Midrash su II Cronache 26:12

(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.

(Lev. 14:2:) “In the day of his cleansing.” [With what?]²⁰Lev. R. 16:7. With (according to vs. 4) “two live clean birds.” How is his offering different from all [other] offerings? It is simply that he has spoken slander. Therefore, the text says that his sacrifice is two birds, because they (like slanderers) carry their voices. (Lev. 14:4, cont.:) “And cedar wood.” In the case of the cedar, no tree is taller (gevoha) than that one; so because [the leper] has exalted (gevoha) himself like a cedar, [he has had] the leprosy come upon him.²¹PRK 4:3. Thus Simeon ben Eleazar has said, “Leprosy comes on account of haughtiness, for so you find in the case of Uzziah (in II Chron. 26:16), ‘But when he was strong, he grew so arrogant that he acted corruptly,’ and it is written (in II Chron. 26:19), ‘but during his anger with the priests, leprosy appeared on his forehead.’” (Lev. 14:4, cont.:) “And with hyssop.” Among the trees there is none [as short] as the hyssop. Because [the leper] has lowered himself, [leprosy] is therefore cured through the hyssop. (Lev. 14:5:) “[Then the priest shall give a command] to kill one bird.” Why kill one and release one? It is simply that, if he has repented, the leprosy shall not return upon him.²²Cf. Lev. 16:9. (Lev. 14:2:) “[This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing:] He shall be brought unto the priest.” What is the meaning of “He shall be brought (rt.: bw')?” He comes (rt.: bw'). Why? Because everything is far off and separated from him, for so David says (in Ps. 38:12), “My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction, and my kinfolk stand far off.” So also it says (in Lev. 13:46), “he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp,” outside the camp of Israel. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 14:2), “he shall be brought (rt.: bw'),” [meaning] he comes (rt.: bw').

(Lev. 14:2:) “In the day of his cleansing.” [With what?]²⁰Lev. R. 16:7. With (according to vs. 4) “two live clean birds.” How is his offering different from all [other] offerings? It is simply that he has spoken slander. Therefore, the text says that his sacrifice is two birds, because they (like slanderers) carry their voices. (Lev. 14:4, cont.:) “And cedar wood.” In the case of the cedar, no tree is taller (gevoha) than that one; so because [the leper] has exalted (gevoha) himself like a cedar, [he has had] the leprosy come upon him.²¹PRK 4:3. Thus Simeon ben Eleazar has said, “Leprosy comes on account of haughtiness, for so you find in the case of Uzziah (in II Chron. 26:16), ‘But when he was strong, he grew so arrogant that he acted corruptly,’ and it is written (in II Chron. 26:19), ‘but during his anger with the priests, leprosy appeared on his forehead.’” (Lev. 14:4, cont.:) “And with hyssop.” Among the trees there is none [as short] as the hyssop. Because [the leper] has lowered himself, [leprosy] is therefore cured through the hyssop. (Lev. 14:5:) “[Then the priest shall give a command] to kill one bird.” Why kill one and release one? It is simply that, if he has repented, the leprosy shall not return upon him.²²Cf. Lev. 16:9. (Lev. 14:2:) “[This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing:] He shall be brought unto the priest.” What is the meaning of “He shall be brought (rt.: bw')?” He comes (rt.: bw'). Why? Because everything is far off and separated from him, for so David says (in Ps. 38:12), “My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction, and my kinfolk stand far off.” So also it says (in Lev. 13:46), “he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp,” outside the camp of Israel. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 14:2), “he shall be brought (rt.: bw'),” [meaning] he comes (rt.: bw').