Midrash su Levitico 11:78

(Lev. 12:2:) “When a woman emits her seed and bears a male.” This text is related (to Job 29:2), “O that I were as in the months of old, [as in the days when God watched over me]!” In regard to this verse, Job spoke it when the afflictions had come upon him. He said, “’O that I were as in the months of old,’ and would that I had the days which I had when I was in my mother's belly!” “As in the days when God watched over me!” [These words] teach that the infant is watched over while it is in its mother's belly. (Job 29:3:) “When His light shone over my head […].” From here you learn that the infant has light in its mother's belly. (Job 29:4:) “When I was in the days of my youth (horef),¹Horef also means “winter.” Buber notes here that in the following simile, the infant in the womb is being protected in the womb as the winter rain protects the soil. when God's company was over my tent.” [These words teach about the infant.] Just as the rain is at work in the soil for it to become muddy, so the infant is muddy in its mother's womb. Another interpretation [of] “when God's company was over my tent”: These words teach about the infant. Just as the infant gets muddy, so is a person muddied by sins, so that misfortunes come upon him. At that time [Job] said (in Job 29:2), “’O that I were as in the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me,’ and would that I had the days which I had when I was in my mother's belly!” What does he finally say (in vs. 4)? “When I was in the days of my youth.” R. Abbahu said, “The infant comes out of the mother's belly covered with slime and covered with blood; yet everyone praises and cherishes it, especially when it is a male.”²Tanh., Lev. 8:11; PRK 9:6. Ergo (in Lev. 12:2), “When a woman emits her seed and bears a male.” (Lev. 12:2:) “When a woman emits her seed.” [This text is related to (Ps. 139:5),] “You have formed me behind and before.” The text speaks of the first Adam.³Cf. Gen. R. 8:1; 14:5; Lev. R. 14:1; M. Pss. 139:6. R. Johanan said, “It is written about him that there were two creations. There is a double y (i.e., a double yod in Gen. 2:7), ‘The Lord God formed (yytsr) the human.’ One formation is in this world, and one is for the world to come. But in the case of cattle, wild beasts, and birds, for them [only] one formation is written (without a double y in Gen. 2:19), ‘So out of the earth the Lord God formed (ytsr) all the wild beasts of the field [and all the birds of the heavens].’ It therefore says (in Ps. 139:5), ‘You have formed me behind and before.’” R. Simeon ben Laqish says, “Behind (in the sense of what comes] before the act of [his] creation. What is the reason? It is written (in Gen. 1:2), ‘and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters’; this spirit was the soul of the first Adam. It therefore says (in Ps. 139:5), ‘You have formed me behind and before.’” R. Eleazar ben Pedat says, “Behind [refers] to an [later] event of the sixth day, and before [refers] to an [earlier] event of the sixth day. How so? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, created six things on the sixth day. They were these: (1) the soul; (2) wild beasts; (3) cattle; (4) beasts of the earth; (5) Adam; and (6) Eve. Now Adam's soul was created first, as stated (in Gen. 1:24), ‘a living soul.’ Living soul can only be the soul of Adam, since it is stated (in Gen. 2:7), ‘and the human (Adam) became a living soul.’ Hence, before [refers] to the [first] event of the sixth day, and behind [refers] to the sixth day, since [the Holy One, blessed be He,] was occupied with him all of the sixth day. Ergo (in Ps. 139:5), ‘You have formed me behind and before.’ Behind [refers] to an event of the sixth day, and before [refers] to an event of the sixth day.” R. Samuel bar Nahman said, “What is the meaning of ‘You have formed me behind and before?’ Having two faces, male and female. Hence it says (in Ps. 139:5), ‘You have formed me behind and before.’”⁴Ber. 61a; ‘Eruv. 18a. Adam said, “After the Holy One, blessed be He, had created all the cattle and wild beasts, He created me.” So it is with the infant. Before it comes forth from its mother's belly, the Holy One, blessed be He, commands it, “Eat of this, do not eat of that, (in Lev. 11:29) ‘this shall be unclean for you.’” Then after it takes upon itself in its mother's belly all the commandments which are in the Torah, [only] after that it is born. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 12:2), “When a woman emits her seed and bears a male.”

(Lev. 19:2:) “Speak unto the [whole congregation] of the Children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘You shall be holy.’” This text is related (to Is. 5:16), “The Lord of hosts has been exalted through justice, and the holy God has been sanctified through holiness.” When did the Holy One, blessed be He, become exalted in His world? When he brought about judgment and justice among the peoples of the world. It is so stated (in Is. 3:13), “The Lord stands up to plead a cause, and rises to judge peoples.” It also says (in Dan. 7:9), “I looked until thrones were set in place [or thrown down] (remiw).”¹The Aramaic word can mean both WERE SET IN PLACE and WERE THROWN DOWN. The former meaning better fits the biblical context; but one of the midrashic interpretations given here requires the latter meaning. What is the meaning of “thrones” (in the plural)? Were there a lot of thrones, when [there is] that which is written (in Is. 6:1), “I saw the Lord seated upon a throne (in the singular)?” What is the meaning of “thrones?” R. Jose the Galilean and R. Aqiva differed.²Hag. 14a. One said, “Thrones denotes the throne plus its footstool; and the other said, “These are thrones that belong to the nations of the world, since the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to throw them down, as stated (in Hag. 2:22), ‘Then I will throw down the throne of kingdoms, [and destroy the kingdoms of the gentiles].’” You know [for yourself] that this is so. "Thrones were set up," is not written here (in Dan. 7:9), but “thrones were thrown down.” Thus it is written (in Exod. 15:1 or 21), “the horse and his rider he has thrown (rt.: rmh) into the sea.” Our masters say, “What is the meaning of thrones? In the age to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will sit down, and the angels will place thrones for the great ones of Israel for them to sit down, so that the Holy One, blessed be He, will be sitting with them like the president of the court (av bet din). Then they shall judge the peoples of the world, as stated (in Is. 3:14), ‘The Lord will come in judgment along with the elders of His people and their princes.’³Exod. R. 5:12. ‘Against the elders of His people’ is not written here, but ‘along with the elders [of His people].’ [Scripture] is teaching that the Holy One, blessed be He, will sit along with the elders and princes of Israel to judge the nations of the world.” And which [thrones] are they? These are the thrones of the house of David and the elders of Israel, as stated (in Ps. 122:5), “There stood the thrones of judgment, thrones of the House of David.” R. Pinhas said in the name of R. Hilqiyah the Southerner (i.e., from Judah), [who said] in the name of R. Reuben, “If you say, ‘When thrones stand there for judgment,’ [that] they are thrones of the House of David; then what is [the meaning of (Dan. 7:9), ‘and the Ancient of days (God) took His seat?’ That He sits among them like the president of the court, and with them He judges the nations. It is therefore written (ibid.), ‘until thrones were set in place.’” What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.), “and the hair of his head was like clean wool?” When the Holy One, blessed be He, cleanses Himself from the worshippers of idolatry; He gives them compensation for the easy commandments which they have observed in this world. [He does so] in order to judge them and convict them in the world to come, so that they will have no excuse and have no merit found for them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 14:32), “And what will he answer the angels of⁴Mal’akhe. In the biblical context, the word should be rendered as “messengers of,” but the midrash interprets the passage eschatologically. a [given] nation? That the Lord has established Zion, and in it there shall the afflicted of His people take refuge.” Then He immediately renders the judgment against them. At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, becomes exalted in his world, as stated (in Is. 5:16), “The Lord of hosts is exalted in judgment.” What is the meaning of (ibid.), “and the holy God is sanctified in justice (tsedekah, which also means charity)?” That He is sanctified in His world in justice, because He advocates for the defense concerning Israel, as stated (in Is. 63:1), “it is I who speaks in justice (tsedekah), mighty to save.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “In the future, I will be sanctified in you, as stated (in Is. 29:23), ‘For when [Jacob] sees his children in his midst, the work of My hands, they shall sanctify My name.’” And so it says (in Is. 49:3), “Israel in whom I will be glorified.” So you are sanctified in Me, and I am sanctified in you, as stated (in Lev. 11:44; cf. 19:2), “so you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy.”

(Lev. 19:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND SAY UNTO THEM: YOU SHALL BE HOLY, [BECAUSE I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM HOLY]. This text is related (to Is. 5:16): THE LORD OF HOSTS HAS BEEN EXALTED THROUGH JUSTICE, AND THE HOLY GOD HAS BEEN SANCTIFIED THROUGH HOLINESS. When did the Holy One become exalted in his world?¹Tanh., Lev. 7:1. When he brought about judgment and justice among the peoples of the world. It is so stated (in Is. 3:13): THE LORD STANDS UP TO PLEAD A CAUSE, AND RISES TO JUDGE PEOPLES. It also says (in Dan. 7:9): I LOOKED UNTIL THRONES WERE SET IN PLACE < or THROWN DOWN > (remiw).²The Aramaic word can mean both WERE SET IN PLACE and WERE THROWN DOWN. The former meaning better fits the biblical context; but one of the midrashic interpretations given here requires the latter meaning. What is the meaning of THRONES (in the plural)? Were there a lot of thrones, when < there is > that which is written (in Is. 6:1): I SAW THE LORD SEATED UPON A THRONE (in the singular)? What is the meaning of THRONES? R. Jose the Galilean and R. Aqiva differed.³Hag. 14a. One said: THRONES denotes the throne plus its hypopodion⁴The Greek word means “footstool.” {i.e., its footstool}; and the other said: These are thrones that belong to the nations of the world, since the Holy One is going to throw them down, as stated (in Hag. 2:22): THEN I WILL THROW DOWN THE THRONE< S > OF KINGDOMS, AND DESTROY THE KINGDOMS OF THE GENTILES. You know [for yourself] that this is so. "Thrones were set up," is not written here (in Dan. 7:9), but THRONES WERE THROWN DOWN. Thus it is written (in Exod. 15:1 or 21): THE HORSE AND HIS RIDER HE HAS THROWN (rt.: RMH) INTO THE SEA. < Our > masters say: What is the meaning of THRONES? In the age to come the Holy One will sit down, and the angels will place thrones for the great ones of Israel for them to sit down, so that the Holy One will be sitting with them like the president of the court (av bet din). Then they shall judge the peoples of the world, as stated (in Is. 3:14): THE LORD WILL COME IN JUDGMENT ALONG WITH THE ELDERS OF HIS PEOPLE AND THEIR PRINCES.⁵Exod. R. 5:12; see Wisdom 3:8; I Enoch 38:5; 48:9; I Corinthians 6:2. "Against the elders of his people" is not written here, but ALONG WITH THE ELDERS < OF HIS PEOPLE >. < Scripture > is teaching that the Holy One will sit along with the elders and princes of Israel to judge the nations of the world. And which < thrones > are they? These are the thrones of the house of David and the elders of Israel, as stated (in Ps. 122:5): THERE STOOD THE THRONES OF JUDGMENT, THRONES OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID. R. Pinhas said in the name of R. Hilqiyah the Southerner (i.e., from Judah), < who spoke > in the name of R. Reuben: If you say: When thrones stand there for judgment, they are thrones of the house of David. Then what is < the meaning of > (Dan. 7:9): AND THE ANCIENT OF DAYS TOOK HIS SEAT? That he sits among them like the president of the court, and with them he judges the nations. It is therefore written (ibid.): UNTIL THRONES WERE SET IN PLACE. What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.): AND THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD WAS LIKE CLEAN WOOL? When the Holy One cleanses himself from the nations of the world,⁶Cf. the parallel in the traditional Midrash Tanhuma, Lev. 6:11 (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), which reads: “The Holy One cleanses himself from the worshipers of idols.” he gives them compensation for the easy commandments which they have observed in this world. < He does so > in order to judge them and convict them in the world to come, so that they will have no excuse and have no merit found for them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 14:32): AND WHAT WILL HE ANSWER THE ANGELS OF⁷mal’akhe. In the biblical context, the word should be rendered as “messengers of,” but the midrash interprets the passage eschatologically. A < GIVEN > NATION? THAT THE LORD HAS ESTABLISHED ZION, AND IN IT THERE SHALL THE AFFLICTED OF HIS PEOPLE TAKE REFUGE. Then he immediately renders the judgment against them. At that time the Holy One becomes exalted in his world, as stated (in Is. 5:16): THE LORD OF HOSTS IS EXALTED IN JUDGMENT, [AND THE HOLY GOD IS SANCTIFIED IN JUSTICE]. What is the meaning of (ibid.): THE LORD OF HOSTS IS EXALTED IN JUDGMENT? That he is sanctified in his world in justice, because he teaches concerning Israel what is stated (in Is. 63:1): I SPEAK IN JUSTICE. The Holy One said to Israel: I am sanctified in you, as stated (in Is. 29:23): FOR WHEN < JACOB > SEES HIS CHILDREN IN HIS MIDST, THE WORK OF MY HANDS, THEY SHALL SANCTIFY MY NAME; YES, THEY SHALL SANCTIFY THE HOLY ONE OF JACOB…. And so it says (in Is. 49:3): ISRAEL IN WHOM I WILL BE GLORIFIED. So you are sanctified in me, and I am sanctified in you, as stated (in Lev. 11:44; cf. 19:2): [SO YOU SHALL SANCTIFY YOURSELVES] AND BE HOLY, BECAUSE I AM HOLY.

(Fol. 9) R. Juda said: "Even though our sages permitted the use of Greek they referred merely to the translation of the Pentateuch, but not to anything else. And this was also allowed only because of what occurred to Ptolemy, the king." What was it? We are taught: It happened that Ptolemy the king took seventy-two elders from Jerusalem, and placed them in seventy-two separate chambers, and did not inform them for what purpose he had brought them there. He afterward visited each chamber, and said to them: "Translate me the Torah of Moses, your teacher, [by heart.]" The Holy One, praised be He! sent into the heart of each of them a counsel which caused them to think as one mind, and [instead of, In the beginning God created the world] they wrote God created the world in the beginning; [instead of, Let us make a man, they wrote] I will make a man in an image; [instead of, And it was finished, they write] And God finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day; [instead of. He created them, they wrote] Created him; [instead of. Let us go down, they wrote] Let Me go down; [instead of Sarah laughed within herself (Ib. 18, 12) they wrote] And Sarah laughed among her relatives; [instead of (49, 6) For in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they honged an ox, and in their self-will hanged a fattened ox; [instead of (Ex. 4, 20) Set them on a donkey, they wrote] Set them on a porter (man-carrier); [instead of (Ib. 12, 40) Dwelt in Egypt, they wrote] Dwelt in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred and thirty wears; [instead of (24, 5) And he then sent the youth, they wrote] The respectable men of Israel; [instead of (Num. 16, 15) I have not taken one ass of them, they wrote] Not one precious thing I took away; [instead of (Deut. 4, 19) Which the Lord thy God hath assigned unto all nations under the whole heaven, they wrote] Assigned to light for all nations; [instead of (Ib. 17, 3) Which I have not commanded, they wrote] Which I have not commanded to worship; [and instead of (Lev. 11, 6) The Arnebeth (the hare) they wrote], The slender footed, because Ptolemy's wife was named Arnebeth, and they were afraid lest he say that the Judaeans laughed at him by inserting his wife's name in the Torah. MISHNAH: Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel says, etc., R. Abahu, in the name of R. Jochanan, said: "The Halacha prevails according to Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel." And R. Abahu said again: "What reason does Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel advance? Because it is written (Gen. 9, 27) May God enlarge the boundaries of Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; i.e., the most beautiful thing which Japheth has — (the Greek language) shall dwell in the tents of Shem."

The former Rabbis were called Soph'rim, because they counted all the letters of the Torah; for they would say the letter Vav of the word Gachon (belly) (Lev. 11, 42) is just one-half the number of the letters contained in the Torah; the word Darosh-Darash (diligently inquired) (Lev. 10, 16) is one-half of the amount of words the Torah contains; the passage V'hisgalach (then he shall be shaven) (Ib. 13, 33) is one-half of the verses of the Torah. In the passage (Ps. 80, 14) The bear out of the forest doth ravage it, the letter Ayin of the word Ya'ar (forest) is one-half the number of the letters of which Psalms consist; the passage (Ib. 78, 38) But He, being merciful forgave the iniquity, is one-half the verses of which the Psalms consist.

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

1) (Vayikra 11:1) "And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron to say to them": (to say) to the sons, to Elazar and Ithamar, or to say to Israel? "Speak to the children of Israel" (Vayikra 11:2) is the speaking to Israel. How, then, are we to understand "to say to them"? To say to the sons, to Elazar and to Ithamar.

1) (Vayikra 11:9): ("This you may eat of all that is in the waters: All that have fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the rivers — those may you eat.") From its being written "you may eat" what has (fins and scales), I understand not to eat what does not have (fins and scales); and from its being written (Vayikra 11:11) not to eat what does not have, I understand that I may eat what does have. Why was this repeated? To make them subject to (transgression of) a positive commandment and a negative commandment. "You may eat of all that is in the waters.": For I might think that since (small fish found in basins [as opposed to fish found in running streams]) are permitted explicitly (even without the signs of cleanliness) and by implication (I might think that) just as explicitly they are permitted only in basins, so by implication they are permitted only in basins — Whence would I derive that even if they are found in holes, pits, or caves, he may bend down and drink from them without apprehension? From ("You may eat of all) that is in the waters."

1) (Vayikra 11:13): "They shall not be eaten": to make one who feeds it (to others) liable as the one who eats it (himself). But perhaps the intent is that it is forbidden to derive benefit from them! (This cannot be for it is already written (Devarim 14:12): "You may not eat" — It is permitted to derive benefit from them; (only) to eat them is it forbidden. How, then, must I understand "they shall not be eaten"? As signifying that the one who feeds is liable as the one who eats.

1) (Vayikra 11:1) "And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron to say to them": (to say) to the sons, to Elazar and Ithamar, or to say to Israel? "Speak to the children of Israel" (Vayikra 11:2) is the speaking to Israel. How, then, are we to understand "to say to them"? To say to the sons, to Elazar and to Ithamar.

1) (Vayikra 11:24) "And by (touching) these you will become unclean; all who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening." (Vayikra 11:26) By (touching) every beast whose hoof (parsah) is parted (mafreseth), and cloven (shesa) is not cloven (shosa'ath) or the cud (gera) does not chew …" I might think that in respect to all that is mentioned in the (preceding) section, viz.: Beasts, animals, birds, fish, and grasshoppers, (I would think that) ever min hechai (flesh torn from a living animal) [to which these verses also refer, viz., below; 2) and Vayikra 11:5)]) renders one unclean in all of them; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26) "beast." I would exclude fish, which are found in the sea, which do not contract tumah, but I would not exclude grasshoppers; it is, therefore, written "mafreseth." I would exclude grasshoppers, in whose species we do not find tumah, but I would not exclude birds, in whose species we do find tumah; it is, therefore, written "parsah." I would exclude unclean birds, but I would not exclude clean birds. And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a beast, which does not render one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, ever min hechai of it does confer tumah, then a bird, that renders one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, how much more so should ever min hechai confer tumah. It is, therefore, written "shesa." This tells me (that ever min hechai tumah is conferred) only on a clean beast. Whence do I derive the same for an unclean beast? From "every beast." Whence do I derive (the same for) a clean animal? From "mafreseth." Whence do I derive (the same for) an unclean animal? From "parsah." Whence do we derive (the same for) the cloven-footed? From "and shesa." Whence do we derive the (same for) the non cloven-footed? From "is not shosa'ath." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that chews the cud? From "that chews gera." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that does not chew the cud? From "that does not chew."

1) (Vayikra 11:24) "And by (touching) these you will become unclean; all who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening." (Vayikra 11:26) By (touching) every beast whose hoof (parsah) is parted (mafreseth), and cloven (shesa) is not cloven (shosa'ath) or the cud (gera) does not chew …" I might think that in respect to all that is mentioned in the (preceding) section, viz.: Beasts, animals, birds, fish, and grasshoppers, (I would think that) ever min hechai (flesh torn from a living animal) [to which these verses also refer, viz., below; 2) and Vayikra 11:5)]) renders one unclean in all of them; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26) "beast." I would exclude fish, which are found in the sea, which do not contract tumah, but I would not exclude grasshoppers; it is, therefore, written "mafreseth." I would exclude grasshoppers, in whose species we do not find tumah, but I would not exclude birds, in whose species we do find tumah; it is, therefore, written "parsah." I would exclude unclean birds, but I would not exclude clean birds. And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a beast, which does not render one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, ever min hechai of it does confer tumah, then a bird, that renders one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, how much more so should ever min hechai confer tumah. It is, therefore, written "shesa." This tells me (that ever min hechai tumah is conferred) only on a clean beast. Whence do I derive the same for an unclean beast? From "every beast." Whence do I derive (the same for) a clean animal? From "mafreseth." Whence do I derive (the same for) an unclean animal? From "parsah." Whence do we derive (the same for) the cloven-footed? From "and shesa." Whence do we derive the (same for) the non cloven-footed? From "is not shosa'ath." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that chews the cud? From "that chews gera." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that does not chew the cud? From "that does not chew."

1) (Vayikra 11:26) "By (touching) every beast": to include the embryo, that ever min hechai from it confers tumah (i.e., if one cut a limb from it in the womb, it is tamei as ever min hechai.). (Vayikra 11:26): "They are tamei": We are hereby taught that they combine with each other (i.e., half a limb from one beast and half a limb from another combine to constitute the required amount for tumah). I might think that they (half-limbs of a beast also) combine with (half-limbs of) dead (men to constitute the required amount for ever min hechai tumah). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26): "They are tamei to you," (to exclude the above). I might think that they do not combine with (the tumah of) the dead, which is stringent (seven days), but they do combine with (the tumah of) neveiloth (of beasts), which is "light" (one day). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:27): "They are tamei to you" (and not half a limb of ever min hechai in combination with half a limb of neveilah). (Vayikra 11:26): "Everyone who touches them shall be tamei": to include an unclean beast, its shechitah not freeing it (of neveilah tumah).

1) (Vayikra 11:26) "By (touching) every beast": to include the embryo, that ever min hechai from it confers tumah (i.e., if one cut a limb from it in the womb, it is tamei as ever min hechai.). (Vayikra 11:26): "They are tamei": We are hereby taught that they combine with each other (i.e., half a limb from one beast and half a limb from another combine to constitute the required amount for tumah). I might think that they (half-limbs of a beast also) combine with (half-limbs of) dead (men to constitute the required amount for ever min hechai tumah). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26): "They are tamei to you," (to exclude the above). I might think that they do not combine with (the tumah of) the dead, which is stringent (seven days), but they do combine with (the tumah of) neveiloth (of beasts), which is "light" (one day). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:27): "They are tamei to you" (and not half a limb of ever min hechai in combination with half a limb of neveilah). (Vayikra 11:26): "Everyone who touches them shall be tamei": to include an unclean beast, its shechitah not freeing it (of neveilah tumah).

1) (Vayikra 11:29-31): "And this to you is what is unclean among the creeping things (sheratzim) which creep upon the earth: the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kind. And the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are what are unclean to you among all that creep." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 11:43): "Do not make yourselves tamei by them (sheratzim) and you will become tamei through them," I might think that inner-body tumah and the tumah of offerings are being spoken of; it is, therefore, written "And this (i.e., only this to you is what is unclean … the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard, after its kind, etc." I might think that these confer tumah on men and implements and the others confer tumah on men but not on implements, or on implements but not on men; it is, therefore written (Vayikra 11:31): "These (are what are unclean to you"). Only these (confer tumah). Or, perhaps only these are excluded which are like the particular (kinds mentioned here, viz.:) Just as the particular have bones and reproduce, so, only those are excluded which have bones and reproduce. Whence do we derive (that also excluded are) those which have bones and do not reproduce or those which do not have bones and reproduce? From "These" are tamei to you among all that creep" — Only these among the sheratzim confer tumah.

1) (Vayikra 11:31): "These are what are tamei to you among all that creep": "what are tamei" (rather than just "tamei"): to include their skins (as well as their flesh). I might think (that this refers to) the skins of all of them. It is, therefore, written "These are (the skins of) what are tamei" — the skins of (Vayikra 11:30) the gecko, the land-crocodile, the lizard, and the sand-lizard. R. Yehudah says: The lizard is like the weasel (Vayikra 11:29). R. Yochanan b. Nuria says: Eight sheratzim have skins.

1) "All … in the beast (may you eat"): to include (as permitted) the fetus (found "in the beast" after its mother had been slaughtered). I might think (that this were so) even if part of it had emerged. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "Only (this may you not eat.") "it (one with the signs of cleanliness) may you eat." It may be eaten (and not an unclean beast.)

1) (Vayikra 11:31): "These are what are tamei to you among all that creep": "what are tamei" (rather than just "tamei"): to include their skins (as well as their flesh). I might think (that this refers to) the skins of all of them. It is, therefore, written "These are (the skins of) what are tamei" — the skins of (Vayikra 11:30) the gecko, the land-crocodile, the lizard, and the sand-lizard. R. Yehudah says: The lizard is like the weasel (Vayikra 11:29). R. Yochanan b. Nuria says: Eight sheratzim have skins.

1) (Vayikra 11:32) "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei." Of what is this verse speaking? If of their death, this has already been stated (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal), this is stated below (Vayikra 11:35). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hechai (a limb of a living animal, [and "in their death" signifies the death of the limb]). (But why is a verse needed for this?) Is it not derivable a fortiori? viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh (to confer tumah), ever min hechai of it confers tumah, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should ever min hechai of it confer tumah! (Why, then, is the verse needed?) No, if this is so with a beast, it may be so because it confers tumah by being carried. Would you, then, say the same for a sheretz, which does not confer tumah by being carried, (but only by being touched)? Since it does not confer tumah by being carried, (I would say that) ever min hechai of it does not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei" — to include ever min hechai.

1) (Vayikra 11:29-31): "And this to you is what is unclean among the creeping things (sheratzim) which creep upon the earth: the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kind. And the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are what are unclean to you among all that creep." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 11:43): "Do not make yourselves tamei by them (sheratzim) and you will become tamei through them," I might think that inner-body tumah and the tumah of offerings are being spoken of; it is, therefore, written "And this (i.e., only this to you is what is unclean … the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard, after its kind, etc." I might think that these confer tumah on men and implements and the others confer tumah on men but not on implements, or on implements but not on men; it is, therefore written (Vayikra 11:31): "These (are what are unclean to you"). Only these (confer tumah). Or, perhaps only these are excluded which are like the particular (kinds mentioned here, viz.:) Just as the particular have bones and reproduce, so, only those are excluded which have bones and reproduce. Whence do we derive (that also excluded are) those which have bones and do not reproduce or those which do not have bones and reproduce? From "These" are tamei to you among all that creep" — Only these among the sheratzim confer tumah.

1) (Vayikra 11:31): "These are what are tamei to you among all that creep": "what are tamei" (rather than just "tamei"): to include their skins (as well as their flesh). I might think (that this refers to) the skins of all of them. It is, therefore, written "These are (the skins of) what are tamei" — the skins of (Vayikra 11:30) the gecko, the land-crocodile, the lizard, and the sand-lizard. R. Yehudah says: The lizard is like the weasel (Vayikra 11:29). R. Yochanan b. Nuria says: Eight sheratzim have skins.

1) (Vayikra 11:35): "And all that there shall fall of their carcass (that of sheratzim) upon it shall be tamei": Of what is this speaking? If of their death (i.e., touching the carcass itself) this has already been mentioned (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hechai, this has been mentioned above (Vayikra 11:32 [see Section 6:1]). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal).

1) (Vayikra 11:32) "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei." Of what is this verse speaking? If of their death, this has already been stated (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal), this is stated below (Vayikra 11:35). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hechai (a limb of a living animal, [and "in their death" signifies the death of the limb]). (But why is a verse needed for this?) Is it not derivable a fortiori? viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh (to confer tumah), ever min hechai of it confers tumah, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should ever min hechai of it confer tumah! (Why, then, is the verse needed?) No, if this is so with a beast, it may be so because it confers tumah by being carried. Would you, then, say the same for a sheretz, which does not confer tumah by being carried, (but only by being touched)? Since it does not confer tumah by being carried, (I would say that) ever min hechai of it does not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei" — to include ever min hechai.

1) (Vayikra 11:32): "sack": This tells me only of sack. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) kalkali and chebek (types of saddle bands)? From "or sack." I might think that (also included) as requiring tumah are ropes and cords. It is, therefore, written "sack." Just as sack is reticulated, so all must be reticulated (to acquire tumah).

1) (Vayikra 11:35): "And all that there shall fall of their carcass (that of sheratzim) upon it shall be tamei": Of what is this speaking? If of their death (i.e., touching the carcass itself) this has already been mentioned (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hechai, this has been mentioned above (Vayikra 11:32 [see Section 6:1]). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal).

1) (Vayikra 11:33) ("And every earthen vessel where there shall fall of them into its midst") This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive for inclusion a natron vessel? From "and … earthen vessel." Whence would I (think to) include (earthen) tents (for tumah that I need a verse to exclude them)? I would reason thus: If (with) wooden vessels, where flat ones are tamei, tents are clean, then (with) earthen vessels, where flat ones are clean, how much more so should tents be clean! — No, if wooden tents are clean, it is because their atmosphere is clean. Should earthen tents, then, be clean, whose atmosphere is not clean? It must, therefore, be written ("earthen) vessel," to exclude (earthenware) tents (from tumah). Whence do I include (for tumah) earthen shards? From "and every earthen vessel."

1) I might think that vessels, too, acquire tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:34): "all the food … and all drink": Food and drink acquire tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, but vessels do not. I might think that animal food, too, acquires tumah; it is, therefore, written "the food," the distinctive food of human beings. I might then think that I exclude (from tumah) animal food that one thought to use for human consumption; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "all food (… shall be unclean"). I might think that even foul food (that is not fit for dogs, is included for tumah); it is, therefore, written "which shall be eaten," to exclude foul food. "food … shall be tamei": We are hereby taught that any amount of food becomes tamei. I might think that any amount (of food that is tamei) can confer tumah upon others; it is, therefore, written "which shall be eaten" (in one swallow). Only the size of an egg can confer tumah (upon others).

1) I might think that even a gourd which fell into the atmosphere of the oven and was not predisposed (to the acquisition of tumah) would become tamei; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:34) "upon which water came." This tells me only of water (as a predisposing element). Whence do I derive the same for dew, wine, oil, blood, honey and milk? From "drink" — this is wine; "that is drunk" — this is blood, as it is written (Tehillim 110:7): "From a river, on the way, shall he drink (blood), wherefore he shall lift (his) head." Whence are other liquids derived (as predisposing elements)? From "and every drink." If "every drink," I would think (even) mulberry juice, fruit-juice, pomegranate juice, and (the juice of) all other kinds of fruits. It is, therefore, written "water." Just as "water" is characterized by the absence of a qualifying epithet, so I include dew, wine, oil, blood, honey, and milk, which have no qualifying epithets, and I exclude mulberry juice, pomegranate juice, and (the juice of) all other kinds of fruits, which have qualifying epithets.

1) I might think that vessels, too, acquire tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:34): "all the food … and all drink": Food and drink acquire tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, but vessels do not. I might think that animal food, too, acquires tumah; it is, therefore, written "the food," the distinctive food of human beings. I might then think that I exclude (from tumah) animal food that one thought to use for human consumption; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "all food (… shall be unclean"). I might think that even foul food (that is not fit for dogs, is included for tumah); it is, therefore, written "which shall be eaten," to exclude foul food. "food … shall be tamei": We are hereby taught that any amount of food becomes tamei. I might think that any amount (of food that is tamei) can confer tumah upon others; it is, therefore, written "which shall be eaten" (in one swallow). Only the size of an egg can confer tumah (upon others).

1) I might think that even a gourd which fell into the atmosphere of the oven and was not predisposed (to the acquisition of tumah) would become tamei; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:34) "upon which water came." This tells me only of water (as a predisposing element). Whence do I derive the same for dew, wine, oil, blood, honey and milk? From "drink" — this is wine; "that is drunk" — this is blood, as it is written (Tehillim 110:7): "From a river, on the way, shall he drink (blood), wherefore he shall lift (his) head." Whence are other liquids derived (as predisposing elements)? From "and every drink." If "every drink," I would think (even) mulberry juice, fruit-juice, pomegranate juice, and (the juice of) all other kinds of fruits. It is, therefore, written "water." Just as "water" is characterized by the absence of a qualifying epithet, so I include dew, wine, oil, blood, honey, and milk, which have no qualifying epithets, and I exclude mulberry juice, pomegranate juice, and (the juice of) all other kinds of fruits, which have qualifying epithets.

1) (Vayikra 11:32) "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei." Of what is this verse speaking? If of their death, this has already been stated (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal), this is stated below (Vayikra 11:35). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hechai (a limb of a living animal, [and "in their death" signifies the death of the limb]). (But why is a verse needed for this?) Is it not derivable a fortiori? viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh (to confer tumah), ever min hechai of it confers tumah, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should ever min hechai of it confer tumah! (Why, then, is the verse needed?) No, if this is so with a beast, it may be so because it confers tumah by being carried. Would you, then, say the same for a sheretz, which does not confer tumah by being carried, (but only by being touched)? Since it does not confer tumah by being carried, (I would say that) ever min hechai of it does not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written "And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei" — to include ever min hechai.

1) (Vayikra 11:35): "And all that there shall fall of their carcass (that of sheratzim) upon it shall be tamei": Of what is this speaking? If of their death (i.e., touching the carcass itself) this has already been mentioned (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hechai, this has been mentioned above (Vayikra 11:32 [see Section 6:1]). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal).

1) (Vayikra 11:36) ("But a spring or a pit where waters are gathered shall be clean; and he who touches their carcass [the carcass of the animals mentioned above] shall be tamei.") If it were written (only) "a gathering of waters shall be clean," I would think that even if he filled up (containers of water and carried them) on his shoulder and made a mikvah ab initio that it would be valid; it is, therefore, written "a spring" — Just as a spring is made by Heaven, so a mikveh must be made by Heaven. — But if so, I would say: Just as there is no involvement of man in a spring, so there must be no involvement of man in a mikveh — to exclude one's placing his vessels on the roof to dry, their filling up with (rain) water, (their breaking, and filling up a pit, in which instance I would think that the water is considered "drawn" and that the pit is pasul as a mikvah) — it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "a pit." If so, I would think that a pit in a boat (i.e., a cavity into which sea water is admitted) would be valid; it is, therefore, written "a spring." Just as a spring is ground-based, a pit, too, must be ground-based. If so, I might think that just as a spring cleanses with any amount (that covers the object), so a mikvah cleanses with any amount. It is, therefore, written "But a spring" — a spring cleanses with any amount, but a mikvah requires forty sa'ah.

1) (Vayikra 11:37) ("And if there fall of their carcass on any variety of seed which is sown, what is sown, it is clean.") "And if there fall of their carcass": There is of their carcass which imparts tumah, and there is of their carcass which does not impart tumah. This excludes a dried up carcass, which cannot (return to its moistness) by soaking.

1) (Vayikra 11:39) ("And if there die of the beast which it is yours to eat, he who touches its carcass shall be tamei until the evening.") "And if there die of the beast": "die," literally, (and not ever min hechai). "of the beast": There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (an organically defective animal) which was slaughtered, (the shechitah "cleansing" it). But does this not follow (even without a verse)? viz.: If we find with an unclean beast that it is not the designation ("tamei") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death — treifah, too; it is not the designation ("treifah") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death, (but if there was shechitah before death, it remains clean of tumah). Or go in this direction: An unclean beast was forbidden (for eating) before its death, and a treifah is forbidden before its death. Just as an unclean beast is not cleansed (from carcass tumah) by shechitah, so, a treifah is not cleansed by shechitah. It must, therefore, be written "of the beast." There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (that was slaughtered) by shechitah.

1) (Vayikra 11:29-31): "And this to you is what is unclean among the creeping things (sheratzim) which creep upon the earth: the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kind. And the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are what are unclean to you among all that creep." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 11:43): "Do not make yourselves tamei by them (sheratzim) and you will become tamei through them," I might think that inner-body tumah and the tumah of offerings are being spoken of; it is, therefore, written "And this (i.e., only this to you is what is unclean … the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard, after its kind, etc." I might think that these confer tumah on men and implements and the others confer tumah on men but not on implements, or on implements but not on men; it is, therefore written (Vayikra 11:31): "These (are what are unclean to you"). Only these (confer tumah). Or, perhaps only these are excluded which are like the particular (kinds mentioned here, viz.:) Just as the particular have bones and reproduce, so, only those are excluded which have bones and reproduce. Whence do we derive (that also excluded are) those which have bones and do not reproduce or those which do not have bones and reproduce? From "These" are tamei to you among all that creep" — Only these among the sheratzim confer tumah.

1) (Vayikra 11:41) ("And every creeping thing (sheretz) that creeps upon the earth is detestable; it shall not be eaten.") "every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth": to exclude the insects in peas and the mites in lentils and the worms in dates and figs. "it shall not be eaten": to include (in liability) the feeder (of a minor) as well as the eater.

1) (Vayikra 11:29-31): "And this to you is what is unclean among the creeping things (sheratzim) which creep upon the earth: the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kind. And the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are what are unclean to you among all that creep." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 11:43): "Do not make yourselves tamei by them (sheratzim) and you will become tamei through them," I might think that inner-body tumah and the tumah of offerings are being spoken of; it is, therefore, written "And this (i.e., only this to you is what is unclean … the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard, after its kind, etc." I might think that these confer tumah on men and implements and the others confer tumah on men but not on implements, or on implements but not on men; it is, therefore written (Vayikra 11:31): "These (are what are unclean to you"). Only these (confer tumah). Or, perhaps only these are excluded which are like the particular (kinds mentioned here, viz.:) Just as the particular have bones and reproduce, so, only those are excluded which have bones and reproduce. Whence do we derive (that also excluded are) those which have bones and do not reproduce or those which do not have bones and reproduce? From "These" are tamei to you among all that creep" — Only these among the sheratzim confer tumah.

1) (Vayikra 11:24) "And by (touching) these you will become unclean; all who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening." (Vayikra 11:26) By (touching) every beast whose hoof (parsah) is parted (mafreseth), and cloven (shesa) is not cloven (shosa'ath) or the cud (gera) does not chew …" I might think that in respect to all that is mentioned in the (preceding) section, viz.: Beasts, animals, birds, fish, and grasshoppers, (I would think that) ever min hechai (flesh torn from a living animal) [to which these verses also refer, viz., below; 2) and Vayikra 11:5)]) renders one unclean in all of them; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26) "beast." I would exclude fish, which are found in the sea, which do not contract tumah, but I would not exclude grasshoppers; it is, therefore, written "mafreseth." I would exclude grasshoppers, in whose species we do not find tumah, but I would not exclude birds, in whose species we do find tumah; it is, therefore, written "parsah." I would exclude unclean birds, but I would not exclude clean birds. And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a beast, which does not render one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, ever min hechai of it does confer tumah, then a bird, that renders one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, how much more so should ever min hechai confer tumah. It is, therefore, written "shesa." This tells me (that ever min hechai tumah is conferred) only on a clean beast. Whence do I derive the same for an unclean beast? From "every beast." Whence do I derive (the same for) a clean animal? From "mafreseth." Whence do I derive (the same for) an unclean animal? From "parsah." Whence do we derive (the same for) the cloven-footed? From "and shesa." Whence do we derive the (same for) the non cloven-footed? From "is not shosa'ath." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that chews the cud? From "that chews gera." Whence do we derive (the same for) one that does not chew the cud? From "that does not chew."

1) (Vayikra 11:9): ("This you may eat of all that is in the waters: All that have fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the rivers — those may you eat.") From its being written "you may eat" what has (fins and scales), I understand not to eat what does not have (fins and scales); and from its being written (Vayikra 11:11) not to eat what does not have, I understand that I may eat what does have. Why was this repeated? To make them subject to (transgression of) a positive commandment and a negative commandment. "You may eat of all that is in the waters.": For I might think that since (small fish found in basins [as opposed to fish found in running streams]) are permitted explicitly (even without the signs of cleanliness) and by implication (I might think that) just as explicitly they are permitted only in basins, so by implication they are permitted only in basins — Whence would I derive that even if they are found in holes, pits, or caves, he may bend down and drink from them without apprehension? From ("You may eat of all) that is in the waters."

(Exodus 12:2) "This month shall be to you the beginning of months": R. Yishmael says: Moses pointed out the new moon to Israel and said to them: Thus shall it (the moon) look and the new month be designated thereby for all generations. R. Akiva says: This is one of the three things which Moses could not visualize until they were pointed out to him by the L rd. Likewise, (Leviticus 11:29) "And this shall be unclean for you from among all the things that swarm upon the earth." (Likewise,) (Numbers 8:4) "And this is the work of the menorah." Others say: He was likewise perplexed as to slaughtering, viz. (Numbers 29:38) "And this is what you shall do upon the altar." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Were not all of the mitzvoth spoken to Moses in the daytime? How, then, could he have pointed out the moon? R. Elazar says: He spoke with him just before it got dark and showed it to him when it got dark.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED. This text is related (to Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE, < AND YOU HAVE LAID YOUR HAND UPON ME >. The text speaks of the first Adam.⁴Tanh., Lev. 4:1; cf. Gen. R. 8:1; 14:5; Lev. R. 14:1; M. Pss. 139:6. [R. Johanan] said: It is written about him that there were two creations. There is a double Y (i.e., a double yod in Gen. 2:7): THE LORD GOD FORMED (YYTsR) THE HUMAN. One formation is in this world, and one is for the world to come. But in the case of cattle, wild beasts, and birds, for them < only > one formation is written (without a double Y in Gen. 2:19): SO OUT OF THE EARTH THE LORD GOD FORMED (YTsR) ALL THE WILD BEASTS OF THE FIELD < AND ALL THE BIRDS OF THE HEAVENS >. It therefore says (in Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE. R. Simeon ben Laqish says: BEHIND (in the sense of what comes afterwards) < refers > to an event of the sixth day, and BEFORE < refers > to an event of the first day. What is the reason? {Resh Laqish said} [Thus has R. Simeon ben Laqish said] (in Gen. 1:2): AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS HOVERING OVER THE FACE OF THE WATERS. This SPIRIT was the soul of the first Adam. It therefore says (in Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE. BEHIND < refers > to an event of the sixth day, and BEFORE < refers > to an event of the first day. R. Eleazar ben Pedat says: BEHIND < refers > to an event of the sixth day, and BEFORE < refers > to an event of the sixth day. How so? Because the Holy One created six things on the sixth day. They were these: (1) The soul, (2) wild beasts, (3) cattle, (4) creeping things, (5) beasts of the earth, and (6) Adam and Eve. Now Adam's soul was created first, as stated (in Gen. 1:24): LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH A LIVING SOUL. LIVING SOUL can only be the soul of Adam, since it is stated (in Gen. 2:7): AND THE HUMAN (adam) BECAME A LIVING SOUL. Hence, BEFORE < refers > to the < first > event of the sixth day, and BEHIND < refers > to the sixth day, since < the Holy One > was occupied with him all of the sixth day. Ergo (in Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE. BEHIND < refers > to an event of the sixth day, and BEFORE < refers > to an event of the sixth day. R. Samuel bar Nahman said: What is the meaning of BEHIND AND BEFORE? Having two faces, male and female. Hence it says (in Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE.⁵Ber. 61a; ‘Eruv. 18a. Adam said: After the Holy One had created all the cattle and wild beasts, he created me. So it is with the infant. Before it comes forth from its mother's belly, the Holy One commands it: Eat of this, do not eat of that, (in Lev. 11:29:) THIS SHALL BE UNCLEAN FOR YOU. Then after it takes upon itself in its mother's belly all the commandments which are in the Torah, < only > after that it is born. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE.

Another matter, “as your love [dodekha] is better than wine”; matters of Torah are similar to each other, they are companions to one another, they are close to each other, just as you say: “Or his uncle [dodo] or his cousin” (Leviticus 25:49).¹²⁶Just as the term dod indicates a familial relationship, that of an uncle (dodo, his dod, means his uncle), the term dodekha, “your dod,” in the verse, indicates a close relationship. This is interpreted as referring to matters of Torah, which are close to each other in the sense that one passage sheds light on another. “However, a spring, or cistern, a gathering of water, [shall be pure]” (Leviticus 11:36), [yet] render food susceptible to impurity, as it is stated: “But if water shall be placed on a seed […it shall be unclean for you]” (Leviticus 11:38).¹²⁷This verse teaches the law that food items become susceptible to impurity only if they have already come into contact with water or another liquid. One might have thought that a pool of water that can render an impure item pure, such as those mentioned in verse 36, would not render food items susceptible to impurity. The juxtaposition of the verses teaches that the water referred to in verse 38 includes even the types of water in verse 36, and although these pools of water can render an impure item pure, they also render food items susceptible to impurity. This is an example of how one verse can shed light on another.
Shimon bar Abba [said] in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The words of the scribes¹²⁸The Oral Law transmitted by the Sages, as well as rabbinic ordinancs. are as dear as matters of Torah. What is the reason? “Your palate is like fine wine” (Song of Songs 7:10).¹²⁹The palate represents that which is stated by the Sages, while wine represents what emerges directly from the grape, a metaphor for the written Torah. The scholars [said] in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The words of the scribes are dearer than matters of Torah, as it is stated: “Your palate is like fine wine.”
One who says there are no phylacteries, which contradicts matters of Torah, is exempt;¹³⁰One who denies the existence of the commandment to don phylacteries does not assume the status of a rebellious elder, as one who disputes matters written explicitly in the Torah is not considered an elder. [one who says they have] five compartments, which adds to the words of the scribes, is liable.¹³¹The head phylactery has four compartments, each with a small scroll upon which a passage from the Torah is written. This is part of the Oral Law given to Moses at Sinai. An elder who claims there are five compartments would attain the status of a rebellious elder, who is executed (see Deuteronomy 17:12). Thus, one who contravenes matters transmitted by the Sages is punished more severely than one who contradicts the Written Torah.
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi derived it from this:¹³²From the following statement, which is from the Mishna (Berakhot 1:3). Rabbi Tarfon said: I was [once] coming on the road and I stopped and reclined to recite Shema in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. I endangered myself due to armed robbers.¹³³Rabbi Tarfon endangered himself by stopping his travels in order to recite Shema in a reclining position, as required by Beit Shammai for the evening Shema. The Sages responded to him that he deserved to lose his life for violating the opinion of Beit Hillel, which does not require reclining for Shema. You see, had he refrained from reciting it, he would have merely violated a positive command. Now that he recited it, he is liable to lose his life; that is: The words of the scribes are dearer than matters of Torah.
Rabbi Ḥanina son of Rabbi Ada said in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Aḥa: They are more stringent than matters of Torah and prophecy; it is written: “Do not preach, they preach” (Micah 2:6). This is analogous to a king who sent his officials to the provinces. Regarding one, he wrote: If he shows you my seal and my insignia, trust him, but if not, do not trust him. Regarding the other one, he wrote: Even if he does not show you my seal and my insignia, trust him. So too, regarding prophecy, it is written: “If a prophet will arise in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:2).¹³⁴It is only when the truth of his prophecy is proven that the people are commanded to obey him. Regarding words of the scribes, it is written: “On the basis of the Torah that they will instruct you” (Deuteronomy 17:11); “that the Torah will instruct you” is not written here, but rather, “that they will instruct you.” “And the judgment that they will say to you, [you shall do;] you shall not deviate from the matter that they will tell you, right or left” (Deuteronomy 17:11) – [if they tell you that] the right is the right and the left is the left, heed them; and even if they tell you that the right is the left and that the left is the right.

Another matter, “as your love [dodekha] is better than wine”; matters of Torah are similar to each other, they are companions to one another, they are close to each other, just as you say: “Or his uncle [dodo] or his cousin” (Leviticus 25:49).¹²⁶Just as the term dod indicates a familial relationship, that of an uncle (dodo, his dod, means his uncle), the term dodekha, “your dod,” in the verse, indicates a close relationship. This is interpreted as referring to matters of Torah, which are close to each other in the sense that one passage sheds light on another. “However, a spring, or cistern, a gathering of water, [shall be pure]” (Leviticus 11:36), [yet] render food susceptible to impurity, as it is stated: “But if water shall be placed on a seed […it shall be unclean for you]” (Leviticus 11:38).¹²⁷This verse teaches the law that food items become susceptible to impurity only if they have already come into contact with water or another liquid. One might have thought that a pool of water that can render an impure item pure, such as those mentioned in verse 36, would not render food items susceptible to impurity. The juxtaposition of the verses teaches that the water referred to in verse 38 includes even the types of water in verse 36, and although these pools of water can render an impure item pure, they also render food items susceptible to impurity. This is an example of how one verse can shed light on another.
Shimon bar Abba [said] in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The words of the scribes¹²⁸The Oral Law transmitted by the Sages, as well as rabbinic ordinancs. are as dear as matters of Torah. What is the reason? “Your palate is like fine wine” (Song of Songs 7:10).¹²⁹The palate represents that which is stated by the Sages, while wine represents what emerges directly from the grape, a metaphor for the written Torah. The scholars [said] in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The words of the scribes are dearer than matters of Torah, as it is stated: “Your palate is like fine wine.”
One who says there are no phylacteries, which contradicts matters of Torah, is exempt;¹³⁰One who denies the existence of the commandment to don phylacteries does not assume the status of a rebellious elder, as one who disputes matters written explicitly in the Torah is not considered an elder. [one who says they have] five compartments, which adds to the words of the scribes, is liable.¹³¹The head phylactery has four compartments, each with a small scroll upon which a passage from the Torah is written. This is part of the Oral Law given to Moses at Sinai. An elder who claims there are five compartments would attain the status of a rebellious elder, who is executed (see Deuteronomy 17:12). Thus, one who contravenes matters transmitted by the Sages is punished more severely than one who contradicts the Written Torah.
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi derived it from this:¹³²From the following statement, which is from the Mishna (Berakhot 1:3). Rabbi Tarfon said: I was [once] coming on the road and I stopped and reclined to recite Shema in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. I endangered myself due to armed robbers.¹³³Rabbi Tarfon endangered himself by stopping his travels in order to recite Shema in a reclining position, as required by Beit Shammai for the evening Shema. The Sages responded to him that he deserved to lose his life for violating the opinion of Beit Hillel, which does not require reclining for Shema. You see, had he refrained from reciting it, he would have merely violated a positive command. Now that he recited it, he is liable to lose his life; that is: The words of the scribes are dearer than matters of Torah.
Rabbi Ḥanina son of Rabbi Ada said in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Aḥa: They are more stringent than matters of Torah and prophecy; it is written: “Do not preach, they preach” (Micah 2:6). This is analogous to a king who sent his officials to the provinces. Regarding one, he wrote: If he shows you my seal and my insignia, trust him, but if not, do not trust him. Regarding the other one, he wrote: Even if he does not show you my seal and my insignia, trust him. So too, regarding prophecy, it is written: “If a prophet will arise in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:2).¹³⁴It is only when the truth of his prophecy is proven that the people are commanded to obey him. Regarding words of the scribes, it is written: “On the basis of the Torah that they will instruct you” (Deuteronomy 17:11); “that the Torah will instruct you” is not written here, but rather, “that they will instruct you.” “And the judgment that they will say to you, [you shall do;] you shall not deviate from the matter that they will tell you, right or left” (Deuteronomy 17:11) – [if they tell you that] the right is the right and the left is the left, heed them; and even if they tell you that the right is the left and that the left is the right.

2) "when they drew near before the L–rd and they died": R. Yossi Haglili says: They died because of the drawing near (and entering the holy of holies without permission), and not because of the incense offering. R. Akiva says: They died because of the offering and not because of the drawing near. One verse (our verse) states "when they drew near before the L–rd and they died," and another verse states (Vayikra 11:1) "and they offered before the L–rd a strange fire." The resolution (Bamidbar 3:4) "when they drew near (with) a strange fire before the L–rd" — They died because of the drawing near and not because of the offering. R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: The offering is sufficient (for death) unto itself, and the drawing near is sufficient unto itself.

2) I might think (that food) which is sealed air-tight in an earthen vessel and placed in the atmosphere of a stove becomes tamei; it is, therefore, written "of all the food," and not "all of the food," to exclude the above. I might think (that food) which is sealed air-tight in a "rinsing" vessel (i.e., one of wood or metal) placed in the midst of the oven is clean, and that this follows a fortiori, viz.: If an earthen vessel, which does not rescue itself (from tumah) without an air-tight seal in the tent of the dead, rescues therein what is sealed air-tight within it, then a "rinsing" vessel, which rescues itself without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel (see Vayikra 11:1) above) — how much more so should it rescue what is sealed air-tight within it! It is, therefore, written "the food," to include (as tamei) what is sealed air-tight in a "rinsing" vessel placed in the midst of the oven. An a fortiori argument that a rinsing vessel should not rescue itself (from tumah) without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel: If an earthen vessel, which rescues what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead, does not rescue itself therein without an air-tight seal, then a "rinsing" vessel, which does not rescue what is sealed air-tight within it in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, how much more so should it not rescue itself therein without an air-tight seal! It is, therefore, written (in negation of the above): "the food." Food acquires tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, but (other) vessels do not. An a fortiori argument that an earthen vessel does not rescue what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead: If a "rinsing" vessel, which rescues itself without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel does not rescue what is sealed air-tight within it in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, then an earthen vessel, which does not rescue itself without an air-tight seal in the tent of the dead, how much more should it not rescue what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead! It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 19:15): "And every open (earthen) vessel, over which there is no air-tight seal is tamei." But if it does have an air-tight seal over it, it is clean.

2) (Vayikra 11:13): "the great vulture (nesher), the bearded vulture, and the osprey": R. Yishmael says: "nesher is written here and elsewhere (Devarim 14:12). Just as with "nesher" here, all (of the birds) mentioned with the nesher, are subject to "you shall not feed" as well as to "you shall not eat," so, with "nesher" there, all mentioned with the nesher (including "ra'ah" and "dayah," which are not mentioned here) are subject to "you shall not feed" as well as "you shall not eat."

2) (Vayikra 11:2) "This is the animal that you may eat": We are hereby taught that Moses took hold of each animal and showed it to Israel and said to them: This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): "This you may eat of all that is in the waters" — This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): "These shall you hold in detestation of the fowl" — These shall you hold in detestation and these shall you not hold in detestation. (Vayikra 11:29): "This to you is what is tamei among the creeping things" — This is tamei and this is not tamei.

2) Of what is this (Vayikra 11:24) speaking? If (of beasts) in their death (i.e., neveilah), this has already been stated (viz. Vayikra 11:39). If of flesh torn from a dead animal, this has already been stated below (see Chapter 6:6). What, then, must it be speaking of? Ever min hechai.

2) (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow inductively? viz.: A sheretz (a creeping thing) may not be eaten and an unclean beast may not be eaten — Just as the shechitah of a sheretz does not free it (of neveilah tumah, viz. Chapter 7:5), so, the shechitah of an unclean beast does not free it (of neveilah tumah).

2) (Vayikra 11:2) "This is the animal that you may eat": We are hereby taught that Moses took hold of each animal and showed it to Israel and said to them: This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): "This you may eat of all that is in the waters" — This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): "These shall you hold in detestation of the fowl" — These shall you hold in detestation and these shall you not hold in detestation. (Vayikra 11:29): "This to you is what is tamei among the creeping things" — This is tamei and this is not tamei.

2) (Vayikra 11:29): "And this to you is what is unclean": to include its blood as being tamei as is its flesh. (Without the verse I would reason a fortiori, viz.:) If a beast, which confers tumah by being carried — its blood is not tamei as is its flesh, then a sheretz, which does not confer tumah by being carried, how much more so should its blood not be (tamei) as is its flesh. It must, therefore, be written "And this to you is what is unclean" — to include its blood as being tamei as is its flesh.

2) "unclean": to include the egg of the sheretz. I might think (that it is tamei) even if the embryo were not formed; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:29) "in the sheretz" — Just as "sheretz" (implies that) the embryo has been formed, so, the egg. I might think (that this is so) even if the egg is completely closed; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:31) "Everyone who touches them 'will be tamei'" — it must be possible to touch them. How much must it be pierced for this possibility to exist? A hairsbreadth, that it be possible to reach it with a hair.

2) "unclean": to include the egg of the sheretz. I might think (that it is tamei) even if the embryo were not formed; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:29) "in the sheretz" — Just as "sheretz" (implies that) the embryo has been formed, so, the egg. I might think (that this is so) even if the egg is completely closed; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:31) "Everyone who touches them 'will be tamei'" — it must be possible to touch them. How much must it be pierced for this possibility to exist? A hairsbreadth, that it be possible to reach it with a hair.

2) I might think (that it confers tumah) even if it (the limb of the sheretz) is hanging on it like a hair. It is, therefore, written "upon which there falls." It does not confer tumah until it falls (from the sheretz).

2) And thus is it written in respect to dead-body (tumah, Bamidbar 31:20): "and every work of goats." I might think (to include) ropes and cords (as acquiring tumah). (But) it follows (by reason that they should not be included), viz.: A dead body confers tumah and a sheretz confers tumah. Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated.

2) From here they ruled: The fine and small earthen vessels, they, (or if they were broken), their bottoms, or their sides, (if they) can rest without support — then the (minimum) requisite amount (for their being considered vessels vis-à-vis acquiring tumah) is (their being able to hold) enough (oil) to anoint (the small finger of a one-day-old) infant. (This is the criterion for vessels which can hold) up to a log. (The amount increases progressively for larger vessels:) (If they could originally hold) from a log until a sa'ah, (the minimum amount is) a revi'ith; from a sa'ah until two sa'ah, a half-log; from two sa'ah until three and until five sa'ah, a log. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: I do not assign measurements to them, but: the fine and small earthen vessels, they, (or if they were broken), their bottoms, or their sides, (if they) can rest without support — then the (minimum) requisite amount is enough to anoint an infant. (This is the criterion) up to small pots. From small pots until Lyddan jugs, a revi'ith; from Lyddan until Bethlemite, a half-log; from Bethlemite until large jugs — this cannot be recollected. R. Nechemiah and R. Eliezer b. Yaakov say: The (minimum) requisite amount for large jugs is two logs. Galilean jars and very small jugs — the amount for their bottoms is any amount, and they do not have sides.

2) I might think (that food) which is sealed air-tight in an earthen vessel and placed in the atmosphere of a stove becomes tamei; it is, therefore, written "of all the food," and not "all of the food," to exclude the above. I might think (that food) which is sealed air-tight in a "rinsing" vessel (i.e., one of wood or metal) placed in the midst of the oven is clean, and that this follows a fortiori, viz.: If an earthen vessel, which does not rescue itself (from tumah) without an air-tight seal in the tent of the dead, rescues therein what is sealed air-tight within it, then a "rinsing" vessel, which rescues itself without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel (see Vayikra 11:1) above) — how much more so should it rescue what is sealed air-tight within it! It is, therefore, written "the food," to include (as tamei) what is sealed air-tight in a "rinsing" vessel placed in the midst of the oven. An a fortiori argument that a rinsing vessel should not rescue itself (from tumah) without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel: If an earthen vessel, which rescues what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead, does not rescue itself therein without an air-tight seal, then a "rinsing" vessel, which does not rescue what is sealed air-tight within it in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, how much more so should it not rescue itself therein without an air-tight seal! It is, therefore, written (in negation of the above): "the food." Food acquires tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, but (other) vessels do not. An a fortiori argument that an earthen vessel does not rescue what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead: If a "rinsing" vessel, which rescues itself without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel does not rescue what is sealed air-tight within it in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, then an earthen vessel, which does not rescue itself without an air-tight seal in the tent of the dead, how much more should it not rescue what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead! It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 19:15): "And every open (earthen) vessel, over which there is no air-tight seal is tamei." But if it does have an air-tight seal over it, it is clean.

2) I might think that also included (are fruits that fell into waters of) holes, pits, and caves; it is, therefore, written "which shall be drunk." This tell me (as predisposing to tumah) only of waters that he filled himself. Whence do I derive the same even for those that descended of themselves? From "upon which water comes." I might think that this applies even if he did not think (to drink them; it is, therefore, written "which shall be drunk." This tells me only (of waters) that he thought to drink. Whence do I derive the same for (waters) with which he thought to knead clay and to rinse dishes? From "upon which water comes." I might think that this applies even (to waters found in) holes, pits, and caves; it is, therefore, written "in every vessel." I might think (that they predispose to tumah) even if he thought to collect them in holes, pits, and caves; it is, therefore, written "in a vessel." This tells me only of a vessel. Whence do I derive the same for trees and stones? From "in every," to include all that is separate from the ground.

2) "of their carcass": not of the bones, not of the teeth, not of the claws, and not of their hair. An oven or a stove, if whole, it is tamei, and if severed, it is clean. From here they ruled: An oven which came in parts from the workshop — if he made frames for it and placed frames upon it, (it being clean), it (now) acquires tumah. If he removed the frames, it is clean; if he (afterwards) returned the frames, it (remains) clean. If he plastered it (after returning the frames), it (again) acquires tumah, and he need not heat it (to render it susceptible of acquiring tumah), for it has already been heated (in the workshop). (Vayikra 11:35): "an oven or a stove shall be torn down": If it were whole, it is tamei, and if it were severed, it is clean. From here they ruled: If a stove were tamei, how is it cleansed? It is divided into three, and he scrapes off the plaster (coating) until it is on the ground. R. Meir says: He need not scrape off the plaster and it need not be on the ground, but he diminishes it (from) four tefachim from within. R. Shimon says: He must move it (from its place and separate the pieces, and if he wishes, he may rejoin them).

2) If so, I might think that just as a spring cleanses through running waters, so a mikvah cleanses through running waters; it is, therefore, written "But a spring" — a spring cleanses through running waters, but a mikvah, through standing ones.

2) Whence is it derived that seeds which were tamei, which were sown, are clean? From "what is sown it is clean." I might think that this is so even if it did not take root; it is, therefore, written "it is" (i.e., if it did not take root, it remains in its original state of tumah.)

2) Of what is this (Vayikra 11:24) speaking? If (of beasts) in their death (i.e., neveilah), this has already been stated (viz. Vayikra 11:39). If of flesh torn from a dead animal, this has already been stated below (see Chapter 6:6). What, then, must it be speaking of? Ever min hechai.

2) A different argument: An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a treifah may not be eaten. Just as shechitah does not cleanse an unclean animal (from carcass tumah), so, shechitah should not cleanse a treifah (from carcass tumah).

2) (Vayikra 11:42) "that go upon the belly": This is the snake. "all that go upon the belly": to include snails and the like. "that go upon four": This is the scorpion. "all that go upon four": to include the beetle and the like. "the many-footed": This is the centipede. "until all that are many-footed" to include their like. "of all creeping things that creep": to include the worms in the roots of olives (i.e., while they are attached) and in the roots of figs. "You shall not eat them": I might think they could be fed to minors; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:41): "it shall not be eaten."

2) (Vayikra 11:42) "that go upon the belly": This is the snake. "all that go upon the belly": to include snails and the like. "that go upon four": This is the scorpion. "all that go upon four": to include the beetle and the like. "the many-footed": This is the centipede. "until all that are many-footed" to include their like. "of all creeping things that creep": to include the worms in the roots of olives (i.e., while they are attached) and in the roots of figs. "You shall not eat them": I might think they could be fed to minors; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:41): "it shall not be eaten."

2) Because it is written (Vayikra 11:8) "and their carcass you shall not touch," I might think that Israelites are liable for touching a carcass; it is, therefore, written "of these": there are among these that for which he is liable and that for which he is not liable, (and)

2) (Vayikra 11:2) "This is the animal that you may eat": We are hereby taught that Moses took hold of each animal and showed it to Israel and said to them: This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): "This you may eat of all that is in the waters" — This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): "These shall you hold in detestation of the fowl" — These shall you hold in detestation and these shall you not hold in detestation. (Vayikra 11:29): "This to you is what is tamei among the creeping things" — This is tamei and this is not tamei.

2) "All that have fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers — those may you eat': "in the seas (yamim)": This is the Great Sea (the Mediterranean), as it is written (Bereshith 1:10): "And the (great) ingathering of the waters, He called yamim." "and in the nechalim": These are the rivers, as it is written (Bereshith 2:10): "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden." This tells me only of oceans and rivers, that flow (both) in the dry season and in the rainy season. Whence do I derive for inclusion other waters, and other rivers, that flow in the rainy season but not in the dry season, until you include water in holes? From (the repetition of) "in the waters" (Bereshith 11:8, Bereshith 11:9).

(Deut. 33:2:) THEN HE SAID: THE LORD CAME FROM SINAI…. <This> teaches you that the Holy One brought the Torah around to the nations of the world,¹⁴Above, Lev. 3:10; Tanh, Lev. 3:6; Deut. 11:4; PRK 31(suppl. 1):15; cf. Sifre, Deut. 32:8(311); AZ 2b-3a; Lev. R. 13:2. but they would not accept it, until he came to Israel; and they did accept it. Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.): AND HE SHONE UPON THEM FROM SEIR. These are the children of Esau, in that they were children of Seir. (ibid., cont.:) HE APPEARED FROM MOUNT PARAN. These are the children of Ishmael, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 21:21): HE DWELT IN THE WILDERNESS OF PARAN. It is also written (in Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH; HE LOOKED AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE (rt.: NTR, literally: LEAP). When he saw that they did not want to accept the Torah, he made them jump into Gehinnom, even as it says (in Lev. 11:21): <KNEE JOINTS ABOVE THEIR FEET> TO LEAP (rt.: NTR) WITH UPON THE GROUND. It also says in another place (in Ps. 138:4): ALL THE KINGS OF THE EARTH SHALL GIVE THANKS TO YOU, O LORD, FOR THEY HAVE HEARD THE WORDS OF YOUR MOUTH. But we still need to say: Perhaps they wanted to heed. Micah the Morashtite came and put an end to the matter, where it is stated (in Micah 5:14 [15]): IN ANGER AND WRATH WILL I EXECUTE RETRIBUTION ON THE NATIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT OBEYED. {….}: Here you learn that they did not want to receive the Torah. David came and gave thanks to the Holy One over this, where it is stated (in Ps. 77:15 [14]): YOU ARE THE GOD WHO PERFORMS WONDERS; YOU HAVE MADE YOUR STRENGTH KNOWN AMONG THE PEOPLES. David said: Sovereign of the Universe, O the wonders that you performed when you made your Torah known to the nations of the world! YOUR STRENGTH can only be Torah, since it is stated (in Ps. 29:11): THE LORD WILL GRANT STRENGTH TO HIS PEOPLE. R. Abbahu said: It was revealed and made known to the one who spoke and world came into being that the nations of the world would not accept the Torah. Then for what reason did he make them the offer? It is simply that this represents the character of the Holy One. First he made an offer to his creatures, and after that he drove them from the world, because the Holy One does not deal with his creatures in tyranny.¹⁵Gk.: tyrannia. [A second reason for his making them an offer: <It was> because they were fortunate in their ancestors.¹⁶Cf. PRK 31 (suppl. 1):15, which reads: “Because of the merit of the ancestors.” Abraham had fathered Ishmael and Isaac had fathered Esau.

(Fol. 42) In the academy of R. Ishmael it was taught concerning the passage (Lev. 11, 2) These are the living things which ye may eat; from this it may be inferred that the Holy One, praised be He! took hold of every kind of animal and showed it unto Moses and He said unto him: "This ye eat."

We are taught that R. Jose b. R. Juda says: "A fire in the shape of an ark, in the shape of a table and in the shape of a candle-stick, came down from heaven, which Moses saw and make like those shapes, for the passage says (Ex. 25, 40) And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount." According to this then the verse (Ib. 26, 30) And thou shalt rear up the Tabernacle according to its rules thereof which hath been shown thee in the mount, does it also mean [that a fire in the shape of the Tabernacle was shown to Moses]? Here the passage says, according to its rules, but there [concerning the ark, the table, and the candle-stick] it is written according to their pattern. R. Chiya b. Abba said in the name of R. Jochanan that Gabriel attired himself with an apron and showed Moses how to make the candle-stick, as it is written (Num. 8, 4) And this was the work of the candle-stick. In the academy of R. Ishmael it was taught that three things were difficult for Moses to comprehend, until the Holy One, praised be He! showed them to him. The three things are: The candle-stick, the new moon and the [distinction between the clean and unclean] reptiles. Concerning the candle-stick we infer from the above-mentioned passage, And this was the work of the candle-stick; the new moon, as it is written (Ex. 12, 2) This month shall be unto you the beginning of months; reptiles, as it is written (Lev. 11, 29) And these shall be unclean unto you. According to some authorities also the laws concerning slaughtering were difficult for Moses to understand, as it is written (Ex. 29, 38) And this is what thou shall offer upon the altar.

(Fol. 63) R. Juda said: "The comorant (Lev. 11, 17) is that bird which catches fish out of the sea; the hoopoe (Ib.) is that bird which has a double crest." We are also taught in a Baraitha to the same effect: The hoopoe is that bird which has a double crest, and it is the same bird which brought the worm shamir for the [building] of the Temple. R. Jochanan, upon seeing a comorant would recite the following verse (Ps. 36, 7) Thy judgments are like the great deep; and upon seeing an ant he would recite the beginning of that passage, Thy righteousness is like the mighty mountains. R. Juda said: "The gier-eagle (Lev. 11, 17) refers to the bird which produces the sound Sh'rakrak, and why is it called Racham [which means mercy]?" Said R. Jochanan: "Because as soon as the Rahcam (gier-eagle) appears, mercy comes upon the world." Said R. Bibi b. Abaye: "This refers only when it stands upon something and produces the sound Sh'rakrak, and we have a tradition that when she will sit upon the ground and pronounce that sound, then it be a sign for the Messianic period, as it is said (Zech. 10, 8) I will hiss (esh'rka) for them, and gather them." R. Ada b. R. Shimi said unto R. Idai: "Did it not happen that one of them were sitting on a cultivated field making the above sound when a stone fell upon it and pierced its brains [hence the sign is not positive]? "That one was a liar [and was therefore killed]," came the reply.

Resh Lakish said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Prov. 3, 34) If [it concerns] the mockers He will mock, but to the modest He will give grace; i.e., if one wishes to defile himself [with sin] the door is merely opened to him; but if one comes to purify himself, he is assisted." In the house of learning of R. Ishmael it was taught: "This statement may be compared to the story of a merchant who sells both naphtha and perfumes (Fol. 39); when one arrives to buy naphtha, he saith to him: 'Measure yourself the quantity you need'; but if one arrives to buy perfumes, he says, 'Wait, we will both measure it, so that I may also inhale the odor.'" The same disciples taught: "Sin dulls the heart of a man, as it is said (Lev. 11, 43) And ye shall not make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should he defiled thereby. Read not V'nitmethem (you will be defiled), but Untamatam (you will become dull-hearted)." Our Rabbis were taught: The passage, And ye shall not make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled, implies that, when a man defiles himself, a little, he will become defiled much; [when one defiles himself] here below he will be defiled from above; and when [he defiles himself] in this world, he will be defiled in the world to come. Our Rabbis have been taught: Ye shall sanctify yourselves; and be holy. When a man sanctifies himself a little here below, he will be sanstified much above; and when he sanctifies himself in this world, he will be sanctified in the world to come.

3) I might think that in respect to permitting (Vayikra 11:9), all waters were equated with seas and rivers. Whence do I derive the same in respect to forbidding (Vayikra 11:10)? From (the repetition of) "seas" (Vayikra 11:9, Vayikra 11:10) and "rivers" (Vayikra 11:9, Vayikra 11:10), creating an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as with "seas and rivers" in respect to permitting, all waters are equated with seas and rivers, so, with "seas and rivers" in respect to what is forbidden.

3) R. Akiva says: "Ayah" is written here and "ayah" is written elsewhere (Devarim 14:13). Just as with "ayah" there, "ra'ah" is a kind of "ayah," (making it subject to "you shall not eat,") so, with "ayah" here, "ra'ah" is a kind of "ayah," (making it subject to "you shall not feed").

3) (Vayikra 11:2): "This is the animal that you may eat, of every beast that is upon the earth": One declaration replaces another. From (Bereshith 9:3): "As the green herb, I have given you (the sons of Noach) everything," I might assume that everything was permitted; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:4): "This is the beast that you may eat: the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats, (Devarim 14:5) the hart, the gazelle, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the dyshon, and the wild ox, and the chamois."

3) (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be derived through reason, viz.: There is tumah in a man and tumah in a beast. Just as with a man, ever min hechai from him confers tumah, so with a beast, ever min hechai from it confers tumah. (Why, then, do I need 11:24 to tell me this?)

3) Or, perhaps go in this direction: A treifah (an animal with an organic defect) may not be eaten and an unclean beast may not be eaten — Just as the shechitah of a treifah frees it (of neveilah tumah), so, the shechitah of an unclean animal should free it (of neveilah tumah)!

3) I might think that (the blood of a sheretz) could render seeds susceptible (to tumah), and that this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If the blood of a beast, which does not confer acute tumah, (i.e., it does not confer tumah upon men and implements, but only upon food and drinks), yet renders seeds susceptible (to tumah), then the blood of a sheretz, which does confer high-degree tumah, how much more so should it render seeds susceptible (to tumah)! It is, therefore, written "to you" — It is unclean to you (i.e., to render you tamei) and not to render seeds susceptible (to tumah).

3) "are tamei": We are hereby taught that they (these sheratzim) combine with each other (to constitute the requisite amount for tumah): blood with blood, flesh with flesh, blood with flesh, and flesh with blood, whether in one species or in two species.

3) But if Scripture was lenient with a sheretz, a lesser (form of tumah, should we, therefore, be lenient with dead-body (tumah), an acute (form)? But (by reason alone a dead body) should confer tumah on ropes and cords. It must, therefore, be written "a garment … skin" (Vayikra 11:33, in respect to sheretz) — "a garment … skin" (Bamidbar 31:20, in respect to dead-body tumah), as an identity (gezeirah shavah) — Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated; and just as a dead body confers tumah on "every work of goats," so a sheretz confers tumah on every work of goats.

3) I might think that flesh which separates from a living creature confers tumah. It is, therefore, written "in their death." Just as death has no "replacement," so, a limb from a living creature has no replacement, (to exclude flesh, which does replace itself.) These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Just as death (involves) sinews and bones, so ever min hechai (to confer tumah, must involve) sinews and bones. Rebbi says: Just as a sheretz is flesh, sinews, and bones, so ever min hechai (must be) flesh, sinews, and bones.

3) But if Scripture was lenient with a sheretz, a lesser (form of tumah, should we, therefore, be lenient with dead-body (tumah), an acute (form)? But (by reason alone a dead body) should confer tumah on ropes and cords. It must, therefore, be written "a garment … skin" (Vayikra 11:33, in respect to sheretz) — "a garment … skin" (Bamidbar 31:20, in respect to dead-body tumah), as an identity (gezeirah shavah) — Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated; and just as a dead body confers tumah on "every work of goats," so a sheretz confers tumah on every work of goats.

3) "upon which there falls of them": There are of them (sheratzim) which confer tumah, and there are of them which do not confer tumah. If a rooster swallowed a sheretz and fell into the atmosphere of an oven, (the oven is) clean, (swallowed tumah not conferring tumah); and if it died (before it could assimilate the sheretz), the oven is tamei.

3) If it were divided into two parts; one large, the other small — the large is tamei, (the name "stove" adhering to it), and the small is clean. If he divided it into three parts, one (as large) as two, and the two (others), small — the large is tamei, and the two small ones, clean. If he divided it into two equal parts, they are (both) tamei, for it is impossible (to "equalize" exactly, and we suspect each part as being the larger one).

3) Whence is it derived that if it were tamei (i.e., lacking forty sa'ah), it may be cleansed (i.e., brought up to par)? From "it shall be clean." He responded: But whence do I derive (the same for funneling water from) spring to mikvah, one mikvah to another, a mikvah to a pit, a pit to a pit, a pit to a mikvah? From (reading it as) "spring … shall be clean," "pit … shall be clean," "and a mikvah of water shall be clean."

3) "And if there fall of their carcass on any variety of seed which is sown, what is sown, it is clean. (Vayikra 11:38): And if water be placed upon a seed, and aught of their carcass fall on it, it is unclean to you.": There are in this (formulation numerous variables): seeds that are tamei and seeds that are clean, rooted to the ground and uprooted from the ground, placing (of water on the seed) by man and placing by Heaven, (seed for) human consumption and (seed for) animal consumption. Distinctions must be made. If you say the rooted are tamei and the uprooted are clean, you have made everything unclean! (for everything was originally rooted.) And if you say the rooted are clean and the uprooted are tamei, you have made a part tamei and a part clean.

3) "And if there fall of their carcass on any variety of seed which is sown, what is sown, it is clean. (Vayikra 11:38): And if water be placed upon a seed, and aught of their carcass fall on it, it is unclean to you.": There are in this (formulation numerous variables): seeds that are tamei and seeds that are clean, rooted to the ground and uprooted from the ground, placing (of water on the seed) by man and placing by Heaven, (seed for) human consumption and (seed for) animal consumption. Distinctions must be made. If you say the rooted are tamei and the uprooted are clean, you have made everything unclean! (for everything was originally rooted.) And if you say the rooted are clean and the uprooted are tamei, you have made a part tamei and a part clean.

3) No, this may be true of an unclean animal, which never was fit (for eating). Would you say the same for a treifah, which was (before it became a treifah) fit for eating? (Why, then, do we need a verse to tell us that a treifah that was slaughtered by shechitah does not contract carcass tumah)? — Take what you have brought (i.e., Granted.) But how would we know the same for a beast which was treifah from the womb, (which never was fit for eating? And it is for this animal that we need the verse). — No, this may be true of an unclean beast, in whose kind ("unclean animal") shechitah does not obtain. Would you say the same for a treifah, in whose kind ("clean animal") shechitah does obtain? Why, then, do we need a verse even for a beast which was treifah from the womb?) — Your argument is refuted by a beast born in the eighth month, in whose kind shechitah does obtain (an eight-month fetus is permitted for eating by the shechitah of its mother), and yet shechitah does not cleanse it (itself for eating), so do not wonder about a treifah, which, even if shechitah obtained in its kind ("clean animal"), its shechitah would not cleanse it (from carrion tumah.) It must, therefore, be written "of the beast." There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude (from carrion tumah) a treifah (that was slaughtered) by shechitah. "which it (the beast)": "It" confers (carrion) tumah by being carried, but a sheretz does not confer tumah by being carried. For (without a verse) we would say: Does it not follow a fortiori (that a sheretz does confer tumah by being carried), viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh, (the tumah amount for its flesh being an olive-size, and for its blood, being a revi'ith) (If a beast) confers tumah by being carried, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, (the amount for both being a lentil), how much more so should it confer tumah by being carried! It must, therefore, be written "it." It (a beast) confers tumah by being carried, but a sheretz does not confer tumah by being carried.

3) — But, if this stringency obtains in (the instance of the eating of) terumah (by a non-priest), a grave transgression, (punishable by death), shall this stringency obtain in the instance of an (unclean) beast, (the eating of which is) a lesser transgression! It is, therefore, written (to indicate that it does obtain, the redundant "camel" (Vayikra 11:4) - "camel" (Devarim 14:7), two times. If it (the redundancy) is not needed for (forbidding) its flesh, learn it as (forbidding) its milk.

3) (Vayikra 11:43): "Do not make your souls detestable by (eating) every creeping thing that creeps" (Vayikra 11:41): "upon the earth": to include (for liability) sheratzim that separated (from the host to the earth) and returned (to the host). (Vayikra 11:43): "and you shall not be tamei by (eating) them": This tells me only of stringent tumah (i.e., that he does not confer tumah upon men and vessels. Whence is it derived that he does sustain the lesser tumah of himself becoming tamei? From (Vayikra 11:43): "and you will be rendered tamei through them." I might think that their blood and their fats are like them (to render the eater tamei); it is, therefore, written "through them," and not through their blood and their fats. "And you shall not become tamei with them, and you will be rendered tamei through them" — If you make yourselves tamei with them, your end will be to have been rendered tamei through them. (Vayikra 11:44) "For I am the L–rd your G d. And you shall make yourselves holy and you shall be holy, for I am holy." Just as I am holy, so are you holy. Just as I am divorced (from the material), so, you, divorce yourselves (from materialism).

3) (Vayikra 11:43): "Do not make your souls detestable by (eating) every creeping thing that creeps" (Vayikra 11:41): "upon the earth": to include (for liability) sheratzim that separated (from the host to the earth) and returned (to the host). (Vayikra 11:43): "and you shall not be tamei by (eating) them": This tells me only of stringent tumah (i.e., that he does not confer tumah upon men and vessels. Whence is it derived that he does sustain the lesser tumah of himself becoming tamei? From (Vayikra 11:43): "and you will be rendered tamei through them." I might think that their blood and their fats are like them (to render the eater tamei); it is, therefore, written "through them," and not through their blood and their fats. "And you shall not become tamei with them, and you will be rendered tamei through them" — If you make yourselves tamei with them, your end will be to have been rendered tamei through them. (Vayikra 11:44) "For I am the L–rd your G d. And you shall make yourselves holy and you shall be holy, for I am holy." Just as I am holy, so are you holy. Just as I am divorced (from the material), so, you, divorce yourselves (from materialism).

3) (Vayikra 11:43): "Do not make your souls detestable by (eating) every creeping thing that creeps" (Vayikra 11:41): "upon the earth": to include (for liability) sheratzim that separated (from the host to the earth) and returned (to the host). (Vayikra 11:43): "and you shall not be tamei by (eating) them": This tells me only of stringent tumah (i.e., that he does not confer tumah upon men and vessels. Whence is it derived that he does sustain the lesser tumah of himself becoming tamei? From (Vayikra 11:43): "and you will be rendered tamei through them." I might think that their blood and their fats are like them (to render the eater tamei); it is, therefore, written "through them," and not through their blood and their fats. "And you shall not become tamei with them, and you will be rendered tamei through them" — If you make yourselves tamei with them, your end will be to have been rendered tamei through them. (Vayikra 11:44) "For I am the L–rd your G d. And you shall make yourselves holy and you shall be holy, for I am holy." Just as I am holy, so are you holy. Just as I am divorced (from the material), so, you, divorce yourselves (from materialism).

3) I might think that in respect to permitting (Vayikra 11:9), all waters were equated with seas and rivers. Whence do I derive the same in respect to forbidding (Vayikra 11:10)? From (the repetition of) "seas" (Vayikra 11:9, Vayikra 11:10) and "rivers" (Vayikra 11:9, Vayikra 11:10), creating an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as with "seas and rivers" in respect to permitting, all waters are equated with seas and rivers, so, with "seas and rivers" in respect to what is forbidden.

[Another interpretation] (of Numb. 8:2, 4): WHEN YOU SET UP THE LAMPS […. THIS IS THE MAKING OF THE MENORAH]. You find that Moses experienced more difficulty in making the menorah then for all the <other> vessels of the Tabernacle until the Holy One showed him with his finger.¹¹Above Lev. 3:11 and the parallels listed there; Tanh. Numb. 3:3 cont.; Numb. R. 15:4. It was the same concerning the hoofs of a clean animal, as it is stated (in Lev. 11:2, 4): NOW THESE ARE THE CREATURES [THAT YOU MAY EAT…. HOWEVER THESE YOU MAY NOT EAT.] And it was the same concerning the <new> moon. The Holy One had said to him (in Exod. 12:2): THIS MONTH. So it was the same concerning the making of the menorah, where it is stated (in Numb. 8:4): THIS IS THE MAKING OF THE MENORAH, HAMMERED WORK OF GOLD. What is the meaning of HAMMERED WORK (MQShh)? It is like saying: How difficult (MH QShh) it is to make; for Moses spent a lot of effort before the menorah was made, since it says so (in Exod. 25:31): WITH DIFFICULTY (MQShh revoweled as miqqashah)¹²A typical translation of the Masoretic pointing would be: OF HAMMERED WORK. SHALL THE MENORAH BE MADE. [<The situation is> like a person who says: How difficult (MHQShh) this task is for me!] When it became difficult for him, the Holy One said to him: Moses, take a talent of gold and cast it into the fire. Then take it out, and it will have been made automatically. [Thus it is stated] (ibid. cont.): {ITS KNOBS, ITS BLOSSOMS, ITS CUPS, AND ITS SHAFTS} [ITS BASE, ITS SHAFT, ITS CUPS, ITS KNOBS, AND ITS FLOWERS SHALL COME OUT OF IT.]¹³English translations usually render the end of this verse: …SHALL BE OF ONE PIECE or something similar; however, the midrash follows the interpretation given here. There was a blow with a hammer, and it was made automatically. It was therefore stated (in Exod. 25:31): OF HAMMERED WORK (i.e. with difficulty) SHALL <THE MENORAH> BE MADE (TY'SH). <The verb is spelled> fully with a Y (yod in Hebrew) and not written <with the normal spelling> as T'SH (which could be translated, "you shall make"). <It is written with the extra letter> so as to say: It SHALL BE MADE automatically. What did Moses do? He took a talent of gold and threw it into the fire. Then Moses said: Sovereign of the World here is the talent; [it is cast into the midst of the fire]. Let it be made (TY'SH) for you just as you wish. Immediately the menorah came forth made as it should be. It is therefore written (in Numb. 8:4 end): ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH THE LORD HAD SHOWN MOSES, SO DID HE MAKE THE MENORAH. "Moses made" is not written here, but merely HE MADE. So who did make it? The Holy One. Therefore, the Holy One told Moses to warn Aaron to [light <the lamps> as stated] (in Numb. 8:2): WHEN YOU SET UP <THE LAMPS >. The Holy One said to Israel: If you light <the lamps > before me, I also will preserve your souls from everything evil, so that nothing touches you. Thus their souls are likened to a lamp as stated (in Prov. 20:27): A PERSON's BREATH IS THE LAMP OF {GOD} [THE LORD SEARCHING ALL THE CHAMBERS OF THE BELLY.

R. Ahawa bar Ze'era opened (with Job 37:1), “At this also my heart trembles and leaps from its place.” What is the meaning of “and leaps?”³³PRK 26(27):5; Lev. R. 20:5. Jumps, as [Scripture] says (in Lev. 11:21), “[which have knees above their feet] with which to jump upon the earth.” Moreover, we translate [the word as] "to jump" (in the Targum Onqelos of Lev. 11:21). When Titus the wicked entered the holy of holies and cut [open] the curtain,³⁴So Sifre, Deut. 32:38; (328); Git. 56b; Gen. R. 10:7; Lev. R. 22:3; Eccl. R. 5:8:4; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2:82; Ant. 20.250; plus the parallels mentioned above. Cf. Exod. R. 51:5, according to which Hadrian committed the sacrilegious act, and M. Pss. 121:3, according to which it was Titus’ nephew. he entered in peace and came out in peace; but the sons of Aaron entered to offer sacrifice and came out destroyed by fire. It is so stated (in Lev. 16:1), “in their approaching in front of the Lord.”

(Deut. 33:2:) “Then he said, ‘the Lord came from Sinai […].’” [This] teaches you that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought the Torah around to all the nations of the world,¹²Above, Lev. 3:10; Tanh, Lev. 3:6; Deut. 11:4; PRK 31(suppl. 1):15; cf. Sifre, Deut. 32:8(311); AZ 2b-3a; Lev. R. 13:2. but they did not accept it, until he came to Israel; and they did accept it. Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.), “and He shone upon them from Seir.” These are the Children of Esau, in that they were children of Seir. (Ibid., cont.:) “He appeared from Mount Paran.” These are the Children of Ishmael, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 21:21), “He dwelt in the Wilderness of Paran.” It is also written (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; [He looked and made nations tremble (rt.: ntr, literally, leap)].” When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that they did not want to accept the Torah, He made them jump into Gehinnom, even as it says (in Lev. 11:21), “to leap (rt.: ntr) with upon the ground.” Yet it says in another place (in Ps. 138:4), “All the kings of the earth shall give thanks to You, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth.” And [so] we still need to learn that they did not want to heed. Micah the Morashitite came and put an end to the matter, where it is stated (in Micah 5:14), “In anger and wrath will I execute retribution on the nations [because they have not obeyed].” Here you learn that they did not want to receive the Torah. David came and gave thanks to the Holy One, blessed be He, over this, where it is stated (in Ps. 77:15), “You are the God who performs wonders; You have made Your strength known among the peoples.” David said, “Master of the World, O the wonders that You performed when You made Your Torah known to the nations of the world!” [As] “Your strength” can only be Torah, since it is stated (in Ps. 29:11), “The Lord will grant strength to His people.” R. Abbahu said, “It was revealed and made known to the One who spoke and world came into being that the nations of the world would not accept the Torah. Then for what reason did He make them the offer? It is simply that this represents the character of the Holy One, blessed be He. First He made an offer to His creatures, and after that He drove them from the world, because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deal with His creatures in tyranny.”¹³Gk.: tyrannia. A second reason for his making them an offer: [It was] on account of appeasement of [their] ancestors.¹⁴Cf. PRK 31 (suppl. 1):15, which reads: “Because of the merit of the ancestors.” Abraham had fathered Ishmael and Isaac had fathered Esau.

(Lev. 27:1-2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel [and say unto them], “When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord [the value (rt.: 'rk) of human beings (npshwt)].”’” This text is related (to Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Whoever performs deeds like Mine shall be [considered] like Me.” R. Levi said, “[The matter] is comparable to a king who built a city and lit two lanterns¹³Gk.: phanoi, also panoi. within it, and [so] all of those multitudes [in the city] called him, Augustus.¹⁴Agustah, from the Lat.: Augusta. The king said, ‘When anyone builds a city like this and lights two lanterns in it, call him Augustus and I will not be jealous of him.’ Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the heavens and set in them [two lanterns, to give light to the world], the sun and the moon, as stated (in Gen. 1:17), ‘And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Whoever makes [lights] like these shall be equal to Me.’ Thus it is stated (in Ps. 89:7), ‘For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?’ These words can only be words [referring to] light, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:4), ‘He shall set (rt.: 'rk) up [the lamps] upon the unalloyed lampstand.’ Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), ‘For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?’” That is what is written (in Is. 40:25), “’Then unto whom will you liken Me that I should be equal,’ says the Holy [One].” Do not read it as “says [the Holy],” but as “holy, will be said” (meaning, the term holy is applied to him just as holy is applied to Me); in the same way that it is written (Isaiah 17:7), “to the holy.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arok) to the Lord”; R. Eebon the Levite said, “Who like You enlightens the eyes of those in the dark, as it is stated (in Lev. 24:4), ‘He shall set (ya'arok) up [the lamps] upon the unalloyed lampstand…?’”¹⁵Above, 8:20. Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arok) to the Lord”: R. Eebon the Levite said, “Who like You clothes the naked”…. Another interpretation: “Who like you feeds the hungry?” “Is comparable (rt.: 'rk)” can only refer to the hungry, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:8-9), “[He shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) it (i.e., the shewbread) before the Lord regularly] on every Sabbath day […] And it shall belong to Aaron and his children, who shall eat it.” Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord” (in feeding the hungry)? Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord”: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world and wanted to create Adam, the ministering angels said to Him, (in Ps. 8:5), “’What is a human that You are mindful of him, and a person that You should think of him?’ What do You want from this human?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, “Who is to fulfill my Torah and My commandments?” They said to Him, “We will fulfill Your Torah.” He said to them, “It is written in [the Torah] (in Numb. 19:14), ‘This is the Torah: When a person dies in a tent,’ but there are none among you who die. It is written in [the Torah] (in Lev. 12:2), ‘When a woman emits her seed and bears a male,’ but there are none among you who bear [children]. It is written in [the Torah] (in Lev. 11:21), ‘these you may eat,’ (and in Lev 11:4) ‘these you may not eat,’ but in your case there is no eating among you. Ergo, the Torah is not going forth to you,” as stated (in Job 28:13), “nor is it found in the land of the living.” [Rather] when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel that they should make a tabernacle and an altar of burnt offering, they began to sacrifice within it. [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, began to give them several commandments. These commands concerned every single thing, and they carried them out. The Holy One, blessed be He, began to say to the ministering angels, “’Who among you would prepare (rt.: 'rk)’ [everything] for Me just as Israel prepares (rt.: 'rk) for Me, that you were saying to Me (in Ps. 8:5), ‘What is a human that You are mindful of him…?’ They prepare (rt.: 'rk) sacrifices for Me, just as stated (in Lev. 1:12), ‘and the priest shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) them,’ (in Lev. 4:10), ‘upon the altar of burnt offering.’ They set (rt.: 'rk) tables for Me, just as stated (in Lev. 24:8), ‘He shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) it (i.e., the shewbread) before the Lord regularly on every Sabbath day.’ Or is there anyone among you that evaluates the value of human beings, as stated (in Lev. 27:2), ‘When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord the value (rt.: 'rk) of human beings (npshwt).’” Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies?”

(Numb. 19:2:) “This is the statute of the Torah.” R. Tanhum bar Hanila'i opened [his discourse] (with Ps. 12:7), “The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings.”³⁶Lev. R. 26:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:4. Are the sayings of the Lord [true] sayings, but the sayings of flesh and blood not [true] sayings? Now by universal custom, when a king of flesh and blood enters a province, the inhabitants of the province praise³⁷Rt.: QLS. Cf. Gk.: kalos (“beautiful”). him; and their praise is pleasing to him. He says to them, “Tomorrow I am building bath houses³⁸Dimosa’ot: The translation derives its meaning from the Gk. demosia (“public buildings”), but Jastrow, s.v., demosia, understands the plural of this word more specifically to mean “public baths”, a meaning that well fits this context. for you, and I am building baths for you and I am bringing in a water carrier for you.” [Then] he goes to sleep and never gets up. Where is he [now], and where are his promises (literally, statements)? The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is not like this. Rather the statement of God is true, as (in Jer. 10:10), “He is a living God and an everlasting King.” R. Joshua ben Levi said, “We find that the Torah has twisted two or three words in the Torah, so as not to bring forth something unclean from His (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He's) mouth.³⁹In addition to the parallels for the last section, see Gen. R. 32:4; also cf. M. Pss. 12:5; also Pes. 3b. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:2), ‘From the clean beast and from the beast which is not clean.’ So it is not written, ‘of the unclean beast.’" R. Judan said, “When He came to introduce the signs of an unclean beast, He only began with the signs of purity. It is not written here (in Lev. 11:4), ‘the camel, because it does not have a cloven hoof,’ but “[the camel] because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written here (in Lev. 11:6), ‘The hare, because it does not have a hoof,’ but ‘[The hare], because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written (in Lev. 11:7), ‘The pig, because it does not chew its cud,’ but ‘[the pig], because it has a cloven hoof [and is cleft footed, but does not chew its cud].’” R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “The infants who lived in the days of David, [even] before they had a gotten a taste of sin, knew how to interpret the Torah with forty-nine reasons for declaring an object unclean and forty-nine reasons for declaring an object clean.⁴⁰Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Cant. R. 2:4:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:10; 21:10; M. Pss. 7:7; 12:4; cf. PR 14:6; see also below. So David prayed for them and said (in Ps. 12:8), ‘You, O Lord, will keep them; You will guard each [of them] from this generation unto eternity.’ (ibid.:) ‘You, O Lord, will keep them,’ [i.e.,] watch over their instruction in their hearts; (ibid., cont.) ‘You will guard each [of them from this generation unto eternity],’ from the generation which is worthy of destruction. But after all this praise, they went out to war and fell, because there were slanderers⁴¹Lat.: delatores (“informers”). among them. This is what David says (in Ps. 57:5), ‘My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie down among those who are aflame, men whose teeth are spears and darts, and whose tongues are a sharp sword.’ (ibid.:) ‘My soul is in the midst of lions,’ these are Abner and Amasa, who were lions with the Torah⁴²Although lions, they did not support David when they should have. See Ps. 17:12.; (ibid., cont.) ‘I lie down among those who are aflame,’ these are Doeg and Ahithophel, who were aflame to slander [David]⁴³On Doeg, see I Sam. 22:8-10; Ps. 52:1. On Ahithophel, see II Sam. 17:1-23.; (ibid., cont.) ‘men whose teeth are spears and darts,’ these are the people of Keilah, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 23:12), ‘Will the people of Keilah surrender me?’ (Ps. 57:5, cont.:) ‘And whose tongue is a sharp sword,’ these are the Ziphites, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 54:2), ‘When the Ziphites came and said to Saul, “Is not David hiding among us […]?”’ At that time David said (in Ps. 57:6), ‘”Be exalted, O God, above the heavens,” remove your Divine Presence from among them.’ The generation of Ahab, however, were all worshipers of idols; yet because there were no slanderers among them, they went out to war and won.⁴⁴Deut. R. 5:10; cf. Meg. 11a, according to which Ahab was one of three who ruled over the whole world. The other two were Ahasuerus and Nebuchadnezzar. That [freedom from informers] is what [enabled] Obadiah to say to Elijah (in I Kings 18:13), ‘Has it not been told to my lord what I did [when Jezebel slew the prophets, how I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord …, and provided them with bread and water?’ If bread [is mentioned], why [mention] water? Simply because it was more difficult to bring them the water than the bread.⁴⁵Because of the drought, the greater difficulty in obtaining water would advertise what he was doing. And yet Elijah made his proclamation⁴⁶Rt.: KRZ; see Gk.: keryssein. on Mount Carmel and said (in vs. 22), ‘I am the only prophet of the Lord left,’ and [even though] all the people knew [about Obadiah’s prophets], they did not expose it to the king.” R. Samuel b. R. Nahman said, “They said to the serpent, ‘Why is it that you are found among the fences?’ It said to them, ‘I made a breach in the fence of the world.’⁴⁷I.e., brought sin into the world. They said to it, ‘Why is it that you move along with your tongue slavering?’⁴⁸See also yPe’ah 1:1 (16ab); cf. ‘Arakh. 15b. It said to them, ‘That [tongue] caused me [to make the breach].’ They said to it, ‘Why is it that, when all the [other] animals bite, they do not kill; but when you bite, you do kill?’ It said to them (in Eccl. 10:11), ‘”If a snake bites without being under a spell, the owner of the tongue (i.e., one able to charm the snake) has no advantage.” Is it possible for me to do anything without me being told from on High?’ ‘Then why is it that, when you bite one limb, all the limbs feel [the pain]?’ It said to them, ‘Are you asking me? Ask a slandering informer,⁴⁹Literally: “Master of the tongue.” the one who [remains] here and [yet] slays in Rome.’” Why is the slandering informer named a "third?”⁵⁰See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev. 19:16. The targumist translates rakhil, which came to be interpreted as “slanderer” or “informer,” with lishan telita’e (“triple tongue”). Because [such a slanderer] kills three people: the one who speaks it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is spoken.⁵¹Also ‘Arakh. 15b; M. Pss. 12:2. In the days of Saul it killed four: Doeg, who spoke it⁵²I Sam 22:9-10 and II Sam. 1:15, as interpreted by Rashi on II Sam. 1:2.; Saul, who received it⁵³See Rashi on II Sam. 1:9, who knows a midrash, according to which Saul was slain for slaying the priests of Nob.; Ahimelech, about whom it was spoken⁵⁴In I Sam. 22:16-19.; and Abner ben Ner. Now why was Abner ben Ner slain? Joshua ben Levi said, “[He was slain] because he had his [own] name precede the name of David. This is what is written (in II Sam. 3:12), ‘Then Abner sent messengers unto David where he was, saying, “To whom does the land belong?”’ [In the message] he wrote, ‘From Abner to David.’”⁵⁵Instead of “to David from Abner.” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “[He was slain] because he made the blood of young men [a matter of] amusement (rt.: shq), as stated (in II Sam. 2:14), ‘Please let the young men arise and play (rt.: shq) before us.’” Our masters have said, “[He was slain] because he did [not] wait for Saul to be reconciled⁵⁶Rt.: PYS. Cf. the Gk. noun, peisis, which designates the softer feelings. with David, where it is stated (in I Sam. 24:12, with David addressing Saul), ‘See, my father, see the corner of your cloak in my hand; for when I cut off the corner of your cloak, I did not kill you].’ [Saul] said to him, ‘Abner, what do you want [to understand] from the cloak? You said, “It was caught on a thorn.”’ When [David] came toward wagons around the camp, he said to him (in I Sam. 26:14), ‘“Abner, will you not answer?’ As for the corner of the cloak, you said was caught on a thorn. Were [the] spear and [the] water jar (of I Sam. 26:11) caught on a thorn?’” There are also some who say, “[Abner was slain] because he had the power to protest about Nob, the city of priests, but did not protest.”

(Lev. 27:1-2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel [and say unto them], “When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord [the value (rt.: 'rk) of human beings (npshwt)].”’” This text is related (to Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Whoever performs deeds like Mine shall be [considered] like Me.” R. Levi said, “[The matter] is comparable to a king who built a city and lit two lanterns¹³Gk.: phanoi, also panoi. within it, and [so] all of those multitudes [in the city] called him, Augustus.¹⁴Agustah, from the Lat.: Augusta. The king said, ‘When anyone builds a city like this and lights two lanterns in it, call him Augustus and I will not be jealous of him.’ Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the heavens and set in them [two lanterns, to give light to the world], the sun and the moon, as stated (in Gen. 1:17), ‘And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Whoever makes [lights] like these shall be equal to Me.’ Thus it is stated (in Ps. 89:7), ‘For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?’ These words can only be words [referring to] light, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:4), ‘He shall set (rt.: 'rk) up [the lamps] upon the unalloyed lampstand.’ Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), ‘For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?’” That is what is written (in Is. 40:25), “’Then unto whom will you liken Me that I should be equal,’ says the Holy [One].” Do not read it as “says [the Holy],” but as “holy, will be said” (meaning, the term holy is applied to him just as holy is applied to Me); in the same way that it is written (Isaiah 17:7), “to the holy.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arok) to the Lord”; R. Eebon the Levite said, “Who like You enlightens the eyes of those in the dark, as it is stated (in Lev. 24:4), ‘He shall set (ya'arok) up [the lamps] upon the unalloyed lampstand…?’”¹⁵Above, 8:20. Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arok) to the Lord”: R. Eebon the Levite said, “Who like You clothes the naked”…. Another interpretation: “Who like you feeds the hungry?” “Is comparable (rt.: 'rk)” can only refer to the hungry, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:8-9), “[He shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) it (i.e., the shewbread) before the Lord regularly] on every Sabbath day […] And it shall belong to Aaron and his children, who shall eat it.” Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord” (in feeding the hungry)? Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord”: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world and wanted to create Adam, the ministering angels said to Him, (in Ps. 8:5), “’What is a human that You are mindful of him, and a person that You should think of him?’ What do You want from this human?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, “Who is to fulfill my Torah and My commandments?” They said to Him, “We will fulfill Your Torah.” He said to them, “It is written in [the Torah] (in Numb. 19:14), ‘This is the Torah: When a person dies in a tent,’ but there are none among you who die. It is written in [the Torah] (in Lev. 12:2), ‘When a woman emits her seed and bears a male,’ but there are none among you who bear [children]. It is written in [the Torah] (in Lev. 11:21), ‘these you may eat,’ (and in Lev 11:4) ‘these you may not eat,’ but in your case there is no eating among you. Ergo, the Torah is not going forth to you,” as stated (in Job 28:13), “nor is it found in the land of the living.” [Rather] when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel that they should make a tabernacle and an altar of burnt offering, they began to sacrifice within it. [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, began to give them several commandments. These commands concerned every single thing, and they carried them out. The Holy One, blessed be He, began to say to the ministering angels, “’Who among you would prepare (rt.: 'rk)’ [everything] for Me just as Israel prepares (rt.: 'rk) for Me, that you were saying to Me (in Ps. 8:5), ‘What is a human that You are mindful of him…?’ They prepare (rt.: 'rk) sacrifices for Me, just as stated (in Lev. 1:12), ‘and the priest shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) them,’ (in Lev. 4:10), ‘upon the altar of burnt offering.’ They set (rt.: 'rk) tables for Me, just as stated (in Lev. 24:8), ‘He shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) it (i.e., the shewbread) before the Lord regularly on every Sabbath day.’ Or is there anyone among you that evaluates the value of human beings, as stated (in Lev. 27:2), ‘When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord the value (rt.: 'rk) of human beings (npshwt).’” Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies?”

(Numb. 19:2:) “This is the statute of the Torah.” R. Tanhum bar Hanila'i opened [his discourse] (with Ps. 12:7), “The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings.”³⁶Lev. R. 26:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:4. Are the sayings of the Lord [true] sayings, but the sayings of flesh and blood not [true] sayings? Now by universal custom, when a king of flesh and blood enters a province, the inhabitants of the province praise³⁷Rt.: QLS. Cf. Gk.: kalos (“beautiful”). him; and their praise is pleasing to him. He says to them, “Tomorrow I am building bath houses³⁸Dimosa’ot: The translation derives its meaning from the Gk. demosia (“public buildings”), but Jastrow, s.v., demosia, understands the plural of this word more specifically to mean “public baths”, a meaning that well fits this context. for you, and I am building baths for you and I am bringing in a water carrier for you.” [Then] he goes to sleep and never gets up. Where is he [now], and where are his promises (literally, statements)? The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is not like this. Rather the statement of God is true, as (in Jer. 10:10), “He is a living God and an everlasting King.” R. Joshua ben Levi said, “We find that the Torah has twisted two or three words in the Torah, so as not to bring forth something unclean from His (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He's) mouth.³⁹In addition to the parallels for the last section, see Gen. R. 32:4; also cf. M. Pss. 12:5; also Pes. 3b. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:2), ‘From the clean beast and from the beast which is not clean.’ So it is not written, ‘of the unclean beast.’" R. Judan said, “When He came to introduce the signs of an unclean beast, He only began with the signs of purity. It is not written here (in Lev. 11:4), ‘the camel, because it does not have a cloven hoof,’ but “[the camel] because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written here (in Lev. 11:6), ‘The hare, because it does not have a hoof,’ but ‘[The hare], because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written (in Lev. 11:7), ‘The pig, because it does not chew its cud,’ but ‘[the pig], because it has a cloven hoof [and is cleft footed, but does not chew its cud].’” R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “The infants who lived in the days of David, [even] before they had a gotten a taste of sin, knew how to interpret the Torah with forty-nine reasons for declaring an object unclean and forty-nine reasons for declaring an object clean.⁴⁰Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Cant. R. 2:4:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:10; 21:10; M. Pss. 7:7; 12:4; cf. PR 14:6; see also below. So David prayed for them and said (in Ps. 12:8), ‘You, O Lord, will keep them; You will guard each [of them] from this generation unto eternity.’ (ibid.:) ‘You, O Lord, will keep them,’ [i.e.,] watch over their instruction in their hearts; (ibid., cont.) ‘You will guard each [of them from this generation unto eternity],’ from the generation which is worthy of destruction. But after all this praise, they went out to war and fell, because there were slanderers⁴¹Lat.: delatores (“informers”). among them. This is what David says (in Ps. 57:5), ‘My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie down among those who are aflame, men whose teeth are spears and darts, and whose tongues are a sharp sword.’ (ibid.:) ‘My soul is in the midst of lions,’ these are Abner and Amasa, who were lions with the Torah⁴²Although lions, they did not support David when they should have. See Ps. 17:12.; (ibid., cont.) ‘I lie down among those who are aflame,’ these are Doeg and Ahithophel, who were aflame to slander [David]⁴³On Doeg, see I Sam. 22:8-10; Ps. 52:1. On Ahithophel, see II Sam. 17:1-23.; (ibid., cont.) ‘men whose teeth are spears and darts,’ these are the people of Keilah, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 23:12), ‘Will the people of Keilah surrender me?’ (Ps. 57:5, cont.:) ‘And whose tongue is a sharp sword,’ these are the Ziphites, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 54:2), ‘When the Ziphites came and said to Saul, “Is not David hiding among us […]?”’ At that time David said (in Ps. 57:6), ‘”Be exalted, O God, above the heavens,” remove your Divine Presence from among them.’ The generation of Ahab, however, were all worshipers of idols; yet because there were no slanderers among them, they went out to war and won.⁴⁴Deut. R. 5:10; cf. Meg. 11a, according to which Ahab was one of three who ruled over the whole world. The other two were Ahasuerus and Nebuchadnezzar. That [freedom from informers] is what [enabled] Obadiah to say to Elijah (in I Kings 18:13), ‘Has it not been told to my lord what I did [when Jezebel slew the prophets, how I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord …, and provided them with bread and water?’ If bread [is mentioned], why [mention] water? Simply because it was more difficult to bring them the water than the bread.⁴⁵Because of the drought, the greater difficulty in obtaining water would advertise what he was doing. And yet Elijah made his proclamation⁴⁶Rt.: KRZ; see Gk.: keryssein. on Mount Carmel and said (in vs. 22), ‘I am the only prophet of the Lord left,’ and [even though] all the people knew [about Obadiah’s prophets], they did not expose it to the king.” R. Samuel b. R. Nahman said, “They said to the serpent, ‘Why is it that you are found among the fences?’ It said to them, ‘I made a breach in the fence of the world.’⁴⁷I.e., brought sin into the world. They said to it, ‘Why is it that you move along with your tongue slavering?’⁴⁸See also yPe’ah 1:1 (16ab); cf. ‘Arakh. 15b. It said to them, ‘That [tongue] caused me [to make the breach].’ They said to it, ‘Why is it that, when all the [other] animals bite, they do not kill; but when you bite, you do kill?’ It said to them (in Eccl. 10:11), ‘”If a snake bites without being under a spell, the owner of the tongue (i.e., one able to charm the snake) has no advantage.” Is it possible for me to do anything without me being told from on High?’ ‘Then why is it that, when you bite one limb, all the limbs feel [the pain]?’ It said to them, ‘Are you asking me? Ask a slandering informer,⁴⁹Literally: “Master of the tongue.” the one who [remains] here and [yet] slays in Rome.’” Why is the slandering informer named a "third?”⁵⁰See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev. 19:16. The targumist translates rakhil, which came to be interpreted as “slanderer” or “informer,” with lishan telita’e (“triple tongue”). Because [such a slanderer] kills three people: the one who speaks it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is spoken.⁵¹Also ‘Arakh. 15b; M. Pss. 12:2. In the days of Saul it killed four: Doeg, who spoke it⁵²I Sam 22:9-10 and II Sam. 1:15, as interpreted by Rashi on II Sam. 1:2.; Saul, who received it⁵³See Rashi on II Sam. 1:9, who knows a midrash, according to which Saul was slain for slaying the priests of Nob.; Ahimelech, about whom it was spoken⁵⁴In I Sam. 22:16-19.; and Abner ben Ner. Now why was Abner ben Ner slain? Joshua ben Levi said, “[He was slain] because he had his [own] name precede the name of David. This is what is written (in II Sam. 3:12), ‘Then Abner sent messengers unto David where he was, saying, “To whom does the land belong?”’ [In the message] he wrote, ‘From Abner to David.’”⁵⁵Instead of “to David from Abner.” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “[He was slain] because he made the blood of young men [a matter of] amusement (rt.: shq), as stated (in II Sam. 2:14), ‘Please let the young men arise and play (rt.: shq) before us.’” Our masters have said, “[He was slain] because he did [not] wait for Saul to be reconciled⁵⁶Rt.: PYS. Cf. the Gk. noun, peisis, which designates the softer feelings. with David, where it is stated (in I Sam. 24:12, with David addressing Saul), ‘See, my father, see the corner of your cloak in my hand; for when I cut off the corner of your cloak, I did not kill you].’ [Saul] said to him, ‘Abner, what do you want [to understand] from the cloak? You said, “It was caught on a thorn.”’ When [David] came toward wagons around the camp, he said to him (in I Sam. 26:14), ‘“Abner, will you not answer?’ As for the corner of the cloak, you said was caught on a thorn. Were [the] spear and [the] water jar (of I Sam. 26:11) caught on a thorn?’” There are also some who say, “[Abner was slain] because he had the power to protest about Nob, the city of priests, but did not protest.”

(Numb. 19:2:) “This is the statute of the Torah.” R. Tanhum bar Hanila'i opened [his discourse] (with Ps. 12:7), “The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings.”³⁶Lev. R. 26:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:4. Are the sayings of the Lord [true] sayings, but the sayings of flesh and blood not [true] sayings? Now by universal custom, when a king of flesh and blood enters a province, the inhabitants of the province praise³⁷Rt.: QLS. Cf. Gk.: kalos (“beautiful”). him; and their praise is pleasing to him. He says to them, “Tomorrow I am building bath houses³⁸Dimosa’ot: The translation derives its meaning from the Gk. demosia (“public buildings”), but Jastrow, s.v., demosia, understands the plural of this word more specifically to mean “public baths”, a meaning that well fits this context. for you, and I am building baths for you and I am bringing in a water carrier for you.” [Then] he goes to sleep and never gets up. Where is he [now], and where are his promises (literally, statements)? The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is not like this. Rather the statement of God is true, as (in Jer. 10:10), “He is a living God and an everlasting King.” R. Joshua ben Levi said, “We find that the Torah has twisted two or three words in the Torah, so as not to bring forth something unclean from His (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He's) mouth.³⁹In addition to the parallels for the last section, see Gen. R. 32:4; also cf. M. Pss. 12:5; also Pes. 3b. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:2), ‘From the clean beast and from the beast which is not clean.’ So it is not written, ‘of the unclean beast.’" R. Judan said, “When He came to introduce the signs of an unclean beast, He only began with the signs of purity. It is not written here (in Lev. 11:4), ‘the camel, because it does not have a cloven hoof,’ but “[the camel] because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written here (in Lev. 11:6), ‘The hare, because it does not have a hoof,’ but ‘[The hare], because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written (in Lev. 11:7), ‘The pig, because it does not chew its cud,’ but ‘[the pig], because it has a cloven hoof [and is cleft footed, but does not chew its cud].’” R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “The infants who lived in the days of David, [even] before they had a gotten a taste of sin, knew how to interpret the Torah with forty-nine reasons for declaring an object unclean and forty-nine reasons for declaring an object clean.⁴⁰Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Cant. R. 2:4:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:10; 21:10; M. Pss. 7:7; 12:4; cf. PR 14:6; see also below. So David prayed for them and said (in Ps. 12:8), ‘You, O Lord, will keep them; You will guard each [of them] from this generation unto eternity.’ (ibid.:) ‘You, O Lord, will keep them,’ [i.e.,] watch over their instruction in their hearts; (ibid., cont.) ‘You will guard each [of them from this generation unto eternity],’ from the generation which is worthy of destruction. But after all this praise, they went out to war and fell, because there were slanderers⁴¹Lat.: delatores (“informers”). among them. This is what David says (in Ps. 57:5), ‘My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie down among those who are aflame, men whose teeth are spears and darts, and whose tongues are a sharp sword.’ (ibid.:) ‘My soul is in the midst of lions,’ these are Abner and Amasa, who were lions with the Torah⁴²Although lions, they did not support David when they should have. See Ps. 17:12.; (ibid., cont.) ‘I lie down among those who are aflame,’ these are Doeg and Ahithophel, who were aflame to slander [David]⁴³On Doeg, see I Sam. 22:8-10; Ps. 52:1. On Ahithophel, see II Sam. 17:1-23.; (ibid., cont.) ‘men whose teeth are spears and darts,’ these are the people of Keilah, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 23:12), ‘Will the people of Keilah surrender me?’ (Ps. 57:5, cont.:) ‘And whose tongue is a sharp sword,’ these are the Ziphites, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 54:2), ‘When the Ziphites came and said to Saul, “Is not David hiding among us […]?”’ At that time David said (in Ps. 57:6), ‘”Be exalted, O God, above the heavens,” remove your Divine Presence from among them.’ The generation of Ahab, however, were all worshipers of idols; yet because there were no slanderers among them, they went out to war and won.⁴⁴Deut. R. 5:10; cf. Meg. 11a, according to which Ahab was one of three who ruled over the whole world. The other two were Ahasuerus and Nebuchadnezzar. That [freedom from informers] is what [enabled] Obadiah to say to Elijah (in I Kings 18:13), ‘Has it not been told to my lord what I did [when Jezebel slew the prophets, how I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord …, and provided them with bread and water?’ If bread [is mentioned], why [mention] water? Simply because it was more difficult to bring them the water than the bread.⁴⁵Because of the drought, the greater difficulty in obtaining water would advertise what he was doing. And yet Elijah made his proclamation⁴⁶Rt.: KRZ; see Gk.: keryssein. on Mount Carmel and said (in vs. 22), ‘I am the only prophet of the Lord left,’ and [even though] all the people knew [about Obadiah’s prophets], they did not expose it to the king.” R. Samuel b. R. Nahman said, “They said to the serpent, ‘Why is it that you are found among the fences?’ It said to them, ‘I made a breach in the fence of the world.’⁴⁷I.e., brought sin into the world. They said to it, ‘Why is it that you move along with your tongue slavering?’⁴⁸See also yPe’ah 1:1 (16ab); cf. ‘Arakh. 15b. It said to them, ‘That [tongue] caused me [to make the breach].’ They said to it, ‘Why is it that, when all the [other] animals bite, they do not kill; but when you bite, you do kill?’ It said to them (in Eccl. 10:11), ‘”If a snake bites without being under a spell, the owner of the tongue (i.e., one able to charm the snake) has no advantage.” Is it possible for me to do anything without me being told from on High?’ ‘Then why is it that, when you bite one limb, all the limbs feel [the pain]?’ It said to them, ‘Are you asking me? Ask a slandering informer,⁴⁹Literally: “Master of the tongue.” the one who [remains] here and [yet] slays in Rome.’” Why is the slandering informer named a "third?”⁵⁰See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev. 19:16. The targumist translates rakhil, which came to be interpreted as “slanderer” or “informer,” with lishan telita’e (“triple tongue”). Because [such a slanderer] kills three people: the one who speaks it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is spoken.⁵¹Also ‘Arakh. 15b; M. Pss. 12:2. In the days of Saul it killed four: Doeg, who spoke it⁵²I Sam 22:9-10 and II Sam. 1:15, as interpreted by Rashi on II Sam. 1:2.; Saul, who received it⁵³See Rashi on II Sam. 1:9, who knows a midrash, according to which Saul was slain for slaying the priests of Nob.; Ahimelech, about whom it was spoken⁵⁴In I Sam. 22:16-19.; and Abner ben Ner. Now why was Abner ben Ner slain? Joshua ben Levi said, “[He was slain] because he had his [own] name precede the name of David. This is what is written (in II Sam. 3:12), ‘Then Abner sent messengers unto David where he was, saying, “To whom does the land belong?”’ [In the message] he wrote, ‘From Abner to David.’”⁵⁵Instead of “to David from Abner.” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “[He was slain] because he made the blood of young men [a matter of] amusement (rt.: shq), as stated (in II Sam. 2:14), ‘Please let the young men arise and play (rt.: shq) before us.’” Our masters have said, “[He was slain] because he did [not] wait for Saul to be reconciled⁵⁶Rt.: PYS. Cf. the Gk. noun, peisis, which designates the softer feelings. with David, where it is stated (in I Sam. 24:12, with David addressing Saul), ‘See, my father, see the corner of your cloak in my hand; for when I cut off the corner of your cloak, I did not kill you].’ [Saul] said to him, ‘Abner, what do you want [to understand] from the cloak? You said, “It was caught on a thorn.”’ When [David] came toward wagons around the camp, he said to him (in I Sam. 26:14), ‘“Abner, will you not answer?’ As for the corner of the cloak, you said was caught on a thorn. Were [the] spear and [the] water jar (of I Sam. 26:11) caught on a thorn?’” There are also some who say, “[Abner was slain] because he had the power to protest about Nob, the city of priests, but did not protest.”

“The tongue of the suckling sticks to its palate from thirst; infants request bread, and no one breaks it with them” (Lamentations 4:4).
“The tongue of the suckling sticks.” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: The stream of water that flowed from the shops,¹⁹These shops were located near the Temple Mount. the tormentors destroyed it and emptied it. A person was leading his son to the stream, but did not find water. His tongue would stick to his palate from thirst.
“Infants request bread [and no one breaks it [pores] with them]” Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis, Rabbi Yehuda said: If there is no one to give it to them, who will comfort them? Just as it says: “They will not break bread [yifresu] for them in mourning” (Jeremiah 16:7). Rabbi Neḥemya said: There is no one who will give them a slice of bread, just as it says: “Is it not to slice [paros] your bread for the hungry” (Isaiah 58:7). The Rabbis say: They have no one to stand in the line,²⁰The customary lines of comforters between whom the mourner passes at the conclusion of the burial. just as it says: “Everything…that has split hooves [mafreset parsa]” (Leviticus 11:3).

4) You say that "in the waters, in the seas" comes to tell us that the waters that I permitted are the waters that I forbade. But perhaps it comes to tell us that the species that I permitted is the species that I forbade. And which species did I permit? Those which have bones and which reproduce, (which are found only in those which have fins and scales); so, I forbade only those species which have bones and which reproduce. Whence do we derive (that I forbade also) those which have bones and do not reproduce, and those which do not have bones and which do not reproduce — until you include (as forbidden) galim and frogs which grow in the water and on the land? From (Vayikra 11:10): "All that do not have, etc."

4) (Vayikra 11:15) ("Every raven after its kind") "raven": This is the (black) raven; "every raven": to include the "deep" (i.e., white) raven and the pigeon-headed raven; "after its kind" (lemino): the starling; "after its kind" (lemineihu, Vayikra 11:16): to include the swallow.

4) (Vayikra 11:15) ("Every raven after its kind") "raven": This is the (black) raven; "every raven": to include the "deep" (i.e., white) raven and the pigeon-headed raven; "after its kind" (lemino): the starling; "after its kind" (lemineihu, Vayikra 11:16): to include the swallow.

4) I might think that the entire beast is permitted; it is, therefore, written (Bereshith 9:4): "Only the flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat" — ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal) is forbidden. (Bereshith 32:33): "Therefore, the children of Israel may not eat the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh)" — the gid hanasheh is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:3): "All fats (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat" — cheilev is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:26): "And all blood you shall not eat" — blood is forbidden. I might think that they are permitted whether slaughtered (by shechitah) or not slaughtered, (but killed in some other way); it is, therefore, written (Devarim 27:7): "And you shall slaughter (by shechitah) … and you shall eat."

4) (I do need it,) for if Scripture has been stringent (for seven days) with the graver tumah of a man, should we be stringent (until the evening of the same day) with the lesser tumah of a beast? I can derive it, then, from the lesser tumah of sheratzim (creeping things), viz.: There is tumah in a beast and tumah in a sheretz. Just as with a sheretz, ever min hechai from it confers tumah, so, with a beast, ever min hechai from it confers tumah.

4) Let us see what it (an unclean animal) is (most) similar to — We derive something (i.e., an unclean animal) in whose kind shechitah does not (normally) obtain from something in whose kind shechitah does not (normally) obtain (i.e., a sheretz), and this is not to be refuted by treifah, in whose kind shechitah does normally obtain. Or, go in this direction: We derive something which confers tumah through being carried (i.e., an unclean animal, when it dies) from something (a treifah), which confers tumah (when it dies), and this is not to be refuted by sheretz, which never confers tumah through being carried. It must, therefore, be written "Everyone that touches them shall be tamei" to include an unclean beast, its shechitah not freeing it (of neveilah tumah).

4) (Vayikra 11:29) "the mouse": I would think that the sea-mouse is also tamei. But does it not follow a fortiori (that it is not tamei), viz.: The "weasel" (preceding "the mouse" in the verse) is tamei), and the mouse is tamei. Just as the weasel grows (only) on the ground, so "the mouse" must be of the type that grows (only) on the ground. — But perhaps just as "weasel" is, as the name implies, (i.e., any weasel [and all weasels grow on the ground]), so, in "mouse" I would include the sea-mouse. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:29) "on the earth" — to exclude what is in the sea.

4) "Everything that touches them will be tamei": to include the handles of vessels (i.e., if the handle touches them, the entire vessel becomes unclean.) But I might think that this is so even (if the sheretz touched a part of the handle) which is greater than the amount (needed for the vessel's manipulation). It is, therefore, written "them" — everything that is needed for their (the vessel's) use. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan b. Nuria said to him: Scripture (in "them") speaks of the causer of the tumah (i.e., the sheretz), and you speak of that which becomes tamei (the vessel)! R. Akiva responded (I agree with you.) I understand the verse as "All who touch them (the sheratzim) will be unclean until the evening." One who eats what is tamei and one who drinks what is tamei does not become unclean until the evening, (but only one who touches what is tamei. As to my applying "them" to the vessels, I did so only by way of asmachta [a kind of "support" for what is already understood]).

4) This ("sack" [Vayikra 11:32]) tells me only of a sack made of goats. Whence do I derive (as also acquiring tumah) a sack made of pig or of a cow's tail? From "or sack." This tells me only of sheretz. Whence do I derive the same for dead-body tumah. It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) sheretz, a lesser form (of tumah), the work of pig is equated with the work of goats, then (in the instance of) dead-body (tumah), the more acute form, should the work of pig not be equated with the work of goats!

4) (Vayikra 15:17) ("And every garment and all skin upon which there shall be semen shall be washed in water, and it shall be unclean until the evening.") "garment and skin": This tells me only of garment and skin. Whence do I derive that all other implements are like garment and skin in this regard? From "every garment and all skin." Or, if you wish, "garment and skin" is written in respect to sheretz (Vayikra 11:32), and "garment and skin" is written in respect to a dead body, and "garment and skin" is written in respect to semen. Just as "garment and skin" written in respect to sheretz and a dead body applies to all implements, so, "garment and skin" written in respect to semen applies to all implements.

4) (Vayikra 11:32): "vessels of wood": I might think (to include) a ladder, a rack, a tray, and a lamp. It is, therefore, written "of … wood," and not all wood. Or I might think (to exclude) a table, a tavla, and a dolfaki (also kinds of tables). It is, therefore, written "all … wood," for inclusion. Why did you see fit to include these and to exclude these? After Scripture included, it excluded. It is, therefore, written "sack." Just as sack is distinct in serving both man (He can clothe himself in it) and his servers (He can put his vessels in it), so I include table and dolfaki, which serve man (He can support himself on them) and the servers of man (He can place his vessels in them), and I exclude ladder, which serves man but not the servers of man, and (I exclude) rack, tray, and lamp, which serve the servers of man, but do not serve man.

4) (Vayikra 11:33): "into its midst": (An earthenware vessel) that has a "midst" acquires tumah; one that does not have a midst, does not." This excludes (from acquiring tumah) an earthen bed, or chair, or bench, or table, or menorah, (which are not made for receiving objects). This testimony was given by Chizkiah avi Akash before R. Gamliel in Yavneh in the name of R. Gamliel in the name of R. Gamliel the elder: Whatever has no "midst" in earthenware has no back (for purposes of acquiring tumah).

4) "which shall be drunk": to exclude foul drink. These are the words of R. Eliezer. They said to him: No drink is out of bounds for birds or cows, (so that foul drink, too, predisposes to tumah).

4) "a mikvah of water": and not a mikvah of other liquids. ("a mikvah of water":) to exclude (from kashruth), there having fallen into it pickling brine or dye-water and having changed its appearance, (in which instance it invalidates the mikvah even if it lacks three logs). These are the words of R. Meir. For R. Meir was wont to say: Pickling brine and dye water, and all that invalidates with three logs, invalidates also with changing the appearance (of the mikvah water). R. Yossi says: All that invalidates it with three logs (by reason of "drawn water") does not invalidate it (with less than three logs) by reason of changing its appearance.

4) If you say that "by Heaven" they are tamei and "by man" they are clean, you have made everything "tamei" (for it is impossible that no water fell upon them from the time they were uprooted.) And if you say "by Heaven" they are clean and "by man" they are tamei, you have made some tamei and some clean. If you say that for animal consumption they are tamei and for human consumption they are clean, you have made everything tamei (for all seed is fit for animal consumption). And if you say that for human consumption they are tamei and for animal consumption they are clean, you have made some tamei and some clean.

4) (Vayikra 11:39) ("And if there die of the beast which is yours to eat, he that touches its carcass shall be tamei until the evening.") "yours": to include an unclean beast as conferring (carrion) tumah by being carried. (Now why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a clean beast, whose shechitah cleanses it, confers (carrion) tumah by being carried, how much more so should an unclean beast, whose shechitah does not cleanse it, confer (carrion) tumah by being carried! — This is refuted by sheretz, whose shechitah does not cleanse it and yet it does not confer (carrion) tumah by being carried. You, likewise, should not wonder if an unclean beast, even though its shechitah does not cleanse it, did not confer tumah upon being carried. It must, therefore, be written "yours," to include an unclean beast as conferring tumah by being carried.

4) I might think that the same is true of an unclean animal born of a clean one; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel … it is unclean." This (a camel born of a camel) is unclean (and not the other). R. Shimon says: Why is the camel mentioned twice? (Vayikra 11:4 and Devarim 14:7). One for a camel born of a camel; the other for a camel born of a cow.

4) "and you shall not make yourselves tamei with every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth": even if it does not reproduce. (Vayikra 11:45): "For I am the L–rd, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt": It is for this reason that I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, on condition that you accept upon yourselves the yoke of mitzvoth. For all who accept the yoke of mitzvoth acknowledge the exodus from Egypt, and all who do not accept the yoke of mitzvoth deny the exodus from Egypt. "to be a G d to you" — perforce! "And you shall be holy, for I am holy.": Just as I am holy, so you are holy. Just as I am divorced (from the material), so, you, divorce yourselves (from materialism).

4) "and you shall not make yourselves tamei with every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth": even if it does not reproduce. (Vayikra 11:45): "For I am the L–rd, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt": It is for this reason that I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, on condition that you accept upon yourselves the yoke of mitzvoth. For all who accept the yoke of mitzvoth acknowledge the exodus from Egypt, and all who do not accept the yoke of mitzvoth deny the exodus from Egypt. "to be a G d to you" — perforce! "And you shall be holy, for I am holy.": Just as I am holy, so you are holy. Just as I am divorced (from the material), so, you, divorce yourselves (from materialism).

4) You say that "in the waters, in the seas" comes to tell us that the waters that I permitted are the waters that I forbade. But perhaps it comes to tell us that the species that I permitted is the species that I forbade. And which species did I permit? Those which have bones and which reproduce, (which are found only in those which have fins and scales); so, I forbade only those species which have bones and which reproduce. Whence do we derive (that I forbade also) those which have bones and do not reproduce, and those which do not have bones and which do not reproduce — until you include (as forbidden) galim and frogs which grow in the water and on the land? From (Vayikra 11:10): "All that do not have, etc."

[(Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.] {R. Isaac} [R. Ahawa] bar Ze'era said: (Job 37:1:) AT THIS ALSO MY HEART TREMBLES AND LEAPS FROM ITS PLACE. What is the meaning of AND LEAPS?³⁶Tanh., Lev. 6:4; PRK 26(27):5; Lev. R. 20:5. "Jumps," as < Scripture > says (in Lev. 11:21): < WHICH HAVE KNEES ABOVE THEIR FEET > WITH WHICH TO JUMP UPON THE EARTH. Moreover, we translate < the word > > "to jump" (in the Targum Onqelos of Lev. 11:21). When Titus the Wicked entered the Holy of Holies and {sawed} [cut] < open > the curtain,³⁷So Sifre, Deut. 32:38; (328); Git. 56b; Gen. R. 10:7; Lev. R. 22:3; Eccl. R. 5:8:4; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2:82; Ant. 20.250; plus the parallels mentioned above. Cf. Exod. R. 51:5, according to which Hadrian committed the sacrilegious act, and M. Pss. 121:3, according to which it was Titus’ nephew. Cf. also Mark 25:38 // Matthew 37:51 // Luke 23:45. he entered in peace and came out in peace; but the sons of Aaron entered to offer sacrifice and came out destroyed by fire. [It is so stated (in Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.

5) ("fins and scales") This tells me only of (fish with) an abundance of scales and fins, such as kiponoth. Whence do I derive the same for a fish that has only one fin and one scale? From (Vayikra 11:10) "All that do not have (lit.) a fin and a scale (kaskas)." R. Yehudah says: two scales. And even though there is no proof for this, there is an "intimation" for it, viz. (I Samuel 17:5): "and in armor of scales (kaskasim, plural) was he clothed." R. Yossi b. Dormaskita says: The leviathan is a clean fish, as it is written (Iyyov 41:7): "Its (the leviathan's) pride is the strength of shields" — these are its scales; (Iyyov 41:22): "Beneath it are sharp shards" — these are its fins.

5) (Vayikra 11:16): "and the hawk after its kind": "the hawk": as indicated; "after its kind": to include bar charya. Why is "lemineihu" (after its kind) mentioned four times? For I might say that only these (birds that are mentioned) are forbidden, but the rest (that are not mentioned) are permitted; it is, therefore, stated "lemineihu" to include (the others of its kind that are not mentioned). How so? I deduce from what is mentioned, viz.:

5) I might think that only "the lamb of sheep" (i.e., of two sheep) "and the kid of goats" (i.e., of two goats), (were permitted). Whence would I derive (as also permitted) kilaim (an admixture, e.g., the offspring of a lamb and a goat)? From the fact that it is written (Vayikra 11:2) "animal" and "beast" (unqualified, to indicate that anything called "animal" or "beast," with the required cleanliness signs, may be eaten.) This tells me only of kilaim of (one kind of) animal (begotten) from (a different kind of) animal, or of beast from beast. Whence do I derive (the same for) beast from animal or animal from beast? From (Vayikra 11:2): "the animal … of every beast" — "animal," in any event; "beast," in any event.

5) — Now if Scripture is stringent with a sheretz, whose blood is like its flesh, shall we then be stringent with a beast, whose blood is not like its flesh? — I will derive it, then, from ever min hameth (a limb from a dead animal), viz.: If ever min hameth, whose prohibition does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, (the former being permitted to eat of a dead animal that has not been slaughtered by shechitah), yet (it) confers tumah, then ever min hechai, whose prohibition does obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, should it not confer tumah? — No, this may be so with ever min hameth, where the flesh that falls off from it is tamei, but would you say (the same for) ever min hechai, where the flesh that falls off from it (as opposed to being torn off from it) is clean? Since the flesh that falls off from it is tahor, it (the flesh torn off from it) should not confer tumah! (It is, therefore, necessary) to write "all who touch their carcass" (Vayikra 11:24), and "all who carry of their carcass" (Vayikra 11:25) (are tamei), to include ever min hechai.

5) — Now if Scripture is stringent with a sheretz, whose blood is like its flesh, shall we then be stringent with a beast, whose blood is not like its flesh? — I will derive it, then, from ever min hameth (a limb from a dead animal), viz.: If ever min hameth, whose prohibition does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, (the former being permitted to eat of a dead animal that has not been slaughtered by shechitah), yet (it) confers tumah, then ever min hechai, whose prohibition does obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, should it not confer tumah? — No, this may be so with ever min hameth, where the flesh that falls off from it is tamei, but would you say (the same for) ever min hechai, where the flesh that falls off from it (as opposed to being torn off from it) is clean? Since the flesh that falls off from it is tahor, it (the flesh torn off from it) should not confer tumah! (It is, therefore, necessary) to write "all who touch their carcass" (Vayikra 11:24), and "all who carry of their carcass" (Vayikra 11:25) (are tamei), to include ever min hechai.

5) (Vayikra 11:27): "that walks upon its soles": This is the ape. "And all that walk": to include (in all of these laws of tumah, even though they have no hooves at all) the long-tailed ape, the porcupine, the adnei hasadeh, and the sea-dog. (Vayikra 11:27): "the animal": This is the clean animal. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in the laws of tumah) the unclean animal? From "which walk on four." "among all animals": to include the elephant (though it is "unique").

5) "and he who touches their carcass shall be tamei": Hillel says: Even if they are in the midst of the water. For I would say: Since (being connected to) the earth rescues (what is connected to it) from becoming tamei (viz. Vayikra 11:27) and the mikvah rescues what is tamei from their tumah, then just as the earth rescues the clean from becoming tamei, so the mikvah rescues the clean from becoming tamei. It is, therefore, written "and he who touches their carcass shall be unclean," even if they are in the midst of the water.

5) But perhaps I should understand "on the earth" as meaning that it confers tumah only when it is on the earth, but if it enters the sea (and touches an object there) it does not confer tumah. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:29) "that creeps (hashoretz on the earth") — Anywhere it "creeps" (even the sea) it confers tumah.

5) "All who touch them will be tamei": I might think ("all who touch them") when they are alive. It is, therefore, written "in their death." If "in their death," I might think this excludes "in their shechitah." It is, therefore, written "them," even in their shechitah (i.e., their shechitah does not free them of their state of tumah.) How, then, am I to understand "in their death"? In their death, (they confer tumah), and not in their life.

5) (Vayikra 11:32): "of every vessel of wood (…where there shall fall of them"): I might think (this to include) a chest, a box, a closet, a straw receptacle, a reed receptacle, and the (wooden, water) reservoir of an Alexandrian boat, which have rims and which hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor in dry measure. It is, therefore, written "of… vessel of wood," and not all vessels of wood. Or, I might think to exclude a (wooden water) tank on wheels, the provision boxes of kings, the tanners' trough, the reservoir of a small boat, and an ark. It is, therefore, written "every vessel of wood," to include them. Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude these? After Scripture included, it excluded. It is, therefore, written "sack." Jus as a sack is distinct in that it is moved when full, so I include a wheeled tank, kings' boxes, the tanners' trough, the reservoir of a small boat, and an ark, which are moved when full, and I exclude chest, box, and closet, straw receptacle, reed receptacle, and the reservoir of an Alexandrian boat, which have rims and which hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor in dry measure, which are not moved when full.

5) Now if Scripture included (for tumah in the instance of that which comes from the tail of a cow and from a pig,) tumah until evening, which obtains with many (types of tumah by touching), should I, then, include (for dead-body tumah what comes from the tail of a cow and from a pig), tumah for seven days, which obtains with only a limited (type of tumah, that of touching a dead body)? It must, therefore, be written "garment … skin" - "garment … skin," for a gezeirah-shavah — Just as with sheretz, the work of a pig is equated with that of goats, so, with dead-body tumah, the work of a pig is equated with that of goats.

5) "its midst": We are hereby taught that it (an earthen vessel) acquires tumah, through its atmosphere (e.g., by a sheretz hanging in its atmosphere, even if it does not touch it). It acquires tumah through its midst (e.g., if liquid that is tamei touches its midst); but it does not acquire tumah through its back. (We need the verse for this, for otherwise we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori (that it should become tamei through its back) viz.: If vessels that require rinsing (to rid them of their tumah, i.e., vessels of wood and metal), which do not acquire tumah through their atmosphere, do acquire tumah through their back, then earthenware vessels, that do acquire tumah through their atmosphere, how much more so should they acquire tumah through their back! It is, therefore, written "its midst." It acquires tumah through its midst, and not through its back.

5) "And every drink which shall be drunk in every vessel shall (make it) unclean." We are hereby taught that drink (which is tamei) confers tumah upon the vessels. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: There is no drink-tumah for vessels mandated by the Torah, but only by the words of the scribes. R. Yehoshua b. Karchah said: I said to Yehudah: Why do we not subscribe to the words of R. Yossi beRebbi, who says that there is no drink-tumah for vessels mandated by the Torah, but only by the words of the scribes? Because there is no Torah-mandated tumah which terminates on the same day (that it is contracted), yet vessels made tamei by drink are freed from their tumah (by immersion) on the same day. Rebbi says: Know that there is no drink-tumah for vessels mandated by the Torah, but only by the words of the scribes; for there is no Torah-mandated tumah which confers tumah upon a "rinsing" vessel from the back without its midst becoming tamei, yet the midst of vessels made tamei by drink is clean. What, then, is the intent of "drink … in every vessel, it shall be unclean"? The vessels confer tumah upon the drinks! R. Eliezer says: There is no drink-tumah at all. Know this to be so; for Yossi b. Tzreidah testified about the slaughter-houses that they are clean, (the blood and the water there, not acquiring tumah). R. Akiva says: The sheretz confers tumah upon the vessels, and the vessels confer tumah upon the food, and the food confers tumah upon the drink — whereby we learn that three confer tumah through the sheretz.

5) "And if water be placed upon a seed": This teaches us that a sheretz does not confer tumah upon a seed until it has been conditioned (to acquire it by water). — (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be derived inductively? viz.: An earthen vessel confers tumah and a sheretz confers tumah. Just as an earthen vessel confers tumah upon seed only after it (the seed) has been conditioned by water (viz. Vayikra 11:34), so a sheretz confers tumah upon seed only after it has been conditioned. — Would you say such a thing? If you are lenient with an earthen vessel (which is only of first-degree tumah [rishon letumah]), would you be lenient with a sheretz (which is proto-tumah [av hatumah])? You would say that it confers tumah whether or not the seed has been conditioned! It is, therefore, written "And if water be placed … it is tamei," to teach us that a sheretz confers tumah upon seed only after it has been conditioned.

5) By "oven," I understand (as being tamei) both one that is new (i.e., one that was not heated in a furnace, but dried in the sun) and one that is old (i.e., one that was heated in a furnace). And this follows, viz.: An earthen vessel acquires tumah and an oven acquires tumah. Just as an earthen vessel (acquires tumah) when its fashioning is complete; so, an oven. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva responded: Do you deduce what is possible (i.e., an oven, which it is possible to heat in a furnace) from what is impossible (i.e., an earthen vessel, which it is impossible to heat thus)? R. Eliezer: Even though it is possible, the proof holds!

5) "and he who touches their carcass shall be tamei": Hillel says: Even if they are in the midst of the water. For I would say: Since (being connected to) the earth rescues (what is connected to it) from becoming tamei (viz. Vayikra 11:27) and the mikvah rescues what is tamei from their tumah, then just as the earth rescues the clean from becoming tamei, so the mikvah rescues the clean from becoming tamei. It is, therefore, written "and he who touches their carcass shall be unclean," even if they are in the midst of the water.

5) "And if water be placed upon a seed": This teaches us that a sheretz does not confer tumah upon a seed until it has been conditioned (to acquire it by water). — (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be derived inductively? viz.: An earthen vessel confers tumah and a sheretz confers tumah. Just as an earthen vessel confers tumah upon seed only after it (the seed) has been conditioned by water (viz. Vayikra 11:34), so a sheretz confers tumah upon seed only after it has been conditioned. — Would you say such a thing? If you are lenient with an earthen vessel (which is only of first-degree tumah [rishon letumah]), would you be lenient with a sheretz (which is proto-tumah [av hatumah])? You would say that it confers tumah whether or not the seed has been conditioned! It is, therefore, written "And if water be placed … it is tamei," to teach us that a sheretz confers tumah upon seed only after it has been conditioned.

5) "to eat": to include (in carrion uncleanliness) an eighth-month birth, that its shechitah not cleanse it (from carrion uncleanliness, it being regarded as a dead animal that has been slaughtered.) R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon say: An eighth-month birth — its shechitah cleanses it (from carrion uncleanliness, it being regarded as a treifah that has been slaughtered by shechitah). "its carcass": not its bones or its sinews or its horns or its hooves. I might think (that these do not contract carrion tumah) even when they are connected (to the flesh). It is, therefore, written "shall be tamei" (to include the above in carrion tumah). "its carcass": and not an intact marrow-bone. I might think (that it does not contract carrion tumah) even if it were pierced; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "shall be tamei."

5) (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel, because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:5) and the coney because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:6) and the hare because it chews the cud, etc." What is the intent of this? It is already written (Devarim 14:7): "the camel, and the hare, and the coney, for they chew the cud, etc."! Why are they mentioned? To include the aforementioned inclusions.

5) (Vayikra 11:46): "This is the law of the beast and the bird": In which law is the beast similar to the bird, and birds, to the beast? A beast confers tumah by being touched or being carried, and a bird does not confer tumah by being touched or being carried, (but only by being eaten)! A bird confers tumah upon one's clothing (if another stuffs it) into his esophagus; and not, a beast! In which law, then, is the beast similar to the bird, and the bird, to the beast? We are hereby being taught that just as a beast (is slaughtered) by shechitah, so birds (are slaughtered) by shechitah. — If so, (why not say, then, that) just as a beast required two (shechitah) signs (to be severed), so, a bird, requires two, or the greater part of two? It is, therefore, written "This" (i.e., only in this respect (shechitah in general) that they are similar, but not in the other). R. Elazar says: In which law is a beast similar to a bird, and a bird to a beast? To teach us that both (are rendered fit) through the throat. — If so, (why not say, then, that) just as a bird (is "pinched") opposite its nape (viz. Vayikra 5:8), so a beast, opposite its nape; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:8) "its head" — the head of a bird opposite its nape, and not the head of a beast.

5) (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel, because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:5) and the coney because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:6) and the hare because it chews the cud, etc." What is the intent of this? It is already written (Devarim 14:7): "the camel, and the hare, and the coney, for they chew the cud, etc."! Why are they mentioned? To include the aforementioned inclusions.

5) (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel, because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:5) and the coney because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:6) and the hare because it chews the cud, etc." What is the intent of this? It is already written (Devarim 14:7): "the camel, and the hare, and the coney, for they chew the cud, etc."! Why are they mentioned? To include the aforementioned inclusions.

5) ("fins and scales") This tells me only of (fish with) an abundance of scales and fins, such as kiponoth. Whence do I derive the same for a fish that has only one fin and one scale? From (Vayikra 11:10) "All that do not have (lit.) a fin and a scale (kaskas)." R. Yehudah says: two scales. And even though there is no proof for this, there is an "intimation" for it, viz. (I Samuel 17:5): "and in armor of scales (kaskasim, plural) was he clothed." R. Yossi b. Dormaskita says: The leviathan is a clean fish, as it is written (Iyyov 41:7): "Its (the leviathan's) pride is the strength of shields" — these are its scales; (Iyyov 41:22): "Beneath it are sharp shards" — these are its fins.

(Lev. 11:1-2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying […], ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel, saying, “These are the creatures that you may eat….”’” It is stated (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; He looked and made nations tremble.” What is the meaning of “He arose and measured the earth?”²⁸Tanh., Deut. 11:3. It is simply that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to give the Torah to Israel, He arose and measured (mdd) the earth.²⁹Cf. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 1, 5; Lev. R. 8:2. Then he gave the Torah in public³⁰Gk.: parresia. in the desert.³¹The sense here is that the Holy One gave the Torah openly on neutral ground, not secretly in Israel. Therefore (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth,” because He wanted to return the world to the measurements of His waters, when the nations did not want to accept the Torah. If it had not been for Israel accepting it, the world would have returned to the measurements of His waters. [It is] just as you say (in Is. 40:12), “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?” But when Israel accepted it, the earth was still, as stated (in Ps. 76:9), “the earth was afraid and was still.” So it is from there (i.e., from Sinai) that the gentiles received their judgement,³²Gk.: apophasis. as stated (Hab. 3:6, cont.), “He looked and made nations tremble (rt.: ntr).” R. Tanhum ben Hanila'i said, “He permitted (hittir) what was forbidden, abhorrent creatures and creeping things.” The matter is comparable to a physician who went to visit two patients.³³Lev. R. 13:2. He saw that one of them was in danger. He said to the children of his house, “Tell him to eat whatever he wants.” He saw the other, who was recovering. He said to the children of his house, “Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat.” They said to the physician, “What is [the difference] that you said to the one, ‘Let him eat whatever he wants,’ but said to the other one, ‘Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat?’” The physician said to them, “When I saw that the one was dying, I said, ‘Give him [any food] because he is going to die’; but let the other one watch himself, because there is life in him.” So also the Holy One, blessed be He, has permitted (hittir) abhorrent creatures and creeping things to the gentiles. But in the case of Israel, because they are [destined] for life, He has said to them (in Lev. 11:44), “and be holy, for I am holy”; (in Lev. 11:43) “You shall not make yourselves loathsome.” This you may eat and this you may not eat. Why? Because they are alive, as stated (in Deut. 4:4), “But you who clung to the Lord your God are all alive today.” Ergo (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; He looked and permitted (rt.: ntr) gentiles,” [that which is forbidden]….³⁴So R. Tanhum ben Hanila’i has reinterpreted the more traditional, AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE. Three things Moshe found difficult [to comprehend], and the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him, etc.

Another interpretation (of Numb. 19:2): THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE TORAH. (Ps. 12:7 [6]:) THE SAYINGS OF THE LORD ARE PURE SAYINGS. R. Joshua ben Levi said: We find that the Torah has twisted two or three words in the Torah, so as not to bring forth something unclean from his (i.e., the Holy One's) mouth.⁴⁹In addition to the parallels for the last section, see Gen. R. 32:4; also cf. M. Pss. 12:5; also Pes. 3b. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:2): OF EVERY CLEAN BEAST YOU SHALL TAKE SEVEN PAIRS, MALES AND THEIR MATES, AND OF THE BEAST WHICH IS NOT CLEAN, <TWO, A MALE AND ITS MATE>. So it is not written: "Of the unclean beast." R. Judan said: When he came to introduce the signs of an unclean beast, he would always begin with the signs of purity. It is not written here (in Lev. 11:4): "The camel, because it does not have a cloven hoof," but <THE CAMEL> BECAUSE IT CHEWS ITS CUD <BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CLOVEN HOOF>. [It is not written here (in Lev. 11:6): "The hare, because it does not have a hoof," but <THE HARE>, BECAUSE IT CHEWS ITS CUD <BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CLOVEN HOOF>. It is not written (in Lev. 11:7): "The pig, because it does not chew its cud," but <THE PIG>, BECAUSE IT HAS A CLOVEN HOOF <AND IS CLEFT FOOTED, BUT DOES NOT CHEW ITS CUD>.

(Lev. 11:1-2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying […], ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel, saying, “These are the creatures that you may eat….”’” It is stated (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; He looked and made nations tremble.” What is the meaning of “He arose and measured the earth?”²⁸Tanh., Deut. 11:3. It is simply that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to give the Torah to Israel, He arose and measured (mdd) the earth.²⁹Cf. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 1, 5; Lev. R. 8:2. Then he gave the Torah in public³⁰Gk.: parresia. in the desert.³¹The sense here is that the Holy One gave the Torah openly on neutral ground, not secretly in Israel. Therefore (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth,” because He wanted to return the world to the measurements of His waters, when the nations did not want to accept the Torah. If it had not been for Israel accepting it, the world would have returned to the measurements of His waters. [It is] just as you say (in Is. 40:12), “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?” But when Israel accepted it, the earth was still, as stated (in Ps. 76:9), “the earth was afraid and was still.” So it is from there (i.e., from Sinai) that the gentiles received their judgement,³²Gk.: apophasis. as stated (Hab. 3:6, cont.), “He looked and made nations tremble (rt.: ntr).” R. Tanhum ben Hanila'i said, “He permitted (hittir) what was forbidden, abhorrent creatures and creeping things.” The matter is comparable to a physician who went to visit two patients.³³Lev. R. 13:2. He saw that one of them was in danger. He said to the children of his house, “Tell him to eat whatever he wants.” He saw the other, who was recovering. He said to the children of his house, “Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat.” They said to the physician, “What is [the difference] that you said to the one, ‘Let him eat whatever he wants,’ but said to the other one, ‘Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat?’” The physician said to them, “When I saw that the one was dying, I said, ‘Give him [any food] because he is going to die’; but let the other one watch himself, because there is life in him.” So also the Holy One, blessed be He, has permitted (hittir) abhorrent creatures and creeping things to the gentiles. But in the case of Israel, because they are [destined] for life, He has said to them (in Lev. 11:44), “and be holy, for I am holy”; (in Lev. 11:43) “You shall not make yourselves loathsome.” This you may eat and this you may not eat. Why? Because they are alive, as stated (in Deut. 4:4), “But you who clung to the Lord your God are all alive today.” Ergo (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; He looked and permitted (rt.: ntr) gentiles,” [that which is forbidden]….³⁴So R. Tanhum ben Hanila’i has reinterpreted the more traditional, AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE. Three things Moshe found difficult [to comprehend], and the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him, etc.

(Lev. 11:1-2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying […], ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel, saying, “These are the creatures that you may eat….”’” It is stated (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; He looked and made nations tremble.” What is the meaning of “He arose and measured the earth?”²⁸Tanh., Deut. 11:3. It is simply that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to give the Torah to Israel, He arose and measured (mdd) the earth.²⁹Cf. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 1, 5; Lev. R. 8:2. Then he gave the Torah in public³⁰Gk.: parresia. in the desert.³¹The sense here is that the Holy One gave the Torah openly on neutral ground, not secretly in Israel. Therefore (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth,” because He wanted to return the world to the measurements of His waters, when the nations did not want to accept the Torah. If it had not been for Israel accepting it, the world would have returned to the measurements of His waters. [It is] just as you say (in Is. 40:12), “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?” But when Israel accepted it, the earth was still, as stated (in Ps. 76:9), “the earth was afraid and was still.” So it is from there (i.e., from Sinai) that the gentiles received their judgement,³²Gk.: apophasis. as stated (Hab. 3:6, cont.), “He looked and made nations tremble (rt.: ntr).” R. Tanhum ben Hanila'i said, “He permitted (hittir) what was forbidden, abhorrent creatures and creeping things.” The matter is comparable to a physician who went to visit two patients.³³Lev. R. 13:2. He saw that one of them was in danger. He said to the children of his house, “Tell him to eat whatever he wants.” He saw the other, who was recovering. He said to the children of his house, “Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat.” They said to the physician, “What is [the difference] that you said to the one, ‘Let him eat whatever he wants,’ but said to the other one, ‘Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat?’” The physician said to them, “When I saw that the one was dying, I said, ‘Give him [any food] because he is going to die’; but let the other one watch himself, because there is life in him.” So also the Holy One, blessed be He, has permitted (hittir) abhorrent creatures and creeping things to the gentiles. But in the case of Israel, because they are [destined] for life, He has said to them (in Lev. 11:44), “and be holy, for I am holy”; (in Lev. 11:43) “You shall not make yourselves loathsome.” This you may eat and this you may not eat. Why? Because they are alive, as stated (in Deut. 4:4), “But you who clung to the Lord your God are all alive today.” Ergo (in Hab. 3:6), “He arose and measured the earth; He looked and permitted (rt.: ntr) gentiles,” [that which is forbidden]….³⁴So R. Tanhum ben Hanila’i has reinterpreted the more traditional, AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE. Three things Moshe found difficult [to comprehend], and the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him, etc.

Another interpretation (of Numb. 19:2): THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE TORAH. (Ps. 12:7 [6]:) THE SAYINGS OF THE LORD ARE PURE SAYINGS. R. Joshua ben Levi said: We find that the Torah has twisted two or three words in the Torah, so as not to bring forth something unclean from his (i.e., the Holy One's) mouth.⁴⁹In addition to the parallels for the last section, see Gen. R. 32:4; also cf. M. Pss. 12:5; also Pes. 3b. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:2): OF EVERY CLEAN BEAST YOU SHALL TAKE SEVEN PAIRS, MALES AND THEIR MATES, AND OF THE BEAST WHICH IS NOT CLEAN, <TWO, A MALE AND ITS MATE>. So it is not written: "Of the unclean beast." R. Judan said: When he came to introduce the signs of an unclean beast, he would always begin with the signs of purity. It is not written here (in Lev. 11:4): "The camel, because it does not have a cloven hoof," but <THE CAMEL> BECAUSE IT CHEWS ITS CUD <BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CLOVEN HOOF>. [It is not written here (in Lev. 11:6): "The hare, because it does not have a hoof," but <THE HARE>, BECAUSE IT CHEWS ITS CUD <BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CLOVEN HOOF>. It is not written (in Lev. 11:7): "The pig, because it does not chew its cud," but <THE PIG>, BECAUSE IT HAS A CLOVEN HOOF <AND IS CLEFT FOOTED, BUT DOES NOT CHEW ITS CUD>.

Another interpretation (of Numb. 19:2): THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE TORAH. (Ps. 12:7 [6]:) THE SAYINGS OF THE LORD ARE PURE SAYINGS. R. Joshua ben Levi said: We find that the Torah has twisted two or three words in the Torah, so as not to bring forth something unclean from his (i.e., the Holy One's) mouth.⁴⁹In addition to the parallels for the last section, see Gen. R. 32:4; also cf. M. Pss. 12:5; also Pes. 3b. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:2): OF EVERY CLEAN BEAST YOU SHALL TAKE SEVEN PAIRS, MALES AND THEIR MATES, AND OF THE BEAST WHICH IS NOT CLEAN, <TWO, A MALE AND ITS MATE>. So it is not written: "Of the unclean beast." R. Judan said: When he came to introduce the signs of an unclean beast, he would always begin with the signs of purity. It is not written here (in Lev. 11:4): "The camel, because it does not have a cloven hoof," but <THE CAMEL> BECAUSE IT CHEWS ITS CUD <BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CLOVEN HOOF>. [It is not written here (in Lev. 11:6): "The hare, because it does not have a hoof," but <THE HARE>, BECAUSE IT CHEWS ITS CUD <BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CLOVEN HOOF>. It is not written (in Lev. 11:7): "The pig, because it does not chew its cud," but <THE PIG>, BECAUSE IT HAS A CLOVEN HOOF <AND IS CLEFT FOOTED, BUT DOES NOT CHEW ITS CUD>.

Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE TO THE LORD? When the Holy One wanted to create Adam, the ministering angels said to the Holy One (in Ps. 8:5 [4]): WHAT IS A HUMAN THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM, AND A CHILD OF ADAM THAT YOU SHOULD THINK OF HIM? What do you want from this human? The Holy One said to them: Who is to fulfill my Torah and my commandments? They said to him: We will fulfill your Torah. He said to them: You are unable. They²⁶Although the Buber text reads “he” here, the context certainly requires the plural, “they.” said to him: Why? He said to them: It is written in < Torah > (in Numb. 19:14): < THIS IS THE TORAH: > WHEN A PERSON DIES IN HIS TENT, but there are none among you who die. It is written in < Torah > (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE, but there are none among you who bear < children >. It is written in < Torah > (in Lev. 11:21): THESE YOU MAY EAT, but in your case there is no eating among you. Ergo, the Torah is not going forth to you, as stated (in Job 28:13): NOR IS < WISDOM > FOUND IN THE LAND OF THE LIVING. Rather when the Holy One said to Israel that they should make a tabernacle for him and < when > they had made it, they began to build the altar of burnt offering, the altar of incense, and to offer sacrifice within it. < Then > the Holy One began to give them several commandments. These commands concerned every single thing, and they carried them out. The Holy One began to say to the ministering Angels: Who among you would prepare (rt.: 'RK) < everything > for me just as Israel prepares (rt.: 'RK) for me? Now you were saying to me (in Ps. 8:5 [4]): WHAT IS A HUMAN THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM…? They prepare (rt.: 'RK) sacrifices for me, just as stated (in Lev. 1:12): AND THE PRIEST SHALL ARRANGE (rt.: 'RK) THEM. They set (rt.: 'RK) tables for me, just as stated (in Lev. 24:8): HE SHALL ARRANGE (rt.: 'RK) IT (i.e., the shewbread) BEFORE THE LORD REGULARLY ON EVERY SABBATH DAY. They prepare (rt.: 'RK) human beings for me, just as stated (in Lev. 27:2): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE (rt.: 'RK) OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT). Ergo (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD (i.e., is capable of making preparations for the Lord)?]

6) Just as the nesher (Vayikra 11:13) which is mentioned, has no crop and does not have an additional claw (on the hind part of the leg) and has a craw which does not peel easily, and grasps (with its claws) and eats, so, all birds of this kind are unclean. Just as turtle-doves and young pigeons have a crop and have an additional claw and have a craw that peels easily and do not grasp (with their claws) and eat, so, all birds of this kind are clean.

6) Just as the nesher (Vayikra 11:13) which is mentioned, has no crop and does not have an additional claw (on the hind part of the leg) and has a craw which does not peel easily, and grasps (with its claws) and eats, so, all birds of this kind are unclean. Just as turtle-doves and young pigeons have a crop and have an additional claw and have a craw that peels easily and do not grasp (with their claws) and eat, so, all birds of this kind are clean.

6) I might think that the same applies to an animal and a sea-beast (i.e., that a sea-beast or a sea-animal begotten by a (land) animal could be eaten); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:2) "that is on the land" — to exclude a sea creature.

6) If they are mentioned above, why are they mentioned below? (i.e., Why mention here "All who touch their carcass will be unclean until the evening. And he that carries their carcass shall wash, etc.", if this has already been stated above [Vayikra 11:23-24])? What is stated above speaks of ever min hechai, and what is stated below speaks of ever min hameth (even if it lacks an olive-size of meat. [For if it has an olive-size of meat, it is tamei in any event by reason of an olive-size of neveilah]). (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If ever min hechai, where meat that falls from it (a living animal) is clean, confers tumah, then ever min hameth, where meat that falls from it (a dead animal) is tamei, how much more so should it confer tumah? — No, this may be so in the case of ever min hechai, the prohibition of which obtains with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites. Would you say the same for ever min hameth, the prohibition of which does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites? Since this is so, (we would say that) it should not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written "one who touches" and "one who carries" to include ever min hameth (as conferring tumah).

6) I might think that flesh which falls off from a living animal should also confer tumah; it is, therefore, written "neveilah" (carcass) — Just as neveilah, which has no regrowth (confers tumah), so, ever min hechai, which has no regrowth, (confers tumah, as opposed to flesh that falls off from a living animal, which does have regrowth). These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Just as neveilah has sinews and bones, so ever min hechai (to confer tumah) must have sinews and bones. Rebbi says: Just as neveilah (to confer tumah must be) as in its creation — flesh, sinews, and bones, so, ever min hechai.

6) If they are mentioned above, why are they mentioned below? (i.e., Why mention here "All who touch their carcass will be unclean until the evening. And he that carries their carcass shall wash, etc.", if this has already been stated above [Vayikra 11:23-24])? What is stated above speaks of ever min hechai, and what is stated below speaks of ever min hameth (even if it lacks an olive-size of meat. [For if it has an olive-size of meat, it is tamei in any event by reason of an olive-size of neveilah]). (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If ever min hechai, where meat that falls from it (a living animal) is clean, confers tumah, then ever min hameth, where meat that falls from it (a dead animal) is tamei, how much more so should it confer tumah? — No, this may be so in the case of ever min hechai, the prohibition of which obtains with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites. Would you say the same for ever min hameth, the prohibition of which does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites? Since this is so, (we would say that) it should not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written "one who touches" and "one who carries" to include ever min hameth (as conferring tumah).

6) But perhaps "hashoretz" connotes "reproduces," and (the meaning is that) only a sheretz that reproduces confers tumah, but a mouse that is half-mouse and half-earth, (being generated from the earth and not reproducing) does not confer tumah (and "on the earth" means that if it enters the sea it does not confer tumah there.) It is, therefore, written "among the sheretz" — to include (as conferring tumah the mouse that is half-flesh and half-earth. What touches the flesh (portion) becomes tamei; what touches the earth (portion) remains clean. R. Yehudah says: What touches the earth (portion) adjoining the flesh (portion) behind it becomes tamei.

6) "All who touch them": I might think (that he would have to touch all of them (i.e., an entire sheretz, to become unclean.) It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:32) "of them" (i.e., even a piece of them). If "of them," I might think that any amount of them (suffices for tumah). It is, therefore, written "them." How is this to be reconciled? He must touch an amount of it that can be considered all of it. The sages estimated this as the size of a lentil. For the sea-lizard is initially of lentil-size. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: (It must be the size of) the tail of a lizard.

6) "All who touch them": I might think (that he would have to touch all of them (i.e., an entire sheretz, to become unclean.) It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:32) "of them" (i.e., even a piece of them). If "of them," I might think that any amount of them (suffices for tumah). It is, therefore, written "them." How is this to be reconciled? He must touch an amount of it that can be considered all of it. The sages estimated this as the size of a lentil. For the sea-lizard is initially of lentil-size. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: (It must be the size of) the tail of a lizard.

6) R. Meir says: All that the sages enumerated as clean (i.e., chest, box, closet, etc.) are clean, and the rest are tamei. R. Yehudah says: All that the sages enumerated as tamei (i.e., a tank on wheels, etc.) are tamei, and the rest are clean. There is no difference between the words of R. Meir and R. Yehudah but a householder's trough. (According to R. Meir, since it is not enumerated among the clean, it is tamei. According to R. Yehudah, since it is not enumerated among the tamei, it is clean.)

6) (Vayikra 11:32): "every vessel": to include the sling, the amulet, and the phylactery. I might think that also included are the yoke-eye (tied to the hopper) and the yoke-pole; it is, therefore, written "with which (vessels) work is done," and not where the work is done with others (i.e., the horses, to which the yoke is attached).

6) (But) it (now) follows a fortiori that a vessel that requires rinsing should acquire tumah through its atmosphere!, viz.: If an earthen vessel that does not acquire tumah through its back, does so through its atmosphere, then a vessel that requires rinsing, that does acquire tumah through its back, how much more so should it do so through its atmosphere! It is, therefore, written "an earthen vessel … into its midst," and not a vessel that requires rinsing, into its midst.

6) This tells me (of susceptibility to tumah) only after conditioning by water. Whence do I derive for inclusion other liquids, like water? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If with earthen vessels, the lesser (tumah, i.e., rishon,) other liquids are equated with water (Vayikra 11:34), then with sheretz, the grave (tumah, i.e., av,) how much more so should other liquids be equated with water! — But, perhaps go in this direction — earthen vessels are the graver, for (even) their atmosphere confers tumah, (as opposed to sheretz, which confers tumah only through touch). It is, therefore, written "water"-"water" (to cerate an identity [gezeirah shavah]). "Water" is written above (Vayikra 11:34) and "water" is written below (here). Just as with "water" above, other liquids are equated with water, so, with "water" below other liquids are equated with water.

6) R. Akiva retracted and reversed the rationale, viz.: An earthen vessel acquires tumah and an oven acquires tumah. Just as (something is called) "an earthen vessel" when its fashioning is completed in the flame (of a furnace), so (something is called) "an oven" only when its fashioning is completed in the flame (of a furnace). — But perhaps just as an earthen vessel, by its name, (and it is not called an "earthen vessel" until it is heated), so, an oven by its name, and it is called "an oven" even before it is heated! It is, therefore, written ("oven … [Vayikra 11:36]) But" (to teach us that an oven does not acquire tumah until it is heated.) When does it acquire tumah? When it has been heated enough for the baking of crackers. R. Yehudah says: When the new one has been heated enough to bake crackers in an old one, (this being the completion of its fashioning).

6) R. Akiva retracted and reversed the rationale, viz.: An earthen vessel acquires tumah and an oven acquires tumah. Just as (something is called) "an earthen vessel" when its fashioning is completed in the flame (of a furnace), so (something is called) "an oven" only when its fashioning is completed in the flame (of a furnace). — But perhaps just as an earthen vessel, by its name, (and it is not called an "earthen vessel" until it is heated), so, an oven by its name, and it is called "an oven" even before it is heated! It is, therefore, written ("oven … [Vayikra 11:36]) But" (to teach us that an oven does not acquire tumah until it is heated.) When does it acquire tumah? When it has been heated enough for the baking of crackers. R. Yehudah says: When the new one has been heated enough to bake crackers in an old one, (this being the completion of its fashioning).

6) R. Yossi Haglili says: "And he who touches their carcass shall be tamei": They confer tumah through touching, and not through being carried. (The verse is needed to tell us this,) for should it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh, confers tumah through being carried, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should it confer tumah through being carried! It must, therefore, be written "And he who touches their carcass shall be tamei" — They confer tumah through touching, and not through being carried.

6) This tells me (of susceptibility to tumah) only after conditioning by water. Whence do I derive for inclusion other liquids, like water? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If with earthen vessels, the lesser (tumah, i.e., rishon,) other liquids are equated with water (Vayikra 11:34), then with sheretz, the grave (tumah, i.e., av,) how much more so should other liquids be equated with water! — But, perhaps go in this direction — earthen vessels are the graver, for (even) their atmosphere confers tumah, (as opposed to sheretz, which confers tumah only through touch). It is, therefore, written "water"-"water" (to cerate an identity [gezeirah shavah]). "Water" is written above (Vayikra 11:34) and "water" is written below (here). Just as with "water" above, other liquids are equated with water, so, with "water" below other liquids are equated with water.

6) I might think that flesh which falls off from a living animal should also confer tumah; it is, therefore, written "neveilah" (carcass) — Just as neveilah, which has no regrowth (confers tumah), so, ever min hechai, which has no regrowth, (confers tumah, as opposed to flesh that falls off from a living animal, which does have regrowth). These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Just as neveilah has sinews and bones, so ever min hechai (to confer tumah) must have sinews and bones. Rebbi says: Just as neveilah (to confer tumah must be) as in its creation — flesh, sinews, and bones, so, ever min hechai.

6) "its carcass": and not the (flesh) scatterings (of the knife). I might think even if they were gathered together. It is, therefore, written "shall be tamei." These are the words of R. Yehudah. "its carcass": and not its hide (i.e., If one touches the flayed hide, he does not become tamei). If one flays (a hide) to make a spread (of it), (the amount of hide flayed for it to be considered a yad ("a handle" to the carcass and to convey tumah is) until it serves for grasping purposes (but not beyond that). And, (if he flays it) to make a flask, (the amount is) until he flays the entire breast. I might think that I exclude less than that amount (from the designation of "yad"); it is, therefore, written "shall be tamei." "its carcass": and not its hide which lacks an olive-size of flesh. I might think that I exclude (from tumah) one who touches hide behind which is an olive-size of flesh. It is, therefore, written "shall be tamei. "its carcass": not (even if he touches) two half-olive sizes on the hide, (this not being considered touching the carcass). I might think that (in this instance) he would not become tamei by carrying it; it is, therefore, written: "And the carrier (shall become tamei"). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says "he that touches … and he that carries" — What is subject to touching (tumah) is subject to carrying (tumah), and what is not subject to touching is not subject to carrying. And R. Akiva concedes that if he carries two half-olive sizes (of flesh) stuck on a stick he is tamei. Why does R. Akiva rule it clean (in the case of hide)? Because the hide nullifies (the connection of the separate flesh pieces).

6) (Vayikra 11:4): "the camel, because it chews the cud": What is the intent of this? I might think that one sign (chewing the cud) would permit it. Would I think so? If the swine, which has split hooves, is unclean, does it not follow that the camel, which does not have split hooves is unclean! (Why, then, need it be written that the camel is unclean?) — If so, I would say: Who forbade the swine? (The fact that it does not chew) the cud. Let that permit the camel. It must, therefore, be written "the camel because it chews the cud." — Let it, then, be stated for the camel, and, a fortiori for the swine! viz.: If the camel which chews the cud is unclean, how much more so, the swine, which does not chew the cud! (Why, then, need it be written that the swine is unclean?

6) (Vayikra 11:9): "This you may eat": to include a clean fish (found) in the maw of an unclean fish. I might think that also (included as permitted) is an unclean fish in the maw of a clean fish; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:9) "those (clean fishes themselves) (you may eat"), (and not unclean fishes swallowed by them). Why do you see fit to say vis-à-vis beasts (see Chapter 3:3 and Vayikra 11:4) that (a clean beast) in the maw of an unclean beast is unclean, and that (an unclean beast) in the maw of a clean beast is clean, whereas vis-à-vis fish, (an unclean fish) in the maw of the clean fish is unclean, and (a clean fish) in the maw of an unclean fish is clean? — Because it (what is found inside the fish) did not grow there, (but was just swallowed, as opposed to the instance of the beast). "you may eat": to include a clean fish which was pickled together with an unclean one. I might think that this were so even if it (the unclean fish) dissolved (into the brine); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:4) "those [clean fish by themselves] (you may eat"), (and not the forbidden element that they have absorbed).

6) "… and of every living creature that swarms in the water": (as requiring "distinguishing" [viz. Vayikra 5:47]). "and of every creature that creeps on the earth": including grasshoppers. And what is the nature of this "distinguishing" ("havdalah")? It is not enough to learn about them, but one must have perfect "recognition" of which (of them) are unclean and which are clean.

6) (Vayikra 11:9): "This you may eat": to include a clean fish (found) in the maw of an unclean fish. I might think that also (included as permitted) is an unclean fish in the maw of a clean fish; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:9) "those (clean fishes themselves) (you may eat"), (and not unclean fishes swallowed by them). Why do you see fit to say vis-à-vis beasts (see Chapter 3:3 and Vayikra 11:4) that (a clean beast) in the maw of an unclean beast is unclean, and that (an unclean beast) in the maw of a clean beast is clean, whereas vis-à-vis fish, (an unclean fish) in the maw of the clean fish is unclean, and (a clean fish) in the maw of an unclean fish is clean? — Because it (what is found inside the fish) did not grow there, (but was just swallowed, as opposed to the instance of the beast). "you may eat": to include a clean fish which was pickled together with an unclean one. I might think that this were so even if it (the unclean fish) dissolved (into the brine); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:4) "those [clean fish by themselves] (you may eat"), (and not the forbidden element that they have absorbed).

(Lev. 11:1-2) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses…, saying, ‘… these are the creatures that you may eat….’” Let our master instruct us: How many [types of] pure animals are there are in the world? Thus have our masters taught: There are ten beasts: “The deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, the mountain sheep”; (Deut. 14:5) “the ox, the sheep and the goat” (Deut. 14:4). There are no more than these in the world. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “Guard yourselves, not to defile yourselves with an impure beast and with an impure swarming creature.” So did David say (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31), “As for God, His way is perfect, the word of the Lord is pure (rt.: tsrp).” Thus, the commandments were given only to purify (rt.: tsrp) [mortals] through them. They said to him. “Rabbi, what does the Holy One, blessed be He, care whether one ritually slaughters cattle and eats [the meat] or whether one slaughters cattle by stabbing and eats it? Will some such thing benefit Him (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) or harm Him?” Know that this ritual slaughter was given only to purify (rt.: tsrp) Israel. As in the future to come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will make a meal for the righteous from the behemoth and the leviathan, and there is no ritual slaughter there. Know that the leviathan is an unusual creature, and the angels fear him, as stated (in Job 41:17), “From his rising do the powers fear.” And if they throw many spears of iron upon him, he considers them like straw, as stated (in Job 41:19), “He considers iron like straw.” And also the behemoths of my fields are harsh, as it crouches on a thousand mountains as stated (in Psalms 50:10), “the behemoths on a thousand mountains.” And [so] how are they slaughtered? Rather, they come and fight, one with the other, as stated (in Job 41:8), “One approaches to the other.” The behemoths approach the leviathan and hold him by his horn and split him, and the leviathan’s death [that he inflicts] will be the opposite, as he smites him with his tail and kills him. [Then] the righteous ones go and all take portions. From here [we see] that ritual slaughter was given only to examine and to purify (rt.: tsrp) Israel.

R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “There are four things that the evil drive would refute [as irrational], and for each of them is written [the word,] huqqah (i.e., an unquestioned statute).⁸⁴Although Huqqah is normally translated simply as “statute,” the word more fully denotes a command that demands implicit and unquestioned obedience. Huqqah is therefore translated “unquestioned statute” throughout this section. Now these concern the following: (1) the nakedness of a brother's wife, (2) diverse kinds, (3) the scapegoat, and (4) the red heifer.”⁸⁵PR 14:12; Numb. R. 19:5; see Yoma 67b. In regard to the nakedness of a brother's wife, it is written (in Lev. 18:16), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife”; [yet if the brother] dies without children [it is written] (in Deut. 25:5), “her brother-in-law shall have sexual intercourse with her [and take her for a wife].” And it is written about the sexual prohibitions (in Lev. 18:5), “And you shall keep [all] My unquestioned statutes [...].” In regard to diverse kinds, it is written (in Deut. 22:11), “You shall not wear interwoven stuff, [wool and flax together]”; yet a linen cloak⁸⁶Gk.: sindon. with [wool] tassels is permitted.⁸⁷See Numb. 15:37-38. And for [this commandment also] it is written, [that it is] an unquestioned statute. [Thus it is written (in Lev. 19:19),] “You shall keep My unquestioned statute. You shall not mate your cattle with a different kind…, [nor shall you wear a garment with diverse kinds of interwoven stuff].” In regard to the scapegoat, it is written (in Lev. 16:26), “And the one who sets the azazel-goat free shall wash his clothes”; yet it is [the goat] itself that atones for others. And for [this commandment also] it is written (in Lev. 16:34), “And this shall be to you an unquestioned statute forever.” In regard to the red heifer, where is it shown? Since we are taught (in Parah 4:4), “All engaged with the [rite of the red] heifer from beginning to end render [their] garments unclean”; yet it is [the heifer] itself that purifies [what is] unclean. And for [this commandment also] it is written, [that it is] an unquestioned statute. Thus it is written (in Numb. 19:2), “This is an unquestioned statute of the Torah.”

R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said that R. Jonathan stated: Whoever rebukes his companion for religious reasons earns a share of divine grace, as it is said: He that rebuketh a man shall in the end find more favor (Prov. 28:23). And furthermore a thread of divine favors will be drawn about him, as is said: He shall find favor. Scripture says: Mine ordinance shall ye do (Lev. 18:4). These are ordinances which, if they were not enumerated in the Torah, ought to have been. Scripture is speaking here of idolatry and blasphemy. My statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein (ibid.). These are the commandments against which the evil inclination contends, and against which the peoples of the earth rebel. These are: the wearing of garments made of wool and linen,¹²The law of shatnez; see Lev. 19:19. This commandment and all the following ones are disregarded as irrational by non-Jews. the eating of pig,¹³See Lev. 11:7. the spittle of a childless sister-in-law,¹⁴After one has refused to marry his brother’s widow under the law of levirate marriage; see Deut. 25:5–10. mixing seeds,¹⁵Deut. 22:9–11. stoning an ox for killing a human being,¹⁶Exod. 21:29. the heifer whose neck was broken,¹⁷Lev. 14:1–21. the bird sacrifice brought by a leper,¹⁷ a firstling of an ass,¹⁸Exod. 13:13. meat prepared in milk,¹⁹Exod. 23:9. and the goat that has been sent away (the scapegoat).²⁰Lev. 16:1–34. Azazel, the area where the scapegoat would perish. You might maintain that these are unimportant prohibitions. Hence Scripture says: I am the Lord: I have decreed them, and you art not permitted to repudiate them.

7) (Vayikra 11:10) "And all that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of every creeping thing of the waters, and of every living (chayah) creature of the waters that is in the waters — they (hem) are detestable to you.") "chayah" — this is the sea-animal. "creature (nefesh)" — to include (as forbidden) the siren (half-human, half-fish). I might think that it causes tent-tumah according to R. Chanina b. Chachinai; it is, therefore written (Bamidbar 19:14): "This (is the Torah: a man (i.e., a whole man) if he die in a tent, etc.")

7) Bur perhaps "that is on the land" signifies that (if the offering is on the land, it is permitted with the signs (of clean land animals, and if on the sea, (it is permitted) with or without those signs. It is, therefore, written "This … that is on the land" — only what is on the land is permitted.

7) (Vayikra 11:20): "All creeping things that fly, which walk on four are detestable to you." I might think that all are forbidden. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:21): "Only this may you eat of all creeping things that fly, which walk on four, etc." I might think that all are permitted; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:22): ("These of them you may eat:) the arbeh [the locust] (after its kind), and the salam [the bald locust] (after its kind), and the chargol [the cricket] (after its kind), and the chagav [the grasshopper] (after its kind.") This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I include others? From (the repetition) of "lemineihu." How so? I derive it from what is mentioned, viz.:

7) (Vayikra 11:20): "All creeping things that fly, which walk on four are detestable to you." I might think that all are forbidden. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:21): "Only this may you eat of all creeping things that fly, which walk on four, etc." I might think that all are permitted; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:22): ("These of them you may eat:) the arbeh [the locust] (after its kind), and the salam [the bald locust] (after its kind), and the chargol [the cricket] (after its kind), and the chagav [the grasshopper] (after its kind.") This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I include others? From (the repetition) of "lemineihu." How so? I derive it from what is mentioned, viz.:

7) (Vayikra 11:20): "All creeping things that fly, which walk on four are detestable to you." I might think that all are forbidden. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:21): "Only this may you eat of all creeping things that fly, which walk on four, etc." I might think that all are permitted; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:22): ("These of them you may eat:) the arbeh [the locust] (after its kind), and the salam [the bald locust] (after its kind), and the chargol [the cricket] (after its kind), and the chagav [the grasshopper] (after its kind.") This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I include others? From (the repetition) of "lemineihu." How so? I derive it from what is mentioned, viz.:

7) (Vayikra 11:24) "All who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening": The toucher becomes unclean until evening, but the toucher does not confer tumah upon clothing. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If carrying (where the instances of tumah) are few (relative to touching), confers tumah upon clothing, then touching (where the instances of tumah) are many (relative to carrying), how much more so should it confer tumah upon clothing! It must, therefore, be written that the toucher becomes unclean until evening (but he does not confer tumah upon clothing).

7) (Vayikra 11:27): "All who touch their carcass will be unclean until the evening": But the toucher does not confer tumah upon (his) clothing. (Without this verse we would say) does it not follow a fortiori (that the toucher does confer tumah upon his clothing, viz.:) if in an instance — that of carrying — where they (the clothes) do not become tamei of themselves (e.g., if being in one balance of a scale, the clothes lifted the other balance containing neveilah) — they yet become tamei by virtue of the carrier (of neveilah, that they clothe), then how much more so, in an instance where they do become tamei of themselves (i.e., when the clothes themselves touch neveilah), (how much more so) should they become tamei by virtue of the toucher (of the neveilah, who wears them)! It must, therefore, be written that the toucher (himself) becomes tamei until evening, but the toucher does not confer tumah upon (his) clothing.

7) (Vayikra 11:29): "tzav": This is the great lizard; "after its kind": to include kinds of tzav — chabarbar, ben hanefilim, and salamander. When R. Akiva came to this verse, he would say (Tehillim 104:24): "How manifold are Your works, O L-td, etc." You have creatures living in the sea and creatures living on the land. If the sea-creatures would come up to the land, they would perish; if the land-creatures would go down to the sea, they would perish. You have creatures (e.g., the salamander) living in the fire and creatures living in the air. If the fire-creatures would leave to the air, they would perish; if the air-creatures would leave to the fire, they would perish. The living place of the first is the death (place) of the other; the living place of the second is the death (place) of the first — "How manifold are Your works, O L–rd!"

7) R. Nechemiah says: The big baskets and the big vessels, which have rims and hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor of dry measure (are tamei). For, (being light,) even though they are not moved when full, they are moved with what remains in them.

7) Or I might think to include the coverings of vessels; it is, therefore, written "with them," excluding the coverings of vessels.

7) (Vayikra 11:33): "into its midst": when it falls into its midst, and not when it falls into the midst of its midst. How so? A jug is in an (earthen) stove, its mouth above the stove; a sheretz is in the jug. The stove is clean (and not tamei). Which (state) is more potent? That of conferring tumah or that of acquiring tumah? That of conferring is more potent than that of acquiring. For it (an earthen vessel that is tamei) confers tumah from its back (i.e., upon objects that touch its back), but does not acquire tumah from its back (but only from something tamei in its midst). Now if in a place where tumah is conferred from its back, it is not conferred from the midst of its midst, then, in a place where tumah is not acquired from its back, how much more so is it not acquired from the midst of its midst! (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) (For perhaps we would say that) the (state of) acquiring tumah is more potent than that of conferring tumah. For it (food in the oven) acquires tumah from a yeast container (in its midst which contains a sheretz), but it (a sheretz in the oven) does not confer tumah upon the yeast (in the container). So that it (the oven), too, should acquire tumah from what is in the midst of its midst even though it does not confer tumah (via a sheretz within it) upon (food that is found in) the midst of its midst! It must, therefore, be written "into its midst" — When it (the sheretz) falls into its midst it is tamei, but not when it falls into the midst of its midst.

7) (Vayikra 11:35): "… shall be torn down. They are tamei": What is subject to tearing down is tamei by reason of "oven and stove," and what is not subject to tearing down is not tamei by reason of "oven and stove," except an oven of stone and of metal and a stove of stone and of metal. From here they ruled: A stove of stone and of metal is clean (One of stone is completely clean and one of metal is clean of the halachah of an earthen vessel, not conferring tumah through its atmosphere and being subject to cleansing in a mikveh), and it is tamei by reason of a metal vessel, (acquiring tumah through its back and becoming a progenitor (av) of tumah when touched by an olive-size of a dead body; and when it is attached to the ground, it does not confer tumah. If it were perforated, damaged, or split, and a plaster or an addition of clay were made for it, it is tamei. And how large must the perforation be (for the plaster over it to render it an earthen vessel)? (Large) enough to emit light; and so, with a stove.

7) R. Akiva says: "And what touches their carcass shall be tamei": ("what") to include a vessel of bone. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If wood, whose "father" (the tree) is clean, the vessels made of it acquire tumah, then bone, whose "father" (flesh) is tamei, how much more so should the vessels made of it acquire tumah! — No, this may be true of wood, which is instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house. Would you say the same for bone, which is not instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house? Since it is not instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house, then the vessels made of it should not acquire tumah. It is, therefore, written "And what touches their carcass shall be tamei," to include vessels made of bone. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Broka says: (This verse is not needed for this inclusion.) It is already written (Bamidbar 31:20) "and all work of goats," to include (as acquiring tumah) everything that is made from goats, even from their horns (i.e., bones!) and from their hooves. Whence do I derive the same for other beasts and animals? From "and all work." If so, why is "goats," (specifically,) written? To exclude (vessels made from the bones of) birds.

7) A different a fortiori argument (to equate other liquids with water, so that the question remains: Why is a verse needed for this?), viz.: If water (that is tamei), which returns to its "father" (water) to become clean, (through "hashakah, ["leveling" with clean water]), (yet it) conditions seed (to contract tumah), then (other) liquids, which do not return to their "father" to become clean — how much more so should they condition seed (to contract tumah)! — No, this may be so with water, which becomes an av hatumah to confer tumah upon the man (who carries it), and upon his clothing (in the instance of the sprinkling waters of the red heifer), as opposed to (other) liquids, which do not become an av hatumah to this end. And since they do not become an av hatumah to this end, (I would say that) they do not condition seed (to contract tumah. It must, therefore, be written "water"-"water," etc.

7) I might think that the carrion of a beast would confer tumah upon one's clothes (if stuffed) into his esophagus (without his having touches or carried it, it being written (Vayikra 11:40) "And he who eats it shall wash his clothes"); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) "Carcass or treifah he shall not eat to become tamei through it" — (We are speaking of that [a bird]) which confers tumah only through eating (and not through touching or carrying), excluding a beast, which confers tumah before it is eaten (by touching or carrying). I might think that bird carcass confers tumah according to Scripture, and beast carcass, a fortiori; it is, therefore, written "through it" — Through "it" (bird carcass) confers tumah in the esophagus, and not beast carcass. If so, why is it written (in reference to beast carcass, Vayikra 11:40) "And he who eats? To assign a (minimum) amount for (tumah of) touching and carrying — Just as for "eating," an olive-size, so, for "touching," an olive-size.

7) If so, I would say: Who forbids the camel? (The fact that it does not have) cloven hooves. Let that permit the swine. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 14:8) "And the swine, because its hooves are parted, but it does not chew the cud, it is unclean."

7) I might think that the carrion of a beast would confer tumah upon one's clothes (if stuffed) into his esophagus (without his having touches or carried it, it being written (Vayikra 11:40) "And he who eats it shall wash his clothes"); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) "Carcass or treifah he shall not eat to become tamei through it" — (We are speaking of that [a bird]) which confers tumah only through eating (and not through touching or carrying), excluding a beast, which confers tumah before it is eaten (by touching or carrying). I might think that bird carcass confers tumah according to Scripture, and beast carcass, a fortiori; it is, therefore, written "through it" — Through "it" (bird carcass) confers tumah in the esophagus, and not beast carcass. If so, why is it written (in reference to beast carcass, Vayikra 11:40) "And he who eats? To assign a (minimum) amount for (tumah of) touching and carrying — Just as for "eating," an olive-size, so, for "touching," an olive-size.

7) (Vayikra 11:47): "to distinguish between the unclean and the clean": It should say "between cow and ass." And are they (their differences) not already explained (in the Torah)? What, then, is the intent of "between the unclean and the clean"? Between what is unclean to you (through perfect recognition) and clean to you: between shechitah of the greater part of the windpipe (after shechitah of the gullet, in which case it is kasher), and shechitah of half of it (after shechitah of the gullet, in which case it is neveilah). And what constitutes that difference? A full hairsbreadth.

Three things Moses found difficult and the Holy One, blessed be He, showed them to him with a finger and these are them: The making of the menorah, the moon, and creeping things.³⁵Below, Numb. 3:4; Mekhilta, Pisha 2; Men. 29a; PRK 5:15; PR 15:21; Numb. R. 15:4; cf. Sifre to Numb. 8:4 (61); Exod. R. 15:28; Numb. R. 15:10; also below, Numb. 3:11, and the notes there. In the making of the menorah, how [was it]? When Moses ascended [Sinai], the Holy One, blessed be He, was showing him on the mountain how he would make the tabernacle. When He showed him the making of the menorah, Moses found it difficult.³⁶Below, Numb. 3:4. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “See, I am making it before you.” What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He showed him white fire, red fire, black fire, and green fire. Then from them He made the menorah, its bowls, its knobs, its blossoms, and the six branches. Then He said to him (in Numb. 8:4), “This is the making of the menorah.” This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him with a finger. But nevertheless, [Moses] found it difficult. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He engraved it on the palm of Moses’ hand. He said to him, “Go down and make it just as I have engraved it on your hand.” Thus it is stated (in Exod. 25:40), “Observe and make them [by means of] their pattern.” Even so, he found it difficult and said (in Exod. 25:31), “with difficulty (mqshh)³⁷While this meaning, so understood by the midrash, is possible, a more usual English translation would read, HAMMERED WORK, or something similar. will the menorah be made,” meaning to say, how difficult it was to make. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Cast the gold into the fire, and it will be made automatically.” So it is stated, “with difficulty will the menorah be made” [be made (a reflexive form, in the niph'al) is what is written, i.e.,] was made of its own accord. This teaches that Moshe had difficulty with the menorah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, showed it to him with a finger, as stated (in Numb. 8:4), “this.” In reference to the moon (yareah), where is it shown [that Moses had difficulty]? (Exod. 12:1-2) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses…, ‘This month (hodesh) for you.’”³⁸Hodesh also means “new moon.” He said to him, “In the month of Nissan, you will see like this and like that and [you shall] sanctify [it].” This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him with a finger. In reference to creeping things, where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Lev. 11:29), “Now this shall be unclean for you from among the swarming things which swarm on the earth.” The Holy One, blessed be He, caught each and every species, showed them to Moses, and said to him, “This you may eat, and this you may not eat.” [Thus it is stated (in Lev. 11:2, 4),] “This is the creature that you may eat …. However this you may not eat.” Moreover, do not be surprised over [this] thing, since it is a fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed all creatures to the first Adam, and he gave them names. And where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Gen. 2:19), “and all that man called the soul ….” After he had given names to all of them, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “And I, what is My name?” He said to him, “It is Y____.” Thus it is written (in Is. 42:8), “I am Y____; that is My name,”³⁹Below, Numb. 6:12. this My name, which the first Adam gave Me. It is My name, which I have agreed upon [for use] between Me and My creatures. So if in the case of the first Adam, the Holy One, blessed be He, had the creatures pass before Him; in the case of Moses, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to warn Israel about the unclean and about the clean, are you surprised that He showed him and said to him, “These you may eat, and these you may not eat?” Lest your [evil] drive lead you astray, saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, has forbidden Israel from having good things, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Whatever I have forbidden you from having, I have permitted you to have [something] that corresponds to it.⁴⁰Cf. Hul. 109b; Lev. R. 22:10. How is this? I have forbidden you menstrual blood; I have permitted you virginal blood. I have forbidden you [animal] blood; I have permitted you the liver, which is wholly blood. I have forbidden you the flesh of swine; I have permitted you the tongue of a fish with the name shibbuta, which resembles swine.⁴¹According to Jastrow, s.v., a shibbuta was probably a mullet. The Arukh (Plenus Aruch, ed. A. Kohut [Vienna: G. Broeg, 1878–92], s.v.) suggests that the fish here is a sturgeon. In any case shibbuta apparently had a pork taste. So Rashi on Hul. 109a. I have forbidden you [another] man's wife; I have permitted you a man’s divorcee. I have forbidden a gentile woman; I have permitted a beautiful woman [captive]. I have forbidden you a brother's wife; I have permitted her for you after his death, with no children, as stated (in Deut. 25:5), ‘her brother-in-law shall have sexual intercourse with her.’ I have forbidden you mingled seeds, but I have permitted you a sindon⁴²The Greek word, sindon, designates a garment of fine Indian linen. with a woolen fringe.⁴³See Jastrow, s.v., SDYN. I have forbidden you the fat of cattle, but I have permitted you the fat of game animals.” R. Bisna said in the name of R. Hiyya, “What the Holy One, blessed be He, forbade for cattle He permitted for game animals, and what He forbade for game animals He permitted for fowl, and what He forbade for fowl He permitted for fish. How? He forbade the fat in the case of cattle; He permitted it in the case of game animals. He forbade the thigh muscle in the case of game animals; He permitted it in the case of fowl. He forbade blood in the case of fowl; He permitted it in the case of fish. And why all this? In order to give Israel a good reward for observing the commandments.” Ergo, it states (II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31) “As for God, His way is perfect…”; for all the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, are perfect.⁴⁴Gen. R. 44:1; cf. Lev. R. 13:3. And likewise, what does the Holy One, blessed be He, care whether one ritually slaughters cattle and eats [the meat] or whether one slaughters cattle by stabbing and eats it? Will some such thing benefit Him (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) or harm Him? Or what does He care whether one eats carcasses or eats what is clean? Solomon said [about this] (in Prov. 9:12), “If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; [and if you scoff, you will bear it alone].” Thus, the commandments were given only to purify (rt.: tsrp) [mortals] through them, as stated (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31, cont.), “the word of the Lord is pure (rt.: tsrp).” Why? So that He might be a shield over you, [as stated] (ibid., cont.), “He is a shield for all who take refuge in Him.” Ergo (in Lev. 11:2:), “These are the creatures [that you may eat].”

Three things Moses found difficult and the Holy One, blessed be He, showed them to him with a finger and these are them: The making of the menorah, the moon, and creeping things.³⁵Below, Numb. 3:4; Mekhilta, Pisha 2; Men. 29a; PRK 5:15; PR 15:21; Numb. R. 15:4; cf. Sifre to Numb. 8:4 (61); Exod. R. 15:28; Numb. R. 15:10; also below, Numb. 3:11, and the notes there. In the making of the menorah, how [was it]? When Moses ascended [Sinai], the Holy One, blessed be He, was showing him on the mountain how he would make the tabernacle. When He showed him the making of the menorah, Moses found it difficult.³⁶Below, Numb. 3:4. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “See, I am making it before you.” What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He showed him white fire, red fire, black fire, and green fire. Then from them He made the menorah, its bowls, its knobs, its blossoms, and the six branches. Then He said to him (in Numb. 8:4), “This is the making of the menorah.” This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him with a finger. But nevertheless, [Moses] found it difficult. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He engraved it on the palm of Moses’ hand. He said to him, “Go down and make it just as I have engraved it on your hand.” Thus it is stated (in Exod. 25:40), “Observe and make them [by means of] their pattern.” Even so, he found it difficult and said (in Exod. 25:31), “with difficulty (mqshh)³⁷While this meaning, so understood by the midrash, is possible, a more usual English translation would read, HAMMERED WORK, or something similar. will the menorah be made,” meaning to say, how difficult it was to make. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Cast the gold into the fire, and it will be made automatically.” So it is stated, “with difficulty will the menorah be made” [be made (a reflexive form, in the niph'al) is what is written, i.e.,] was made of its own accord. This teaches that Moshe had difficulty with the menorah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, showed it to him with a finger, as stated (in Numb. 8:4), “this.” In reference to the moon (yareah), where is it shown [that Moses had difficulty]? (Exod. 12:1-2) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses…, ‘This month (hodesh) for you.’”³⁸Hodesh also means “new moon.” He said to him, “In the month of Nissan, you will see like this and like that and [you shall] sanctify [it].” This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him with a finger. In reference to creeping things, where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Lev. 11:29), “Now this shall be unclean for you from among the swarming things which swarm on the earth.” The Holy One, blessed be He, caught each and every species, showed them to Moses, and said to him, “This you may eat, and this you may not eat.” [Thus it is stated (in Lev. 11:2, 4),] “This is the creature that you may eat …. However this you may not eat.” Moreover, do not be surprised over [this] thing, since it is a fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed all creatures to the first Adam, and he gave them names. And where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Gen. 2:19), “and all that man called the soul ….” After he had given names to all of them, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “And I, what is My name?” He said to him, “It is Y____.” Thus it is written (in Is. 42:8), “I am Y____; that is My name,”³⁹Below, Numb. 6:12. this My name, which the first Adam gave Me. It is My name, which I have agreed upon [for use] between Me and My creatures. So if in the case of the first Adam, the Holy One, blessed be He, had the creatures pass before Him; in the case of Moses, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to warn Israel about the unclean and about the clean, are you surprised that He showed him and said to him, “These you may eat, and these you may not eat?” Lest your [evil] drive lead you astray, saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, has forbidden Israel from having good things, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Whatever I have forbidden you from having, I have permitted you to have [something] that corresponds to it.⁴⁰Cf. Hul. 109b; Lev. R. 22:10. How is this? I have forbidden you menstrual blood; I have permitted you virginal blood. I have forbidden you [animal] blood; I have permitted you the liver, which is wholly blood. I have forbidden you the flesh of swine; I have permitted you the tongue of a fish with the name shibbuta, which resembles swine.⁴¹According to Jastrow, s.v., a shibbuta was probably a mullet. The Arukh (Plenus Aruch, ed. A. Kohut [Vienna: G. Broeg, 1878–92], s.v.) suggests that the fish here is a sturgeon. In any case shibbuta apparently had a pork taste. So Rashi on Hul. 109a. I have forbidden you [another] man's wife; I have permitted you a man’s divorcee. I have forbidden a gentile woman; I have permitted a beautiful woman [captive]. I have forbidden you a brother's wife; I have permitted her for you after his death, with no children, as stated (in Deut. 25:5), ‘her brother-in-law shall have sexual intercourse with her.’ I have forbidden you mingled seeds, but I have permitted you a sindon⁴²The Greek word, sindon, designates a garment of fine Indian linen. with a woolen fringe.⁴³See Jastrow, s.v., SDYN. I have forbidden you the fat of cattle, but I have permitted you the fat of game animals.” R. Bisna said in the name of R. Hiyya, “What the Holy One, blessed be He, forbade for cattle He permitted for game animals, and what He forbade for game animals He permitted for fowl, and what He forbade for fowl He permitted for fish. How? He forbade the fat in the case of cattle; He permitted it in the case of game animals. He forbade the thigh muscle in the case of game animals; He permitted it in the case of fowl. He forbade blood in the case of fowl; He permitted it in the case of fish. And why all this? In order to give Israel a good reward for observing the commandments.” Ergo, it states (II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31) “As for God, His way is perfect…”; for all the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, are perfect.⁴⁴Gen. R. 44:1; cf. Lev. R. 13:3. And likewise, what does the Holy One, blessed be He, care whether one ritually slaughters cattle and eats [the meat] or whether one slaughters cattle by stabbing and eats it? Will some such thing benefit Him (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) or harm Him? Or what does He care whether one eats carcasses or eats what is clean? Solomon said [about this] (in Prov. 9:12), “If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; [and if you scoff, you will bear it alone].” Thus, the commandments were given only to purify (rt.: tsrp) [mortals] through them, as stated (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31, cont.), “the word of the Lord is pure (rt.: tsrp).” Why? So that He might be a shield over you, [as stated] (ibid., cont.), “He is a shield for all who take refuge in Him.” Ergo (in Lev. 11:2:), “These are the creatures [that you may eat].”

Job said (in Job 14:4), “Who can produce something clean out of something unclean, no one.” After the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted the cow and forbade the camel, who could declare clean or declare unclean? Who has done so? Is it not the One? Is it not the singular One of the world? Come and see: Originally at the creation of the world, everything was permitted, as stated (in Gen. 9:3), “as with the green grass, I have given you everything.” And it states (in Gen. 1:31), “And God saw everything that He had done, and behold, it was good.” Then after Israel stood by Mount Sinai, He increased Torah and commandments for them in order to give them a good reward. But if so, why did He not so command the first Adam? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When I ordained an easy commandment for him, he transgressed against it. How could he fulfill all these commandments? On the very day on which it was commanded, on that day he transgressed against it. He was unable to remain obedient to the command for a single hour. How did the Holy One, blessed be He, create Adam? R. Judah ben Pedayah said, “[Twelve hours make up the day.] In the first hour the first Adam arose in the thought of the Holy One, blessed be He, [with a view] to creation.⁴⁵PRK 23:1; PR 46:2; M. Pss. 92:3; Lev. R. 29:1; cf. Sanh. 38b; ARN, A, 1; PRE 11. In the second He consulted with the ministering angels and said (in Gen. 1:26), ‘Let us make man in our image.’ In the third He gathered his dust. In the fourth He kneaded him. In the fifth He shaped him. In the sixth He stood him up as a golem. In the seventh He blew breath into him. In the eighth He brought him into the Garden of Eden. In the ninth He commanded him, ‘Eat of this, and do not eat of that.’ In the tenth [Adam] sinned. In the eleventh he was judged. In the twelfth he was expelled.” Thus you must conclude that he did not remain obedient to the commandment for even a single hour. R. Judah ben Pedayah said, “Would that someone remove the dust from your eyes, O first Adam, you who could not persevere in your temptation for even a single hour, while here your children are keeping all the commandments which were given to them and persevering in them!”⁴⁶Gen. R. 21:7; cf. Lev. R. 25:2. One of them rises to plant, till, weed, prune, take pains to irrigate, and see the fruits of his plantings when they produce first fruits. Then he folds his hands and does not taste them, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Lev. 19:23), “three years it shall be [forbidden] to you….” But in the case of the first Adam, it was told him, “Eat of this, and do not eat of that,” and he was not able to remain obedient to the commandment for a single hour. Instead (according to Gen. 3:6), “then she also gave some to her husband, and he ate,” but [when] your children were commanded to eat this and not to eat that, [they remained obedient to those commandments]. And [this obedience is] especially [evident] when someone from Israel takes a bovine, an ox, or a lamb, slaughters it ritually, skins it, washes it, and inspects its health. When it is found to be unfit, he holds back and does not eat it. Ergo (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31, cont.), “the word of the Lord is pure.” For that reason, the first Adam was not commanded, because it was revealed to the Holy One, blessed be He, that he could not remain obedient to many commandments; as behold, he was commanded [only] one commandment, and he did not persevere with it. But in the case of Israel, when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them many commandments, they observed them. He therefore expanded the Torah and commandments for them, and said to them (in Lev. 11:2-7), “These are the creatures that you may eat…. These, however, you may not eat…: the camel […]; the rock badger […]; the hare […]; and the pig.” Another interpretation of (Lev. 11:4-7). The camel (rt.: gml) represents the kingdom of Babylon, since it is stated (in Ps. 137:8), “O Daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, fortunate is the one who repays you the recompense (rt.: gml) [with which you recompensed (rt.: gml) us].” The rock badger represents the kingdom of Media, since it made Israel into a corner and ownerless (as in Esth. 3:6), “to exterminate, to kill and to destroy all [the Jews]…”;⁴⁷The exact relation of the rock badger (ha’arnevet) to Media is unclear. One possibility is suggested by Lev. 11:6, according to which the rock badger has marks of both uncleanness and cleanness. Lev. R. 13:5 reports two versions of such an interpretation. The Rabbis interpreted this mix to mean that Media produced a righteous as well as a wicked person (perhaps Haman and Mordecai or Haman and Darius the Mede of Dan. 11:1). According to R. Judah b. R. Simon, the last Darius was clean on the side of his mother Esther and unclean on his father’s side. and likewise, the name of Ptolemy’s wife was rock badger (arnevet). The hare alludes to Greece, since it brought low the Torah from the mouth of the prophets.⁴⁸Probably because prophecy ceased under Greek rule; but according to Lev. R. 13:5, “hare” alludes to the Greek kingdom, because Ptolemy’s mother was named “Hare.” Cf. yMeg. 1:11 (71d), according to which the Greek translators of Lev. 11:6 emended “hare” to “short-legged one” for the same reason. Cf. also Meg. 90b, according to which it was Ptolemy’s wife who was named Hare. In actuality the person named “Hare” (Gk.: Lagos) was Ptolemy’s father. As it is stated (in Amos 8:11), “Behold days are coming says the Lord, God, and I will send a hunger…”; and it is written (in Amos 8:12), “And they shall wander from sea to sea….” How is this? In the future to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will issue a proclamation: Whoever has been engaged in such and such a commandment may come and receive his reward. Then the gentiles also will say, “Give us our reward, for we have performed a commandment.” The Holy One, blessed be He, [however] has said, “Whoever has observed the [commandments of the] Torah may come and receive his reward.”

Job said (in Job 14:4), “Who can produce something clean out of something unclean, no one.” After the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted the cow and forbade the camel, who could declare clean or declare unclean? Who has done so? Is it not the One? Is it not the singular One of the world? Come and see: Originally at the creation of the world, everything was permitted, as stated (in Gen. 9:3), “as with the green grass, I have given you everything.” And it states (in Gen. 1:31), “And God saw everything that He had done, and behold, it was good.” Then after Israel stood by Mount Sinai, He increased Torah and commandments for them in order to give them a good reward. But if so, why did He not so command the first Adam? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When I ordained an easy commandment for him, he transgressed against it. How could he fulfill all these commandments? On the very day on which it was commanded, on that day he transgressed against it. He was unable to remain obedient to the command for a single hour. How did the Holy One, blessed be He, create Adam? R. Judah ben Pedayah said, “[Twelve hours make up the day.] In the first hour the first Adam arose in the thought of the Holy One, blessed be He, [with a view] to creation.⁴⁵PRK 23:1; PR 46:2; M. Pss. 92:3; Lev. R. 29:1; cf. Sanh. 38b; ARN, A, 1; PRE 11. In the second He consulted with the ministering angels and said (in Gen. 1:26), ‘Let us make man in our image.’ In the third He gathered his dust. In the fourth He kneaded him. In the fifth He shaped him. In the sixth He stood him up as a golem. In the seventh He blew breath into him. In the eighth He brought him into the Garden of Eden. In the ninth He commanded him, ‘Eat of this, and do not eat of that.’ In the tenth [Adam] sinned. In the eleventh he was judged. In the twelfth he was expelled.” Thus you must conclude that he did not remain obedient to the commandment for even a single hour. R. Judah ben Pedayah said, “Would that someone remove the dust from your eyes, O first Adam, you who could not persevere in your temptation for even a single hour, while here your children are keeping all the commandments which were given to them and persevering in them!”⁴⁶Gen. R. 21:7; cf. Lev. R. 25:2. One of them rises to plant, till, weed, prune, take pains to irrigate, and see the fruits of his plantings when they produce first fruits. Then he folds his hands and does not taste them, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Lev. 19:23), “three years it shall be [forbidden] to you….” But in the case of the first Adam, it was told him, “Eat of this, and do not eat of that,” and he was not able to remain obedient to the commandment for a single hour. Instead (according to Gen. 3:6), “then she also gave some to her husband, and he ate,” but [when] your children were commanded to eat this and not to eat that, [they remained obedient to those commandments]. And [this obedience is] especially [evident] when someone from Israel takes a bovine, an ox, or a lamb, slaughters it ritually, skins it, washes it, and inspects its health. When it is found to be unfit, he holds back and does not eat it. Ergo (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31, cont.), “the word of the Lord is pure.” For that reason, the first Adam was not commanded, because it was revealed to the Holy One, blessed be He, that he could not remain obedient to many commandments; as behold, he was commanded [only] one commandment, and he did not persevere with it. But in the case of Israel, when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them many commandments, they observed them. He therefore expanded the Torah and commandments for them, and said to them (in Lev. 11:2-7), “These are the creatures that you may eat…. These, however, you may not eat…: the camel […]; the rock badger […]; the hare […]; and the pig.” Another interpretation of (Lev. 11:4-7). The camel (rt.: gml) represents the kingdom of Babylon, since it is stated (in Ps. 137:8), “O Daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, fortunate is the one who repays you the recompense (rt.: gml) [with which you recompensed (rt.: gml) us].” The rock badger represents the kingdom of Media, since it made Israel into a corner and ownerless (as in Esth. 3:6), “to exterminate, to kill and to destroy all [the Jews]…”;⁴⁷The exact relation of the rock badger (ha’arnevet) to Media is unclear. One possibility is suggested by Lev. 11:6, according to which the rock badger has marks of both uncleanness and cleanness. Lev. R. 13:5 reports two versions of such an interpretation. The Rabbis interpreted this mix to mean that Media produced a righteous as well as a wicked person (perhaps Haman and Mordecai or Haman and Darius the Mede of Dan. 11:1). According to R. Judah b. R. Simon, the last Darius was clean on the side of his mother Esther and unclean on his father’s side. and likewise, the name of Ptolemy’s wife was rock badger (arnevet). The hare alludes to Greece, since it brought low the Torah from the mouth of the prophets.⁴⁸Probably because prophecy ceased under Greek rule; but according to Lev. R. 13:5, “hare” alludes to the Greek kingdom, because Ptolemy’s mother was named “Hare.” Cf. yMeg. 1:11 (71d), according to which the Greek translators of Lev. 11:6 emended “hare” to “short-legged one” for the same reason. Cf. also Meg. 90b, according to which it was Ptolemy’s wife who was named Hare. In actuality the person named “Hare” (Gk.: Lagos) was Ptolemy’s father. As it is stated (in Amos 8:11), “Behold days are coming says the Lord, God, and I will send a hunger…”; and it is written (in Amos 8:12), “And they shall wander from sea to sea….” How is this? In the future to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will issue a proclamation: Whoever has been engaged in such and such a commandment may come and receive his reward. Then the gentiles also will say, “Give us our reward, for we have performed a commandment.” The Holy One, blessed be He, [however] has said, “Whoever has observed the [commandments of the] Torah may come and receive his reward.”

Job said (in Job 14:4), “Who can produce something clean out of something unclean, no one.” After the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted the cow and forbade the camel, who could declare clean or declare unclean? Who has done so? Is it not the One? Is it not the singular One of the world? Come and see: Originally at the creation of the world, everything was permitted, as stated (in Gen. 9:3), “as with the green grass, I have given you everything.” And it states (in Gen. 1:31), “And God saw everything that He had done, and behold, it was good.” Then after Israel stood by Mount Sinai, He increased Torah and commandments for them in order to give them a good reward. But if so, why did He not so command the first Adam? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When I ordained an easy commandment for him, he transgressed against it. How could he fulfill all these commandments? On the very day on which it was commanded, on that day he transgressed against it. He was unable to remain obedient to the command for a single hour. How did the Holy One, blessed be He, create Adam? R. Judah ben Pedayah said, “[Twelve hours make up the day.] In the first hour the first Adam arose in the thought of the Holy One, blessed be He, [with a view] to creation.⁴⁵PRK 23:1; PR 46:2; M. Pss. 92:3; Lev. R. 29:1; cf. Sanh. 38b; ARN, A, 1; PRE 11. In the second He consulted with the ministering angels and said (in Gen. 1:26), ‘Let us make man in our image.’ In the third He gathered his dust. In the fourth He kneaded him. In the fifth He shaped him. In the sixth He stood him up as a golem. In the seventh He blew breath into him. In the eighth He brought him into the Garden of Eden. In the ninth He commanded him, ‘Eat of this, and do not eat of that.’ In the tenth [Adam] sinned. In the eleventh he was judged. In the twelfth he was expelled.” Thus you must conclude that he did not remain obedient to the commandment for even a single hour. R. Judah ben Pedayah said, “Would that someone remove the dust from your eyes, O first Adam, you who could not persevere in your temptation for even a single hour, while here your children are keeping all the commandments which were given to them and persevering in them!”⁴⁶Gen. R. 21:7; cf. Lev. R. 25:2. One of them rises to plant, till, weed, prune, take pains to irrigate, and see the fruits of his plantings when they produce first fruits. Then he folds his hands and does not taste them, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Lev. 19:23), “three years it shall be [forbidden] to you….” But in the case of the first Adam, it was told him, “Eat of this, and do not eat of that,” and he was not able to remain obedient to the commandment for a single hour. Instead (according to Gen. 3:6), “then she also gave some to her husband, and he ate,” but [when] your children were commanded to eat this and not to eat that, [they remained obedient to those commandments]. And [this obedience is] especially [evident] when someone from Israel takes a bovine, an ox, or a lamb, slaughters it ritually, skins it, washes it, and inspects its health. When it is found to be unfit, he holds back and does not eat it. Ergo (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31, cont.), “the word of the Lord is pure.” For that reason, the first Adam was not commanded, because it was revealed to the Holy One, blessed be He, that he could not remain obedient to many commandments; as behold, he was commanded [only] one commandment, and he did not persevere with it. But in the case of Israel, when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them many commandments, they observed them. He therefore expanded the Torah and commandments for them, and said to them (in Lev. 11:2-7), “These are the creatures that you may eat…. These, however, you may not eat…: the camel […]; the rock badger […]; the hare […]; and the pig.” Another interpretation of (Lev. 11:4-7). The camel (rt.: gml) represents the kingdom of Babylon, since it is stated (in Ps. 137:8), “O Daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, fortunate is the one who repays you the recompense (rt.: gml) [with which you recompensed (rt.: gml) us].” The rock badger represents the kingdom of Media, since it made Israel into a corner and ownerless (as in Esth. 3:6), “to exterminate, to kill and to destroy all [the Jews]…”;⁴⁷The exact relation of the rock badger (ha’arnevet) to Media is unclear. One possibility is suggested by Lev. 11:6, according to which the rock badger has marks of both uncleanness and cleanness. Lev. R. 13:5 reports two versions of such an interpretation. The Rabbis interpreted this mix to mean that Media produced a righteous as well as a wicked person (perhaps Haman and Mordecai or Haman and Darius the Mede of Dan. 11:1). According to R. Judah b. R. Simon, the last Darius was clean on the side of his mother Esther and unclean on his father’s side. and likewise, the name of Ptolemy’s wife was rock badger (arnevet). The hare alludes to Greece, since it brought low the Torah from the mouth of the prophets.⁴⁸Probably because prophecy ceased under Greek rule; but according to Lev. R. 13:5, “hare” alludes to the Greek kingdom, because Ptolemy’s mother was named “Hare.” Cf. yMeg. 1:11 (71d), according to which the Greek translators of Lev. 11:6 emended “hare” to “short-legged one” for the same reason. Cf. also Meg. 90b, according to which it was Ptolemy’s wife who was named Hare. In actuality the person named “Hare” (Gk.: Lagos) was Ptolemy’s father. As it is stated (in Amos 8:11), “Behold days are coming says the Lord, God, and I will send a hunger…”; and it is written (in Amos 8:12), “And they shall wander from sea to sea….” How is this? In the future to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will issue a proclamation: Whoever has been engaged in such and such a commandment may come and receive his reward. Then the gentiles also will say, “Give us our reward, for we have performed a commandment.” The Holy One, blessed be He, [however] has said, “Whoever has observed the [commandments of the] Torah may come and receive his reward.”

8) "detestable" — to forbid their brine, their marrow, and their jelly. "they (hem)": to exclude (as forbidden) an instance in which they are not present to the taste. "to you": They are permitted for benefit (but not for eating).

8) This is the animal that you may eat of every beast that is on the land.": We are hereby taught that "beast" is in the category of animal. Whence is it derived that "animal," too, is in the category of "beast"? From (Devarim 14:4): "This is the beast that you may eat: the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats, (Devarim 14:5) the hart, the gazelle, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the dyshon, and the wild ox, and the chamois." (The latter mentioned are animals.)

8) Just as the arbeh, which is mentioned, has four legs and four wings and jointed legs (for leaping), and its wings cover most of it, so, all of this kind are permitted. R. Yossi says: (In addition,) it must lend itself to the name "chagav" (grasshopper). R. Elazar b. R. Yossi says (Vayikra 11:21): "that which has joined legs" — even though it does not have them yet, but is destined to grow them.

8) Just as the arbeh, which is mentioned, has four legs and four wings and jointed legs (for leaping), and its wings cover most of it, so, all of this kind are permitted. R. Yossi says: (In addition,) it must lend itself to the name "chagav" (grasshopper). R. Elazar b. R. Yossi says (Vayikra 11:21): "that which has joined legs" — even though it does not have them yet, but is destined to grow them.

8) (Vayikra 11:25) "And everyone that carries of their carcass shall wash his clothing and he shall be unclean until evening": We are hereby taught that the carrier confers tumah upon clothing. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If touching (where the instances of tumah) are many (relative to carrying), does not confer tumah upon clothing, then carrying (where the instances of tumah) are few (relative to touching), how much more so should it not confer tumah (upon clothing)! It must, therefore, be written that the carrier must wash his clothing, whereby we are taught that the carrier does confer tumah upon clothing.

8) (Vayikra 11:28): "And he that carries their carcass shall wash his clothes": We are hereby taught that the carrier confers tumah upon (his) clothing. (Without this verse we would say) does it not follow a fortiori (that the carrier does not confer tumah upon his clothing, viz.:) if in an instance — that of touching — where they become tamei of themselves (i.e., when the clothes themselves touch neveilah), they do not become tamei by virtue of the toucher (of the neveilah, who wears them), then how much more so, in an instance where they do not become tamei of themselves — that of carrying — (how much more so) should they not become tamei by virtue of the wearer! It must, therefore, be written that the wearer shall wash his clothes, whereby we are taught that the wearer confers tumah upon (his) clothing.

8) See Section 4:9. Whence is it derived that felt-materials are included (as becoming tamei)? From "or garment."

8) "it shall be put into water": I might think even part of it (i.e., piece after piece). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7): "And when the sun sets, he shall be clean." Just as there, the coming (i.e., setting) of the sun is all at once; here, too, the coming of the vessel (into the water must be) all at once.

8) (Vayikra 11:33): "all that is in its midst shall become tamei," and not what is in the midst of its midst. How so? A jug is in an (earthen) stove, its mouth above the stove. A sheretz is in the stove. The food and drink in the jug are clean. Which (state) is more potent? That of conferring tumah or that of acquiring tumah? That of acquiring is more potent than that of conferring. For it (food in the oven) acquires tumah from a yeast container (in its midst which contains a sheretz), but it (a sheretz in the oven) does not confer tumah upon the yeast (in the container). Now if in a place where it acquires tumah from the yeast container, it does not acquire tumah from what is in the midst of its midst, then, in a place where it does not confer tumah upon the yeast, how much more so should it not confer tumah upon what is in the midst of its midst! (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) (For perhaps we would say that) the (state of) conferring tumah is more potent than that of acquiring tumah. For it (an earthen vessel that is tamei) confers tumah from its back (i.e., upon objects that touch its back), but does not acquire tumah from its back (but only from something tamei in its midst). So that it, too, should confer tumah upon what is in the midst of its midst, even though it does not acquire tumah from the midst of its midst! It must, therefore, be written "all that is in its midst shall become tamei," and not what is in the midst of its midst.

8) Whence is it derived that thought (i.e., desiring the water that has fallen upon the seed in the instance of sheretz) is equivalent to placing (it there, for purposes of its contracting tumah?) And it follows a fortiori that it should be so, viz.: If with earthen vessels, the lesser (tumah [see Vayikra 11:6) above]), thought is equivalent to placing, then with sheretz, the graver (tumah), how much more so should thought be equivalent to placing! — But, perhaps go in this direction — earthen vessels are the graver, for (even) their atmosphere confers tumah, (as opposed to sheretz, which confers tumah only through touch). It is, therefore, written "water"-"water" (to create an identity [Gezeirah shavah]). "Water" is written above (Vayikra 11:34) and "water" is written below (here). Just as with "water" above, thought is equivalent to placing, so, with "water" below, thought is equivalent to placing.

8) A stove of stone and of metal is clean, and it is tamei by reason of a metal vessel. If it were perforated, damaged, or split, and an (earthen) tripod were made for it, it is tamei. If it were smeared with clay, both inside or outside, it is clean, (for one does not cook or bake inside the stove itself, but places a pot in it or on top of it).

8) Whence is it derived that thought (i.e., desiring the water that has fallen upon the seed in the instance of sheretz) is equivalent to placing (it there, for purposes of its contracting tumah?) And it follows a fortiori that it should be so, viz.: If with earthen vessels, the lesser (tumah [see Vayikra 11:6) above]), thought is equivalent to placing, then with sheretz, the graver (tumah), how much more so should thought be equivalent to placing! — But, perhaps go in this direction — earthen vessels are the graver, for (even) their atmosphere confers tumah, (as opposed to sheretz, which confers tumah only through touch). It is, therefore, written "water"-"water" (to create an identity [Gezeirah shavah]). "Water" is written above (Vayikra 11:34) and "water" is written below (here). Just as with "water" above, thought is equivalent to placing, so, with "water" below, thought is equivalent to placing.

8) See Section 4:9

8) "between the animal which may be eaten and the animal which may not be eaten": It should say "between the deer and the arod (a wild ass)." And are they not already explained? If so, what is the intent of the above? Between a treifah (an animal with a defect), which is kasher (for eating) and a treifah that is unfit. Others say: "between the animal that may not be eaten": This is an exhortation (against violation of a negative commandment) vis-à-vis (eating) an (unclean) animal.

8) Whence is it derived that thought (i.e., desiring the water that has fallen upon the seed in the instance of sheretz) is equivalent to placing (it there, for purposes of its contracting tumah?) And it follows a fortiori that it should be so, viz.: If with earthen vessels, the lesser (tumah [see Vayikra 11:6) above]), thought is equivalent to placing, then with sheretz, the graver (tumah), how much more so should thought be equivalent to placing! — But, perhaps go in this direction — earthen vessels are the graver, for (even) their atmosphere confers tumah, (as opposed to sheretz, which confers tumah only through touch). It is, therefore, written "water"-"water" (to create an identity [Gezeirah shavah]). "Water" is written above (Vayikra 11:34) and "water" is written below (here). Just as with "water" above, thought is equivalent to placing, so, with "water" below, thought is equivalent to placing.

8) (Vayikra 11:8) "Of their flesh you may not eat" — but not of their bones, or sinews, or hooves (i.e., you may eat those). "and their carcass do not touch": I might think that Israelites (as opposed to Cohanim) are exhorted against touching a carcass; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 21:1): "Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a dead body he (a Cohein) shall not become tamei among his people." Cohanim are not to become tamei to the dead; Israelites are to become tamei to the dead.

THE CREATION AND WONDERS OF THE FIFTH DAY
ON the fifth day He caused the waters to bring forth abundantly all kinds of winged fowls, male and female, unclean and clean. By two signs are they declared to be clean, by the crop, and by the craw peeling off. Rabbi Eliezer said: (Another sign was) also by the projecting toe of the claw. Two kinds of birds have been chosen for the offering of a burnt sacrifice, namely, the turtle-dove and the young pigeon.

“Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, the one will lift the other; but if one who is alone falls, there is no other to lift him.… And if one attacks, two will stand against him, and the threefold thread will not be quickly severed” (Ecclesiastes 4:9–12).
“Two are better than one” – two who labored in Torah are better than one, when this one engages alone and that one alone. “For if they fall, the one will lift the other” – if one of them forgot a halakha, the other will restore the halakha. “And the threefold thread will not be quickly severed” – this is the rabbi who corrects their error.
Another matter: “Two are better than one” – two, who conduct business with merchandise, “are better than one,” this one alone and that one alone. “For if they fall” – for if one falls and endangers himself, the other will lift him. “And the threefold thread” – when they are three.²⁵In that case, it is even better. Rabbi Meir, when he would see one going out on the highway, he would shout to him: ‘Go, peace be upon you, dead man’; two, he would shout to them: ‘Peace be with you, disputants’; three, he would shout to them: ‘Peace be with you, peaceful ones.’
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Two are better” – man and his wife; “than one” – this one alone and that one alone. “And the threefold thread” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, who remembers them and provides them with children. Rabbi Yoḥanan said another matter in its regard: “Two are better” – this is Amram and Yokheved, who “have a good reward for their toil” – this is Moses, who is called good, as it is stated: “She saw him that he was good [tov]” (Exodus 2:2), as his name is Toviya because he was born circumcised.
Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yehuda says: This is David and Batsheva. “And the threefold thread,” this is Natan the prophet, who said to Batsheva: “I will come after you and I will complete your words” (I Kings 1:14). When they came to David, he agreed with them, and said: “Mount Solomon my son on the mule that is mine…” (I Kings 1:33). Rabbi Neḥemya said: “Two are better” – this is Yehoyada and Yehosheva; “than one” – this one alone and that one alone. “And the threefold thread” – this is the Sanhedrin that agreed with them;²⁶They agreed to unseat Atalya and crown Yoash as king. that is what is written: “They took out the king’s son and placed the crown upon him…” (II Chronicles 23:11). The Rabbis say: “Two are better” – this is Mordekhai and Esther; “than one” – this one alone and that one alone. “And the threefold thread” – this is Aḥashverosh, who agreed with them, and decreed, and said: “You, write regarding the Jews…” (Esther 8:8).
Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: “Two,” whom Mordekhai and Esther hanged,²⁷Bigtan and Teresh. “are better than one,” whom Joseph hanged,²⁸The baker, whose dream Joseph interpreted to mean that Pharaoh would hang him. See Genesis, chap. 40. as these, miracles were performed through them on behalf of all of Israel, and this one, no miracle was performed through him. “And the threefold thread” – this is the Holy One blessed be He above them all, who toppled an enemy, as it is written: “They hanged Haman on the tree that he had prepared for Mordekhai…” (Esther 7:10).
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A portion that was stated by means of two is better than a portion that was stated by means of one. By means of two, as it is stated: “The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: This month is for you…” (Exodus 12:1–2), than a portion said to an individual, [such as that which] is stated: “The Lord said to Moses saying” (e.g., Exodus 13:1). “And the threefold thread” – “The Lord said to Moses and to Aaron to say to them” (Leviticus 11:1) – to his sons, to Elazar and Itamar. Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: “To say to them” – to Elazar and Itamar, and for them to say to all Israel.
Another matter: “Two are better” – this is Moses and Aaron; “than one” – this one alone and that one alone. You find that when Moses came and blessed Israel, the Divine Presence did not rest [on Israel] through him, but when both of them came and blessed Israel, immediately the Divine Presence rested through them, as it is written: “Moses and Aaron came to the Tent of Meeting and they emerged and blessed the people” (Leviticus 9:23), they blessed Israel, and then, “the glory of the Lord appeared,” (Leviticus 9:23), the Divine Presence rested through them.
Rabbi Ze’eira said: There are various families: A family of teachers produces teachers; Torah scholars produce Torah scholars; the wealthy produce wealthy. They objected: But there are descendants of a certain family that achieved wealth and it ceased. He said to them: Is it written that it will never be severed? “It will not be quickly severed,” is written. If one poses difficulties for us,²⁹If he does not contribute to charitable causes supporting Torah study and the needy. he will be parted from his wealth. This is what bar Kappara said: If not him, his son will come to it, and if not his son, his grandson will come to it.³⁰Sooner or later, if one of his descendants gives charity, he will be wealthy, and if he fails to do so, he will lose the wealth.

What is meant by evil shall not sojourn with Thee? It means that no impure words ever emanate from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it says: The words of the Lord are pure words (Ps. 12:4). You know this to be so from the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah: Of every clean beast … and of the beasts that are not clean (Gen. 7:2). Observe that Scripture does not say “unclean beasts” but rather beasts that are not clean. R. Joshua the son of Levi said: The Holy One, blessed be He, resorts to a circumlocution of two and three words in the Torah rather than utter an impure word.¹⁰The verse mentions the pure characteristics of the animal even though it may not be eaten. It avoids mentioning the impure aspects of an animal. And so you find that when He introduced the matter of cleft hoofs lacking in impure beasts, he mentioned the signs of their purity first, as is said: The camel, because he cheweth the cud, etc. (Lev. 11:4). This is a sign of purity in an animal. Likewise in the case of the pig, He said: The swine, because he parteth the hoof (ibid., v. 7). This too is a sign of purity. Why did He do this? So that He would not be forced to utter an unclean word. Hence, Evil shall not sojourn with Thee.

On the fifth day He caused the waters to bring forth abundantly all kinds of locusts, male and female, clean and unclean. By two signs are they declared to be clean: by their long legs with which they jump, and by the wings which cover the entire body, such are clean. Such (living things) as were brought forth from the water, namely, fish and locusts, are (eaten) without (being subject to the laws of) Shechiṭah (with the ritual slaughtering), but the bird cannot be eaten unless (it be killed) by (the method of) Shechiḳah. Such creatures which have been created from the earth || have their blood covered with earth, and such as have been created from the water must have their blood poured out like water.

9) (Vayikra 11:11): "And detestable shall they be to you": to include their admixtures (if an unclean fish became mixed up with clean fish and cannot be recognized). How much (of the unclean fish) must be in it (the admixture) to be forbidden? The weight of ten zuz in Judah, which are ten selaim in the Galil, in a keg which contains two sa'ah. The brine of an unclean fish is forbidden. R. Yehudah says: (How much of the unclean must be in the clean to forbid the brine?) A revi'ith (of a log of unclean fish) in two sa'ah (of clean fish). R. Yossi says: One in sixteen.

9) Arbeh is (known as) gubai; salam, as charshon; chargol as nafol; chagav, as nadyan. What is the intent of "lemineihu," four times? To include tziporeth keramim, yochna Yerushalmith, artzuvia, and razvanith, (which though not similar in appearance to those in the verse, have the same species signs).

9) I might think (that such tumah obtains) even with raw wool; it is, therefore, written "beged" (clothing). If "beged" (alone were written), I might think (that tumah obtained) only with a large, white beged which confers tumah (in the instances of zav and plague-spots). Whence would I derive (the same for) a large, colored beged, a small, white beged, a small, colored beged, until there would be included (even) a net-band or a small wrap? From "beged"-"begadav" (i.e., from the use of the longer form, "begadav," rather than the base form, "beged") for (purposes of) inclusion. Whence is it derived that other implements are equated with begadim (in this connection)? From (the superfluous) "vetamei" ("and he shall be clean.") (Vayikra 11:25). I might think that he also confers tumah upon men and upon earthenware (which, for tumah purposes is likened to man); it is, therefore, written "beged" — he confers tumah upon clothing, and not upon men or earthenware.

9) We could reason a fortiori that they (clothes) should not become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah), viz.: If in an instance where they become tamei through the carrier, they do not become tamei of themselves (by lifting neveilah in a balance scale), then, in an instance where they do not become tamei through the toucher (who wears them), how much more so should they not become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah)! It is, therefore, written "Everything that touches them will be unclean," both men and implements.

9) (Devarim 14:6): "And every beast that has split hooves, entirely cloven in two, and which chews the cud in the beast — it may you eat" — to include the embryo (as permitted with the slaughtering of the mother). If the fetus stuck out its hand and returned it, it (the fetus, excluding the hand) may be eaten (with the slaughtering of its mother.) I might think that even if it stuck out its head and returned it, it is permitted with the slaughtering of its mother; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Devarim 14:7): "Only (this may you not eat") Why do you see fit to say that if the fetus stuck out its hand and returned it, it (the fetus) may be eaten (with the slaughtering of its mother)? Because it is not considered to have been born (and to require its own slaughtering). And why do you see fit to say that if the fetus stuck out its head, it (the fetus) may not be eaten (with the slaughtering if its mother)? Because it is considered to have been born (and to require its own slaughtering).

9) "or skin": I might think that even sea-skins become tamei. (Initially,) I would reason: There is plague-spot tumah and sheretz tumah. Just as sea-skins are not made tamei by plague-spots, so they should not be made tamei by sheratzim.

9) "And it shall be tamei until the evening": I might think for all things (i.e., even for use of the vessel for second-tithe). It is, therefore, written "and it shall be clean." How so? (How can it be clean and unclean at the same time?) Clean for second-tithe, (even) in the daytime, and for terumah (only) when it gets dark.

9) I might think that even if it (the jug) were pierced (the food within it does not become tamei); it is, therefore, written "all that is in its midst (including what is in a pierced jug) shall become tamei. How large must the hole be (to render the jug susceptible of tumah)? In (vessels) designated for liquids, (large enough) to admit liquids, and in those designated for foods, (large enough) to release olives.

9) This tells me only of water having been placed upon the seed and still being there. Whence do I derive (the same for) its having dried? From (Vayikra 11:34) "It is tamei to you" (in any event). "It is tamei to you": all that is for your needs, including the stems of foods (by which they are held), whence they said: The stem of the vine (acquires tumah) a tefach on one side and a tefach on the other. The spine of the bunch, whatever it be. The tail of the bunch, sharikna (whatever it be, of the berries). The stem of the "broom" of the palm, four tefachim. The reed of the ear, three tefachim. The "handle" of all that is cut, three. And what is not the practice to cut, whatever it be. And the outer husks of grains. I might think (that this is so) even if they were trodden in the threshing floor; it is, therefore, (to exclude these) written "It (and not what is attached to it) is tamei to you."

9) (Vayikra 11:35): "… shall be torn down. They are tamei": What is subject to tearing down is subject to tumah; what is not subject to tearing down is not subject to tumah. From here they ruled: If (a pot) were placed upon a stone and upon an oven (the stone being joined to it by plaster); upon it and upon a stove; upon it and upon a kupach (a kind of stove), it is tamei because it is subject to "tearing down." (If it were placed) upon it and upon (another) stone; upon it and upon a rock (which had never been dislodged); upon it and upon a wall, it is clean, for it is not subject to "tearing down." upon it and upon a projection (from the wall) — if we perceive that it could stand by itself (if the projection were removed), it is tamei; if not, it is clean.

9) This tells me only of water having been placed upon the seed and still being there. Whence do I derive (the same for) its having dried? From (Vayikra 11:34) "It is tamei to you" (in any event). "It is tamei to you": all that is for your needs, including the stems of foods (by which they are held), whence they said: The stem of the vine (acquires tumah) a tefach on one side and a tefach on the other. The spine of the bunch, whatever it be. The tail of the bunch, sharikna (whatever it be, of the berries). The stem of the "broom" of the palm, four tefachim. The reed of the ear, three tefachim. The "handle" of all that is cut, three. And what is not the practice to cut, whatever it be. And the outer husks of grains. I might think (that this is so) even if they were trodden in the threshing floor; it is, therefore, (to exclude these) written "It (and not what is attached to it) is tamei to you."

9) Now if they are to become tamei to the dead, a severe form of tumah, should they not become tamei to carcass, a lesser form? How, then, am I to understand "and their carcass do not touch"? On a festival (when they are commanded to appear in the azarah).

(Lev. 11:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, SAYING: THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT…. {It is written (in Hab. 3:6):} [This text is related (to Hab. 3:6):] HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH. What is the meaning of HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH?³⁵Tanh., Lev. 3:6, below Deut. 11:3 and the note there. It is simply that, when the Holy One wanted to give the Torah, he arose and measured (MDD) the earth.³⁶Cf. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 1, 5; Lev. R. 8:2. Then he gave the Torah in public³⁷Gk.: parresia. in the desert.³⁸The sense here is that the Holy One gave the Torah openly on neutral ground, not secretly in Israel. Therefore (in Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH.

Another interpretation (of Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH, because he wanted to return the world to the measurements of his waters, when the nations did not want to accept the Torah. If it had not been for Israel accepting it, the world would have returned to the measurements of his waters. < It is > just as you say (in Is. 40:12): WHO HAS MEASURED THE WATERS IN THE HOLLOW OF HIS HAND? But when Israel accepted it, the earth was still, as stated (in Ps. 76:9 [8]): THE EARTH WAS AFRAID AND WAS STILL. So it is from there (i.e., from Sinai) that the gentiles received their judgement.³⁹Gk.: apophasis. (Hab. 3:6, cont.:) HE LOOKED AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE (rt.: NTR). How did he make < them > tremble (hittir, rt.: NTR)? R. Abba bar Kahana said in the name of R. Johanan: He proscribed (dam hittir)⁴⁰Literally: he permitted their blood < to be shed >. them {seven peoples}, as stated (in Is. 60:12): AND THE NATIONS SHALL BE DESTROYED. R. Simeon ben Johay says: {He proscribed (hittir dam) them {seven peoples} and their possessions.} [Otherwise, compare what is said (in Numb. 13:16): TO SPY OUT (latur) THE LAND.] R. Aha said: He had them jump into Gehinnom, for it is stated (in Lev. 11:21): < KNEE JOINTS ABOVE THEIR FEET > TO LEAP (rt.: NTR) WITH UPON THE GROUND.⁴¹Below, Deut. 11:3. R. Huna of Sepphoris said: He untied (hittir) their girdles.⁴²Gk.: zonai. Compare what is said (in Job 12:18): HE UNDOES THE BOND OF KINGS, [AND BINDS A GIRDLE ON THEIR LOINS]. R. Tanhum ben Hanila'i said: He permitted (hittir) what was forbidden, abhorrent creatures and creeping things. Why? The matter is comparable to a physician who went to visit two patients.⁴³Lev. R. 13:2. He saw that one of them was in danger. He said to the children of his house: Tell him to eat whatever he wants. He saw the other, who was recovering. He said to the children of his house: Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat. They said to the physician: What < difference > did you see between the two of them [that you said to the one who was in danger: Let him eat whatever he wants, but said to the one who was recovering: Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat]. The physician said to them: When I saw that the one was dying, I said: Give him < any food > because he is going to die; [but let the other one watch himself, because there is life in him]. So also the Holy One has permitted (hittir) abhorrent creatures, creeping things, and all the transgressions for gentiles, who serve stars, because they are < destined > for Gehinnom. But in the case of Israel, because they are < destined > for life in paradise, he has said to them {(in Lev. 11:44): AND BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.} (in Lev. 11:43): YOU SHALL NOT MAKE YOURSELVES LOATHSOME. [(Lev. 11:44): AND BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.] This you may eat and this you may not eat. Why? Because they are alive, as stated (in Deut. 4:4): BUT YOU WHO CLUNG TO THE LORD YOUR GOD ARE ALL ALIVE TODAY. Ergo (in Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH; [HE LOOKED AND PERMITTED (rt.: NTR) GENTILES < WHAT IS FORBIDDEN >]…..⁴⁴So R. Tanhum ben Hanila’i has reinterpreted the more traditional, AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE.

Another interpretation (of Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH, because he wanted to return the world to the measurements of his waters, when the nations did not want to accept the Torah. If it had not been for Israel accepting it, the world would have returned to the measurements of his waters. < It is > just as you say (in Is. 40:12): WHO HAS MEASURED THE WATERS IN THE HOLLOW OF HIS HAND? But when Israel accepted it, the earth was still, as stated (in Ps. 76:9 [8]): THE EARTH WAS AFRAID AND WAS STILL. So it is from there (i.e., from Sinai) that the gentiles received their judgement.³⁹Gk.: apophasis. (Hab. 3:6, cont.:) HE LOOKED AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE (rt.: NTR). How did he make < them > tremble (hittir, rt.: NTR)? R. Abba bar Kahana said in the name of R. Johanan: He proscribed (dam hittir)⁴⁰Literally: he permitted their blood < to be shed >. them {seven peoples}, as stated (in Is. 60:12): AND THE NATIONS SHALL BE DESTROYED. R. Simeon ben Johay says: {He proscribed (hittir dam) them {seven peoples} and their possessions.} [Otherwise, compare what is said (in Numb. 13:16): TO SPY OUT (latur) THE LAND.] R. Aha said: He had them jump into Gehinnom, for it is stated (in Lev. 11:21): < KNEE JOINTS ABOVE THEIR FEET > TO LEAP (rt.: NTR) WITH UPON THE GROUND.⁴¹Below, Deut. 11:3. R. Huna of Sepphoris said: He untied (hittir) their girdles.⁴²Gk.: zonai. Compare what is said (in Job 12:18): HE UNDOES THE BOND OF KINGS, [AND BINDS A GIRDLE ON THEIR LOINS]. R. Tanhum ben Hanila'i said: He permitted (hittir) what was forbidden, abhorrent creatures and creeping things. Why? The matter is comparable to a physician who went to visit two patients.⁴³Lev. R. 13:2. He saw that one of them was in danger. He said to the children of his house: Tell him to eat whatever he wants. He saw the other, who was recovering. He said to the children of his house: Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat. They said to the physician: What < difference > did you see between the two of them [that you said to the one who was in danger: Let him eat whatever he wants, but said to the one who was recovering: Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat]. The physician said to them: When I saw that the one was dying, I said: Give him < any food > because he is going to die; [but let the other one watch himself, because there is life in him]. So also the Holy One has permitted (hittir) abhorrent creatures, creeping things, and all the transgressions for gentiles, who serve stars, because they are < destined > for Gehinnom. But in the case of Israel, because they are < destined > for life in paradise, he has said to them {(in Lev. 11:44): AND BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.} (in Lev. 11:43): YOU SHALL NOT MAKE YOURSELVES LOATHSOME. [(Lev. 11:44): AND BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.] This you may eat and this you may not eat. Why? Because they are alive, as stated (in Deut. 4:4): BUT YOU WHO CLUNG TO THE LORD YOUR GOD ARE ALL ALIVE TODAY. Ergo (in Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH; [HE LOOKED AND PERMITTED (rt.: NTR) GENTILES < WHAT IS FORBIDDEN >]…..⁴⁴So R. Tanhum ben Hanila’i has reinterpreted the more traditional, AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE.

Another interpretation (of Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH, because he wanted to return the world to the measurements of his waters, when the nations did not want to accept the Torah. If it had not been for Israel accepting it, the world would have returned to the measurements of his waters. < It is > just as you say (in Is. 40:12): WHO HAS MEASURED THE WATERS IN THE HOLLOW OF HIS HAND? But when Israel accepted it, the earth was still, as stated (in Ps. 76:9 [8]): THE EARTH WAS AFRAID AND WAS STILL. So it is from there (i.e., from Sinai) that the gentiles received their judgement.³⁹Gk.: apophasis. (Hab. 3:6, cont.:) HE LOOKED AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE (rt.: NTR). How did he make < them > tremble (hittir, rt.: NTR)? R. Abba bar Kahana said in the name of R. Johanan: He proscribed (dam hittir)⁴⁰Literally: he permitted their blood < to be shed >. them {seven peoples}, as stated (in Is. 60:12): AND THE NATIONS SHALL BE DESTROYED. R. Simeon ben Johay says: {He proscribed (hittir dam) them {seven peoples} and their possessions.} [Otherwise, compare what is said (in Numb. 13:16): TO SPY OUT (latur) THE LAND.] R. Aha said: He had them jump into Gehinnom, for it is stated (in Lev. 11:21): < KNEE JOINTS ABOVE THEIR FEET > TO LEAP (rt.: NTR) WITH UPON THE GROUND.⁴¹Below, Deut. 11:3. R. Huna of Sepphoris said: He untied (hittir) their girdles.⁴²Gk.: zonai. Compare what is said (in Job 12:18): HE UNDOES THE BOND OF KINGS, [AND BINDS A GIRDLE ON THEIR LOINS]. R. Tanhum ben Hanila'i said: He permitted (hittir) what was forbidden, abhorrent creatures and creeping things. Why? The matter is comparable to a physician who went to visit two patients.⁴³Lev. R. 13:2. He saw that one of them was in danger. He said to the children of his house: Tell him to eat whatever he wants. He saw the other, who was recovering. He said to the children of his house: Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat. They said to the physician: What < difference > did you see between the two of them [that you said to the one who was in danger: Let him eat whatever he wants, but said to the one who was recovering: Such and such food he may eat; such and such food he may not eat]. The physician said to them: When I saw that the one was dying, I said: Give him < any food > because he is going to die; [but let the other one watch himself, because there is life in him]. So also the Holy One has permitted (hittir) abhorrent creatures, creeping things, and all the transgressions for gentiles, who serve stars, because they are < destined > for Gehinnom. But in the case of Israel, because they are < destined > for life in paradise, he has said to them {(in Lev. 11:44): AND BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.} (in Lev. 11:43): YOU SHALL NOT MAKE YOURSELVES LOATHSOME. [(Lev. 11:44): AND BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.] This you may eat and this you may not eat. Why? Because they are alive, as stated (in Deut. 4:4): BUT YOU WHO CLUNG TO THE LORD YOUR GOD ARE ALL ALIVE TODAY. Ergo (in Hab. 3:6): HE AROSE AND MEASURED THE EARTH; [HE LOOKED AND PERMITTED (rt.: NTR) GENTILES < WHAT IS FORBIDDEN >]…..⁴⁴So R. Tanhum ben Hanila’i has reinterpreted the more traditional, AND MADE NATIONS TREMBLE.

10) "Of their flesh you shall not eat": (The exhortation) does not apply to their bones and to their fins. "and their carcass shall you hold in detestation": to include midges filtered (from their native element).

10) Rabbi says (Vayikra 11:23): "And every creeping thing that flies, which has four legs; it is detestable to you" — If it has five legs, it is clean. "it is detestable" — to exclude their admixture. From here the sages ruled: Unclean grasshoppers which were pickled together with clean ones do not render their (common) brine unfit. R. Tzadok testified about the brine of unclean grasshoppers that it (itself) is clean.

10) Rabbi says (Vayikra 11:23): "And every creeping thing that flies, which has four legs; it is detestable to you" — If it has five legs, it is clean. "it is detestable" — to exclude their admixture. From here the sages ruled: Unclean grasshoppers which were pickled together with clean ones do not render their (common) brine unfit. R. Tzadok testified about the brine of unclean grasshoppers that it (itself) is clean.

10) Others say: "and their carcass do not touch": I might think that if one touched a carcass he receives forty stripes; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:24): "and to these you shall become tamei." I might (then) think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become tamei to it; it is, therefore, written "and their carcass do not touch." How are these verses to be reconciled? (As expressing) an option (i.e., if you wish to be clean, be careful not to touch their carcass, because if you do, you will become tamei).

10) We could reason a fortiori that they should become tamei of themselves by carrying (i.e., by lifting neveilah in a balance scale), viz.: If in an instance where they do not become tamei through the toucher (who wears them), they become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah), then, in an instance where they do become tamei through the carrier (who wears them), how much more so should they become tamei of themselves by carrying (i.e., by lifting neveilah in a balance scale)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:28): "they are tamei to you," and neither food, nor drink, nor implements become tamei by carrying (neveilah in a scale). It is the carrier (that confers the tumah), and not that which is being carried (the neveilah).

10) You say that this is the intent of Scripture (in "Only, etc.") — to distinguish between limbs and limbs, (i.e., between head and hand). But perhaps the intent of Scripture is to distinguish between fetuses and fetuses. That is: Which fetus should be permitted (with the slaughtering of its mother)? One, that had it been born, would be permitted. And which is that? A living, nine-month old fetus. In chullin (a mundane, non-sanctified animal), whence do we derive (permission to eat) a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus (found in its mother after shechitah)? In sanctified animals, a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus? In a tithed animal, a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus? From (Vayikra 11:3) "Whatever (including the above) has split hooves and whose hooves are wholly cloven, and which chews the cud in the beast — it may you eat."

10) And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If plague-spots, which confer tumah upon warp and woof, do not confer tumah upon sea-skins, then sheratzim, which do not confer tumah upon warp and woof, how much more so should they not confer tumah upon sea-skins! — No, this may be so with plague-spots, which do not confer tumah upon dyed stuff. Would you say the same for sheratzim, which do confer tumah upon dyed stuff! Since it confers tumah upon dyed stuff, it should confer tumah upon sea-skins. It is, therefore, written "garment." Just as a garment comes from what grows on the land, so skin (to be tamei) must come from what grows on the land. I might think to exclude (from tumah) (even) connecting to it (a sea-skin) something of what grows on the land. It is, therefore, written ("garment) or skin." If "garment" includes connecting it (a sea-skin) with something that grows on the land, it may be even a thread, even a cord, so long as it is connected as required for conferring tumah.

10) From here they ruled: A defective kevereth (a large round vessel) stuffed with straw, hanging in the atmosphere of an oven — If the sheretz were in it, the oven is tamei; if the sheretz were in the oven, the food and drink in it are tamei. R. Eliezer says: It (the kevereth) shields (against tumah). R. Eliezer said: If it shields against the acute (tumah of) a dead body, how much more so should it shield against the lesser tumah of earthen vessels! They responded: If it shields against the acute (tumah of) a dead body, it is because a partition avails to shield in such instances. Shall it do so in the instance of the lesser tumah of earthen vessels, where a partition does not avail to shield!

10) (Vayikra 11:35) "shall be torn down": I might think that it is a mitzvah to tear them down; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:35) "and tamei shall they be" (i.e., they may be retained in a state of tumah and need not be cleansed). ("and tamei) shall they be to you): for all that serves your needs, including the handles of vessels. From here they ruled: A stone that protrudes a tefach from the oven (to serve as a "handle" of the oven), and three fingers from the stove is (considered) a connection (to the oven, so that if the oven becomes tamei, the stone becomes tamei, [but what is added to the tefach does not become tamei, the oven not requiring it]). What protrudes from a kupach — If it were made for baking, its size (for tumah) is that of an oven. If it were made for cooking, its size is that of a stove. R. Yehudah said: Did they not say: Any amount (of protrusion) of the stone from the oven, (even more than a tefach) is tamei, (being considered a handle of the stove). They said (that it is tamei only up to) a tefach (but not longer, when the oven is) between the stone and the wall, (the amount beyond a tefach being slated for removal so that the oven can be moved closer to the wall). If there were two ovens near each other, each is allowed a tefach (for purposes of handle-tumah), and the rest (beyond a tefach) is clean. — But perhaps I include more than that amount (for tumah). — (No, for) it is written "Tamei shall they (themselves) be" (and not their protrusions [unless they are needed for your use]).

10) Others say: "and their carcass do not touch": I might think that if one touched a carcass he receives forty stripes; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:24): "and to these you shall become tamei." I might (then) think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become tamei to it; it is, therefore, written "and their carcass do not touch." How are these verses to be reconciled? (As expressing) an option (i.e., if you wish to be clean, be careful not to touch their carcass, because if you do, you will become tamei).

(Lev. 11:2:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT. Three things Moses found difficult, the making of the menorah, the moon, and creeping things.⁴⁵Below, Numb. 3:4; Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Mekhilta, Pisha 2; Men. 29a; PRK 5:15; PR 15:21; Numb. R. 15:4; cf. Sifre to Numb. 8:4 (61); Exod. R. 15:28; Numb. R. 15:10; also below, Numb. 3:11, and the notes there. In making of the menorah, how < was it >? When Moses ascended < Sinai >, the Holy One was showing him on the mountain how he would make the Tabernacle. When he showed him the making of the menorah, Moses found it difficult.⁴⁶Below, Numb. 3:4. The Holy One said to him: See, I am making it before you. What did the Holy One do? He showed him white fire, [red fire,] black fire, and green fire. Then from them he made the menorah, its bowls, its pomegranates, its blossoms, and the six branches. Then he said to him (in Numb. 8:4): THIS IS THE MAKING OF THE MENORAH. When the Holy One showed him with the finger, he nevertheless found it difficult. What did the Holy One do? He engraved it on the his hand. He said to him: Go down and make it just as I have engraved it on your hand. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 25:40): OBSERVE AND MAKE THEM {LIKE} [BY MEANS OF] THEIR PATTERN. But where is it shown that he engraved it on his hand? Where it is stated (in Ezek. 8:3): HE STRETCHED OUT THE PATTERN OF A HAND. Now PATTERN can only be for the making of the menorah, concerning which it is stated (in Exod. 25:40): OBSERVE AND MAKE THEM {LIKE} [BY MEANS OF] THEIR PATTERN < WHICH YOU ARE BEING SHOWN ON THE MOUNTAIN >. Even so, he found it difficult and said (in Exod. 25:31): WITH DIFFICULTY (MQShH)⁴⁷While this meaning, so understood by the midrash, is possible, a more usual English translation would read, HAMMERED WORK, or something similar. [WILL THE MENORAH BE MADE]. How difficult was it to make? The Holy One said to him: Cast the gold into the fire, and it will be made automatically. So it is stated: WITH DIFFICULTY WILL THE MENORAH BE MADE. [BE MADE (a reflexive form, in the niph'al) is what is written], < i.e., > was made of its own accord.

THE WORK OF CREATION ON THE SIXTH DAY
ON the sixth day (God) brought forth from the earth all kinds of animals, male and female, clean and unclean. By two signs are they declared to be clean: (the signs are) chewing the cud, and dividing the hoof. Three kinds of animals were chosen for the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, namely, the ox, the lamb, and the goat. Every kind of clean animal which is neither Nevelah (i.e. which has not been slaughtered according to the rules of Shechiṭah) nor Ṭerephah (i.e. torn) in the field is permitted to be eaten, except with regard to three parts, namely, the fat, || the blood, and the sinew of the thigh, as it is said, "As the green herb have I given you all" (Gen. 9:3).

In reference to creeping things, where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Lev. 11:29): NOW THESE SHALL BE UNCLEAN FOR YOU FROM AMONG THE SWARMING THINGS WHICH SWARM ON THE EARTH]. The Holy One caught each and every species, showed them to Moses, and said to him: This you may eat, and this you may not eat. [Thus it is stated] (in Lev. 11:2, 4:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT. [….HOWEVER, THESE YOU MAY NOT EAT.] Moreover, do not be surprised over < this > thing, since it is a fact that the Holy One showed all creatures to the first Adam, and he gave them names. After he had given names to all of them, the Holy One said to him: And I, what is my name? He said to him: It is Y____, because it is written (in Is. 42:8): I AM Y____; THAT IS MY NAME.⁴⁹Below, Numb. 6:12. [This the name, which the first Adam gave me.] It is my name, which I have agreed upon < for use > between me and my creatures. So if in the case of the first Adam, the Holy One had the creatures pass before him; in the case of Moses, when the Holy One wanted to warn Israel about the unclean and about the clean, are you surprised that he showed him and said to him {(in Lev. 11:2–4): THESE < … > YOU MAY EAT. < … > AND THESE YOU MAY NOT EAT?} [(in Lev. 11:2): THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT?] {One must not say.}

In reference to creeping things, where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Lev. 11:29): NOW THESE SHALL BE UNCLEAN FOR YOU FROM AMONG THE SWARMING THINGS WHICH SWARM ON THE EARTH]. The Holy One caught each and every species, showed them to Moses, and said to him: This you may eat, and this you may not eat. [Thus it is stated] (in Lev. 11:2, 4:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT. [….HOWEVER, THESE YOU MAY NOT EAT.] Moreover, do not be surprised over < this > thing, since it is a fact that the Holy One showed all creatures to the first Adam, and he gave them names. After he had given names to all of them, the Holy One said to him: And I, what is my name? He said to him: It is Y____, because it is written (in Is. 42:8): I AM Y____; THAT IS MY NAME.⁴⁹Below, Numb. 6:12. [This the name, which the first Adam gave me.] It is my name, which I have agreed upon < for use > between me and my creatures. So if in the case of the first Adam, the Holy One had the creatures pass before him; in the case of Moses, when the Holy One wanted to warn Israel about the unclean and about the clean, are you surprised that he showed him and said to him {(in Lev. 11:2–4): THESE < … > YOU MAY EAT. < … > AND THESE YOU MAY NOT EAT?} [(in Lev. 11:2): THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT?] {One must not say.}

11) (Vayikra 11:12) "Whatever has no fins and scales in the water is detestable to you." What is the intent of this? (i.e., it has been stated already.) I might think (that it is permitted) only when it brings its signs of cleanliness with it to the dry land. If it left them in the water, how do I know (that it is still permitted)? From "in the water." "it is detestable to you": it is forbidden to trade in them.

11) I might think that (included for tumah) are even untanned hide and partially processed hide, with which (the entire) work (of processing) has not been done; it is, therefore, written "with which work is done." I would then exclude (from tumah) untanned hide and partially processed hide, with which work has not been done; but I would not exclude the skins of thongs and sandals, with which work has been done. It is, therefore written "vessel," to exclude sandal-thongs, which are not vessels. I might then think to exclude tent-skins, which are not vessels. It is, therefore, written "all … with which work is done," to include tent-skins.

11) R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: I said to R. Eliezer: If tents (analogous to the straw-stuffed kevereth) shield against tents in instances of acute, dead-body tumah, where tents avail (to create such) partitions, shall they shield against tents in instances of the lesser earthen vessel tumah, where such partitions do not avail! R. Yossi said: I said to R. Yochanan b. Nuri: I would be surprised if R. Eliezer accepted that answer from you, for it is (now) being deliberated. But this is the answer: If tents shield against tents in instances of acute, dead-body tumah — for (it is a halachah to Moses from Sinai in respect to dead-body uncleanliness) that if one makes (a partition of) a tefach by a tefach, one tefach high, (the vessels therein) are clean — should tents shield against tents in instances of the lesser, sheretz tumah, where if one makes (a partition of) a tefach by a tefach, one tefach high (the vessels therein) are tamei! He responded: This, too, can be (similarly) contested.

11) (Vayikra 11:8): "They are unclean to you": We are hereby taught that they (unforbidden quantities of different unclean animals) combine with each other (to form forbidden quantities) — flesh with flesh, milk with milk, flesh with milk, both alive (vis-à-vis ever min hechai [flesh torn from a living animals]) or dead (vis-à-vis carcass uncleanliness).

[(Lev. 11:2:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT.] The Holy One said [to him]: Warn Israel not to eat bad things, lest your < evil > drive lead you astray, saying that the Holy One has forbidden Israel from having good things. The Holy One said: Whatever I have forbidden you from having, I have permitted you to have < something > that corresponds to it⁵⁰Cf. Hul. 109b; Lev. R. 22:10. I have forbidden you menstrual blood; I have permitted you virginal blood. [I have forbidden you < animal > blood; I have permitted you the spleen and the liver, which are wholly blood.] I have forbidden you the flesh of swine; I have permitted you the tongue of a fish with the name shibbuta, which resembles swine.⁵¹According to Jastrow, s.v., a shibbuta was probably a mullet. The Arukh (Plenus Aruch, ed. A. Kohut [Vienna: G. Broeg, 1878–92], s.v.) suggests that the fish here is a sturgeon. In any case shibbuta apparently had a pork taste. So Rashi on Hul. 109a. I have forbidden you < another > man's wife; I have permitted you a beautiful woman, as stated [(in Deut. 21:11–12): AND WHEN YOU SEE AMONG THE CAPTIVES A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN WHOM YOU DESIRE TO TAKE FOR A WIFE, < YOU SHALL BRING HER INTO YOUR HOUSE…. >] I have forbidden you a brother's wife; I have permitted her for you after his death, [as stated (in Deut. 25:5):] HER BROTHER-IN-LAW SHALL HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER [AND TAKE HER FOR A WIFE]. I have forbidden you mingled seeds, but I have permitted you a sindon⁵²The Greek word, sindon, designates a garment of fine Indian linen. with a woolen fringe.⁵³See Jastrow, s.v., SDYN. I have forbidden you the fat of cattle, but I have permitted you < the fat of >⁵⁴This addition, found in the parallel text of the traditional Tanhuma, is necessary in view of what follows. game animals. R. Bisna said in the name of R. Hiyya: What the Holy One forbade for cattle he permitted for game animals, and what he forbade for fowl he permitted for fish. How? He forbade the fat in the case of cattle; he permitted it in the case of game animals. He forbade the thigh muscle in the case of game animals; he permitted it in the case of fowl. He forbade blood in the case of fowl; he permitted it in the case of fish. And why all this? In order to give Israel a good reward for observing the commandments.

(II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31 [30]:) AS FOR GOD, HIS WAY IS PERFECT…; for all the ways of the Holy One are perfect.⁵⁵Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Gen. R. 44:1; cf. Lev. R. 13:3. What does the Holy One care whether one ritually slaughters cattle and eats < the meat > or whether one slaughters cattle by stabbing and eats it? Will some such thing benefit him (i.e., the Holy One) or harm him? Or what does he care whether one eats what is unclean or eats what is clean? It is simply that (according to Prov. 9:12) IF YOU ARE WISE, YOU ARE WISE FOR YOURSELF; [AND IF YOU SCOFF, YOU WILL BEAR IT ALONE]. Thus, the commandments were given only to purify (rt.: TsRP) [mortals] through them, as stated (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. [18:31 [30], cont.): THE WORD OF THE LORD IS PURE (rt.: TsRP). Why? So that he might be a shield over you, [as stated] (ibid., cont.): HE IS A SHIELD FOR ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE IN HIM. Ergo (in Lev. 11:2:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT.

12) (Vayikra 11:13) ("And these shall you hold in detestation (teshaktsu) of the fowl. They shall not be eaten.") "teshaktsu": to forbid their brine, their marrow, and their jelly, and their eggs, and their skins, and their admixtures. "They" and "of" signal exclusions — to exclude (from the exhortation) their beak, claws, wing (feathers) and plumage.

12) "all that is in its midst shall become tamei": R. Akiva says: It is not written "tamei" ("it is tamei"), but "yetamei" — it confers tumah, to make others tamei — to teach that the loaf (in the earthen stove), of second degree tumah, confers third-degree tumah (upon terumah, and even upon chullin [non-consecrated food]). How so? The oven is of first-degree tumah; the loaf, of second degree; and what touches the loaf, of third degree. R. Yehoshua said: "Who will clear the dust from between your eyes, R. Yochanan b. Zakkai, who was wont to say: A future generation is destined to cleanse the third-degree loaf, for which (tumah) there is no verse in the Torah! — when Akiva, your disciple, has adduced a verse from the Torah (to the effect that) it is tamei! For it is written 'All that is in its midst yetamei.'"

R. Simeon ben Yohai began his discourse with the verse “He stood, and measured the earth” (Habakuk 3:6). That is, the Holy One took the measure of all peoples and found no people other than Israel worthy of receiving the Torah. The Holy One took the measure of all generations and found no generation other than the generation of the wilderness worthy of receiving the Torah. The Holy One took the measure of all mountains and found no mountain other than Sinai worthy of having the Torah given on it. The Holy One took the measure of all cities and found no city other than Jerusalem worthy of having the Temple built within it. The Holy One took the measure of all lands and found no land other than the Land of Israel worthy of being given to Israel.

Job said (in Job 14:4): WHO CAN PRODUCE SOMETHING CLEAN OUT OF SOMETHING UNCLEAN? NO ONE. After the Holy One permitted the cow and forbade the camel, who could declare clean or declare unclean?⁵⁶Tanh., Lev. 3:8. Who has done so? No one. Not a single person in the world. Come and see: Originally at the creation of the world, everything was permitted, as stated (in Gen. 9:3): AS WITH THE GREEN GRASS, I HAVE GIVEN YOU EVERYTHING. Then after Israel stood by Mount Sinai, he increased Torah and commandments for them in order to give them a good reward. But if so, why did he not so command the first Adam? The Holy One said: When I ordained an easy commandment for him, he transgressed against it. How could he fulfill all these commandments? On the very day on which it was commanded, on that day he nullified and transgressed against them (sic).⁵⁷Cf. the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 3:8, which reads here: “Transgressed against it.” He was unable to remain obedient to the command for a single day. How < did his disobedience happen >?⁵⁸Cf. the traditional Tanhuma, which reads: “How did the Holy One create the human?” R. Judah ben Pedayah said: Twelve hours make up the day. In the first hour the first Adam arose in the thought of the Holy One < with a view > to creation.⁵⁹PRK 23:1; PR 46:2; M. Pss. 92:3; Lev. R. 29:1; cf. Sanh. 38b; ARN, A, 1; PRE 11. In the second he consulted with the ministering angels. In the third he gathered his dust. In the fourth he kneaded him. In the fifth he shaped him. In the sixth he stood him up as a golem. In the seventh he blew breath into him, as stated (in Gen. 2:7): AND HE BLEW INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE. In the eighth he brought him into the Garden of Eden. In the ninth he commanded him: Eat of this, and do not eat of that. In the tenth he sinned. In the eleventh he was judged. In the twelfth he was expelled. Thus you must conclude that he did not remain obedient to the commandment for even a single hour. R. Judah ben Pedayah said: Would that someone remove the dust from your eyes, O First Adam, you who could not persevere in your temptation for even a single hour, while here your children are keeping all the commandments which were given to them and persevering in them!⁶⁰Gen. R. 21:7; cf. Lev. R. 25:2. One of them rises to plant, till, weed, prune, take pains to irrigate, and see the fruits of his plantings when they produce first fruits. Then he folds his hands and does not taste them, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Lev. 19:23): THREE YEARS < IT SHALL BE] FORBIDDEN [TO YOU]…. But in the case of the first Adam, it was told him: Eat of this, and do not eat of that. [It is so stated (in Gen. 2:16–17): YOU MAY FREELY EAT OF ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN; BUT AS FOR THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE < OF GOOD AND EVIL, YOU MAY NOT EAT OF IT >…. ] He did not remain obedient to the commandment for a single hour. [Instead (according to Gen. 3:6), THEN SHE ALSO GAVE SOME TO HER HUSBAND, AND HE ATE.] But [when] your children were commanded to eat this and not to eat that, [they remained obedient to those < commandments >]. And < this obedience is > especially < evident > when someone from Israel takes a bovine, an ox, or a lamb, slaughters it ritually, skins it, washes it, and inspects its health. When it is found to be unfit, he holds back and does not eat it. Ergo (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31 [30], cont.): THE WORD OF THE LORD IS PURE. [For that reason, the first Adam was not given commandments, because it was revealed to the Holy One that he could not remain obedient to them; but in the case of Israel, when the Holy One gave them many commandments, they accepted them and said (in Exod. 24:7): ALL THAT THE LORD HAS SPOKEN WE WILL CARRY OUT AND OBEY. He therefore warned them (in Lev. 11:2–4:) THESE ARE THE CREATURES THAT YOU MAY EAT…. THESE, HOWEVER, YOU MAY NOT EAT.]

13) (Vayikra 11:33): "It shall you break." I might think that it is a mitzvah to break it. Behold, it is written in respect to a zav (one with a genital discharge) (Vayikra 15:12): "And an earthen vessel which a zav touches shall be broken, and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water." Just as (the rinsing of) wooden vessels is for cleansing (and not for mitzvah), so, (the breaking of) earthen vessels is for cleansing (and not for mitzvah.) I might think that it is a mitzvah to break it (an earthen vessel that has become tamei); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:33) "It shall you break," and you shall not break (as a mitzvah) the earthen vessel of a zav. Now we can derive this a fortiori (without a verse), viz.: If (a vessel) that touches a zav, an acute (state of tumah does not require breaking (as a mitzvah) then (a vessel) that touches a sheretz, a lesser state, how much more so should it not be broken! If so, what is the intent of "It shall you break"? We are hereby taught that its only cleansing is its breaking, (but if one wishes to retain it in its state of tumah, he may do so). Variantly: It shall you break to cleanse it but you do not "break" food and drink to cleanse it.

(Lev. 11:4–7:) < THESE, HOWEVER, YOU MAY NOT EAT…: > THE CAMEL < … >; THE ROCK BADGER< … >; THE HARE< … >; AND THE PIG.⁶¹Tanh., Lev. 3:8; cf. Lev. R. 13:5. THE CAMEL (rt.: GML) represents the kingdom of Babylon, since it is stated (in Ps. 137:8): O DAUGHTER OF BABYLON, WHO ARE TO BE DESTROYED, [BLESSED IS THE ONE WHO REPAYS YOU THE RECOMPENSE (rt.: GML) WITH WHICH YOU RECOMPENSED (rt.: GML) US. THE ROCK BADGER represents the kingdom of Media, since it is stated (in Esth. 3:6): SO HAMAN SOUGHT TO DESTROY < ALL THE JEWS >….⁶²The exact relation of the rock badger (ha’arnevet) to Media is unclear. One possibility is suggested by Lev. 11:6, according to which the rock badger has marks of both uncleanness and cleanness. Lev. R. 13:5 reports two versions of such an interpretation. The Rabbis interpreted this mix to mean that Media produced a righteous as well as a wicked person (perhaps Haman and Mordecai or Haman and Darius the Mede of Dan. 11:1). According to R. Judah b. R. Simon, the last Darius was clean on the side of his mother Esther and unclean on his father’s side. THE HARE alludes to Greece, because it brought low the Torah from the mouth of the prophets.⁶³Probably because prophecy ceased under Greek rule; but according to Lev. R. 13:5, “hare” alludes to the Greek kingdom, because Ptolemy’s mother was named “Hare.” Cf. yMeg. 1:11 (71d), according to which the Greek translaters of Lev. 11:6 emended “hare” to “short-legged one” for the same reason. Cf. also Meg. 90b, according to which it was Ptolemy’s wife who was named Hare. In actuality the person named “Hare” (Gk.: Lagos) was Ptolemy’s father. THE PIG represents the evil kingdom of Edom (i.e., Rome), since it is stated (in Ps. 80:14 [13]): THE PIG OF THE FOREST GNAWS AT IT (i.e., at Jerusalem).⁶⁴See ARN, A, 34. Why is it compared to the pig (rt.: HZR)? Because the Holy One is going to pay it back (rt.: HZR) with strict judgment. How? In the age to come the Holy One will issue a proclamation: Whoever has been engaged in the Torah may come and receive his reward. Then the gentiles also will say: Give us our reward, for we also have performed such and such a commandment. The Holy One < however > has said: Whoever has not eaten abhorrent creatures and creeping things may receive his reward. At that time they < will > receive their judgment,⁶⁵Gk.: apophasis. as stated (in Is. 66:17): THOSE WHO EAT THE FLESH OF THE PIG, THE ABHORRENT CREATURE, AND THE MOUSE SHALL BE CONSUMED TOGETHER, SAYS THE LORD.

"A woman when she gives seed (conceives)" [Leviticus 12:2]: That's what is written, "You have created me behind and before." [Psalms 139:5] Said Rabbi Yochanan: If man merits, he inherits two worlds, this one and the coming one, that's what is written: "You have created me behind and before (front)." And if not, he comes to give reckoning, as it says, "And You laid your hand (kapcha) on me." [ibid], as it is written, [Job 13:21] "Withdraw your hand (kapcha) far from me." Said Rav Shmuel bar Nachman: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first man, he created him as an androgynous being. Reish Lakish: When it was created, dual faces [together] were created, and it was cut, and two were made. [One] back was male, [one] back was female. They challenged him: [Genesis 2:21] "And He took one of his ribs (tzela)"!? He said to them, it is of his sides, as it is written, "and to the side (tzela) of the Tabernacle" [Exodus 26:20]. Said Rabbi Berachiya and Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman: When God created the first man, from one end of the world to the other end, He created him to fill the entire world. How do we know from east to west? As it says, "You created me back to east (kedem)." How do we know from north to south? As it says, [Deuteronomy 4:32] "From the ends of the heavens to the ends of the heavens." How do we know that it was the expanse of the world? As it says, "And You laid your hand on me." Said Rabbi Elazar: "Behind" - that's the first day [of creation]. "Before" - that's the last day. For the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, there is the verse, [Genesis 1:24]: "Let the earth bring forth the living soul (nefesh chaya) to its kind." "Living soul" - that's the spirit of the first man. Said Reish Lakish: "Behind" - that's the last day. "Before" - that's the first day. For the opinion of Reish Lakish, there is the verse: [Genesis 1:2] "And the spirit of God wavered upon the water" - that is the spirit of the king messiah. If man merits, we say to him: "You were created before all of creation." If not, we say to him, "The mosquito preceded you." Said Rabbi Yishmale b'Rabbi Tanchum: "Behind" on all creation, "before" (first) in all punishments. Said Rabbi Yochanan: Even man's praise only comes last, as it says [Psalms 148:110]: "Beasts and all cattle creeping things and flying fowl". And afterwards, [Psalms 148:11]: "Kings of the earth and all peoples." Said Rabbi Simlai: "Just like man's formation was after beast, cattle, and bird, so too his laws are after beast, cattle, and bird, and that's what is written, "This is the law of cattle" [Leviticus 11:46], and afterwards, "A woman when she gives seed..."

(Lev. 11:4–7:) < THESE, HOWEVER, YOU MAY NOT EAT…: > THE CAMEL < … >; THE ROCK BADGER< … >; THE HARE< … >; AND THE PIG.⁶¹Tanh., Lev. 3:8; cf. Lev. R. 13:5. THE CAMEL (rt.: GML) represents the kingdom of Babylon, since it is stated (in Ps. 137:8): O DAUGHTER OF BABYLON, WHO ARE TO BE DESTROYED, [BLESSED IS THE ONE WHO REPAYS YOU THE RECOMPENSE (rt.: GML) WITH WHICH YOU RECOMPENSED (rt.: GML) US. THE ROCK BADGER represents the kingdom of Media, since it is stated (in Esth. 3:6): SO HAMAN SOUGHT TO DESTROY < ALL THE JEWS >….⁶²The exact relation of the rock badger (ha’arnevet) to Media is unclear. One possibility is suggested by Lev. 11:6, according to which the rock badger has marks of both uncleanness and cleanness. Lev. R. 13:5 reports two versions of such an interpretation. The Rabbis interpreted this mix to mean that Media produced a righteous as well as a wicked person (perhaps Haman and Mordecai or Haman and Darius the Mede of Dan. 11:1). According to R. Judah b. R. Simon, the last Darius was clean on the side of his mother Esther and unclean on his father’s side. THE HARE alludes to Greece, because it brought low the Torah from the mouth of the prophets.⁶³Probably because prophecy ceased under Greek rule; but according to Lev. R. 13:5, “hare” alludes to the Greek kingdom, because Ptolemy’s mother was named “Hare.” Cf. yMeg. 1:11 (71d), according to which the Greek translaters of Lev. 11:6 emended “hare” to “short-legged one” for the same reason. Cf. also Meg. 90b, according to which it was Ptolemy’s wife who was named Hare. In actuality the person named “Hare” (Gk.: Lagos) was Ptolemy’s father. THE PIG represents the evil kingdom of Edom (i.e., Rome), since it is stated (in Ps. 80:14 [13]): THE PIG OF THE FOREST GNAWS AT IT (i.e., at Jerusalem).⁶⁴See ARN, A, 34. Why is it compared to the pig (rt.: HZR)? Because the Holy One is going to pay it back (rt.: HZR) with strict judgment. How? In the age to come the Holy One will issue a proclamation: Whoever has been engaged in the Torah may come and receive his reward. Then the gentiles also will say: Give us our reward, for we also have performed such and such a commandment. The Holy One < however > has said: Whoever has not eaten abhorrent creatures and creeping things may receive his reward. At that time they < will > receive their judgment,⁶⁵Gk.: apophasis. as stated (in Is. 66:17): THOSE WHO EAT THE FLESH OF THE PIG, THE ABHORRENT CREATURE, AND THE MOUSE SHALL BE CONSUMED TOGETHER, SAYS THE LORD.

(Lev. 22:27), “And from the eighth day on [it shall be acceptable for an offering by fire to the Lord].” So that your [evil] drive not lead you astray by saying that there is eating and drinking in front of Him. Who sacrificed to Him before Israel arose? David said (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord?” [This is to mean], who offered sacrifices to Him? R. Abbin the Levite said, “[This verse means,] who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in sustaining orphans and feeding the hungry? After all, this word (ya'arokh) can only be a word concerning sustenance, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:8), ‘On [every] Sabbath day he shall [regularly] arrange (ya'arokh) it (i.e., the bread).’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in bringing light to the eyes of those in the dark?⁷⁵Below, 10:6. After all, this word (ya'arokh) can only be a word denoting light, since it is stated (Lev. 24:4), “He shall set up (ya'arokh) the lamps upon the unalloyed lampstand.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in clothing the naked? After all, this word (rt.: 'rk) can only be a word denoting a garment, since it is stated (in Jud. 17:10), “a suit (rt.: 'rk) of clothes and [your] maintenance.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies [is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord]”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in waging war for Israel? After all, the word, ya'arokh, can only be a word denoting war, since it is stated (in Gen. 14:8), “and they marshalled (ya'arokh in the plural) for battle with them.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord”: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If your [evil] drive comes and says to you, ‘Who sacrificed to (fed) the Holy One, blessed be He, before the world was created,’⁷⁶See PR 48:3. say to him, ‘Consider that Moses ascended to the sky and spent a hundred and twenty days there. Let him tell you whether they were sacrificing to the Holy One, blessed be He. And in addition he was accustomed to eat; but when he ascended to Me, he saw that there is no eating and drinking in front of Me, and so he also did not eat, as stated (in Exod. 34:28), “And he was there with the Lord [forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water].”’” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “If your [evil] drive comes to say to you, ‘If there were no eating and drinking before Him, He would not have told me to sacrifice and offer libations to Him’; [then ponder] what is written (in Numb. 28:6), ‘The continual burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai’: Did they offer sacrifices on Mount Sinai? [No.] Rather observe that it was Moses who went up onto Mount Sinai. Let him tell you whether there were food and drink before Me. And so why did I trouble you and tell you to bring a daily sacrifice? In order to benefit you.” R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “When a mighty man who is walking on the road is thirsty and goes to drink water, how much does he drink with his hands? Ten handfuls? Six handfuls? Four handfuls? Less than two he does not drink. Now all the water that is in the world would be a filling for the hollow of the Holy One, blessed be He's, hand, as stated (in Is. 40:12), ‘Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?’ [It is so written] in order to make known that for Him there is no eating or drinking. [Then] why did He tell me to offer a sacrifice? In order to benefit you.” Ergo (in Lev. 22:27), “When a bull or a sheep or a goat [is born… and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable for an offering by fire to the Lord].” (Lev. 22:27), “And from the eighth day.” This text is related (to Eccl. 3:19), “As for the fate of humans and the fate of beasts, [they have the same fate; as the one dies, so does the other die. They all have the same lifebreath, but the superiority of the human over the beast is nil ('yn)].”⁷⁷This is the translation required by the latter part of this section. A more traditional translation would be AND THE HUMAN IS NO BETTER THAN THE BEAST. It is written concerning the human (in Deut. 22:11), “You shall not wear interwoven stuff, wool and flax together.” It is also written concerning the beast (ibid., vs. 10), “You shall not plough with an ox and an ass together.” (Eccl. 3:19:) “[They] all have the same fate.” Just as the human contracts uncleanness, the beast also contracts uncleanness. It is written concerning the human (in Numb. 19:11), “One who touches the corpse of any human being shall be unclean.” Also concerning the beast (in Lev. 11:39), “whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean [...].” (Eccl. 3:19:) “As the one dies, so does the other die.” Concerning the human (in Lev. 20:16), “you shall kill the woman”; and concerning the beast (in vs. 15), “and you shall kill the beast.” (Eccl. 3:21:) “Who knows the lifebreath of a human that rises upward and the lifebreath of a beast that goes down into the earth?”⁷⁸This translation is required by the midrash. A more traditional translation in the biblical context would be this: WHO KNOWS WHETHER IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD, WHILE IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH? Because the lifebreath of the human is given from above, concerning it, a rising up is written. And because the beast is given from below, concerning it, a going down is written. (Eccl. 3:19, cont.:) “But the superiority of the human over the beast is 'yn (i.e., nil).” What is the meaning of 'yn?⁷⁹Eccl. R. 3:19(1). That [the human] speaks, but [the beast] does not ('yn) speak. And moreover, while there is knowledge in the human, in the beast there is no ('yn) knowledge. And moreover, while the human knows the difference between good and evil, the beast does not ('yn) know the difference between good and evil. And moreover, the human gets a reward for his works, but the beast does not ('yn) get a reward for its work. And moreover, when the human dies they care for him and he is buried, while the beast is not ('yn) buried. Ergo (in Eccl. 3:19), “but the superiority of the human over the beast is 'yn.” What is written concerning the human (in Lev. 12:2-3)? “When a woman emits her seed…. And on the eighth day [the flesh of his foreskin] shall be circumcised.” But about the beasts it is written (in Lev. 22:27), “When a bull or a sheep or a goat… and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable [for an offering by fire to the Lord].”

Another reading: "When you raise up". You see that Moshe struggled [nitkasha] with the design of the Menorah more than all the other vessels of the Mishkan [Tabernacle], until the Holy One Who is Blessed showed him with a finger. Similarly with the hoofs of impure and pure animals, as it says, "These are the animals which you shall eat" (Vayikra 11:4), these are the ones which you shall not eat, and showed him with a finger. Similarly with the moon, "this month is for you" (Shmot 12:2). Similarly with the Menorah, "This is how the Menorah was made: it was hammered work [miksha] of gold" (Bemidbar 8:4), which is to say how hard [kasha] it is to make, since Moshe became weary on account of it. When he struggled, The Holy One Who is Blessed said to Moshe: take a talent of gold and throw it in the fire and take it out, and it will be formed on its own, as it says, "its cups, calyxes, and petals were of one piece with it [lit: came out from it]" (Shmot 37:17) - he would strike it with a hammer and it would be made on its own. Therefore it says "it will be made [te'aseh] of hammered work" (Shmot 25:31) written with a [Hebrew letter] "yod" and not written "you will make [ta'aseh]", that is to say it will be made on its own. Moshe took the talent [of gold] and threw it in the fire. Moshe said, "Master of the Universe, behold the talent is in the fire. Whatever you wish - so shall it be done." The Menorah immediately came out made according to its design, thus it is written, "According to the pattern that the LORD had shown Moses..." (Bemidbar 8:4). It is not written here "so did Moses make the Menorah," rather "so was the Menorah made." And who made it? The Holy One Who is Blessed. Therefore the Holy One Who is Blessed said to Moshe: If you are careful to light [it] before me, I will protect your souls from every evil thing, since souls are compared to a candle, as it says. "the candle of Adonai is the soul of a person" (Proverbs 20:27) and it says, "When you raise up the candles)" (Bemidbar 8:2)

Another reading: "When you raise up". You see that Moshe struggled [nitkasha] with the design of the Menorah more than all the other vessels of the Mishkan [Tabernacle], until the Holy One Who is Blessed showed him with a finger. Similarly with the hoofs of impure and pure animals, as it says, "These are the animals which you shall eat" (Vayikra 11:4), these are the ones which you shall not eat, and showed him with a finger. Similarly with the moon, "this month is for you" (Shmot 12:2). Similarly with the Menorah, "This is how the Menorah was made: it was hammered work [miksha] of gold" (Bemidbar 8:4), which is to say how hard [kasha] it is to make, since Moshe became weary on account of it. When he struggled, The Holy One Who is Blessed said to Moshe: take a talent of gold and throw it in the fire and take it out, and it will be formed on its own, as it says, "its cups, calyxes, and petals were of one piece with it [lit: came out from it]" (Shmot 37:17) - he would strike it with a hammer and it would be made on its own. Therefore it says "it will be made [te'aseh] of hammered work" (Shmot 25:31) written with a [Hebrew letter] "yod" and not written "you will make [ta'aseh]", that is to say it will be made on its own. Moshe took the talent [of gold] and threw it in the fire. Moshe said, "Master of the Universe, behold the talent is in the fire. Whatever you wish - so shall it be done." The Menorah immediately came out made according to its design, thus it is written, "According to the pattern that the LORD had shown Moses..." (Bemidbar 8:4). It is not written here "so did Moses make the Menorah," rather "so was the Menorah made." And who made it? The Holy One Who is Blessed. Therefore the Holy One Who is Blessed said to Moshe: If you are careful to light [it] before me, I will protect your souls from every evil thing, since souls are compared to a candle, as it says. "the candle of Adonai is the soul of a person" (Proverbs 20:27) and it says, "When you raise up the candles)" (Bemidbar 8:2)

Rabbi Aḥa and Rabbi Tanḥum bar Rabbi Ḥiyya [said] in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Sanctify my Sabbaths” (Ezekiel 20:20) – in what way do you sanctify it? Sanctify it with food, with drink, and with clean garments, as it is written: “For it is a sign between Me and you, to know that I am the Lord…” (Exodus 31:13). “I am the Lord” – reliable to pay you a good reward.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: In the way of the world, a person performs labor with his employer, and because he sullies himself with mortar, [his employer] gives him his wages. However, the Holy One blessed be He is not so; rather, He says to Israel: ‘Do not sully yourselves with anything bad, and I will give you a good reward.’ That is what is written: “Do not make yourselves detestable” (Leviticus 11:43); “You shall not make a cut in your flesh for the dead…I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28). “I am the Lord” – reliable to pay you a good reward in the World to Come.

This is the ordinance of the Torah - (Psalms 12:6) The sayings of G-d are pure (purify). R. Hanan Ben Pazzi elucidated this verse [of psalms with the parsha of Parah] Parah- which has seven seven sevens; seven cows, seven fires, seven sprinkling, seven washes, seven unclean, seven pure, seven priests. And if someone tells you they are five, tell him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is said: And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the Torah:

This is the ordinance of the Torah - (Psalms 12:6) The sayings of G-d are pure (purify). R. Hanan Ben Pazzi elucidated this verse [of psalms with the parsha of Parah] Parah- which has seven seven sevens; seven cows, seven fires, seven sprinkling, seven washes, seven unclean, seven pure, seven priests. And if someone tells you they are five, tell him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is said: And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the Torah:

This is the ordinance of the Torah - (Psalms 12:6) The sayings of G-d are pure (purify). R. Hanan Ben Pazzi elucidated this verse [of psalms with the parsha of Parah] Parah- which has seven seven sevens; seven cows, seven fires, seven sprinkling, seven washes, seven unclean, seven pure, seven priests. And if someone tells you they are five, tell him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is said: And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the Torah:

They also wrote (in Lev. 11:6): "The slender footed." They did not write: THE HARE.⁹¹The Septuagint has “hare” here, but the Greek word used (dasupous) has the literal meaning, “hairy footed.” According to Meg. 9b, The Greek translators avoided the more common word for “hare” (i.e., Lagos) because it was the name of Ptolemy’s wife. In actual fact, however, it was Ptolemy’s father who was named Lagos. Thus (in Exod. 4:20): SO MOSES TOOK HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN….

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 22:27): AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY. This text is related (to Eccl. 3:19): AS FOR THE FATE OF HUMANS [AND THE FATE OF BEASTS, THEY HAVE THE SAME < FATE >: AS THE ONE DIES, SO DOES THE OTHER DIE. THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME LIFEBREATH, BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS NIL ('YN)].⁸⁷This is the translation required by the latter part of this section. A more traditional translation would be AND THE HUMAN IS NO BETTER THAN THE BEAST. It is written concerning the human (in Deut. 22:11): YOU SHALL NOT WEAR INTERWOVEN STUFF, WOOL AND FLAX TOGETHER. It is also written concerning the beast (ibid., vs. 10): YOU SHALL NOT PLOUGH WITH AN OX AND AN ASS TOGETHER. (Eccl. 3:19): {ALL} [THEY] HAVE THE SAME FATE. Just as the human contracts uncleanness, the beast also contracts uncleanness. It is written concerning the human (in Numb. 19:11): ONE WHO TOUCHES {A CORPSE SHALL BE UNCLEAN} [THE CORPSE OF ANY HUMAN BEING SHALL BE UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS]. Also concerning the beast (in Lev. 11:39): WHOEVER TOUCHES ITS CARCASS SHALL BE UNCLEAN. (Eccl. 3:19:) AS THE ONE DIES, SO DOES THE OTHER DIE. Concerning the human (in Lev. 20:16): YOU SHALL KILL THE WOMAN; and concerning the beast (in vs. 15): AND YOU SHALL KILL THE BEAST. (Eccl. 3:21:) {AND} WHO KNOWS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD AND THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH?⁸⁸This translation is required by the midrash. A more traditional translation in the biblical context would be this: WHO KNOWS WHETHER IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD, WHILE IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH? Because the lifebreath of the human is given from above, concerning it a rising up is written. And because the beast is given from below, concerning it a going down is written. (Eccl. 3:19, cont.:) BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS 'YN (i.e., NIL). What is the meaning of 'YN?⁸⁹Eccl. R. 3:19(1). That < the human > speaks, but < the beast > does not ('YN) speak. And moreover, while there is knowledge in the human, in the beast there is no ('YN) knowledge. And moreover, while the human knows the difference between good and evil, the beast does not ('YN) know the difference between good and evil. And moreover, the human gets a reward for his works, but the beast does not ('YN) get a reward for its work. And moreover, when the human dies they care for him and he is buried, while the beast is not ('YN) buried. Ergo (in Eccl. 3:19): BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS 'YN. What is written concerning the human (in Lev. 12:2–3)? WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED…. AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY < THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN > SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED. But about the beasts it is written (in Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT IS BORN, [….AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY ON IT SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE] < FOR AN OFFERING BY FIRE TO THE LORD >.

And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass (Exod. 4:20). This is one of the ten verses our rabbis altered when they translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy.¹⁶Megillah 9a. The Septuagint, begun during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 B.C.E.). The ten changes are: “God created in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1);¹⁷Instead of In the beginning God created, in order to emphasize that God alone created. “I shall make man in My image and My likeness” (ibid., v. 26);¹⁸Instead of Let us make man in our image. etc. “And He finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day (ibid. 2:2);¹⁹Instead of And on the seventh day God finished, thus giving the impression that God actually worked on the seventh day. “Male and female He created him” (ibid. 5:2);²⁰Instead of Male and female He created them, etc. “Come, let Me descend and confound their tongue” (ibid. 11:7);²¹Instead of Come, let us go down, etc. “And Sarah laughed among her relatives” (ibid. 18:12);²²Instead of And Sarah laughed within herself. “For in their anger they slew an ox, and in their wrath they digged up a stall” (ibid. 49:6);²³Instead of For in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they houghed oxen. “And Moses took his wife and his sons, and made them ride on a carrier of men” (Exod. 4:20);²⁴Instead of… and set them upon an ass. “Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt, and in the land of Goshen and in Canaan was four hundred and thirty years” (ibid. 12:40);²⁵Instead of Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years, etc. “And he sent the elect of the children of Israel” (ibid. 24:5);²⁶Instead of And he sent the young men of the children of Israel. “And against the elect of the children of Israel he put not forth his hand (ibid., v. 11);²⁷Instead of And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand. “Since the Lord thy God hath arranged to give light to all the peoples under the entire heavens” (Deut. 4:19);²⁸The words “to give light” were added. “Which I had not commanded the people to serve” (Deut. 17:3);²⁹Instead of Which I have commanded not. they wrote about “the slender-footed,” but they did not write the word ‘arnevet (“the hare”) (Lev. 11:5) because the name of Ptolemy’s wife was ‘Arnevet,³⁰Actually, her name was Arsinoe. and he might say: “The Jews are ridiculing me by writing my wife’s name in the Torah.”

And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass (Exod. 4:20). This is one of the ten verses our rabbis altered when they translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy.¹⁶Megillah 9a. The Septuagint, begun during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 B.C.E.). The ten changes are: “God created in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1);¹⁷Instead of In the beginning God created, in order to emphasize that God alone created. “I shall make man in My image and My likeness” (ibid., v. 26);¹⁸Instead of Let us make man in our image. etc. “And He finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day (ibid. 2:2);¹⁹Instead of And on the seventh day God finished, thus giving the impression that God actually worked on the seventh day. “Male and female He created him” (ibid. 5:2);²⁰Instead of Male and female He created them, etc. “Come, let Me descend and confound their tongue” (ibid. 11:7);²¹Instead of Come, let us go down, etc. “And Sarah laughed among her relatives” (ibid. 18:12);²²Instead of And Sarah laughed within herself. “For in their anger they slew an ox, and in their wrath they digged up a stall” (ibid. 49:6);²³Instead of For in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they houghed oxen. “And Moses took his wife and his sons, and made them ride on a carrier of men” (Exod. 4:20);²⁴Instead of… and set them upon an ass. “Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt, and in the land of Goshen and in Canaan was four hundred and thirty years” (ibid. 12:40);²⁵Instead of Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years, etc. “And he sent the elect of the children of Israel” (ibid. 24:5);²⁶Instead of And he sent the young men of the children of Israel. “And against the elect of the children of Israel he put not forth his hand (ibid., v. 11);²⁷Instead of And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand. “Since the Lord thy God hath arranged to give light to all the peoples under the entire heavens” (Deut. 4:19);²⁸The words “to give light” were added. “Which I had not commanded the people to serve” (Deut. 17:3);²⁹Instead of Which I have commanded not. they wrote about “the slender-footed,” but they did not write the word ‘arnevet (“the hare”) (Lev. 11:5) because the name of Ptolemy’s wife was ‘Arnevet,³⁰Actually, her name was Arsinoe. and he might say: “The Jews are ridiculing me by writing my wife’s name in the Torah.”

22) (Vayikra 18:30) "And you shall keep My charge": Make a "keeping" (i.e., protection) for My charge. "And you shall keep My charge": to exhort beth-din (to be vigilant) in this regard. "not to do in the manner of the abominations that were done before you, and you shall not become unclean (tamei) in them": We are hereby taught that all of the arayoth are called "tumah." (Vayikra 11:43) "And do not become unclean with them that you be unclean with them": If you become unclean with them, you render yourselves unfit for Me. What benefit do I have of you when you are in debt to Me for destruction! — wherefore it is written (Vayikra 18:30) "I am the L–rd your G d."

(Exod. 4:28:) AND MOSES TOLD AARON ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD WITH WHICH HE HAD SENT HIM. Moses began telling him everything which the Holy One had told him, how he would go and how he would perform all the signs.¹¹⁸Tanh., Exod. 1:26; Exod. R. 5:11. As soon as they went, they made harmony with the elders, as stated (in Exod. 4:29): THEN MOSES AND AARON WENT AND GATHERED <ALL THE ELDERS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL >. The elders have always supported Israel,¹¹⁹Exod. R.3:8. and so it says (in Josh. 8:33): AND ALL ISRAEL, THEIR ELDERS, {THEIR} OFFICERS, AND THEIR JUDGES, STOOD ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ARK. When does Israel stand? When they have elders. Why? While the Temple existed, they were in consultation with the elders, as stated (in Deut. 32:7): ASK YOUR FATHER AND HE WILL INFORM YOU; YOUR ELDERS, AND THEY WILL TELL YOU. When anyone takes advice from the elders, then person is to be commended. You yourself know that, when Ben-hadad sent to the king of Israel and said to him (in I Kings 20:3): THUS SAYS BEN-HADAD: YOUR SILVER AND GOLD ARE MINE; <YOUR BEAUTIFUL WIVES AND CHILDREN ARE MINE>, the king of Israel sent to him <and said> (in vs. 4): AS YOU SAY, MY LORD KING, I AND ALL THAT I HAVE ARE YOURS. He sent to him a second time (in vs. 6): NEVERTHELESS TOMORROW ABOUT THIS TIME I WILL SEND MY SERVANTS TO YOU; AND THEY WILL SEARCH <YOUR HOUSE AND THE HOUSES OF YOUR SERVANTS >, LAY THEIR HANDS UPON EVERYTHING YOUR EYES DELIGHT IN, AND TAKE IT AWAY. [Was not] whatever he originally demanded {was not} a delight[?] He sought silver and gold, and they are a delight, as stated (in Hag. 2:7–8): AND THE DELIGHT OF ALL THE NATIONS SHALL COME, <AND I WILL FILL THIS HOUSE WITH GLORY, SAYS THE LORD OF HOSTS. > THE SILVER IS MINE, AND THE GOLD IS MINE. He sought women, and they are a delight, as stated (in Ezek. 24:16): SON OF ADAM, SEE, I AM TAKING AWAY [FROM YOU] THE DELIGHT OF YOUR EYES (i.e., your wife) THROUGH PESTILENCE. [He sought] children, and they are a delight, as stated (in Hos. 9:16): AND I WILL PUT TO DEATH THE DELIGHTS OF THEIR WOMB. Ergo: Whatever he originally demanded was a delight. Then what is the meaning (in I Kings 20:4) of EVERYTHING YOUR EYES DELIGHT IN? Something more delightful than <any> delight, i.e., the Torah, as stated (concerning the judgments of the Holy One in Ps. 19:11 [10]): MORE DELIGHTFUL ARE THEY THAN GOLD, THAN MUCH FINE GOLD. When the king of Israel heard this, he said: This is not a matter for me but for the elders. Immediately (in I Kings 20:7–8): THEN THE KING OF ISRAEL CALLED {UNTO} [FOR] ALL THE ELDERS OF THE LAND AND SAID {TO THEM}: PLEASE COMPREHEND AND SEE HOW THIS MAN IS SEEKING EVIL; <FOR, WHEN HE SENT UNTO ME FOR MY WIVES, MY CHILDREN, MY SILVER, AND MY GOLD, I DID NOT REFUSE HIM. SO [ALL] THE ELDERS AND ALL THE PEOPLE SAID UNTO HIM: {NEVER} [DO NOT] HEED AND NEVER CONSENT. When he heard the advice of the elders, he arose. THEN (according to I Kings 20:21), THE KING OF ISRAEL WENT OUT AND SMOTE THE HORSES…. Ergo: They always consulted with the elders. So also Moses (in Exod. 19:7) SUMMONED THE ELDERS OF THE PEOPLE, and afterwards, the leaders and the judges. When did Israel have leaders? When they had elders. So here also (in Exod. 4:29): THEN MOSES AND AARON WENT AND GATHERED ALL THE ELDERS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. What is the meaning of GATHERED? That they appointed them as elders, just as the Holy One had told him (in Exod. 3:16): GO AND GATHER (i.e., appoint) THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL.¹²⁰Cf. Lev. 11:8. The Holy One has said: In this world I have distributed glory to the elders; and in the age to come I am also sharing glory with them, as stated (in Is. 24:23): THEN <THE DIVINE> GLORY <SHALL STAND> IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS ELDERS.¹²¹See above, 1:21.

(One verse (Exodus 12:40) states "And the habitation of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt was four hundred and thirty years," and another, (Genesis 15:13) "and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them four hundred years." How are these two verses to be reconciled? Thirty years before the birth of Isaac, the covenant between the pieces (at which the above was said) was made, (and after his birth until the exodus four hundred years elapsed.) Rebbi says: One verse states: "and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them four hundred years," and another, (Ibid. 16) "and the fourth generation will return here." How are these two verses to be reconciled? If they repent, I will redeem them by generations (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes). If not, I will redeem them by years. "And the habitation of the children of Israel in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred and thirty years." This is one of the verses that they (the seventy-two elders changed) in transcribing (the Torah) for King Ptolemy, viz. (Megillah 9a): Once King Ptolemy assembled seventy-two elders and placed each in a separate house (without telling them why he was doing so), and he said to each of them: "Transcribe for me [into Greek] the Torah of Moses your teacher." The Holy One Blessed be He placed goodly counsel in the heart of each, and they all wrote as one (Genesis 1:1): "G d created in the beginning" [so that Ptolemy could not structure the words as: "In the beginning, god was created."] [They wrote] (Ibid. 1:26): "I will make a man in image and form" [and not, literally: "Let us make a man, etc.", so that he would not be able to argue for a plurality of gods]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 2:2): "And He finished on the sixth day, and He rested on the seventh day" [and not, literally: "And G d finished His work on the seventh day," so that he could not argue that G d worked on the seventh day]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 5:2): "Male and female He created him" [and not, literally: "Male and female He created them" (which Ptolemy could use as an argument for the creation of two separate bodies)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 11:7): "Let Me go down and confound their tongue" [and not, literally: "Let us go down", so that he would not find support for his polytheistic views]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 18:12): "And Sarah laughed bikrovehah" ["among her neighbors", and not, literally: "bekirbah" ("within her"), so that Ptolemy would not question why Sarah should be punished for laughing, and not Abraham, if they both laughed inwardly]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 49:7): "For in their wrath they killed an ox" [instead of: "a man" (so as not to give Ptolemy a pretext to call Jews murderers)], "and in their willfulness they razed a manger" [instead of: "an ox"]. [They wrote] (Exodus 4:20): "And Moses took his wife and his sons and he rode them on the bearer of men" [instead of "on the ass" (so that he not say that Moses lacked a horse or a camel)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 12:40): "And the sojourning of the Jews, their dwelling in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred years." [(and not just: "their dwelling in Egypt," as per the verse, which would be open to dispute by Ptolemy's reckoning)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 24:5): "And he sent the dignitaries of the children of Israel" [lest "youths" be taken demeaningly]; (Ibid. 11): "And to the dignitaries of the children of Israel, He did not stretch forth His hand." [They wrote] (Numbers 16:15): "Not one desirable object of theirs" [(instead of, literally: "Not one ass of theirs")] have I taken" [thus preventing Ptolemy from contending that it was only an ass that Moses had not taken]. [They wrote] (Deuteronomy 4:19): ["all the host of heaven …] which the L rd your G d bequeathed for illumination to all the peoples under the heavens" [and not, as in the verse: "which the L rd your G d bequeathed to all the peoples under the heavens," thus preventing him from construing this verse as a license for idolatry]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 17:3): "and he go and serve other gods … which I did not command to serve" [instead of, as per the verse: "which I did not command", lest he misconstrue it as: "which I did not command to exist" (and which "forced themselves" into creation against My will)]. And instead of (Leviticus 11:6): "And the arneveth (hare) […it is unclean to you"], they wrote: "the slender-legged"; for Ptolemy's wife was called "Arneveth", and Ptolemy would [otherwise] say: "The Jews have poked fun at me and put my wife's name in the Torah!" (Megillah 9a) (Exodus 12:41) "and it was at the end of four hundred and thirty years": We are hereby apprised that when the time arrived, the L rd did not delay them for one moment. On the fifteenth of Nissan the ministering angels came to Abraham to apprise him (that Isaac would be born); (on the fifteenth of Nissan he was born) and on the fifteenth of Nissan the decree went forth (in the covenant) between the pieces, it being written "And it was at the end" — there was one end for all of them. "and it was on this very same day that all the hosts of the L rd went forth": (The Shechinah, too, went forth with them.) And thus do you find, that whenever Israel is in bondage, the Shechinah is with them, viz. (Exodus 24:10) "And they saw the G d of Israel, and under His feet, as the work of a sapphire brick" (the sign of that bondage). And what is written of their redemption? (Ibid.) "and as the appearance of the heavens in brightness." And it is written (Isaiah 63:9) "In all of their sorrows, He sorrowed." This tells me only of communal sorrows. Whence do I derive (the same for) those of the individual? From (Psalms 91:15) "He will call upon Me and I will answer Him; I am with him in sorrow," and (Genesis 39:20-21) "And Joseph's master took him and placed him in the prison house … and the L rd was with Joseph, etc.", and (II Samuel 7:23) "… before Your people whom You have redeemed from Egypt, a nation and its G d." R. Eliezer says: Idolatry passed with Israel in the sea, viz. (Zechariah 10:11) "And a 'rival' passed in the sea, and struck waves in the sea." Which was that? The idol of Michah (viz. Shoftim 17:4). R. Akiva said (on II Samuel 7:23): Were it not explicitly written, it would be impossible to say it, Israel saying before the L rd, as it were, "You redeemed Yourself!" And thus do you find, that wherever they were exiled, the Shechinah was with them. They were exiled to Egypt — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (I Samuel 2:27) "Did I not reveal Myself to your father's house when they were in Egypt? They were exiled to Bavel — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 43:14) "For your sake I was exiled to Bavel." They were exiled to Eilam — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Jeremiah 49:38) "and I set My throne in Eilam." They were exiled to Edom — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 63:1) "Who is This coming from Edom, His garments crimsoned, from Batzrah?" And when they return in the future, the Shechinah will be with them, viz. (Devarim 30:3) "And veshav the L rd your G d." It is not written "veheshiv" ("He will return" [you]), but "veshav" ("He [Himself] will return.") and it is written (Song of Songs 4:8) "With Me from Levanon (the Temple), My bride (Israel); with Me from Levanon come." Now is she (Israel) coming from Levanon? Is she not ascending to Levanon? (The intent is: You and I were exiled from Levanon) and we will ascend) together) to Levanon.

(Bamidbar 8:4) "And this was the work of the menorah. (It was made of one talent of) beaten gold, from its base (the thickest part) until its flower (its most delicate part) — of beaten work. According to the sight that the L-rd had shown Moses, so did he make the menorah.": R. Yishmael says: This is one of the three things which Moses had difficulty in visualizing until the Holy One Blessed be He showed it to him with His "finger." Similarly (Shemot 12:2) "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months," (Moses pointing to the moon). Similarly, (Vayikra 11:29) "And thus to you is what is unclean," (Moses actually pointing to the unclean animals). "of beaten work" ("mikshah") [acronym of] "min kasheh," from the (gold) bar itself, with a (goldsmith's) hammer. "from its base until its flower": This (that it is from the bar itself) tells me only of its base and its flower. Whence do I derive (the same for) its bowls, its knobs and its flowers? From (Shemot 25:31) "And you shall make a menorah of pure gold. Of beaten work shall the menorah be made: its shaft and its branches, its bowls, its knobs, and its flowers." — But perhaps they (bowls, knobs, and flowers shall be made individually (and then attached to the shaft). It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "From it (the one bar) shall they be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "of beaten work": Why is this re-stated? Is it not already written (Ibid.) "of beaten gold'? Because we find with the trumpets that if they could not be made of (one) beaten work, they may be made of fragments, I might think that the same applies to the menorah; it is, therefore, re-stated "of beaten work." Scripture repeats to invalidate (unbeaten work). From here they ruled: If there were no gold (for the menorah), it may be made of silver or iron or lead. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yehudah says: even of wood. But if they cannot make it of one bar, they may not make it of fragments. As opposed to the trumpets. If they cannot make them of silver, they may not make them of gold; but if they cannot make them of one bar, they may make them of fragments. We find, then, that what is valid with the menorah is invalid with the trumpets, and vice versa. This tells me only of the menorah. Whence do I derive (the same for) its bowls, its knobs, and its flowers? From (Shemot 25:36) "All (of the above) one beaten work. I might think the same applies to its lamps and its tongs and its snuff dishes; it is, therefore, written (in respect to these, Ibid. 39) "Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it (the menorah) with all of these (the aforementioned) vessels. They are made from the talent and of gold, but they do not come from the (one) beaten work. "According to the sight that the L-rd had shown Moses": What is the intent of this? If to teach that the Holy One Blessed be He showed this to Moses in a vision, is it not already written (Shemot 25:40) "And see and make (it) according to their form which you were shown in the mountain"? We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He showed Moses the completed mishkan and the completed vessels and the completed menorah. If so, what is the intent of "According to the sight that the L-rd had shown Moses thus did he do"? To apprise us of the nobility of Moses — Precisely as the L-rd said to him, thus did he do.

An olive-worth of meat that falls into a pot of boiling milk: let a non-Jew taste the dish. If he says that there is a taste of meat in it, it is forbidden. If not, it [the milk] is permitted, even in less than sixty, and that piece [the meat] is forbidden. When is this true? When one quickly removes the piece before it exudes the milk that it absorbed, meaning before the pot rests from its boiling. But if he didn't remove it before it was able to exude the milk it absorbed, even if a non Jew tastes it and it has no taste at all, (Rama) it's forbidden unless there is sixty. See chapter 98 (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 98) that we aren't accustomed to rely on the tasting of a non-Jew and we need sixty every time.

Whence do we derive that a beast is in the category of "animal"? From (Vayikra 11:2) "This is the animal that you shall eat from all of the beasts" — whence it is derived that an animal is called a beast, and a beast, an animal.

(Ibid.) "the great vulture, the bearded vulture, and the osprey": R. Akiva says: It is written here "nesher" (great vulture), and, elsewhere (Vayikra 11:13) "nesher." Just as there, all relating to nesher, both feeding and eating, is forbidden, so, here.

(Bamidbar 19:14) "This is the Torah: A man if he die in a tent — all that enter the tent and all that is in the tent shall be tamei seven days." Scripture hereby comes to teach us a new tumah, that a dead man effects tent-uncleanliness. Whence do we derive that (the same obtains if he died) outside the tent (and were brought into it)? From "This is the Torah" (i.e., there is one law for both.) These are the words of Issi b. Akavya. R. Yishmael said (This derivation) is not needed. If when he had not been tamei (before), he effects tent-uncleanliness, how much more so, when he had been tamei (before, i.e., when he died outside the tent.) Whence do we derive that all things which "tent" are considered a tent (for purposes of tent-uncleanliness, and not only a flaxen tent)? R. Yitzchak said: If vis-à-vis a leper, the "lighter" (form of tumah), all things that "tent" (and not only flax) are considered tents, then vis-à-vis a dead man, the "graver" (form of tumah), how much more so should all things that "tent" be considered tents. "all that enter the tent": partially. "and all that is in the tent": entirely. Why need this be said? If one that enters partially is tamei, how much more so one who is in it entirely. R. Achi phrases it otherwise, viz.: If one who enters the tent is tamei, how much more so one who is already in it! What, then, is the intent of "all that is in the tent"? To render the floor of the house until the depths like the house itself (i.e., all that is in that space is tamei.) Everyone who enters the tent from its entrance becomes tamei, but it does not impart tumah from its sides if they are open (i.e., if a man or vessels touch the tent from the outside when it is open, they do not become tamei for seven days.) From here you can reason a fortiori to a grave, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, (being soil per se,) how much more so does it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open. — But perhaps the reverse is the case, viz.: If a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, imparts tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! It is, therefore, written "all that enter the tent" — It is only through its entrance that it imparts tumah, but not from all of its sides when it is open. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed (the reasoning). The transposition has been nullified and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! — But (in that case) it should not (even) impart "evening tumah" (viz. Ibid. 22) — Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that it does impart evening tumah), viz.: If one at a third remove from a dead body (as in Ibid. 22) is tamei, how much more so, one (as in our case) who is at a second remove! "and all that is in the tent shall be tamei": From this I understand that even straw and twigs and pieces of wood and stones are included; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18) "And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water and he shall sprinkle it upon the tent and upon all the vessels." — But I still would understand to be included vessels of ordure and vessels of earth and vessels of soil. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 31:20) "And every garment, and every vessel of skin, and every work of goats and every vessel of wood shall you cleanse." We learn, then, of four (types of) vessels (that are affected. Whence do we derive (the same for) metal vessels? From (Ibid. 22) "But the silver and the gold, etc." We learn, then, of four types of vessels and of metal vessels. Whence do we derive (the same for) earthen vessels? From (Ibid. 19:15) "And every open (i.e., earthen) vessel, etc." We learn, then, of four types of vessels, of metal vessels, and of earthen vessels. — But perhaps the intent is that these (those mentioned in 30:20) and those mentioned here (19:18 "and upon all the vessels") are subject to cleansing, and the others (straw and twigs) are subject to tumah in a tent, (but not to cleansing.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 11) "he shall be tamei for seven days. (12) He shall be cleansed with it." Whatever is subject to cleansing is subject to tumah; whatever is not subject to cleansing is not subject to tumah. (Ibid. 15) "And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is tamei." Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. — But perhaps it speaks of all vessels! (This is not so,) for you reason as follows: Four vessels are mentioned vis-à-vis a sheretz (a creeping thing, viz. Vayikra 11:33), and one (type of) vessel was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation (re tumah). And four vessels are mentioned in respect to a dead body, and one was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation. Just as there, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel (viz. Ibid.), so, here, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Is Scripture (here) speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is, therefore, written "an open vessel" — a vessel that is subject to tumah at (the atmosphere of) its opening (and not at its outer surface). R. Eliezer says; Is Scripture speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is unclean" — forever, there being no cleansing for its tumah. And what is the intent of "open"? Any amount. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: From "there is no tight covering upon it," I would understand upon all of it. It is, therefore, written "upon" — upon its opening and not upon all of it. "tight covering" ("tzamid pathil") "tzamid": This is the stopper (plugging the inside). "pathil": This is the lid. And though there is no proof for this, there is an allusion to it in (Ibid. 25:3) "And Israel adhered ("vayitzamed") to Ba'al Peor." "And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is unclean": Vessels are protected (against tumah) in the tent of the dead with a tzamid pathil, but in (plague-spot) tents, with a covering. "a tzamid pathil upon it": and not a vessel upon a tzamid pathil — whence they ruled: A jug which he turned on its mouth and smeared with clay from the sides is susceptible of tumah, it being written "a tzamid pathil upon it," and not "it upon a tzamid pathil." These are the words of R. Eliezer. "And every open vessel": This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive (the same for) vessels of ordure, vessels of stones, and vessels of soil? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If earthen vessels, which are subject to tumah, protect (what is in them against tumah) by a tzamid pathil, in the tent of the dead, then vessels of ordure, of stones, and of soil, which are not subject to tumah, how much more should they protect (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead! "It is tamei" (without a tzamid pathil). Why (the stress on) "it"? What protects (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead, protects itself by a tzamid pathil (from tumah) through contact with a sheretz.

(Bamidbar 31:20) "and every garment and every vessel of skin": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 11:32) "or skin or sack," I know only of sack. Whence do I derive (the same for) every work of goats? (From the above.) Would you say that? It follows a fortiori! (i.e., why do we need a verse?), viz.: If in dead-body tumah (our instance) the more stringent variety, every work of goats is likened to sack, then in the instance of sheretz (creeping thing) tumah, (that of Vayikra), the less stringent variety, how much more so should every work of goats be likened to sack! — Would you say that? Do we derive the less stringent from the more stringent to be more stringent with it? Rather, why is "garment" mentioned in respect to dead body tumah? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in sheretz, the less stringent variety, garment was likened to sack, how much more so (should this obtain) in dead-body tumah! Why, then, is "garment" mentioned in dead-body tumah? It is "extra" for the purpose of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: "Garment" is written here and "garment" is written elsewhere (Vayikra). Just as here, every work of goats is likened to sack, so, there. And just as there, (the articles must be) spun and woven, (sack being spun and woven), so, there, spun and woven. To include the band, the belt, and the saddle-band of an ass, which are spun and woven. To exclude cords or ropes, which are not spun and woven.