Midrash su Levitico 16:34

On the seventh day after the Ten Commandments Moshe went up on the mountain, as it says "The Presence of the LORD abode on Mount Sinai, and the cloud hid it for six days..." (Shemot 24:16) This was in order for Moshe to purify himself. "On the seventh day He called to Moses from the midst of the cloud." (ibid.) "Moses went inside the cloud and ascended the mountain; and Moses remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights." (Shemot 24:18) On the 17th of Tammuz he came down and shattered the tablets, "The next day Moses said to the people, “You have been guilty of a great sin. Yet I will now go up to the LORD; perhaps I may win forgiveness for your sin.” Moshe went back up on the 18th of Tammuz and pleaded for mercy on behalf of Israel, as it is written "When I lay prostrate before the LORD those forty days and forty nights, because the LORD was determined to destroy you," (Devarim 9:25) At that moment, the Holy One once again viewed Israel with favor and said to Moshe to carve new tablets and to come up the mountain once again, as it says "Thereupon the LORD said to me, “Carve out two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to Me on the mountain; and make an ark of wood." (Devarim 10:1) He came down on the 28th of Av and carved the second tablets, as it says "So Moses carved two tablets of stone, like the first, and early in the morning he went up on Mount Sinai..." (Shemot 34:4) He went back up on the 29th of Av and the Torah was repeated to him a second time, as it says "I had stayed on the mountain, as I did the first time, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD heeded me once again: the LORD agreed not to destroy you." (Devarim 10:10) 'As I did the first time,' just as the first was a time of favor, so too the second were a time of favor- we can derive from this that those in the middle were a time of anger. He came down on the 10th of Tishre, which was Yom Kippur, and announced to them that they had found favor before God (Hamakom), as it says "Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for Your own!” (Shemot 34:9) Therefore it was established as a fixed day and a remembrance for the generations, as it says "This shall be to you a law for all time: to make atonement for the Israelites for all their sins once a year..." (Vayikra 16:34)

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

Wisdoms have built her house (Proverbs 9:1): This is the Torah that has created all of the worlds; it hewed out pillars seven which is hewed from the seven firmaments and given to people. Another [understanding] - Wisdoms have built her house: The Holy One, blessed be He said, "If a man merits and studies Torah and wisdom, he is considered in front of Me as if he stood up entirely all of the world; it hewed out pillars seven these are seven lands - if a man merits and sustains it, he inherits seven lands, and if not, he is divided among seven lands. She prepared her meat, she mingled her wine (Proverbs 9:2): Rabbi Abahu said, "This is Esther the Queen, as at the time that trouble came to Israel in the days of Mordekhai, what did she do? She set up a meal for Achashverosh and Haman the evildoer and she got him very drunk with wine, and the evildoer thought to himself that she was granting him honor and he did not know that she opened a trap for him - from that which she got him drunk with wine, she acquired her people forever; she even prepared her table that she set herself up a table in this world and in the world to come. And what is that? That is the good name that she acquired in this world and in the world to come; since all of the holidays are to be nullified in the future but the days of Purim will not be nullified, as it is stated (Esther 9:28), 'And these days of Purim will not be rescinded from the Jews.'" Rabbi Elazar said, "Also Yom Kippur will forever not be nullified, as it is stated, 'And it will be to you for an everlasting statute to atone for the Children of Israel from all of their sins once a year.'" Another [understanding]: she even prepared her table: This is the Torah, that sets up a table for one who is involved with it, in this world and in the next world, as it is stated (Ezekiel 41:22), "and He spoke to me, 'This is the table that is in front of the Lord.'" Another [understanding]: she even prepared her table: It once happened that Rabbi Akiva was imprisoned in jail and Rabbi Yehoshua the Garsi, his student, was serving him. [On] the eve of the holiday, [the latter] departed from him and went to his house. Eliyahu came and stood at the entrance of his house. He said to him, "Peace be unto you, my teacher." He said [back] to him, "Peace be unto you, my teacher and master." He said to him, "Is there nothing that you require? He said to him, "I am a priest and I have come to tell you that Rabbi Akiva has died in jail." Immediately they both went to the jail and found the opening of the gate of the jail open and the minister of the jail was sleeping and all of the people that were in the jail were [also] sleeping; and they lay Rabbi Akiva on the bed and went out [with him]. Immediately Eliyahu, may he be remembered for the good, attended to him and took him on his shoulders. And when Rabbi Yehoshua the Garsi saw this, he said to Eliyahu, "My teacher, did you not say to me, I am Eliyahu [the] priest, and a priest is forbidden to become impure through [contact with a dead [body]!" He said [back] to him, "It is enough for you, Rabbi Yehoshua, my son, God forbid - as there is no impurity from the righteous, and also not from their students." And they carried him the whole night until they reached the mansion house of Caesarea. And when they reached there, they went up three steps and went down inclines and a cave opened in front of them and there they saw a chair and a bench and a candelabra. And they laid down Rabbi Akiva on the bed and left. And when they went out, the cave sealed and the lamp on the candelabra became lit. And when Eliyahu saw this, he opened and said, "Happy are the righteous and happy are those that toil in the Torah and happy are those that fear God - as covered and hidden and reserved for you is a place in the Garden of Eden in the future to come. Happy are you Rabbi Akiva, that you should find a resting place prepared for you at the time of your death. That is why it is stated, 'she even prepared her table.'" And it also once happened with Rabban Gamliel, that the elders were reclining [to eat] with him and Tabi, his servant, was standing to serve him. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariya said, "Woe is to you Canaan that you obligated your children [to servitude], whether they be righteous or whether they be evil." Rabbi Yishmael said, "We have found greater than this - Avraham was the great one of the world who served the Canaanites." Rabbi Tarfon said, "We have found greater than this - the High priest serves Israel on Yom Kippur." Rabban Gamliel said to them, "You have left over the honor of the Holy One, blessed be He, and you are dealing with the honor of flesh and blood? The Holy One, blessed be He, created His world, makes the wind blow, makes the sun shine, brings down the rain, makes the due appear, makes the plants grow and sets up a table in front of each and every [person], as it is written, (Psalms 23:5), 'Set a table in front of me.' And why [does He do] so much? In the merit of Torah. Therefore Shlomo prophesied and said, 'she even prepared her table.'" Rabbi Nechemiah said, "Come and see how great is the honor of Torah: It is not enough for them, for the sages, that He prepares a table for them, but it [even] adds wisdom to their wisdom. This is what is written (Proverbs 9:9), 'Give to a wise man, and he will become even wiser; inform a righteous one, and he will increase in teaching' - If you see a Torah scholar for whom words of Torah are beloved, give him wisdom and he will become even wiser; 'inform a righteous one, and he will increase in teaching' - that since he destroys his soul to hear words of Torah, it also adds fear [of God] to him."

9) (Vayikra 16:34) ("And this shall be to you for an everlasting statute to atone for the children of Israel from all of their sins once in the year. And he did as the L–rd commanded Moses.") "And this shall be to you, etc.": What is the intent of this? Because we find that this (the day of Yom Kippur) atones for him (even) without its he-goats, I might think that the other days (Rosh Chodesh and the festivals also) atone for him without their he-goats; it is, therefore, written "once in the year." I would then exclude Pesach and Succoth, which are seven days; but I would not exclude Shavuoth, which is one day. I would exclude Shavuoth, which is a festival along with the others, (Pesach and Succoth, which are excluded), but I would not exclude Rosh Hashanah, which is a holiday (in itself) as is Yom Kippur. It is, therefore, written "This (Yom Kippur) … once in the year." This atones for you without its he-goats, but not the other days.

10) Whence is it derived that this entire section is stated in the order (in which it is to be performed)? From "And he did as the L–rd commanded Moses." Whence is it derived that Aaron did not wear the garments for his aggrandizement, but only to fulfill the decree of the King? From "And he did as the L–rd commanded Moses." Whence is it derived that even though Aaron heard it from Moses, it is as if he heard it from the Holy One (Himself)? From "And he did as the L–rd commanded Moses." And thus is he extolled in the Tradition (Malachi 2:5-6) "My covenant was with him … the Torah of truth was in his mouth and wrong was not found on his lips. In peace and justness he walked with Me, and many did he turn from transgression."

5 R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “There are four things that the evil drive would refute [as irrational], and for each of them is written [the word,] huqqah (i.e., an unquestioned statute).⁴⁷Although Huqqah is normally translated simply as “statute,” the word more fully denotes a command that demands implicit and unquestioned obedience. Huqqah is therefore translated “unquestioned statute” throughout this section. Now these concern the following: (1) the nakedness of a brother's wife, (2) diverse kinds, (3) the scapegoat, and (4) the red heifer.”⁴⁸PR 14:12; see Yoma 67b. In regard to the nakedness of a brother's wife, it is written (in Lev. 18:16), “[You shall not uncover] the nakedness of your brother's wife”; [yet if the brother dies] without children [it is written] (in Deut. 25:5), “her brother-in-law shall have sexual intercourse with her [and take her for a wife].” And it is written about the sexual prohibitions (in Lev. 18:5), “And you shall keep [all] My unquestioned statutes [...].” In regard to diverse kinds, it is written (in Deut. 22:11), “You shall not wear interwoven stuff, [wool and flax together]”; yet a linen cloak⁴⁹Gk.: sindon. with [wool] tassels is permitted.⁵⁰See Numb. 15:37-38. And for [this commandment also] it is written, [that it is] an unquestioned statute. [Thus it is written (in Lev. 19:19),] “You shall keep My unquestioned statute. [You shall not mate your cattle with a different kind…, nor shall you wear a garment with diverse kinds of interwoven stuff].” In regard to the scapegoat, it is written (in Lev. 16:26), “And the one who sets the azazel-goat free shall wash his clothes”; yet it is [the goat] itself that atones for others. And for [this commandment also] it is written (in Lev. 16:34), “And this shall be to you an unquestioned statute forever.” In regard to the red heifer, where is it shown? Since we are taught (in Parah 4:4), “All engaged with the [rite of the red] heifer from beginning to end render [their] garments unclean”; yet it is [the heifer] itself that purifies garments. And for [this commandment also] it is written, [that it is] an unquestioned statute. Thus it is written (in Numb. 19:2), “This is an unquestioned statute of the Torah.”

In regard to the nakedness of a brother's wife, where is it shown? Where it is written (in Lev. 18:16): YOU SHALL NOT UNCOVER THE NAKEDNESS OF YOUR BROTHER's WIFE; yet it is written (in Deut. 25:5): HER BROTHER-IN-LAW SHALL HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER <AND TAKE HER FOR A WIFE>. During <her husband's> lifetime, she is forbidden; <but> upon <his> death with no children, she is permitted to <a brother-in-law>. Moreover, for <this commandment> it is written <that it is> an unquestioned statute. Thus it is written (in Lev. 20:22): AND YOU SHALL KEEP [ALL] MY UNQUESTIONED STATUTES.
In regard to diverse kinds, where is it shown? Where it is written (in Deut. 22:11): AND YOU SHALL NOT WEAR INTERWOVEN STUFF, <WOOL AND FLAX TOGETHER>; yet a linen cloak¹¹⁸Gk.: sindon. with <wool> tassels is permitted.¹¹⁹See Numb. 15:37-38. Moreover, for <this commandment also> it is written, <that it is> an unquestioned statute. Thus it is written (in Lev. 19:19): YOU SHALL KEEP MY UNQUESTIONED STATUTE. YOU SHALL NOT MATE YOUR CATTLE WITH A DIFFERENT KIND…, [NOR SHALL YOU WEAR A GARMENT WITH DIVERSE KINDS OF INTERWOVEN STUFF].
In regard to the scapegoat, where is it shown? Where it is written (in Lev. 16:26): AND THE ONE WHO SETS THE AZAZEL-GOAT FREE <SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES, BATHE HIS FLESH IN WATER, AND AFTER THAT MAY COME INTO THE CAMP>; yet it is <the goat> itself that atones for others. Moreover, for <this commandment also> it is written, <that it is> an unquestioned statute. Thus it is written (in Lev. 16:34): AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU AN UNQUESTIONED STATUTE FOREVER.
In regard to the <red> heifer, where is it shown? There where we are taught (in Parah 4:4): ALL ENGAGED WITH THE <RITE OF THE RED> HEIFER FROM BEGINNING TO END RENDER <THEIR> GARMENTS UNCLEAN; yet it is <the heifer> itself that purifies <what is> unclean. Moreover, for <this commandment also> it is written, <that it is> an unquestioned statute. Thus it is written (in Numb. 19:2): THIS IS AN UNQUESTIONED STATUTE OF THE TORAH.

The Son of Bethera said: Moses spent forty days on the mount, expounding the meaning of the words of the Torah, and examining its letters. After forty days he took the Torah, and descended on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement, and gave it as an everlasting inheritance to the children of Israel, as it is said, "And this shall be unto you an everlasting statute" (Lev. 16:34).

(Bamidbar 19:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Aaron and to Moses saying: This is the statute of the Torah, which the L-rd has commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and let them take unto you a red heifer, complete, which does not have a blemish, upon which a yoke has not come." There are sections (of the Torah), which are general in the beginning and particular at the end, and (others), which are particular in the beginning and general at the end: (Shemot 19:3) "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel" — particular; (Ibid. 6) "These are the things, etc." — general. (Ibid. 12:43) "This is the statute of the Pesach" — general; (Ibid.) "Every stranger shall not eat of it" — particular. (Bamidbar 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — general; (Ibid.) "and let them take for you a red heifer, complete" — particular. General-Particular. (The rule is:) There exists in the general only what is found in the particular. R. Eliezer says: It is written here "statute" and (relative to the Yom Kippur service, Vayikra 16:34) "statute." Just as there, (the Cohein ministers) in the white vestments; here, too, in the white vestments. R. Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his disciples: In which vestments was the red heifer processed? He: In the golden vestments. They: But did our master not teach us (that it was processed) in the white vestments? He: If I have forgotten what my eyes have seen and what my hands have ministered, how much more so, what I have taught! And why all this? To strengthen the disciples (in application to their learning). Others say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not being a Cohein), he could not have said "what my hands have ministered." "and let them take": from the Temple treasury. "unto you": that you be appointed over it. And just as Moses was appointed over it, so, was Aaron. Similarly, in respect to the oil for lighting, (Shemot 21:20) "and let them take unto you" — that you be appointed over it. "a red heifer (parah)": R. Eliezer says: "eglah" signifies of the first year; "parah" signifies of the second year. The sages say: "eglah" — of the second year; "parah" — of the third or fourth year. R. Meir says: One of the fifth year, too, is valid. An old one is valid, but it is not waited for lest it sprout black hairs and become unfit. "parah": I understand black or white; it is, therefore, written "red." "whole": in redness or in (absence of) blemishes? "which does not have a blemish" accounts for blemishes. How, then, am I to understand "whole"? That it be "whole" in redness. "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work (having been done with them), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! — No, this may be true of offerings, which must be processed (by the Cohein) in a state of cleanliness, wherefore a blemish invalidates them, as opposed to the heifer, which may be processed in a state of tumah (i.e., when the Cohein is a tvul yom), wherefore a blemish would not invalidate it. (So that the verse is needed to tell us otherwise.) — (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) the Paschal lamb, which though it may be processed in a state of tumah, a blemish invalidates it, and this would indicate of the heifer that even though it is processed in tumah, a blemish invalidates it. (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, this may be true of the Paschal lamb, which must be sacrificed at a fixed time, wherefore it is invalidated by a blemish, as opposed to the heifer, which, not having a fixed time (for its processing), should not be invalidated by a blemish. It must, therefore, (to tell us otherwise) be written "which does not have a blemish." Issi b. Akiva says: "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by black or white (hairs), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by black or white, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish"! If I know this a fortiori, why need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? To exclude (from invalidation by a blemish) the heifer of the broken neck (eglah arufah [viz. Devarim 21:4]). For it would follow (if not for this verse) that blemishes should invalidate the eglah arufah, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work, are invalidated by a blemish, then eglah arufah, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! It is, therefore, written (in respect to the red heifer), "which does not have a blemish" — It (the red heifer) is invalidated by a blemish, but the eglah arufah is not invalidated by a blemish. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: If the sin-offering of a bird, whose offerers must be tahor, is not invalidated by a blemish, then the red heifer, whose processors may be tamei (tvul yom), how much more so should it not be invalidated by a blemish! (The verse, then, is needed to tell us that it is invalidated by a blemish.) — No, this may be true of the sin-offering of a bird, which is valid if either male or female, as opposed to a heifer, (where only a female is valid.) Why, then, need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? (lit., "when there is no blemish in it") When the blemish is in it (it is invalid), but when it has passed, it is valid. R. Yoshiyah Numithi asked before R. Yehudah b. Betheira: What is a blemish which has passed, in which instance it is valid? And he showed me between his two fingers — when(flesh) protrudes or when it has two tails. "upon which a yoke has not come": Scripture speaks of a yoke not in (the time of its) working. And if you would say, a yoke in (the time of its working), would you say that? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, is invalidated by a yoke (in its time of working), then the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should it be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working!) — (No,) this is refuted by the offerings, which are invalidated by a blemish, but not by a yoke (in the time of working), and they would indicate about the red heifer that even though it is invalidated by a blemish, it should not be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working). — No, this may be true of offerings, which are not invalidated by black and white hairs, wherefore a yoke does not invalidate them, as opposed to the red heifer, which is invalidated by black and white, wherefore a yoke (in the time of its working) should invalidate them. What, then, is the intent of "upon which a yoke has not come"? A yoke not in the time of its working. Whence is it derived that other labors are equated with a yoke (to invalidate the red heifer)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, (viz. Devarim 21:3 "which has never been worked, which has never pulled under a yoke"), then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke! — But perhaps it should be transposed, viz.: If (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, other labors were not equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors not be equated with a yoke! It is, therefore, written "which has never been worked." I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been refuted and I have emerged with the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If (in the instance of) the eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke!