Midrash su Levitico 14:78

(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. Let our master instruct us: How many children of Adam have no share in the world to come?¹Tanh., Lev. 5:1; Numb. R. 14:1; PR 6:4; ARN, A, 36; Midrash on Proverbs, 22. Thus have our masters taught (in Sanh. 10:1–2): THESE ARE THEY WHO HAVE NO SHARE IN THE WORLD TO COME…. THREE KINGS AND FOUR COMMONERS²Gk.: idiotes. HAVE NO SHARE IN THE WORLD TO COME. THE THREE KINGS ARE JEROBOAM, AHAB, AND MANASSEH.³See Sanh. 101b-104a. R. Judah ben Shallum the Levite said: The sages of the Mishnah wanted to teach that there were four kings and reckon Solomon with them; however, a heavenly voice (bat qol) came forth and said (in the words of Ps. 105:15): TOUCH NOT MY ANOINTED. Nevertheless they returned one day to teaching < as before >. Fire from the heavens came and destroyed their benches. < The heavenly voice > returned and said (according to Job 34:33): SHOULD HE REPAY AS YOU WOULD, WHEN YOU HAVE REFUSED? All the same, why did they so teach? Because it is written (in I Kings 11:1, 6): NOW KING SOLOMON LOVED MANY FOREIGN WIVES < …. > AND SOLOMON DID WHAT WAS EVIL IN THE EYES OF THE LORD. (Sanh. 10:2, at the end:) THE FOUR COMMONERS ARE BALAAM, DOEG, AHITHOPHEL AND GEHAZI. You find that these were condemned to Gehinnom on account of the words of their mouths. In the case of Balaam, he was driven into Gehinnom because of his speech, as stated (in Numb. 23:7): FROM ARAM HAS BALAK BROUGHT ME, THE KING OF MOAB < FROM THE HILLS OF THE EAST: COME, CURSE JACOB FOR ME…. >⁴Numb. R. 20:19; also below, Numb. 7:17. < He said: > I was one of the exalted ones;⁵Heb.: MRMYM, which the midrash seems to understand as related to M’RMYM, i.e., “one of the Arameans.” I was one of the division of < the > patriarchs. BALAK BROUGHT ME (yanheni) and cast me into Gehinnom. Now BROUGHT ME (yanheni, rt.: NHH) can only imply Gehinnom, since it is stated (in Ezek. 32:18): SON OF ADAM, BRING (rt.: NHH)⁶The Buber text reads the middle letter in this root as a het in agreement with Numb. 23:7; but the parallels in Tanh., Lev. 5:1; Numb. R. 20:19, and the Masoretic Text all read the middle letter as a he, a reading which together with the preposition ‘al, requires the translation, LAMENT OVER. THE MASSES OF EGYPT AND CAST THEM DOWN… < UNTO THE LOWEST PART OF THE NETHER WORLD ALONG WITH THOSE WHO GO DOWN TO THE PIT >. So also was Doeg banished because of his speech. When? When David fled to Nob, the city of priests {to Ahimelech}, where Ahimelech received him, Saul noticed and gathered all his servants. He said to them: A fine way you are treating me! For David does whatever he wishes, and not one of you has put a word in my ear. It is so stated (in I Sam. 22:8): IS THAT WHY ALL OF YOU HAVE CONSPIRED [AGAINST ME? FOR NO ONE IS PUTTING A WORD IN MY EAR] < WHEN MY SON IS MAKING A DEAL WITH THE SON OF JESSE >…. Doeg began to utter evil speech, as stated (in vs. 9): THEN DOEG THE EDOMITE, WHO WAS STANDING AMONG THE SERVANTS OF SAUL, < ANSWERED AND SAID: I SAW THE SON OF JESSE COME TO NOB…. > It was also by his hand that eighty-five priests who wear the ephod and the high priest Ahimelech were slain. And he smote Nob the city of priests with the edge of the sword. So also was Ahithophel banished because of his speech. Thus it is stated (in II Sam. 17:23): SO WHEN AHITHOPHEL SAW THAT HIS COUNSEL WAS NOT HEEDED…. THEN HE SET HIS HOUSE IN ORDER AND HANGED HIMSELF. Gehazi also was banished on account of his speech. When Naaman became leprous and was healed at the hands of Elisha, Naaman began to give silver, gold and gifts⁷Gk.: dora. to Elisha, but he did not want to accept them. Now Gehazi was ministering to Elisha. He saw the silver, the gold, and the clothes; so he said (in II Kings 5:20, 21, 27): MY LORD HAS SPARED < THAT ARAMEAN > NAAMAN…. < THEN GEHAZI CHASED AFTER NAAMAN…. > THEREFORE THE LEPROSY OF NAAMAN [SHALL CLEAVE TO YOU AND TO YOUR SEED FOREVER]. Why? Because it is stated (in Deut. 13:18): AND LET NOTHING CLEAVE TO YOUR HAND OF THAT WHICH IS DEVOTED. Now Naaman and the king of Aram served idols; and it is written (in Deut. 7:26): DO NOT BRING AN ABOMINATION UNTO YOUR HOUSE…. Since you said (in II Kings 5:20): AND I WILL ACCEPT SOMETHING FROM {HIS HAND} [HIM], by your life, you shall < also > take his deformity. Thus it is stated (in vs. 27): THEREFORE THE LEPROSY OF NAAMAN SHALL CLEAVE TO YOU. R. Pedat said: The Holy One has made a covenant with the world that anyone who utters evil speech receives leprosy. Where is it shown? From what is written on the matter (in Lev. 14:2): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (hametsora'), < i.e. > the one who proclaims evil (hamotsi' ra').⁸Below, 5:5; ySot. 2:1 (17d); ‘Arakh. 15b; Cf. Lev. R. 16:1.

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: How many people have no share in the world to come?¹Numb. R. 14:1; PR 6:4; ARN, A, 36; Midrash on Proverbs, 22. Thus have our masters taught (in Sanh. 10:1-2): These are they who have no share in the world to come…. Three kings and four commoners²Gk.: idiotes. have no share in the world to come. The three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh.³See Sanh. 101b-104a. R. Judah ben Shallum said, “The sages of the Mishnah wanted to teach that there were four kings and reckon Solomon with them; however, a heavenly voice (bat qol) came forth and said (in the words of Ps. 105:15), ‘Touch not my anointed.’ Nevertheless they returned one day to teaching [as before]. Fire from the heavens came and destroyed their benches. [The heavenly voice] returned and said (according to Job 34:33), ‘Should He repay as you would, when you have refused?’” All the same, why did they so teach? Because it is written (in I Kings 11:1, 6), “Now King Solomon loved many foreign wives […]. And Solomon did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord.” (Sanh. 10:2, at the end:) The four commoners are Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel and Gehazi. You find that these were condemned to Geihinnom on account of the words of their mouths. In the case of Balaam, he was driven into Geihinnom because of his speech, as stated (in Numb. 23:7), “From Aram has Balak brought me, the king of Moab,”⁴Numb. R. 20:19; also below, Numb. 7:17. [meaning] I was one of the exalted ones;⁵Heb.: MRMYM, which the midrash seems to understand as related to M’RMYM, i.e., “one of the Arameans.” I was one of the division of the patriarchs, [but] Balak brought me (yanheni) and cast me into Geihinnom.” Now brought me (yanheni, rt.: nhh) can only imply Geihinnom, since it is stated (in Ezek. 32:18), “Son of man, lament over (rt.: nhh)⁶The Buber text reads the middle letter in this root as a het in agreement with Numb. 23:7; but the parallels in Numb. R. 20:19, and the Masoretic Text all read the middle letter as a he, a reading which together with the preposition ‘al, requires the translation, LAMENT OVER. [the masses of Egypt and cast them down… unto the lowest part of the nether world].” So also was Doeg banished because of his speech. When? When David fled to Nob, the city of priests where Ahimelech received him, Saul noticed and gathered all his servants. He said to them, “A fine way you are treating me! For David does whatever he wishes, and not one of you has put a word in my ear.” It is so stated (in I Sam. 22:8), “Is that why all of you have conspired against me? For no one is putting a word in my ear when my son is making a deal with the son of Jesse….” Doeg began to utter evil speech, as stated (in vs. 9), “Then Doeg the Edomite, who was standing among the servants of Saul, answered and said, ‘I saw the son of Jesse come to Nob….’” It was also by his hand that eighty-five priests who wear the ephod and Ahimelech the High Priest were slain. “And he smote Nob the city of priests with the edge of the sword” (I Samuel 22:19). R. Eleazar said, “Anyone who becomes merciful upon the cruel one will end by being cruel to the merciful: It is written (I Samuel 15:9), ‘But Saul had pity upon Agag and upon the best of the sheep and the cattle’; and it is [also] written (I Samuel 22:19) about Nob the city of priest, ‘And he smote Nob the city of priests with the edge of the sword.’“ So also was Ahithophel banished because of his speech. Thus it is stated (in II Sam. 17:23), “So when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not heeded… and he set his house in order and hanged himself.” Gehazi also was banished on account of his speech. When Naaman became leprous and was healed at the hands of Elisha, Naaman began to give silver, gold and gifts⁷Gk.: dora. to Elisha, but he did not want to accept them. Now Gehazi was ministering to Elisha. He saw the silver, the gold, and the clothes; so he said (in II Kings 5:20), “My Lord has spared that Aramean Naaman without accepting what he brought; as the Lord lives, I will run after him and get something from him.” Certainly he took [something; he took] his deformity. Thus it is stated (in vs. 27), “And the leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to you and to your seed forever.” Why [did Elisha not want anything]? Because it is stated (in Deut. 13:18), “And let nothing cleave to your hand of that which is devoted.” Now Naaman and the king of Aram served idols; and it is written (in Deut. 7:26), “Do not bring an abomination unto your house.” R. Pedat said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has made a covenant with the world that anyone who utters evil speech receives leprosy.” Where is it shown? From what is written on the matter (in Lev. 14:2), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [ i.e. ] the one who proclaims evil (hamotsi' ra').⁸Below, 5:5; ySot. 2:1 (17d); ‘Arakh. 15b; Cf. Lev. R. 16:1. Our masters have said, “Plagues only affect a person on account of the evil speech which comes out of his mouth.” So the holy spirit cries out (in Eccl. 5:5), “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin,” [ i.e. ] to afflict your body; (ibid., cont.) “and do not say before the angel that it was a mistake,” [ i.e. ] and do not say before the angel who is appointed over you, “By mistake I brought forth the word from my mouth.” For every word which issues from your mouth, whether good, evil, by mistake, or on purpose, is written in a book. Where is it shown that it is so? Where it is stated (in Mal. 3:16), “Then those who feared the Lord spoke with one another; the Lord has hearkened and listened, and a book of remembrance has been written before Him […].” And so with the trait of calamity, David said (in Ps. 139:2), “You know when I sit down and when I stand up, You discern my thoughts from afar.” Job also said (in Job 14:16), “For You count my footsteps,” and (Job 13:27) “You look closely over the treading of my feet.” (Eccl. 5:5, cont.:) “Why should God be angry over your voice and destroy the work of your hands?” These are the hands and the body when they are afflicted by leprosy. Another interpretation (of Eccl. 5:5), “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin”: The Torah has spoken to you euphemistically. If your wife has told you that she is menstruating (niddah), do not cause your body to sin by touching her. Do not say before the angel who is appointed over the formation of the fetus, “’I made a mistake and did not know.” (Ibid., cont.:) “Why should God be angry over your voice and destroy the work of your hands?” This refers to the children who are afflicted with leprosy. R. Aha said, “If a man has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating, the children will be afflicted with leprosy. How? [If] he has intercourse on the first day of her menstruating, the child which is born shall be afflicted after ten years. [If] he has intercourse with her on the second day, it shall be afflicted after twenty years. On the third day it shall be afflicted after thirty years. On the fourth day it shall be afflicted after forty years. On the fifth day it shall be afflicted after fifty years. On the sixth day it shall be afflicted after sixty years. On the seventh day it shall be afflicted after seventy years, corresponding to the seven days of her menstruation. Moreover, he shall not depart from the world before he has seen his fruit spoiled. Now the days of a person's life are only seventy years, for so David says (in Ps. 90:10), ‘The days of our life comprise seventy years, and’ [only if] one merited, ‘eighty.’ Therefore if a man has intercourse with a menstruating woman on the seventh day, the fetus is afflicted at seventy years of age, so that he does not depart from the world until he has seen his fruit spoiled. This punishment, as it were, does not come from Me. I have already testified to you and told you (in Lev. 14:2,) ‘This shall be the law of the leper.’” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 5:5), “Do not let your mouth [cause your flesh to sin, and do not say before the angel (mal'akh) that it was a mistake]”: If you have acted with malice aforethought and led astray a high priest, who is called an angel (mal'akh), as stated (in Mal. 2:7), “For the lips of a priest preserve knowledge, and they should seek Torah from his mouth; for he is the messenger (mal'akh) of the Lord of hosts”; then do not say, “I sinned by mistake,” [ i.e. ] (in Eccl. 5:5), “ do not say before the angel (i.e., before the high priest) that it was a mistake.” Why? You are leading yourself astray. You are afflicting yourself. The voice which you send forth from your mouth will destroy the work of your hands. (Eccl. 5:5) “Why should God be angry over your voice [and destroy the work of your hands]?” This refers to the children who are afflicted with leprosy.

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

1) (Another proof for the above") R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: It is written (Vayikra 14:21): "And if he is poor … (then he brings) a tenth-part of fine flour." Just as we find that a poor man brings one beast and one tenth-part, so a rich man, who brings three beasts, brings three tenth-parts. How, then, am I to satisfy "and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil"? (That it is to be understood as) for the beasts.

1) "For as the sin-offering is the guilt-offering, for the Cohein": Just as the sin-offering comes from chullin (what is mundane [and not from second-tithe]), in the daytime, and (whose blood is sprinkled) with the right hand, so, the guilt-offering. Just as the sin-offering requires a vessel (for the collection of the blood), so, the guilt-offering. Just as (with) the sin-offering, the blood (sprinkled on) the altar permits it (to be eaten by the Cohein), so, (with) the guilt-offering, the altar blood permits it (to be eaten by the Cohanim). If so, let us say: Just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (the red line on the altar), so, the blood of this guilt-offering; it is, therefore, written (of guilt-offerings, Vayikra 7:2): "It is holy of holies … and its blood shall he dash on the altar roundabout," to include all of the guilt-offerings, along with the guilt-offering of the leper, as requiring their blood to be applied below (the red line).

1) (Vayikra 14:2) ("This shall be the law of the leper on the day of his cleansing; he shall be brought to the Cohein.") "the law of the leper": for the "eternal house" (i.e., the Temple). "This" (i.e., the bringing of the offerings) does not obtain in a bamah "shall be": in the present time (i.e., even after the destruction of the Temple). "the law of the leper": There is one law for all the lepers in that they bring this offering. — Now where have they been excluded (from "oneness," that they need be included in it vis-à-vis the offering)? — Because we find Scripture to have differentiated between their (types of) tumah and their weeks (of quarantine, some requiring one week and others, two), we might think to differentiate in their offering too; it is, therefore, written "the law of the leper" — there is one law for all of the lepers; that they bring this offering.

1) (Another proof for the above") R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: It is written (Vayikra 14:21): "And if he is poor … (then he brings) a tenth-part of fine flour." Just as we find that a poor man brings one beast and one tenth-part, so a rich man, who brings three beasts, brings three tenth-parts. How, then, am I to satisfy "and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil"? (That it is to be understood as) for the beasts.

1) (Vayikra 14:21) ("And if he is poor, and his hand cannot attain, then he shall take one he-lamb as a guilt-offering to be waved to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of fine flour mixed with oil as a meal-offering, and a log of oil.") "And if he is poor": By this I might think that if he became poorer than he was (when he incurred responsibility for the offering), such as one who possessed one hundred manah who was reduced to fifty manah (— I might think that such a one could be called "poor" and not liable for a rich man's offering). It is, therefore, written "and his hand cannot attain." If "and his hand cannot attain," (I might think that) if he had the means but could not readily find (the needed sheep — I might think that such a one could bring a poor man's offering). It is, therefore, written "and he is poor" — so that both verses are necessary, lacking which we would not know (the halachah).

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 14:34) ("When you come to the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put a plague-spot of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession,") "When you come": I might think (that this applies) when they come to trans-Jordan; it is, therefore, written "to the land" — to the distinctive land (of Israel).

1) (Vayikra 14:37) ("And he shall see the plague-spot, and, behold, if the plague-spot is in the walls of the house, embedded (sheka'aroroth) deep green or deep red, and their appearance is lower than the wall,") "And he shall see the plague-spot": I might think (if he sees it to be the minimum size of) a garis; it is, therefore, written "And he shall see the plague-spot and behold, the plague-spot." We are hereby taught that the house does not become tamei with less than two garisin.

1) (Vayikra 14:43) ("And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house after he removed the stones and after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered. (Vayikra 14:44) And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is tamei.") "And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house": Just as we speak of a man returning to his place, here, too, the plague-spot returns to the same stones. This tells me only of his place. Whence do we derive the entire house for inclusion? From "in the house." I might think that the size of a garis (makes it subject to tumah); it is, therefore, written here "plague-spot" and before, (Vayikra 14:37), "plague-spot." Just as there, two garisin, here, too, two garisin.

1) (Vayikra 14:40) ("Then the Cohein shall command, and they shall remove the stones containing the plague-spot, and they shall cast them outside the city into an unclean place.") "Then the Cohein shall command and they shall remove": the commanding by the Cohein; the removing, by anyone.

1) (Vayikra 14:43) ("And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house after he removed the stones and after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered. (Vayikra 14:44) And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is tamei.") "And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house": Just as we speak of a man returning to his place, here, too, the plague-spot returns to the same stones. This tells me only of his place. Whence do we derive the entire house for inclusion? From "in the house." I might think that the size of a garis (makes it subject to tumah); it is, therefore, written here "plague-spot" and before, (Vayikra 14:37), "plague-spot." Just as there, two garisin, here, too, two garisin.

1) (Vayikra 14:43) ("And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house after he removed the stones and after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered. (Vayikra 14:44) And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is tamei.") "And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house": Just as we speak of a man returning to his place, here, too, the plague-spot returns to the same stones. This tells me only of his place. Whence do we derive the entire house for inclusion? From "in the house." I might think that the size of a garis (makes it subject to tumah); it is, therefore, written here "plague-spot" and before, (Vayikra 14:37), "plague-spot." Just as there, two garisin, here, too, two garisin.

1) (Vayikra 14:45) "Then he shall raze the house — its stones, its wood, and all the mortar of the house": We are hereby taught that a house is not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness unless there be in it stones, wood, and mortar....

1) (Vayikra 14:5) ("And the Cohein shall command, and he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthen vessel over living water.") "And the Cohein shall command": The commanding is by the Cohein; the slaughtering, by any man. These are the words of R. Yehudah b. R. Yossi. Rebbi says: The slaughtering, too, is by a Cohein.

1) (Vayikra 14:7) ("And he shall sprinkle upon the one to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and he shall cleanse him, and he shall send the living bird over the face of the field.") "And he shall sprinkle": on the upper surface of the leper's hand, and others say on his forehead. "And he shall sprinkle upon the one to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times": The one to be cleansed from the leprosy requires seven sprinklings; one (who is to be cleansed from) dead body uncleanliness does not require seven sprinklings.

1) (Vayikra 14:9) ("And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair. His head, his beard, and the brows of his eyes — all of his hair shall he shave. And he shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.") "the seventh": I might think either in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written "in the day," and not at night.

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] Our masters have said: Plagues only affect a person on account of the evil speech which comes out of his mouth. So the Holy Spirit cries out (in Eccl. 5:5 [6]): DO NOT LET YOUR MOUTH CAUSE YOUR FLESH TO SIN, < i.e. > to afflict your body. [(Ibid., cont.:) AND DO NOT SAY BEFORE THE ANGEL THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE,] < i.e. > and do not say before the angel who is appointed over you: By mistake I brought forth the word from my mouth; for every word which issues from your mouth, whether good, evil, by mistake, or on purpose, is written in a book.⁹Matthew 12:36–37; cf. James 1:26. Where is it shown that it is so? Where it is stated (in Mal. 3:16): THEN THOSE WHO FEARED THE LORD SPOKE WITH ONE ANOTHER. [THE LORD HAS HEARKENED AND LISTENED, AND A BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BEFORE HIM…. ] And so when in severe trouble, David said (in Ps. 139:2, 4): YOU KNOW WHEN I SIT DOWN AND WHEN I STAND UP…. < FOR THERE IS NOT A WORD ON MY TONGUE, BUT THAT YOU, O LORD, KNOW IT FULLY. > Job also said (in Job 13:27): YOU LOOK CLOSELY OVER MY FOOTSTEPS. (Eccl. 5:5 [6], cont.:) WHY SHOULD GOD BE ANGRY OVER YOUR VOICE AND DESTROY THE WORK OF YOUR HANDS? These are the hands and the body when they are afflicted by leprosy.

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” This text is related (to Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” Everything depends on the tongue. [If] one is acquitted, he is acquitted for life; [if] one is not acquitted, he is condemned to death. [If] one is engaged in Torah with his tongue, he is acquitted for life, inasmuch as the Torah is a tree of life, as stated (in Prov. 3:18), “[Wisdom] is a tree of life to those who take hold of it.” It (i.e., the Torah) is also one's healing for the evil tongue (i.e., slander), as stated (in Prov. 15:4), “A healing tongue is a tree of life.” But if one is occupied with slander, his soul is condemned to death, since slander is more harmful than the shedding of blood. Thus whoever kills takes only one life, but the one who speaks slander kills three people: the one who tells it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is told.⁹PRK 4:2; Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Deut. R. 5:10; M. Pss. 12:2; yPe’ah 1:1 (16a). Doeg spoke slander against Ahimelech; and he (i.e., Ahimelech) was killed, as stated (in I Sam. 22:16), “But the king said, ‘You shall surely die, Ahimelech.’” Saul also was killed, [as stated] (in I Chron. 10:13), “So Saul died for the treachery which he had committed against the Lord.” And thus did Saul say (in II Sam. 1:9, to a young man), “Please stand over me and slay me, for death throes have seized me.” [The young man was] the accuser¹⁰Gk.: kategoros. of Nob, the city of priests [against Saul]. Now death throes (shbts) can only denote priesthood, since it is stated (in Exod. 28:13 with reference to high-priestly dress), “And you shall make gold brocade (rt.: shbts).” Doeg also was uprooted (shrsh) from the life of this world and from all life in the world to come. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 52:7), “God will also tear you down for ever; He will seize you, tear you away from your tent, and uproot (shrsh) you from the land of the living. Selah,” [i.e., He will uproot you] from life in the world to come. Who is more severe? One who smites with the sword or [one who] smites with the dart? Say the one who smites with the dart. The one who smites with the sword is only able to kill his companion if he draws near to him and touches him; but in the case of one who smites with the dart, it is not so. Rather one throws the dart wherever he sees him. Therefore, one who speaks slander is comparable to the dart, as stated (in Jer. 9:7), “Their tongue is a sharpened dart; it speaks deceit.” It also says (in Ps. 57:5), “people, whose teeth are spears and darts, and whose tongue a sharp sword.” See how harmful slander is, in that it is more harmful than adultery, shedding blood and idolatry.¹¹M. Pss. 52:2. Of adultery it is written (in Gen. 39:9, where Joseph is addressing Potiphar's wife), “then how shall I do this great evil and sin against God?” Of shedding blood it is written (in Gen. 4:13), “My sin is greater than I can bear.” Of idolatry it is written (in Exod. 32:31, with reference to the golden calf), “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin.” But when it (i.e., Scripture) mentions slander, it does not say "great" (in the masculine singular, as in Gen. 4:13), or "great" (in the feminine singular, as in Gen. 39:9 and Exod. 32:31), but "great" (in the feminine plural). Thus it is written (in Ps. 12:4), “The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, [every] tongue speaking great things (in the feminine plural).” It is therefore stated (in Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” [Another interpretation (of Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”: Do not say, “Since I have license to speak, I am therefore speaking whatever I want.” See, the Torah has already warned you (in Ps. 34:14), “Keep your tongue from evil [and your lips from speaking deceit].” Perhaps you will say that you are suffering a loss. Are you not profiting instead? So the holy spirit proclaims (in Prov. 21:23), “The one who guards his mouth and his tongue guards his soul from trouble (tsarot).” Do not read this as “from trouble.” Instead [read it as], "from leprosy (tsar'at).” Another interpretation (of Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”: Slander is so harmful that one does not produce it from his mouth without denying the Holy One, blessed be He.¹²M. Ps. 52:2. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 12:5), “Those who say, ‘By our tongues we shall prevail; our lips are with us, who is to be our Lord?’” The Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, cried out against those who speak slander (in Ps. 94:16), “Who will stand for Me against evildoers…?” Who can stand against them? And who will stand against them? Geihinnom? But Geihinnom also cries out, “I am unable to stand against them.” [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I [will come at them] from above and you (Geihinnom), from below. I will hurl darts from above; and you will turn on them with burning coals from below.” Thus it is stated (in Ps. 120:4), “Sharp darts of the warrior along with burning coals of broom wood.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Do you want to be delivered from Geihinnom? Keep yourselves far away from the deceitful tongue. Then you will be acquitted in this world and in the world to come.” Thus it is stated (in Ps. 34:13), “Who is the one who desires life….” And it is [then] written (in vs. 14), “Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit […].” Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:2), “This shall be the law of the leper,” to teach you that one who speaks slander will have blemishes come to him, as it is stated, “This shall be the law of the leper (metsora'),” [i.e.] the one who proclaims evil (motsi' ra')¹³Above, 5:1; ySot. 2:1 (17d); ‘Arakh. 15b; Cf. Lev. R. 16:1. will find evil, in that he will have leprosy come upon him. See what is written about Miriam (in Numb. 12:1), “Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses.” Therefore (in vs. 10), “then Aaron turned unto Miriam, and there was [Miriam] with leprosy like the snow.” What is written elsewhere (in Deut. 24:9)? “Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam […].” And is it not all the more so? For if Miriam had this happen, when she only spoke against her beloved brother when he was absent¹⁴I.e., she spoke privately to Aaron with no desire to be hostile to Moses. Cf. Sifre, Numb. 12:1 (99:2). and was only intending to return him to his wife, how much the more so in the case of one who utters slander against his colleague? What is written above on the matter (in Deut. 24:8)? “Take care with the plague of leprosy [to watch diligently and do according to all that the priests and Levites shall teach…].” So the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, also afflicted with it Aaron, who was high priest. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 12:9), “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, [i.e.] against Aaron and against Miriam.” Aaron, however, was healed immediately; but Miriam, after seven days, as stated (in Numb. 12:15), “So Miriam was shut up [outside of the camp] for seven days.” Ergo (in Lev. 14:2), “This shall be the law of the leper (metsora').” The one who proclaims evil (motsi' ra') is the one who finds evil (motse' ra'). And thus you find with the primeval serpent, because he spoke slander [to Eve] against his Creator, for that reason he became leprous.¹⁵Cf. Gen. R. 19:4. What did he say? R. Joshua ben Levi said (citing Gen. 3:5), “’For God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes shall be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ He said to her, ‘Every artisan hates his fellow [artisan].¹⁶The saying is proverbial. See Gen. R. 32:2; M. Pss. 11:6. Now when [the Holy One, blessed be He,] wanted to create His world, He ate from this tree. So he created His world. You [two] also eat from it. Then you will be able to create like Him.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to [the serpent], ‘You have spoken slander. Your end is to be stricken with leprosy.’” It is so stated (in Gen. 3:14), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, “Because you have done this, more cursed shall you be than all the beasts of the field.” With what did he curse ('araroh) him? With leprosy. Now a curse can only be leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:52), “for it is a malignant (mam'eret) leprosy.”¹⁷The argument assumes that ‘arirah and mam’eret share the same root. So also Exod. R. 3:13. R. Huna said in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, “The scales which are on the snake are his leprosy.”¹⁸Gen. R. 20:4. And not only that, but when all the deformed are cured in the world to come, the snake shall not be cured.¹⁹Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 11:9; Tanh., Gen. 11:8; Gen. R. 95:1. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:14), “more cursed shall you be than all the beasts.” From here [we learn] that they all shall be healed, but [the serpent] shall not be healed. People shall be healed, as stated (in Is. 35:5), “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened….” It is also [written about] the wild beasts and the cattle (in Is. 65:25), “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion like the ox shall eat straw, but the serpent's food shall be dust”; as he will never be healed, because he [was the one who] brought all mortals down to the dust. And what caused him to have [this punishment]? [It happened] because he had spoken slander.

Another matter, “as your love is better than wine”—matters of Torah were analogized to water, to oil, to honey, and to milk. To water, “ho, everyone who is thirsty, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1); just as water [extends] from one end of the earth to the other, as it is written: “To the One who spreads the earth over the water” (Psalms 136:6), so too, Torah, [extends] from one end of the earth to the other, as it is stated: “Its measure is longer than the earth” (Job 11:9). Just as water provides life to the world, as it is stated: “A garden spring, a well of living water” (Song of Songs 4:15), so too, Torah provides life to the world, as it is stated: “They are life for those who find them” (Proverbs 4:22), and it is written: “Go, purchase and eat” (Isaiah 55:1).¹³⁵This phrase is interpreted as referring to Torah, and comparing it to food, which sustains life. Just as water is from the heavens, as it is stated: “At the sound of his placement of plenteous water in the heavens” (Jeremiah 10:13), so too, Torah is from the heavens, as it is stated: “That I spoke to you from the heavens” (Exodus 20:19). Just as water [rains down] with thunderous sound, as it is stated: “The voice of the Lord is on the water” (Psalms 29:3), so too, the Torah [was given] with thunderous sound, as it is stated: “It was on the third day when it was morning, there was thunder and lightning” (Exodus 19:16). Just as water restores the soul, as it is stated: “God split the hollow that was in Lehi, [and water emerged from it. He drank, and his spirit returned]” (Judges 15:19), so too, Torah: “The Torah of the Lord is complete, restoring the soul” (Psalms 19:8). Just as water purifies a person from impurity, as it is stated: “I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you will be purified” (Ezekiel 36:25), so too, Torah purifies the impure from his impurity, as it is stated: “The words of the Lord are pure words” (Psalms 12:7). Just as water purifies the body, as it is stated: “He shall immerse his flesh in water [and become pure]” (Leviticus 14:9), so too, Torah purifies the body, as it is stated: “Your saying is extremely pure” (Psalms 119:140).
Just as water covers the nakedness of the sea, as it is stated: “As the water covers the seabed” (Isaiah 11:9), so too, Torah covers the nakedness of Israel, as it is stated: “Love covers all transgressions” (Proverbs 10:12). ¹³⁶The Torah renders those who engage in it beloved to God. Just as water descends drop by drop but becomes streams upon streams, so too, Torah, a person studies two halakhot today and two tomorrow, until he becomes a flowing stream. Just as water, if a person is not thirsty, it is not pleasant for his body, so too, Torah, if one does not exhaust himself [in its study], it is not pleasant for his body. Just as water forsakes an elevated place and goes to a low place, so too, Torah forsakes one who is arrogant and cleaves to one who is self-effacing. Just as water is not preserved in vessels of silver and gold, but rather, in the lowliest of the vessels, so too, Torah is preserved only in one who renders himself like an earthenware vessel. Just as regarding water, a great man is not ashamed to say to his inferior: ‘Give me water to drink,’ so too, in matters of Torah, a great man is not ashamed to say to his inferior: ‘Teach me one chapter, one matter, one verse, or even one letter.’ Just as water, when a person does not know how to sail on it, he will ultimately capsize, so too, in matters of Torah, if a person does not know how to navigate them and to issue rulings in them, ultimately, he will capsize.
Rabbi Ḥanina of Caesarea said: Just as water is drawn to gardens, orchards, lavatories, and bathhouses, could it be that the same is true of matters of Torah? The verse states: “For the ways of the Lord are straight” (Hosea 14:10). Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva said: Just as water causes the plants to grow, so too, matters of Torah cause anyone who exerts himself sufficiently in their study to grow.
If so, just as water becomes spoiled and foul in the jug, is the same true regarding matters of Torah? The verse states: “[better than] wine”—just as wine, the longer it ages in the jug it improves, so too matters of Torah, the longer they age in the body of a person, the greater they become. If so, just as water is not recognizable in the body, is the same true regarding matters of Torah? The verse states: “Wine”—just as wine is recognizable in the body, so too, matters of Torah are recognizable in the body. [People] motion, point, and say: ‘This is a Torah scholar.’ If so, just as water does not cause the heart to rejoice, is the same true of matters of Torah? The verse states: “Wine”—just as wine causes the heart to rejoice, as it is stated: “Wine will cause the heart of a person to rejoice” (Psalms 104:15), so too, matters of Torah cause the heart to rejoice, as it is stated: “The precepts of the Lord are upright, causing the heart to rejoice” (Psalms 19:9).
If so, just as wine is sometimes harmful to the head and the body, is the same true regarding matters of Torah? The verse states “oil” (Song of Songs 1:3) just as oil is pleasant for the head and the body, so too, matters of Torah are pleasant for the head and the body, as it is stated: “Your word is a lamp to my feet” (Psalms 119:105). If so, just as oil is bitter at its outset and sweet at its culmination, is the same true regarding matters of Torah? The verse states: “Honey and milk” (Song of Songs 4:11); just as they are sweet, so too, matters of Torah are sweet, as it is stated: “Sweeter than honey” (Psalms 19:11). If so, just as honey has waste,¹³⁷This is a reference to the wax of the honeycomb, and to the elements that are found mixed in with honey before it is purified. is the same true regarding matters of Torah? The verse states: “Milk,” just as milk is pure, so too, matters of Torah are pure, as it is written: “Gold and glass cannot equal it” (Job 28:17). If so, just as milk is bland, is the same true regarding matters of Torah? The verse states: “Honey and milk.” Just as honey and milk when they are mixed do not harm the body, so it is with matters of Torah, as it is stated: “It will be healing for your navel” (Proverbs 3:8), “as they are life for those who find them” (Proverbs 4:22).
Another matter, “as your love is better,” these are the patriarchs; “than wine,” these are the princes.
Alternatively, “as your love is better,” these are the offerings; “than wine,” these are the libations. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Had Moses known how beloved the offerings would be when the Israelites performed that deed,¹³⁸The sin of the Golden Calf. he would have sacrificed all the offerings in the Torah. Instead, he ran to the merit of the patriarchs, as it is stated: “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob your servants” (Exodus 32:13).
Another matter, “as your love is better,” these are the Jewish people; “than wine [yayin],” these are the gentiles; yod, ten, yod, ten, nun, fifty, the seventy nations,¹³⁹The numerical value of yod is ten and of nun is fifty, such that the numerical value of the word yayin (yod-yod-nun) is seventy, which corresponds to the seventy nations of the world. to teach you that Israel is more beloved to the Holy One blessed be He than all the nations.

“Both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon, and the woman was bereft of her two children and of her husband” (Ruth 1:5).
“Both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon.” Rabbi Ḥunya, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Zavda, son-in-law of Rabbi Levi [said]: The all-Merciful [God] never exacts retribution against a person himself initially. From whom do you learn this? From Job, as it is stated: “There came a messenger to Job, and said: ‘The oxen were plowing [and the donkeys grazing beside them; and Sheba fell upon them, and took them; they smote the servants by sword; and only I by myself escaped to tell you]’” (Job 1:14–15).⁹⁰God did not initially kill Job or even afflict him with bodily pain; He struck Job’s property. Rabbi Ḥama ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Holy One blessed be He showed him a representative taste of the World to Come, “the plowman will meet the reaper” (Amos 9:13).⁹¹Donkeys do not typically graze in fields where oxen have just plowed. This was Job’s taste of the World to Come, when produce will be ready to be reaped as the field is still being plowed.
“Sheba fell upon them [and took them and smote the lads by sword].” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They emerged from the village of Kerinos⁹²In Media. and went on all the rural paths until Migdal Tzabba’im⁹³In the Land of Israel. and they died there.⁹⁴At first they were attacked and taken captive along with the herd. Only later were they killed. “And only [rak] I by myself [levadi] escaped.” Rabbi Ḥanina said: [The term] Rak is restrictive; he, too, was broken and stricken. Rabbi Yudan said: Levadi.⁹⁵In the sense of bedding, meaning that the messenger was bedridden. The word leved means felt, which can be used for bedding. “This one was still speaking” (Job 1:16); he, too, once he stated his tidings, he died.
“This one was still speaking and that one came and said: The Chaldeans deployed in three columns…” (Job 1:17). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: When Job heard, he began mobilizing his armies for war. He said: ‘How many armies can I enlist, how many troops can I muster? This is the most despicable nation in the world: “Behold, the land of the Chaldeans, this is a people that is not” (Isaiah 23:13). If only it had not been.⁹⁶If only the Chaldeans had never come into existence. It comes to intimidate me?’ But once [the messenger] said to him: “The fire of God fell from the heavens” (Job 1:16), [Job] said: ‘It is from the heavens; what can I do?’ – “I was silent and I did not go out the door” (Job 31:34).
Immediately, “he took an earthenware shard to scratch himself” (Job 2:8).⁹⁷This was after he was afflicted with boils. His body was afflicted only after his property was damaged. So it was in Egypt, as well: “He struck their vines and their fig trees” (Psalms 105:33). Then, “He subjected their livestock to the hail” (Psalms 78:48). And then, “He smote every firstborn in Egypt” (Psalms 78:51). Regarding leprosy, too, the same is true: Initially it afflicts his house. If he repents, excellent; if not, they require removal, as it is stated: “The priest shall command and they will remove [the stones]” (Leviticus 14:40). If he repents, excellent; if not, they require demolition. If he repents, excellent; if not, [the signs of leprosy] come upon his garments and they require laundering. If he repents, excellent; if not, they require rending, as it is stated: “He shall rip it from the garment” (Leviticus 13:56). If he repents, excellent; if not they require burning, as it is stated: “He shall burn the garment” (Leviticus 13:52). Then [leprosy] comes upon his body. If he repents, excellent; if not, he goes and comes.⁹⁸He leaves the camp for seven days and then returns. If he repents, excellent; if not, “he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:46). Regarding Maḥlon and Kilyon, too, the same is true. Initially, it was their horses, their donkeys, and their camels. Then “Elimelekh died.” Then, “both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon.”
“And the woman remained bereft,” Rabbi Ḥanina said: She became the remnants of the remnants [of meal offerings].⁹⁹When her husband died, she was like the remnant; now that her sons died, she was like the remnant of the remnant.

2) (Vayikra 14:10) "and one log of oil": (Why write "one" instead of "a"?) For (if it were written "a," I would think that) just as we find that a poor man, who brings one tenth-part brings one log of oil, so, a rich man, who brings three tenth-parts, requires three logs of oil. It must, therefore, be written "and one log of oil."

2) Now where is it excluded (from such application, that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (in respect to the guilt-offering of a leper (Vayikra 14:13): "For, as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering to the Cohein," (I would think that just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (with the Cohein's finger on the corners of the altar), so, the blood of this (guilt-offering); it is, therefore, written, (to negate this,) "the law of the guilt-offering" (including the guilt-offering of the leper). (Vayikra 7:2) ("In the place where they slaughtered the burnt-offering shall they slaughter the guilt-offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar roundabout.") "and its blood shall he sprinkle": All guilt-offerings, including that of a leper, are herein subsumed, for the application of their blood below (the red line). Whence do we derive that if the blood of a guilt-offering became intermixed with that of peace-offerings (both being applied below the red line) it is (still) to be sprinkled (for whichever he desires)? From "holy of holies … and its blood shall he sprinkle." I might think that the same applied if they became interchanged when alive; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "it (is holy of holies," i.e., it must be specially designated by type). What, then, can he do? He lets them graze until they sustain a blemish, after which he sells them and offers a higher priced animal as one type, (guilt-offering or peace-offering, as he chooses), and a higher priced animal as the other type, making up the difference (between higher priced and lower priced) from his pocket, (for either guilt-offering or peace-offering could have been higher priced originally). R. Shimon says: If a guilt-offering became interchanged with a peace-offering, both are to be slaughtered in the north (of the altar, as per the stringency of a guilt-offering); one, as a guilt-offering; the other, as a peace-offering; and each is to be eaten according to the more stringent of them (the guilt-offering, which is eaten for a day and a night). They said to him: But do not peace-offerings require waving (viz. Shemoth 29:26), and guilt-offerings not require waving? He said to them: What of it? Let him wave the guilt-offering! They answered: Offerings, (in this case, peace-offerings,) are not brought to "the house of unfitness" (i.e., By doing this you are opening the door to the invalidation of peace-offerings).

2) (Vayikra 14:14) ("And the Cohein shall take from the blood of the guilt-offering, and the Cohein shall place it on the tnuch of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.") I would not know which (placing) takes precedence, that of the altar or that of the thumb. From "it is for the Cohein" (Vayikra 14:13), we infer that what validates (the flesh) for the Cohein takes precedence. What do we find to validate (the flesh) for the Cohein? The altar — the altar takes precedence. "it (is for the Cohein"): to exclude one that he slaughtered not for its sake. "holy of holies": to include the log of oil of the leper (as reverting to the Cohein after the applications as the sin-offering and the guilt-offering). "it (is holy of holies"): to exclude (from validity oil) which is lacking the least amount (from the log).

2) (Vayikra 14:14) ("And the Cohein shall take from the blood of the guilt-offering, and the Cohein shall place it on the tnuch of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.") I would not know which (placing) takes precedence, that of the altar or that of the thumb. From "it is for the Cohein" (Vayikra 14:13), we infer that what validates (the flesh) for the Cohein takes precedence. What do we find to validate (the flesh) for the Cohein? The altar — the altar takes precedence. "it (is for the Cohein"): to exclude one that he slaughtered not for its sake. "holy of holies": to include the log of oil of the leper (as reverting to the Cohein after the applications as the sin-offering and the guilt-offering). "it (is holy of holies"): to exclude (from validity oil) which is lacking the least amount (from the log).

3) "on the day of his cleansing": We are hereby taught that (the declaration of) his tumah and his cleansing obtain (only) in the daytime. This tells me only of his tumah and his cleansing. Whence do I derive the same for the slaughtering of the birds, the sprinkling of the birds' blood and his shaving? From "the law of the leper on the day." I might think that also the taking of the birds and the sending of the bird and the washing of his garments and his bathing must also be in the daytime; it is, therefore, written "This (and not the others) is the law of the leper." "he shall be brought to the Cohein": We are hereby taught that his tumah and taharah are (mediated) through a Cohein. This tells me only of his tumah and his taharah. Whence do I derive the same for the slaughtering of the birds, the sprinkling of the birds' blood, and his shaving? From "the law of the leper" — through a Cohein. I might think that the same applies to the taking of the birds, the sending of the bird, the washing of his garments, and his bathing; it is, therefore, written "This" (and not the others). "on the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Cohein": he shall not delay (from his being healed of the plague-spot to his being cleansed).

2) "and if he is poor": he and not its vowers. Because since in valuations, a poor man who takes upon himself a rich man's valuation, gives a poor man's valuation, I might think that even a poor man who said: "The offering of this leper is upon me (to give"), if the leper were rich, (I might think) he brings a poor man's offering; it is, therefore, written "he", and not its vowers.

2) "which I give to you": I might think (that this applies) when they come to Ammon and Moav; it is, therefore, written "which I give to you," and not Ammon and Moav.

2) "And on the day": We are hereby (by this redundancy) taught that he (a groom) is given two (types of days [the seven days of the marriage feast and those of a festival]) for (non-inspection of plague-spots): for (those of) his body, for (those of) his house, and for those of his garments. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says (that a special verse is not required for this, for) it is written (Vayikra 14:36): "And the Cohein shall command, (and they shall empty out the house before the Cohein comes in to see the plague-spot, so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house.") If they wait for a mundane matter, shall they not wait for a matter of mitzvah! And how much (i.e., how many days) is his mitzvah? For a groom we allow the seven days of the marriage feast, for himself, his house, and his garments. And thus on a festival — we allow him all the days of the festival.

2) "in the walls": implying two. And below, (Vayikra 14:39), it is written [(instead of)] "wall," "walls," giving four, whereby we are taught that it becomes tamei only if it has four walls.

2) "in the walls": implying two. And below, (Vayikra 14:39), it is written [(instead of)] "wall," "walls," giving four, whereby we are taught that it becomes tamei only if it has four walls.

2) "and they shall remove": This teaches us that both of them (i.e., the owner of the affected house and his neighbor, who shares the wall) remove — whence they said "Woe to the wicked one and woe to his neighbor!" Both remove, both scrape (viz. Vayikra 14:41), both bring (new) stones. I might think that if the wall adjoined the atmosphere (of his neighbor's property, but was not common to both of their houses) both of them should do the removal; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:43) "after he removed the stones." How is this to be understood? A wall between him and his neighbor, both remove; a wall adjoining the atmosphere, he himself removes.

2) "and they shall remove": This teaches us that both of them (i.e., the owner of the affected house and his neighbor, who shares the wall) remove — whence they said "Woe to the wicked one and woe to his neighbor!" Both remove, both scrape (viz. Vayikra 14:41), both bring (new) stones. I might think that if the wall adjoined the atmosphere (of his neighbor's property, but was not common to both of their houses) both of them should do the removal; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:43) "after he removed the stones." How is this to be understood? A wall between him and his neighbor, both remove; a wall adjoining the atmosphere, he himself removes.

2) "and they shall remove": This teaches us that both of them (i.e., the owner of the affected house and his neighbor, who shares the wall) remove — whence they said "Woe to the wicked one and woe to his neighbor!" Both remove, both scrape (viz. Vayikra 14:41), both bring (new) stones. I might think that if the wall adjoined the atmosphere (of his neighbor's property, but was not common to both of their houses) both of them should do the removal; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:43) "after he removed the stones." How is this to be understood? A wall between him and his neighbor, both remove; a wall adjoining the atmosphere, he himself removes.

2) In sum: Adjacent spreading, any amount; distant (spreading), a garis; returning to houses, two garisin.

2) How many stones (in total) must be in it (on all sides to make it subject to tumah)? R. Yishmael says four (one on each side). R. Akiva says eight (viz. Section 6:4). For R. Yishmael says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones or on one stone. R. Akiva says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones, and not on one stone. R. Elazar says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones on two walls in one corner, its length two garisin, and its width a garis.

2) "and he shall slaughter the one bird": the more distinctive of the two. "the one": so that one if of them dies or becomes a treifah, he takes a mate for the second one.

2) (The verse is needed for the above, for without it we would say) Does it not follow a fortiori that he does require seven sprinklings, viz.: If a leper, who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh day (viz. Bamidbar 19:12) requires seven sprinklings, then one who is tamei through a dead body, who does require sprinkling on the third and seventh day — how much more so does he require seven sprinklings! It must, therefore, be written "And he shall sprinkle upon the one to be cleansed from the leprosy." The one to be cleansed from the leprosy requires seven sprinklings; one (who is to be cleansed from) dead body uncleanliness does not require seven sprinklings.

2) "he shall shave all of his hair": I might think even his (normally) covered hair; it is, therefore, written "the brows of his eyes." Just as the brows of his eyes are seen, excluding covered hair, so, "all of his hair" connotes what is seen, excluding covered hair.

Another interpretation (of Eccl. 5:5 [6]): DO NOT LET YOUR MOUTH < CAUSE YOUR FLESH TO SIN >. The Torah has spoken to you euphemistically. If your wife has told you that she is menstruating, do not cause your body to sin by touching her. (Ibid., cont.:) DO NOT SAY BEFORE THE ANGEL who is appointed over the formation of the fetus: I made a mistake and did not know. (Ibid., cont.:) WHY SHOULD GOD BE ANGRY OVER YOUR VOICE AND DESTROY THE WORK OF YOUR HANDS? This refers to the children who are afflicted with leprosy. R. Aha said: If a man has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating, the children will be afflicted with leprosy. How? < If > he has intercourse on the first day of her menstruation, the child which is born shall be afflicted after ten years. < If > he has intercourse with her on the second day, it shall be afflicted after twenty years. On the third day it shall be afflicted after thirty years. On the fourth day it shall be afflicted after forty years. On the fifth day it shall be afflicted after fifty years. On the sixth day it shall be afflicted after sixty years. On the seventh day it shall be afflicted after seventy years, corresponding to the seven days of her menstruation. Moreover, he shall not depart from the world before he has seen his fruit spoiled. Now the days of a person's life are only seventy years, for so David says (in Ps. 90:10): THE DAYS OF OUR LIFE COMPRISE SEVENTY YEARS. And if one is successful, < then > eighty, as stated (ibid., cont.): AND IF ONE HAS STRENGTH, < THEN > EIGHTY YEARS. Therefore if a man has intercourse with a menstruating woman on the seventh day, the fetus is afflicted at seventy years of age, so that he does not depart from the world until he has seen his fruit spoiled. This punishment, as it were, does not come from me? I have already testified to you and told you (in Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.

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

(Lev. 25:25:) ”When your relative becomes poor and sells some of his property, then his redeemer shall come.” Who is his redeemer? I am He, as stated (in Jer. 50:33-34), “The Children of Israel […] are oppressed […]. Their Redeemer is mighty, His name is the Lord of hosts […].” Seven names are given to the poor.¹⁴Cf. Lev. R. 34:6, which lists eight names. And they are the following: crushed (dakh), poor ('ani), lowly (makh), dispossessed (rash), oppressed (tekhakhim),¹⁵Cf. Lev. R. 34:6, followed by Yalqut Shim‘oni, Lev. 665, which reads dal (“impoverished”) here. wretched (misken), and pauper (evyon). [(Lev. 25:25:) “When your relative becomes poor.”] This text is related (to Ps. 106:43), “Many times He delivered them, but they rebelled; so they became poor through their iniquity.” You find that in the days that the Judges judged, Israel served idols; so they were enslaved in the hands of the peoples of the world, as stated (in Jud. 3:7-8), “Then the Children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord…. So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of Cushan.” What did they do (according to vs. 9)? “The Children of Israel cried unto the Lord, and the Lord raised up a savior for the Children of Israel [to save them, i.e.,] Othniel ben Kenaz.” They immediately repented and were redeemed. So [it happened] another time, as stated (in Jud. 3:12), “Then the Children of Israel again did evil….” They immediately repented; so the Lord raised up a redeemer for them, Ehud ben Gera the Binyaminite; and they were redeemed at his hands. Then they served idols again and were sold into the hands of Sisera, as stated (in Jud. 4:3), “and he oppressed the Children of Israel with might twenty years.” What is the meaning of “with might?” With blasphemies and with curses, just as you say (in Mal. 3:13), “Your words have been mighty against me.” When they repented, He raised up Barak and Deborah as redeemers for them; and they were redeemed at their hands. Ergo (in Ps. 106:43), “Many times He delivered them…; so they became poor through their iniquity.” What is the meaning of “so they became poor through their iniquity?” That they became impoverished in the midst of the nations, as stated (in Jud. 6:6), “And Israel became very impoverished….” What is the meaning of “and Israel became impoverished?” R. Isaac and R. Levi differed. One said, “They were impoverished (rt.: dll) from good works”; and the other said, “They did not have [enough] to bring even a poor person's (rt.: dll) offering, as stated (in Lev. 14:21), ‘If, however, he is poor (rt.: dll) and does not have the means.’” Ergo (in Ps. 106:43), “so they became poor through their iniquity,” as they had become impoverished (rt.: dll). Another interpretation (of Ps. 106:43), “Many times He delivered them”: [These words] speak about people. When trouble comes to one [of them] and he repents, the Holy One, blessed be He, delivers him. So it is the first time and the second. [If he repents, that is preferable; but if not, the Holy One, blessed be He, brings trouble upon him. And you yourself know that the Holy One, blessed be He, tests Israel to know if they will repent. First, He brings punishments against the [other] nations, as stated (Zeph. 3:6-7) “I wiped out nations: Their corner towers are desolate… I thought that she would fear Me, would learn a lesson.” [If] they repented, that is preferable; but if not, He destroys their money, as stated (Hos 7:9), “Strangers have consumed his strength….” [If they] repented, that is preferable; but if not, the Holy One blessed be He, brings evil upon one of the cities of Israel, as stated (Is. 42:25), “it blazed upon them all about… it burned among them.” [If] they repented, that is preferable; but if not, what is written (in Numbers 14:35)? “In this desert they will end, and there will they die.” And a person should not say, “The evil is not coming on my account.” He should know that he [too] will die, as stated (Amos 9:10), “All the sinners of My people shall perish [by the sword], who boast, ‘Never shall the evil overtake us or come near us.’” Come and see how difficult it is for the Holy One, blessed be He, to raise His hand against a human being. So what does He do to him? When he sins, He begins by raising His hand against his assets. From whom have you learned it? From Naomi, her sons, and Elimelech her husband, who was the head of [his] generation. When famine came, what did he do? He left the Land of Israel and went to the Land of Moab. Now the Holy One, blessed be He, was angry with him because he was prince (nasi) of [his] generation. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “These have abandoned My children and left the Land of Israel a wilderness.” What is written there (in Ruth 1:3)? “Then Naomi's husband Elimelech died,” but his sons were unable to learn from their father to return to the Land of Israel. And what did they do? (According to vs. 4) They also “took Moabite wives for themselves,” whom they neither immersed nor converted.¹⁶Ruth R. 2:9. (Ibid., cont.:) “The name of the one was Orpah ('rph) and the name of the second was Ruth”: Orpah ('rph), because she turned her back ('rp) on her mother-in-law; Ruth, because she esteemed (r'th) the words of her mother-in-law. (ibid., cont.:) “And they lived there about ten years.” All those ten years (in Moab) the Holy One, blessed be He, had been warning them, that they might repent and return to the Land of Israel. When He saw that they did not repent, he began to raise His hand against their camels and against their cattle.¹⁷Lev. R. 17:4; Ruth R. 2:10; PRK 7:10; PR 17:6. When He saw that they did not repent (literally, return in repentance), immediately (in vs. 5), “Both of them, Mahlon and Chilion, also died.” Thus [you may infer] that it is difficult for the Holy One, blessed be He, to raise His hand against [a human being]. So what does He do to them? He deprives them of their assets, and they sell them. When someone sins, what does the Holy One, blessed be He, do to him first? He brings poverty upon him, so that he sells his field. If he repents, then fine; but if not he sells his house. If he repents, then fine; but if not he sells himself. How is this shown? So is it written (in Lev. 25:25), “When your relative becomes poor.” If he repents, then fine; but if not, see what is written in the second section; (in Lev. 25:29), “And when someone sells a dwelling house.” If he repents, then fine; but if not, (in Lev. 25:39), “When your relative becomes poor and he is sold to you.” Why all this? Because they became poor through [their] iniquities. (Lev. 25:25:) “Then his redeemer shall come.” R. Simeon ben Johay said, “Elimelech, Salmon, So-and-So,¹⁸Peloni Almoni. According to Ruth 4:1, this was the “name” of Ruth’s most closely related redeemer. and Naomi's father were all descendants of Nahshon ben Amminadab;¹⁹BB 91a. See Ruth 4:20–21; also Exod. 6:23, according to which Nahshon ben Amminadab was Aaron’s brother-in-law. and Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion were leaders²⁰Rt.: PRNS. Cf. the Gk.: pronoos (“prudent”). of the generation.” So for what reason were they punished? Because they went abroad from the Land of Israel. Thus it is stated (in Ruth 1:19), “the whole city was excited over them, [and the women said, ‘Is this Naomi?’]” What is the meaning of, “Is this (Hazot) Naomi?” You saw (hazitem) Naomi when she went abroad from the Land of Israel. What has happened to her? (Lev. 25:25:) “Then his redeemer shall come, the one most closely related (qarov).” This is Boaz. When? When Naomi sold the field, as stated (in Ruth 4:3), “the parcel of land which belonged to our relative, [Elimelech].” (Lev. 25:25:) “Then his redeemer shall come, the one most closely related to him.” This is Boaz, since it is stated (in Ruth 2:20), “The man is our relative (qarov), [he is one of our redeeming kin (go'el)].” At that time Ruth went to Boaz. Her mother-in-law said to her (in Ruth 3:2), “see, he is winnowing barley on the threshing floor tonight.” [If] he was a prince (nasi), would he have been winnowing on a threshing floor? It is simply because his generation was dissolute in matters of theft, and [so] he went out to guard his threshing floor. She said to her (in vs. 3), “You are to wash and anoint yourself.” Then after that (ibid), “and go down to the threshing floor.” "And I shall go down" is the actual written text (ketiv)]. What is the meaning of "and I shall go down?" She said to her, “My merit will go down with you.” Hence it is written, "And I shall go down."²¹Ruth R. 5:12. But she did not do as her mother-in-law had told her. What did Ruth do? [Only] after she went down to the threshing floor, she did what she was told, as stated (in vs. 6), “She went down to the threshing floor and did just as her mother-in-law had commanded her.”²²In other words, since she only obeyed Naomi after she had arrived at the threshing floor, she must have neglected to wash and anoint herself before then. Why? It is simply that she said, “The generation was dissolute in sexual matters. What if they see me made up and say, ‘Perhaps she is a harlot?’” Therefore, “She went down to the threshing floor and” afterwards “she did just as her mother-in-law had commanded her.” (Vs. 7:) Then, when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry.” What is the meaning of “and his heart was merry?” That he was occupied with words of the Torah.²³Ruth R. 5:15. Thus it is stated (Prov. 4:2), “As a good teaching…,” and it is [also] written (about wisdom in Prov. 9:5), “Come and eat of my bread.” (Ruth 3:7, cont.:) “And when he came to lie down beside the grain pile, then she came in secret.” What is the meaning of, “in secret (lt; rt.: lwt)?” [It is] just as you say (in I Sam. 21:10), “here it is wrapped (rt.: lwt) in a mantle.” (Ruth 3:8:) “Now it came to pass in the middle of the night that the man was startled. So he turned aside, [and here was a woman lying at his feet].” What is the meaning of, “turned aside (rt.: lpt)?” [It is] just as you say (in Jud. 16:29), “And Samson embraced (rt.: lpt) the two middle pillars.” That righteous man began to yell. [Fear] embraced him. (Ruth 3:9:) Then he said, “Who are you?” And she said, “I am your handmaid Ruth.” He said to her, “What have you come here to do?” She said to him, “To fulfill the Torah (in Lev. 25:25), ‘When your relative becomes poor [… then his redeemer shall come].’ Arise and fulfill the Torah.” He said to her, “Since you have come to fulfill the Torah, (Ruth 3:13:) ‘Spend the night; then it shall come to pass in the morning that, if he will redeem you, good (tov)’”; for he had a relative older than he, whose name was Tov. R. Hanina said, “She said to him, ‘And are you dismissing me with words?’” He said to her (ibid., cont.), “’As the Lord lives,’ I am not dismissing you with words.” (Ruth 4:1:) “Then Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and behold, the redeemer of whom Boaz had spoken was passing by.” He said to him, “Sit down, and we shall look into the Torah; what is written there? Is it not written (in Lev. 25:25), ‘When your relative becomes poor and sells some of his property, [then his redeemer shall come, the one most closely related to him, and redeem…]’” Boaz said to Tov (in Ruth 4:3–4), “’Naomi is selling the parcel of land which belonged to our relative Elimelech […]. And I thought I should disclose it to you, saying, ‘Buy it,’” since you are a senior redeemer than I [and have the right] to redeem it. [Hence] (as in vs. 4, cont.,) “If you will redeem it, redeem it.” (Vs. 6:) “Then the redeemer said, ‘Acquire it for yourself.’” At that time Boaz redeemed what Naomi had sold. Now from where did Boaz learn [what to do]? From this section (in Lev. 25:25), “When your relative becomes poor and sells [some of his property, then his redeemer shall come, the one most closely related to him, and redeem…].” And who else was [like] this? Jeremiah was [like] this. At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, said (in Jeremiah 32:7), “Behold Hanamel the son of Shalum your uncle is coming to you…,” [Jeremiah said] (in Jeremiah 32:8), “And just as the Lord had said, my cousin Hanamel came to me in the prison compound.” Immediately, Jeremiah fulfilled this section [of the Torah], as stated (in Jeremiah 32:9), “And I bought the field.” Now from where did he learn [what to do]? From this section (in Lev. 25:25), “When your relative becomes poor and sells some of his property, [then his redeemer shall come, the one most closely related to him, and redeem…].”

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

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

Another interpretation (of Eccl. 5:5 [6]): DO NOT LET YOUR MOUTH < CAUSE YOUR FLESH TO SIN, AND DO NOT SAY BEFORE THE ANGEL (mal'akh) THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE >. If you have acted with malice aforethought and led astray a high priest, who is called an angel (mal'akh), as stated (in Mal. 2:7): FOR THE LIPS OF A PRIEST PRESERVE KNOWLEDGE, AND THEY SHOULD SEEK TORAH FROM HIS MOUTH; FOR HE IS THE MESSENGER (mal'akh) OF THE LORD OF HOSTS; then do not say: I sinned by mistake, < i.e. > (in Eccl. 5:5 [6]): DO NOT SAY BEFORE THE ANGEL (i.e., before the high priest) THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE. Why? You are leading yourself astray. You are afflicting yourself. The voice which you send forth from your mouth will destroy the work of your hands. (Eccl. 5:5 [6]:) WHY SHOULD GOD BE ANGRY OVER YOUR VOICE [AND DESTROY THE WORK OF YOUR HANDS]? This refers to the children who are afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER….

3) (Vayikra 14:11) ("And the Cohein who cleanses shall stand the man who is to be cleansed and those (things) before the L–rd at the door of the tent of meeting.") "And the Cohein who cleanses shall stand the man who is to be cleansed and those" — whereby we learn that they all require standing. I might think that the standing of all (man, sin-offering, burnt-offering) is indispensable; it is, therefore, written "the man" (The (standing of) the man is indispensable, and not(that of) the sin-offering and not (that of) the burnt-offering.

3) (Vayikra 14:14): "And the Cohein shall take": I might think in a vessel. It is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall take" - "and the Cohein shall place" Just as the placing is by the Cohein himself (without a vessel), so the taking is by the Cohein himself.

4) When Munbaz reasoned before R. Akiva: If one whom I freed (immediately, [i.e., an unconfirmed leper, who returned from his week of quarantine)] — (If one whom I freed immediately from a state of tumah) upon his standing (i.e., upon his return to the encampment), I had held (in a state of tumah) in his going (into quarantine) for seven days, then one whom I held (in his state of tumah for seven days, [namely, a healed confirmed leper]) in his standing, (i.e., upon his return to the encampment after his first shaving [viz. Vayikra 14:8]), does it not follow that I should have held him for seven days (in a state of tumah) in his going (i.e., in the interval between his being healed from the plague-spot and his return to the encampment!) R. Akiva said to him: I can add to your words, viz.: Where would Scripture be more stringent? In the days of confirmation (of absolute leprosy), or in the days of counting (i.e., the seven days between the first shaving and the second)? The days of confirmation are more stringent than the days of counting. For in the days of counting he does not confer tumah through couch (mishkav) or seat (moshav), and he does not confer tumah (to a house) through entry, whereas in the days of confirmation, he does. And if for the days of counting, which are less stringent, you have accorded seven, then for the days of confirmation, should not seven be accorded! Munbaz: Master, indeed, you have substantiated my words! R. Akiva: And when you accord seven for the days of confirmation, they, likewise, become days of counting, so that both combined become fourteen. And if to the less stringent days of counting you have accorded fourteen, then how much more so should fourteen be accorded to the more stringent days of confirmation, so that the process should continue interminably. And it is precisely to countermand such reasoning that Scripture must state "On the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Cohein (for the cleansing procedure)" — he shall not delay (from his being healed of the plague-spot to his being cleansed).

3) Rebbi says: I say that it is thus with vows too. And why is it that a poor man who takes upon himself a rich man's valuation gives a poor man's valuation? For the rich man (in that instance) has no obligation. But if a rich man said: "My valuation is upon me (to give"), and a poor man heard it and said: "What that man said is upon me," he gives the valuation of a rich man. Here, too, since he is obliged to bring three beasts, and the other wished to exempt him, he brings the offering of a rich man. If he were rich and became poor, or poor and became rich, he gives the valuation of a rich man.

3) "for a possession": (not) until they conquer it. Whence is it derived that if they conquered it, but did not yet divide it (among the tribes); if they divided it (among the families), but did not yet apportion it into patrimonies and each did not clearly recognize his own — I might think that they would be subject to plague-spot tumah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:35) "Then he whose house it is shall come" — each must recognize what is his.

3) "for a possession": (not) until they conquer it. Whence is it derived that if they conquered it, but did not yet divide it (among the tribes); if they divided it (among the families), but did not yet apportion it into patrimonies and each did not clearly recognize his own — I might think that they would be subject to plague-spot tumah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:35) "Then he whose house it is shall come" — each must recognize what is his.

3) From here they ruled: A round house or a house of three walls are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness.

3) "and they shall remove the stones": I might think that he can remove two stones and thus fulfill the mitzvah of "removing"; it is, therefore, written "containing the plague-spot." If this (alone were written) I might think (that he must remove) even roof-tiles, even bricks (thus affected); it is, therefore, written "stones." If both verses were not written, we would not know the halachah.

3) (if the plague is in) his stones, and his mortar, and his wood: and not, (if the wall were jointly owned), in those of his neighbor. "his stones": We are hereby taught (that in a case of joint ownership) he planes (his portion from that of his neighbor) and removes his stones. "its stones": all the stones with which the house was built (and not those that were superadded to it after it was built). "its wood": all the wood with which the house was built. "its stones": and not those of the attic. "its wood": and not those of the attic. "the mortar of the house": and not that of the attic — whence it was ruled: If a plague-spot appeared in the house, he places the beams in the attic. If it appeared in the attic, he places its beams in the house. "its stones": and not stones which were superadded to it after it was built. "the mortar of the house": and not mortar that fell off from it (before the house was razed). "and he shall take them (the stones) outside the city to an unclean place": If this is already written in respect to removing (the stones, viz. Vayikra 14:40), why need it be written in respect to razing? And if it is written in respect to razing, why need it be written in respect to removing? Because there obtains with removing what does not obtain with razing, and because there obtains with razing what does not obtain with removing. With removing, the stone on a side (common to that of his neighbor) — he removes the whole, (even that of his neighbor [viz. Chapter 4:2]), and when he razes, he razes (only) what is his and leaves that of his neighbor; and in razing, he razes both the stones with a plague-spot and those without a plague-spot. So that because there obtains with removing what does not obtain with razing, and with razing, what does not obtain with removing, both removing and razing must be written.

3) This tells me only of its (original) appearance. Whence do I derive the same (even if it returns) not in its (original) appearance? From "and it blossoms," whether or not in its (original) appearance.

3) (if the plague is in) his stones, and his mortar, and his wood: and not, (if the wall were jointly owned), in those of his neighbor. "his stones": We are hereby taught (that in a case of joint ownership) he planes (his portion from that of his neighbor) and removes his stones. "its stones": all the stones with which the house was built (and not those that were superadded to it after it was built). "its wood": all the wood with which the house was built. "its stones": and not those of the attic. "its wood": and not those of the attic. "the mortar of the house": and not that of the attic — whence it was ruled: If a plague-spot appeared in the house, he places the beams in the attic. If it appeared in the attic, he places its beams in the house. "its stones": and not stones which were superadded to it after it was built. "the mortar of the house": and not mortar that fell off from it (before the house was razed). "and he shall take them (the stones) outside the city to an unclean place": If this is already written in respect to removing (the stones, viz. Vayikra 14:40), why need it be written in respect to razing? And if it is written in respect to razing, why need it be written in respect to removing? Because there obtains with removing what does not obtain with razing, and because there obtains with razing what does not obtain with removing. With removing, the stone on a side (common to that of his neighbor) — he removes the whole, (even that of his neighbor [viz. Chapter 4:2]), and when he razes, he razes (only) what is his and leaves that of his neighbor; and in razing, he razes both the stones with a plague-spot and those without a plague-spot. So that because there obtains with removing what does not obtain with razing, and with razing, what does not obtain with removing, both removing and razing must be written.

3) "the one into an earthen vessel": and not two of them (i.e., two different birds of two different lepers) into an earthen vessel. For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in an instance (that of a sin-offering) where (slaughtering) from name to name (i.e., slaughtering one man's sin-offering in the name of another) is not kasher, yet the mingling (of their bloods) is kasher, then here, where from name to name is kasher (see Section 1:10) how much more so should their mingling be kasher! It must, therefore, be written "the one into an earthen vessel," and not two into an earthen vessel.

3) But let it follow a fortiori that a leper requires sprinkling on the third and seventh day, viz.: If one who is tamei through a dead body, who does not require seven sprinklings, requires sprinkling on the third and seventh day, then a leper, who does require seven sprinklings, how much more so should he require sprinkling on the third and seventh day! It is, therefore, written "seven times and he shall cleanse him." He requires (for cleansing) seven sprinklings; he does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh day.

4) When Munbaz reasoned before R. Akiva: If one whom I freed (immediately, [i.e., an unconfirmed leper, who returned from his week of quarantine)] — (If one whom I freed immediately from a state of tumah) upon his standing (i.e., upon his return to the encampment), I had held (in a state of tumah) in his going (into quarantine) for seven days, then one whom I held (in his state of tumah for seven days, [namely, a healed confirmed leper]) in his standing, (i.e., upon his return to the encampment after his first shaving [viz. Vayikra 14:8]), does it not follow that I should have held him for seven days (in a state of tumah) in his going (i.e., in the interval between his being healed from the plague-spot and his return to the encampment!) R. Akiva said to him: I can add to your words, viz.: Where would Scripture be more stringent? In the days of confirmation (of absolute leprosy), or in the days of counting (i.e., the seven days between the first shaving and the second)? The days of confirmation are more stringent than the days of counting. For in the days of counting he does not confer tumah through couch (mishkav) or seat (moshav), and he does not confer tumah (to a house) through entry, whereas in the days of confirmation, he does. And if for the days of counting, which are less stringent, you have accorded seven, then for the days of confirmation, should not seven be accorded! Munbaz: Master, indeed, you have substantiated my words! R. Akiva: And when you accord seven for the days of confirmation, they, likewise, become days of counting, so that both combined become fourteen. And if to the less stringent days of counting you have accorded fourteen, then how much more so should fourteen be accorded to the more stringent days of confirmation, so that the process should continue interminably. And it is precisely to countermand such reasoning that Scripture must state "On the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Cohein (for the cleansing procedure)" — he shall not delay (from his being healed of the plague-spot to his being cleansed).

3) (But why not say:) Just as his brows are a place of gathered hair that is seen, so I include (for shaving) only a place of gathered hair that is seen. Whence do I derive for inclusion a gathering of hair that is not seen? From "all of his hair shall he shave."

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

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] This text is related (to Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE. Everything depends on the tongue.¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 5:2. < If > one is acquitted, he is acquitted for life; < if > one is not acquitted, he is condemned to death. < If > one is engaged in Torah with his tongue, he is acquitted for life, inasmuch as the Torah [is called life, according to what is stated] (in Prov. 3:18): < WISDOM > IS A TREE OF LIFE TO THOSE WHO TAKE HOLD OF IT. It (i.e., the Torah) is also one's healing for the evil tongue (i.e., slander), as stated (in Prov. 15:4): A HEALING TONGUE IS A TREE OF LIFE. But if one is occupied with slander, his soul is condemned to death, since slander is more harmful than the shedding of blood. Thus whoever kills takes only one life, but the one who speaks slander kills three people: the one who tells it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is told.¹¹PRK 4:2; Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Deut. R. 5:10; M. Pss. 12:2; yPe’ah 1:1 (16a). Doeg spoke slander against Ahimelech; and he (i.e., Ahimelech) was killed, [as stated] (in I Sam. 22:16): BUT {SAUL} [THE KING] SAID: YOU SHALL SURELY DIE, AHIMELECH. Saul also was killed, [as stated] (in I Chron. 10:13): < SO SAUL DIED > FOR THE TREACHERY WHICH HE HAD COMMITTED AGAINST THE LORD. And thus did Saul say (in II Sam. 1:9, to a young man): PLEASE STAND OVER ME AND SLAY ME, FOR DEATH THROES HAVE SEIZED ME. < The young man was > the accuser¹²Gk.: kategoros. of Nob, the city of priests. Now DEATH THROES (ShBTs) can only denote priesthood, since it is stated (in Exod. 28:13 with reference to high-priestly dress): AND YOU SHALL MAKE GOLD BROCADE (rt.: ShBTs). Doeg also was uprooted (ShRSh) from the life of this world and from all life in the world to come. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 52:7 [5]): GOD WILL ALSO TEAR YOU DOWN FOR EVER; HE WILL SEIZE YOU, TEAR YOU AWAY FROM YOUR TENT, AND UPROOT (ShRSh) YOU FROM THE LAND OF THE LIVING. SELAH. < I.e., he will uproot you > from life in the world to come. Who is more severe? One who smites with the sword or < one who > smites with the dart? [Say: The one who smites with the dart.] The one who smites with the sword is only able to kill his companion if he draws near to him and touches him; but in the case of one who smites with the dart, it is not so. Rather one throws the dart wherever he sees him. Therefore, one who speaks slander is comparable to the dart, as stated (in Jer. 9:7 [8]): THEIR TONGUE IS A SHARPENED DART; IT SPEAKS DECEIT. It also says (in Ps. 57:5 [4]): THE CHILDREN OF ADAM, WHOSE TEETH ARE SPEARS AND DARTS, [AND WHOSE TONGUE A SHARP SWORD]. See how harmful slander is, in that it is more harmful than adultery, blood shedding, and idolatry.¹³M. Pss. 52:2. Of adultery it is written (in Gen. 39:9, where Joseph is addressing Potiphar's wife): THEN HOW SHALL I DO THIS GREAT EVIL AND SIN AGAINST GOD? Of blood shedding it is written (in Gen. 4:13): AND CAIN SAID TO THE LORD: MY SIN IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR. Of idolatry it is written (in Exod. 32:31, with reference to the golden calf): ALAS, THIS PEOPLE HAS SINNED A GREAT SIN. But when it (i.e., Scripture) mentions slander, it does not say "great" (in the masculine singular, as in Gen. 4:13), "great" in the feminine singular, as in Gen. 39:9 and Exod. 32:31), but "great" (in the feminine plural). Thus it is written (in Ps. 12:4 [3]): THE LORD SHALL CUT OFF ALL FLATTERING LIPS, < EVERY > TONGUE SPEAKING GREAT THINGS (in the feminine plural). It is therefore stated (in Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE.

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

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

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

(Numb. 16:1:) “[Korah who is] the son of Izhar [who is] the son of Kohath [who is] the son of Levi betook himself.” But there is not written "the son of Jacob" [or] "the son of Israel."¹⁸Numb. R. 18:5; cf.Gen. R. 98:5. This text is related (to Gen. 49:6), “Let not my soul come into their council,” i.e., that of the spies; “and let not my glory be joined with their congregation,” i.e., that of Korah. Jacob said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, with reference to the spies and with reference to the dissension of Korah, let not my name be mentioned [in connection with] those evil men, who are going to cause provocation. So when should my name (Israel) be joined upon them? When they are joined together to stand on the dais (as Levitical singers), as stated (I Chron. 6:[17,] 22–23) ‘[These are the ones whom David put in charge of song in the house of the Lord….] The son of Assir [who is] the son of Ebiasaph [who is] the son of Korah [who is] the son of Izhar [who is] the son of Kohath [who is] the son of Levi [who is] the son of Israel.’” (Numb. 16:1, cont.:) “Along with Dathan and Abiram.” From here the sages said, “Woe to the wicked one, [and] woe to his neighbor.”¹⁹Numb. R. 18:5, cont.; see Neg. 12:6; Sifra to Lev.14:40 (157: Metsora‘, pereq 4); ARN, A, 9; cf. ARN, B, 16; Numb.R. 3:12; Suk. 56b; above, Numb.1:13. As see that Dathan and Abiram were destroyed by the dissent of Korah, because they were neighbors of Korah. As he was dwelling to the south (of the tabernacle), as stated (in Numb. 3:29), “The families of the Children of Kohath were to camp along the side of the tabernacle to the south.” The standard of Reuben was near them, as stated (in Numb. 2:10), “The standard of the camp of Reuben shall be to the south.” However, the standard of Judah was in the east, and with him were Issachar and Zebulun, as stated (in Numb. 2:3), “Now these camping in front to the east shall be the standard of the camp of Judah.” And near them were Moses, Aaron, and his children, as written (in Numb. 3:38), “Those who camped before the tabernacle, in front before the tent of meeting to the east, were Moses, Aaron, and his children.” Because these were near the Torah, they were therefore worthy to be Torah scholars, as written (in Ps. 60:9), “Judah is my lawgiver.”²⁰Mehoqeq. Most translations render the word as scepter, since kingship was what Judah actually attained. And it is [also] written (in I Chron. 12:33), “And from the Children of Issachar, those who had an understanding of the times.” And it is [also] written (in Jud. 5:14), “and from Zebulon those who wield the scribal pen.” But Dathan and Abiram, who were neighbors to Korah – the one responsible for the dissent – were struck with him and perished from the world. (Numb. 16:19:) “And Korah gathered [the whole community] against them.” He said to them (in Numb. 16:3), “’You have gone too far, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them.’²¹Numb. R. 18:6. Moreover, every one of them heard on Sinai (in Exod. 20:2 = Deut. 5:6), ‘I am the Lord your God.’ (Numb. 16:3, cont.:) ‘So why do you elevate yourselves?’” Immediately Moses trembled, because it was already the fourth transgression on their hands. It is comparable to a king's son who had transgressed against his father. Now his friend effected a reconciliation with him once,²²Rt.: PSY. See the Gk.: peithein, peisai in the aorist. twice, and three times. When he transgressed a fourth time, the king's friend became discouraged. He said, “How many times shall I bother the king?” So also [it was with] Moses towards Israel. They had sinned with the calf, and (according to Exod. 32:11) “Moses implored.” In the case of the murmurers, (according to Numb. 11:2) “Moses prayed.” In the case of the spies, (according to Numb. 14:13), “Moses said unto the Lord, when the Egyptians hear [what happened].” [So] in the case of Korah's dissension, he became discouraged. He said, “How often can I bother the Omnipresent?” Therefore (in Numb. 16:4), “When Moses heard this, he fell on his face.”

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

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

Rabba b. Huna said: "There is one great preference between an Israelite and a Proselyte. Concerning the Israelite the passage reads (Ez. 37, 27) And I will be their God, and they shall be My people, but concerning a Proselyte it is written (Jer. 30, 21) For who is this that has pledged his heart to approach unto Me?" R.Chelbo said:"Proselytes are as bad to Israel as a sore on the skin; for it is written (Is. 14, 1) And the stranger shall be joined unto them, and they shall attach (V'niss'pechu) themselves to the house of Jacob. It is written here [in the Text] V'niss'pchu, and it is written [concerning leprosy] the same expression (Lev. 14, 56) And for a swelling and for a rising (Sapachath)." R. Chama b. Chanina said: "At the time when the Holy One, praised be He, (Fol. 71) will purify the tribes He will commence with the tribe of Levi first, as it is said (Mal. 3, 3) And He will sit as a melter and purifier of silver; and He will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." R. Joshua b. Levi said: "Impure families who joined Israel through the influence of their wealth, will be purified, as it is said (Mal. 3, 3) And He will sit as a melter and purifier of silver. What does the passage (Ib.) That they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness, mean? Said R. Isaac: "Righteousness has the Lord done with Israel that every family which was mixed up beyond recognition is considered pure."

Rabba b. Huna said: "There is one great preference between an Israelite and a Proselyte. Concerning the Israelite the passage reads (Ez. 37, 27) And I will be their God, and they shall be My people, but concerning a Proselyte it is written (Jer. 30, 21) For who is this that has pledged his heart to approach unto Me?" R.Chelbo said:"Proselytes are as bad to Israel as a sore on the skin; for it is written (Is. 14, 1) And the stranger shall be joined unto them, and they shall attach (V'niss'pechu) themselves to the house of Jacob. It is written here [in the Text] V'niss'pchu, and it is written [concerning leprosy] the same expression (Lev. 14, 56) And for a swelling and for a rising (Sapachath)." R. Chama b. Chanina said: "At the time when the Holy One, praised be He, (Fol. 71) will purify the tribes He will commence with the tribe of Levi first, as it is said (Mal. 3, 3) And He will sit as a melter and purifier of silver; and He will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." R. Joshua b. Levi said: "Impure families who joined Israel through the influence of their wealth, will be purified, as it is said (Mal. 3, 3) And He will sit as a melter and purifier of silver. What does the passage (Ib.) That they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness, mean? Said R. Isaac: "Righteousness has the Lord done with Israel that every family which was mixed up beyond recognition is considered pure."

“Turn away, impure, they called to them. Turn away, turn away, do not touch, because they were loathsome, and also wandering; they said among the nations: They will not continue to reside here” (Lamentations 4:15).
“Turn away, impure, they called to them.” Rabbi Ḥanina interpreted the verse regarding the daughters of Zion. That is what is written: “The Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and they walk with outstretched necks [and painted eyes; they walk with dainty steps and tinkling with their feet]” (Isaiah 3:16). They would extend themselves to their full height and walk haughtily. “They walk with outstretched necks.” When one of them would wear her jewelry, she would turn her neck from side to side to display her jewelry. “And painted eyes,” Rabbi Asi of Caesarea said: They would paint their eyes with red paint. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With a red eye salve. “They walk with dainty steps [halokh vetafof].” When one of them was tall, she would bring two short ones, one on this side and one on that side, so that she would appear floating [tafa] over them. When one of them was short, she would wear high wooden heels so she would look tall. “And tinkling [te’akasna] with their feet,” Rabbi Yosei said: They would craft the form of a serpent on their shoes.⁴¹This was an idolatrous symbol. A serpent can be referred to as aknha in Aramaic, which is related to the term te’akasna (Etz Yosef). The Rabbis say: She would bring the crop of a rooster, fill it with balsam, and place it between her heel and her shoe. When she would see a band of young men, she would stomp on it, and the fragrance would infuse them like the venom of a serpent.
Jeremiah would say to them: ‘Repent before the enemies come.’ They said to him: ‘If the enemies come against us, what can they do to us?’ That is what is written: “Who say: Let Him hurry, let Him hasten His action, so that we will see it; let the plans of the Holy One of Israel approach and be realized, and we will know it [veneda’a]” (Isaiah 5:19). A government official will see me, take me, and seat me with him in the carriage. She said to Jeremiah: ‘Let us see [neda] whose will be realized, ours or His.’ When their sins caused and their enemies came, they would adorn themselves and go out before them. A government official would see her and seat her in the carriage. A governor would see her and seat her in the carriage. A commander would see her and seat her in the carriage. The Holy One blessed be He said: Mine was not realized but theirs was realized.
What did He do? “The Lord will afflict with scabs [vesipaḥ] the heads of the daughters of Zion” (Isaiah 3:17). Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina, Rabbi Elazar said: He afflicted them with leprosy. This is as it says: “For the spot, for the scab [velasapaḥat], and for the bright spot” (Leviticus 14:56). Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: He placed on their heads swarms upon swarms of lice. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: He rendered them mekhudaniyot maidservants. What is mekhudaniyot? It is enslaved maidservants. Rabbi Berekhya and Ḥalafi bar Zevid [said] in the name of Rabbi Isi: What is vesipaḥ? He caused a flow [veshipa], in order to protect sacred offspring so that they would not assimilate among the peoples of the land. The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘I know that idolaters do not distance themselves from leprosy.’ What did he do? “The Lord will bare their private parts” (Isaiah 3:17). The Holy One blessed be He would hint to their uterus and it would discharge blood until it filled the entire carriage. The official would stab her with a spear and place her before the carriage and run her over and split her. That is what Jeremiah says: “Turn away [suru suru], impure, they called to them. Turn away, turn away, do not touch.” Rabbi Abba said: It is in the Greek language, stench [siron siron].⁴²Because of her foul odor the official cast her from the carriage.
“Because they were loathsome [natzu] and also wandering.” Rabbi Ḥanina said: Israel was not exiled until they blasphemed [niatzu] the Holy One blessed be He. Rabbi Simon said: Israel was not exiled until they became nemeses [baalei matzut] to the Holy One blessed be He.

4) But perhaps "man" (is singled out) to exclude woman and child. (This is not so, for) it is written "who is to be cleansed," whether man, woman, or child. Why, then, is "the man" singled out? To indicate not the sin-offering and not the burnt-offering.

4) I might then think that (placing the blood) on the altar requires the hand (alone, without a vessel); it is, therefore, written "For as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering for the Cohein" — Just as a sin-offering requires a vessel, so a guilt-offering requires a vessel. We find, then, that two Cohanim receive the blood: one, in a vessel; the other, in his hand. The first comes and sprinkles it on the altar; the second comes (and applies it) to the leper. And the leper, (who already had immersed on the seventh day) immerses (again on the eighth day) in the lepers' chamber (and) comes and stands in the gate of Nikanor. R. Yehudah says: He did not require immersion(on the eighth day) for he had already immersed (on the seventh day and was clean with the setting of the sun) in the evening.

4) "then he shall take one he-lamb as a guilt-offering": R. Akiva asked R. Nechemiah: What is the intent of "one"? He answered: This one (the leper) brings according to his means and one who atones for sanctuary uncleanliness brings according to his means. (I might think that) just as the latter brings two birds (a sin-offering and a burnt-offering) instead of one (ewe-lamb) as a sin-offering, so, this one (the leper) brings two (birds) instead of the (ewe-lamb) sin-offering, (one for a sin-offering; the other for a burnt-offering), and the beast burnt-offering, (for which the rich man brings a he-lamb for a burnt-offering) is binding (also upon the poor man to bring, so that he will have to bring two he-lambs, one for a guilt-offering and one for a burnt-offering.) It, therefore, must be written "one he-lamb as a guilt-offering," (and not more.) R. Akiva said to him: From "the place that you come" (that he must bring two, I can deduce that he brings only one, viz.) This one (the leper) brings from his means, and the sanctuary defiler brings from his means. Just as the latter brings two for (the sin-offering, which is) his atonement (and he need bring nothing more), so this one (the leper), need bring only (these) two (birds) for his atonement, (and nothing more)! He answered: If not (as I say), how do you satisfy it ("one he-lamb as a guilt-offering")? He answered: This one (the leper) brings from his means and in valuations one also brings from his means (viz. [Vayikra 27:8]: "According to the means of the vower shall the Cohein valuate him.") (I might think that) just as there he brings whatever he can attain, so this one brings whatever he can attain, (so that if he can attain two birds and two sheep he should bring them); it is, therefore, written "one" (he-lamb. Even if he can attain two sheep, he brings only one he-lamb as a guilt-offering, and two birds, one as a burnt-offering; the other, as a sin-offering).

5) (Vayikra 14:3) ("And the Cohein shall go outside the camp, and the Cohein shall see, and, behold, if the plague-spot of leprosy is healed from the leper,") "And the Cohein shall go out … and the Cohein shall see": What is the intent of this (i.e., Why not simply "and he shall see?) — Because it is written "And the Cohein shall go out, I might think that only a Cohein who was in the encampment (could go outside to cleanse the leper), but if he were at sea or in rivers or in deserts, whence would I know (that he is also qualified to do so)? From and the Cohein (i.e., a different Cohein) shall (i.e., may) see." If so, why is it written "And the Cohein shall go out"? (To teach us that only) a Cohein who may enter the encampment (i.e., a Cohein who is not a leper himself) may cleanse a leper, but a leper may not cleanse a leper.

4) "and I put a plague-spot of leprosy": This is a (glad) tiding to them, that plague-spots will come upon them. (When the Canaanites heard of the Israelites' approach, they hid treasures on the walls of their houses — until plague-spots were sent against their houses, and they were razed.) R. Shimon says: "and I put a plague-spot of leprosy" — to exclude plague-spots caused by (external) forces. "in a house of the land of your possession": to exclude a house built upon a boat or on a four-beamed raft, and to include one built on four pillars (fixed on the ground, in which instance the house is considered "in the land."

4) I might think (that the meaning is that it is not subject to tumah) until the plague-spot) is seen on two walls; it is, therefore, written "and their appearance is lower than the wall" — even one wall. I might think even (if it appears) on one stone; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:40) "and they shall remove the stones" — not fewer than two. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: "And they shall remove the stones" does imply two stones, but (Vayikra 14:37) "and their appearance is lower than the wall" implies that even one stone is sufficient. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: (For it to be subject to tumah) there must appear two garisin on two stones on two walls in one corner; its length, two garisin, and its width a garis.

4) I might think (that the meaning is that it is not subject to tumah) until the plague-spot) is seen on two walls; it is, therefore, written "and their appearance is lower than the wall" — even one wall. I might think even (if it appears) on one stone; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:40) "and they shall remove the stones" — not fewer than two. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: "And they shall remove the stones" does imply two stones, but (Vayikra 14:37) "and their appearance is lower than the wall" implies that even one stone is sufficient. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: (For it to be subject to tumah) there must appear two garisin on two stones on two walls in one corner; its length, two garisin, and its width a garis.

4) "and they shall cast them outside the city": "them outside of every city." (to exclude) an afflicted man (i.e., a leper,) who is not "outside of every city," but only of those cities surrounded by a wall (from the time of Joshua). "into an unclean place": Its place becomes tamei. R. Yehudah says: "into an unclean place" — to include (the place of the stones) that were removed (from there).

4) — But perhaps "it blossoms" connotes only if it returns and spreads. Now would this follow? There is (plague-spot) tumah in garments, and there is (plague-spot) tumah in houses. Just as in garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so, with houses, it should confer tumah even without spreading.

4) (Vayikra 14:46) ("And he who comes into the house all the days that he has shut it up shall be unclean until the evening.") "And he who comes into the house": when he enters — his head and the greater part of his body. "the days that he has shut it up": and not the days that he peeled its plague-spot (i.e., If he peeled its plague-spot within the days of its quarantine and threw (its peelings) out [even though he thereby transgressed a negative commandment], one who enters does not become tamei.) I might think that I (also) exclude (from tumah one who enters) a confirmed (plague-spot house) whose plague-spot was peeled; it is, therefore, written "all the days" (to include such a contingency).

4) "vessel": I might think any vessel; it is, therefore, written "earthenware." If "earthenware," I might think (even) a fragment (of earthenware). It is, therefore, written "vessel." How so? (He takes) a (broad, flat) bowl of earthenware. "living water": and not salted water, and not lukewarm water, and not failing water (i.e., water whose source dries up), and not dripping water. R. Eliezer says: Just as (living) water has had no work done in it, so a vessel (is required) that has had no work done in it. R. Shimon says: Just as (living) water is the most distinctive of its kind, so the bird must be the most distinctive of its kind, a partridge.

4) "and he shall cleanse him": through those things that are done upon his body, (viz. sprinkling, shaving, and bathing). I might think that his cleansing is thus consummated; it is, therefore, written "and he shall send," "and he shall shave," "and he shall wash," "and he shall bathe." I might think that they are all indispensable to his cleanliness; it is, therefore, written (here, after sprinkling): "and he shall cleanse him, and (after sending, washing, shaving, and bathing) (Bamidbar 19:8): "and he shall be clean." Just as the first cleansing relates to what is performed upon his body (i.e., the sprinkling), so the second relates to what is performed upon his body (i.e., the shaving and the bathing, and not the sending of the bird and the washing of his clothes.)

4) (Vayikra 13:33) ("Then he shall be shaved, but the nethek he shall not shave. And the Cohein shall quarantine the nethek a second seven days.") "Then he shall be shaved": by any man (and not necessarily a Cohein). Because we find the last shaving (on the day of his cleansing [Vayikra 14:9] to be by a Cohein, I might think that this, too, must be by a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — by any man.

4) "his head": Why is this written? (i.e., Why is the above generalization not sufficient to include it?) Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a blade shall not pass over his head, I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Nazirite); it is, therefore, written "his head." "his beard": Why is this written? Because it is written (of Cohanim, Vayikra 21:5): "the corner of their beard they shall not shave off," I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Cohein); it is, therefore, written "his beard." Why mention both "his head" and "his beard"? (i.e., Why can one not be derived from the other?) — Because there obtain (strictures) with head which do not obtain with beard, and with beard, which do not obtain with head — The head (of a Nazirite) is forbidden both with scissors and with blade, and the (destruction of the) beard does not obtain with scissors; the head is permitted with all men (who are not Nazirites), and the (destruction of the beard is forbidden with all men — Because there obtain with head (strictures) which do not obtain with beard, and with beard (strictures) which do not obtain with head, there must be written (to include for the shaving of the leper) both "his head" and "his beard."

Another interpretation (of Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE. Slander is so harmful that one does not produce it from his mouth without denying the root (i.e., the existence of the Holy One).¹⁴Tanh., 5:3; M. Ps. 52:2. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 12:5 [4]): THOSE WHO SAY: BY OUR TONGUES WE SHALL PREVAIL. OUR LIPS ARE WITH US. WHO IS TO BE OUR LORD? The Holy One, as it were, cried out against those who speak slander (in Ps. 94:16): WHO WILL STAND FOR ME AGAINST EVILDOERS…? Who can stand against them? And who will stand against them? Gehinnom? But Gehinnom also cries out: I am unable to stand against them. < Then > the Holy One said: I < will come at them > from above and you (Gehinnom), from below. I will hurl darts from above; and you will turn on them with burning coals from below. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 120:3–4): < WHAT SHALL BE GIVEN TO YOU, AND WHAT SHALL BE YOUR GAIN, YOU DECEITFUL TONGUE? > SHARP DARTS OF THE WARRIOR ALONG WITH BURNING COALS OF BROOM WOOD. The Holy One said to them (i.e., to Israel): Do you want to be delivered from Gehinnom? Keep yourselves far away from the deceitful tongue. Then you will be acquitted in this world and in the world to come. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 34:13 [12]): WHO IS THE ONE WHO DESIRES LIFE AND LOVES < MANY > DAYS < IN WHICH > TO EXPERIENCE < WHAT IS > GOOD. WHO DESIRES LIFE, concerns this world; LOVES < MANY > DAYS, refers to the world to come. It is therefore stated (in vs. 14 [13]): KEEP YOUR TONGUE FROM EVIL < AND YOUR LIPS FROM SPEAKING DECEIT >. Our masters have said: There is a story about a certain peddler who went around in the villages.¹⁵Lev. R. 16:2; cf. also ‘AZ 19b. Now he would call out and say: Who wants the elixir of life? The daughter of R. Jannay heard him. She said to her father: A certain peddler is going around and saying: Who wants the elixir of life? He said to her: Go and call him. She went and called him to R. Jannay. He said to him: Which elixir of life is it that you are selling? That peddler said to him: Pray, do not you know what this elixir is? He said to him: Even so, you inform me. He said to him: Bring me the book of Psalms. He brought it to him, and he unrolled it. Then he showed him what David had said (in Ps. 34:13–14 [12–13]): WHO IS THE ONE WHO DESIRES LIFE…? KEEP YOUR TONGUE FROM EVIL…. What did R. Jannay do? He gave him six sela'im. His disciples said to him: Rabbi, did you not know this verse? He said to them: Yes, but this one came and explained it to me. {Therefore leprosy comes upon whoever speaks slander. (Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.} < This story is > to teach you that one who speaks slander will have plagues come upon him. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:2): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (metsora'), < i.e. > the one who proclaims evil (motsi' ra').¹⁶Above, 5:1; ySot. 2:1 (17d); ‘Arakh. 15b; Cf. Lev. R. 16:1.

5) If so, (if sin-offering and burnt-offering are excluded), why is it written (Vayikra 14:12) "it for a guilt-offering"? (i.e., if sin-offering and burnt-offering have already been excluded, why exclude them again?) — For I might think that since the guilt-offering comes to cleanse, (for its blood is sprinkled on him), and the man comes to be cleansed, then just as the guilt-offering requires waving, so the man requires waving; it is, therefore, written "as a guilt-offering … and he shall wave" — the guilt-offering ("it") requires waving, but the man does not require waving.

5) If so, (if sin-offering and burnt-offering are excluded), why is it written (Vayikra 14:12) "it for a guilt-offering"? (i.e., if sin-offering and burnt-offering have already been excluded, why exclude them again?) — For I might think that since the guilt-offering comes to cleanse, (for its blood is sprinkled on him), and the man comes to be cleansed, then just as the guilt-offering requires waving, so the man requires waving; it is, therefore, written "as a guilt-offering … and he shall wave" — the guilt-offering ("it") requires waving, but the man does not require waving.

5) "and he shall place it on the tnuch": I might think that the very inside ("toch") were meant; it is, therefore, written "nuch" (the "n" within the word "tnuch" diminishing the "insideness" of "toch"). If so, I might think that the upper tip of the ear were intended; it is, therefore, written (in effect) "toch nuch" ("the inside of the nuch"). How is the effected? (He places it) on the middle partition (beneath the tip, i.e., the anti-helix).

5) "to be waved to make atonement": Now does waving make atonement? (Is it not blood that atones?) If so, what is the intent of "to be waved to make atonement"? To teach that if he renders waving the "remnant" of a mitzvah (i.e., if he does not wave), it is as if he does, and yet, does not, atone. "and an issaron (a tenth of an ephah) of fine flour": We are hereby taught that each issaron requires a log (of oil), according to the sages. R. Nechemiah and R. Eliezer b. Yaakov say: Even a meal-offering of sixty issaron requires only one log, it being written "as a meal-offering and a log of oil."

6) "and, behold, it is healed": if the plague-spot (itself) is healed (even if the white hair still remains). "plague-spot": (even) if the white hair has gone (and the plague-spot remains). "leprosy": (even) if the michyah has gone. This tells me only of all of them (i.e., all of the white hair, all of the michyah). Whence do I derive (that he is healed) even if part of the white hair (has gone), even part of the michyah? From "from (the leper"), ("from" connoting "part of"). "the leper": to include one in whose entire body it has blossomed, as requiring birds.

5) "your possession": A possession is subject to plague-spot tumah, but Jerusalem, (which was not divided among the tribes,) is not. R. Yehudah said: I heard that the Temple alone (is not subject to plague-spot tumah).

5) "sheka'aroroth": embedded in their appearance (and not in actuality). "yerakrakoth or adamdamoth": the greenest of green, the reddest of red. "and their appearance is lower than the wall": their appearance and not their substance.

5) (Vayikra 14:41) ("And the house he shall scrape from inside roundabout, and they shall spill the mortar scrapings outside the city into an unclean place.") "And the house he shall scrape": I might think from inside and from outside; it is, therefore, written "from inside." If "from inside," I might think from the ground and from the walls; it is, therefore, written "roundabout" — only the area roundabout the plague-spot.

5) Now if we are stringent with garments, where if the plague-spot remains the same at the end of two weeks, the garment is burned, should we be stringent with houses, where if the plague-spot remains the same after two weeks the house is not razed! It is, therefore, written "blight leprosy" (here) - "blight leprosy" (Vayikra 13:5), in respect to garments) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as with garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so with houses, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading.

5) Now if we are stringent with garments, where if the plague-spot remains the same at the end of two weeks, the garment is burned, should we be stringent with houses, where if the plague-spot remains the same after two weeks the house is not razed! It is, therefore, written "blight leprosy" (here) - "blight leprosy" (Vayikra 13:5), in respect to garments) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as with garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so with houses, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading.

5) "and he shall be unclean until the evening": We are hereby taught that his clothes do not become tamei. I might think (that this is so) even if he remained there long enough to eat a p'ras (a half-loaf); it is, therefore, written (in the following verse) "and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes."

5) How does he do (the cleansing)? He takes the cedar, the myrtle and the tongue of wool and binds them in the end of the tongue, and circles them with the wing tips and the tail tip of the second (living) bird, and he dips (them into the blood of the slaughtered bird), and he sprinkles (upon the leper). "in the blood": I might think in the blood, exclusively; it is, therefore, written "living water." If "water," I might think "living water," exclusively; it is, therefore, written "blood." How is this effected? With living water in which the blood of the bird is discernible, which the sages estimated to be a quarter (of a log).

5) "and he shall send the living bird (over the face of the field.") He should not stand in Yaffo and send it to the sea. He should not stand in Gabbath and send it to the desert. He should not stand outside the city and send it towards the city. "over the face of the field": If he sent it and it returned to his hand, he may eat it.

5) R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written "the brows of his eyes," and not his eyelids. "all of his hair shall he shave.": What is the intent of this? (It is already written in the beginning of the verse.) To stipulate responsibility for shaving. So that if he did not shave on the seventh day, he must do so on the eighth, or the ninth, or the tenth.

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. Whoever speaks slander concerning his fellow will have leprosy come upon him. From where have you learned it? From Miriam.] See what is written about Miriam (in Numb. 12:1): THEN MIRIAM AND AARON SPOKE AGAINST MOSES. Therefore (in vs. 10): THEN AARON TURNED UNTO MIRIAM, AND THERE WAS [MIRIAM] WITH LEPROSY LIKE THE SNOW.¹⁷The Masoretic Text reverses these two clauses in this verse. What is written elsewhere (in Deut. 24:9)? REMEMBER WHAT THE LORD YOUR GOD DID TO MIRIAM. And what did she say against Moses? She said: Moses took (natal) a wife but ceased (batel) from being fruitful and multiplying.¹⁸See Sifre, Numb. 12:1 (99:2–3), which identifies the Cushite woman of Numb. 12:1 with Zipporah, for details. What did the Holy One do to them? He appeared to them, and they needed an immersion. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 12:4): THEN THE LORD SUDDENLY SPOKE UNTO MOSES, UNTO AARON, AND UNTO MIRIAM. What is the meaning of SUDDENLY? That when he appeared unto them, they had need for water SUDDENLY. He spoke to them, and thus they had need for water.¹⁹Cf. Rashi on Numb. 12:4, who explains that they had need for water because the Holy One had appeared to them suddenly while they were unclean due to marital relations. And I am speaking with you. Immediately Miriam became stricken with leprosy, as stated (in Numb. 12:10): AND THERE WAS [MIRIAM] WITH LEPROSY LIKE THE SNOW. Moreover, are not < these > words an argument a fortiori (qal wahomer)? For if Miriam had this happen, when she only spoke against her beloved brother when he was absent²⁰I.e., she spoke privately to Aaron with no desire to be hostile to Moses. Cf. Sifre, Numb. 12:1 (99:2). and was only intending to return him to his wife, how much the more so in the case of one who utters slander against his colleague? What is written above on the matter (in Deut. 24:8)? TAKE CARE WITH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY < TO WATCH DILIGENTLY AND DO ACCORDING TO ALL THAT THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES SHALL TEACH…. > So the hand of the Holy One also afflicted Aaron with it, when he was high priest. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 12:9): AND THE ANGER OF THE LORD WAS KINDLED AGAINST THEM, < i.e. > against Aaron and against Miriam. Aaron, however, was healed immediately; but Miriam, after seven days, as stated (in Numb. 12:15): SO MIRIAM WAS SHUT UP [OUTSIDE OF THE CAMP] FOR SEVEN DAYS. Ergo (in Lev. 14:2): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (metsora'). The one who proclaims evil (motsi' ra') is the one who finds evil (motse' ra').

R. Isaac began [his discourse] (with Eccl. 7:23), “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.” It is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom and discernment in great measure, with understanding....” R. Johanan said a parable in the name of R. Simeon ben Yehozedek, “This is comparable to a king who had a friend, and the king loved him exceedingly. The king said to him, ‘Ask me anything you want and I will give it to you.’ And that friend was very wise. He said [to himself], ‘If I ask him to make me a duke, it [alone] will come to me. If I ask him to make me a duke, it [alone] will come to me.” Rather I will ask him for something that is attached to all the advantages.’ Immediately he answered and said to the king, ‘Since you asked that I should ask for something in front of you, I am asking from you that you marry off your daughter to me.’ The king said, ‘By your life, I want this. Behold my daughter is [given] into your house.’ So [too] at the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Solomon (in I Kings 3:5), ‘Ask what I should give to you,’ Solomon said [to himself], ‘What shall I ask; If I ask for silver and gold, it [alone] will come to me. If I ask for the monarchy, it [alone] will come to me. Rather I will ask for something that is attached to all the things.’ Immediately he said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the World, I only request from you wisdom.’ [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘You have asked well in asking for wisdom, as all the things are attached to it. Silver and gold are attached to it, as stated (in Prov. 8:19), “My fruit is better than gold, fine gold, and my produce than choice silver.” Monarchy is attached to it, as stated (in Prov. 8:15), “Through me kings reign.” Behold everything is given to you.’” Hence it is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom,” as He gave him wisdom as a gift. (I Kings 5:9, cont.:) “As vast as the sand of the sea.” The rabbis say, “[This] teaches that He gave him as much wisdom as all Israel, who are compared to the sand, as stated (in Hos. 2:1), ‘The number of the Children of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea.’ How is this? The sages have knowledge, the elders of knowledge and the children have knowledge, but they are different, one from the other. And [so] if all of Israel would be on one side and Solomon on the other side, his wisdom would be greater than theirs.”⁶⁴Numb. R. 19:3; Eccl. R. 7:23:1; PRK 4:3; PR 14:8. R. Levi said, “Just as sand is a wall and a fence for [the sea], that it not go out and flood the world; so that his wisdom stand in front of his [evil] impulse, that he not sin.” The proverb says, “If you lack knowledge, what have you gained? If you have gained knowledge, what do you lack?” Like (in Prov. 25:28) “A city broken into with no walls,” so “is a person who does not restrain his spirit.” (I Kings 5:10:) “Now Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the East.” And what was the wisdom of the peoples of the East?⁶⁵Above, Gen. 7:24; PR 14:9. [In that] they knew about astrology and were astute at divination (from birds). Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “I like three things about the people of the East: They do not kiss on the mouth, but only on the hand; When they cut meat, they cut only with a knife and not on the back of the hand; And when they take counsel, they take it only in the field.
It is therefore stated (in Gen. 31:4), ‘So Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field where his flock was.’” (I Kings 5:10, cont.:) “From all the wisdom of Egypt.” What was the wisdom of Egypt? You find that when Solomon wanted to build the Temple, he sent to Pharaoh Necho and said to him, “Send me craftsmen [to work] for a wage, for I want to build the Temple.” What did Pharaoh do? He gathered all his astrologers⁶⁶Gk.: astrologoi. and said to them, “Foresee which people are going to die this year and send them to him. So that I can come to him with a grievance and say to him, ‘Give me the value of the craftsmen that you killed.’” When they came to Solomon, he foresaw through the holy spirit that they would die during that year. He [therefore] gave them shrouds and sent them [back] to [Pharaoh]. He sent to him, saying, “Do you not have shrouds to bury your dead? Here they are for you with their shrouds. Go and bury your dead.” Hence it is stated, (I Kings 5:10, cont.) “from all the wisdom of Egypt.” (I Kings 5:11:) “And he was wiser than any man, than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Chalkol, and Darda the sons of Mahol.” “Wiser than any man (literally, than all of Adam),” than the first Adam. And what was his wisdom? You find that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the first Adam, he consulted with the ministering angels. He said to them (in Gen. 1:26), “Let us make humankind (Adam) in Our image.” They said to him (in Ps. 8:5), “What is a human that You are mindful of him?” He said to them, “This Adam that I want to create Adam shall have wisdom greater than yours.” What did He do? He gathered all cattle, wild beasts, and fowl pass before them. He said to them, “What are the names of these [beings]?” They, however, did not know. When He had created Adam, He made them pass before him. He said to him, “What are the names of these [beings]?” He said, “It is fitting to call this one an ox, this one a lion, this one a horse, [...]” and so on for all of them. It is so stated (in Gen. 2:20), “So Adam recited names for all the cattle.”⁶⁷The understanding of the midrash is that the creatures implicitly already possessed names. He said to him, “And you, what is your name?” Adam said to him, “Adam, because I was created out of the ground (adamah).” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I, what is My name?” He said to him, “The Lord, because you are Lord over all creatures,” namely as written (in Is. 42:8), “I am the Lord, that is My name,” which the first Adam gave me.⁶⁸Above, Lev. 3:11. “That is my name,” the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and My creatures. (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “[Wiser] than Ethan the Ezrahite.” This is Abraham, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 89:1), “A maskil (a psalm of erudition) of Ethan the Ezrahite.”⁶⁹It is assumed, of course that Abraham wrote the Psalm, an assumption based on a comparison of Ps. 89:1 and Is. 41:2: WHO HAS RAISED UP RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM THE EAST?. See BB 15a. The Ezrahite (‘ezrahi) of Ps. 89:1 is understood in the sense of “Easterner,” and Ethan (which means “steadfast”) is regarded as equivalent to “righteous.” For another argument identifying Ethan and Abraham, see PR 6:5. (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “And Heman (rt.: 'mn).” This is Moses, of whom it is stated (in Numb. 12:7 with reference to Moses), “he is trusted (rt.: 'mn) in all My house.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “Calcol (klkl).” This is Joseph, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 47:12), “And joseph sustained (rt.: klkl) [his father and his brothers].” The Egyptians said, “Has this slave come to rule over us for any reason but because of his wisdom?” What did they do to him? They brought seventy tablets⁷⁰Gk.: piyyakia; Lat.: pittacia. and wrote on them in seventy tongues. Then when they cast them before him. He read each and every one in its own tongue. And not only that, but he spoke in the holy tongue, which they did not have the ability to understand, as stated (in Ps. 81:6), “He made it a statute upon Joseph, when he went out over the land of Egypt. I hear a language I had not known.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “Darda (drd')].” This is the generation (dor) of the desert, which had knowledge (de'ah). (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “The children of Mahol,” i.e., the Children of Israel whom the Divine Presence forgave (rt.: mhl) for the deed of the calf. (I Kings 5:12:) “Moreover he composed three thousand proverbs.” R. Samuel bar Nahman said, “We have gone over all of the scriptures and have found that Solomon only uttered prophetically close to eight hundred verses.⁷¹See Cant. R. 1:1:11. Then what is meant by three thousand? [This number] teaches that each and every verse that he spoke contains two [or] three interpretations, just as it says (in Prov. 25:12), ‘Like an earring of gold, a necklace of fine gold, [so is a wise reprover to a listening ear].’”⁷²The midrash understands the WISE REPROVER TO BE Solomon himself, who is likened to both a golden earring and a golden necklace. But the rabbis say, “Every verse has three thousand proverbs, while each and every proverb has a thousand and five interpretations.” [(I Kings 5:12, cont.:) “And his song numbered a thousand and five.”] “Songs” is not written here, but “song,” the song of the proverb. (I Kings 5:13:) “And he spoke with/concerning ('al)⁷³The point of the midrash in this and in the following chapter concerns whether to understand ‘al as “with” or “concerning.” the trees.” Is it possible that a person would speak with the trees? Solomon merely said, “For what reason is a leper cleansed through the tallest among the trees (the cedar) and through the lowest of the low (the hyssop); through (according to Lev. 14:4) cedar wood, [crimson stuff,] and hyssop?’ It is simply because he had exalted himself like the cedar, that he was stricken with leprosy. As soon as he humbled himself like the hyssop, he was therefore cured through hyssop”. (I Kings 5:13, cont.:) “He also spoke with/concerning ('al) the cattle and the fowl.” Is it possible that [a person] would speak with cattle and with fowl? Rather [the passage is concerned with] why the cattle are permitted [as food] with [the cutting of] two organs⁷⁴Gk.: semeia (“signs,” “omens”). (the gullet and the windpipe); but the fowl, with [the cutting of] one organ (i.e., the gullet or the windpipe).⁷⁵See Hul. 2:1; Hul. 27b. Because cattle were created from the dry land, as stated (in Gen. 1:14), “Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after its kind, cattle, creeping things,” they are permitted with two organs. But in regard to fowl, because they were created from the mud, they were permitted with one organ. As one text says [they came] from the dry land, while another text says [they came] from the sea. [The text stating fowls came] from the dry land is what is written (in Gen. 2:19), “So from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens.” The other text says (in Gen. 1:20), “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and the fowl fly above the earth.”⁷⁶This unusual translation of Gen. 1:20 is required by the midrash. Bar Qappara said, “They were created from the mud which is in the sea.” R. Abbin said the name of R. Jose the Galilean said, “Nevertheless, the feet of the cock resemble the scaly skin⁷⁷Reading HSPNYT’ with the parallel in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Kings, 178, for Buber’s HRTsPYTYH. of the fish.”⁷⁸A fish of the genus anthias. (I Kings 5:13, cont.:) “And with/concerning ('al) the creeping things.” Is it possible that one would speak with a creeping thing? Solomon simply said, “What is the reason that in the case of the eight swarming creatures which are in the Torah, one is culpable for hunting or injuring them (on the Sabbath)⁷⁹Shab. 14:1.; but in the case of the rest of the swarming creatures, one is exempt?⁸⁰Shab. 14:1. For the reason that they (i.e. the former) have skins.”⁸¹Shab. 107ab, explains that in the case of skin, as distinct from the flesh, a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar. Thus part of the animal’s life is lost. See yShab. 14:1 (14b); also Hul. 9:2. Cf. Rashi on Shab. 14:1, according to whom cutting the skin causes blood to color it in a form of dying, an act forbidden on the Sabbath. (I Kings 5:13 cont.:) “And with/concerning ('al) the fish.” Is it possible that one would so speak? Solomon merely said, “For what reason do cattle, beasts, and birds require ritual slaughtering, while fish do not require ritual slaughtering?” Jacob the man of Kefar Gibburayya taught in Tyre with respect to fish, that they do require ritual slaughtering. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis did you decide this?” He said to him, “From here (in Gen. 1:20), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the fowl fly.’ Just as fowl require ritual slaughtering, so do the fish require ritual slaughtering.” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “On what basis?” He said to him, “From here (in Numb. 11:22), ‘Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them?’ The former require ritual slaughtering, while the latter [is taken] through gathering.” He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” And again did Jacob the man of Kefar Gibburayya teach in Tyre, [this time] with respect to an Israelite man, who came upon a foreign woman and had her bear him a son, that he should be circumcised on the Sabbath. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him, “[From this which is written] (in Numb. 1:18) ‘then they registered their lineages according to their families according to the house of their fathers.’” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “Where is it shown?” He said to him, “Lie down and listen.” He said to him, “If one of the gentiles came to you in order to become a proselyte on condition that you circumcise him on the Sabbath day or on the Day of Atonement, would you profane the Sabbath on account of him or not?” He said to him, “One does not profane the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement for him but only for the son of an Israelite woman.” He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him (in Ezra 10:3), “So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all (foreign) wives and (anyone] born of them […].” He said to him, “Would you lash me on the basis of [a non-Mosaic text]?” He said to him, “It is written (ibid.), ‘let it be done [according to] the Torah.’” He said to him, “From which [piece of] Torah?” He said to him, “From that of R. Johanan, when he said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, ‘It is written (in Deut. 7:3), “You shall not intermarry with them; do not give your daughters to their sons.” Why? (Deut. 7:4:) “Because they will turn your children away from following me.” Your child that comes from an Israelite woman is called "your child"; but that which comes from a foreign woman is called, not "your child," but "her child,” as stated (in Gen. 21:13), “And I will also make the son of the maidservant into a nation.”’" He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” Solomon said, “About all these things I have knowledge; but in the case of the parashah on the red heifer, I have investigated it, inquired into it, and examined it. Still (at the end of the verse in Eccl. 7:23), ‘I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.’” (Eccl. 8:1:) “Who is like the wise person, and who knows the explanation of a saying?” (Eccl. 8:1:) Who is like the wise person? This is the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated about Him (in Prov. 3:19), “Through wisdom the Lord founded the earth.”⁸²Numb. R. 19:4; Eccl. R. 8:1:1; PRK 4:4; PR 14:10. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “And who knows the explanation of a saying?” This [also] is the Holy One, blessed be He, who explained the Torah for Moses. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “A person's wisdom lights up his face.” R. Judan said, “Great is the power of the prophets, as they [are able to] compare the Almighty above to the form of a man, as stated (Daniel 8:16), ‘And I heard the voice of a man.’” And R. Judah bar Simon says [the proof] is from here (in Ezekiel 1:26), “and on the image of a chair was an image of a man.” (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “And the radiance ('oz) of his face is changed (for the better),” in that he changes the principle of judgment into a principle of mercy with respect to Israel. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Over each and every word that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to Moses, He spoke to him of its [related] uncleanness and of its purification.⁸³See Numb. R. 19:4. When he made known the Parashah (starting with Lev. 21:1), ‘Speak (Emor) unto the priests,’ [Moses] said to him, ‘Master of the world, if a priest becomes unclean (through touching a human corpse), what means is there for his purification?’ When [the Holy One, blessed be He,] did not answer, at that time the face of Moses turned yellow (with shame). Then when the Holy One, blessed be He, reached the parashah on the [red] heifer, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Moses, [when I gave you] that saying which I spoke to you (in Lev. 21:1), “Go, speak unto the priests,” then you said to me, “If one becomes unclean, what means will there be for his purification,” I did not answer [you at that time. Now] this is his purification (in Numb. 19:17), “They shall take some ashes from the burning of the sin offering (i.e., the red heifer).”‘”

"then his master shall bore his ear": Why is this stated? For we find everywhere that a man's messenger is equivalent to the man himself; but here, only he, (the master, can do the boring) and not his messenger. "his ear": His right ear is intended. You say, the right ear, but perhaps it is the left! __ It follows (that the right ear is meant.) It is written here "his ear," and elsewhere (Leviticus 14:25, in respect to a poor leper,) "his ear." Just as there, the right ear is specified, so, here, the right (is intended).

Remember that which the Lord, your God, did to Miriam: Halacha: A person who has a blemish and a priest was his relative, what is [the law as to whether it is] permitted for him to see (inspect) it? So did the sages learn: All [tzaraat] blemishes can a man see except for his own blemishes. Rabbi Meir said, “Also not the blemishes of his relatives.” And through what do blemishes come? Through an evil (stingy) eye. Rabbi Yitschak said, “It is customary in the world that a man should say to his fellow, ‘Lend me your pickaxe, that I should chop this wood.’ And he says [back] to him, ‘I don’t have [one],’ due to an evil eye. So does [the first one] say, ‘By your life, [so] lend me your sieve’; and he has one. And he says, ‘I don’t have [one],’ due to an evil eye. Immediately a blemish comes to his house first. From where [do we know this]? As it states (Leviticus 14:37), ‘And he will see the blemish, and behold the blemish is in the walls.’ And what would they do to him? They would clear out everything that he had inside his house. From where [do we know this]? As it states (Leviticus 14:36), ‘And the priest will command and they will clear out his house.’ When he would remove all of what he had inside his house – his pickaxes and his sieves – they would say, ‘Did you see the evil eye, since he had in his hand that which was in his house [and] he didn’t want to lend [it]. What caused him to clear [it] out? Through his having an evil eye.’” Another [understanding]: Rabbi Chaninah said, “Blemishes only come through evil speech. And our rabbis say, ‘You should know that blemishes come from evil speech; behold, Miriam the righteous – through her speaking evil speech about Moshe, her brother, did blemishes approach her. From where [do we know this]? As it states (Leviticus 14:37), "Remember that which the Lord, your God, did to Miriam."'"

Remember that which the Lord, your God, did to Miriam: Halacha: A person who has a blemish and a priest was his relative, what is [the law as to whether it is] permitted for him to see (inspect) it? So did the sages learn: All [tzaraat] blemishes can a man see except for his own blemishes. Rabbi Meir said, “Also not the blemishes of his relatives.” And through what do blemishes come? Through an evil (stingy) eye. Rabbi Yitschak said, “It is customary in the world that a man should say to his fellow, ‘Lend me your pickaxe, that I should chop this wood.’ And he says [back] to him, ‘I don’t have [one],’ due to an evil eye. So does [the first one] say, ‘By your life, [so] lend me your sieve’; and he has one. And he says, ‘I don’t have [one],’ due to an evil eye. Immediately a blemish comes to his house first. From where [do we know this]? As it states (Leviticus 14:37), ‘And he will see the blemish, and behold the blemish is in the walls.’ And what would they do to him? They would clear out everything that he had inside his house. From where [do we know this]? As it states (Leviticus 14:36), ‘And the priest will command and they will clear out his house.’ When he would remove all of what he had inside his house – his pickaxes and his sieves – they would say, ‘Did you see the evil eye, since he had in his hand that which was in his house [and] he didn’t want to lend [it]. What caused him to clear [it] out? Through his having an evil eye.’” Another [understanding]: Rabbi Chaninah said, “Blemishes only come through evil speech. And our rabbis say, ‘You should know that blemishes come from evil speech; behold, Miriam the righteous – through her speaking evil speech about Moshe, her brother, did blemishes approach her. From where [do we know this]? As it states (Leviticus 14:37), "Remember that which the Lord, your God, did to Miriam."'"

6) "before the L–rd, before the tent of meeting": He places them at the gate of Nikanor, their backs to the east, and their faces to the west.

6) (Vayikra 14:15) ("And the Cohein shall take from the log of oil, and he shall pour onto the Cohein's left palm.") "from the log of oil and he shall pour": If the log (vessel) lacks the necessary amount, (some of it having spilled): If before he poured it (on the Cohein's left palm), he may refill it; if after, he must bring another (log, the service) having begun. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: If the log lacks before he places it (i.e., before he sprinkles [viz. Vayikra 14 verse 16]), he may refill it, (the service not considered as having begun until he sprinkles); if after, he must bring another (log, the service) having begun.

6) "and a log": What is the intent of this? (i.e., We have already learned [in respect to the rich man] that a log is brought.) I might reason that he should bring a third of a log, viz.: Just as the rich man, who brings three esronim (of fine flour) brings one log (of oil), so, the poor man, who brings one issaron, should bring a third of a log; it is, therefore, written "and a log of oil."

6) I would exclude (from tenufah) bechor, Pesach, and tithe, which do not require semichah, but I would not exclude a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which do require semichah; it is, therefore, written "his peace-offerings" (to exclude the above). I would exclude a sin-offering, in whose class there is no tenufah, but I would not exclude a guilt-offering, in whose class there is tenufah (the guilt-offering of a leper, which requires the tenufah of a living animal (viz. Vayikra 14:25), so that other guilt-offerings are also not to be excluded from the tenufah of their fats). I might exclude all guilt-offerings, but I would not exclude the guilt-offering of a leper as requiring tenufah after shechitah. It is, therefore, written (a second time, Vayikra 14:25) "his peace-offerings," and not the guilt-offering of a leper.

7) But does this not follow a fortiori? (Why, then, is a verse required?) viz. If one who was healed, with no signs of tumah remaining with him — (If he) requires birds, then one who was healed, with signs of tumah (complete blossoming) remaining with him — how much more so should he require birds! — (No,) this is refuted by one who was quarantined for two weeks, who was healed, the signs of tumah (i.e., the original plague-spot for which he was quarantined) remaining with him (but merely not spreading), and his not requiring birds.

6) A variant: "your possession": Your possession is subject to plague-spot tumah, but the possession of idolators is not. And just as their possession is subject to plague-spot tumah, so, their garments.

6) (Vayikra 14:38) "Then the Cohein shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and he shall shut up the house for seven days": I might think that he could go to his house and shut it up; it is, therefore, written "to the door of the house and he shall shut it up." If "to the door of the house," I might think that he could stand under the lintel and shut it up; it is, therefore, written "out of the house." How so? He stands at the side of the lintel and shuts it up.

6) If in the end we will include a returning plague-spot (even if it does not spread), what is the intent of "And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread"? — Leave it (i.e., This is not the place of this verse. It does not refer to post-removal and scraping, but to spreading at the end of the second week, as in 7) below.) Or, once we have learned that if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house (even if it does not spread, it is tamei), then, if we see it returning on the same day (of the plastering), it should be declared tamei (and razed immediately)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return" - (Vayikra 13:43) "and if the plague-spot returns." Just as the "returning" there, is at the end of one week, so, (the returning) here, is at the end of one week.

6) "and they shall spill … which they have scraped off": I might think that pebbles (are included); it is, therefore, written "mortar." If "mortar," I might think that even what fell of itself (is included); it is, therefore, written "which they have scraped off." If both verses were not written, we would not know the halachah.

6) If in the end we will include a returning plague-spot (even if it does not spread), what is the intent of "And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread"? — Leave it (i.e., This is not the place of this verse. It does not refer to post-removal and scraping, but to spreading at the end of the second week, as in 7) below.) Or, once we have learned that if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house (even if it does not spread, it is tamei), then, if we see it returning on the same day (of the plastering), it should be declared tamei (and razed immediately)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return" - (Vayikra 13:43) "and if the plague-spot returns." Just as the "returning" there, is at the end of one week, so, (the returning) here, is at the end of one week.

6) This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive the same for lying down? From (Vayikra 14:46) "And he who lies in the house shall wash his clothes."

6) (Vayikra 14:6) ("The living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar-wood, and the scarlet wool, and the hyssop, and he shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird over the living water.") And whence is it derived that if the blood has been spilled, the bird for "sending" is to be allowed to die (and two new birds brought), or that if the bird for "sending" died, the blood is to be spilled out (and two new birds brought)? From "the living bird … and he shall dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird" (whence it is derived that the two birds are mutually indispensable). "he shall take it": We are hereby taught that he separates it by itself. "and the cedar-wood and the scarlet-wool, and the hyssop": (they, too, [bound] by themselves). "and he shall dip": What is the intent of this? (i.e., why add "them and the living bird" instead of simply stating "and he shall dip in the blood of the slaughtered bird," and I would know that it refers to all of the aforementioned?) For I might think that since it (the living bird) was not together with them for binding, it should not be together with them for dipping; it must, therefore, be written "and he shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird." The (living) bird was "returned" for dipping.

6) (Vayikra 14:8) ("And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and he shall shave all of his hair, and he shall bathe in water, and he shall be clean; and then he shall come into the camp. And he shall sit outside his tent for seven days.") "And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes": R. Shimon said: What does this come to teach us? If to confer tumah upon garments by contact, does this not follow a fortiori? viz.: If in the days of his counting (seven days, after having brought the birds), when he does not confer tumah by entry (into a house), he does confer tumah upon garments by contact (viz. Vayikra 14:9 "And he shall wash his clothes"), then in the days of his confirmation (of absolute leprosy, i.e., our instance), when he does confer tumah by entry, how much more so should he confer tumah upon garments by contact! If so, why is it written "And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes"? (He must wash them) from mishkav (couch) and moshav (seat) tumah, (their having become tamei by being under him, even though he did not touch them.) For there are two types of garment washing: one, for mishkav and moshav tumah (our instance); the other, for conferring tumah upon garments by contact (that in verse 14:9).

6) (Vayikra 14:8) ("And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and he shall shave all of his hair, and he shall bathe in water, and he shall be clean; and then he shall come into the camp. And he shall sit outside his tent for seven days.") "And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes": R. Shimon said: What does this come to teach us? If to confer tumah upon garments by contact, does this not follow a fortiori? viz.: If in the days of his counting (seven days, after having brought the birds), when he does not confer tumah by entry (into a house), he does confer tumah upon garments by contact (viz. Vayikra 14:9 "And he shall wash his clothes"), then in the days of his confirmation (of absolute leprosy, i.e., our instance), when he does confer tumah by entry, how much more so should he confer tumah upon garments by contact! If so, why is it written "And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes"? (He must wash them) from mishkav (couch) and moshav (seat) tumah, (their having become tamei by being under him, even though he did not touch them.) For there are two types of garment washing: one, for mishkav and moshav tumah (our instance); the other, for conferring tumah upon garments by contact (that in verse 14:9).

6) Three shave, and their shaving is a mitzvah: the Nazirite, the leper, and the Levites (viz. Bamidbar 8:7). And all of them, if they shaved without a blade, or if they left two hairs, they have done nothing.

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] And thus you find with the primeval serpent, because he spoke slander < to Eve > against his creator, for that reason he became leprous.²¹Cf. Gen. R. 19:4. What did he say? R. Joshua ben Levi said (citing Gen. 3:5): FOR GOD KNOWS THAT ON THE DAY THAT YOU EAT FROM IT, < YOUR EYES SHALL BE OPENED > [….] He said to her: Every artisan hates his fellow < artisan >.²²The saying is proverbial. See Gen. R. 32:2; M. Pss. 11:6. Now when < the Holy One > wanted to create his world, he ate from this tree. So he created his world. You < two > also eat from it. Then you will be able to create like him. The Holy One said to < the serpent >: You have spoken slander. Your end is to be stricken with leprosy. It is so stated (in Gen. 3:14): SO THE LORD GOD SAID UNTO THE SERPENT: < BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS, MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD…. > With what did he curse him? With leprosy. Now a curse ('arirah) can only be leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:52): FOR IT IS A MALIGNANT (mam'eret) LEPROSY.²³The argument assumes that ‘arirah and mam’eret share the same root. So also Exod. R. 3:13. R. Huna of Sha'av said [in the name of] R. Joshua ben Levi: The scales {i.e., the colors} which are on the snake are his leprosy.²⁴Gen. R. 20:4. And not only that, but when all the deformed are cured in the world to come, the snake shall not be cured.²⁵Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 11:9; Tanh., Gen. 11:8; Gen. R. 95:1. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:14): MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, < THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD >. What is the meaning of THAN ALL? That they all shall be healed, but < the serpent > shall not be healed. The children of Adam shall be healed, as stated (in Is. 35:5–6): {THEN THE LAME SHALL LEAP LIKE A HART…. } THEN THE EYES OF THE BLIND SHALL BE OPENED…. [THEN THE LAME SHALL LEAP LIKE A HART…. ] It is also written about the wild beasts and the cattle (in Is. 65:25): THE WOLF AND THE LAMB SHALL FEED TOGETHER, < AND THE LION LIKE THE OX SHALL EAT STRAW >; but the snake shall not have healing, since it is stated (ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SERPENT'S FOOD SHALL BE DUST. R. Helbo said: Even though he may eat all the delicacies in the world, to him they only taste like dust. Moreover, it shall also be like this in the world to come. (Is. 65:25): BUT THE SERPENT'S FOOD SHALL BE DUST, for he shall have no healing, because he < was the one who > brought mortals down to the dust. And what caused him to have < this punishment >? < It happened > because he had spoken slander. Ergo (in Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. In this book there are a lot of laws. {(Lev. 7:1:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING.} (Lev. 6:2 [9]:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING. [(Lev. 7:1:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING.] (Lev. 7:11:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS. And here also (in Lev. 14:2) I have established the law of the leper: THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER….

(Lev. 25:25:) WHEN YOUR RELATIVE BECOMES POOR…. This text is related (to Ps. 106:43): MANY TIMES HE DELIVERED THEM…; [SO THEY BECAME POOR THROUGH THEIR INIQUITY]. You find that in the days of the judges Israel served idols; so they were enslaved in the hands of the peoples of the world, as stated (in Jud. 3:7–8): THEN THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD…. < SO THE ANGER OF THE LORD WAS KINDLED AGAINST ISRAEL, AND HE DELIVERED THEM INTO THE HANDS OF KING CUSH-RISHATHAIM OF ARAM-NAHARAIM…. > What did they do (according to vs. 9)? THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL CRIED UNTO THE LORD, AND THE LORD RAISED UP A SAVIOR FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [TO SAVE THEM, I.E.,] OTHNIEL BENKENAZ. They immediately repented and were redeemed. So < it happened > another time, [as stated] (in Jud. 3:12): THEN THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AGAIN DID EVIL < … >; SO THE LORD STRENGTHENED EGLON…. [They immediately repented;] so the Lord raised up a redeemer for them {when they repented}, Ehud [ben Gera; and they were redeemed at his hands]. Then they served idols again and were sold into the hands of Sisera, as stated (in Jud. 4:3): AND HE OPPRESSED THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WITH MIGHT. What is the meaning of WITH MIGHT? R. Simeon ben Levi said: With blasphemies and with curses,²¹See above, 2:4, and the note there. just as you say (in Mal. 3:13): YOUR WORDS HAVE BEEN MIGHTY AGAINST ME. When they repented, he raised up Barak and Deborah as redeemers for them; [and they were redeemed at their hands]. Ergo (in Ps. 106:43): MANY TIMES HE DELIVERED THEM…; SO THEY BECAME POOR THROUGH THEIR INIQUITY. What is the meaning of SO THEY BECAME POOR THROUGH THEIR INIQUITY? That they became impoverished in the midst of the nations, as stated (in Jud. 6:6): AND ISRAEL BECAME VERY IMPOVERISHED…. What is the meaning of AND < … > BECAME < … > IMPOVERISHED? R. Isaac and R. Levi differed. One said that they were impoverished (rt.: DLL) from good works, and the other said that they did not have < enough > to bring even a poor person's (rt.: DLL) offering, as stated (in Lev. 14:21): IF, HOWEVER, HE IS POOR (rt.: DLL) [AND DOES NOT HAVE THE MEANS…. ] Ergo (in Ps. 106:43): SO THEY BECAME POOR, because they had become impoverished (rt.: DLL).

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 14:10) ("And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of its first year, without blemish, and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil, and one log of oil.") On the seventh day he shaves and on the eighth day he brings (his offerings). And if he shaved on the eighth day, he brings his offerings on the ninth day. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Tarfon queried him: Why is this different from the instance of a Nazirite (who became tamei, about whom you said that if he shaves on the eighth day, he brings his offerings on the same day)? He answered: The cleansing of the Nazirite is dependent on (the passage of) days (and not on shaving), and the cleansing of the leper is dependent on his shaving, and he cannot bring his offerings until the sun has set (on the day of his shaving).

7) (Vayikra 14:11): "And the Cohein shall take the one he-lamb, and he shall bring it near as a guilt-offering, and the log of oil, and he shall wave them as a waving before the L–rd.": We are hereby taught that they (the guilt-offering and the log of oil) require waving as one. Whence is it derived that if he waved each individually it is valid? From "it as a guilt-offering … and he shall wave." I might think that he should (first) wave (both) and then wave (each individually); it is, therefore, written "a waving" — a "waving," and not "wavings." "before the L–rd": in the east, (the Shechinah being in the west).

7) "and he shall pour onto the Cohein's left palm": It is a mitzvah (for one Cohein) to pour into another Cohein's palm; but if he pours into his own palm, it is valid." (Vayikra 14:16) ("And the Cohein shall dip his right finger from the oil on his left palm, and he shall sprinkle from the oil with his finger seven times before the L–rd.") "And he shall dip": and not wipe (the palm).

7) "and he shall pour onto the Cohein's left palm": It is a mitzvah (for one Cohein) to pour into another Cohein's palm; but if he pours into his own palm, it is valid." (Vayikra 14:16) ("And the Cohein shall dip his right finger from the oil on his left palm, and he shall sprinkle from the oil with his finger seven times before the L–rd.") "And he shall dip": and not wipe (the palm).

7) "the slaughtered bird" (hashchutah"): slaughtered through shechitah, and not through melikah ("pinching"). (What is the intent of this [of the apparently superfluous word "shechutah"])? I might think (without "hashchutah") that it follows that since the leper's amendment within (the sanctuary [viz. Vayikra 14:22]) is through birds, and his amendment outside (the sanctuary, i.e., our instance) is through birds — Just as his amendment within is through melikah, so his amendment outside is through melikah; it must, therefore be written "hashchutah," and not hamelukah." "the (blood of) the slaughtered bird over the living water (in the vessel)": not "the earthen vessel over the living water."

7) (Vayikra 14:22) ("And two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; and one shall be a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering.") "And two turtle-doves or two young pigeons": He brings two and not four.

8) Do not wonder, then, about one in whom it blossomed entirely, that even if he were healed and signs of tumah remained with him, he did not require birds. It must, therefore, be written "the leper," to include one in whom it has blossomed entirely as requiring birds.

7) (Vayikra 14:35) ("Then he whose house it is shall come, and he shall tell the Cohein, saying: As a plague-spot there has appeared to me in the house.") "whose house it is": He shall not send a messenger. I might think, even if he were old or sick; it is, therefore, written he shall come" (connoting one who can come on his own power). "and he shall tell the Cohein": The Cohein shall make a close inquiry as to how the plague-spot came to his house. "saying": The Cohein shall tell him of recondite matters: "My son, plague-spots come only because of slander, as it is written (Devarim 24:8) "Be heedful of the plague-spot of leprosy to take great care and to do … (Devarim 24:9) "Remember what the L–rd your G d did to Miriam …" What does one have to do with the other? We are hereby taught that she was punished (with leprosy) only because of the other.

7) And whence is it derived that if he (the Cohein) went to his house and shut it up or stood in his house and shut it up, that the shutting up is valid? From "and he shall shut up the house" — in any event.

7) (Vayikra 14:42) ("And they shall take other stones, and they shall bring [them] in place of the stones; and he shall take other mortar and he shall plaster the house.") From here they ruled that no fewer than two stones are taken and no fewer than two stones are brought. And he does not bring one in place of two or two in place of one. But he may bring two in place of two, three, or four, and four in place of three or two.

7) And whence is it derived that if it remained as it was at the end of the first week and it spread in the second week, he removes and scrapes and plasters, and he is given another week? From (Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread." Of what is this speaking? If of spreading in the first week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking, then, of his having come at the end of the first week and finding it to have remained the same, and coming at the end of the second week and finding it to have spread. What should be done? I derive it inductively from the spreading of the first week, i.e., he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. The same obtains with the spreading of the second week. — Now if we were lenient with spreading in the first week, it is because we were lenient with its remaining the same. Shall we then be lenient with spreading in the second week, where we are stringent with its remaining the same? It is, therefore, written (re the end of the first week, Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return," and (re the end of the second week, Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come." Returning and coming are one and the same. Just as with "returning," he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week, so, with "coming."

7) And whence is it derived that if it remained as it was at the end of the first week and it spread in the second week, he removes and scrapes and plasters, and he is given another week? From (Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread." Of what is this speaking? If of spreading in the first week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking, then, of his having come at the end of the first week and finding it to have remained the same, and coming at the end of the second week and finding it to have spread. What should be done? I derive it inductively from the spreading of the first week, i.e., he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. The same obtains with the spreading of the second week. — Now if we were lenient with spreading in the first week, it is because we were lenient with its remaining the same. Shall we then be lenient with spreading in the second week, where we are stringent with its remaining the same? It is, therefore, written (re the end of the first week, Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return," and (re the end of the second week, Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come." Returning and coming are one and the same. Just as with "returning," he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week, so, with "coming."

7) This tells me only of eating or lying down. Whence do I derive the same for not eating and not lying down, (but simply standing there)? From (the redundancy of) "he shall wash" - "he shall wash."

7) "the slaughtered bird" (hashchutah"): slaughtered through shechitah, and not through melikah ("pinching"). (What is the intent of this [of the apparently superfluous word "shechutah"])? I might think (without "hashchutah") that it follows that since the leper's amendment within (the sanctuary [viz. Vayikra 14:22]) is through birds, and his amendment outside (the sanctuary, i.e., our instance) is through birds — Just as his amendment within is through melikah, so his amendment outside is through melikah; it must, therefore be written "hashchutah," and not hamelukah." "the (blood of) the slaughtered bird over the living water (in the vessel)": not "the earthen vessel over the living water."

7) "and he shall shave all of his hair": I might think even his (normally) covered hair. And this would follow (by the following line of reasoning:) Shaving is mentioned in respect to his days of counting (Vayikra 14 verse 9), and shaving is mentioned in respect to his days of confirmation (Vayikra 14 verse 8). Just as the former excludes covered hair, so the latter excludes covered hair.

(Lev. 14:2:) [THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER:] IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING. With what?²⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:3; Lev. R. 16:7. With (according to vs. 4) TWO LIVE CLEAN BIRDS. How is his offering different from all < other > offerings? It is simply that he has spoken slander; therefore, the text says, BIRDS, because they (like slanderers) carry their utterance, as stated (in Eccl. 10:20): FOR A BIRD OF HEAVEN MAY CARRY THE UTTERANCE.

What is written above concerning the matter (in Gen. 12:1): NOW THE LORD SAID UNTO ABRAHAM: GO < FROM YOUR NATIVE LAND > … UNTO THE LAND THAT I WILL SHOW YOU. "Unto such and such a land" is not written here, but UNTO THE LAND THAT I WILL SHOW YOU. So Abraham was on the move until he came to the land of Israel. May the name of the Holy One be blessed!³¹Tanh., Gen. 3:5. He desired to test the righteous one and to make his good works known. For his sake there immediately came a famine. When he encountered the famine, he said to his wife, Sarah: See, there is a famine here. Our masters have said: There was never a famine in the world more severe than < that > one. Abraham said to Sarah: Consider Egypt. It would be nice to settle there inasmuch as famine has come. The supply is available there, and meat is plentiful. Let us go there. At that time they went down to Egypt. When they arrived at the gate³²Gk.: pule. of Egypt, Abraham said to Sarah: My girl³³Literally: “daughter.” For a similar use of “daughter,” see Ruth 8:2, Ps. 45:11 [10]. Egypt is a place of whoredom, as stated (in Ezek. 23:19-20): … < SHE WAS A WHORE IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, AND SHE LUSTED OVER THEIR PARAMOURS > WHOSE FLESH IS LIKE THE FLESH OF ASSES. Let us, however, put you in a box and lock you in it. Then he did so. When they arrived at the gate of Egypt, the customs officers said to him: What are you carrying in the box? He said to them: Beans. They said to him: No, it is pepper. Give us the duty for pepper. He said to them: I shall hand it over. They said to him: It is not that. Rather this box is full of gold coins. He said to them: I shall hand you over the duty for gold coins. When they saw that he was accepting whatever they would say about it, they said: Unless he had something of value in his possession, we < could > not be raising the price for him. At that moment they said to him: You are not moving from here until you open the box. Then he said to them: It is up to me to give you whatever you want, but you are not to open the box. Nevertheless, they insisted on opening the box against his will and saw Sarah. When they saw her, they said: In the case of one like this, it is not seemly to touch her. Immediately they took < her > and brought her to Pharaoh. So they brought her into his palace³⁴Lat.: palatium. When Abraham saw that they had taken her and brought her unto Pharaoh, Abraham began to cry. < Sarah > also said: Sovereign of the World, Abraham came with you under a promise,³⁵Gen. R. 42:2. since you had said to him (in Gen 12:3): I WILL BLESS THOSE WHO BLESS YOU. Now I did not know anything except that, when he told me that you had said to him (in Gen. 12:1): GO, I believed your words. But now, < when > I have been left isolated from my father, my mother, and my husband, this wicked man has come to mistreat me. He (Abraham) had acted because of your great name and because of our trust in your words. The Holy One said to her: By your life, nothing evil shall harm you, as stated (in Prov. 12:21): NO HARM SHALL BEFALL THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT THE WICKED ARE FULL OF EVIL. So in regard to Pharaoh and his house, I will make an example³⁶Gk.: dogma or deigma. of them. Thus it is written (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH AND HIS HOUSE WITH GREAT PLAGUES AT THE WORD OF SARAI.³⁷Cf. yKet. 7:11 (31d). In that very hour an angel came down from the heavens with a rod in his hand. < When > Pharaoh came to take off her shoe, he smote him with his hand. < When > he came to touch her clothes, he would smite him. And the angel would consult with Sarah on each and every blow. If she said that he should be afflicted, he was afflicted. When she would say: Wait for him until he recovers himself, the angel would wait for him, as stated (in Gen. 12:17): AT THE WORD OF SARAI. What is the meaning of AT THE WORD OF SARAI? That < here > is not stated "On the matter of," nor "over the cause of," nor "for the sake of," nor "in consequence of," but AT THE WORD OF SARAI.³⁸Like the other alternatives, AT THE WORD OF would generally be understood idiomatically in the sense of “on account of,” but the midrash argues for the expression to be taken literally. Thus, if she said that he should be afflicted, he was afflicted; and, if not, he was not afflicted. R. Judah b. R. Shallum the Levite said: The Holy One did not allow a wicked man to occupy himself with a righteous woman. Our masters have said: < When > he came to take off her shoe, leprosy immediately came over him,³⁹Cf. Lev. R. 16:1. and his governors⁴⁰Gk.: eparchoi. were also afflicted with him—also the princes, also the servants, and also his family. And the walls also were afflicted along with him,⁴¹On walls having leprosy, see Lev. 14:34-53. as stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH AND HIS HOUSE. Why? (Ibid., cont.:) AT THE WORD OF SARAI, ABRAM'S WIFE….

(Numb. 16:1, cont.:) ALONG WITH DATHAN AND ABIRAM. From here they derived the saying: Woe to the wicked one, <and> woe to his neighbor.¹⁹Tanh., Numb.5:4, cont.; Numb.R. 18:5, cont.; see Neg. 12:6; Sifra to Lev.14:40 (157: Metsora‘, pereq 4); ARN, A, 9; cf. ARN, B, 16; Numb.R. 3:12; Suk. 56b; above, Numb.1:13. <What is> good for a righteous person is good for his neighbor. Because Dathan and Abiram were neighbors of Korah, who was dwelling to the south (of the Tabernacle), as stated (in Numb. 3:29): THE FAMILIES OF THE CHILDREN OF KOHATH WERE TO CAMP < ALONG THE SIDE OF THE TABERNACLE TO THE SOUTH>. The standard of Reuben was near them, [as stated] (in Numb. 2:10): THE STANDARD OF THE CAMP OF REUBEN SHALL BE TO THE SOUTH. However, the standard of Judah was in the east, and with him were Issachar and Zebulun, [as stated] (in Numb. 2:3): NOW THESE CAMPING IN FRONT TO THE EAST SHALL BE <THOSE UNDER> THE STANDARD OF THE CAMP OF JUDAH. And near them were Moses, Aaron, and his children, [as stated (in Numb. 3:38): THOSE WHO CAMPED BEFORE THE TABERNACLE, IN FRONT BEFORE THE TENT OF MEETING TO THE EAST, WERE MOSES, AARON, AND HIS CHILDREN.] Because these were near the Torah, they were therefore worthy to be Torah scholars, as written (in Ps. 60:9 [7]): JUDAH IS MY LAWGIVER.²⁰Mehoqeq. Most translations render the word as scepter, since kingship was what Judah actually attained. [It is also written] (in I Chron. 12:33 [32]): AND FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISSACHAR, THOSE WHO HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE TIMES. [And it is written] (in Jud. 5:14): AND FROM ZEBULON THOSE WHO WIELD THE SCRIBAL PEN. But because Dathan and Abiram were neighbors to Korah, a master of dissension, they received <their due> and perished from the world.

"The LORD is our Master, how mighty is Your Name in all the earth." Rav said: "We find three places where the angels prosecuted God; the creation of man, the tabernacle, and the giving of the Torah." Where do we find [this phenomenon] regarding man? When God wished to create man he consulted the angels as it says (Genesis 1:26) "Let Us make man." They began to say "What is man that you recall him?!" [God] replied " Tomorrow you'll see how smart he is." When He created man what did God do? He brought all animals before the angels and asked them the names of all the animals and they did not know. God said to them "Do you want to know the wisdom of Man? I will ask him and he will tell me what all their names." What did God do? He brought all the animals and birds before Adam as it says (ibid. 2:19) "And the LORD formed from the earth." Rabbi Acha said, Did it not already say (ibid. 1:25) "And God made the beasts of the land?" What does the word "and He formed" come to teach us? Rather there it says "and He made" i.e. created them and here it says יצר from the root that connotes convergence as in (Deuteronomy 20:19) "when you besiege a city. (Genesis 2:19) "And He came to Adam to see what to call them" Isn't God omniscient? Rather "to see" means "to show the angels Adam's wisdom [by showing what Adam would call them]," and Adam independently came up with the same name as God for each and every animal. Then God asked him, "And you, what is your name?" He replied, "it is appropriate to call me Adam because I was created from the earth (Adamah)." God asked, "And what's My name?" Adam replied "It is appropriate to call you the LORD because you are the Lord of the entire world." That is why He says (Isaiah 42:8) "I am the LORD, this is My name."

(Lev. 14:4, cont.:) CEDAR WOOD. In the case of the cedar, no tree is taller (gevoha) than that one; so because < the leper > has exalted (gevoha) himself like a cedar, < he has had > the leprosy come upon him.²⁷PRK 4:3. Thus Simeon ben Eleazar has said: Leprosy comes on account of haughtiness, for so you find in the case of Uzziah (in II Chron. 26:16, 19): BUT WHEN HE WAS STRONG, HE GREW SO ARROGANT THAT HE {ACTUALLY} ACTED CORRUPTLY AGAINST THE LORD [HIS GOD] < …. > BUT DURING HIS ANGER WITH THE PRIESTS, LEPROSY APPEARED ON HIS FOREHEAD. (Lev. 14:4, cont.:) AND WITH HYSSOP. Among the trees there is none [as short] as the hyssop. Because < the leper > has humbled himself, < leprosy > is therefore cured through the hyssop.

(Lev. 14:5:) < THEN THE PRIEST SHALL GIVE A COMMAND > TO KILL ONE BIRD. Why kill one and release one? It is simply that, if he has repented, you (sic) should not see < the leprosy > again; but if you do not repent (hozer), the leprosy shall return (hozer) upon you, just as the live bird can return. Therefore (in vs. 7): AND HE SHALL SEND THE < LIVE > BIRD OUT < OVER THE OPEN COUNTRY >.²⁸Cf. Lev. 16:9.

(Lev. 14:2:) < THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING: > HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO THE PRIEST. What is the meaning of HE SHALL BE BROUGHT (rt.: BW'). He comes (rt.: BW'). Why? Because everything is far off from him, for so David says (in Ps. 38:12 [11]): MY FRIENDS AND COMPANIONS {ARE FAR FROM ME. THEY} STAND ALOOF FROM MY AFFLICTION, AND MY KINFOLK STAND FAR OFF. So also it says (in Lev. 13:46): HE SHALL DWELL ALONE; HIS DWELLING SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE CAMP. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 14:2): HE SHALL BE BROUGHT (rt.: BW').

8) "he shall take two he-lambs": The minimum of "he-lambs" is two. Why, then, is "two" written? That they both be alike. Whence is it derived that even if they are not alike they are kasher? From (the repetition) "he-lamb" - "he-lamb."

8) (Vayikra 14:13) ("And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he slaughtered the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the holy place. For as the sin-offering is the guilt-offering, for the Cohein. It is holy of holies.") What is the intent of "And he shall slaughter … burnt-offering"? (i.e., We already know that the place of the guilt-offering is in the north.) — Because it was excluded for standing (viz. Vayikra 14 verse 12), I might think that the slaughtering is in the place of its standing; it is, therefore, written "in the place where he slaughters the sin-offering and the burnt-offering."

8) "And he shall dip … and he shall sprinkle": For every sprinkling a (separate) dipping. It is written here "his finger," and elsewhere (Vayikra 4:6), "his finger." Just as "finger" here indicates the most adroit ("meyumeneth") finger on his right hand, (this being the thrust of ("finger hayemanith"), so "his finger" there indicates the most adroit finger on his right hand (i.e., the index finger).

8) (Vayikra 4:6): "And the Cohein shall dip his finger into the blood.": He shall dip and not wipe, (against the wall of the vessel. It must contain enough blood for him to "dip" his finger into it.) "And he shall dip … and he shall sprinkle (seven times"): for every sprinkling, a dipping (and not one dipping for all the sprinklings.) "his finger": "his finger" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:16, in respect to a leper). Just as "his finger" there is the most dexterous (i.e., the index finger) of the right hand, so, "his finger" here.

8) (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow (that he should bring only two, viz.: He (a leper) brings what he can afford, and a woman after childbirth brings what she can afford. Just as she brings one (bird) for one (beast), so he brings one for one.

8) Now does it not follow a fortiori: If this is what happened to Miriam who spoke thus of Moses out of his presence, then one who speaks demeaningly of his neighbor to his face, how much more so!"

8) (Vayikra 14:39) ("And the Cohein shall return on the seventh day and he shall see: If the plague-spot is spread on the walls of the house,") "on the seventh": I might think in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written "on the day," and not at night.

9) (Vayikra 14:4) ("And the Cohein shall command, and he shall take for the one to be cleansed two clean, living birds, and cedar-wood, and scarlet and hyssop.") "And the Cohein shall command, and he shall take": the commanding by a Cohein; the taking, by anyone.

8) "and they shall take … stones": I might think he could take stones from one side and bring them to the other side; it is, therefore, written "other (stones"). If (only) "other" (were written), I might think even roof-tiles or bricks; it is, therefore, written "stones." If both verses were not written, we would not know the halachah.

8) Whence is it derived that if it remained the same in this (the first week) and in this (the second week), he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week? From its being written (instead of) "and if the Cohein comes," (Vayikra 13:44), "and if the Cohein come, shall come" — two comings. Of what is this speaking? If of its having spread in the first week, this has already been stated. If of its having spread in the second week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking of his having come at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week, (Vayikra 13:44) "and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread," i.e., it remains the same. What should be done? Can I think that he (simply) leaves and walks away? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:44) "for the plague-spot has been healed." I have cleansed only what has been healed (through an additional removal, scraping, etc. [See Rashi in Chumash]).

8) If in the end, everything is included, why specify "he who eats" and "he who lies"? To establish the (minimum) time for lying as corresponding to that of eating. And what is that of eating? As long as it takes to eat a p'ras of a loaf of wheat, (which is eaten quickly), and not (as long as it takes to eat a p'ras of) a loaf of barley, and when one reclines and eats it with relish, (in which instance he eats more quickly).

8) Whence is it derived that if it remained the same in this (the first week) and in this (the second week), he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week? From its being written (instead of) "and if the Cohein comes," (Vayikra 13:44), "and if the Cohein come, shall come" — two comings. Of what is this speaking? If of its having spread in the first week, this has already been stated. If of its having spread in the second week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking of his having come at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week, (Vayikra 13:44) "and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread," i.e., it remains the same. What should be done? Can I think that he (simply) leaves and walks away? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:44) "for the plague-spot has been healed." I have cleansed only what has been healed (through an additional removal, scraping, etc. [See Rashi in Chumash]).

8) — Now if we are lenient in respect to the days of his counting, when he does not confer tumah by mishkav or moshav or by entry, should we be lenient in respect to the days of his confirmation, when he does confer tumah by mishkav and moshav and by entry! Since he confers tumah by these, he should also be required to shave what is (normally) covered! It is, therefore, written "all of his hair" (Vayikra 14 verse 8) - "all of his hair" (Vayikra 14 verse 9) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as "all of his hair" in respect to the days of his counting excludes covered hair, so "all of his hair" in respect to the days of his confirmation excludes covered hair.

(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. < The verse > speaks about Israel, when they were in Jerusalem and when Jeremiah said: Repent; but they did not repent. So what did the Holy One do? He afflicted them with leprosy, as stated (in Is. 3:17): THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION. SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:2): < WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH > A SWELLING OR A SORE (SPH)…. ²⁹PRK 17:6.

(Lev. 14:3:) AND THE PRIEST SHALL LOOK. This < priest > is Jeremiah, of whom it is stated (in Jer. 1:1): ONE OF THE PRIESTS THAT WERE IN ANATHOTH…. (Lev. 14:3, cont.:) AND BEHOLD, THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS HEALED IN THE LEPER, when he had exiled them to Babylon. After they had gone into exile, Nebuchadnezzar said to them that they should bow down to the image, as stated (in Dan. 3:6): AND WHOEVER DOES NOT FALL DOWN AND PAY HOMAGE < SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE THROWN INTO A BURNING FIERY FURNACE >. They said to him (in vs. 18): WE WILL NOT SERVE YOUR GODS < NOR PAY HOMAGE TO THE IMAGE OF GOLD WHICH YOU HAVE SET UP >. What did he do? AND (according to Numb. 19:6) THE PRIEST SHALL TAKE CEDAR WOOD, CRIMSON STUFF, AND HYSSOP,³⁰This part of the verse is similar to Lev. 14:6, and follows the order of Lev. 14:6 in listing what the priest takes. In the Masoretic Text of Numb. 19:6 the order is CEDAR WOOD, HYSSOP, AND CRIMSON STUFF. i.e., Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, AND CAST THEM INTO THE MIDST OF THE BURNING HEIFER; for < Nebuchadnezzar > did cast them into the fire, as stated (in Dan. 3:21): AND THEY WERE CAST INTO THE BURNING FIERY FURNACE. The Holy One said to them: In this world on account of sins you have been afflicted, been purified, repented, and have < again > been afflicted. In the world to come I am the one who will cleanse you from on high. It is so stated (in Ezek. 36:25): I WILL SPRINKLE PURE WATER UPON YOU, AND YOU SHALL BE PURE; I WILL PURIFY YOU FROM ALL YOUR UNCLEANNESSES AND FROM ALL YOUR IDOLS.³¹Although priestly cleansings may not be effective, in the world to come the Holy One will personally render effective purification. See Lev. R. 15:9; PR 14:15.

(Lev. 14:3:) AND THE PRIEST SHALL LOOK. This < priest > is Jeremiah, of whom it is stated (in Jer. 1:1): ONE OF THE PRIESTS THAT WERE IN ANATHOTH…. (Lev. 14:3, cont.:) AND BEHOLD, THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS HEALED IN THE LEPER, when he had exiled them to Babylon. After they had gone into exile, Nebuchadnezzar said to them that they should bow down to the image, as stated (in Dan. 3:6): AND WHOEVER DOES NOT FALL DOWN AND PAY HOMAGE < SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE THROWN INTO A BURNING FIERY FURNACE >. They said to him (in vs. 18): WE WILL NOT SERVE YOUR GODS < NOR PAY HOMAGE TO THE IMAGE OF GOLD WHICH YOU HAVE SET UP >. What did he do? AND (according to Numb. 19:6) THE PRIEST SHALL TAKE CEDAR WOOD, CRIMSON STUFF, AND HYSSOP,³⁰This part of the verse is similar to Lev. 14:6, and follows the order of Lev. 14:6 in listing what the priest takes. In the Masoretic Text of Numb. 19:6 the order is CEDAR WOOD, HYSSOP, AND CRIMSON STUFF. i.e., Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, AND CAST THEM INTO THE MIDST OF THE BURNING HEIFER; for < Nebuchadnezzar > did cast them into the fire, as stated (in Dan. 3:21): AND THEY WERE CAST INTO THE BURNING FIERY FURNACE. The Holy One said to them: In this world on account of sins you have been afflicted, been purified, repented, and have < again > been afflicted. In the world to come I am the one who will cleanse you from on high. It is so stated (in Ezek. 36:25): I WILL SPRINKLE PURE WATER UPON YOU, AND YOU SHALL BE PURE; I WILL PURIFY YOU FROM ALL YOUR UNCLEANNESSES AND FROM ALL YOUR IDOLS.³¹Although priestly cleansings may not be effective, in the world to come the Holy One will personally render effective purification. See Lev. R. 15:9; PR 14:15.

9) "and one ewe-lamb of its first year": It must be distinctive. "of its first year": not a one-year-old lamb. "and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil": for the beasts (for the libations of the three lambs). I might think that (the fine flour is intended as a separate) meal-offering (for a leper), but (Vayikra 14:20) "And the Cohein shall offer upon the altar the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, (likening the meal-offering to the burnt-offering as being completely burnt) indicates that the meal-offering (in question) is that for the beasts.

9) I might then think (that he must slaughter the guilt-offering) on the same (slaughtering) ring (on which he slaughtered) the sin-offering and the burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written "in the holy place," to validate the entire (north) side (of the altar).

9) "and he shall sprinkle from the oil with his finger seven times before the L–rd": We are hereby apprised that he dips and sprinkles seven times in the direction of the holy of holies.

9) "and one ewe-lamb of its first year": It must be distinctive. "of its first year": not a one-year-old lamb. "and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil": for the beasts (for the libations of the three lambs). I might think that (the fine flour is intended as a separate) meal-offering (for a leper), but (Vayikra 14:20) "And the Cohein shall offer upon the altar the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, (likening the meal-offering to the burnt-offering as being completely burnt) indicates that the meal-offering (in question) is that for the beasts.

9) Or, go in this direction: He brings what he can afford and one who defiles the sanctuary brings what he can afford. Just as the latter brings two for one, (two turtle-doves, a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, for the ewe-lamb sin-offering that he brings if he is rich), he (the leper), too, should bring two for one.

9) R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Plague-spots come also because of pride. For thus do we find with Uzziyahu (king of Judah), viz. (II Chronicles 26:16) "But when he grew strong, his heart grew proud to (the point of) corruption. And he rebelled against the L–rd his G d, and he came into the sanctuary of the L–rd to burn incense on the incense altar (II Chronicles 26:17) And there after him Azaryahu the Cohein and with him Cohanim of the L–rd, eighty strong (II Chronicles 26:18) And they stood over Uzziyahu the king, and they said to him: 'It is not for you, Uzziyahu, to burn incense to the L–rd, but for the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron who are consecrated for the burning of incense. Leave the sanctuary …' And Uzziyahu fumed, and in his hand …" (and he was stricken with leprosy.)

9) "If the plague-spot is spread": a spreading adjacent to the plague-spot — any amount. Whence is a distant spreading derived for inclusion? From "in the walls of the house." I might think any amount; it is, therefore, written here "plague-spot," and elsewhere (in respect to plague-spots in general) "plague-spot." Just as the latter are a garis; here, too, a garis.

10) "and he shall take for the one to be cleansed": in the name of "one to be cleansed," whether man or woman or child. From here it was derived: If he took it for a man, it may be used for woman; if for a woman, it may be used for a man; if for a house (afflicted with a plague-spot), it may be used for a leper; if for a leper, it may be used for a house.

9) "and mortar" connotes all kinds: even bricks, even ordure, even clay-ground. I might think that he could take mortar from one side and bring it to the other side; it is, therefore, written "other (mortar"). If (only) "other" (were written), I might think even lime or gypsum; it is, therefore, written "afar" (lit., "earth"). If both verses were not written, we would not know the halachah....

9) "What should be done?" I induce from what we find in its spreading in the second week. He removes and scrapes and plasters and is given an additional week. The same obtains with its remaining the same in the second week.

9) All washing of clothing mentioned in the Torah is (oriented) to stringency, and this, to leniency, (viz.) Even if he were wearing ten trousers and cloaked with ten mantles, they are all tahor until he remains as long as it takes to eat a p'ras.

9) (Without the verse we would reason otherwise, viz.:) Does it not follow a fortiori? If a zav, who does not require the sprinkling of running water requires immersion in running water, then a leper, who does require the sprinkling of running water (viz. Vayikra 14:7), how much more so does he require immersion in running water! It is, therefore, written "and he shall bathe 'his flesh' in running water." A zav requires immersion in running water, and not a leper.

9) "and he shall bathe in water": even in the water of a mikveh. Now should it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If a zav (one with a genital discharge), who does not require (for his cleansing) the sprinkling of living (running) water, requires bathing in living water (viz. Vayikra 15:13), then a leper, who requires the sprinkling of living water, how much more so should he require bathing in living water! It is, therefore, written "and he shall bathe in water" — even in the water of a mikveh.

(Lev. 13:2), “When a man has on the skin of his flesh.” It is difficult for the Holy One, blessed be He, to reach out His hand against this man.⁴⁹Cf. Lev. R. 17:4. Rather He forewarns a person [and afflicts his house] first and then He strikes him, as stated (in Lev. 14:34), “And when I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” First, He strikes his house. [If] he repents, fine; but if not, He strikes his clothes, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” [If] he repents, fine; but if not, [they come] upon his body, as stated (in Lev. 13:2), “When a man has on the skin of his flesh.”

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN…, AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes < upon one > for eleven things:³²Tanh., Lev. 5:4; cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for blessing (i.e., for cursing) the name, (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon³³In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing falsely, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say: for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly). [Moreover, you < can > expound them all < from Scripture >.]

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

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

How is it shown < that leprosy comes > for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua'); and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45): HIS HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua').
And how is it shown < that leprosy comes > for blessing (i.e., cursing) the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8): CHOOSE A MAN ('ish) FOR YOURSELVES. Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3): THE LORD IS A MAN ('ish) OF WAR. It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) THIS DAY < THE LORD > WILL DELIVER (rt.: SGR) YOU. Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5) THE PRIEST SHALL ISOLATE (rt.: SGR) HIM.
And < how is it shown > for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:16–17): < BECAUSE THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION ARE HAUGHTY, AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES…; THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS < OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION >.³⁴Vs. 17 differs from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD) and by spelling SPH with a samekh instead of a sin. It is also written (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE (rt.: SPH) AND FOR A BRIGHT SPOT.
< How is it shown > for theft and for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4): I HAVE SENT IT (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) FORTH, SAYS THE LORD {GOD} [OF HOSTS]; AND IT SHALL COME UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE THIEF AND UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE ONE WHO SWEARS FALSELY IN MY NAME; AND IT SHALL LODGE WITHIN HIS HOUSE; AND IT SHALL CONSUME IT, [EVEN] WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES. What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? See, it says this is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy in Lev. 14:45): AND IT (i.e., the plague)³⁵In the biblical context IT would normally be translated as HE and refer to the one responsible for tearing down an infested house, but the midrash understands the plague itself as that which destroys the house. SHALL BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES.
And < how is it shown > for slander? From Miriam [of whom it is written (in Numb. 12:10): AND THERE WAS MIRIAM WITH LEPROSY LIKE THE SNOW; SO WHEN AARON TURNED UNTO MIRIAM, THERE SHE WAS, STRICKEN WITH LEPROSY.] It also says (in Lev. 14:1): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (hametsora'), < i.e. > the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra').
And < how is it shown > for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified over the Holy One and said (in Exod. 32:4): THESE ARE YOUR GODS, O ISRAEL. They were afflicted with leprosy, since it is written (below in vs. 25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua').³⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘).
And < how is it shown > for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24): AND IT SHALL BE THAT AS A TONGUE OF FIRE CONSUMES STRAW, AND AS CHAFF SINKS DOWN IN A FLAME, THEIR {BLOSSOM} [ROOT] SHALL BE LIKE THE ROT, AND THEIR {ROOT} [BLOSSOM] SHALL RISE UP LIKE THE DUST; FOR THEY HAVE REJECTED THE LAW OF THE LORD OF HOSTS AND SPURNED THE WORD OF THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. THEIR BLOSSOM (PRH) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12): IF THE LEPROSY SHOULD BLOSSOM OUT WIDELY (rt.: PRH).
And < how is it shown > for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, when he entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:16, 19): < …; HE SINNED AGAINST THE LORD HIS GOD AND ENTERED INTO THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD TO OFFER INCENSE UPON THE ALTAR OF INCENSE…. > THEN LEPROSY APPEARED ON HIS FOREHEAD.
And < how is it shown > for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH < … >, because he had taken Sarah from Abraham.

How is it shown < that leprosy comes > for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua'); and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45): HIS HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua').
And how is it shown < that leprosy comes > for blessing (i.e., cursing) the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8): CHOOSE A MAN ('ish) FOR YOURSELVES. Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3): THE LORD IS A MAN ('ish) OF WAR. It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) THIS DAY < THE LORD > WILL DELIVER (rt.: SGR) YOU. Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5) THE PRIEST SHALL ISOLATE (rt.: SGR) HIM.
And < how is it shown > for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:16–17): < BECAUSE THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION ARE HAUGHTY, AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES…; THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS < OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION >.³⁴Vs. 17 differs from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD) and by spelling SPH with a samekh instead of a sin. It is also written (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE (rt.: SPH) AND FOR A BRIGHT SPOT.
< How is it shown > for theft and for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4): I HAVE SENT IT (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) FORTH, SAYS THE LORD {GOD} [OF HOSTS]; AND IT SHALL COME UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE THIEF AND UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE ONE WHO SWEARS FALSELY IN MY NAME; AND IT SHALL LODGE WITHIN HIS HOUSE; AND IT SHALL CONSUME IT, [EVEN] WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES. What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? See, it says this is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy in Lev. 14:45): AND IT (i.e., the plague)³⁵In the biblical context IT would normally be translated as HE and refer to the one responsible for tearing down an infested house, but the midrash understands the plague itself as that which destroys the house. SHALL BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES.
And < how is it shown > for slander? From Miriam [of whom it is written (in Numb. 12:10): AND THERE WAS MIRIAM WITH LEPROSY LIKE THE SNOW; SO WHEN AARON TURNED UNTO MIRIAM, THERE SHE WAS, STRICKEN WITH LEPROSY.] It also says (in Lev. 14:1): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (hametsora'), < i.e. > the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra').
And < how is it shown > for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified over the Holy One and said (in Exod. 32:4): THESE ARE YOUR GODS, O ISRAEL. They were afflicted with leprosy, since it is written (below in vs. 25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua').³⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘).
And < how is it shown > for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24): AND IT SHALL BE THAT AS A TONGUE OF FIRE CONSUMES STRAW, AND AS CHAFF SINKS DOWN IN A FLAME, THEIR {BLOSSOM} [ROOT] SHALL BE LIKE THE ROT, AND THEIR {ROOT} [BLOSSOM] SHALL RISE UP LIKE THE DUST; FOR THEY HAVE REJECTED THE LAW OF THE LORD OF HOSTS AND SPURNED THE WORD OF THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. THEIR BLOSSOM (PRH) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12): IF THE LEPROSY SHOULD BLOSSOM OUT WIDELY (rt.: PRH).
And < how is it shown > for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, when he entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:16, 19): < …; HE SINNED AGAINST THE LORD HIS GOD AND ENTERED INTO THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD TO OFFER INCENSE UPON THE ALTAR OF INCENSE…. > THEN LEPROSY APPEARED ON HIS FOREHEAD.
And < how is it shown > for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH < … >, because he had taken Sarah from Abraham.

How is it shown < that leprosy comes > for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua'); and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45): HIS HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua').
And how is it shown < that leprosy comes > for blessing (i.e., cursing) the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8): CHOOSE A MAN ('ish) FOR YOURSELVES. Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3): THE LORD IS A MAN ('ish) OF WAR. It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) THIS DAY < THE LORD > WILL DELIVER (rt.: SGR) YOU. Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5) THE PRIEST SHALL ISOLATE (rt.: SGR) HIM.
And < how is it shown > for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:16–17): < BECAUSE THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION ARE HAUGHTY, AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES…; THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS < OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION >.³⁴Vs. 17 differs from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD) and by spelling SPH with a samekh instead of a sin. It is also written (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE (rt.: SPH) AND FOR A BRIGHT SPOT.
< How is it shown > for theft and for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4): I HAVE SENT IT (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) FORTH, SAYS THE LORD {GOD} [OF HOSTS]; AND IT SHALL COME UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE THIEF AND UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE ONE WHO SWEARS FALSELY IN MY NAME; AND IT SHALL LODGE WITHIN HIS HOUSE; AND IT SHALL CONSUME IT, [EVEN] WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES. What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? See, it says this is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy in Lev. 14:45): AND IT (i.e., the plague)³⁵In the biblical context IT would normally be translated as HE and refer to the one responsible for tearing down an infested house, but the midrash understands the plague itself as that which destroys the house. SHALL BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES.
And < how is it shown > for slander? From Miriam [of whom it is written (in Numb. 12:10): AND THERE WAS MIRIAM WITH LEPROSY LIKE THE SNOW; SO WHEN AARON TURNED UNTO MIRIAM, THERE SHE WAS, STRICKEN WITH LEPROSY.] It also says (in Lev. 14:1): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (hametsora'), < i.e. > the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra').
And < how is it shown > for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified over the Holy One and said (in Exod. 32:4): THESE ARE YOUR GODS, O ISRAEL. They were afflicted with leprosy, since it is written (below in vs. 25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua').³⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘).
And < how is it shown > for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24): AND IT SHALL BE THAT AS A TONGUE OF FIRE CONSUMES STRAW, AND AS CHAFF SINKS DOWN IN A FLAME, THEIR {BLOSSOM} [ROOT] SHALL BE LIKE THE ROT, AND THEIR {ROOT} [BLOSSOM] SHALL RISE UP LIKE THE DUST; FOR THEY HAVE REJECTED THE LAW OF THE LORD OF HOSTS AND SPURNED THE WORD OF THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. THEIR BLOSSOM (PRH) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12): IF THE LEPROSY SHOULD BLOSSOM OUT WIDELY (rt.: PRH).
And < how is it shown > for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, when he entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:16, 19): < …; HE SINNED AGAINST THE LORD HIS GOD AND ENTERED INTO THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD TO OFFER INCENSE UPON THE ALTAR OF INCENSE…. > THEN LEPROSY APPEARED ON HIS FOREHEAD.
And < how is it shown > for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH < … >, because he had taken Sarah from Abraham.

And < how is it shown > for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said: When a someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone too miserly) to lend out his possessions, < and when > someone goes and says: Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object, and he says to him: I do not have one, what does the Holy One do to him?³⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts his house with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him: Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me, he commands (according to Lev. 14:45): LET HIM BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES. Then everybody will see his implements, when they {bring them out and lug them} [lug them and bring them] outside. So they publicize³⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say: Did he not say: I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax? See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it. So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), [and he is exposed]. Where is it shown? Where it says so (in Job 20:28): THE PRODUCE OF HIS HOUSE SHALL DEPART, POURED OUT IN THE DAY OF HIS WRATH. Moreover, there are also some who say: < Leprosy > also < comes > for vulgarity. < How is it shown? >³⁹This necessary addition is found in the parallel of Tanh., Lev. 4. From Naaman (in II Kings 5:1): NOW NAAMAN, THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY OF THE KING OF ARAM […; BUT THE MAN, THOUGH A VALIANT WARRIOR, WAS A LEPER,] because he was vulgar. < Leprosy > also < comes > upon the one who says something against his colleague. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our Master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1): BUT [SURELY] THEY SHALL NOT BELIEVE ME. The Holy One said to him: They are believers < and > children of believers: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31): AND THE PEOPLE BELIEVED; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6): AND HE (Abram) BELIEVED IN THE LORD. However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted in {his} [your] body, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6): THEN THE LORD SAID TO HIM AGAIN: PUT⁴⁰Cf. the Masoretic Text, which would be translated PLEASE PUT. YOUR HAND IN YOUR BOSOM. [SO HE PUT HIS HAND IN HIS BOSOM; AND WHEN HE WITHDREW IT, BEHOLD, IT WAS LEPROUS, < AS WHITE > AS SNOW.] The Holy One said to Israel: Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH WITH GREAT PLAGUES, AND < ALSO > HIS HOUSE. But if you sin, I afflict your houses first. Where is it shown? {Where it is stated} [From what they read on the matter] (in Lev. 14:34): WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN WHICH I AM GIVING YOU FOR A POSSESSION, AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS.

And < how is it shown > for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said: When a someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone too miserly) to lend out his possessions, < and when > someone goes and says: Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object, and he says to him: I do not have one, what does the Holy One do to him?³⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts his house with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him: Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me, he commands (according to Lev. 14:45): LET HIM BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES. Then everybody will see his implements, when they {bring them out and lug them} [lug them and bring them] outside. So they publicize³⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say: Did he not say: I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax? See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it. So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), [and he is exposed]. Where is it shown? Where it says so (in Job 20:28): THE PRODUCE OF HIS HOUSE SHALL DEPART, POURED OUT IN THE DAY OF HIS WRATH. Moreover, there are also some who say: < Leprosy > also < comes > for vulgarity. < How is it shown? >³⁹This necessary addition is found in the parallel of Tanh., Lev. 4. From Naaman (in II Kings 5:1): NOW NAAMAN, THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY OF THE KING OF ARAM […; BUT THE MAN, THOUGH A VALIANT WARRIOR, WAS A LEPER,] because he was vulgar. < Leprosy > also < comes > upon the one who says something against his colleague. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our Master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1): BUT [SURELY] THEY SHALL NOT BELIEVE ME. The Holy One said to him: They are believers < and > children of believers: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31): AND THE PEOPLE BELIEVED; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6): AND HE (Abram) BELIEVED IN THE LORD. However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted in {his} [your] body, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6): THEN THE LORD SAID TO HIM AGAIN: PUT⁴⁰Cf. the Masoretic Text, which would be translated PLEASE PUT. YOUR HAND IN YOUR BOSOM. [SO HE PUT HIS HAND IN HIS BOSOM; AND WHEN HE WITHDREW IT, BEHOLD, IT WAS LEPROUS, < AS WHITE > AS SNOW.] The Holy One said to Israel: Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH WITH GREAT PLAGUES, AND < ALSO > HIS HOUSE. But if you sin, I afflict your houses first. Where is it shown? {Where it is stated} [From what they read on the matter] (in Lev. 14:34): WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN WHICH I AM GIVING YOU FOR A POSSESSION, AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS.

10) But this still requires (learning i.e., Perhaps "and the meal-offering" indicates the meal-offering of a leper [and is not intended to liken the meal-offering to the burnt-offering]). (This cannot be, for in the section on libations [Bamidbar 15:5]) it is written (that the meal-offering is to be brought) "in addition to the burnt-offering" — this is the burnt-offering of the leper; "for the sacrifice" — to include the sin-offering of the leper; "or for the sacrifice" — to include his guilt-offering.

10) This (i.e., the above verse) tells me only that the guilt-offering must be (slaughtered) "in the holy place." Whence do I derive the same for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering? From "the sin-offering and the burnt-offering in the holy place."

10) (Vayikra 14:17) "And from the rest of the oil which is on his palm, the Cohein shall place … upon the blood of the guilt-offering": (Is the meaning that the blood precede the oil, or that if blood is there, he shall place (the oil), and if blood is not there, he shall not place (the oil)? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:28) "upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering." It is not the blood which is the decisive factor, but the place.

10) Or, go in this direction: This one is called a guilt-offering, as other guilt-offerings are called a guilt-offering. Just as other guilt-offerings (such as that for theft (Vayikra 5:25) and that for intercourse with a betrothed Canaanite maidservant (Vayikra 14:21) come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression.

10) Let us see whom he (the leper) most resembles. We derive one lacking atonement (a leper) from one lacking atonement (a woman after childbirth), and this is not to be refuted by the defiler of the sanctuary, who does not lack atonement, (the offering not coming to cleanse him, but who when he is cleansed of his tumah may eat consecrated food, even if he has not brought the offering). Or, go in this direction: We derive an offering which obtains with man and woman alike (that of a leper) from an offering which obtains with man and woman alike (that of a defiler of the sanctuary), and this is not to be refuted by the offering of a woman after childbirth, which does not obtain with a man as it does with a woman. It is, therefore, written "two turtle-doves or two young pigeons" — he brings two and not four.

10) (Vayikra 14:17) "And from the rest of the oil which is on his palm, the Cohein shall place … upon the blood of the guilt-offering": (Is the meaning that the blood precede the oil, or that if blood is there, he shall place (the oil), and if blood is not there, he shall not place (the oil)? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:28) "upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering." It is not the blood which is the decisive factor, but the place.

10) "plague-spot": What is the intent of "As a plague-spot"? Even if he is a Torah scholar and knows for a certainty that it is a plague-spot, he should not declare outright: "A plague-spot has appeared to me in the house," but: "As a plague-spot there has appeared to me in the house."

10) In sum: an adjoining spreading, any amount; a distant (spreading), a garis.

11) "and he shall take two birds": The minimum of "birds" is two. If so, why state "two"? That they both be alike. Whence is it derived that even if they are not both alike, they are still valid? From "bird" (Vayikra 14:5) - "bird" (Vayikra 14:6), implying extension of inclusion.

10) "and he shall take other mortar and he shall plaster the house.": His neighbor does not share the plastering with him.

10) Now if we are stringent with spreading in the second week because of stringency with spreading in the first week, shall we be stringent with remaining the same in the second week where there has been leniency with remaining the same in the first week, (only quarantine of the house being required), and render remaining the same like spreading in the second week? It is, therefore, written (instead of) "and if the Cohein comes," "and if the Cohein come, shall come" — two comings, that stated above and that stated below. Just as with the first there is removing, scraping, and plastering, and the allocation of an additional week, so with the second.

10) I might think that a beast and a gentile, (who are not subject to tumah) would "rescue" clothing (upon them) in a plague-spot house; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:46) "he shall be tamei until the evening" (followed by [Vayikra 14:47] "and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes") — One who himself is subject to tumah "rescues" clothing in a plague-spot house. This excludes a beast and a gentile, who, not being subject to tumah, do not rescue clothing in a plague-spot house.

10) I might think that a beast and a gentile, (who are not subject to tumah) would "rescue" clothing (upon them) in a plague-spot house; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:46) "he shall be tamei until the evening" (followed by [Vayikra 14:47] "and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes") — One who himself is subject to tumah "rescues" clothing in a plague-spot house. This excludes a beast and a gentile, who, not being subject to tumah, do not rescue clothing in a plague-spot house.

11) "and he shall take two birds": The minimum of "birds" is two. If so, why state "two"? That they both be alike. Whence is it derived that even if they are not both alike, they are still valid? From "bird" (Vayikra 14:5) - "bird" (Vayikra 14:6), implying extension of inclusion.

11) "and he shall take two birds": The minimum of "birds" is two. If so, why state "two"? That they both be alike. Whence is it derived that even if they are not both alike, they are still valid? From "bird" (Vayikra 14:5) - "bird" (Vayikra 14:6), implying extension of inclusion.

10) "and he shall bathe in water, and he shall be clean; and then he shall come into the camp": The bathing of his body is indispensable for his coming into the camp, and the washing of his garments is not indispensable for his coming into the camp.

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND < OF CANAAN…, AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS >. This text is related (to Ps. 73:1): BUT (akh) [GOD] IS GOOD TO ISRAEL. Could it < mean > to all < Israel >? The text reads (ibid., cont.): TO THE PURE IN HEART.⁴¹Lev. R. 17:1; Lam. R. 3:25 (9): M. Pss. 4:5. [Similarly you say on the matter (in Lam. 3:25): THE LORD IS GOOD TO THOSE WHO TRUST IN HIM. Could it < mean > to all? The text reads (ibid., cont.:) TO THE SOUL THAT SEEKS HIM. Similarly you say on the matter (in Nahum 1:7): THE LORD IS GOOD, A SHELTER IN THE DAY OF TROUBLE. Could it < mean > to all? The text reads (ibid., cont.): AND HE KNOWS THOSE WHO SEEK REFUGE IN HIM. Similarly you say on the subject (in Ps. 145:9): THE LORD IS GOOD TO ALL. Could it < mean > to all? The text reads (ibid., cont.): AND HIS MERCY IS UPON ALL HIS WORKS. Similarly you say on the matter (in Ps. 84:6 [5]): BLESSED IS THE ONE WHOSE STRENGTH IS IN YOU. Could it < mean > to all? The text reads (ibid., cont.): IN WHOSE HEART ARE THE HIGHWAYS. These are the ones in whose hearts < lie > the pathways of the Law. Similarly on < the matter > (there is Ps. 125:4): DO GOOD, O LORD, TO THE GOOD. Could it < mean > to all? The text reads (ibid., cont.): AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE UPRIGHT IN THEIR HEARTS. Similarly on < the matter > (there is Ps. 145:18): THE LORD IS NEAR TO ALL WHO CALL TO HIM. Could it < mean > to all? The text reads (ibid., cont.): TO ALL WHO CALL TO HIM IN TRUTH. Similarly you say on the matter (in Micah 7:18): WHO IS A GOD LIKE YOU THAT FORGIVES INIQUITY, AND PASSES OVER THE TRANSGRESSION. Could it < mean > for all? The text reads (ibid., cont.): FOR THE REMNANT OF HIS HERITAGE. Therefore (in Ps. 73:1): GOD IS TRULY GOOD TO ISRAEL, TO THE PURE IN HEART. It does not say: "God is good to Israel"; instead < it reads >: BUT (akh) < GOD > IS GOOD < TO ISRAEL >. BUT (akh) < implies > a limitation.⁴²See above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:8, and the parallels listed there. The afflictions which he brought upon them are good. < Good > for what? FOR THE PURE IN HEART, to purify < their heart > today for the world to come. It is therefore stated (in Ps. 73:1): BUT (akh) < GOD > IS GOOD < TO ISRAEL >, TO THE PURE IN HEART. (Ibid., vs. 3:) FOR I WAS ENVIOUS OF THOSE WHO RAGE (holelim) < WHEN > I SAW THE PROSPERITY OF THE WICKED. I saw their well-being, and I was envious. < I.e., I was envious > of those who commit profane acts continuously (halalim halalim),⁴³The midrash interprets holelim in Ps. 73:3, as coming from the same root as halalim by changing the h from the he in the Psalm to a het. as stated (in Job 15:20): A WICKED PERSON ACTS PROFANELY (metholel)⁴⁴Again the midrash interprets the Psalmist’s he as equivalent to the het used here in Job and in addition interprets the whole word as coming from the root HLL. In the biblical text of Job 15:20, metholel comes from the root HYL and means “writhe in torment.” ALL HIS DAYS. (Ps. 73:3:) THE PROSPERITY (shalom) OF THE WICKED: they dwell in quiet and tranquility. (Job 21:9:) THEIR HOUSES ARE SECURE (shalom), WITHOUT FEAR, NOR IS THE ROD OF GOD UPON THEM. (Ps. 73:4:) FOR THERE ARE NO PANGS AT THEIR DEATH, AND THEIR BODY ('WLM) IS SOUND. What pangs? You were not brought down to nothing,⁴⁵Cf. the parallel in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Pss., 808, which has a slightly different verb and can be translated: “You were anxious for nothing.” nor were you chained to suffering. (Ibid.:) AND THEIR BODY ('WLM) IS HEALTHY; therefore, they are as sound as the vestibule ('WLM) (of the Temple).

(Exod. 2:20:) HE SAID UNTO HIS DAUGHTERS: SO WHERE IS HE? Zipporah (Tsipporah) immediately {went out} [ran] like a bird (tsippor) and brought him. Another interpretation: Why was she called Zipporah (Tsipporah)? Because she cleansed her father's house like the blood of a bird (tsippor).⁵⁴According to Lev. 14:48–55; Neg. 13:1, such a cleansing was needed for a house with a curable plague of leprosy.

11) (Vayikra 16:14) ("And he shall take the blood of the bullock, and he shall sprinkle with his finger on the face of the kaporeth (the ark cover) to the east; and before the kaporeth shall he sprinkle seven times of the blood with his finger.") "And he shall take the blood of the bullock": He takes it from the one who was stirring it. "and he shall sprinkle": and not let it drip (from his finger). "and he shall sprinkle": and not fling. "his finger": "his finger" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:16) in respect to a leper). Just as "his finger" there is the most dexterous, i.e., the index finger of the right hand, so, "his finger" here.

11) If he lacks a (right) thumb, a (right) big toe, or a (right) ear, he can never be cleansed. R. Eliezer says: He places it on its side. R. Shimon says: If he places it on the left, it is valid.

11) (Why the three-fold) "such as his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:22), "from what his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:30), "What his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:31)?

11) (Why the three-fold) "such as his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:22), "from what his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:30), "What his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:31)?

11) (Why the three-fold) "such as his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:22), "from what his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:30), "What his means suffice for" (Vayikra 14:31)?

11) "there has appeared to me": and not "to my light," whence they ruled that the windows of a dark house are not opened for the inspection of its plague-spot. "in the house": to include a painted house. "in the house": to include the attic. "in the house": It becomes unclean from its inside, and not from its outside.

11) "in the walls of the house": and not in the walls of its annex, and not in the walls of the stable, and not in the walls of the mechitzah, and not in the walls of the menorah (also types of structures around the house).

12) "living': and not slaughtered. "clean": and not treifoth (birds with organic defects). "and cedar-wood": If "wood," I would think any wood; it is, therefore, written "cedar." If "cedar," I would think a (cedar) leaf; it is, therefore, written "and wood." What is intended? A piece of wood cut from a cedar tree. R. Chananiah b. Gamliel says (the meaning is) with a leaf on top.

11) They said in the name of R. Yishmael: "Blight leprosy" is written of garments, and "blight leprosy" is written of houses. Just as with garments, remaining the same and spreading in the second week was equated with spreading in the first week, so with houses, remaining the same and spreading in the second week was equated with spreading in the first week. (Vayikra 13:43) "after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is known that there is no removing without scraping and plastering.) For I might think that there is no returning (of the plague-spot) and razing except after spreading in the first week. Whence do I derive for inclusion returning (of the plague-spot) after spreading in the second week and after remaining the same in the second week (that both require removing, scraping, and plastering, and, if it returns thereafter, razing)? From (Vayikra 13:43) "after he removed the stones …" Let it not be written "after scraping" and "after plastering." Is there removing without scraping and plastering? Why, then, is it mentioned? To include a returning (plague-spot) after spreading in the second week and after remaining the same in the second week.

11) From here they ruled: If he were standing inside (a plague-spot house) and he stretched his hand outside, with his rings upon it — If he remained in the house as long as it takes to eat a p'ras, they are tamei, (being regarded as part of his body). If he were standing outside and he stretched his hand inside, with his rings upon it, R. Yehudah rules them to be tamei immediately, and the sages (rule them tamei) only if they remain (there) long enough for the eating of a p'ras.

11) "And he shall sit outside his tent": as one who is under the ban. And he is forbidden to engage in marital relations, it being written "his tent," which is none other than his wife, as it is written (Devarim 5:27) "Return to your tents" (i.e., to your wives). "for seven days". And (this abstention from marital relations does) not (obtain) during the days of his confirmation (as a leper). These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: How much more so does it obtain for the days of his confirmation! R. Chiyya said: I asked before Rebbi: Did we not learn, master, that Yotham was conceived by Uzziyahu only during the days of his confirmation? He answered: I, too, said that.

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND < OF CANAAN…, AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS >. How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted?⁴⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:4. It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:33–34): < HE TURNS…; > A FRUITFUL LAND INTO A SALT MARSH BECAUSE OF THE EVIL OF THOSE WHO DWELL IN IT. For what reason did suffering come into the world? Because of the people, so that they would look, consider, and say: Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted. So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look < at them > and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One intended to exile them. The Holy One said: If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations. What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the Wicked upon all the < other > nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14): MY HAND (the hand of Sennacherib) HAS FOUND THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLES LIKE A NEST. It is also written (in vs. 13): AND I (Sennacherib) HAVE REMOVED THE BORDERS OF PEOPLES. The Holy One said: When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear my judgment. It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6–7): I HAVE ROOTED OUT THE NATIONS; THEIR CORNER TOWERS ARE DESOLATE…. AND I SAID: SURELY YOU WILL FEAR ME… ! When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One warns them and first afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, one is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH…. {Therefore, the stones are afflicted at first.} For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40): WHEN SOMEONE'S HEAD BECOMES HAIRLESS < SO THAT HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN >; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18): AND WHEN ONE HAS BOILS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH [AND IS HEALED].⁴⁷The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges {i.e., blows}: Swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.⁴⁸Numb. R. 14:4. {The Holy One} [Scripture] has said (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS]. The Holy One said: Before I created the human, I prepared all these things for him. < The situation > is comparable to an evil slave who was sold. His < new > master went to buy him. Since he knew about him being an evil slave, he took along chains and whips so that, if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him: Did you not know that I was an evil slave? Why did you buy me? He said to him: Because I knew that you were an evil slave, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them. Also before the Holy One, blessed be his name, created the human one, he prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) he knows THAT⁴⁹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” THE INSTINCT OF ONE'S HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH. He therefore prepared all these things for him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS].

“I, Kohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12).
“I, Kohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: It would have been appropriate for this to be written at the beginning of the book. Why is it written here? It is because there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, Rabbi Yishmael taught: “The enemy said: I will pursue, I will overtake” (Exodus 15:9), it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the song. Why is it written here? It is because there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “it was on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1), it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the book. Why is it written here? It is because there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “you are standing today” (Deuteronomy 29:9), it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the book. Why is it written here? It is because there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “The Lord said to Joshua: This day I will begin to exalt you” (Joshua 3:7), it would have been appropriate for this to be written at the beginning of the book. Why is it written here? It is because there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “hear, kings, listen, princes” (Judges 5:3), it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the song. Why is it written here? It is because there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “in the year of the death of King Uziyahu” (Isaiah 6:1), it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the book, but there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “Go, and cry in the ears of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 2:2), it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the book, but there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “the word of the Lord was to me saying: Son of man, propound a riddle” (Ezekiel 17:1–2), it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the book, but there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “I am a boor and do not know, [I was like] a beast [before You]” (Psalms 73:22), it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the book, but there is no chronological order in the Torah. Similarly, “I, Kohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem,” it would have been appropriate for this to be the beginning of the book, but there is no chronological order in the Torah.
“I, Kohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” I was when I was, but now I am nothing.⁹⁵I am stripped of my position, my wealth, and my wisdom. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Yitzḥak said: When I was, I was, but now I am not worth anything.⁹⁶I am stripped of my position and my wealth, but my wisdom remains. However, it is of no value to me. He saw three worlds⁹⁷He had three different types of life experience. during the days of his life. Rabbi Yudan and Rabbi Onya, Rabbi Yudan said: King, commoner, king; wise man, fool, wise man; wealthy man, poor man, wealthy man. What is the reason? “I have seen everything in the days of my vanity” (Ecclesiastes 7:15) – a person relates his distress only at a time when he has gained relief, when his wealth is restored. Rabbi Onya said: Commoner, king, commoner; fool, wise man, fool; poor man, wealthy man, poor man. What is the reason? “I, Kohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.”⁹⁸This is stated in past tense, implying that Solomon is recalling the days when he was king. There is no updated version of this verse in which this formulation is changed, indicating that Solomon ended his life as a commoner.

12) (Vayikra 14:18) "And what is left over of the oil which is on the palm of the Cohein, he shall place on the head of the one who is to be cleansed. And the Cohein shall atone for him before the L–rd.": If he placed it (on his head), it atones. If he did not place it, it does not atone. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan b. Nuri says: It (the blood) is the left-over of a mitzvah. Whether or not he placed it, it atones — but it is considered as if he had not atoned (in the choicest manner).

12) "such as his means suffice for": What is the intent of this? I might think: When does he bring a poor man's offering? When he was poor from the beginning. Whence do I derive the same for one who was rich and became poor afterwards? From "such as his means suffice for."

12) (Vayikra 14:36) ("And the Cohein shall command, and they shall empty out the house before the Cohein comes in to see the plague-spot, so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house; and then the Cohein shall come to see the house.") "And the Cohein shall command, and they shall empty out": the commanding, by the Cohein; the emptying, by anyone. "and they shall empty out the house": even bundles of wood, even bundles of reeds, (which are not susceptible of tumah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says (in agreement with R. Yehudah): He is "busied" with emptying (in the hope that the spot will disappear before the Cohein comes and declares it tamei). R. Meir said: Now what can become tamei? If you say his wooden vessels, his clothing, and his metal utensils, they can be immersed (in a mikveh) and cleansed. What was the Torah solicitous of? His earthenware vessels and his jars, (which cannot be cleansed by immersion)! If the Torah was so solicitous of his trifling possessions, how much more so, of his valued possessions; if of his possessions, how much more so, of the life of his sons and daughters; if of those of an evildoer, how much more so of a tzaddik!

13) R. Yehudah said: It was my Sabbath (to expound), and I went after R. Tarfon (his master) to his house (to take leave to do so). He said to me: My son, give me my sandal, and I gave it to him. He stretched his hand out to the window and gave me a stick from it, saying: Yehudah, with this I cleansed three lepers — at which I learned seven halachoth: that it must be b'roth (a type of cedar), that it must have a leaf on top, that its length must be an ell, that its thickness must be about a quarter of the leg of a bedstead, cut into two and then into four, that it can be used for sprinkling, once, twice, and three times, that the cleansing can be before the Temple and not before the Temple, and that it can be done in the border towns (and not necessarily in Jerusalem).

12) Whence is it derived that if (after remaining the same at the end of the first week and having been quarantined for a second week), it (was found to have) dimmed in the second week or disappeared (entirely), he peels (the site of the spot) and he requires birds (for its cleansing)? From (Vayikra 13:49) "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, etc." This is one house … — whence they ruled: There are ten houses (in this connection): If it dims in the first week or disappears, he peels it and it is tahor (clean). If it dims in the second week or disappears, he peels it and he requires birds. If it spreads in the first week, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returns, he razes (the house). If it does not return, he requires birds. If it remained the same in the first week and spread in the second week, he removes, scrapes, and smears, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds. If it remained the same both the first week and the second, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds.

12) They said to R. Yehudah: If when his whole body is tamei, what is upon it is not tamei until he remains there long enough to eat a p'ras, then, when his whole body is not tamei, does it not follow that what is upon it should not be tamei until it remains long enough for the eating of a p'ras?

12) Whence is it derived that if (after remaining the same at the end of the first week and having been quarantined for a second week), it (was found to have) dimmed in the second week or disappeared (entirely), he peels (the site of the spot) and he requires birds (for its cleansing)? From (Vayikra 13:49) "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, etc." This is one house … — whence they ruled: There are ten houses (in this connection): If it dims in the first week or disappears, he peels it and it is tahor (clean). If it dims in the second week or disappears, he peels it and he requires birds. If it spreads in the first week, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returns, he razes (the house). If it does not return, he requires birds. If it remained the same in the first week and spread in the second week, he removes, scrapes, and smears, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds. If it remained the same both the first week and the second, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds.

12) (Vayikra 13:59) ("This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy, in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, to declare it clean or to declare it unclean.") "This is the plague-spot of leprosy, etc.": (Vayikra 14:54) ("This is the law for all plague-spots or leprosy and for a nethek (Vayikra 14:55) and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house.") They (plague-spot garments) are being likened to a house, viz., Just as a house is rendered unclean by the entry (of an unclean person), so it is rendered unclean by the entry of all (plague-spot garments). — But perhaps just as a house requires birds (for its cleansing, [viz. Vayikra 14:49]), so all (plague-spot garments) should require birds (for their cleansing)! It is, therefore, written "This" (i.e., only in this respect [that of "entry"] are they similar, and not in the other.) Rebbi says: It is written "This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house." Just as a house renders unclean by entry, so all are rendered unclean by entry. This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive all of them (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) for inclusion? From "This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy … in the warp or in the woof, etc." Just as a garment renders unclean by entry, so all (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) render unclean by entry. — But perhaps just as a garment is rendered unclean by all that are tamei (e.g., sheratzim, semen, etc.), so all (warp and woof etc.) are rendered unclean by all that are tamei! It is, therefore, written "This" (and not the others).

12) (Vayikra 13:59) ("This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy, in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, to declare it clean or to declare it unclean.") "This is the plague-spot of leprosy, etc.": (Vayikra 14:54) ("This is the law for all plague-spots or leprosy and for a nethek (Vayikra 14:55) and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house.") They (plague-spot garments) are being likened to a house, viz., Just as a house is rendered unclean by the entry (of an unclean person), so it is rendered unclean by the entry of all (plague-spot garments). — But perhaps just as a house requires birds (for its cleansing, [viz. Vayikra 14:49]), so all (plague-spot garments) should require birds (for their cleansing)! It is, therefore, written "This" (i.e., only in this respect [that of "entry"] are they similar, and not in the other.) Rebbi says: It is written "This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house." Just as a house renders unclean by entry, so all are rendered unclean by entry. This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive all of them (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) for inclusion? From "This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy … in the warp or in the woof, etc." Just as a garment renders unclean by entry, so all (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) render unclean by entry. — But perhaps just as a garment is rendered unclean by all that are tamei (e.g., sheratzim, semen, etc.), so all (warp and woof etc.) are rendered unclean by all that are tamei! It is, therefore, written "This" (and not the others).

12) (Vayikra 13:59) ("This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy, in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, to declare it clean or to declare it unclean.") "This is the plague-spot of leprosy, etc.": (Vayikra 14:54) ("This is the law for all plague-spots or leprosy and for a nethek (Vayikra 14:55) and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house.") They (plague-spot garments) are being likened to a house, viz., Just as a house is rendered unclean by the entry (of an unclean person), so it is rendered unclean by the entry of all (plague-spot garments). — But perhaps just as a house requires birds (for its cleansing, [viz. Vayikra 14:49]), so all (plague-spot garments) should require birds (for their cleansing)! It is, therefore, written "This" (i.e., only in this respect [that of "entry"] are they similar, and not in the other.) Rebbi says: It is written "This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house." Just as a house renders unclean by entry, so all are rendered unclean by entry. This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive all of them (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) for inclusion? From "This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy … in the warp or in the woof, etc." Just as a garment renders unclean by entry, so all (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) render unclean by entry. — But perhaps just as a garment is rendered unclean by all that are tamei (e.g., sheratzim, semen, etc.), so all (warp and woof etc.) are rendered unclean by all that are tamei! It is, therefore, written "This" (and not the others).

13) (Vayikra 14:19) ("And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering, and he shall atone for the one to be cleansed from his uncleanliness, and after he shall slaughter the burnt-offering.") "And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering.": All of its attendant activities must be with express intention for a sin-offering. "And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering and he shall atone.": What is the intent of this? (i.e., The next verse concludes "and the Cohein shall make atonement for him and he shall be clean.") Because it is written (Vayikra 14:20) "And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar," I might think that they are all indispensable (for his eating consecrated food). It is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering and he shall atone," whereby we are taught that his atonement is effected by the sin-offering. "and he shall atone for the one to be cleansed from his uncleanliness.": From his (leprosy) uncleanliness, and not from his (leprosy) uncleanliness and his zav (genital discharge) uncleanliness. "and after he shall slaughter the burnt-offering.": after this act (of sprinkling the blood of the sin-offering).

13) (Vayikra 14:19) ("And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering, and he shall atone for the one to be cleansed from his uncleanliness, and after he shall slaughter the burnt-offering.") "And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering.": All of its attendant activities must be with express intention for a sin-offering. "And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering and he shall atone.": What is the intent of this? (i.e., The next verse concludes "and the Cohein shall make atonement for him and he shall be clean.") Because it is written (Vayikra 14:20) "And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar," I might think that they are all indispensable (for his eating consecrated food). It is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering and he shall atone," whereby we are taught that his atonement is effected by the sin-offering. "and he shall atone for the one to be cleansed from his uncleanliness.": From his (leprosy) uncleanliness, and not from his (leprosy) uncleanliness and his zav (genital discharge) uncleanliness. "and after he shall slaughter the burnt-offering.": after this act (of sprinkling the blood of the sin-offering).

13) What is the intent of "from what his means suffice for"? I might think: When do I say that he concludes with the poor man's offering? When he began with the poor man's offering; but if he brought his guilt-offering when rich and became poor thereafter, whence do I derive (that he may complete the offerings as a poor man)? From "from what his means suffice for." What is the intent of "What his means suffice for"? I might think: When do I say that he completes as a rich man? When he began as a rich man; but if he brought his guilt-offering when poor and became rich thereafter, whence do I derive (that he completes as a rich man)? From "What his means suffice for."

13) "before the Cohein comes in to see the plague-spot": and not the emptying out (of the house). "so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house": What is the intent of this? Because we find with one who enters a plague-spot house that his clothing does not become tamei until he remains there for as long as it takes to eat a pras (a certain quantity of bread), I might think that if there were garments folded over his shoulder or packed inside the house, they would not be tamei until they remained there for as long as it takes to eat a pras; it is, therefore, written "so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house" — immediately. "and then": to include similar decisions (when the Cohein has to wait before he comes to inspect the house). Rebbi says: (A verse is not necessary for this, for) if we wait because of mundane things, should we not wait because of occasions of mitzvah? And how long is his mitzvah? Let us see. For a groom, we allow the seven days of his feast (without plague-spot inspection) for himself, his house, and his garments. And so, on a festival, we allow him all the days of the festival.

14) "and scarlet (tola'ath)": I might think that pikas (a scarlet wood derivative) were permissible; it is, therefore, written "tola'ath" (lit., [scarlet] of a worm). If tola'ath, I might think any color (that came from a worm) were permissible; it is, therefore, written "ushni tola'ath" (and "distinctive" tola'ath). How so? It must be deep red. Yochanan b. Dehavai says: Residue, (this connoted by "shni") of tola'ath is also permitted.

13) (Vayikra 14:44) ("And if the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is unclean.") "it is unclean": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Was it not unclean until now?) Because we find in a quarantined house that it confers tumah only from its inside, (viz. Vayikra 14:46), we might think that this is so even with a confirmed house; it is, therefore, written "it is unclean," conferring tumah both from the inside and from the outside (by being touched).

13) (Vayikra 14:44) ("And if the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is unclean.") "it is unclean": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Was it not unclean until now?) Because we find in a quarantined house that it confers tumah only from its inside, (viz. Vayikra 14:46), we might think that this is so even with a confirmed house; it is, therefore, written "it is unclean," conferring tumah both from the inside and from the outside (by being touched).

13) R. Yehudah rejoined: We find that the power of the tamei to rescue (from tumah) is greater than that of the tahor: Israelites are subject to tumah and "rescue" garments in a plague-spot house; a beast and a gentile, who are not subject to tumah, do not "rescue" garments in a plague-spot house.

(Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. It is difficult for the Holy One to reach out his hand against a human being.⁶⁶Tanh., Lev. 4:10; cf. Lev. R. 17:4. Rather he forewarns a person and afflicts his house, as stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. < If > he repents, fine; but if not, it afflicted his clothes, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. < If > he repents, fine; but if not, < comes > upon his body, as stated (in Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >.

(I Kings 5:13 [4:33]:) AND HE SPOKE WITH/CONCERNING ('al)⁸⁷The point of the midrash in this and in the following chapter conderns whether to understand ‘al as “with” or “concerning.” THE TREES, <FROM THE CEDAR THAT IS IN LEBANON EVEN TO THE HYSSOP WHICH GROWS OUT OF THE WALL>. Is it possible that a person would speak with the trees? Solomon merely said: For what reason is a leper cleansed? Because of ('al) the tallest among the trees (the cedar) and through the lowest of the low (the hyssop). Through (according to Lev. 14:4) CEDAR WOOD, [CRIMSON STUFF,] AND HYSSOP. It is simply because he had exalted himself like the cedar, that he was stricken with leprosy. As soon as he humbled himself like the hyssop, he was therefore cured through hyssop.

11) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lidon badavar hechadash, ē ata yachol lehachziro lichllalo ad sheyachzirenu hakathuv lichlallo befeirush. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a new learning, cannot be restored to that category unless Scripture restores it explicitly.): (Vayikra 14:13): "And he shall slaughter the lamb (the guilt-offering) in the place where the sin-offering is slaughtered, and the burnt-offering, in the holy place. For as the sin-offering, is the guilt-offering to the Cohein." Let this ("For as, etc.") not be stated, (for this guilt-offering is subsumed in the general category of guilt-offerings [Vayikra 7:11]). But because it (this guilt-offering of the metzora) departed (from the category) for a new learning — (the placing of the blood on) the thumb of his (the offerer's) right hand and of his right foot and on his right ear, I might think that it did not require the placing of blood and imurim (devoted portions) on the altar; it is, therefore, written: "For as the sin-offering (i.e., as all sin-offerings) is the (i.e., this) guilt-offering to the Cohein" (i.e., it is subject to all of the Cohein's services for a sin-offering.) Scripture explicitly restored it to its category to tell us that just as a sin-offering requires the placing of blood and imurim on the altar, so does this guilt-offering require it.

14) (Vayikra 14:20) "And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar, and the Cohein shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean." "And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering": even if he had not slaughtered it expressly as such. "And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering": even if he had slaughtered it before the sin-offering. "And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering": We are hereby taught that the (burning of the) limbs of the burnt-offering precedes that of the devoted portions of the sin-offering. R. Shimon said: The sin-offering is like the defense attorney that comes to conciliate (the Judge). Once He has been conciliated, the gift (i.e., the burning of the limbs) follows.

14) I might think that even if he brought the sin-offering when poor and thereafter became rich, he completes as a rich man. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:31) "one, a sin-offering; the other, a burnt-offering" — Of the type of the sin-offering, bring the burnt-offering. (Vayikra 14:31) "on the meal-offering": (This implies that) the beast meal-offering precedes the bird sin-offering.

14) I might think that even if he brought the sin-offering when poor and thereafter became rich, he completes as a rich man. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:31) "one, a sin-offering; the other, a burnt-offering" — Of the type of the sin-offering, bring the burnt-offering. (Vayikra 14:31) "on the meal-offering": (This implies that) the beast meal-offering precedes the bird sin-offering.

15) And whence is it derived that if he used it for testing purposes (to see if the color would take), it is unfit (for cleansing the leper)? From (the understood connotation of) "and shni tola'ath."

14) (Vayikra 14:51) "and he shall sprinkle upon the house": on the lintel. Others say: on all of it.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. Why do the plagues come?⁶⁷Tanh., Lev. 4:11; cf. Lev. R. 17:3. Because of harlotry. And so you find in Jerusalem, that because they were absorbed in harlotry, they were afflicted with leprosy. What is written there (in Is. 3:16)? MOREOVER, THE LORD SAID: BECAUSE < THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION > ARE HAUGHTY, < AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES >…. Then it says (in vs. 17): THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION. [SMITE WITH SORES (SPH)⁶⁸The Buber text has misspelled SPH by rendering the S sound with a samekh in place of the biblical sin. must mean "with leprosy," since it is stated (with reference to leprosy in Lev. 13:2): A SWELLING OR A SORE (rt.: SPH).]⁶⁹Here the S represents a samekh. It also says (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE.

15) (Vayikra 14:32) ("This is the law for him with a plague-spot of leprosy whose means do not suffice in his cleansing") I might think that a woman who brought a sin-offering when poor and thereafter became rich, completes as a poor woman; it is, therefore, written "This" (to exclude the above).

16) "and hyssop": and not Greek hyssop, and not blue hyssop, and not Roman hyssop, and not desert hyssop, and not any "hyssop" qualified by an epithet.

15) (Vayikra 14:53) ("And he shall send the living bird outside the city over the face of the field, and he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.") "And he shall send the living bird outside the city": R. Yossi Haglili says: a bird that lives outside the city. Which is that? A free bird (i.e., one which lives anywhere).

"This will be the law of the metsora" (Leviticus 14:2). This is that which is written (Proverbs 6:16), "Six things the Lord hates; seven are an abomination to His soul" -- it's a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. Rabbi Meir says six and seven together is thirteen. The rabbis say seven exist - the seven which is written is because the seventh is as harsh as them all put together. And which is this? This is "one who incites brothers to quarrel" (Proverbs 6:19). And these are them [the full seven]: "A haughty bearing, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood; A mind that hatches evil plots, feet quick to run to evil; A false witness testifying lies, and one who incites brothers to quarrel" (Proverbs 6:17-19). And Rabbi Yochanan said, "And all of them are struck with tsaraat."

"This will be the law of the metsora" (Leviticus 14:2). This is that which is written (Proverbs 6:16), "Six things the Lord hates; seven are an abomination to His soul" -- it's a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. Rabbi Meir says six and seven together is thirteen. The rabbis say seven exist - the seven which is written is because the seventh is as harsh as them all put together. And which is this? This is "one who incites brothers to quarrel" (Proverbs 6:19). And these are them [the full seven]: "A haughty bearing, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood; A mind that hatches evil plots, feet quick to run to evil; A false witness testifying lies, and one who incites brothers to quarrel" (Proverbs 6:17-19). And Rabbi Yochanan said, "And all of them are struck with tsaraat."

Another interpretation: "This shall be the law for a leper" - this is what is written (Psalms 36:13), "Who is the man who desires life?" There is a story of a peddler who would go around to towns that were close to Tzippori. He would shout out and say, "Who wants to buy the [potion] of life?" They would [all] cling to him. Rabbi Yannai was sitting and interpreting [texts] in his reception room [and] heard him shouting out, "Who wants to buy the [potion] of life?" [Rabbi Yannai] said, "Come down to here, sell [it] to me." He said [back] to him, "You do not need it and those like you do not [need it]." [Nonetheless,] he made the effort to come and go down to him. He took out a book of Psalms and showed him the verse, "Who is the man who desires life?" [The peddler said,] "What is written after it - 'guard your tongue from evil [...] Turn away from evil and do good' (Psalms 34:14-15)." Rabbi Yannai said, "Shlomo also shouted out and said (Proverbs 21:23), 'He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from troubles.'" Rabbi Yannai said "All of my days I was reading this verse and I did not know how to interpret it until this peddler came and made it understood - 'Who is the man who desires life?'" Therefore, Moshe warns Israel and says to them, "This shall be the law for a leper (metsora)" - the law of the one that gives out a bad name (motsee shem) [to another].

Another interpretation: "This shall be the law for a leper" - this is what is written (Job 20:6), "If his height ascends to the heavens and his head reaches the clouds." "His height" - on high. "To the clouds" - to the clouds. "He shall perish forever like his own dung" (Job 20:7) -- just as this dung stinks, so to he stinks. "Those who have seen him will ask, 'Where is he?'" (ibid.) -- they will see him but not recognise him, since so it is written of the friends of Job (Job 2:12) "They lifted up their eyes from afar and did not recognise him." Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish [disagreed]. Rabbi Yochanan said, it is forbidden to walk within four cubits to the east of a metzora, and Rabbi Shimon said even one hundred cubits. They did not [in fact] disagree -- the one who said four cubits [referred to] a time when the wind is not blowing, and the one who said one hundred, [referred to] a time that the wind is blowing. Rabbi Meir would not eat in the offshoots of the alley of a metzora. Rabbi Amei and Rabbi Asei would not ascend to the alley of a metzora. Reish Lakish when he saw one of them was in the city, he stoned them with stones and said to them "Go to your place and do not stink up [the outside/creation]. As Rabbi Chiya taught (Leviticus 13:46) - "Alone he shall dwell" - on his own he shall dwell. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon saw one of them and hid from them, as it is written: "This is the law of the metzora" - the one who brings out a bad name [MoTzi shem Ra]

16) "the law for him with a plague-spot of leprosy": We are hereby taught that if a poor man brought the offering of a rich man, it is valid. I might think that if a rich man, likewise, brought the offering of a poor man, it is valid; it is, therefore, written (to exclude this): "This is the law, etc." "for him with a plague-spot of leprosy, etc.": We are hereby taught a man may bring a poor man's offering for his son, for his daughter and for his manservant and maidservant, and feed them from the sacrifices. I might think that he could also bring a poor man's offering for his wife; it is, therefore, written "This." These are the words of R. Yehudah. For R. Yehudah says: A man brings a rich man's offering for his wife, and, similarly, all of her offerings for which she is liable. For thus does she write to him (in the receipt of her kethubah): "And your previous obligations to me, etc." (viz. Bava Metzia 104a)

12b) davar halamed misofo (something learned from its end): (Vayikra 14:34): "And I shall put a plague-spot of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession." This implies that a house which has stones, wood, and mortar is susceptible of such uncleanliness. — But I might think that even a house lacking these is likewise susceptible! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:45): "Then he shall break down the house — its stones, its wood, and all the mortar of the house." From the end we learn that a house is not susceptible of such uncleanliness unless it has stones, wood, and mortar.

12b) davar halamed misofo (something learned from its end): (Vayikra 14:34): "And I shall put a plague-spot of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession." This implies that a house which has stones, wood, and mortar is susceptible of such uncleanliness. — But I might think that even a house lacking these is likewise susceptible! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:45): "Then he shall break down the house — its stones, its wood, and all the mortar of the house." From the end we learn that a house is not susceptible of such uncleanliness unless it has stones, wood, and mortar.

15) "and he shall make atonement for the house and it shall be clean.": If this (procedure with the birds) is written in respect to a leper, why must it be written in respect to houses? And if it is written in respect to houses, why must it be written in respect to a leper? Because there obtains with houses what does not obtain with a leper, and with a leper what does not obtain with houses. A leper requires an offering and a house does not require an offering. A leper has cleansing from his tumah and a house has no cleansing from its tumah, (but must be razed). So that because there obtains with a leper what does not obtain with houses, and with houses what does not obtain with a leper, both a leper and houses must be written.

This is what is written, "That one's household will be cast forth by a flood, Spilled out on the day of God's wrath" (Job 20:28). When will this happen? On the day that anger of the Holy One of Blessing will be stirred up against that person. How would it happen? When a person says to their neighbor, "could you lend me a kav [roughly 1.5 liters] of wheat?" And they reply, "I don't have any." "A kav of barely?" "I don't have any." "A kav of dates?" "I don't have any." Or a woman says to her neighbor, "could you lend me a strainer?" And she replies, "I don't have one." "Could you lend me a seive?" And she replies, "I don't have one." What does the Holy One of Blessing do? The plauge erupts within that house, and while the person is bringing out their possessions, the people see, and say, "Didn't they say they didn't have anything at all?! Look at how much wheat there is, how much barely, how many dates there are! A cursed house with these curses!" Rabbi Yitzchak in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, "Better to derive this from the following verse (Vayikra 14:37): '[If, when the kohen examines the plague, the plague in the walls of the house is found to consist of greenish or reddish streaks that appear to] go deep [into the wall]' [the word for "go deep", sh'kah-arurot, being broken into two words, sh'kah arurot, the curses sink down.] The house sinks with these curses." Therefore Moshe cautioned Israel (Vayikra 14:34), "When you enter the land of Canaan...".

This is what is written, "That one's household will be cast forth by a flood, Spilled out on the day of God's wrath" (Job 20:28). When will this happen? On the day that anger of the Holy One of Blessing will be stirred up against that person. How would it happen? When a person says to their neighbor, "could you lend me a kav [roughly 1.5 liters] of wheat?" And they reply, "I don't have any." "A kav of barely?" "I don't have any." "A kav of dates?" "I don't have any." Or a woman says to her neighbor, "could you lend me a strainer?" And she replies, "I don't have one." "Could you lend me a seive?" And she replies, "I don't have one." What does the Holy One of Blessing do? The plauge erupts within that house, and while the person is bringing out their possessions, the people see, and say, "Didn't they say they didn't have anything at all?! Look at how much wheat there is, how much barely, how many dates there are! A cursed house with these curses!" Rabbi Yitzchak in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, "Better to derive this from the following verse (Vayikra 14:37): '[If, when the kohen examines the plague, the plague in the walls of the house is found to consist of greenish or reddish streaks that appear to] go deep [into the wall]' [the word for "go deep", sh'kah-arurot, being broken into two words, sh'kah arurot, the curses sink down.] The house sinks with these curses." Therefore Moshe cautioned Israel (Vayikra 14:34), "When you enter the land of Canaan...".

Another Matter: "When You shall enter into the land of Cana'an [the land of Israel]..." (ויקרא יד, לד) There are seven Nations [in Cana'an] and you [only] mention the land of Cana'an. Our sages said it alluded to that what H'am (the father of Cana'an) Castrated him (Noach) and Cana'an was stricken - also here Yisrael sins and the land is caused to be cursed. Rabbi Eliezer Son of Yaakov and Rabanan / our sages [differ in opinions] Rabbi Eliezer says [it is called such] "since Cana'an was the father of all of them [the 6 other nations, who were in Cana'an / Israel when Yehoshua went to conquer them.] This what it says [regarding it] (Bereshit 10:15) "And Cana'an gave birth to Tzidon, his first born and Het. And our sages say [it is called such] for they are all merchants - like it says in (Yeshaya 23,8) "That their merchants are princes like the Naneah / movers - the honored of the land. Rabbi Yossi Son of Dosa said - Eliezer is Cana'an - and since he served that righteous one [Avraham Avinu / our forefather] he went out from the category of being cursed to and came into the category of being blessed. - Thus is what is written (Bereshit 9:25) "And he [Noach] said Cursed is Cana'an" [the son of Noach's son H'am] and it is written Come blessed one of Hash-m"...

It is written: "and I gave the plague of Tzaraat” (Vayikra 14:34) Rabbi Hiya learned - and is this [good] news for them that a plague will come upon them? Rabbi Shimon son of Yohai learned since the Canaanites heard that Yisrael were coming upon them, they got up and they hid their money in their houses and in their fields . The Holy One Blessed Be He [Hash-m] said "I promised to your forefathers that I would enter their children to a land full of good" as it is said (Devarim 6:11) “ and houses full of good.” What did Hash-m do? He sent plagues in their houses [of Jews who settled in Israel] - and he [the owner of the house] would break it down and he would find there a treasure. And who was the one who told the Canaanites that Israel was entering into the land? Rabbi Yishmael son of Nah'man said "there are three ultimatums that Yoshua / Joshua sent to them [to the nations that were in Israel at the time he was about to conquer it] the one who wishes to leave, may leave. The one who wishes to make peace [by committing to observe the 7 Noahide laws], may make peace. And the one who wishes to make war, let them do so. The Girgashi [nation] stood up and left - the country] therefore He [Hash-m] gave him a land beautiful like His [Hash-m’s] land [Israel]. This is what is written (Yeshaya 36:17) “ until I came and I took you to the land like your land" - this is Africa [Some Say the Girgashi Went to Morocco - which is a beautiful land]. The Givonim made peace as it says (Yehoshua 10:1) “ and when the settlers of Gibon made peace…”. Thirty-one kings waged war and fell.

16) (Vayikra 14:54) "This is the law, etc.": Whence is it derived that a Cohein who is expert in plague-spots (i.e., se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth), but not in nethakim; in nethakim, but not in karachoth; in karachoth, but not in shechin and michvah; in shechin and michvah, but not in garments; in garments, but not in houses — (Whence is it derived that) he should not examine plague-spots until he is expert in (all of) them and in their names? From (Vayikra 14:54-57) "This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house, and for a se'eth, and for a sapachath, and for a bahereth, to teach" (i.e., he should not teach others unless he is expert in all of them). (Vayikra 14:57) Rebbi says: "on the unclean day and on the clean day": We are hereby taught that he rules "unclean" in the daytime and he rules "clean" in the daytime. Chananiah b. Chachonai says: What is the intent of "to teach"? We are hereby taught that he does not examine plague-spots until his master teaches him.

16) (Vayikra 14:54) "This is the law, etc.": Whence is it derived that a Cohein who is expert in plague-spots (i.e., se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth), but not in nethakim; in nethakim, but not in karachoth; in karachoth, but not in shechin and michvah; in shechin and michvah, but not in garments; in garments, but not in houses — (Whence is it derived that) he should not examine plague-spots until he is expert in (all of) them and in their names? From (Vayikra 14:54-57) "This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house, and for a se'eth, and for a sapachath, and for a bahereth, to teach" (i.e., he should not teach others unless he is expert in all of them). (Vayikra 14:57) Rebbi says: "on the unclean day and on the clean day": We are hereby taught that he rules "unclean" in the daytime and he rules "clean" in the daytime. Chananiah b. Chachonai says: What is the intent of "to teach"? We are hereby taught that he does not examine plague-spots until his master teaches him.

5 (Numb. 16:1) “[Korah who is] the son of Izhar [who is] the son of Kohath [who is] the son of Levi betook himself”: But why is it not written "the son of Jacob" [or] "the son of Israel?"¹³ Cf.Gen. R. 98:5. This text is related (to Gen. 49:6), “Let not my soul come into their council,” i.e., that of the spies; “and let not my glory be joined with their congregation,” i.e., that of Korah. Jacob said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, with reference to the spies and with reference to the dissension of Korah, let not my name be mentioned [in connection with] those evil men, who are going to cause provocation. So when should my name (Israel) be joined upon them? When they are joined together to stand on the dais (as Levitical singers), as stated (I Chron. 6:[17,] 22–23) ‘[These are the ones whom David put in charge of song in the house of the Lord….] The son of Assir [who is] the son of Ebiasaph [who is] the son of Korah [who is] the son of Izhar [who is] the son of Kohath [who is] the son of Levi [who is] the son of Israel.’” (Numb. 16:1, cont.) “Along with Dathan and Abiram”: From here the sages said, “Woe to the wicked one, [and] woe to his neighbor.”¹⁴See Neg. 12:6; Sifra to Lev.14:40 (157: Metsora‘, pereq 4); ARN, A, 9; cf. ARN, B, 16; Numb.R. 3:12; Suk. 56b; above, Numb.1:13. Dathan and Abiram [were destroyed by the dissent of Korah], because they were neighbors of Korah. As he was dwelling to the south (of the tabernacle), as stated (in Numb. 3:29), “The families of the Children of Kohath were to camp along the side of the tabernacle to the south.” The standard of Reuben was near them, as stated (in Numb. 2:10), “The standard of the camp of Reuben shall be to the south.” However, the standard of Judah was in the east, and with him were Issachar and Zebulun, as stated (in Numb. 2:3), “Now these camping in front to the east shall be the standard of the camp of Judah.” And near them were Moses and Aaron, as written (in Numb. 3:38), “Those who camped before the tabernacle, in front before the tent of meeting to the east, were Moses, Aaron, and his children.” Because these were near the Torah, they were therefore worthy to be Torah scholars, as written (in Ps. 60:9), “Judah is my lawgiver.”¹⁵Mehoqeq. Most translations render the word as scepter, since kingship was what Judah actually attained. And it is [also] written (in I Chron. 12:33), “And from the Children of Issachar, those who had an understanding of the times.” And it is [also] written (in Jud. 5:14), “and from Zebulon those who wield the scribal pen.” But Dathan and Abiram, who were neighbors to Korah – the one responsible for the dissent – were struck with him and perished from the world.

3 (Numb. 19:2) “This is the statute of the Torah”: R. Isaac began [his discourse] (with Eccl. 7:23), “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.” It is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom [...].” What is the meaning of (I Kings 5:9, cont.,) “As vast as the sand of the sea.” The rabbis say, “[This] teaches that He gave him as much wisdom as all Israel, who are compared to the sand, as stated (in Hos. 2:1), ‘The number of the Children of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea. R. Levi said, “Just as sand is a wall and a fence for [the sea], that it not go out and flood the world; so was wisdom a fence for Solomon.” The proverb says, “If you lack knowledge, what have you gained? If you have gained knowledge, what do you lack?” Like (in Prov. 25:28) “A city broken into with no walls,” so “is a person who does not restrain his spirit.” (I Kings 5:10) “Now Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the East”: And what was the wisdom of the peoples of the East?²⁹Above, Gen. 7:24; PR 14:9. [In that] they were astute at divination (from birds). Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “I like three things, etc.” (I Kings 5:10, cont.) “From all the wisdom of Egypt”: What was the wisdom of Egypt? You find that when Solomon wanted to build the Temple, he sent to Pharaoh Necho and said to him, “Send me craftsmen [to work] for a wage, for I want to build the Temple.” What did Pharaoh do? He gathered all his astrologers³⁰Gk.: astrologoi. and said to them, “Foresee which people are going to die this year and send them to him.” When they came to Solomon, he foresaw through the holy spirit that they would die during that year. He [therefore] gave them shrouds and sent them [back] to [Pharaoh]. He sent to him, saying, “Do you not have shrouds to bury your dead? Here they are for you with their shrouds.” (I Kings 5:11) “And he was wiser than any man (literally, than all of Adam),” than the first Adam. And what was his wisdom? You find that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the first Adam, He consulted with the ministering angels. He said to them (in Gen. 1:26), “Let us make humankind (Adam) in Our image.” They said to him (in Ps. 8:5), “What is a human that You are mindful of him?” He said to them, “This Adam that I want to create Adam shall have wisdom greater than yours.” What did He do? He gathered all cattle, wild beasts, and fowl to pass before them. He said to them, “What are the names of these [beings]?” They, however, did not know. When He had created Adam, He made them pass before him. He said to him, “What are the names of these [beings]?” He said, “It is fitting to call this one an ox, this one a lion, this one a horse, [...]” and so on for all of them. It is so stated (in Gen. 2:20), “So Adam recited names”³¹The understanding of the midrash is that the creatures implicitly already possessed names. He said to him, “And you, what is your name?” Adam said to him, “Adam, because I was created out of the ground (adamah).” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I, what is My name?” He said to him, “The Lord, because you are Lord over all creatures,” namely as written (in Is. 42:8), “I am the Lord, that is My name,” which the first Adam gave me. It is the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and Myself; it is the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and My creatures. (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “[Wiser] than Ethan the Ezrahite”: This is Abraham, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 89:1), “A maskil (a psalm of erudition) of Ethan the Ezrahite.”³²It is assumed, of course that Abraham wrote the Psalm, an assumption based on a comparison of Ps. 89:1 and Is. 41:2: WHO HAS RAISED UP RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM THE EAST?. See BB 15a. The Ezrahite (‘ezrahi) of Ps. 89:1 is understood in the sense of “Easterner,” and Ethan (which means “steadfast”) is regarded as equivalent to “righteous.” For another argument identifying Ethan and Abraham, see PR 6:5. (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “And Heman (rt.: 'mn)”: This is Moses, of whom it is stated (in Numb. 12:7 with reference to Moses), “[… he is trusted (rt.: 'mn) in all My house].” (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “Calcol (klkl)”: This is Joseph, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 47:12), “And joseph sustained (rt.: klkl) [his father and his brothers].” The Egyptians said, “Has this slave come to rule over us for any reason but because of his wisdom?” What did they do to him? They brought seventy tablets³³Gk.: piyyakia; Lat.: pittacia. and wrote on them in seventy tongues. Then when they cast them before him, he read each and every one in its own tongue. And not only that, but he spoke in the holy tongue, which they did not have the ability to understand, as stated (in Ps. 81:6), “He made it a statute upon Joseph, when he went out over the land of Egypt. I hear a language I had not known.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “Darda (drd')]:” This is the generation (dor) of the desert, which had knowledge (de'ah). (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “The children of Mahol,” i.e., the Children of Israel whom the Divine Presence forgave (rt.: mhl) for the deed of the calf. (I Kings 5:12) “Moreover he composed three thousand proverbs”: R. Samuel bar Nahmani said, “We have gone over all of the scriptures and have found that Solomon only uttered prophetically close to eight hundred verses.³⁴See Cant. R. 1:1:11. Then what is meant by three thousand? [This number] teaches that each and every verse that he spoke contains two [or] three interpretations, just as it says (in Prov. 25:12), ‘Like an earring of gold, a necklace of fine gold, [so is a wise reprover to a listening ear].’”³⁵The midrash understands the WISE REPROVER TO BE Solomon himself, who is likened to both a golden earring and a golden necklace. But the rabbis say, “Every verse has three thousand proverbs, while each and every proverb has a thousand and five interpretations.” [(I Kings 5:12, cont.) “And his song numbered a thousand and five”:] “His songs” is not written here, but “his song,” the song of the proverb. (I Kings 5:13) “And he spoke with/concerning ('al)³⁶The point of the midrash in this and in the following chapter concerns whether to understand ‘al as “with” or “concerning.” the trees”: Is it possible that a person would speak with the trees? Solomon merely said, “For what reason is a leper cleansed through the tallest among the trees (the cedar) and through the lowest of the low (the hyssop); through (according to Lev. 14:4) cedar wood, [crimson stuff,] and hyssop?’ It is simply because he had exalted himself like the cedar, that he was stricken with leprosy. As soon as he humbled himself like the hyssop, he was therefore cured through hyssop”. (I Kings 5:13, cont.) “He also spoke with/concerning ('al) the cattle and the fowl”: Is it possible that [a person] would speak with cattle and with fowl? Rather [the passage is concerned with] why the cattle are permitted [as food] with [the cutting of] two organs³⁷Gk.: semeia (“signs,” “omens”). (the gullet and the windpipe); but the fowl, with [the cutting of] one organ (i.e., the gullet or the windpipe).³⁸See Hul. 2:1; Hul. 27b. Because cattle were created from the dry land. But in regard to fowl, one text says [they came] from the dry land, while another text says [they came] from the sea. [The text stating fowls came] from the dry land is what is written (in Gen. 2:19), “So from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens.” The other text says (in Gen. 1:20), “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and the fowl fly above the earth.”³⁹This unusual translation of Gen. 1:20 is required by the midrash. Bar Qappara said, “They were created from the mud which is in the sea.” R. Abbin said the name of R. Jose the Galilean said, “Nevertheless, the feet of the cock resemble the scaly skin⁴⁰Reading HSPNYT’ with the parallel in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Kings, 178, for Buber’s HRTsPYTYH. of the fish.”⁴¹A fish of the genus anthias. (I Kings 5:13, cont.) “And with/concerning ('al) the creeping things”: Is it possible that one would speak with a creeping thing? Solomon simply said, “What is the reason that in the case of the eight swarming creatures which are in the Torah, one is culpable for hunting or injuring them (on the Sabbath)⁴²Shab. 14:1.; but in the case of the rest of the swarming creatures, one is exempt?⁴³Shab. 14:1. For the reason that they (i.e. the former) have skins.”⁴⁴Shab. 107ab, explains that in the case of skin, as distinct from the flesh, a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar. Thus part of the animal’s life is lost. See yShab. 14:1 (14b); also Hul. 9:2. Cf. Rashi on Shab. 14:1, according to whom cutting the skin causes blood to color it in a form of dying, an act forbidden on the Sabbath. (I Kings 5:13 cont.) “And with/concerning ('al) the fish”: Is it possible that one would so speak? Solomon merely said, “For what reason do cattle, beasts, and birds require ritual slaughtering, while fish do not require ritual slaughtering?” Rather it is from this verse (in Numb. 11:22), “Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; [are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them]?” Jacob the man of Kefar Nibburayya taught in Tyre with respect to fish, that they do require ritual slaughtering. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis did you decide this?” He said to him, “From here (in Gen. 1:20), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the fowl fly.’ Just as fowl require ritual slaughtering, so do the fish require ritual slaughtering.” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “On what basis?” He said to him, “From here (in Numb. 11:22), ‘Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them?’ The former require ritual slaughtering, while the latter [is taken] through gathering.” He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” And again did Jacob the man of Kefar Nibburayya teach in Tyre, [this time] with respect to an Israelite man, who came upon a foreign woman and had her bear him a son, that he should be circumcised on the Sabbath. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him, “[From this which is written] (in Numb. 1:18) ‘then they registered their lineages according to their families according to the house of their fathers.’” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “From where can you show me?” He said to him, “If one of the gentiles came to you in order to become a proselyte on condition that you circumcise him on the Sabbath day or on the Day of Atonement, would you profane the Sabbath on account of him or not? Is it not true that one does not profane the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement for him but only for the son of an Israelite woman.” He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him (in Ezra 10:3), “So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all (foreign) wives and (anyone] born of them […].” He said to him, “Would you lash me on the basis of [a non-Mosaic text]?” He said to him, “It is written (ibid.), ‘let it be done [according to] the Torah.’” He said to him, “From which [piece of] Torah?” He said to him, “From that of R. Johanan, when he said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, ‘It is written (in Deut. 7:3), “You shall not intermarry with them; do not give your daughters to their sons.” Why? (As in Deut. 7:4,) “Because they will turn your children away from following me.” Your child that comes from an Israelite woman is called "your child"; but that which comes from a foreign woman is called, not "your child," but "her child,” as stated (in Gen. 21:13), “And I will also make the son of the maidservant into a nation.”’" He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” Solomon said, “About all these things I have knowledge; but in the case of the parashah on the red heifer, I have investigated it, inquired into it, and examined it. [Still] (at the end of the verse in Eccl. 7:23), ‘I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.’”

(Exodus 20:21) "And you shall slaughter thereon": alongside it (i.e., alongside the top). You say "alongside it, but perhaps it is to be understood literally, i.e., "upon it"? And this would follow, viz.: If the north of the altar, which is not kasher for atonement (i.e., for the sprinkling of the blood [viz. Leviticus 1:5]), is kasher for slaughtering, then the top of the altar, which is kasher for atonement, how much more so should it be kasher for slaughtering! This (a fortiori argument) is refuted by the inner altar, which, though it is kasher for atonement, (the blood of the bullocks for burning being sprinkling upon it) is not kasher for slaughtering, (which is to be performed at the entrance of the tent of meeting.) And this would indicate of the outer altar that though it is kasher for atonement, is not kasher for slaughtering. __ No, this may be true of the inner altar, which does not render (a leper) kasher (to eat of the offerings) and does not render (an offering) permitted (to be eaten), and does not consummate the atonement, (for after the blood was sprinkled on the inner altar, the remnant had to be spilled on the outer altar) — wherefore it is not kasher for slaughtering. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 12;27) "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings — the flesh and the blood — upon the altar': "the flesh and the blood upon (i.e., on top of) the altar," and not slaughtering on top of the altar, (but alongside it). R. Assi says: Slaughtering also is on top of the altar. And Scripture supports him, viz. "An altar of earth shall you make for Me and you shall slaughter therein, etc." One verse states "your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings," and, another "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings — the flesh and the blood, etc." How are these two verses to be reconciled? R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: From half the altar northwards is regarded as north, and from half the altar southwards is regarded as south. And this tells me only that the north of the altar is kasher for slaughtering. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the north of the azarah (the Temple court)? From (Leviticus 14:13) "And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he shall slaughter the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the holy place." Let this not be written. (Why is it written?) To render kasher the entire northern side (of the azarah)? "And you shall slaughter therein your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This tells me only of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) all offerings/ This tells me (that it is permitted to slaughter on the altar only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) all offerings? From (Ibid. 20:21) "your sheep and your cattle." __ But this would imply that he could slaughter there both offerings and non-offerings! Would you say that? What is the context? That of offerings (and not of non-offerings).

(Lev. 24:10:) “Now there went out the son of an Israelite woman, [whose father was Egyptian].” From where did he go out? R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “He went out from the Parashah on genealogies.¹⁰⁶Lev. R. 32:3; Sifra to Lev. 14:10 (242: Emor, Parashah 14). When he came to pitch his tent in the camp of Dan, they rejected him. Now they said to him, ‘You have an Egyptian father, but it is written (in Numb. 2:2), ‘each with his standard, under the banners of their fathers' houses,’ and not ‘of their mothers' houses.’ Immediately (according to Lev. 24:11), he began to utter the name [of God] and curse it.” R. Levi said, “He was clearly a bastard.¹⁰⁷See Enoch Zundel’s ‘Ets Yosef commentary on Tanchuma here, as such a case is not included in the legal definition of a bastard (mamzer). How so? Taskmasters were from Egypt, and the officers were from Israel.¹⁰⁸Exod. R. 1:28; Lev. R. 32:4. The taskmaster was in charge of ten officers, and the officer was in charge of ten Israelites. [Thus,] it turned out that the taskmaster was in charge of a hundred and ten Israelites. On one occasion a taskmaster met an officer. He said to him, ‘Go gather your groups of ten.’ When he had gone, he entered his house and sullied Shelomith, the officer's wife. [When] her husband returned, he found him leaving his house. When [the taskmaster knew that her husband] noticed him, he beat him every day and said to him, ‘Toil properly, toil properly.’ The holy spirit was kindled in Moses. He raised his eyes to the sky. He said, ‘Was it not enough for this wicked man to rape his wife, but that he should return and beat him?’ Immediately (according to Exod. 2:12), ‘he smote the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “In this world you are delivered through sins into the hands of the nations of the world. However, in the world to come (according to Is. 49:23), ‘Kings shall be your guardians; their ladies, your wet nurses; they shall bow down before you, nose to the ground, and lick the dust of your feet; then you shall know that I am the Lord; those who trust Me shall not be ashamed.’”

(Numb. 4:18:) “Do not cut off.” This text is related (to Ps. 33:18), “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him….” The text speaks along many lines of thought.¹²¹Shittim. For this use of the word, Buber, n. 209, cites Lev. R. 34:8. For the other interpretations, see above, Gen. 6:5. For what we need, however, it is speaking about the tribe of Levi.¹²²Numb. R. 5:1. And where is it shown? Where the tribe of Levi is called those who fear the Lord, as stated (in Mal. 2:5), “and I gave them (i.e., life and peace) as well as fear, and he feared Me.” (Ps. 33:19) “On those who wait for His steadfast love,” because they are always waiting for the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. (Ps. 33:19:) “To deliver their soul from death and to keep them alive in famine,” through the twenty-four gifts which the Holy One, blessed be He, has given them.¹²³THal. 2:7-9; BQ 110b (bar.); Hul. 133b (bar.); cf. Hal. 4:9. These are them: ten in the sanctuary, ten within the borders, and four in Jerusalem. The ten in the sanctuary: the sin offering (Lev. 6:17-23; Zev. 5:3), the guilt offering (Lev. 5:14-16, 20-26; 19:20-22; Zev. 5:5), the peace sacrifices and the community peace sacrifices (Lev. 23:19-20; Zev. 5:5), the sin offering of a fowl (Lev. 5:8), the guilt offering for a doubtful sin (Lev. 5:17-19; Zev. 5:5), the leper's log of oil (Lev. 14:12), the two loaves (Lev. 23:17), the shewbread (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9), the remnant of the omer (Lev. 23:10-12; Men. 10:4), and the remainder of the meal offering (Lev. 2:3).
The ten within the borders: the terumah (Numb. 18:12), the terumah of the tithe (Numb. 18:25-29), the hallah (Numb. 15:18-21), the first of the shorn wool (Deut. 18:4), the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach (Deut. 18:3), the redemption of the [first-born] son (Numb. 18:15-16), [the redemption of] a firstling ass (Exod. 13:13), [the payment for] the robbery of a proselyte (Thal. 2:9; Bq 110b; Hul. 133b), things consecrated (Numb. 18:14; Bik. 3:12), and a field of possession (Lev. 27:16-21)
The four in Jerusalem: the firstlings [of animals] (Numb. 18:17-18), the first fruits (Exod. 23:19; Numb. 18:13; Hal. 4:9), the priest's share from the thank-offering ram and from the nazarite ram, the breast of the peace offerings, and the thigh (Exod. 29:27-28; Lev. 7:12-14; 31-34; 10:14-15; Numb. 6:13-20; 18:18), and skins of [burnt, sin, and guilt] offerings (Lev. 7:8; Zev. 12:3)
Behold, these are twenty-four gifts. Ergo (in Ps. 33:19), “and to keep them alive in famine. (Numb. 4:18) “Do not cut off [the tribe of the Kohathite families from the Levites].” The Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that Korah was going to arise and disagree about the priesthood.¹²⁴Cf. Numb. R. 5:5. The Holy One, blessed be He, said. “I will not destroy the Levites because of Korah.” (Numb. 4:18:) “Do not cut off [the tribe of the Kohathite families from the Levites].” This text is related (to Is. 48:9), “For the sake of My name I will delay My anger, and for My praise I will hold back for you so as not to cut you off.” To what is the matter comparable?¹²⁵Numb. R. 5:6. To a king who had a son that was associated with bandits;¹²⁶Gk.: lestai. and when they were captured, his son was captured with them. The king said, “What shall I do? Shall I execute the robbers? Possibly my son is with them. Instead, for the sake of my son, I will exonerate them for now.” Similarly, the Levites carried the tabernacle. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 7:9), “But to the Children of Kohath he gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy.” When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that Korah and his assembly were going to be opposed to Moses and Aaron, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “What shall I do with these? To kill them in the desert is not possible.” Why? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken half of His name and bestowed it upon them, the yh (of yhwh) in the Kohathite (hqhty in Numb. 4:18).¹²⁷Numb. R. 5:6, and Yalqut Shim‘oni, Is. 48:9, 326 (466) add that the letters from the divine name appear at the end and the beginning of HQHTY, and Numb. R. explains further that the Holy One added the definite article (H) to the name, Kohathite, for this very reason. It therefore says (in Is. 48:9), “For the sake of My name I will delay¹²⁸Literally: LENGTHEN. This verb may have suggested that the Holy One deliberately lengthened the name, Kohathite, with the addition of the article. My anger….”

(Bamidbar 6:5) "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head."): Scripture now leaves the subject of wine and comes to speak of shaving. "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism": His vow (i.e., his offerings) is contingent upon his Naziritism (i.e., If he vows to be a Nazirite, then after his (period of) Naziritism he must bring his offerings), and his Naziritism is not contingent upon his vow (i.e., If he vows to bring the offering, he need not become a Nazirite.) "a blade shall not pass over his head": to equate the shaver with the shaved one (i.e., one who shaves him is liable, as is the shaved one himself). "a blade shall not pass over his head": This tells me only of a blade. Whence do I derive that he also receives forty lashes for tearing, plucking, and trimming? From "holy shall he be," in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks (only) of a blade. If he tore, plucked, or trimmed, he does not receive stripes. "until the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd": Whence is it derived that if one vows to be a Nazirite without qualifying (for how long), he shaves on the thirty-first day, and if he shaved on the thirtieth day he has fulfilled his obligations? From "until the fulfillment of the day of his Naziritism to the L-rd" — and they have been fulfilled. I might think that even if he vowed a one hundred day Naziritism and he shaved on the thirty-first day he has fulfilled his obligation; it is, therefore, written "until the fulfillment of his days," and he has not yet fulfilled them. This tells me (only) of one whose (period of) Naziritism is limited. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who vowed "eternal" Naziritism (i.e., that he must be a Nazirite all of his days)? From "all the days of the vow of his Naziritism … holy shall he be." "holy shall he be": You say that this refers to holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the hair. But perhaps it refers to the holiness of the body (i.e., not to become defiled by the dead). (This is not so, for) (Ibid. 8) "He is holy to the L-rd" speaks of holiness of the body. How, then, am I to understand "holy shall he be"? As referring to holiness of the hair, "holy shall he be": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18) "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting," I would think that only the hair of one who shaves as prescribed is forbidden and imposes constraints. How would I know (that the same applies) if vandals shaved him? From "holy shall he be" — in any event. R. Yossi says: Why is it written "holy shall he be"? Because it is written "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head," I might think (that Naziritism obtains only) with one who has hair. Whence do I derive (that it also obtains) with one who does not have hair? From "holy shall he be" — in any event. R. Yonathan says: It is not needed (for the above), for it is written (Ibid. 7) "for the crown of his G-d is on his head" — whether or not he has hair. What, then, is the intent of "holy shall he be"? As we stated above (in respect to "eternal" Naziritism). Unqualified Naziritism is thirty days, it being written "holy shall he be ("yiheyeh"): The numerical equivalent of "yiheyeh" is thirty. "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head." Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written "a blade shall not pass over his head.") It is written (of a leper, Vayikra 14:9) "And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair." This implies even a Nazirite (leper). And how would I understand "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head"? As applying to other Nazirites, excluding the leper. Or, perhaps, even a Nazirite (leper). It is, therefore, written "he shall let grow the locks ('pera') of the hair of his head." From here you learn of the leper, of whom it is written (Vayikra 13:45) "And his head shall be parua" that "parua" means "grown long." You say it means that, but perhaps it is to be taken literally (as meaning "uncovered.") You, therefore, reason as follows: It is written here (in respect to a leper) "parua," and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite) "parua" (i.e., "pera," like "parua"). Just as there (re Nazirite), "parua" means growing the hair, so, "parua" here (re leper) means growing the hair. "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head."): (A Nazirite who shaved his head at the end of his period of Naziritism [before he brought the offering, etc.] is liable,) it being written "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism a blade shall not pass over his head" — to include the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering (as in the above-cited instance) as equivalent (for liability) to the days in the midst of his Naziritism. — But perhaps he is liable (for shaving his head) only if he does so before he completes his period of Naziritism! — (No,) it follows (that this is not so,) viz.: Since he is forbidden to drink wine and he is forbidden to shave, if I have learned about wine that the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering were equated with the days in the midst of the period of his Naziritism, the same must be true of shaving. And, furthermore, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If re wine, the drinking of which does not void (the count of his preceding Nazirite days), the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of his offering were equated (for liability) with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period, then re shaving, which does void (the Nazirite count), how much more so should this be true! — (No,) this may be true of the drinking of wine, where no act in its category (the drinking of wine by a Nazirite) was permitted — wherefore the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period — but would you say the same for shaving, where an act in its category (the shaving of a Nazirite leper on the seventh day) was permitted — wherefore we would say that the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were not equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! — (No!) This is refuted by the instance of tumah (a Nazir's defiling himself with a dead body), where though there is an act in its category which is permitted (i.e., a Nazir's defiling himself for a meth mitzvah [one who has no kin to bury him]), still the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! And this would indicate about shaving, that even though there is an act in its category which is permitted, still, the days after the Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are to be equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period. — No, this may be true of tumah, which voids the whole (previous) count, which is not so with shaving, which does not void the whole. I have not succeeded (in proving the equality) with my a fortiori argument. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 20) "and thereafter (i.e., after bringing the offering), the Nazirite may drink wine." Now may a Nazirite drink wine? But (the idea is that) it (the word "Nazirite") is "extra" to signal a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: it is written here (in respect to shaving [6:5]) "nazir," and it is written elsewhere (20) "nazir" (in respect to the drinking of wine). Just as with (the "extra") "nazir" there, the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period, so, with shaving. (6:5) "He shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head." Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written [Ibid.] "a blade shall not pass over his head until the fulfillment of the days when he is a Nazirite to the L-rd.") From "until the fulfillment of the days," I would think that this ("fulfillment") is satisfied by a minimum of two days; it is, therefore, written "He shall let grow the hair of the locks of his head." How long does this take? Not less than thirty days. But (if he said: I will be a Nazirite) a month and above — even a month and one day or a month and two days, (he is a Nazirite for any period superadded.)

"and he make unclean the head of his Naziritism": Scripture here speaks of one who was clean (when he began his Nazirite count) and became unclean. It is he who must remove his hair and bring an offering, and not one who undertook Naziritism in the cemetery (in which instance he was already unclean.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If one who was clean and became tamei is liable to remove his hair and to bring an offering, how much more so one who was unclean in the beginning! It is, therefore, written (to negate this) "and he make unclean the head of his Naziritism." "then he shall shave his head": It is his head that he shaves, and not all of his (bodily) hair. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a leper shaves and brings an offering and a Nazirite shaves and brings an offering, then if I learned of a leper that he shaves all of his hair, then a Nazirite, too, should shave all of his hair. — No, this may be true of a leper, who undergoes a second shaving (Vayikra 14:9), wherefore he shaves all of his hair. Would you say the same for a Nazirite, who does not shave a second shaving? — wherefore he should not shave all of his hair. — This is refuted by the Levites, who, though they do not undergo a second shaving, shave all of their hair. It must, therefore, be written "then he shall shave his head" — It is his head that he shaves and not all of his hair. ("then he shall shave his head) on the day of his cleansing": on the day of his sprinkling (of the waters of the red heifer [viz. Bamidbar 19:17]). You say, on the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh, but perhaps ("cleansing" refers to) the day of his offering, on the eighth; it is, therefore, written "on the seventh." If "on the seventh," (I might think that he shaves) even if the waters have not been sprinkled; it is, therefore, written ("then he shall shave") on the day of his cleansing" — the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh. This tells me only of the seventh. Whence do I derive the eighth, the ninth, and the tenth (as also valid for shaving)? From "he shall shave it" (— in any event). This ("on the day") tells me only of the daytime. Whence do I derive the night (as also valid)? From "he shall shave it." This tells me only of the shaving for tumah. Whence do I derive (the same for) the shaving of cleanliness (Ibid. 18)? From "he shall shave it." "he shall shave it, and on the eighth day he shall bring, etc." From here (i.e., from the juxtaposition) they ruled: What is the procedure of the shaving for tumah? First he shaves and then he brings the offering. And if he brought the offering and then shaved, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

The sin offering (Lev. 6:17-23; Zev. 5:3),
The guilt offering (Lev. 5:14-16, 20-26; 19:20-22; Zev. 5:5),
The community peace sacrifices (Lev. 23:19-20; Zev. 5:5),
The sin offering of a fowl (Lev. 5:8),
The guilt offering for a doubtful sin (Lev. 5:17-19; Zev. 5:5),
The leper's log of oil (Lev. 14:12),
The two loaves (Lev. 23:17),
The shewbread (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9),
The remnant of the omer (Lev. 23:10-12; Men. 10:4), and
The remainder of the meal offering (Lev. 2:3).

(Bamidbar 6:12) "And he shall devote to the L-rd the days of his Naziritism (and he shall bring a lamb of the first-year as a guilt-offering"): What is the intent of this? Because we find in respect to all the guilt-offerings of the Torah that they are categorical (requirements for the effecting of a new condition), I might think that this (guilt-offering of the Nazirite) is also categorical (in respect to the resumption of his Naziritism), it is, therefore, written "and he shall devote … and he shall bring, etc." Though he has not yet brought (the guilt-offering), he may re-devote himself (to Naziritism). R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan b. Berokah says: This, too, is categorical, it being written "And he shall devote to the L-rd, etc." (the verse being understood as ) "When (shall he devote to the L-rd)?" when he has brought a lamb of the first year as a guilt-offering. "and the first days shall fall off": Whence is it derived that if one declares himself a Nazirite for a hundred days and he becomes tamei on the ninety-ninth day, he voids all (of the previous count)? From "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has later days voids (the first days). Perhaps even one who becomes tamei on the hundredth day voids all (of the previous count). It is, therefore, written "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has later days voids (the first days), but this one has no later days. Perhaps even if he becomes tamei in the beginning of the hundred (i.e., on the first day) he voids all. It is, therefore, written "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has first "days" (plural), voids, but this one does not have (them). "because his Naziritism was tamei": Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If tumah (i.e., making himself tamei) is forbidden and shaving is forbidden, if I have learned that tumah voids all, shaving, too, should void all. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If tumah, where the defiler (i.e., one who makes a Nazirite tamei) is not equated (for liability) with the defiled (i.e., the Nazirite who makes himself tamei), (if tumah) voids all, then shaving, where the shaver (of a Nazirite) is equated (for liability) with the shaved (i.e., the Nazirite who shaves himself), how much more so should he void all! It is, therefore, written "because his Naziritism was tamei" — Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all, (but just the first thirty days). This (6:11 "and he shall hallow his head to that day") tells me only that the days of his tumah are not counted towards his Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) the days of his confirmation (as a leper)? (i.e., If the Nazirite were a leper, and the Cohein quarantined him, and the plague-spot spread, and he were confirmed as tamei — Whence do I derive that the days of his confirmation are not counted towards his Naziritism?) And it follows (that they should not be counted, viz.: Since the days of his (Nazirite) tumah require shaving and the bringing of an offering, as do the days of confirmation (as a leper), then if I have learned about the days of his tumah that they are not counted towards his Naziritism, so should I learn about the days of his confirmation (as a leper). — No, this may be true of the days of his tumah, which void the preceding days, wherefore they are not counted towards his Naziritism. But would you say the same for the days of his confirmation, which do not void the preceding days? — wherefore they should be counted! Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that they should not be counted), viz.: If one who undertakes Naziritism in the cemetery, whose hair is susceptible of shaving (for new Naziritism after he leaves the cemetery) — If his preceding days are not counted towards his Naziritism, then the days of his (leprosy) confirmation, when his hair is not susceptible of the shaving for Naziritism, how much more so should they not be counted. And the same (i.e., that they are not counted towards his Naziritism) is true for the days of his counting (seven days outside of his tent, Vayikra 14:8).

(Lev. 24:10:) NOW THERE WENT OUT THE SON OF AN ISRAELITE WOMAN, < WHOSE FATHER WAS EGYPTIAN >. From where did he go out? R. Hiyya bar Abba said: he went out (i.e., became excluded from Israel) because of (literally: from) the parashah on genealogies.¹²¹Tanh., Lev. 8:24; Lev. R. 32:3; Sifra to Lev. 14:10 (242: Emor, parashah 14). When he came to pitch his tent in the camp of Dan, they rejected him. Now they said to him: You have an Egyptian father, but it is written (in Numb. 2:2): < THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL CAMP, > EACH WITH HIS STANDARD, UNDER THE BANNERS OF THEIR FATHERS' HOUSES, and not of their mothers' houses. [Immediately,] (according to Lev. 24:11) he began to utter the Name and curse it. R. Levi said: He was a bastard. How so? Taskmasters were from Egypt, and the officers were from Israel.¹²²Exod. R. 1:28; Lev. R. 32:4. The taskmaster was in charge of ten officers, and the officer < was in charge > of ten Israelites. < Thus, > it turned out that the taskmaster was in charge of a hundred {and ten} Israelites. On one occasion a taskmaster met an officer. He said to him: Go gather your groups of ten. When he had gone, he entered his house and seduced Shelomith, the officer's wife. < When > her husband returned, he found him leaving his house. When < the taskmaster > knew that < her husband > noticed him, he beat him every day. The Holy Spirit was kindled in Moses. He raised his eyes to the sky. He said: Was it not enough for this wicked man to rape his wife, but that he should return and beat him? Immediately (according to Exod. 2:12) HE SMOTE THE EGYPTIAN AND HID HIM IN THE SAND. The Holy One said: In this world you are delivered through sins into the hands of the nations of the world. However, in the world to come (according to Is. 49:23): KINGS SHALL BE YOUR GUARDIANS; THEIR LADIES, YOUR WET NURSES; [THEY SHALL BOW DOWN BEFORE YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. THEN YOU SHALL KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD. THOSE WHO TRUST ME SHALL NOT BE ASHAMED.]

... There are eight names for a poor person: ani, evyon, misken, rash, dal, each, mach, helech. Ani [afflicted] means literally “poor”. Evyon [one who longs] because he longs (mita’ev) for everything. Misken [despised] because he is despised by all as it says “The poor man’s (misken) wisdom is despised.” (Eccl 9:16). Rash [impoverished] because he is dispossessed (mitroshesh) of property. Dal [detached] because he is detached (meduldal) from property. Dach [oppressed] because he is crushed (meduchdach); he sees a thing but cannot eat it, he sees a thing and cannot taste it, and cannot drink it. Mach [trampled upon] because he is lowly before everyone, like a kind of lowest threshold. Helech [vagrant] or Chelech [weak]. Therefore Moses warns Israel: "if your brother becomes poor…"

(Bamidbar 6:21) "This is the law of the Nazirite": This (i.e., what we have learned of the offerings) tells me only of the time (of the Temple, when there are offerings). Whence do we derive (that Naziritism obtains) in all generations? From "This is the (perpetual) law." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This (i.e., "This is the law") is stated by way of summation. "his offering to the L-rd for his Naziritism": i.e., his offering to the L-rd is contingent upon his Naziritism, and his Naziritism is not contingent upon his offering (i.e., if he vows to bring the offering, he does not thereby become a Nazirite.) "his offering to the L-rd for his Naziritism": and not the offering of others for his Naziritism (i.e., if he said "I will be a Nazirite on condition that others bring the Nazirite offering," he has said nothing.) "aside from what his hand attains": We are hereby apprised that if he said: I am a Nazirite on condition that I shave over a hundred burnt-offerings and a hundred peace-offerings, I recite over him "According to his vow that he vows thus shall he do." I might think (that the same applies) even if he said: I am a Nazirite on condition that I shave over a hundred sin-offerings and a hundred guilt-offerings. It is, therefore, written "that he vows." It applies only to offerings that are brought as vows and gifts (to exclude the above). I might think that even if he said "I undertake five Naziritisms (on condition) that I shave one shaving for all," I recite over him "according to his vow that he vows"; it is, therefore, written "thus shall he do according to the law of his Naziritism" (i.e., he must shave for each Naziritism individually). R. Eliezer b. Shamua and R. Yochanan Hasandlar asked R. Shimon b. Yochai: If one were a clean Nazirite (as opposed to one defiled by the dead) and a leper, may he perform one shaving, which satisfies both his Naziritism and his leprosy? He answered: Is this possible? If each shaved in order to grow hair, or if each shaved in order to remove hair, your question would be in place; but the leper shaves in order to grow hair (for he must shave a second time after his count (viz. Vayikra 14:9), and the Nazirite shaves in order to remove hair, so how can one shaving serve for both? — If not, let it (one shaving) suffice for the days of his (the leper's state of) confirmation and his (the Nazirite's) counting, (where both shave in order to remove hair). He answered: If both were before the sprinkling of the blood, your question would be in place. But the (confirmation) shaving of the leper is before the sprinkling of the blood, and that of the Nazirite, after the sprinkling of the blood. They responded: If it (one shaving) does not suffice for the days of his leprosy and a clean Nazirite, let it suffice for the days of his leprosy and an unclean (i.e., defiled) Nazirite. He answered: An unclean Nazirite in the days of his (the leper's) counting — the intent of one (the leper) is to grow hair, and of the other (the Nazirite), to remove it. An unclean Nazirite in the days of his (the leper's) confirmation, (even though the intent of both is to remove it) — one, (the leper, shaves) before the administration of the waters of the red heifer; the other, (the Nazirite, shaves) after the administration of the waters. The conditions (for a single shaving) cannot be satisfied, neither in the days of his (the leper's) consummation nor in the days of his counting; neither with an unclean (Nazirite) nor with a clean one.

(Devarim 14:11) "Every clean bird you may eat": Because it is written (Vayikra 14:4) "And the Cohein shall command, and he shall take for the one to be cleansed (from leprosy) two birds," I might think that just as the slaughtered bird is forbidden (to be eaten), so, the sent-away bird; it is, therefore, written "Every clean bird you may eat (including the sent-away bird).

"his ear": It is written here "his ear," and, elsewhere (in respect to a leper) (Vayikra 14:14) "his ear." Just as there, the right ear (is specified), so, here, the right ear (is intended).

(Bamidbar 19:3) "And you shall give it (the red heifer) to Elazar the Cohein": Scripture comes to teach us about the red heifer that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest. Know this to be so, (that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest), for Aaron was alive and Elazar burned the heifer. "and you shall give it": This one was processed by Elazar, and others (after this) were processed by the high-priest. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi, R. Yehudah, R. Shimon, and R. Elazer b. Yaakov say: This one was processed by Elazar, and others, either by the high-priest or by a regular Cohein. "and he shall take it (outside the encampment"): And another (heifer) should not be taken out with it — whence they ruled: If it balked at being taken out, a black one (i.e., one with black hairs) should not be taken out with it (as an incentive for it to leave), so that they not say it was the black one that they slaughtered and not the red one, (or) that both of them were slaughtered. R. Yossi says: This is not the reason, but (it is) because it is written "and he shall take it out" — alone. "outside the encampment": to the mount of anointment (i.e., the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, so that its blood be sprinkled opposite the door of the tent of the sanctuary.) "and he shall slaughter it": We are hereby apprised that if it became carrion in being slaughtered, it is unfit (to serve as a red heifer). "and he shall slaughter it": — whence they ruled: Two heifers are not to be slaughtered together (with a long knife). "and he shall slaughter it before him": that another slaughters and Elazar looks on. (And) Scripture apprises us about the heifer that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its slaughtering. "and Elazar the Cohein shall take": Why is this written? Is it not already written "And you shall give it to Elazar the Cohein"? Why repeat it? (To stress) the Cohein in his priesthood (i.e., in his priestly vestments.) "shall take of its blood with his finger": Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand (i.e., he takes its blood in his hand and he sprinkles with his finger), and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. And this would follow, viz.: Since the log of the oil effects kashruth (for the leper to be cleansed for the eating of sanctified food), and the blood of the red heifer effects kashruth (for the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse), then if I have learned that the log of oil effects kashruth only via the hand, (viz. Vayikra 14:15), only via the hand (and not via a sprinkling vessel), then it follows that the blood of the red heifer, too, should effect kashruth only via the hand. You derive it from the log of oil, and I derive it from the blood of the burnt-offering (of the leper). — Would you say that? There is a difference (between your derivation and mine.) The log of oil requires seven sprinklings and the red heifer requires seven sprinklings. If you learn about the log of oil that it is kasher only with the hand, then the blood of the red heifer should be kasher only with the hand. But, where you are coming from, if there (vis-à-vis the guilt-offering) it is kasher only (by spilling the blood) from a vessel to the hand, then here, too, (it should be kasher only) from a vessel to the hand. It is, therefore, written "from its blood with his finger." Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand, and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. "with his finger": the right finger (i.e., the index finger) of his right hand. You say the index finger of his right hand, but perhaps all of the fingers are valid. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:16) "Then the Cohein shall dip his right finger, etc." Since "fingers" are written in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance Scripture specifies that it is only the "yemanith" of the "yemanith," so, all "fingers" of the Torah are "yemanith" — the most skillful ("meyumeneth") of the right hand (i.e., the index finger), which is more adapted for sprinkling than all of the other fingers. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": that he direct his gaze to the door of the sanctuary when he sprinkles the blood. "and he shall sprinkle … opposite the tent of meeting": If the sanctuary were not set up or if the wind had furled the curtains the red heifer was not processed. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": Why is this repeated? Is it not already written (Ibid.) "of its blood with his finger"? From (Ibid.) "seven times," I might understand seven sprinklings from one dipping. It is, therefore, written "of its blood seven times" — he returns to the blood seven times. "seven times": They (the sprinklings) are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one, the others are invalid.) For it would follow: Since "sprinklings" are written within (the sanctuary, on Yom Kippur), and "sprinklings" are written (re the red heifer), then just as I have learned of the inner sprinklings that they are mutually inclusive, so, the outer sprinklings should be mutually inclusive. — No, this may be true of the inner sprinklings, which effect atonement, wherefore they are mutually inclusive, as opposed to the outer sprinklings, which do not effect atonement, wherefore they should not be mutually inclusive. It is, therefore, written (here) "seven times," and there (of the inner sprinklings) "seven times before the L-rd." Just as there, they are mutually inclusive, here, too, they are mutually inclusive.

(Bamidbar 19:3) "And you shall give it (the red heifer) to Elazar the Cohein": Scripture comes to teach us about the red heifer that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest. Know this to be so, (that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest), for Aaron was alive and Elazar burned the heifer. "and you shall give it": This one was processed by Elazar, and others (after this) were processed by the high-priest. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi, R. Yehudah, R. Shimon, and R. Elazer b. Yaakov say: This one was processed by Elazar, and others, either by the high-priest or by a regular Cohein. "and he shall take it (outside the encampment"): And another (heifer) should not be taken out with it — whence they ruled: If it balked at being taken out, a black one (i.e., one with black hairs) should not be taken out with it (as an incentive for it to leave), so that they not say it was the black one that they slaughtered and not the red one, (or) that both of them were slaughtered. R. Yossi says: This is not the reason, but (it is) because it is written "and he shall take it out" — alone. "outside the encampment": to the mount of anointment (i.e., the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, so that its blood be sprinkled opposite the door of the tent of the sanctuary.) "and he shall slaughter it": We are hereby apprised that if it became carrion in being slaughtered, it is unfit (to serve as a red heifer). "and he shall slaughter it": — whence they ruled: Two heifers are not to be slaughtered together (with a long knife). "and he shall slaughter it before him": that another slaughters and Elazar looks on. (And) Scripture apprises us about the heifer that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its slaughtering. "and Elazar the Cohein shall take": Why is this written? Is it not already written "And you shall give it to Elazar the Cohein"? Why repeat it? (To stress) the Cohein in his priesthood (i.e., in his priestly vestments.) "shall take of its blood with his finger": Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand (i.e., he takes its blood in his hand and he sprinkles with his finger), and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. And this would follow, viz.: Since the log of the oil effects kashruth (for the leper to be cleansed for the eating of sanctified food), and the blood of the red heifer effects kashruth (for the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse), then if I have learned that the log of oil effects kashruth only via the hand, (viz. Vayikra 14:15), only via the hand (and not via a sprinkling vessel), then it follows that the blood of the red heifer, too, should effect kashruth only via the hand. You derive it from the log of oil, and I derive it from the blood of the burnt-offering (of the leper). — Would you say that? There is a difference (between your derivation and mine.) The log of oil requires seven sprinklings and the red heifer requires seven sprinklings. If you learn about the log of oil that it is kasher only with the hand, then the blood of the red heifer should be kasher only with the hand. But, where you are coming from, if there (vis-à-vis the guilt-offering) it is kasher only (by spilling the blood) from a vessel to the hand, then here, too, (it should be kasher only) from a vessel to the hand. It is, therefore, written "from its blood with his finger." Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand, and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. "with his finger": the right finger (i.e., the index finger) of his right hand. You say the index finger of his right hand, but perhaps all of the fingers are valid. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:16) "Then the Cohein shall dip his right finger, etc." Since "fingers" are written in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance Scripture specifies that it is only the "yemanith" of the "yemanith," so, all "fingers" of the Torah are "yemanith" — the most skillful ("meyumeneth") of the right hand (i.e., the index finger), which is more adapted for sprinkling than all of the other fingers. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": that he direct his gaze to the door of the sanctuary when he sprinkles the blood. "and he shall sprinkle … opposite the tent of meeting": If the sanctuary were not set up or if the wind had furled the curtains the red heifer was not processed. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": Why is this repeated? Is it not already written (Ibid.) "of its blood with his finger"? From (Ibid.) "seven times," I might understand seven sprinklings from one dipping. It is, therefore, written "of its blood seven times" — he returns to the blood seven times. "seven times": They (the sprinklings) are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one, the others are invalid.) For it would follow: Since "sprinklings" are written within (the sanctuary, on Yom Kippur), and "sprinklings" are written (re the red heifer), then just as I have learned of the inner sprinklings that they are mutually inclusive, so, the outer sprinklings should be mutually inclusive. — No, this may be true of the inner sprinklings, which effect atonement, wherefore they are mutually inclusive, as opposed to the outer sprinklings, which do not effect atonement, wherefore they should not be mutually inclusive. It is, therefore, written (here) "seven times," and there (of the inner sprinklings) "seven times before the L-rd." Just as there, they are mutually inclusive, here, too, they are mutually inclusive.

"You shall not take the mother-bird together with the young": From (Vayikra 14:4) "And he (the Cohein) shall take for the one (i.e., the leper) to be cleansed two live clean birds," I might think that he should take them to cleanse a leper; it is, therefore, written "You shall not take" — even to cleanse the leper.

"You shall not wear": This tells me only of wearing. Whence do I derive that he may not cover himself with it! From (Vayikra 14:19) "and a garment kilayim shatnez shall not come upon you." I might think that he may not throw a bundle (containing shatnez) over his shoulder (to carry it); it is, therefore, written "You shall not wear." Wearing was included in the general interdict (against shatnez). Why was it singled out (for special mention)? To use it as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as "wearing" is distinctive in that it is of benefit to the body, so, all that is distinctive (is forbidden by reason of shatnez, to exclude throwing it over one's shoulder).

"from his foot": From here they ruled: (If she removed the shoe) from the knee-joint down (in the case of one whose foot was amputated), the chalitzah is valid. "his foot": It is written here "his foot," and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:18). Just as there the right (foot is specifically indicated), here, too, the right (foot is intended).