudah says: If the ma'aser — the less stringent — obtains with all produce, how much more so, terumah — the more stringent. Variantly: If ma'aser, which does not obtain in the third and sixth year (of shemitah), obtains with all produce, how much more so, terumah, which obtains in all years! Issi b. Menachem says: if ma'aser, which is brought only as an adjunct to learning and fear (viz. Devarim 14:23), obtains with all produce, how much more so, the more stringent, terumah! (Ibid. 5:9) "which they offer to the Cohein, to him shall it be": R. Yishmael says: Now is terumah offered to the Cohein? (Does he not rather come to receive it?) What, then, is the intent of "which they offer to the Cohein"? Because it is written (Shemot 23:19) "The first of the first-fruits (bikkurim) of your land shall you bring to the house of the L-rd your G-d," but we are not told what is to be done with them; it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the Cohein, to him shall it be." Scripture hereby teaches us that bikkurim, (which are presented as offerings), are to be given to the Cohanim.

(Numb. 5:15:) THEN HE SHALL BRING THE OFFERING FOR HER, ONE-TENTH AN EPHAH OF BARLEY MEAL. Why does she bring barley meal?²²Tanh., Numb. 2:3; Sot. 2:1; cf. Sifre, to Numb. 5:15 (8). Because she behaved in the manner of a beast with him, she therefore brings the food of a beast as her offering. [(Ibid. cont.:) HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT.: Why does he not pour oil upon it?²³Numb. R. 9:13. Because the oil is a light but is <also> called yitshar (a word which can mean "it will shine"); while this woman loves the darkness. Therefore (in Numb. 5:15): HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT. [(Ibid., cont.:) NOR SHALL HE PUT FRANKINCENSE UPON IT.] Why does he not put frankincense upon it? Because the frankincense is a remembrance of the matriarchs, [as stated] (in Cant. 4:6): I WILL GO UNTO THE MOUNTAIN OF MYRRH AND UNTO THE MOUND OF FRANKINCENSE, while this woman has withdrawn from their ways. She would therefore be a reminder of iniquity and not a reminder of merit. (Numb. 5:17): THEN THE PRIEST SHALL TAKE HOLY WATER IN AN EARTHEN VESSEL AND SOME OF THE DUST WHICH IS ON THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE.²⁴Tanh., Numb. 2:4. He was created from the dust, and she was formed from the water.²⁵Cf. Gen. R. 14:7. For that reason she was tested by water and by dust as to whether she was as pure as when she was created or not. And again, why is she tested with water and with dust? Because they are her witnesses. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 30:19): I HAVE CALLED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO WITNESS AGAINST YOU TODAY.

(Numb. 5:15:) THEN HE SHALL BRING THE OFFERING FOR HER, ONE-TENTH AN EPHAH OF BARLEY MEAL. Why does she bring barley meal?²²Tanh., Numb. 2:3; Sot. 2:1; cf. Sifre, to Numb. 5:15 (8). Because she behaved in the manner of a beast with him, she therefore brings the food of a beast as her offering. [(Ibid. cont.:) HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT.: Why does he not pour oil upon it?²³Numb. R. 9:13. Because the oil is a light but is <also> called yitshar (a word which can mean "it will shine"); while this woman loves the darkness. Therefore (in Numb. 5:15): HE SHALL POUR NO OIL UPON IT. [(Ibid., cont.:) NOR SHALL HE PUT FRANKINCENSE UPON IT.] Why does he not put frankincense upon it? Because the frankincense is a remembrance of the matriarchs, [as stated] (in Cant. 4:6): I WILL GO UNTO THE MOUNTAIN OF MYRRH AND UNTO THE MOUND OF FRANKINCENSE, while this woman has withdrawn from their ways. She would therefore be a reminder of iniquity and not a reminder of merit. (Numb. 5:17): THEN THE PRIEST SHALL TAKE HOLY WATER IN AN EARTHEN VESSEL AND SOME OF THE DUST WHICH IS ON THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE.²⁴Tanh., Numb. 2:4. He was created from the dust, and she was formed from the water.²⁵Cf. Gen. R. 14:7. For that reason she was tested by water and by dust as to whether she was as pure as when she was created or not. And again, why is she tested with water and with dust? Because they are her witnesses. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 30:19): I HAVE CALLED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO WITNESS AGAINST YOU TODAY.

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]).

5) R. Yehudah says: "And you shall bring" — to include the meal-offering of the sotah as requiring "touching," it being written (Bamidbar 5:15): "And he shall bring her (the sotah's) offering for her." But perhaps the intent of "And you shall bring" is that the individual may donate a variety of meal-offering (barley) other than the variety (wheat) specified in our context! And it would follow (that he may do so), viz.: The congregation brings a mandatory meal-offering of wheat (the two loaves of Atzereth), and the individual brings a voluntary meal-offering of wheat. Just as the congregation, which brings a mandatory meal-offering of wheat, brings a mandatory meal-offering of barley (that of the omer), so, the individual, who brings a voluntary meal-offering of wheat, may bring a voluntary meal-offering of barley. It is, therefore, written: ("And you shall bring the meal-offering that shall be made of) these" — you may bring of (the variety of) these alone (i.e., wheat). But perhaps the intent of "these" is that if he vows to bring a meal-offering, he must bring all five kinds! It is, therefore, written: "of these." Sometimes, he brings one of them, and sometimes, (as when he forgot which one he specified), he brings all five.

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]).

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]).

(Bamidbar 5:10) "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": All kodshim ("holies") were included in "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be." Scripture "pulled out" all the kodshim and gave them to the Cohanim, leaving over (to the owners) only ("portions") of thank-offerings, peace-offerings, the Pesach offering, beast-tithe, second-tithe, and neta revai (plantings of the fourth year). Variantly: And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": From here you derive that to the Cohein who performs the sacrifice (even in a different watch), its service (i.e., its flesh) and its skin belong "to him" (the Cohein). Variantly: "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 19:24) "And in the fourth year all of its fruit shall be holy in praise of the L-rd," (I would not know) "holy" to the owners or "holy" to the Cohanim? It is, therefore, written "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be." Scripture here speaks of neta revai, that it belongs to the owners. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon says: "holy" to the owners. You say "holy" to the owners, but perhaps it is "holy" to the Cohanim! — You derive it thus: second-tithe is called "holy" (viz. Devarim 26:13) "and neta revai is called "holy." Just as second-tithe is "holy" to the owners, so, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by terumah, which is called "holy" (viz. Vayikra 22:14) and yet belongs to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe requires bringing to the place (Jerusalem) and neta revai requires bringing to the place. If I learned that second-tithe belongs to the owners, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, belong to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe is called "holy," and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And neta revai is called "holy," and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And this is not to be refuted by terumah, which, even though it is called "holy," does not require bringing to the place, nor by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, do not require redemption. I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will reason out a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing of three facets from a thing that is similar in (these) three facets, and I will not learn a thing of three facets from a thing which is not similar in (these) three facets, but only in one or two. If I have learned, then, that second-tithe belongs to the owners, then neta revai, too, should belong to the owners. R. Yossi says "holy" to the owners. You say "holy" to the owners, but perhaps it is "holy" to the Cohanim! — It is, therefore, written (of neta revai, Vayikra 19:25) "And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit to increase for you its produce." For whom is it increased? For him to whom it has already been given (in the fourth year, i.e., the owner.)

(Deut. 29:11 [12]:) TO ENTER INTO THE COVENANT WITH THE LORD YOUR GOD, EVEN THROUGH HIS OATH. Three covenants did the Holy One make with Israel: one when they came out of Egypt, one when they stood before Mount Sinai, {one at Horeb,} and one here.⁷Tanh., Deut. 8:3. But why did he make <a covenant> with them here? Because they had {cooked} [revoked] the one which he had made with them <on Sinai>,⁸This identification appears in the parallel from the traditional Tanhuma. when they said (of the Golden Calf in Exod. 32:4): THIS IS YOUR GOD, O ISRAEL. For that reason he made < another covenant> with them on Horeb⁹The text should probably read: “With them here,” in accord with Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34. and established a curse over it for whoever would go back on his words. Now the word, ENTER (rt.: 'BR), <can> only be in the sense of one who says to his companion: May this curse come (rt.: 'BR) upon me, if I go back on this word. And so you find that, when they provoked the Holy One, they went into captivity. What did Daniel say (in Dan. 7:11)? AND ALL ISRAEL HAS TRANSGRESSED (rt.: 'BR) YOUR TORAH [….] SO THE CURSE (alah) AND THE OATH ARE POURED DOWN UPON US. Now alah can only be a curse,¹⁰Alah can also mean “oath” and “covenant.” as where it is stated (in Numb. 5:27): AND THE WOMAN SHALL BECOME A CURSE (alah). <This is> to teach you that, just as one imposes an oath on the suspect adulteress, so the Holy One imposed an oath upon Israel. But perhaps you will say: Why all this bother? It is not because I need you? Rather what shall I do to you, when I have already sworn to your ancestors, that I will never change anything for you and your children? It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:12 [13]): IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH YOU TODAY AS HIS PEOPLE […,] <AS HE SWORE TO YOUR ANCESTORS, TO ABRAHAM, TO ISAAC, AND TO JACOB>. It also says (in Cant. 7:6 [5]): THE KING IS BOUND BY THE TRESSES. Now no one is bound except by an oath. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 30:4 [3]): <WHEN A WOMAN VOWS A VOW TO THE LORD> AND BINDS HERSELF WITH A BOND <….> Therefore, one cannot break his oath.

(Bamidbar 5:10) "And every man, his holy things, to him shall they be": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18:19) "All the terumoth of the holy things which the children of Israel will separate for the L-rd have I given to you (Aaron) and to your sons, etc.", I might think that he (a Cohein) could forcibly seize them (the priestly gifts). It is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him shall they be" — He has the option of giving them to any Cohein he wishes. "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": If one measured out (terumah) for them (certain Cohanim) on the ground and others (later) joined them, I might think that I pronounce over him "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, (in this instance the Cohein for whom he measured it out), to him (that Cohein) shall it be"; it is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be" (i.e., he retains the option of giving it to those who came later). I might then think that if he measured it out (for him) in a basket and others joined later, I still pronounce over him "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be" (and he can give it to the later ones); it is, therefore, (for such a circumstance) written "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, (in this instance, the first Cohein), to him (that Cohein) shall it be." R. Yossi says if one redeemed his (first-born) son within thirty days, and he (the son) died, I might think that I pronounce over him (the father) "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein to him (the Cohein) shall it be"; it is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be." (If he died) after thirty days, the money is not taken back from the Cohein, it being pronounced over the father "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it be."

Similarly, in the verse And he blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle (Gen. 7:3). He mentioned man first, because man was the first to sin, and after that he refers to beasts and creeping things. Likewise, since Scripture states: And they smote the men that were at the door with blindness, both small and great (ibid. 19:11), they smote the least important ones first and then the greater ones. Likewise, in accordance with the verse I will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast, man was punished first and then the beast. Another illustration is in the verse Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword (Deut. 13:16). He smote the inhabitants of the city with the sword, and then he slew the cattle. Similarly, And her belly shall swell (Num. 5:27) is followed by And her thighs shall fall away. That is, the part of the body that sinned first was punished first. Is it not logical to conclude that if retribution is exacted first from the one who commits an evil deed first, then the reward for good deeds, whose reward is far greater, is dispensed according to the same rule.

“For love is as intense as death” – the love that the Holy One blessed be He has for you is as intense as death. That is what is written: “I have loved you, said the Lord…” (Malachi 1:2). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – when they infuriate the Holy One blessed be He with their idol worship, as it is stated: “They would infuriate Him with strange gods” (Deuteronomy 32:16).
Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Isaac had for Esau; that is what is written: “Isaac loved Esau” (Genesis 25:28). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy Esau had for Jacob, as it is stated: “Esau hated Jacob [because of the blessing with which his father blessed him]” (Genesis 27:41).
Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jacob had for Joseph, as it is stated: “Israel loved Joseph more than his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that his brothers had for him, as it is stated: “His brothers were jealous of him” (Genesis 37:11).
Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jonathan had for David, as it is stated: “Jonathan loved him as himself” (I Samuel 18:1). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that Saul had for David, as it is stated: “Saul eyed David with suspicion” (I Samuel 18:9).
Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that a man has for his wife, as it is stated: “Enjoy life with a woman whom you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that he has regarding her when he says to her: Do not speak with so-and-so, and she goes and speaks with him, and immediately, “a spirit of jealousy passes over him and he is jealous of his wife” (Numbers 5:14).
Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that the generation of persecution had for the Holy One blessed be He, as it is stated: “For we are killed all day long for You” (Psalms 44:23). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – as the Holy One blessed be He is destined to have great zealotry on behalf of Zion. That is what is written: “So said the Lord [of hosts]: I became zealous for Zion with great zealotry” (Zechariah 8:2). “Its sparks are the sparks of fire, a great conflagration” – Rabbi Berekhya said: Like the supernal fire; the fire does not quench water and the water does not extinguish fire.

3b) binyan av mishnei kethuvim (a general rule derived from two verses). viz.: The topic of the lamps (on the menorah) is not like that of sending the unclean outside (of the encampment), and the latter is not like the former. What is common to them is that they are introduced by "Tzav" ("Command") — [the lamps, (Vayikra 24:2); sending, etc., (Bamidbar 5:2)] — and apply both immediately and for future generations. [The lamps: immediately — (Bamidbar 8:3): "And Aaron did so. He kindled its lamps towards the face of the menorah, etc."; for future generations — (Vayikra 24:3): "… an eternal statute throughout your generations." Sending the unclean outside: immediately — (Bamidbar 5:4): "And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp"; for future generations — (Bamidbar 19:21): "And it shall be for them an everlasting statute."] So, all commandments introduced by "Tzav" apply both immediately and for future generations.

6) — But, their ("strategic") common factor might be that they are similar in being offered by both rich and poor and requiring "touching" (as opposed to the meal-offering of a sinner, which is offered by a poor man only); it is, therefore, written: "the (implying "any") meal-offering," to indicate both a gift meal-offering and the meal-offering of a sinner as requiring "touching." R. Shimon says: "And you shall bring" — to include the meal-offering of the omer as requiring "touching," it being written (Ibid. 23:10): "And you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest to the Cohein"; "and he shall present it" — to include the meal-offering of the sotah as requiring "touching," it being written (Bamidbar 5:25): "And he shall present it (the sotah's meal-offering) to the altar."

3b) binyan av mishnei kethuvim (a general rule derived from two verses). viz.: The topic of the lamps (on the menorah) is not like that of sending the unclean outside (of the encampment), and the latter is not like the former. What is common to them is that they are introduced by "Tzav" ("Command") — [the lamps, (Vayikra 24:2); sending, etc., (Bamidbar 5:2)] — and apply both immediately and for future generations. [The lamps: immediately — (Bamidbar 8:3): "And Aaron did so. He kindled its lamps towards the face of the menorah, etc."; for future generations — (Vayikra 24:3): "… an eternal statute throughout your generations." Sending the unclean outside: immediately — (Bamidbar 5:4): "And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp"; for future generations — (Bamidbar 19:21): "And it shall be for them an everlasting statute."] So, all commandments introduced by "Tzav" apply both immediately and for future generations.

(Bamidbar 5:12) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man, a man, if his wife go astray, and she be faithless to him": What is the intent of this section? From (Devarim 24:1) "If a man take a woman and he cohabit with her, etc.", we hear only that if he had two witnesses (to her adultery) and she had not been forewarned, that she leaves him by divorce. But if she were adulterous in the presence of only one witness or it is in doubt whether she had or had not been adulterous after having been secreted (with the one she had been forewarned against), we did not hear what is to be done with her. It is, therefore, written "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: "A man, a man, if his wife go astray, etc.", that (in the above instance) she must drink the bitter waters. This is the intent of this section. "A man, a man": to include the wife of a deaf mute, an imbecile, one who has gone abroad or been incarcerated, or a dullard — that beth-din forewarns her (if she is deporting herself immodestly) to the end of invalidating her kethubah (her marriage contract). I might think, even to the end of making her drink (the bitter waters); it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Ibid. 11) "Then the man shall bring his wife." R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: also to the end of making her drink when her husband is released from incarceration. Variantly: "A man, a man": to include a woman awaiting levirate marriage (yibum). "if his wife go astray": Scripture speaks of those who are fit to be "wives" — to exclude a widow married to a high-priest, a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who has performed the chaliztah ceremony to break a levirate connection), who are married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a Nethinah (a descendent of the Geveonites) married to an Israelite, and a daughter of an Israelite married to a Nathin or a mamzer. And, according to Akavya b. Mehallalel, (to exclude) a woman who is a proselyte or a freed slave. They (the sages) said to him (Akavya): But there was a freed slave, Charkemis, in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon had her drink (the bitter waters)! He replied: They dissimulated their doing so — whereupon they excommunicated him and he died in his state of excommunication, and beth-din stoned his coffin. ("if his wife go astray,) and she is guilty of ma'al against him": ("ma'al") In the area of illicit relations or in the area of monetary (fraudulence)? (Ibid. 5:13) "And a man lie with her a lying of seed" indicates that ma'al here is in the area of illicit relations, and not in that of monetary (fraudulence). "and she is guilty of ma'al against him": "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bema'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu, king of Judah, (II Chronicles 26:18) "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta)," and (Vayikra 5:21) "and he (the denier) ma'ala ma'al against the L-rd" — whence we see that "me'ilah" in all places is "lying."

“All of you is fair, my love, and there is no blemish in you” (Song of Songs 4:7).
“All of you is fair, my love” – this is Jacob our patriarch, whose bed was unflawed and no waste was found among it.⁹²Unlike his father and grandfather, all his offspring were righteous.
What is, “all of you is fair, my love”? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: When Israel stood before Mount Sinai and said: “Everything that God spoke we will perform and we will heed” (Exodus 24:7), at that moment there were in their midst neither zav, nor leper, nor lame, nor blind, nor mute, nor deaf, nor imbecile, nor depressed, nor fool, nor doubter. Regarding that moment it is stated: “All of you is fair, my love.” When they sinned, there were not easy times, and there were in their midst zav, leper, lame, blind, mute, deaf, imbecile, and fool. At that moment it is stated: “They shall banish from the camp every leper and every zav” (Numbers 5:2).
Rabbi Ḥelbo said: It is written: “The one who presented his offering on the first day was [Naḥshon son of Aminadav of the tribe of Judah. And his offering was…]” (Numbers 7:12–13). “On the second day, presented Netanel [son of Tzuar].… his offering was…” (Numbers 7:18–19). Why did the Torah depict Judah as secondary?⁹³In relating Naḥshon’s offering the Torah uses a vav, meaning “and,” in the term vekorbano, “and his offering was,” indicating that there had been someone before him, although there had not been. Regarding Netanel the Torah does not use a vav even though there had been someone before him. It is so Judah would not become arrogant and say: I presented first, I am the greatest of them all. Rather, the Holy One blessed be He treated them as though they all presented on the first day and on the last day.
Rabbi Elazar said: It is written: “This was the dedication of the altar on the day it was anointed” (Numbers 7:84). But did each of them not offer one bowl, one ladle? Why does the verse state: “twelve silver bowls, twelve silver basins, twelve golden ladles” (Numbers 7:84)? It was so that Judah would not say: I presented first, I am the greatest of them all. Therefore, the Holy One blessed be He treated them as though they all presented on the first day and on the last day.
Rabbi Berekhya said: It is written: “All these are the tribes of Israel, twelve, [and this is that which their father spoke to them and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them]” (Genesis 49:28). After he blessed them did he bless them again? Rather, it teaches that Jacob our patriarch sat and likened them to beasts. He likened Judah to a lion, as it is stated: “Judah is a lion cub” (Genesis 49:9). Dan to a snake, as it is stated: “Dan will be a serpent on the road” (Genesis 49:17). Naphtali to a hind, as it is stated: “Naphtali is a hind let loose” (Genesis 49:21). Benjamin to a wolf, as it is stated: “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf” (Genesis 49:27). Then he called them all wolves, all of them snakes, all of them fiery serpents, all of them scorpions. Know that it is so, as Dan, whom he called a snake, he⁹⁴Moses then called a lion, as it is stated: “Dan is a lion cub” (Deuteronomy 33:22). Rabbi Idi said: We have found in the offerings of the princes that what this one offered that one offered. This one sacrificed a burnt offering, and that one sacrificed a burnt-offering; this one a meal offering and that one a meal offering; this one a sin offering and that one a sin offering; this one a peace offering and that one a peace offering. Why? It is because all of them are faultless and equal to one another.
What led the verse to delineate their genealogy in the book [of Exodus], Reuben, Simeon, and Levi?⁹⁵The verses delineate the genealogies of only these three tribes (see Exodus 6:14–25). Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Levi: one said: It is because their father reprimanded them,⁹⁶When Jacob gave blessings to his sons before his death, he reprimanded Reuben, Simeon, and Levi (see Genesis 49:3–7). In order to emphasize that these tribes were not inferior, the verses list their genealogies as they introduce Moses and Aaron. and one said: It was because it delineated the genealogy of Moses and Aaron.⁹⁷Because the Torah sought to address the genealogy of Aaron and Moses from the tribe of Levi, it began with Reuben, the first of the tribes, and continued through Levi. We do not know who said this and who said that. However, from the fact that Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Huna: “An ear that heeds life’s reprimand will rest among the wise” (Proverbs 15:31), it is Rabbi Huna⁹⁸This is possibly an alternate pronunciation of the name of Rabbi Ḥanina. Alternatively, the text should either state Rabbi Ḥanina here or Rabbi Huna above. who said because their father reprimanded them. Because they accepted their father’s reprimand they were privileged to have their genealogy delineated alongside Moses and Aaron. That is why it is stated: “All of you is fair.”
Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yehuda said: It is because all the tribes did not preserve their genealogies in Egypt, but Reuben, Simeon, and Levi preserved their genealogy.⁹⁹They married only with families that could prove they were of pure lineage. Rabbi Neḥemya said: It is because all the tribes engaged in idol worship in Egypt, but the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi did not engage in idol worship. The Rabbis say: It is because the other tribes did not exercise authority in Egypt, but these tribes exercised authority. How so? When Reuben died,¹⁰⁰Joseph had been the authority figure among the brothers and their descendants in Egypt, but he died before his brothers. At that point, Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob, became the authority figure. authority was transferred to Simeon. When Simeon died, authority was transferred to Levi. When Levi died, authority was going to be transferred to Judah. A Divine voice emerged and said: Leave it until its time arrives. When did its time arrive? After the death of Joshua. That is what is written: “It was after the death of Joshua.… the Lord said: Judah shall ascend” (Judges 1:1–2). He was called three names: Judah, Otniel, and Yabetz. Rabbi Berekhya and Rabbi Levi [said] in the name of Rabbi Ḥama ben Rabbi Ḥanina: This¹⁰¹Yabetz is Boaz. Rabbi Simon [said] in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: This¹⁰²Yabetz is Otniel.
It is written: “Son of man, the House of Israel has become dross to Me; they are all…” (Ezekiel 22:18). Zechariah said: I saw them, and they were pure gold: “I saw, and behold, a candelabrum of gold in its entirety, with a bowl [gulah] atop it.… and there are two olive trees over it” (Zechariah 4:2–3). There were two amora’im; one said exile [gola], and one said their Redeemer [go’alah]. The one who said gola: As they were exiled to Babylon, and the Divine Presence was exiled with them. The one who said go’alah: It is their redemption, as it is written: “Our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts is His name…” (Isaiah 47:4). The Holy One blessed be He said: Since that is the case:¹⁰³Since in the future they will all be comparable to pure gold, as envisioned by Zechariah. “All of you is fair, my love, and there is no blemish in you.”

The law: If a Jewish person who passes before the ark [to lead the prayer], what is the law, should it be permitted for him to answer "Amen" after the [blessings of] the Kohanim? Such taught the sages: One who passes before the ark, he should not answer "Amen" after the Kohanim because of distraction. Our rabbis taught us: If he can answer without being distracted, he may answer. Why? Because nothing is greater before the Holy One, blessed be He, more than the "Amen" that the Jews answer. Rabbi Yehudah bar Simon: This "Amen" has three intentions. Oath, acceptance, faithfulness. How do we know "oath"? As its says, (Numbers 5:19-22) "The Kohen should put her under oath... and the woman is to say, Amen Amen."

(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)!

(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)!

Another interpretation (of Exod. 7:1) SEE, I HAVE SET YOU AS A GOD TO PHARAOH. The Holy One said: Because he made himself into a god, they informed him that he was nothing in the world. See, I have made you a god over him.⁴⁹Tanh., Exod. 2:9. And where is it shown that Pharaoh made himself into a god? Where it is stated (of Pharaoh in Ezek. 29:3): {BECAUSE HE} [WHO] SAID {THE} [MY] NILE IS MY OWN, AND I MADE MYSELF.⁵⁰A more traditional rendering would be, AND I MADE IT FOR MYSELF. I am the one who created myself. Now this is one of four sons of Adam who made themselves into gods and had sexual relations like women.⁵¹See Enoch Zundel’s commentary, ‘Ets Yosef, on Tanh., Exod. 2:9, which explains that, because the four promoted themselves to divinity, they would have had to bestow largess like a god, who always bestows it to the world as the male bestows it in the female. He gives and she receives. Therefore, “they had sexual relations like women” to show that they were bestowed upon and did not do the bestowing. Three were from the nations of the world, and one was from Israel. They were the following: Hiram, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and Joash. Where is it shown of Hiram? Where it is stated (in Ezek. 28:2): SAY TO THE PRINCE OF TYRE: THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD: BECAUSE YOUR HEART IS PROUD, YOU HAVE SAID: I AM A GOD. Because he had made himself into a god, he had sexual relations like women, as stated (in vs. 17): YOU HAVE DEBASED YOUR WISDOM…; <I HAVE CAST YOU UPON THE GROUND; I HAVE GIVEN YOU OVER BEFORE KINGS > TO STARE AT YOU. What is the meaning of TO STARE (R'WH) AT YOU? <That> they would work their "friendship" (as if from R'WT) on you. Where is it shown of Nebuchadnezzar? Where it is stated <of the king of Babylon that he said> (in Is. 14:14): I WILL ASCEND UPON THE HEIGHTS OF A CLOUD; I WILL BECOME LIKE THE MOST HIGH. The Holy One said to him: By your life, (in vs. 15) YOU SHALL ALSO BE BROUGHT DOWN UNTO SHEOL, UNTO THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE PIT. What did the Holy one do? He banished him while he was in his kingship and had him eat grass like the cattle. It is so stated (in Dan. 4:22 [25]): AND THEY SHALL FEED YOU GRASS LIKE OXEN…. So, when the cattle and the wild beasts saw him in the likeness of a <female> animal, they had sexual relations with him, as stated (in Hab. 2:17): AND THE VIOLENCE OF THE BEASTS WILL TERRIFY THOSE FEMALES. What is the meaning of TERRIFY THOSE FEMALES (rt.: HTT+N)? <Its meaning > is like what is stated (in Deut. 7:3): YOU SHALL NOT INTERMARRY (rt.: HTN) WITH THEM. So he became a bridegroom (HTN) to all cattle and wild beasts. Where is it shown of Joash? Where it is stated (in II Chron. 24:17): NOW AFTER THE DEATH OF JEHOIADA, THE PRINCES OF JUDAH CAME AND BOWED LOW TO THE KING. What is the meaning of BOWED LOW TO THE KING? That they made him < their > god. Moreover, since he was in agreement, as stated (ibid., cont.): THEN THE KING HEARKENED TO THEM, he had sexual relations like a woman. Thus it is stated (vs. 24): <FOR THE ARMY OF ARAM CAME WITH A FEW MEN….> SO THEY INFLICTED JUDGMENTS ON JOASH. It is just as it says (in Lev. 20:13): IF A MAN LIES WITH A MALE AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN, BOTH OF THEM HAVE COMMITTED AN ABOMINATION.⁵²The midrash is arguing that the JUDGMENT inflicted on Joash is this ABOMINATION. Cf. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, ‘Amaleq 1, which would revowel JUDGMENTS (shefatim) to read “sports” (shipputim). For a similar solution, see Exod. R. 8:2. Pharaoh also made himself into a god and had sexual relations like a woman. It is so stated (in Jer. 44:30): BEHOLD, I AM GIVING PHARAOH HOPHRA, KING OF EGYPT, <INTO THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES>. What is the meaning of HOPHRA (rt.: PR')?⁵³Although the Masoretic Text spells HOPHRA with a gutturalized initial H (het), the midrash text spells the name with a simple H (he), which need not be part of the root. That they uncovered (PR') his posterior. He was a pharaoh who had been a male and became a female. Another interpretation of HOPHRA. <Its meaning is> like that used (in the context of Numb. 5:18): AND HE (the priest) SHALL UNCOVER (PR') THE WOMAN'S HEAD. And to which father's house did he belong? (Is. 19:16:) IN THAT DAY {THE LAND OF EGYPT SHALL BE A FESTIVAL….} [EGYPT SHALL BE LIKE WOMEN.] And what was the cause? <It was> because he made himself into a god. Thus it is stated (in Ezek. 29:3): {BECAUSE HE} [WHO] SAID {THE} [MY] NILE IS MY OWN, AND I MADE MYSELF. For that reason the Holy One said to Moses: Because he has made himself into a god, go and become a god over him. It is so stated (in Exod. 7:1): SEE, I HAVE SET YOU AS A GOD TO PHARAOH. Why? (Eccl. 5:7 [8]:) FOR ONE EXALTED PERSON WATCHES ANOTHER FROM ABOVE, AND THERE ARE MORE EXALTED ONES OVER THEM. Ergo, you are a god over him; so make him an arrogant abomination (ShHTs) in the world because he became exalted by himself. And this is what is written (in Job 41:26 [34]): HE BEHOLDS EVERYTHING EXALTED, {AND} HE IS KING OVER ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABOMINABLE ARROGANCE (ShHTs). Does the Holy One not see the lowly? It is also written (in Zech. 4:10): <THESE SEVEN ARE> THE EYES OF THE LORD. THEY ROAM AROUND ALL THE EARTH. And (in Job 41:26 [34]) what is the meaning of HE BEHOLDS EVERYTHING EXALTED? R. Berekhyah said: These are the proud, whose spirit becomes <too> haughty for them, so that they exalt themselves and make themselves into gods. What does the Holy One do to them? He exhibits them to mortals and makes them arrogant abominations (ShHTs) in the world, as stated (in Job 41:26 [34]): HE IS KING OVER ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABOMINABLE ARROGANCE (ShHTs). <There is> Nebuchadnezzar, for example, in that he made him an arrogant abomination (ShHTs), as stated (in Dan. 5:21): HE WAS DRIVEN AWAY FROM HUMANS…. So also was Sennacherib made an arrogant abomination (ShHTs), as stated (II Kings 19:35 = Is. 37:36 // II Chron. 32:21): SO IT CAME TO PASS IN THAT NIGHT THAT THE ANGEL OF THE LORD WENT OUT AND SMOTE <ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND > IN THE CAMP OF ASSYRIA…. Thus the Holy One shows the abominable arrogance (ShHTs) of the proud to every creature. The Holy One has said (in Jer. 23:24): IF SOMEONE HIDES IN SECRET PLACES, SHALL I NOT SEE (rt.: R'H) HIM? SAYS THE LORD. R. Benjamin bar Levi said: If someone goes to handle the Torah and sits by himself, I will exhibit (rt.: R'H) his deed in the world. And so, if someone conceals himself to commit a transgression, I will exhibit (rt.: R'H)his deed to the world. It is so stated (in Jer. 23:24): SHALL I NOT SEE (rt.: R'H) HIM? SAYS THE LORD. DO I NOT FILL THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH? SAYS THE LORD. What is the meaning of I FILL? R. Hama b. R. Hanina said: The Holy One said: From him (i.e., from his evil works) I will fill the upper and lower worlds. Then I will exhibit (rt.: R'H) him to humankind as an arrogant abomination (ShHTs). Why? Because they (sic) are proud and make themselves into gods. (Job 41:26 [34]:) HE BEHOLDS EVERYTHING EXALTED, {AND} HE IS KING OVER ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABOMINABLE ARROGANCE (ShHTs). Thus he reigns over all those who are proud and makes them arrogant abominations (ShHTs). For that reason, the Holy One said to Moses (in Exod. 7:1): SEE, I HAVE SET YOU AS A GOD TO PHARAOH. Go and exact punishment from him.⁵⁴Exod. R. 8:3. Go and bring the ten plagues (of Exod. 7:14–12:29) upon him. He said to him: How shall I bring the plagues upon him? The Holy One said to him (in Exod. 4:17): AND YOU SHALL TAKE IN YOUR HAND THIS ROD, < WITH WHICH YOU SHALL PERFORM THE SIGNS>. R. Judah bar Ammi said: The rod which he had weighed forty seahs⁵⁵I.e., weighed forty seahs of wheat. and was <made> of sapphire.⁵⁶Gk.: sappheirinon. Moreover ten plagues were inscribed upon it through an acronym,⁵⁷Gk.: notarikon. <i.e.,> DeTsaKh 'aDaSh Be'aHaBh.⁵⁸The acronym stands for the following: Dam (blood), Tsefarde‘im (frogs), Kinnam (gnats), ‘arov (flies), Dever (pestilence), Shehin (boils), Barad (hail), ‘arbeh (locusts), Hoshekh (darkness), and Bekhor (first-born). The Holy One said to him: this rod will bring the plagues upon him. (Exod. 7:1:) SEE, I HAVE SET YOU AS A GOD TO PHARAOH.

Man or woman, who does any of the sins etc. - Rabi Abahu says (Hosea 14:8): 'Those that dwell under His shadow' those are the gerim that come and have love for the shadow of the Holy One of Blessing. 'They shall grow as grain' in [the study of] Talmud. 'Shall blossom as vine' in [the study of] Aggadah. 'His memory/scent shall be as the wine of Lebanon' - said the Holy One of Blessing: "The appreciation of the gerim is as dear to me as the wine that was poured on the altar [as libation.]" And why does He call it [the altar] Lebanon (root LVN)? Because it whitens (maLViN) the sins of Israel like snow, as it is written (Isaiah 1:18) 'though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.' Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai says: because all the hearts (LeVavot) become happy due to it. As it says (Psalms 48:2): 'Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth.' And the rabbis say - because of the verse (II Kings 9:3) 'and My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually.' Another interpretation: 'they will grow as grain' - they will make the essence, they are like Israel; as it is said (Zechariah 9:17) 'grain [for] the young men [of Israel]'. 'They shall blossom as vine', as [just like] Israel, as it says (Psalms 80:9) 'You plucked a vine from Egypt.' And so you find that, just as a portion of the Torah was written regarding one Israel and another - that if he misappropriated something of him, that he is obligated to a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 5:21) 'If any one sin, and commit a trespass etc.' - so too you find that the Holy One of Blessing wrote a portion of the Torah regarding what goes on between Israel and gerim, that if a man from Israel steals from a ger, the judgement is as if he stole from another man from Israel. You find that regarding this it is written 'a sin that he sinned' and regarding stealing from a ger it is written 'from any sins of a man.' Regarding this one it is written 'and trespassed a trespass against the Lord' and regarding this one it is written 'to trespass a trespass against the Lord.' Regarding this one it is written: 'And it will be, when he sins and is guilty' and regarding the ger it is written 'and that soul will be guilty'. Regarding this one it is written: 'And he will pay with his head' and regarding the ger it is written 'and he will return his guilt with his head'. Regarding this one it is written: 'and he will add his fifth' and regarding the ger it is written 'and he will add a fifth'. Regarding this one it is written: 'and he will bring his guilt-offering to the Lord' and regarding stealing a ger it is written 'besides the ram for the kipurim'. Behold we have learned: that the essence of the gerim is like Israel's. Therefore, they will be as grain and blossom.

Man or woman, who does any of the sins etc. - Rabi Abahu says (Hosea 14:8): 'Those that dwell under His shadow' those are the gerim that come and have love for the shadow of the Holy One of Blessing. 'They shall grow as grain' in [the study of] Talmud. 'Shall blossom as vine' in [the study of] Aggadah. 'His memory/scent shall be as the wine of Lebanon' - said the Holy One of Blessing: "The appreciation of the gerim is as dear to me as the wine that was poured on the altar [as libation.]" And why does He call it [the altar] Lebanon (root LVN)? Because it whitens (maLViN) the sins of Israel like snow, as it is written (Isaiah 1:18) 'though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.' Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai says: because all the hearts (LeVavot) become happy due to it. As it says (Psalms 48:2): 'Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth.' And the rabbis say - because of the verse (II Kings 9:3) 'and My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually.' Another interpretation: 'they will grow as grain' - they will make the essence, they are like Israel; as it is said (Zechariah 9:17) 'grain [for] the young men [of Israel]'. 'They shall blossom as vine', as [just like] Israel, as it says (Psalms 80:9) 'You plucked a vine from Egypt.' And so you find that, just as a portion of the Torah was written regarding one Israel and another - that if he misappropriated something of him, that he is obligated to a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 5:21) 'If any one sin, and commit a trespass etc.' - so too you find that the Holy One of Blessing wrote a portion of the Torah regarding what goes on between Israel and gerim, that if a man from Israel steals from a ger, the judgement is as if he stole from another man from Israel. You find that regarding this it is written 'a sin that he sinned' and regarding stealing from a ger it is written 'from any sins of a man.' Regarding this one it is written 'and trespassed a trespass against the Lord' and regarding this one it is written 'to trespass a trespass against the Lord.' Regarding this one it is written: 'And it will be, when he sins and is guilty' and regarding the ger it is written 'and that soul will be guilty'. Regarding this one it is written: 'And he will pay with his head' and regarding the ger it is written 'and he will return his guilt with his head'. Regarding this one it is written: 'and he will add his fifth' and regarding the ger it is written 'and he will add a fifth'. Regarding this one it is written: 'and he will bring his guilt-offering to the Lord' and regarding stealing a ger it is written 'besides the ram for the kipurim'. Behold we have learned: that the essence of the gerim is like Israel's. Therefore, they will be as grain and blossom.

Man or woman, who does any of the sins etc. - Rabi Abahu says (Hosea 14:8): 'Those that dwell under His shadow' those are the gerim that come and have love for the shadow of the Holy One of Blessing. 'They shall grow as grain' in [the study of] Talmud. 'Shall blossom as vine' in [the study of] Aggadah. 'His memory/scent shall be as the wine of Lebanon' - said the Holy One of Blessing: "The appreciation of the gerim is as dear to me as the wine that was poured on the altar [as libation.]" And why does He call it [the altar] Lebanon (root LVN)? Because it whitens (maLViN) the sins of Israel like snow, as it is written (Isaiah 1:18) 'though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.' Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai says: because all the hearts (LeVavot) become happy due to it. As it says (Psalms 48:2): 'Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth.' And the rabbis say - because of the verse (II Kings 9:3) 'and My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually.' Another interpretation: 'they will grow as grain' - they will make the essence, they are like Israel; as it is said (Zechariah 9:17) 'grain [for] the young men [of Israel]'. 'They shall blossom as vine', as [just like] Israel, as it says (Psalms 80:9) 'You plucked a vine from Egypt.' And so you find that, just as a portion of the Torah was written regarding one Israel and another - that if he misappropriated something of him, that he is obligated to a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 5:21) 'If any one sin, and commit a trespass etc.' - so too you find that the Holy One of Blessing wrote a portion of the Torah regarding what goes on between Israel and gerim, that if a man from Israel steals from a ger, the judgement is as if he stole from another man from Israel. You find that regarding this it is written 'a sin that he sinned' and regarding stealing from a ger it is written 'from any sins of a man.' Regarding this one it is written 'and trespassed a trespass against the Lord' and regarding this one it is written 'to trespass a trespass against the Lord.' Regarding this one it is written: 'And it will be, when he sins and is guilty' and regarding the ger it is written 'and that soul will be guilty'. Regarding this one it is written: 'And he will pay with his head' and regarding the ger it is written 'and he will return his guilt with his head'. Regarding this one it is written: 'and he will add his fifth' and regarding the ger it is written 'and he will add a fifth'. Regarding this one it is written: 'and he will bring his guilt-offering to the Lord' and regarding stealing a ger it is written 'besides the ram for the kipurim'. Behold we have learned: that the essence of the gerim is like Israel's. Therefore, they will be as grain and blossom.

(Bamidbar 5:16) "And the Cohein shall draw her near": whence it is derived that the draught is not given to two sotahs together. "and he shall stand her": He shall not stand with her, her manservant and her maidservants, because she tends to be callous in their presence. "before the L-rd": at the gates of Nikanor (opposite the entrance to the sanctuary), whence they stated: The head of the watch would stand those who were tamei at the gates of Nikanor.

Alternately, 'any man' ("Ish Ish") means, show equanimity to all people. There is a story about a certain woman who a certain man became infatuated with, and she said to him, "Where do you want to go?" What did that woman do? She went and told his wife, and his wife went to that place and he was intimate with her. Afterwards, he regretted what he had done and wished to die. His wife said to him, "You ate your own bread and drank from your own cup. But who made you so haughty? Show equanimity to all people!"

Whence do we know that Pharaoh had intercourse like a woman? It is said: Thus said the Lord: “Behold, I will give Pharaoh Hophra, king of Egypt. into the hand of his enemies (Jer. 44:30). What is meant by Hophra? Though he was a male, he “disrobed himself like a female” (para), as in the verse: And he shall let the hair of the woman’s head go loose (ufara) (Num. 5:18). Similarly, the prophet said: In that day shall Egypt be like unto woman (Isa. 19:16). Why? Because he had said: My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself (Ezek. 29:3). Hence the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: See, I have set thee in God’s stead before Pharaoh. Why did He do this? He did this, For one higher than the high watcheth, and there are higher than they (Eccles. 5:7). He said to him: See, I have set thee in God’s stead to Pharaoh. Go, make him, who proclaimed himself divine, an abomination in the world for exalting himself, as it is said: He looketh at all high things; he is king over all the sons of abomination (Job 41:26).

Said Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Great is peace, for all blessings are included with it, "Adonai grants strength to His people, Adonai blesses his people with peace" (Psalm 29:11). Ḥizkiyah said two things. Ḥizkiyah said: Great is peace, for all the commandments are written this way: "When you see" (Exodus 23:5), "when you encounter" (Exodus 23:4), "when you come across" (Deuteronomy 22:6). If a commandment comes to you you are bound to do it, but if not you are not bound to do it. But here it says "Seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:15) – seek it for your place, and pursue it for other places. Ḥizkiyah said also: Great is peace, for of all the encampments it is written thus (Numbers 33) "And they set out... and they encamped" – they would set out divided and would encamp divided. When they all came before Mt. Sinai it was done as one encampment, as it is written (Exodus 19:2) "And Israel encamped there"—it isn't written "And the Israelites encamped there" in the plural, but "and Israel encamped there" in the singular!—Because of this the Holy Blessed One said, "Here is the gate where I will give the Torah to My children." Bar Kappara said three things. Bar Kappara said: Great is peace, for the scriptures use words of fiction in the Torah so as to impose peace between Abraham and Sarah, as it is written "After I am withered shall I have pleasure? And my husband is so old!" (Genesis 18:12) But to Abraham He didn't say that but rather "And I am so old!" (Genesis 18:13). Bar Kappara also said: Great is peace, for the scriptures use words of fiction in the Prophetic books to impose peace between husband and wife, as it is said, "Look, you are barren and have borne no children, but you will conceive and bear a son" (Judges 13:3), but to Manoaḥ He didn't say that but rather "All that I said to the woman she should follow" (Judges 13:13) – in all that she still needs markers. Bar Kappara also said: Great is peace, for if the celestials who have no jealousy or hatred or rivalry or strife or quarrels or debates or evil eye require peace, as it is written (Job 25:2) "He who makes peace in the heavens," how much more so the mortals who have all those traits? Said Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: Great is peace, because the writings spoke works of fiction in the Torah to impose peace between Joseph and his brothers, as it is written (Genesis 50:17) “Thus say to Yosef, please forgive” - but we do not find Jacob commanding any such thing! Said Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: Great is pace, for even in a time of war we only open with peace, as it is written (Deuteronomy 20:10) "When you approach a city to make war on it, call out to it for peace." Said Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Yosei: Great is peace, for the name of the Holy Blessed One is called peace, as it is written "And he called it "Adonai is peace" (Judges 6:24). Said Rabbi Tanḥum son of Yudan, from here we derive that it is forbidden for one to call out "Peace" to a companion in a filthy place. Taught Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, for even the Great Name written in holiness, the Holy Blessed One said to blot out in water so as to impose peace between husband and wife. (See Numbers 5:19-23). Rabbi Meir was sitting and discoursing on Shabbat evening. There was this one woman who would sit and listen to him give his lecture. Once she waited until the lecture ended, went home, and found the light had gone out. Her husband said to her, "Where have you been?" She said to him, "I was sitting and listening to the voice of the lecturer." He said to her, "Thus and more I vow: I will not let you enter here until you go and spit in the lecturer's face!" She stayed away one Shabbat, another, a third. Her neighbors said to her, "Are you still angry at each other? Let's come with you to the lecture." When Rabbi Meir saw them, he figured it out through the holy spirit. He said to them, "Is there here a woman knowledgeable in treating eyes?" Her neighbors said to her, "If you go spit in his eye you will unbind your husband." When she sat down in front of him she became afraid of him, and said to him, "Rabbi, I am not knowledgeable in treating eyes." He said to her, "Even so, spit in my eye seven times, and I will be cured." She did so. He said to her, "Go tell your husband you told me to do it once and I spat seven times. His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, should people thus abuse the Torah? Couldn't one of us offered a treatment for you?" He said to them, "Is it not enough for Meir to be like his Maker?" For it had been taught: Great is peace, for even the Great Name written in holiness, the Holy Blessed One said to blot out in water so as to impose peace between husband and wife." Said Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta: Great is peace, for when the Holy Blessed One created His universe He made pace between the upper and lower parts. On the first day He created some of the upper and lower parts, as it is written "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). On the second He created some of the upper parts, as it is written "And God said, 'let there be a firmament'" (Genesis 1:6). On the third He created some of the lower parts, as it is written, "And God said, 'gather the waters'" (Genesis 1:9). On the fourth some of the upper parts — "Let there be lights in the heavenly firmament" (Genesis 1:14). On the fifth He created some of the lower parts — "And God said, 'Let the waters swarm'" (Genesis 1:20). On the sixth He came to create humanity. He said, "If I create him from more upper parts, then the upper parts will outnumber the lower by one creation. If I create him from more lower parts, then the lower parts will outnumber the upper by one creation." What did He do? He made him from upper parts and from lower parts, as it is written "And Adonai God created humanity from the dust of the earth" (Genesis 2:7) — lower parts, "and blew into his nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) — upper parts. Rabbi Manei of Sh'av and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Great is peace for all blessings and goodnesses and mercies that the Holy Blessed One gives to Israel are sealed with peace. The reading of the Shema — "spreads the shelter of peace." The standing prayer — "He who makes peace." The Priestly Blessing — "and grant you peace" (Numbers 6:26). And I only know this regarding blessings, so where do we derive this for sacrifices? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering, of the grain-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the fulfillment-offerings, and of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:37). I only know this in general, so where do we derive this in detail? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 6:2), "This is the Torah of the grain-offering" (Leviticus 6:7), "This is the Torah of the sin-offering" (Leviticus 6:18), "This is the Torah of the guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:1), "This is the Torah of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:11). I only know this for individual sacrifices, so where do we derive this for communal sacrifices? The verse (Numbers 29:39) says, "Do these for Adonai on your set times," but finishes with "your peace-offerings." I only know this in this world, so from where do we derive this in the next? "I will extend to her peace like a wadi" (Isaiah 66:12). The Rabbis said, great is peace for when the messianic king will come he will only open with peace, as it is written, "How pleasant on the mountains are the feet of the messenger proclaiming peace!" (Isaiah 52:7)

We are taught that Rabbi says: "Never shall a man try to acquire too many friends within his house, for it is said (Pr. 18, 24.) A man's many companions are hurtful to him." We are taught that Rabbi says: "A man should avoid appointing a supervisor over his household for had not Potiphar appointed Joseph the supervisor over his household, the trouble [he had] would not have occurred." We are taught that Rabbi says: "Why has the section referring to the Nazarite been arranged close to the section of Sota? To tell us that if one sec a Sota in her corrupted state he shall obstain from wine." Hezekiah, the son of R. Parnach, said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Why has the section referring to the Sota been arranged close to the section of Terumah and tithes?" To tell us that whoever has Terumah and tithes and does not give them to the priest will finally be obliged [to go] to the Priest on account of his wife, as it is said (Num. 5, 10.) And every man's hallowed things shall be his, and immediately succeeding this is written If the wife of any man go saide; and after this is written: Then shall the man bring his wife, etc. And moreover poverty will at last overtake him and he will become a recipient of that same thing which he refused to give, as it is said And every man's hallowed things shall be his [i.e.. And every man's hallowed things, — if he gives it not to the priest, — shall he his own, — for his own necessities]." R. Nachman b. Isaac said: "If, on the other hand, he give [deliberately the tithes to the priest], he will become rich, as it is said (Ib.) Whatever any man giveth to the priest shall belong to him, i.e., he shall have much wealth." R. Huna b. Brachia in the name of R. Elazar Hakapar said: "To him who associates the Heavenly name in his troubles (praising the Lord even for misfortune), his means of support will be doubled, as it is said (Job 22, 25.) Yea, the Almighty shall be thy defence, and thou shall have plenty of silver." R. Samuel b. Nachmeini said: "His maintenance will come as quickly as a bird flies; for it is said (Ib.) And thou shalt have plenty of silver." R. Tubia said in the name of R. Joshiya: "He who is careless about the study of the Torah, will have no strength to withstand a day of adversity; as it is said (Pr. 24, 10.) If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength i small." R. Ami b. Mathun in the name of Samuel said: "Even [if he weaken himself] from one meritorious deed; for it is said If thou faint, i.e., from whatever the weakening; may be."

… the prophets of Jerusalem were the first to sin, as it says “…for from the prophets of Jerusalem has falseness emanated to the whole land.” (Jeremiah 23:15) So too they were punished first and the rest did not escape, as it says “And a curse shall be taken from them…” (Jeremiah 29:22)

… the prophets of Jerusalem were the first to sin, as it says “…for from the prophets of Jerusalem has falseness emanated to the whole land.” (Jeremiah 23:15) So too they were punished first and the rest did not escape, as it says “And a curse shall be taken from them…” (Jeremiah 29:22)

… the prophets of Jerusalem were the first to sin, as it says “…for from the prophets of Jerusalem has falseness emanated to the whole land.” (Jeremiah 23:15) So too they were punished first and the rest did not escape, as it says “And a curse shall be taken from them…” (Jeremiah 29:22)

9) We derive "ors" accompanied by an oath (as in our case) from "ors" accompanied by an oath (as in the case of a pledge), and the "ors" of a murderer are no refutation, their not being accompanied by an oath. — This is refuted by the "ors" of sotah (Bamidbar 5:14: "or there had passed over him a spirit of rancor" (Bamidbar 5:30) "or a man if there pass over him, etc."), which are "ors" accompanied by an oath but do not involve money claims.

9) We derive "ors" accompanied by an oath (as in our case) from "ors" accompanied by an oath (as in the case of a pledge), and the "ors" of a murderer are no refutation, their not being accompanied by an oath. — This is refuted by the "ors" of sotah (Bamidbar 5:14: "or there had passed over him a spirit of rancor" (Bamidbar 5:30) "or a man if there pass over him, etc."), which are "ors" accompanied by an oath but do not involve money claims.

(Bamidbar 5:17) "And the Cohein shall take consecrated water: This refers to water consecrated in a vessel, the waters of the laver. "in an earthen vessel": We are hereby taught that all vessels are not equated with earthen vessels. For it would follow: Since soil and water consecrate in the instance of the red heifer and soil and water consecrate in the instance of sotah, then if I derive that all vessels are equated with earthen vessels re the red heifer, then re sotah, too, all vessels should be equated with earthen vessels; it is, therefore, written (specifically) "in an earthen vessel" (to negate the above derivation). "in an earthen vessel": a new one. For it would follow: If I have derived that re the red heifer both a new and an old vessel are permitted, I should derive the same for sotah. It is, therefore, written here "in an earthen vessel," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 14:5) "into an earthen vessel." Just as there, a new one, here, too, a new one. These are the words of R. Yishmael. "and of the soil that shall be on the floor of the mishkan the Cohein shall take": Scripture hereby teaches us that if there were no soil there, he brings soil from elsewhere and places it there; for it is the place which consecrates. Issi b. Yehudah says ("that shall be"): to include (the same for) the soil of the Temple (in Jerusalem). Issi b. Menachem says (in demurral): If in respect to a lesser form of tumah (e.g., dead-body tumah or sheretz tumah), the Temple (mikdash) was equated (vis-à-vis kareth liability for entry) with the sanctuary (mishkan), then, in respect to a graver form of tumah, sotah, (where death is the punishment,) how much more so, should the (strictures of the) mikdash be equated with (those of) the mishkan! Why, then, need it be written "that shall be on the floor of the mishkan"? — That he not bring soil in his basket, (but shall use soil that is already there.) R. Shimon says: It is written here "afar" ("and of the afar that is on the floor of the mishkan"), and, elsewhere (Ibid. 19:17) "And they shall take for the unclean one of the afar of the burning of the (heifer) for cleaning." Just as "afar" here," "afar on the face of the water" (i.e., visible on the surface of the water), so, there, afar on the face of the water. And, just as there if the afar preceded the water, it is valid, so, here. "the Cohein shall take (the afar) and place it on the water": so that it be visible. Three "things" in the Torah must be visible: the ashes of the heifer (Ibid.), the afar of the sotah, and the spittle of the yevamah (viz. Devarim 25:9). R. Yishmael says: Also the blood of the (slaughtered) bird (viz. Vayikra 14:6).

(Numb. 5:13:) IN THAT A MAN HAS SLEPT WITH HER CARNALLY, except for a minor, since he is not a man.⁴⁵On the exception, see Sifre, Numb. 5:13 (7). Cf. Sot. 4:4; TSot. 5:6; Sot. 26b; and the parallel text in Tanh., Numb. 2:6, all of which regard “one who is not a man” as a separate, non-human category. [WITH HER] CARNALLY. <This is> when her sleeping renders her unfit, and no other sleeping renders her unfit. <There is> a story about two sisters who resembled each other. Now one was married in one city and the other was married in another city. The husband of one of them wanted to accuse her of infidelity and have her drink the bitter water in Jerusalem. They went to that city where her married sister was. Her sister said to her: What was your reason for coming here? She said to her: My husband wants to have me drink <the bitter water>. Her sister said to her: I will go in your place and drink it. She said to her: Go. She put on her sister's clothes, went in her place, drank the bitter water, and was found clean. When she returned to her sister's house, she joyfully went out to meet her, then embraced and kissed her. As soon as the one kissed the other, she smelled the bitter water and immediately died, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Eccl. 8:8): NO HUMAN HAS CONTROL OVER THE WIND TO CONTAIN THE WIND, NOR IS THERE CONTROL ON THE DAY OF DEATH….

7) kllal shehu tzarich lifrat ufrat shehu tzarich lichllal (general requiring specific and specific requiring general): (Shemoth 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every bechor (first-born), the opener of each womb." I might think that even females are included; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:19): "the male." If "the male," (I would think that) even a yotze dofen (Caesarian birth) were a bechor. It is, therefore, written "the opener of the womb." This is an instance of "general" (bechor) requiring "specific." I might think that even if it were born after a yotze dofen it were a bechor (being the first opener of the womb); it is, therefore, written "bechor," (which connotes first in all respects; not only first opener of the womb, but also first in birth). This is an instance of "specific" ("opener of the womb") requiring "general" (bechor).

7) kllal shehu tzarich lifrat ufrat shehu tzarich lichllal (general requiring specific and specific requiring general): (Shemoth 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every bechor (first-born), the opener of each womb." I might think that even females are included; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:19): "the male." If "the male," (I would think that) even a yotze dofen (Caesarian birth) were a bechor. It is, therefore, written "the opener of the womb." This is an instance of "general" (bechor) requiring "specific." I might think that even if it were born after a yotze dofen it were a bechor (being the first opener of the womb); it is, therefore, written "bechor," (which connotes first in all respects; not only first opener of the womb, but also first in birth). This is an instance of "specific" ("opener of the womb") requiring "general" (bechor).

(Bamidbar 5:18) "And the Cohein shall stand the woman before the L-rd": Where he stood her before (viz. Ibid. 16), he stands her afterwards, (after she had been moved away from her original position [They would walk her from place to place to "weary" her into confession]). "And he shall uncover the head of the woman": The Cohein moves behind her and uncovers her hair to fulfill the mitzvah to do so. R. Yishmael said: From here (i.e., from the fact that he is to uncover her hair) we derive an exhortation for the daughters of Israel to cover their hair. And though there is no proof for this, there is an intimation of it in (II Samuel 13:19) "And Tamar put earth upon her head … and she put her hand on her head." R. Yehudah says: If her top-knot were beautiful, he did not expose it, and if her hair were beautiful, he did not dishevel it. If she were dressed in white, she is dressed in black. If black were becoming to her, she is divested of it and clothed in ungainly garments. If there were golden ornaments upon her — necklaces, nose-rings, and rings — they are taken from her to render her unattractive. R. Yochanan b. Beroka says: The daughters of Israel are not made more unattractive than the Torah prescribes, viz. — "… before the L-rd and he shall uncover the head of the woman." They would spread a sheet of linen between him and the people. The Cohein would walk around her in order to fulfill the mitzvah of disheveling her hair. They say to him: Just as she was not solicitous of the honor of the L-rd, so, we are not solicitous of her honor — wherefore she is demeaned in this manner. And all who wish to look at her may do so except her man-servants and her maid-servants, for she is callous in their presence. Both men and women, kin and non-kin, may look at her, as it is written (Ezekiel 23:48) "and all the women will be chastised and not act according to your lewdness." (Devarim, Ibid.) "and he shall place into her hands the offering of memorial" Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: So that she is "wearied" into confession. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is so solicitous of the transgressors of His will, how much more so, of the doers of His will! "and in the hand of the Cohein will be the bitter waters": Scripture herby apprises us that the waters turn bitter only in the hand of the Cohein. Variantly: They are called "bitter" because of their effect — they impart bitterness to the body and convulse the eye.

(Numb. 5:13, cont.:) AND IT IS HIDDEN FROM HER HUSBAND's EYES, except for one who is blind.⁴⁶Tanh., Numb. 2:7; Sifre, Numb. 5:13 (7); Sot. 27a. Cf. Numb. R. 9:10, which explains the exception as referring to a husband just pretending to be blind to his wife’s adultery, so that he can use the rite of the bitter water for killing his wife. Another interpretation (of Numb. 5:13, cont.:) AND IT IS HIDDEN FROM HER HUSBAND'S EYES. These words mean that> her husband would not have viewed <her transgression> and overlooked <it>. (Ibid., cont.:) SO THAT SHE IS UNDETECTED. We have not yet heard of a specific length of time for her to be in seclusion (with her lover) <in order to cause defilement>. R. Eleazer says: <The time needed> for a palm tree to sway back.⁴⁷See TSot. 1:2; Sot. 4a; Sifre, Numb. 5:13 (7). R. Joshua says: For mixing the cup. Ben 'Azzay says: For drinking it. R. Aqiva says: For roasting an Egg. R. Judah says: For eating three eggs one after the other. R. Eleazar ben Pinhas says: For a weaver⁴⁸Gk.: gerdios. to knot the thread.⁴⁹Gk.: nema. Hanan says: For her to put her finger in her mouth. Pelimo says: For his (sic) hand⁵⁰Cf. the parallel in Numb. R. 9:10, which reads, “her hand.” to reach over the basket and take a loaf of bread. Even though there is no evidence for the affair, there is a hint of the affair where it is stated (in Prov. 6:26): FOR ON BEHALF OF A WOMAN PLAYING THE HARLOT <ONE WILL BE REDUCED> TO A LOAF OF BREAD.

(Bamidbar 5:19) "And the Cohein shall beswear her": The Cohein administers the oath and she does not swear of herself. For it would follow (that she does), viz.: It is written here "swear," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 5:4) "swear." Just as there, he swears of himself, so, here, she should swear of herself. It is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall beswear her." "and he shall say to the woman": in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of yevamah, (the instance) of lesser stringency, the other languages are not equated with the holy tongue (Hebrew) (viz. Devarim 25:9), then, (in the instance of) sotah, the graver instance, how much more so should the other languages not be equated with the holy tongue! It is, therefore, written "and he shall say to the woman" — in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This (derivation of R. Yoshiyah) is not necessary; for it is written (Bamidbar 5:22) "and the woman shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'" If she does not understand, how can she say this! — But perhaps she says "Amen" only on the curse (i.e., "to swell the belly, etc." [and not on the oath])! — (This cannot be,) for she says Amen twice — both on the curse and on the oath. What, then, is the intent of "and he shall say to the women" (according to R. Yonathan)? That the Cohein teaches her (the import of) the order of the oath. (5:19) "If no man has lain with you": We are hereby taught that he opens for merit. He says to her: Much wine causes this. Much frivolity causes this. Much childishness causes this. Many have preceded you and been swept away (by lust). Do not allow His great name written in holiness to be erased by the (bitter) waters. He recounts before her things from the tradition, things mentioned in the early writings (Iyyov 15:18) "which wise men relate and which they did not withhold from their fathers." And he says before her things which are not fit to be heard, by her and by all the families of her father's house. R. Yishmael says: In the beginning he apprises her of the strength of the bitter waters. He says to her: My daughter, what are these bitter waters like? Like a dry powder placed on raw flesh, which causes no harm, but which, when it finds a sore spot, penetrates and descends. You, too, if you are clean, drink and do not refrain, and, if you are unclean, in the end you will be swollen by these bitter, blighting waters.

(Bamidbar 5:19) "And the Cohein shall beswear her": The Cohein administers the oath and she does not swear of herself. For it would follow (that she does), viz.: It is written here "swear," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 5:4) "swear." Just as there, he swears of himself, so, here, she should swear of herself. It is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall beswear her." "and he shall say to the woman": in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of yevamah, (the instance) of lesser stringency, the other languages are not equated with the holy tongue (Hebrew) (viz. Devarim 25:9), then, (in the instance of) sotah, the graver instance, how much more so should the other languages not be equated with the holy tongue! It is, therefore, written "and he shall say to the woman" — in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This (derivation of R. Yoshiyah) is not necessary; for it is written (Bamidbar 5:22) "and the woman shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'" If she does not understand, how can she say this! — But perhaps she says "Amen" only on the curse (i.e., "to swell the belly, etc." [and not on the oath])! — (This cannot be,) for she says Amen twice — both on the curse and on the oath. What, then, is the intent of "and he shall say to the women" (according to R. Yonathan)? That the Cohein teaches her (the import of) the order of the oath. (5:19) "If no man has lain with you": We are hereby taught that he opens for merit. He says to her: Much wine causes this. Much frivolity causes this. Much childishness causes this. Many have preceded you and been swept away (by lust). Do not allow His great name written in holiness to be erased by the (bitter) waters. He recounts before her things from the tradition, things mentioned in the early writings (Iyyov 15:18) "which wise men relate and which they did not withhold from their fathers." And he says before her things which are not fit to be heard, by her and by all the families of her father's house. R. Yishmael says: In the beginning he apprises her of the strength of the bitter waters. He says to her: My daughter, what are these bitter waters like? Like a dry powder placed on raw flesh, which causes no harm, but which, when it finds a sore spot, penetrates and descends. You, too, if you are clean, drink and do not refrain, and, if you are unclean, in the end you will be swollen by these bitter, blighting waters.

(Numb. 5:13, cont.:) AND THERE IS NO WITNESS AGAINST HER. Although she has no <witness against her> now, she will have one at another time.⁵¹In addition to Tanh., Numb. 2:7, and Numb. R. 9:10, see Gen. R. 38:14; PRK 18:3; PR 32:2. In a similar usage⁵²Kayyotse badavar. This repetitive use of kayyotse b… indicates that the sixth of the seven exegetical rules (middot) attributed to Hillel is being used here. you say (in Gen. 11:30): NOW SARAI WAS BARREN; SHE HAD NO CHILD. Although <Sarai> had no <child> then, she would have one at another time, as stated (in Gen. 21:1): THEN THE LORD VISITED SARAH…. In a similar usage you say (in Esth. 2:10): ESTHER HAD NOT DISCLOSED <HER PEOPLE AND HER NATIVE LAND>. Although she had not disclosed them to him then, she did disclose them to him at another time, as stated (in Esth. 8:1): THEN MORDECAI CAME BEFORE THE KING, FOR ESTHER HAD DISCLOSED WHAT RELATIONSHIP HE HAD TO HER. And here also (in Numb. 5:13): AND THERE IS NO WITNESS AGAINST HER. Although she has no <witness against her> now, she will have one at anther time, as stated (in Mal. 3:5): AND I WILL BE A SWIFT WITNESS [AGAINST SORCERERS, AGAINST ADULTERERS] <….>

(Numb. 23:4:) “Then God encountered Balaam.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You evil man! What are you doing?” (Ibid., cont.:) “And [Balaam] said unto him, ‘I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].’” [The matter] is comparable to a money-changer who lies about the weights. When the head of the marketplace came, he noticed him. He said to him, “What are you doing inflating and lying about the weights?” [The money changer then] said to him, “I have already sent a gift⁴⁶Gk.: doron. to your house.” So also it was in the case of Balaam. The holy spirit cried out to him. It said to him, “You evil man! What are you doing.” He said to it (in Numb. 23:4), “I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].” It said to him (in Prov. 15:17), “’Better a meal of vegetable greens [where there is love than a fattened ox with hatred in it].’ Better the dinner of unleavened bread and bitter herbs which Israel ate in Egypt, than bulls which you offer with hands of [hatred].” (Numb. 23:5:) “So the Lord put a word (davar) in Balaam's mouth,” which twisted his mouth and pierced it,⁴⁷Both “twisted” and “pierced” connote the use of a bit on a horse. as one would drive a nail into a board. R. Eliezer (understanding davar as word) says, “An angel was speaking.” But R. Joshua says, “[It was] the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated, (in Numb. 23:5), “Return unto Balak and speak thus.” (Numb. 23:6:) “So he returned unto him, and there he was standing beside his burnt offerings with all the ministers of Moab,” who stood anxiously awaiting [the time] when he would come and speak. (Numb. 23:7:) “So he took up his theme and said, ‘From Aram, Balak the king of Moab has brought me, from the hills of the east.’” I was one of the exalted ones,⁴⁸Ramim. The midrash links this word with ARAM in Numb. 23:7. but Balak has brought me down to the pit of corruption.⁴⁹Numb. R. 20:19; also above, Lev. 5:1 and the notes there. (Ibid.:) “Brought me (yanheni, rt.: nhh),” [is to be understood] just as you say (in Ezek. 32:18), “bring (rt.: nhh) the masses of Egypt [and cast them down… unto the lowest part of the netherworld along with those who go down to the pit].”⁵⁰Thus Numb. 23:7 comes to mean that Balak BROUGHT (rt.: NHH) Balaam down to the grave. The unusual Biblical translation is necessary to fit the sense of the midrash. Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram.” I was with the highest (ram) of the high, and Balak has brought me down from my glory. [The matter] is comparable to one who was walking with the king. When he saw [some] robbers,⁵¹Gk.: lestai. he left the king and toured along with the robbers. When he returned to be with the king, the king said to him, “Go with whomever you have toured with, because it not possible for you to walk with me again.” Similarly Balaam had been bound to the holy spirit. When he paired himself with Balak, the holy spirit departed from him. So he returned to being a diviner as in the beginning. Thus it is stated (at his execution in Josh. 13:22), “Balaam ben Beor the diviner….” Therefore did he say, “I was high up (ram), and Balak brought me down.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram, Balak the king of Moab has brought me, from the hills of the east.” [Balaam] said to [Balak], “We are alike, even both of us, for being ungrateful, because were it not for our father Abraham, there would have been no Balak. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 19:29), ‘And it came to pass that when God destroyed the cities of the plain, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot away.’ Except for Abraham, he would not have delivered Lot from Sodom; and you are one of the children of the children of Lot.⁵²As a Moabite, Balak was descended from Moab, the son of Lot. See Gen. 19:37. Moreover, if it were not for their father Jacob, I should not have been present in the world, because Laban had sons only through the merit of Jacob, since it is written at the beginning (in Gen. 29:9), ‘Rachel came with the sheep.’ Now if he had sons, how was his daughter a shepherdess? As soon as Jacob came there, sons were given to him, as stated (in Gen. 31:1), ‘Now he heard the things that Laban's sons [were saying].’⁵³Jewish tradition gives three views on Balaam’s relation to Laban: That he was Laban himself, that he was Laban’s nephew, and that he was Laban’s grandson. See Ginzberg, vol. III, p. 354; vol.. V, p. 303, n. 229; vol. VI, pp. 123f., nn. 722f.; p. 130, n. 764. And it also says [that Laban said] (in Gen. 30:27), ‘I have learned by divination that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.’ So if it were not for their ancestors, you and I would not have been present in the world”. (Numb. 23:7, cont.:) “Come, curse Jacob for me.” Whoever curses the Children of Jacob is cursing himself, since it is stated (in Gen. 12:3), “and the one who curses you, I will curse.” It also says (in Gen. 27:29), “cursed be those who curse you,⁵⁴See above, Gen. 6:16. and blessed be those who bless you.” (Numb. 23:7:) “Come, curse [Jacob] for me.” If you had told me to curse another people, for example, the Children of Abraham from the concubines, I would have been able [to do so]. But Jacob? When a king selects a portion for himself, and someone else gets up and speaks disparagingly about it, will he keep his life? Now these people are the Holy One, blessed be He’s, heritage, His portion, and His treasure. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 32:9), “For the Lord's share is His people; Jacob the portion of His heritage.” And it is written (in Exod. 19:5), “and you shall be My treasure.” (Numb. 23:7, cont.:) “And come, denounce Israel.” When a king takes a crown and puts it on his head, and someone says of it that it is nothing, will he keep his life? Now in regard to these people it is written about them (in Is. 49:3), “Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Numb. 23:8:) “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” When they deserved to be cursed, they were not cursed, when Jacob went in to receive the blessings. It is written (in Gen. 27:16), “Then [she clothed his arms and the hairless part of his neck] with the skins of goat kids.” His father said to him (in Gen. 27:18), “Who are you?” He said to him (in vs. 19), “I am Esau, your first-born.” Does not the one who puts forth a lie with his mouth deserve to be cursed? Yet not only [was he not cursed], but he was blessed; as stated (in Gen. 27:33), “he shall also be blessed.” So how do I curse them? (In the words of Numb. 23:8) “God has not cursed.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” According to universal custom, when a legion⁵⁵Lat.: legio. rebels against the king, it incurs the penalty of death. Now since these denied and revolted against Him, when they said to the calf (in Exod. 32:4), “This is your God, O Israel,” did they not, therefore, deserve to have Him destroy them at that time? [Still] He did not cease to cherish them. Instead He had clouds of glory accompany them. Nor did He withhold the manna and the well from them. And so it says (in Neh. 9:18-20), “Even though they had made themselves a molten calf […], You in Your great mercies did not abandon them in the desert […]; and You did not withhold Your manna from their mouth […].” How can I curse them? This [question] is related (to Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” When He commanded them concerning the blessings and the curses, He mentioned them (as the people) in connection with the blessings where it is stated (in Deut. 27:12), “These shall stand [on Mount Gerizim] for blessing the people;” but He did not mention them in connection with the curses. Thus it is stated (in vs. 13), “And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse.” Moreover, when they sin and He plans to bring a curse upon them, it is not written that He Himself is bringing them (i.e., the curses); but with respect to the blessings, He Himself is blessing them; for so it says (in Deut. 28:1, 8), “And it shall come to pass that, if you diligently obey […], the Lord your God will set you high [over all the nations of the earth]. The Lord will command the blessing to be with you.” But with respect to the curses, it is written (according to Deut. 28:15), “And it shall come to pass that, if you do not obey […], then [all these curses] shall come upon you,” [i.e.,] of their own accord. Ergo (in Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” (Numb. 23:9:) “For from the top of the rocks I see him,” in order to make the hatred of that evil man (i.e., Balaam) known to you. As from his blessing you may know his thoughts. To what is he comparable? To someone who came to chop down a tree. One who is not an expert chops off the branches one at a time and becomes tired, but the clever one exposes the roots and [then] chops it down. Similarly that wicked man said, “How shall I curse each and every tribe? Rather I will go to their roots.” When he came to touch them, he found them hard [to cut]. It is therefore stated (in Numb. 23:9), “For from the top of the rocks I see him.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:9), “For from the top of the rocks,” these are the patriarchs; (ibid., cont.) “and from the hills I behold him,” these are the matriarchs. (Numb. 23:9, cont.:) “Here is a people dwelling alone.” When He makes them rejoice, no nation rejoices along with them. Rather they are all afflicted, [as stated (in Deut. 32:12),] “The Lord alone did lead him, and there was no foreign god with him.” (Numb. 23:9, cont.:), “And they shall not be reckoned (rt.: hshb) among the nations.” But when the nations are rejoicing in this world, they (i.e., the Children of Israel) eat with each and every kingdom, and no one is charging [such pleasures] against their account (rt: hshb).⁵⁶In other words the pleasures that Israel enjoys in this world are not to be deducted from their pleasures in the world to come. It is so stated (in Numb. 23:9, cont.), “and they shall not be reckoned (rt.: hshb) among the nations.” (Numb. 23:10:) “Who has counted the dust of Jacob?” Who is able to count the commandments which they carry out upon the dust: (In Deut. 22:10,) “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together”; (in Deut. 22:9,) “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed”; (in Numb. 19:9,) “Then someone clean shall gather the ashes of the heifer”; (in Numb. 5:17,) “[Then the high priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel] and some of the dust which is on the floor of the tabernacle”; (in Lev. 19:23,) “[Moreover, when you come into the land and plant any tree for food, you shall count its fruit as forbidden,] three years it shall be forbidden to you, [it shall not be eaten]”; and so on with all of them. (Numb. 23:10, cont.:) “Or numbered the sand (rb') of Israel,” [i.e.,] their copulations (rt.: rb').⁵⁷For this interpretation, cf. Nid. 31a. Who can number the masses⁵⁸Gk.: ochloi. that have emerged from them, from those women who seize on and cherish the commandments (of procreation), as stated (in Gen. 30:15), “But she said to her, ‘Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband?’” [And so too (in Gen. 30:3, 9),] “Here is my maid Bilhah; go into her.” “When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, [she took her maidservant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife].” [And so too (in Gen. 16:3),] “So Abraham's wife Sarai took her maidservant Hagar the Egyptian… [and gave her to her husband Abraham as a wife].” (Numb. 23:10, cont.:) “Let me die the death of the upright.” The matter is comparable to a butcher who came to slaughter a cow that belonged to a king. The king began to take notice. When [the butcher] realized [what was happening], he began by discarding the knife, then giving [the cow] a rubdown [and] filling the feeding trough for it. He began to say, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to slaughter it; but observe that I have [now given it sustenance].” Similarly Balaam said, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to curse, but I will bless [them].” Ergo (in Numb. 23:10), “let me die the death of the upright!”

"and I shall smite": I might think, through an angel or through a messenger; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 29) "and the L rd (Himself) smote every first-born" — not through an angel or a messenger. "and I smote every first born": even from different places. Whence do I derive (the same) even for the first-born of Egypt who were in other places? (From Psalms 136:10) "He smote Egypt through their first-born" (connoting, even if they were not in Egypt). Whence do I derive (the same for) the first-born of Cham and Cush? (viz. Genesis 10:6) From (Psalms 78:51) "And He struck every first-born in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Cham." "from man until beast": The initiator of the transgression was struck first. Similarly, (Genesis 7:23) "And all that existed on the face of the earth was blotted out — from man to beast, etc." Similarly, (Exodus 14:4) "And I will be honored through (the downfall of) Pharaoh and his entire host." Similarly, (Devarim 13:16) "Smite the inhabitants of that city … and its cattle." Similarly, (Numbers 5:27) "and her belly ('first in the transgression') will swell, and her thigh will fall." Here, too, "And I shall smite every first-born in the land of Egypt from man until beast." The initiator of the transgression was struck first. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in His measure of punishment — the lesser (measure) — the initiator of the transgression is smitten first, how much more so in His measure of beneficence — the greater (measure) — (is the initiator of the mitzvah rewarded first)!

(Bamidbar 5:20) "And you, if you have gone astray": This tells me only of the regular mode. Whence do I derive (that the same applies for) the irregular mode (i.e., anal intercourse)? From "and if you have become unclean." "and a man has put his lying in you": to include (in these strictures) one who is impotent, (where there is only "lying," but no seed.) "aside from your husband": to include the wife of one who is impotent. He stipulates all (contingencies) with her.

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".

13) But perhaps (I should say:) Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (in sitting solitary) nethakim, where the plague-spot is in his head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other afflicted ones? From "he shall be unclean. He is unclean; solitary shall he sit." I might think that two temai'im [zav and one who is tamei by a dead body] (who are classed with him [viz. Bamidbar 5:2]) may sit with him. It is, therefore, written "solitary shall he sit" — the two (other) temai'im may not sit with him.

(Bamidbar 5:21) "Then the Cohein shall beswear the woman with the oath of the curse." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 5:1) "and he hear the voice of a curse," this tells me only of a curse. Whence do I derive that an oath is like a curse? It is derived inductively, viz.: It is written here (Bamidbar) "curse," and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra) "curse." Just as here "oath" is equated with "curse," (viz. "the oath of the curse"), so, there, "oath" is equated with "curse." And just as here, (the oath is administered) with "yod-keh" (viz. Ibid. "May the L-rd [yod-keh-vav-keh] render you, etc."), so, all the oaths in the Torah (are administered with) "yod-keh." "in the midst of your people": and your people (will remain at) peace. "in the midst of your people": and not at this time (when you are in the midst of gentiles.) There is a (crucial) difference between one being degraded in a place where he is known, and one being degraded in a place where he is not known, (the former degradation being more severe).

(Bamidbar 5:22) "to swell the belly and to make fall the thigh": R. Yossi Haglili says: This refers to the belly and the thigh of the adulterer. You say the belly and the thigh of the adulterer; but (perhaps it refers to) the belly and the thigh of the adulteress! — (This cannot be, for) [5:21] "… causing your thigh to fall and your belly to swell" already refers to the adulteress. How, then, am I to understand "to swell the belly and to make fall the thigh"? As referring to the adulterer, Scripture apprising us that just as punishment overtakes her, so, it overtakes him. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If re the attribute of punishment, the "weaker" attribute (of the Holy One Blessed be He), if one brings misfortune to his neighbor, he suffers likewise, then re the attribute of benefaction, (the stronger attribute, if one bring benefit to his neighbor,) how much more so (is he benefitted himself!) (Ibid. 22) "and the woman shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'": "Amen" that I have not become unclean; "Amen" that I will not become unclean, (in which instance the bitter waters operate retroactively). These are the words of R. Meir. And the sags do not agree, (but they say) "Amen" that I have not become unclean (i.e., acceptance of the oath) and ("Amen" that) if I have become unclean, they (the waters) should enter her (i.e., acceptance of the curse). "Amen" in respect to this man (the suspected adulterer); "Amen" in respect to any other man; "Amen" when betrothed — "Amen" when married; "Amen" when awaiting levirate marriage — "Amen" after levirate marriage. This is the rule: For a woman to be lived with and (thereby) to be forbidden (to her husband), the stipulated conditions must be those of that time (i.e., while she is still married to him [and not, e.g., before betrothal or after divorce]).

(Bamidbar 5:23) "Then the Cohein shall write the curses (these"): I might think, all the curses in the Torah (written in the curses of the covenant); it is, therefore, written "these." "the Cohein": What is the intent of this (i.e., is it not understood from the context?) For it would follow: It is written here "and he shall write," and it is written elsewhere (Devarim 24:1) "and he shall write" (a scroll of divorce). Just as there, any man may write it, so, here, (I would say that) any man may write it. It is, therefore, written "the Cohein." "and erase it": (He must write it) on something that can be erased. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the L-rd said: A scroll written in holiness — let it be erased by the waters, then the scrolls of heretics, which inject (into the world) contempt and hatred and envy and contention — how much more so should they be erased from the world! R. Yishmael says: How does one deal with the scrolls of the heretics? He cuts out the "mentionings" (of G-d's name) and burns the rest. R. Akiva says: He burns them entire, for they were not written in holiness. "into a scroll": From here they ruled: It is not to be written on a tablet, or on paper, nor on hide, but on a scroll (of finished parchment). And he is not to write it with gummed ink or with vitriol, but with ink, it being written "and erase it into the bitter waters" — writing that can be erased. "and erase it into the bitter waters": the connotation is that the writing makes the waters bitter.

(Bamidbar 5:25) "And the Cohein shall take from the hand of the woman": and not from the hand of her representative — If she were in her menstrual period, she did not drink, (being forbidden to enter the azarah at that time). (5:24) "And he shall make the woman drink": Why is it written again (Ibid. 27) "and he shall make her drink the water"? For if the scroll were erased and she said "I will not drink," they shake her and make her drink perforce. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon says: (Ibid. 26) "and then he shall make the woman drink": What is the intent of this? It is written afterwards "and he shall make her drink the water"! (To indicate that) three things are categorically required for (the validity of) the sotah (procedure): the erasure of the scroll, the offering of the fistful, and her acceptance of the oath. If the scroll were erased and she said; I am tamei, the waters are spilled out, the offering is scattered in the beth hadeshen, and the scroll is not valid for the drinking of a different sotah. R. Achi b. R. Yoshiyah says: It is valid. "and he shall wave the offering": back and forth and up and down. Whence is this derived? From (Shemot 29:23) "which was waved and which was lifted": Lifting is hereby likened to waving. Just as waving is back and forth, so, lifting. And just as lifting is up and down, so, waving — whence they ruled: The mitzvah of waving — back and forth, up and down. "before the L-rd": in the east (i.e., at the eastern side of the altar [opposite the sanctuary]). Wherever "before the L-rd" is written, the east is intended unless specified otherwise. "and he shall wave the offering before the L-rd, and he shall present it at the (south-west corner of the) altar" — whereby we are taught that the offering of the sotah requires waving and presentation. (Ibid. 26) "And the Cohein shall take a fistful from the offering as its 'remembrance,' and he shall smoke it on the altar.": This refers to the smoking of the fistful, which is called "remembrance" (viz. Vayikra 2:2) "and then he shall make the woman drink the water": as mentioned above.

(Bamidbar 5:27) "and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall": This tells me only of her belly and her thigh. Whence do I derive (the same for) the rest of her limbs? From "then the blighting waters will enter into her." — Let only this be stated, then. Why need it be added "and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall"? From that limb whence the sin began, from that limb will the punishment begin! Similarly, (Bereshit 7:23) "And He blotted out every being upon the face of the ground — from man until beast." He who began the sin, from him will the punishment begin! Similarly, (Ibid. 19:11) "And the men at the entrance of the house they smote with blindness, from small to great." They who began the sin, from them the punishment began. Similarly, (Shemot 14:4) "and I will be honored through (the downfall of) Pharaoh and all of his host." Pharaoh began the sin — from him the punishment began. Similarly, (Devarim 15:16) "Smite shall you smite the inhabitants of that city by the sword. Lay it waste and all that is in it, etc." Whence the sin began, the punishment began. Here, too, "and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall." From that limb whence the sin began, from it the punishment began. Now does this not follow a fortiori. If re the attribute of punishment, the weaker attribute — the limb whence the sin began, from it the punishment begins, how much more so re the attribute of benefaction, the stronger attribute, (the limb whence the good began, from it the reward begins!) "and the woman will be a curse in the midst of her people": They will curse through her — "May it happen to you as it happened to her!" "for an oath" (see verse 21): They will swear by her — ("I swear that if, etc.,) may it happen to me as it happen to her!" And thus is it written (Isaiah 65:15): "And you (the wicked) will leave your name as an oath for My chosen ones" — whence we learn that the wicked are an oath for the righteous. And whence do we derive that the righteous are a blessing for the wicked? (Jeremiah 4:2) "And in it (Israel) will nations bless themselves, and in it will they be praised," and (Bereshit 12:3) "And there will bless themselves in you (Avram) all the families of the earth." And it is written (Ibid. 48:20) "And he blessed them on that day, saying: In you (Ephraim and Menasheh) will Israel bless, etc."

(Bamidbar 5:29) "This is the law of the rancors": This tells me (that this is the law) only for that time. Whence do I derive (that it is also the law for succeeding generations? From (the construction) "zoth torath," (connoting one law for all generations). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("zoth torath" is) conventional terminology (for conclusion of a subject, and not indicative of a new learning.) "for a woman who goes astray under her husband": to liken the woman to the man and the man to the woman (e.g., if either the man or the woman were blind, she does not drink). — But perhaps (the thrust of "under her husband" is) to exclude (from drinking,) a woman awaiting levirate marriage (shomereth yavam). It is, therefore, written (5:12) "a man, a man" (twice) to include (in drinking,) a shomereth yavam. — But perhaps I should also include a betrothed woman. It is, therefore, written "under her husband" — to exclude a betrothed woman. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says (Ibid. 19) "under your husband" — to exclude a shomereth yavam. I would then exclude a shomereth yavam, but I would not exclude a betrothed woman. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "for a woman (connoting a married woman) who goes astray under her husband" — to exclude one who was (only) betrothed. If so, why is it written "a man, a man" — to include the wife of an imbecile, a deaf-mute, a dullard, one who had gone abroad, and one who had been incarcerated, in which instance beth-din forewarn her to the end of disqualifying her from (receiving) her kethubah. I might think, even to the end of making her drink. It is, therefore, written (in that regard) (Ibid. 15) "Then the man shall bring his wife to the Cohein." R. Yossi says also to the end of making her drink when her husband is released from prison.

(Numb. 23:10:) WHO HAS COUNTED THE DUST OF JACOB? Who is able to count the commandments which they carry out, <the ones> that concern the dust.⁶⁹K‘PR. It is also possible to translate: “Who is able to count the commands which they carry out. <They are> like the dust (K‘PR) <in number>.” The examples that follow, however, suggest the translation adopted in the text, if “dust” is understood to include earth and ashes. This interpretation certainly is that found in the parallels (Tanh., Numb. 7:12, and Numb. R. 20:20), both of which read B‘PR for K‘PR. (Deut. 22:10:) YOU SHALL NOT PLOW WITH AN OX AND AN ASS TOGETHER. (Deut. 22:9:) YOU SHALL NOT SOW YOUR VINEYARD <WITH TWO KINDS OF SEED>. (Numb. 19:9:) THEN SOMEONE CLEAN SHALL GATHER THE ASHES OF THE HEIFER. (Lev. 19:23:) <MOREOVER, WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND AND PLANT ANY TREE FOR FOOD, YOU SHALL COUNT ITS FRUIT AS FORBIDDEN.> THREE YEARS IT SHALL BE FORBIDDEN TO YOU. <IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN.> (Numb. 5:17:) <THEN THE HIGH PRIEST SHALL TAKE HOLY WATER IN AN EARTHEN VESSEL> AND SOME OF THE DUST WHICH IS ON THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE.

19 (Numb. 23:7) “So he took up his theme and said, ‘From Aram, Balak the king of Moab has brought me, from the hills of the east.’” I was one of the exalted ones,³¹Ramim. The midrash links this word with ARAM in Numb. 23:7. but Balak has brought me down to the pit of corruption. (Ibid.) “Brought me (yanheni, rt.: nhh),” [is to be understood] just as you say (in Ezek. 32:18), “bring (rt.: nhh) the masses of Egypt [and cast them down [… unto the lowest part of the netherworld along with those who go down to the pit].”³²Thus Numb. 23:7 comes to mean that Balak BROUGHT (rt.: NHH) Balaam down to the grave. The unusual Biblical translation is necessary to fit the sense of the midrash. Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram”: I was with the highest (ram) of the high, and Balak has brought me down from my glory. [The matter] is comparable to one who was walking with the king. When he saw [some] robbers,³³Gk.: lestai. he left the king and toured along with the robbers. When he returned to be with the king, the king said to him, “Go with whomever you have toured with, because it not possible for you to walk with me again.” Similarly Balaam had been bound to the holy spirit. When he paired himself with Balak, the holy spirit departed from him. So he returned to being a diviner as in the beginning. Thus it is stated (at his execution in Josh. 13:22), “Balaam ben Beor the diviner….” Therefore did he yell out, “I was high up (ram), and Balak brought me down.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram, he has brought me”: [Balaam] said to [Balak], “We are alike, even both of us, for being ungrateful, because were it not for their father Abraham, there would have been no Balak. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 19:29), ‘And it came to pass that when God destroyed the cities of the plain, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot away.’ Except for Abraham, he would not have delivered Lot from Sodom; and you are one of the children of the children of Lot.³⁴As a Moabite, Balak was descended from Moab, the son of Lot. See Gen. 19:37. Moreover, if it were not for their father Jacob, I should not have been present in the world, because Laban had sons only through the merit of Jacob, since it is written at the beginning (in Gen. 29:9), ‘Rachel came with the sheep.’ Now if he had sons, how was his daughter a shepherdess? As soon as Jacob came there, sons were given to him, as stated (in Gen. 31:1), ‘Now he heard the things that Laban's sons [were saying].’³⁵Jewish tradition gives three views on Balaam’s relation to Laban: That he was Laban himself, that he was Laban’s nephew, and that he was Laban’s grandson. See Ginzberg, vol. III, p. 354; vol.. V, p. 303, n. 229; vol. VI, pp. 123f., nn. 722f.; p. 130, n. 764. And it also says [that Laban said] (in Gen. 30:27), ‘I have learned by divination that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.’” (Numb. 23:7, cont.) “Come, curse Jacob for me”: Whoever curses [the Children of Jacob] is cursing himself, since it is stated (in Gen. 12:3), “and the one who curses you, I will curse.” It also says (in Gen. 27:29), “cursed be those who curse you.” (Numb. 23:7) “Come, curse [Jacob] for me […].” If you had told me to curse another people, for example, the Children of Abraham and Isaac, I would have been able [to do so]. But Jacob? When a king selects a portion for himself, and someone else gets up and speaks disparagingly about it, will he keep his life? Now these people are the Holy One, blessed be He’s, heritage, His portion, and His treasure. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 32:9), “For the Lord's share is His people; Jacob the portion of His heritage.” And it is written (in Exod. 19:5), “and you shall be My treasure.” (Numb. 23:7, cont.) “And come, denounce Israel:” When a king takes a crown and puts it on his head, and someone says of it that it is nothing, will he keep his life? Now in regard to these people it is written about them (in Is. 49:3), “Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Numb. 23:8) “How shall I curse [the one] whom God has not cursed”: When they deserved to be cursed, they were not cursed: When Jacob went in to receive the blessings, he went it with deception. As it is written (in Gen. 27:16), “[Then she clothed his arms and the hairless part of his neck] with the skins of goat kids.” His father said to him (in Gen. 27:18), “Who are you?” He said to him (in vs. 19), “I am Esau, your first-born.” Does not the one who puts forth a lie with his mouth deserve to be cursed? Yet not only [was he not cursed], but he was blessed; as stated (in Gen. 27:33), “he shall also be blessed.” So how do I curse them? (In the words of Numb. 23:8) “God has not cursed.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” According to universal custom, when a legion³⁶Lat.: legio. rebels against the king, it incurs the penalty of death. Now since these denied and revolted against Him, when they said [about the calf] (in Exod. 32:4), “This is your god, O Israel,” was it not necessary to have Him destroy them at that time? [Still] He did not cease to cherish them. Instead He had clouds of glory accompany them. Nor did He withhold the manna and the well from them. And so it says (in Exod. 32:4), “When they made a molten calf,” (in Neh. 9:18-20), “You in Your great mercies did not abandon them in the desert […]; and You did not withhold Your manna from their mouth […].” How can I curse them? (Numb. 23:8) “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed” When He commanded them concerning the blessings and the curses, He mentioned them (as the people) in connection with the blessings where it is stated (in Deut. 27:12), “These shall stand [on Mount Gerizim] for blessing the people;” but He did not mention them in connection with the curses. Thus it is stated (in vs. 13), “And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse.” Moreover, when they sin and He plans to bring a curse upon them, it is not written that He Himself is bringing them (i.e., the curses); but with respect to the blessings, He Himself is blessing them; for so it says (in Deut. 28:1, 8), “And it shall come to pass that, if you diligently obey […], the Lord your God will set you high [over all the nations of the earth]. The Lord will command the blessing to be with you.” But with respect to the curses, it is written (according to Deut. 28:15), “And it shall come to pass that, if you do not obey […], then [all these curses] shall come upon you,” [i.e.,] of their own accord. Ergo (in Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” (Numb. 23:9) “For from the top of the rocks I see him,” in order to make the hatred of that evil man (i.e., Balaam) known to you. As from his blessing you may know his thoughts. To what is he comparable? To someone who came to chop down a tree. One who is not an expert chops off the branches one at a time and becomes tired, but the clever one exposes the roots and [then] chops it down. Similarly that wicked man said, “Why shall I curse each and every tribe? Rather I will go to their roots.” When he came to touch them, he found them hard [to cut]. It is therefore stated (in Numb. 23:9), “For from the top of the rocks I see him.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:9): “For from the top of the rocks,” these are the patriarchs; (ibid., cont.) “and from the hills I behold him,” these are the matriarchs. (Numb. 23:9, cont.) “Here is a people dwelling alone”: When He makes them rejoice, no nation rejoices along with them. But when the nations are rejoicing in this world, they (i.e., the Children of Israel) eat with each and every kingdom, and no one is charging [such pleasures] against their account (rt: hshb).³⁷In other words the pleasures that Israel enjoys in this world are not to be deducted from their pleasures in the world to come. It is so stated (in Numb. 23:9, cont.), “and they shall not be reckoned (rt.: hshb) among the nations.” (Numb. 23:10) “Who has counted the dust of Jacob”: Who is able to count the commandments which they carry out upon the dust: (In Deut. 22:10,) “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass”; (in Deut. 22:9,) “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed”; (in Numb. 19:9,) “Then someone clean shall gather the ashes of the heifer”; (in Numb. 5:17,) “[Then the high priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel] and some of the dust which is on the floor of the tabernacle”; (in Lev. 19:23,) “[Moreover, when you come into the land and plant any tree for food, you shall count its fruit as forbidden,] three years it shall be forbidden to you, [it shall not be eaten]”; and so on with all of them. (Numb. 23:10, cont.) “Or numbered the sand (rb') of Israel,” [i.e.,] their copulations (rt.: rb')³⁸For this interpretation, cf. Nid. 31a. Who can number the masses³⁹Gk.: ochloi. that have emerged from them, from those women who seize on and cherish the commandments (of procreation), as stated (in Gen. 30:15), “But she said to her, ‘Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband?’” [And so too (in Gen. 30:3, 9),] “Here is my maid Bilhah; go into her.” “When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, [she took her maidservant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife].” [And so too (in Gen. 16:3),] “So Abraham's wife Sarai took her maidservant Hagar the Egyptian… [and gave her to her husband Abraham as a wife].” (Numb. 23:10, cont.) “Let me die the death of the upright”: The matter is comparable to a butcher who came to slaughter a cow that belonged to a king. The king began to take notice. When [the butcher] realized [what was happening], he began by discarding the knife, then giving [the cow] a rubdown [and] filling the feeding trough for it. He began to say, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to slaughter it; but observe that I have [now given it sustenance].” Similarly Balaam said, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to curse, but I will bless [them].” Ergo (in Numb. 23:10), “let me die the death of the upright!” (Numb. 23:14) “So he took him to the Field of Zophim at the top of Pisgah”: He saw that [Israel would be] breached there, for it was there that Moses died, as stated (in Deut. 3:27), “Go up to the top of Pisgah …, [for you shall not cross over this Jordan].” Is there a breach greater than this? What he saw was through divinations, and he was of the opinion that because of him they would fall there.

(Bamidbar 5:30) "Or a man over whom there shall pass a spirit of rancor": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written, viz. 5:14). — From "and he shall have forewarned his wife," (I might think that) this (i.e., forewarning) is optional, or that just as so long as he had not forewarned her, this (making her drink) is optional, then here (5:30), too, making her drink is optional; it is, therefore, written "Or a man over whom there shall pass a spirit of rancor and he warn his wife, then he shall stand the woman before the L-rd, and the Cohein shall do to her all of this law" — It is obligatory, and not optional. "and the Cohein shall do to her all of this law (31) and the man will be clean of sin.": If he did so, he will be clean of sin; if not, he will not be clean of sin. "and the man will be clean of sin": He should not say (if she drinks and dies) "Woe unto me! I have killed a daughter of Israel, Woe unto me! I have desecrated a daughter of Israel, Woe unto me! I have cohabited with a defiled one." This is the intent of "and he will be clean." Shimon b. Azzai says: Scripture here speaks of a woman who is clean (i.e., who has not been defiled); but since she has brought herself to these things (by secreting herself), she, too, shall not escape (some form of) punishment. This is the intent of "and the man will be free of sin, and that woman will bear her sin." Rebbi says: Scripture comes to teach you that it is the end of this woman (one who was defiled, even if a certain merit may suspend her death) to die of that death — "her belly will swell and her thigh will fall, and the woman will be a curse in the midst of her people." Variantly: Why is it written "and the man will be clean of sin"? (To teach that) "when the man is clean of sin, that woman will bear her sin" — as opposed to (Hoshea 4:14) "I shall not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your brides, when they fornicate. For they (themselves) betake themselves with the whores and sacrifice with the harlots, and a people that does not understand will fall!" He said to them: If you yourselves pursue harlotry, the waters, too, will not prove your wives. This is the intent of "and the man will be clean of sin" — Of that sin itself!

(Bamidbar 6:9) "And if one die on him, etc.": to exclude a doubt (i.e., a possibility of one's having died on him.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah) where inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness (viz. (Bamidbar 5:13), doubt (i.e., the possibility of her having been adulterous while closeted) was equated with certainty, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where inadvertency was equated with wilfullness, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! It is, therefore, written "And if one died on him" (i.e., to his certain knowledge) — to exclude an instance of doubt. "of an instant": to include (his shaving and bringing an offering) (if he becomes tamei) inadvertently. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah), where doubt was equated with certainty, inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt was not equated with certainty, how much more so should inadvertency not be equated with wilfullness! It is, therefore, written "of an instant" (i.e., inadvertently). "suddenly": to include (an instance of his becoming tamei) unwittingly. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, (in the instance of sotah), where doubt is equated with certainty, unwittingness (of his being forbidden to her) is not equated with wittingness, here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt (of his having become tamei) is not equated with certainty, how much more so should unwittingness (of his having become tamei) not be equated with wittingness! And whence is it derived that he is liable (to shave and bring an offering) for wilfullness (i.e., for wilfully having become tamei)? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of swearing (falsely) in respect to (having received) a pledge (viz. Vayikra 5:22), where he is not liable (to bring an offering) for unwittingness, he is liable for wilfullness, then here (in the instance of the Nazirite), where he is liable for unwittingness, how much more so is he liable for wilfullness! — No, this may be true of swearing in respect to a pledge, where he does not receive stripes, as opposed to the instance of the Nazirite, where he does receive stripes. And since he receives stripes, he should not bring an offering. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:11) "and he (the Cohein) shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says "of an instant": This refers to unwittingness. "suddenly": This refers to inadvertency.

... “He does the will of those who fear Him…” (Tehillim 145:19) Meaning that Gd does not annul his prayers and gives him what he requests. This refers to David, of whom it is written “I am a companion to all who fear You…” (Tehillim 119:63) at the time when he was troubled over the Holy Temple, as it is written “Remember, O Lord, onto David all his affliction. That he swore to the Lord, he vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob; That I shall not come into the tent of my house, and I shall not go up on the bed that was spread for me. I shall not give sleep to my eyes nor slumber to my pupils, Until I find a place for the Lord, dwellings for the Mighty One of Jacob.” (Tehillim 132:1-5) Since the Holy One saw that he stood there, troubled over the Holy Temple, He immediately sent Gad the prophet to him and showed him the place of the Holy Temple, as it is written “And Gad came to David on that day, and said to him, ‘Go up to erect an altar to the Lord in the threshing-floor of Aravnah the Jebusite.’” (Shmuel II 24:18) David went there immediately, as it says “And David went up according to the word of Gad, as the Lord had commanded. (Shmuel II 24:19) He found there the altar where Adam, the first man, made offerings, where Noach made offerings, where Avraham made offerings. Once he found it he began to measure, saying ‘from here to here will be the Courtyard, from here to here will be the Holy of Holies’ as it says “And David said, ‘This is the House of the Lord God…” (Divre HaYamim I 22:1) And how could he declare “…and this is the altar for burnt offerings for Israel” (ibid.)? This is what is meant that the Holy One does not nullify the desire of the righteous, but rather gives them what they seek in order to fulfill “He does the will of those who fear Him…” (Tehillim 145:19)

43) "for the anointing oil of the L–rd is upon you": What is the intent of this? I might think that only Aaron and his sons who were exalted with the oil of anointment, if they went out while officiating, would be liable to death — it is, therefore, written "for the anointing oil of the L–rd is upon you" (upon all high-priests, even if not anointed). "and they did according to the word of Moses": They fulfilled in themselves the mitzvah of Moses their teacher. And thus does Scripture praise Israel in the section of the sending (out of the camp) those who had become tamei, viz. (Bamidbar 5:4): "And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp." And thus does Scripture praise Joshua, viz. (Joshua 11:15): "As the L–rd had commanded Moses, so had Moses commanded Joshua, and so did Joshua do."

Moses said to Aaron: What hast thou done to this people? Thou hast made them unruly, like a woman who is unchecked owing to immorality. He said to Moses: I saw what they did to Hur, and I feared very greatly.

Twelve in the borders: Terumah, terumath ma'aser, challah, bikkurim, the first of the shearing, the gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw), the first-born of man and the first-born of a clean beast, the firstling of an ass, charamim (renunciation of one's property), an (unredeemed) field of holding, and the theft of (i.e., what is stolen from) a proselyte (viz. Bamidbar 5:8). All these twenty-four gifts were given to the Cohanim, aside from terumah-related debts. The day when a covenant was forged with Aaron with the twenty-four gifts was a day of great joy to him. R. Yishmael says: As per the folk-proverb "My cow's leg was broken for my good." For Aaron's good did Korach come and contest the priesthood. An analogy: A king had a retainer to whom he gave a field as a gift, without recording, sealing and registering (the transaction [see above]) — wherefore, this section is juxtaposed with that of Korach. R. Elazar Hakappar says: Whence is it derived that the Holy One Blessed be He showed our father Yaakov the Temple built and sacrifices being offered, and Cohanim officiating, and the Shechinah reposing (there)? From (Bereshit 28:12) "And he (Yaakov) dreamed, and, behold, a ladder standing on the earth, and its top reaching to heaven, and, behold, angels of G-d ascending and descending upon it." There is no dream without a portent: "And he dreamed, and, behold, a ladder standing on the earth" — the Temple. "and its top reaching to heaven" — the offered sacrifices, their scent reaching to heaven. "and, behold, angels of G-d," — the Cohanim ministering, ascending and descending on the ramp. (13) "And, behold, the L-rd standing on it" — (Amos 9:1) "I (Amos) saw the L-rd standing on the altar." Beloved are Israel, who, when epitomized, are epitomized as "Cohanim," viz. (Isaiah 61:6) "And you, Cohanim of the L-rd shall be called; 'ministers of G-d' shall they say of you. The wealth of nations shall you eat, and in their glory shall you vaunt yourselves." Beloved are Cohanim, who are epitomized as ministering angels, viz. (Malachi 2:7) "For the lips of the Cohein shall guard knowledge, and Torah shall they seek from his mouth, for an angel of the L-rd of hosts is he." If Torah goes forth from his mouth, he is like the ministering angels. If not, he is like an animal or a beast, which does not recognize its Creator. Beloved is Torah. When David king of Israel asked (a boon of the L-rd), he asked only for Torah, viz. (Psalms 118:68) "You are good and do good — teach me Your statutes." Your goodness engulfs all who enter the world. Let Your goodness engulf me and teach me Your statutes. And it is written (Psalms, Ibid. 117) "Support me and I will be saved (and I will dwell in Your statutes always"): That I not learn Torah and forget it, that I not learn and the evil inclination not allow me to review it, that I not rule unclean what is clean or clean what is unclean and come to share in the world to come, that the nations of the land and the families of the earth ask me and I not know how to respond and be shamed before them. And thus is it written (Ibid. 46) "And I will speak of Your testimonies before kings and I will not be ashamed." And (Ibid. 54) "Songs have Your statutes been to me." I might think, in repose. It, therefore, follows "in the house of my fears, in caves and in entrapments, as in (Ibid. 56:1) "… when he fled from Saul in the cave." And (Ibid. 109:119) "My soul was always in my hand, and I did not forget Your Torah."

(Bamidbar 19:17) "And they shall take for the unclean one from the earth of the burning (of the heifer) for cleansing." R. Shimon said: Is it earth? Is it not ashes? Why does Scripture depart from its usual meaning? To formulate an identity (gezeirah shavah ). It is written here "earth," and, elsewhere, "earth," (Bamidbar 5:17). "Just as there, "earth" on the water, so, here, "earth" on the water. And just as there, if the (taking of the) earth preceded the (taking of the) water, it is valid, so, here. Variantly: If it (the ashes) changed its appearance (to that of earth) it is (still) valid.

(Bamidbar 35:34) "in whose midst I dwell": Beloved are Israel, for even when they are tamei the Shechinah reposes among them — (Vayikra 16:16) "who dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanliness," and (Ibid. 15:31) "… when they defile My sanctuary which is in their midst," and (Bamidbar 5:3) "and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell." (Ibid. 35:34) "for I the L-rd dwell in the midst of the children of Israel." R. Nathan says: Beloved are Israel, for wherever they are exiled the Shechinah is with them. They were exiled to Egypt — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (I Samuel 2:27) "Did I not reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt (enslaved to) the house of Pharaoh?" They were exiled to Bavel — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 43:14) "Because of you I was sent to Bavel." They were sent to Eilam — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Jeremiah 49:38) "I placed My throne in Eilam, and banished from there king and officers." They were exiled to Edom — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 63:1) "Who is This, who comes from Edom, with sullied vestments, from Batzrah?" And when they return, the Shechinah will be with them, viz. (Devarim 30:3) "Then the L-rd your G-d will return with your captivity and He will have mercy upon you." It is not written "and He will return to you," but "and He will return with you!" And it is written (Song of Songs 4:8) "With Me from the Levanon, My bride — with Me from the Levanon shall you come. You will look from the top of Amanah, from the top of Senir and Chermon, from the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards." Rebbi says: An analogy: A king says to his servant: Why do you search for me? I am with my son. Whenever you need me, I am with my son. "For I, the L-rd dwell in the midst of the children of Israel."

R. Yehoshua says: He forewarns her in the presence of two and causes her to drink by the word of two. For it would follow: If the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself), which forbids her universally (i.e., even to her husband), were by one witness, how much more so would the former testimony (to her forewarning), which does not forbid her universally (i.e., she is permitted to her husband) — how much more so should it be acceptable with one witness. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 24:1) "for he has found in her a thing of nakedness." And it is written here "By word of two witnesses … will a thing be established" — Just as here, two (are required), so, there, two. How much more so (are two required for) the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself.) For if the first testimony, which does not forbid her universally (i.e., to her husband) is not valid with fewer than two, then the latter testimony, which does forbid her to her husband, how much more so is it invalid with fewer than two. This is the intent of (Bamidbar 5:13) "and there be no witness in her" (see there).