Midrash su Levitico 18:78

Let our master instruct us: When a person is being pursued by troops and brigands,¹Gk.: lestai. is it permissible for such a one to profane the Sabbath? Thus have our masters taught: When a person is being pursued by troops and brigands, such a one does profane the Sabbath to save his life.²Numb. R. 23:1; see RH 2:5; ‘Eruv 45a; Ta‘an. 14a. We therefore find in the case of David, that when Saul sought to kill him, he fled from him and was saved.³According to Men. 95b, David’s eating of the consecrated bread (I Sam. 21:7) on the day of his flight (vs. 11) took place on the Sabbath. Our masters have said, “There is a story about a time when evil documents came from the empire for the leading citizens of SepphorIs on the Sabbath. [The citizens] came to R. Eliezer ben Parta [and] said to him, ‘Evil documents have come to us from the empire. What do you say? Shall we flee?’ Since he was afraid to tell them to flee, he said to them. ‘Are you asking me? Go and ask Jacob, Moses, and David.’” With reference to Jacob, it is written (in Hos. 12:13), “Then Jacob fled.” With reference to Moses, it is written (in Exod. 2:15), “but Moses fled from Pharaoh.” With reference to David, it is written (in I Sam. 19:18) “Now David fled and escaped.” It also says (in Is. 26:20), “Go, My people, enter your chambers […].” But where is it shown that the saving of life overrides the Sabbath? Where it is written (in Lev. 18:5), “You shall keep My statutes and ordinances, for it is through performing them that a person shall live,” and not that he die through them. It is also written, with reference to circumcision (in Lev. 12:3), “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” It shall be circumcised, and even on the Sabbath. Now are not [these] words [an a fortiori argument] qal wahomer? If circumcision, which concerns [but] one out of the 248 [human] members, overrides the Sabbath, how much the more in the case of the whole body. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “My children, be mindful of My ordinances and keep the Torah, for how many miracles and wonders have I done for you from the day that you went forth from Egypt! I cast down those who hated you, I had you pass through the sea, I cast fear and trembling on your enemies, as stated (in Exod. 15:15), ‘Then were the chiefs of Edom bewildered....’ I destroyed the Amorites [along with] Sihon and Og, and during the whole forty years that you were in the wilderness I did not forsake you for even a single hour. Moreover, how many snakes and scorpions did I exterminate for your sake, as stated (in Deut. 8:15), ‘(God) who led you through the great and terrible wilderness with its fiery serpents and scorpions,’ and I did not let them hurt you.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “Write down the stages by which Israel journeyed in the wilderness, so that they will know how many miracles I performed for them during each and every stage.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Numb. 33:1-2), “These are the stages [by which] the Children of Israel [went forth from the land of Egypt]…. And Moses wrote down their starting points, stage by stage, according to the command of the Lord.”

(Numb. 33:1:) THESE ARE THE STAGES <BY WHICH> OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL <WENT FORTH FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT>. Let our master instruct us: When a person is being pursued by robbers and brigands,¹Gk.: lestai. is it permissible for such a one to profane the Sabbath. Thus have our masters taught: When a person is being pursued by robbers and brigands, such a one does profane the Sabbath to save his life.²Tanh., Numb. 10:1; Numb. R. 23:1; see RH 2:5; ‘Eruv 45a; Ta‘an. 14a. We therefore find in the case of David, that when Saul sought to kill him, he fled from him and was saved.³According to Men. 95b, David’s eating of the consecrated bread (I Sam. 21:7 [6]) on the day of his flight (vs. 11 [10]) took place on the Sabbath. Our masters have said: Once upon a time evil documents came from the Empire for the leading citizens of Sepphoris.⁴The traditional Tanhuma, Numb. 10:1, adds, “On the Sabbath.” <The citizens> came to R. Eliezer ben Parta <and> said to him: Evil documents have come to us from the Empire. What do you say? Shall we flee? Since he was afraid to tell them to flee on the Sabbath, he said to them: Are you asking me? Go and ask Jacob, Moses, and David. With reference to Jacob, it is written (in Hos. 12:13 [12]): THEN JACOB FLED. With reference to Moses, it is written (in Exod. 2:15): BUT MOSES FLED FROM PHARAOH. With reference to David, it is written (in I Sam. 19:18) NOW DAVID FLED AND ESCAPED. It also says (in Is. 26:20): GO, MY PEOPLE, ENTER YOUR CHAMBERS…. But where is it shown that the saving of life overrides the Sabbath? Where it is written (in Lev. 18:5): YOU SHALL KEEP MY STATUTES AND ORDINANCES, FOR IT IS THROUGH PERFORMING THEM THAT A PERSON SHALL LIVE and not die through them. It is also written, with reference to circumcision (in Lev. 12:3): AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED, even on the Sabbath. Now are not < these > words <an argument> qal wahomer? If circumcision, which concerns <but> one out of the 248 [human] members, overrides the Sabbath, how much the more in the case of the whole body. The Holy One said [to Israel]: My children, be mindful of my ordinances and keep the Torah, for how many miracles and wonders have I done for you from the day that you went forth from Egypt! I cast down those who hated you, I had you pass through the sea, I cast fear and trembling on your enemies, I destroyed the Amorites along with Sihon and Og, and during the whole forty years that you were in the wilderness I did not forsake you for a single hour. Moreover, how many snakes and scorpions did I exterminate in your presence. It is so stated (in Deut. 8:15): (GOD) WHO LED YOU THROUGH THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE WILDERNESS WITH ITS FIERY SERPENTS AND SCORPIONS. Therefore, the Holy One said to Moses: Write down the stages by which Israel journeyed in the wilderness, so that they will know how many miracles I performed for them during each and every stage. {Thus it is stated (in Numb. 33:1–2):} [Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Numb. 33:1–2):] THESE ARE THE STAGES <BY WHICH> THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL <WENT FORTH FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT>…. AND MOSES WROTE DOWN THEIR STARTING POINGS, STAGE BY STAGE, ACCORDING TO THE COMMAND OF THE LORD.

Is that so? Did not R. Mair say: "Whence do we know that even a Gentile who is occupied with the study of the Law, is likened to a high-priest? The passage says (Lev. 18, 5) Which if a man do, shall live by it. It does not specify priest, Levite, or Israelite, but states in general if a man, whence it may be inferred that a Gentile, too, who occupies himself with the study of the Law is equal to a high-priest. We must therefore say that they will not be rewarded for the observance equally with those who observe in accordance with their command; as R. Chanina said: "The reward for him who observes that which he is commanded, is greater than to him who observes the same without being commanded." The nations will then plead the following: 'Sovereign of the Universe, has then Israel, who has accepted the Torah, observed it?' To which, the Holy One, praised be He! will respond: 'I testify that Israel did observe the entire Torah.' 'Sovereign of the Universe,' the nations will say, 'is then a father fit to be a witness in the case of his son? Is not Israel called the son of the Eternal (Ex. 4, 22) My son, my first-born, is Israel.' His reply will be: 'Let heaven and earth testify that Israel observed the entire Torah.' Again they will object, saying: 'Sovereign of the Universe! The heaven and earth are also interested in this case, and therefore are not fit to be witnesses, for it is said (Jer. 33, 25) If My covenant be not … the appointed ordinance of heaven and earth, would not be established. And Resh Lakish said: 'What is the meaning of the passage (Gen. 1, 31) And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Why the article Hay in the word Hashishi? From this it may be inferred that the Holy One, praised be He! stipulated with all that had been created during the six days to the effect that if Israel would accept the Torah, well and good, but if not He would return all of them to chaos and ruin.' Then the Holy One, praised be He! will say: 'Men of your nations may come and testify that Israel has observed the Torah. Nimrod may testify that Abraham did not worship idols. Laban may testify that Jacob was not suspected of robbery. The wife of Potiphar may testify that Joseph was not guilty of adultery. Nebuchadnezzar may testify that Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah did not bow themselves to the image; Darius of Daniel, that he did not abolish prayer; Eliphaz the Themanite, and Bildad the Schuchite, and Zophar the Na'amathite may say of all Israel that they observed all the Laws; as it is said (Is. 43, 9) Let them bring their witnesses, that they may be justified.' They will then exclaim: 'Sovereign of the Universe! give it to us now, and we will observe it!' To which the Holy One, praised be He! will answer: 'He who has prepared on the eve of Sabbath [for the Sabbath] will have to eat, but he who has not prepared, what then will he have to eat on Sabbath? However, I have one easy, meritorious act; it is the Succah, go and perform it.' But how can you say so [that they will be permitted to perform it in the world to come]? Has not R. Joshua b. Levi said: 'What is the meaning of the passage (Deut. 6, 6) Which I command thee this day to do? i.e., this day to do, but not tomorrow to do; this day to do, but not this day to be rewarded (in this world).' We must therefore explain, this, because the Holy One, praised be He! does not deal despotically with His creatures. (Why is it called easy? Because it requires no expense.) Immediately thereupon, everyone of them will prepare a Succah on his roof, and the Holy One, praised be He! will cause the sun to penetrate it. As soon as the sun heats them, they would kick the Succah with their feet, and go away, as it is said (Ps. 2, 3) Let us break their bands asunder, etc. Why cause the sun to penetrate? Have we not said above that the Holy One, praised be He! does not deal despotically with His creatures? This is because Israel has also to go through such inconvenience of the sun when the summer solstice is postponed until the month of Tishri [touching the feast of Tabernacles]. (Ib. b) But did not Raba say that he who is afflicted by performing the command of Succah, is exempt from that obligation? Yea, but not to kick at it. The Holy One, praised be He! will then smile upon them. Said R. Isaac: "There is no smiling with the Holy One, but on that day."

R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Simon B. Jochai: "Whoever possesses a presumptuous nature is like one who serves idols; for it is said (Ib. 16, 5) An abomination of the Lord is everyone that is proud of heart, and the following passage reads (Deut. 7, 26) And thou shall not bring an abomination into thy house." R. Jochanan of his own authority said that such a man is considered as if he derives the principle of religion (the unity of God) etc., for it is said (Ib. 8, 14) Thy heart be then not lifted up and thou wilt forget the Lord thy God. R. Chama b. Chanina said: "Such a man is considered as if he had violated the entire chapter of the so-called Levirate crimes; for concerning presumption it is written: An abomination of the Lord is everyone that is proud of heart, and it is written again concerning the Levirate crimes (Lev. 18, 27) For all these abominations have the men of the land done." Ulla said: "Such a man is considered as if he had built a heathenish altar as it is said (Is. 2, 22) Withdraw yourselves then from man, whose breath is in his nostrils because for what is he to be esteemed? Do not read Bame (for what) but read it Bamah (a heathenish altar)."

(Fol. 13a) At the academy of Elijah it was taught: "Once it happened that a scholar who read (the Scripture) to a great extent and studied a great part (of the Talmud) and devoted much of his time in attendance upon the scholars, died very young, and his wife took his Tephilin and went around with them to every place of worship and study saying to the audience: 'Behold it is written in the Torah (Deu. 30, 20.) For He is thy life, and the length of thy days. My husband studied and read so much and (Fol. 13b) gave so much of his time to attendance upon the scholars; why did he die so young?' And there was none who could give her answer. I happened once to stop at her house and she told me everything that had happened to her. I said to her: 'My daughter, how did he conduct himself during the days in which you were a Niddah?' She answered: 'God forbid! He refrained even from touching my little finger.' 'And during the days when you were a Lebuna, how was his conduct towards thee?' I asked her again. Whereupon she answered: 'He ate with me, drank with me, and did not refrain from touching me.' I then said to her: 'Praised be the Holy One, who spared him not for the sake of scholarship, for the Torah says (Lev. 18, 19.) And a woman in the separation of her uncleanliness shalt thou not approach.' " When K. Dimi came he said: "They were together in one bed [while in her Lebuna"]." In Palestine it was said, in the name of R. Isaac b. Joseph, that she wore breech cloth [while with him in one bed].

1) (Vayikra 18:1) "And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: (Vayikra 18:2) Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d." I am the L–rd who spoke and caused the world to come into being. I am full of mercy. I am a Judge, who exacts payment, and who is trusted to reward.

1) (Vayikra 18:1) "And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: (Vayikra 18:2) Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d." I am the L–rd who spoke and caused the world to come into being. I am full of mercy. I am a Judge, who exacts payment, and who is trusted to reward.

1) (Vayikra 16:16) ("And he shall make atonement for the holy place from the uncleanlinesses of the children of Israel, and from their offenses of all of their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanlinesses.") "And he shall make atonement for the holy place from the uncleanlinesses of the children of Israel": Three "uncleanlinesses" may be adduced here: that of idolatry, viz. (Vayikra 20:3) ("for of his seed he has given to the Molech) to defile My Sanctuary and to profane My holy name"; that of illicit relations, viz. (Vayikra 18:30) "not to do in the manner of the abominations that were done before you, and you shall not become unclean in them"; that of bloodshed, viz. (Bamidbar 35:34) "And you shall not defile the land wherein you dwell, in whose midst I dwell."

1) (Vayikra 18:6) ("A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness; I am the L–rd.") What is the intent of "a man, a man"? To include gentiles to be exhorted against illicit relations as Jews are. "You (plural) shall not draw near": What is the intent of this (plural)? Because it is written "a man," I might think that a man is being exhorted against illicit relations with a woman. Whence do I derive the same for a woman vis-à-vis a man? From "You (plural) shall not draw near."

Another interpretation (of Prov. 6:22): WHEN YOU WALK, IT WILL GUIDE YOU, < i.e., > when someone labors at Torah during his life.³Cf. Avot 6:9; Sifra to Lev. 18:1 (pereq 13); Sifre to Deut. 6:7 (34); Sot. 21a; also Gen. R. 35:3 (but not in the Theodor/Albeck edition); M.Pss. 1:11; 119:7, 10 (2), 49 (41); 140:1. (Ibid., cont.:) IN YOUR LYING DOWN, IT WILL WATCH OVER (rt.: ShMR) YOU, [because it keeps (rt.: ShMR) him] from worm and maggot. (Ibid., cont.:) AND WHEN YOU AWAKEN, IT WILL CONVERSE WITH YOU. In the future life, when everyone shall stand in judgment, it is one's advocate⁴Gk.: synegoros. and pleads his cause.

(Fol. 21) Raba said: "Whence is it intimated in the Torah concerning incest of secondary degrees? (forbidden by Rabbinical enactment). It is said (Lev. 18, 27) For all those gross abominations (ha-ail) have the men of the land done, who were before you; i.e., ha-ail (gross), hence there must also be minor ones. This refers then to incest of secondary degrees. Whence do we know that the word ail refers to something great? It is written (Ez. 17, 13) But the mighty (ai-lay) of the land did he take away." Shall we assume that this is in contradiction to the opinion of R. Levi? for R. Levi said: "The punishment for fraudulent measures is severer than that for incest, for the former, Scripture terms (Lev. 18, 24) Ail, while the latter it terms (Deut. 25, 16) aile." Of course, ail is strong; however, aile is still stronger. But concerning incest it is also written (Lev. 18, 29) aile? This is to exempt fraud measures from Kareth. If so, then in what respect are fraudulent measures severer than incest? In the following: For the crime of incest one is able to offer repentance, but for the crime of fraudulent measures one cannot repent, [because he does not know whom he has cheated] R. Huna said: "We infer [this prohibition concerning incest of secondary degree] from the following, (Ecc. 12, 9) Yea, he pondered and sought out, and set in order many proverbs." Ulla, in the name of R. Elazar, explained it: "Prior to the time of Solomon, the Torah was like a basket without handles, [that could not have been grasped,] but when Solomon came he attached the necessary handles." R. Oshia said: "We infer [the above] from the following (Pr. A, 15) Avoid it, pass not through by it, turn off from it and pass away." R. Ashi said: "Unto what could that of R. Oshia's explanation be likened? Unto a frail man watching a garden; if he watches it from the exterior, the interior is also protected; but if he watches it only from the interior, the exterior is left unprotected." Nevertheless R. Ashi's analogy is false, for there [if one watches from inside of the garden] protection at least is afforded for within, but here if one does not safeguard himself against the incest of secondary degrees he may reach the violation of even a real Ervah. R. Cahana said: "We infer the above from the following (Lev. 18, 30) Therefore shall ye guard My guard; i.e., make a guard which may protect, (enact measures to prevent a transgression of the Biblical law)" "If so," said Abayi to R. Joseph, "then this is Biblical." "Yea, it is Biblical, but it has been explained by the Rabbis." "But the entire law is thus explained by the Rabbis, and why call only this Rabbinical?" We must therefore say that it is catually a Rabbinical law, and the Bible text (quoted) is a mere intimation.

(Fol. 21) Raba said: "Whence is it intimated in the Torah concerning incest of secondary degrees? (forbidden by Rabbinical enactment). It is said (Lev. 18, 27) For all those gross abominations (ha-ail) have the men of the land done, who were before you; i.e., ha-ail (gross), hence there must also be minor ones. This refers then to incest of secondary degrees. Whence do we know that the word ail refers to something great? It is written (Ez. 17, 13) But the mighty (ai-lay) of the land did he take away." Shall we assume that this is in contradiction to the opinion of R. Levi? for R. Levi said: "The punishment for fraudulent measures is severer than that for incest, for the former, Scripture terms (Lev. 18, 24) Ail, while the latter it terms (Deut. 25, 16) aile." Of course, ail is strong; however, aile is still stronger. But concerning incest it is also written (Lev. 18, 29) aile? This is to exempt fraud measures from Kareth. If so, then in what respect are fraudulent measures severer than incest? In the following: For the crime of incest one is able to offer repentance, but for the crime of fraudulent measures one cannot repent, [because he does not know whom he has cheated] R. Huna said: "We infer [this prohibition concerning incest of secondary degree] from the following, (Ecc. 12, 9) Yea, he pondered and sought out, and set in order many proverbs." Ulla, in the name of R. Elazar, explained it: "Prior to the time of Solomon, the Torah was like a basket without handles, [that could not have been grasped,] but when Solomon came he attached the necessary handles." R. Oshia said: "We infer [the above] from the following (Pr. A, 15) Avoid it, pass not through by it, turn off from it and pass away." R. Ashi said: "Unto what could that of R. Oshia's explanation be likened? Unto a frail man watching a garden; if he watches it from the exterior, the interior is also protected; but if he watches it only from the interior, the exterior is left unprotected." Nevertheless R. Ashi's analogy is false, for there [if one watches from inside of the garden] protection at least is afforded for within, but here if one does not safeguard himself against the incest of secondary degrees he may reach the violation of even a real Ervah. R. Cahana said: "We infer the above from the following (Lev. 18, 30) Therefore shall ye guard My guard; i.e., make a guard which may protect, (enact measures to prevent a transgression of the Biblical law)" "If so," said Abayi to R. Joseph, "then this is Biblical." "Yea, it is Biblical, but it has been explained by the Rabbis." "But the entire law is thus explained by the Rabbis, and why call only this Rabbinical?" We must therefore say that it is catually a Rabbinical law, and the Bible text (quoted) is a mere intimation.

(Fol. 21) Raba said: "Whence is it intimated in the Torah concerning incest of secondary degrees? (forbidden by Rabbinical enactment). It is said (Lev. 18, 27) For all those gross abominations (ha-ail) have the men of the land done, who were before you; i.e., ha-ail (gross), hence there must also be minor ones. This refers then to incest of secondary degrees. Whence do we know that the word ail refers to something great? It is written (Ez. 17, 13) But the mighty (ai-lay) of the land did he take away." Shall we assume that this is in contradiction to the opinion of R. Levi? for R. Levi said: "The punishment for fraudulent measures is severer than that for incest, for the former, Scripture terms (Lev. 18, 24) Ail, while the latter it terms (Deut. 25, 16) aile." Of course, ail is strong; however, aile is still stronger. But concerning incest it is also written (Lev. 18, 29) aile? This is to exempt fraud measures from Kareth. If so, then in what respect are fraudulent measures severer than incest? In the following: For the crime of incest one is able to offer repentance, but for the crime of fraudulent measures one cannot repent, [because he does not know whom he has cheated] R. Huna said: "We infer [this prohibition concerning incest of secondary degree] from the following, (Ecc. 12, 9) Yea, he pondered and sought out, and set in order many proverbs." Ulla, in the name of R. Elazar, explained it: "Prior to the time of Solomon, the Torah was like a basket without handles, [that could not have been grasped,] but when Solomon came he attached the necessary handles." R. Oshia said: "We infer [the above] from the following (Pr. A, 15) Avoid it, pass not through by it, turn off from it and pass away." R. Ashi said: "Unto what could that of R. Oshia's explanation be likened? Unto a frail man watching a garden; if he watches it from the exterior, the interior is also protected; but if he watches it only from the interior, the exterior is left unprotected." Nevertheless R. Ashi's analogy is false, for there [if one watches from inside of the garden] protection at least is afforded for within, but here if one does not safeguard himself against the incest of secondary degrees he may reach the violation of even a real Ervah. R. Cahana said: "We infer the above from the following (Lev. 18, 30) Therefore shall ye guard My guard; i.e., make a guard which may protect, (enact measures to prevent a transgression of the Biblical law)" "If so," said Abayi to R. Joseph, "then this is Biblical." "Yea, it is Biblical, but it has been explained by the Rabbis." "But the entire law is thus explained by the Rabbis, and why call only this Rabbinical?" We must therefore say that it is catually a Rabbinical law, and the Bible text (quoted) is a mere intimation.

(Fol. 21) Raba said: "Whence is it intimated in the Torah concerning incest of secondary degrees? (forbidden by Rabbinical enactment). It is said (Lev. 18, 27) For all those gross abominations (ha-ail) have the men of the land done, who were before you; i.e., ha-ail (gross), hence there must also be minor ones. This refers then to incest of secondary degrees. Whence do we know that the word ail refers to something great? It is written (Ez. 17, 13) But the mighty (ai-lay) of the land did he take away." Shall we assume that this is in contradiction to the opinion of R. Levi? for R. Levi said: "The punishment for fraudulent measures is severer than that for incest, for the former, Scripture terms (Lev. 18, 24) Ail, while the latter it terms (Deut. 25, 16) aile." Of course, ail is strong; however, aile is still stronger. But concerning incest it is also written (Lev. 18, 29) aile? This is to exempt fraud measures from Kareth. If so, then in what respect are fraudulent measures severer than incest? In the following: For the crime of incest one is able to offer repentance, but for the crime of fraudulent measures one cannot repent, [because he does not know whom he has cheated] R. Huna said: "We infer [this prohibition concerning incest of secondary degree] from the following, (Ecc. 12, 9) Yea, he pondered and sought out, and set in order many proverbs." Ulla, in the name of R. Elazar, explained it: "Prior to the time of Solomon, the Torah was like a basket without handles, [that could not have been grasped,] but when Solomon came he attached the necessary handles." R. Oshia said: "We infer [the above] from the following (Pr. A, 15) Avoid it, pass not through by it, turn off from it and pass away." R. Ashi said: "Unto what could that of R. Oshia's explanation be likened? Unto a frail man watching a garden; if he watches it from the exterior, the interior is also protected; but if he watches it only from the interior, the exterior is left unprotected." Nevertheless R. Ashi's analogy is false, for there [if one watches from inside of the garden] protection at least is afforded for within, but here if one does not safeguard himself against the incest of secondary degrees he may reach the violation of even a real Ervah. R. Cahana said: "We infer the above from the following (Lev. 18, 30) Therefore shall ye guard My guard; i.e., make a guard which may protect, (enact measures to prevent a transgression of the Biblical law)" "If so," said Abayi to R. Joseph, "then this is Biblical." "Yea, it is Biblical, but it has been explained by the Rabbis." "But the entire law is thus explained by the Rabbis, and why call only this Rabbinical?" We must therefore say that it is catually a Rabbinical law, and the Bible text (quoted) is a mere intimation.

(Fol. 27b) (II. Kin., 7, 9) If we say, We will enter into the city, There is the famine in the city, and we will die. But why did they not take into consideration that should they fall in the hands of the enemy, they would then be killed immediately? We must therefore say that for a life of short duration nobody cares. An objection was raised from the following: One must not interfere with the Minim and must not cure himself by them, even to delay death for but a few hours. As it happened to ben Dama, the son of Ismael's sister, who was bitten by a snake; Jacob of the village of Sechania came to heal him by means of infidelity, but R. Ismael would not permit it. The patient, however, said to him: "Ismael, my brother, let him cure me and I will bring you evidence from the Scripture that such is allowed." But ere finished, his soul departed, and R. Ismael exclaimed: "Happy art thou, ben Dama, that thy body was pure and thy soul left thee in purity, and thou hast not transgressed the decision of thy colleagues, who say (Ecc. 10, 8) And whoso breaketh through a defence, a serpent shall bite him." With means of heresy, it is different, for it is attractive and he may be induced to follow them. It was stated above, 'And hast not transgressed the decision of the colleagues who say (Ecc. 10, 8) And whoso breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him.' But he himself was bitten by a serpent? R. Ismael referred to the words of the Rabbis which are like the bite of a serpent. But what had ben Dama to say [to justify it]? As R. Nachmeni b. Isaac said: (Lev. 18, 5) And he shall live with them, but not he shall die with them. R. Ismael, however, maintains that such is allowed only privately, but not in public; as we are taught in the following Baraitha: R. Ismael used to say: "Whence do we know that if one is told to worship idols, under the threat of being killed, that he may worship and not be killed? From the above-cited verse — And he shall live with them, but not he shall die with them. Perhaps one will say that this may be done publicly, therefore it is written (Ib. 22, 32) And ye shall not profane My holy name, etc."

(Eliezer) replied: Verily I am not equal to one of them. If I had asked the Holy One, blessed be He, for land, it would be possible for Him to give this to me, as it is said, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" (Ps. 24:1). Had I asked the Holy One, blessed be He, for silver and gold, He could have given them to me, as it is said, "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine" (Hag. 2:8). But I asked the Holy One, blessed be He, that I might be worthy (to learn the) Torah only, as it is said, "Therefore I esteem all precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way" (Ps. 119:128).

Set about with lilies. Does a man ever fence in his fields with lilies? Does he not normally fence in his fields with thorns and thistles, with pits and thornbushes? What then is the meaning of Set about with lilies? This refers to numerous commandments that are as sensitive as lilies. For example, a man is extremely anxious to enter his bridal chamber, for no day is dearer to him than that day. It is the day on which he rejoices with his bride. What does he do? He spends a considerable amount of money to set up the bridal chamber and he comes to have intercourse with her. But if she says to him: “I have seen something like a red lily (i.e., the blood of menstruation), he draws away from her. He turns his face to one side and she to the other. What compelled him to turn from her? Was it a snake biting him, a scorpion stinging him, or a thorn between them? No, only the words of the Torah, since it is said: And thou shalt not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness (Lev. 18:19). Hence it is written: Set about like lilies.

Rabbi Avun said: Just as this lily, when a hot wind passes over it, it is shriveled [and] when dew emerges, it blossoms; so too, as long as the shadow of Esau exists, [Israel] appears shriveled in this world. When the shadow of Esau has passed, Israel blossoms and develops. That is what is written: “I will be like dew to Israel, it will blossom like a lily” (Hosea 14:6). Just as this lily continues to exist due to its fragrance,³¹It has value even when it shrivels up as long as it retains its fragrance (see Matnot Kehuna; Etz Yosef). so Israel continues to exist due to mitzvot and good deeds. Just as this lily is only for its fragrance, so too, the righteous were created only for the redemption of Israel. Just as this lily is placed on the table of kings from beginning to end,³²Of the meal. so too Israel, they are in this world and they are in the World to Come. Just as this lily is conspicuous among the grasses, so Israel is conspicuous among the nations of the world, as it is stated: “All who see them will recognize them” (Isaiah 61:9). Just as this lily is designated for Shabbatot and festivals, so, Israel is designated for the future redemption.
Rabbi Berekhya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘Go say to Israel: My children, when you were in Egypt, you were like a lily among the thorns. Now that you are entering the land of Canaan, be like a lily among the thorns, pay attention that you will not emulate the practices of these or the actions of those.’ That is what is written: “You shall not emulate the practices of the land of Egypt in which you lived, and you shall not emulate the practices of the land of Canaan where I am bringing you …” (Leviticus 18:3).

Resh Lakish said: "Whoever observes carefully the precepts concerning Tzitzith will, as a reward, have two thousand eight hundred servants to wait upon him; for it is said (Zech. 8, 23.) Thus said the Lord of Hosts, 'In those days it shall come to pass that ten men out of all the languages of the nations, shall take hold — yea, they shall take hold of the skirts of him that is a Jew, saying. Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.' " We are taught that R. Nechemia says: "As a punishment for gratuitous hatred, the penalty is strife at the home of that man; and his wife will have miscarriages; and the sons and daughters of that man will die prematurely." R. Elazar, the son of R. Juda, said: "The punishment for the sin of neglecting to separate Challah is an unblessed harvest gathering; a curse will be sent upon the prices of food; and they will sow, but strangers will eat them up, as it is said (Lev. 26, 16.) Then will I also do this unto you; I will inflict on you terror, consumption and fever that consume the eyes and cause sorrow to the heart; and you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it up. Do not read Behala (terror) but B'chala (on account of Challah), and if the separation of Challah is observed, then, blessings will follow, as it is said (Ezek. 44, 30.) And the first of your dough shall you give to the priest, to cause a blessing to rest on thy house." The punishment for the sin of neglecting laws concerning Terumah and tithes, is that the sky will withhold rain and dew; high prices [in food] will prevail; there will be no profits, and men will run about to earn a livelihood and will not succeed; as it is said (Job 24, 19.) Drought and heat speedily consume the snow waters; so doth the grave those who have sinned. What does that prove? In the academy of R. Ishmael it was taught that it means: "On account of your failure to discharge the duties which I commanded you to perform during the summer you will be robbed during the snow-water winter." But if they do give [Terumah and tithes] they will be blessed, as it is said (Malachi 3, 10.) Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse that there may be provision in my house, and prove me but herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing Aad b'li duy? What is meant by Aad b'li duy? Rami b. Chama in the name of Rab said: "Until your lips grow tired of saying it is enough;" The penalty for the sin of robbery is an invasion of locusts; famine prevails, and people will be fed on the flesh of their own sons and daughters; as it is said (Amos 4, 1.) Hear this word, O ye cows of Bashan, that are on the Mount of Samaria, who oppresseth the poor, who crusheth the needy. (Fol. 33a) Raba said: "For instance, those women of Mechuza who eat but do nothing [they force their husbands to deal dishonestly and to rob]; and it is also written (Ib. ib. 9.) I had smitten you with blasting and mildew, etc., and your vineyards, your fig-trees and your olive trees did the caterpillar devour. It is also written (Joel 1, 4.) What the caterpillar left hath the cankerworm eaten, and that which the cankerworm left hath the crickets eaten; and it is also written (Is. 9, 19.) And he snatcheth on the right hand and is (yet) hungry; and he eateth on the left hand, and is not (yet) satisfied; every man shall eat the flesh of his own arm. Do not read Zero'o (his arm) but read Zaro (his children)." As punishment for the sin of delaying sentence, perverting sentence, corrupting sentence, and neglecting to study the Torah, the sword [of an enemy], with its terrible preying system, pestilence and famine, will come. People will eat but will never be satisfied; they will eat their bread by weight; as it is written (Lev. 26, 25.) And I will bring over you the sword, avenging the quarrel of my covenant. And it is also written (Ib. ib. 26.) When I break unto you the staff of bread; and ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver your bread by weight, and ye shall eat and not be satisfied, i.e., the word Brith (covenant) refers to the Torah, for it is written (Jer. 33, 25.) If my covenant (Brith) were not by day and night, etc., and it is written (Lev. 26, 43.) Because even they despised my ordinances. As punishment for the sin of swearing in vain, swearing falsely, defaming of the name of God, and desecration of the Sabbath, wild beasts multiply, cattle are destroyed, the people decrease, and the roads become desolate, as it is said (Lev. 25, 23.) And if notwithstanding these things, ye will not be reformed by me. Do not read B'aile (these things) but read it B'ala (swearing), and it is written (Ib. ib. 22.) And I will send out against you the beasts of the field, etc. [Hence we know that the above punishment is for swearing falsely]. It is written concerning swearing falsely (Ib. 19.) And ye shall not swear by my name falsely and thou shalt not thus profane the name of God (Chilalta); concerning the defamation of the name of God it is written (Ib. 22, 12.) So that they profane not my Holy name (T'chalalu), and concerning the desecration of the Sabbath, it is written (Ex. 31, 14.) Every one that defileth it (Mechalaleha) shall surely be put to death. We infer from the word, Chillul (profanation) which appears in all three places [that the punishment for defaming God's name and desecrating the Sabbath is the multiplication of wild beasts, as it is in the case of swearing falsely]. As a punishment for the sin of shedding blood, the Temple is destroyed and the Shechina departs from Israel, as it is written (Num. 35, 33.) And ye shall not defile, etc., and ye shall not render unclean the land which ye inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell, i.e., but if ye do render unclean the land which ye inhabit, then ye will neither inhabit it nor will I live in your midst. As a punishment for the sin of adultery, idolatry and for the neglect of the laws concerning land in the Sabbatical years and the years of Jubilee exile comes, and other nations come and occupy the places of those exiled; as it is written (Lev. 18, 2.) For all these abominations have the men of the land done, etc., and again (Ib.) And the land became defiled, etc. Wherefore I have visited its iniquity upon it, etc. It is also written (Ib. ib. 28.) That the land may not submit you forth when ye defile it. Concerning the warning against idolatry, it is written (Ib. 26, 30.) And I shall cast your carcasses, etc. It is also written further And I will make desolate your sanctuary, etc. And ye will be scattered among the nations. Concerning the warning in the matters of the Sabbatical year and the year of Jubilee, it is written (Ib. ib. 34.) Then shall the land satisfy its Sabbath, all the days of its desolation, when ye are in the land of the enemies, etc. All the days of its supposed desolation shall it rest.

2) It is I, who exacted payment from the generation of the flood, and from the people of Sodom, and from the Egyptians, and I am destined to exact payment from you if you follow in their ways.

2) (Vayikra 18:1 and Vayikra 18:2) "And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: This is as is written elsewhere (Shemoth 20:2) "I am the L–rd your G d, etc." (He said to them:) Am I not the L–rd, whose Kingdom you accepted upon yourselves in Egypt? They: "Yes! Yes!" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees (Shemoth 20:3) "There shall not be unto you other gods beside Me." That is what is intended here: "I am the L–rd." Am I not He whose Kingdom you accepted in Sinai? They: "Yes! Yes!" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees. R. Yishmael says: Grave are the arayoth (illicit relations), which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh (the name of the L–rd.) In the beginning (Vayikra 18:6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness; I am the L–rd." In the end (Vayikra 18:30) "And you shall keep My charge, not to do in the manner of the abominations … I am the L–rd your G d." Grave are the arayoth, which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh!

2) (Vayikra 18:1 and Vayikra 18:2) "And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: This is as is written elsewhere (Shemoth 20:2) "I am the L–rd your G d, etc." (He said to them:) Am I not the L–rd, whose Kingdom you accepted upon yourselves in Egypt? They: "Yes! Yes!" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees (Shemoth 20:3) "There shall not be unto you other gods beside Me." That is what is intended here: "I am the L–rd." Am I not He whose Kingdom you accepted in Sinai? They: "Yes! Yes!" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees. R. Yishmael says: Grave are the arayoth (illicit relations), which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh (the name of the L–rd.) In the beginning (Vayikra 18:6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness; I am the L–rd." In the end (Vayikra 18:30) "And you shall keep My charge, not to do in the manner of the abominations … I am the L–rd your G d." Grave are the arayoth, which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh!

2) We have learned the punishment for the active participant. Whence do we derive the punishment for the passive participant? From (Shemoth 28:18) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death." If it is not needed for the active participant, learn it as applying to the passive one. We have learned the punishment both for the active participant and for the passive one. Whence is derived the exhortation? From (Vayikra 18:23) "And with every beast do not give your lying to become unclean with it." We have learned the exhortation for the active participant. Whence do we learn that for the passive participant? From (Devarim 23:18) "There shall not be a harlot from the sons of Israel," and (I Kings 14:24) "And there was also a harlot in the land; they did as all the abominations of the nations, etc." These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: This is not needed; it is written "Do not give shechavtecha" ("your lying"), which can also be read as "Do not give shechivatecha" ("your being lain with.")

2) (Vayikra 18:1 and Vayikra 18:2) "And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: This is as is written elsewhere (Shemoth 20:2) "I am the L–rd your G d, etc." (He said to them:) Am I not the L–rd, whose Kingdom you accepted upon yourselves in Egypt? They: "Yes! Yes!" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees (Shemoth 20:3) "There shall not be unto you other gods beside Me." That is what is intended here: "I am the L–rd." Am I not He whose Kingdom you accepted in Sinai? They: "Yes! Yes!" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees. R. Yishmael says: Grave are the arayoth (illicit relations), which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh (the name of the L–rd.) In the beginning (Vayikra 18:6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness; I am the L–rd." In the end (Vayikra 18:30) "And you shall keep My charge, not to do in the manner of the abominations … I am the L–rd your G d." Grave are the arayoth, which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh!

2) If so, why is it written "a man, a man"? To include gentiles who cohabit with the arayoth of the nations (i.e., with those whom they consider arayoth), that they are to be punished according to the laws of the nations (i.e., by the sword); and who cohabited with the arayoth of Israel, that they are to be punished according to the laws of Israel.

2) (Vayikra 18:1 and Vayikra 18:2) "And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: This is as is written elsewhere (Shemoth 20:2) "I am the L–rd your G d, etc." (He said to them:) Am I not the L–rd, whose Kingdom you accepted upon yourselves in Egypt? They: "Yes! Yes!" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees (Shemoth 20:3) "There shall not be unto you other gods beside Me." That is what is intended here: "I am the L–rd." Am I not He whose Kingdom you accepted in Sinai? They: "Yes! Yes!" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees. R. Yishmael says: Grave are the arayoth (illicit relations), which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh (the name of the L–rd.) In the beginning (Vayikra 18:6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness; I am the L–rd." In the end (Vayikra 18:30) "And you shall keep My charge, not to do in the manner of the abominations … I am the L–rd your G d." Grave are the arayoth, which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh!

(20:3) "There shall not be unto you any other gods before My presence": What is the intent of this? An analogy: A king of flesh and blood enters a province and his servants say to him: Make decrees for them. He: When they accept my rule, I will make decrees for them. For if they do not accept my rule, they will not accept my decrees. Thus did the L rd say to Israel: "I am the L rd your G d. There shall not be unto you, etc.": Am I He whose rule you have accepted? They: Yes. He: Just as you have accepted My rule, accept My decrees — There shall not be unto you any other gods before My presence. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: As stated elsewhere (Leviticus 18:2) "Am I the L rd (whose rule you accepted on Sinai)? They: Yes. He: You accepted My rule? Accept My decrees — (Ibid. 3) "As the deeds of the land of Egypt in which you dwelt you shall not do, etc." And so here: Am I the L rd your G d who took you out of the land of Egypt, whose rule you accepted? — Accept My decrees. "There shall not be unto you": What is the intent of this? (Ibid. 4) "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or the likeness, etc." would imply only that it is forbidden to make it. Whence do we derive that you may not keep what is already made? It is, therefore, written "There shall not be unto you." "other gods": Now are there other gods? Is it not written (Isaiah 37:18) "and placed their gods into fire, for they are not gods"? What, then, is the intent of "other gods"? That others call "gods." Variantly: "elohim acherim"? They "delay" ("me'achorim") good from entering the world. Variantly: "elohim acherim": They are "others" (i.e., indifferent) to those who serve them. And thus is it written (Ibid. 46:7) "He cries out to it, but it does not answer; it does not save him from his affliction." R. Yossi says: Why "other gods"? Not to give a pretext to the nations of the world to say: If they were called by His name, they would be effectual. Behold, they were called by His name and they remained ineffectual! And when were they called by His name? In the days of Enosh the son of Sheth, viz. (Genesis 4:26) "Then (men and images) were called profanely in the name of the L rd, (being rendered deities)" — whereupon Oceanus rose and flooded a third of the world, the L rd, as it were, telling them: You did a new thing and "called"; I, too, shall do a new thing and I shall "call" (to the waters of the sea), as it is written (Amos 5:8) "He 'calls' the waters of the sea, etc." R. Eliezer says: "elohim acherim": They "renew" gods for themselves every day. How so? If one had a golden god and he needed gold, he make it of silver. If he needed that, he made if of copper. If he had a copper god and he needed copper, he made it of iron or of lead. And thus is it written (Devarim 32:17) "new ones (gods), newly come." R. Yitzchak says: If we were to write down all the names of their gods, all the hides in the world would not avail, (wherefore, perforce, they must be referred to generically as "gods." R. Chanina b. Antignos says: (in confirmation of the above) Witness the Torah's denomination of (the god) Molech — anything (is called "a god") that you make a king ("melech") over you, even a chip or a shard. Rebbi says: "elohim acherim": They (these "gods") are the last (achronim) of the creations (i.e., men). And who is the "last" of the creation? One who calls them "gods."

“Your belly is a pile of wheat,” this is the book of Leviticus. Just as the belly, the heart is on this side and the legs are on the other side and it is in the middle, so is the book of Leviticus, there are two on this side and two on that side and it is in the middle.²⁶Leviticus is the third of the five books of the Pentateuch. “A pile of wheat [ḥitim],” a pile of sins [ḥata’im];²⁷Leviticus details the laws of sin-offerings (Matnot Kehuna). “hedged with lilies,” these are matters of Torah, which are as soft as lilies. How many mitzvot and details are in the book of Leviticus, how many a fortiori inferences, instances of piggul²⁸An offering is disqualified if, in the course of the four sacrificial rites, one has the intent to sprinkle the blood or eat the flesh of the offering beyond its appointed time. Such an offering is called piggul. and instances of notar²⁹This is flesh that is left over after the appointed time for its consumption. there are in the book of Leviticus.
Rabbi Levi said: It is the way of the world that a man might marry a woman at the age of thirty or forty years. After he outlays all his expenditures, he comes to consummate his marriage with her; if she says to him: I saw [a spot] like a red lily,³⁰Menstrual blood. he separates from her immediately. Who caused him not to approach her? What iron wall is between them? What iron pillar is between them? What snake bit him? What scorpion stung him so that he would not approach her? [There is but] the words of the Torah, which are as soft as lilies, in which it is stated: “You shall not approach a woman in her state of menstrual impurity” (Leviticus 18:19).
Likewise, one before whom they brought a tray of pieces [of meat]; if they say to him: [A piece of] forbidden fat fell there, he withdraws his hand and does not taste it. Who caused him to refrain from tasting? What snake bit him so that he would not taste it? What scorpion stung him so that he would not approach and taste it? The words of the Torah, which are as soft as lilies, in which it is written: “You shall not consume any fat or any blood” (Leviticus 3:17).

Whence do we know that litigants in Israel who are involved in litigation against each other must not turn to an idolatrous judge for a decision in their suit, even though they know that he will judge them according to Israel’s laws? Because it is forbidden (for Jews) to argue before them? Scripture states: Which thou shalt set before them. That is, before the children of Israel and not before the Cuthites. For anyone who shuns Israel’s judges and testifies before an idolatrous judge renounces the Holy One, blessed be He, first, and later renounces Israel’s law, as it is said: For their rock is not our Rock, and our enemies’ judge (Deut. 32:31). To what may this be compared? To a patient examined by a doctor. He tells the members of (the patient’s) household: “Give him whatever food he desires, withhold nothing from him.” (Later) he visits another patient and advises his household: “Be careful that he does not eat or drink certain things.” They remonstrate with him, saying, “One patient you permit to eat whatever he wishes, while the other you advise not to eat certain things.” Thereupon he replied: “The first patient will not survive, and that is why I told them not to deny him anything, for whether he eats or not, he will die. However, the other patient will live, and so I advised him to eat only certain things lest his illness be aggravated.” So, too, are the ordinances of the idolaters, as is said: For the statutes of the people were vanity (Jer. 10:3), and it is written elsewhere: Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live (Ezek. 20:25). However, to Israel I gave commandments and desirable statutes, as it is said: Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them (Lev. 18:5).

MISHNA: All who are liable to Kareth if beaten, are exempt from it (Kareth), as it is said (Ib., ib. 3) Thy brother rendered vile, i.e., as soon as he was rendered vile, he is thy brother. This is the opinion of R. Chanania b. Gamaliel. R. Chanania b. Gamaliel remarked: "If the commiitting of a crime deprives one of his soul, how much more should a meritorious act save one's soul!" R. Ishmael said: "This may be inferred from the very place which treats of Kareth (Lev. 18, 29) Even the souls that commit them shall be cut off, and (Ib., ib. 5) [Ordinances, which, if a man do] he shall live in them. From this, it is to be inferred that if one only abstains from committing a crime, he is rewarded as if he acted meritoriously." R. Simon b. Rabbi said: "Concerning the passage (Deut. 12, 23) Be firm so as not to eat the blood; for the blood is the life. Now, if a person rejects blood which is disgusting to one, and abstains from it, is rewarded; how much more is one to be rewarded for abstaining from robbery and adultery towards which the nature of man is inclined; and not only he, but also all his descendants to the end of the generations, may be rewarded." R. Chanania b. Akashya said: "The Holy One, praised be He! wanted to make Israel blissful and therefore He multiplied to them his commands in the Torah, as it reads (Is. 42, 21) The Lord was pleased [to do this], for the sake of His righteousness: [therefore] He maketh the teaching great and glorious."

R. Simlai lectured: "Six hundred and thirteen commands were spoken to Moses; three hundred and sixty-five of them negatives, corresponding to the number of days in the year counting according to the solar system, and two hundred and forty-eight positives, corresponding to the members of a human body." Said R. Hamnuna: "Where is the passage to prove this? (Deut. 33, 4) The Torah which Moses commanded us. The numerical value of the word Torah amounts to six hundred and eleven. (Fol. 24) I am; and, Thou shalt have no [of the first two commandments], we heard from the Almighty Himself. David, however, came and reduced their number to eleven, as it is written (Ps. 15, 2-5) A Psalm of David, Lord, we shall sojourn in Thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell upon Thy holy mountain? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh truth in his heart, etc., i.e., He that walketh uprightly, refers to Abraham, concernnig whom such an expression is written (Gen. 17, 1) Walk before Me, and be upright. Worketh righteously, refers to a man like Aba Chelkia.' And speaketh the truth refers to man like Rabbi Saphra. Nor doeth evil to his fellows, i.e., who takes care not to compete with his neighbor's business. That hath no slander upon his tongue, refers to our father Jacob, concerning whom it is written (Gen. 27, 12) My father peradventure will feel me. Nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor, refers to one who befriends his relatives. In whose eyes a vile person is despised, refers to Hezekiah, King of Judea, who caused his father's bones to be carried on a bed of ropes. But he honoreth them that fear the Lord, refers to Jehoshaphath, King of Judea, who upon seeing a scholar, would rise from his throne, kiss him, and call him, my father, my master, my teacher, my master, my master. But that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not; this refers to R. Jochanan, who said: 'If one says I will fast until I will come home.' He that putteth not out his money on interest, i.e., not even from an idolater. Nor taketh no bribe, refers to men like R. Ismael b. Jose. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. When R. Gamaliel would come to this passage, he used to weep, saying: "Only one who performed all these shall not be moved, but [if he performs merely] one of them, he might be moved;" whereupon R. Akiba said to him: "According to your opinion then how would you explain the passage (Lev. 18, 24) Defile not ye yourselves in all of those things. Do you mean to say that only if in all of these things, but not one?" You must therefore say that it means to any of these things. The same could also be explained. Isaiah then came and reduced them (the six hundred and thirteen commands) to six as it is said (33, 15) He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes; that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from looking on evil. He that walketh righteously, refers to Abraham, of whom it is written (Gen. 18, 19) For I have known him, to do righteousness and justice, etc. Speaketh uprightly, refers to him who does not anger his colleague in public. And he despiseth the gain of oppressions, refers to R. Ismael b. Elisha. That shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, refers to R. Ishmael b. Jose. That stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, refers to R. Elazar b. Simon. And shutteth his eyes from looking on evil, as R. Chiya b. Aba explained this to refer to one "who does not look upon women washing near the bank of the river." When Michah [the prophet] came he reduced them to three (6, 8) It hath been told thee, o man, what is good; and what the Lord doth require of thee: (only) to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God. To do justly, refers to the law; love mercy, refers to loving kindness; and walk humbly, providing for the marriage of poor maidens and the burial of the dead. Is this not an a fortiori conclusion! If concerning matters which are not to be performed in secrecy, the Torah says to walk humbly, how much more so should this be applied to matters which are accustomed to be done in secrecy! Isaiah finally reduced them to two, as it is said (56, 1) Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye justice, and do righteousness. Amos then came and reduced them to one, as it is said (Amos 5, 4) For thus saith the Lord unto the house of Israel: Seek ye Me, and live. R. Nachman b. Isaac raised the following objection: Perhaps he means by Seek ye Me, to perform the entire Torah? We must therefore say that it was Habakkuk [the prophet] who came and reduced them to one (2, 4) But the righteous shall live by his faith.

3) Whence is it derived that there was no people whose acts were more detestable than those of the Egyptians? From (Vayikra 18:3) "As the deed of the land of Egypt … you shall not do." And whence is it derived that those of the last generation were the worst of all? From "As the deed of the land of Egypt where you dwelt you shall not do." Whence is it derived that (the deeds of the people of) the place where Israel dwelt were the worst of all? From "where you dwelt you shall not do." And whence is it derived that the dwelling of Israel (there) prompted them to all of these deeds? From "where you dwelt you shall not do."

3) "and both of them shall be cut off from the midst of their people": We have heard the punishment but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:19): "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness, (you shall not come near to reveal her nakedness.")

3) who gives of his seed to the Molech": and not to other varieties (of idolatry). "who gives of his seed to the Molech": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Is it not already written (Vayikra 18:21) "And from your seed you shall not give, etc."?) (For) if from there, I might think that even if he (himself) passed (him through fire) and did not give him (to the priest of Molech to do so), he would be liable; it is, therefore, written (for emphasis) "who gives of his seed." I might think that even if he gave, but did not pass, he is still liable; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:21) "And from your seed you shall not give to pass to the Molech." I might think he would be liable even if he did not pass him through fire; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire" "passing"-"passing" for an identity (gezeirah shavah) — Just as "passing" here is for the Molech, so "passing" there; and just as "passing" there is through fire, so, "passing" here. In sum: There must be giving, and passing, through fire, to the Molech.

3) Whence is it derived that there was no people whose acts were more detestable than those of the Egyptians? From (Vayikra 18:3) "As the deed of the land of Egypt … you shall not do." And whence is it derived that those of the last generation were the worst of all? From "As the deed of the land of Egypt where you dwelt you shall not do." Whence is it derived that (the deeds of the people of) the place where Israel dwelt were the worst of all? From "where you dwelt you shall not do." And whence is it derived that the dwelling of Israel (there) prompted them to all of these deeds? From "where you dwelt you shall not do."

“And the earth abides forever” (Ecclesiastes 1:4). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: The verse should have said only: “The earth passes and the earth comes, but the generation abides forever.”²⁸This would indicate that the earth is transient, and the people last forever. Which was created for the sake of the other, was the earth created for the sake of the generation, or was the generation created for the sake of the earth? Was it not the earth [that was created] for the sake of the generation? Rather, because the generation did not perform the duties [assigned to it by] the Holy One blessed be He; therefore, it wastes away. The earth, because it performs the duties [assigned to it by] the Holy One blessed be He; therefore, it does not waste away.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: It is written: “For like the days of the tree will be the days of My people” (Isaiah 65:22). Tree means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life for those who grasp it” (Proverbs 3:18). Which was created for the sake of the other; the Torah for the sake of Israel, or Israel for the sake of the Torah? Was it not the Torah [that was created] for the sake of Israel? Rather, the Torah that was created for the sake of Israel exists for ever and ever; Israel, for whose sake [everything] was created, all the more so. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A kingdom enters and a kingdom leaves, but Israel stands forever; that is: “The earth abides forever.” Rabbi Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Pelatya of Naveh derived it from this verse: “Yehonatan son of Gershom son of Menashe, he and his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan until the day of the exile of the land” (Judges 18:30). Does a land go into exile or wander? Rather, these are Israel, who are called land, as it is stated: “All nations will praise you; as you will be a land of delight” (Malachi 3:12) – you will be called a land of delight.
Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Everything that the Holy One blessed be He created in man, He created its parallel for the earth. Man has a head and the earth has a head [rosh], as it is stated: “[He had not yet made earth and fields, or] the beginning [rosh] of the dust of the world” (Proverbs 8:26). Man has eyes [einayim] and the earth has eyes, as it is stated: “They will cover the face [ein] of the earth” (Exodus 10:5). A person has ears and the earth has ears, as it is stated: “Listen, earth” (Isaiah 1:2). Man has a mouth and the earth has a mouth, as it is stated: “The earth opened its mouth” (Numbers 16:32). Man eats and the earth eats, as it is stated: “A land that consumes its inhabitants” (Numbers 13:32). Man drinks and the earth drinks, as it is stated: “[But the land]…by the rain of the heavens it drinks water” (Deuteronomy 11:11). Man vomits and the earth vomits, as it is stated: “So the land will not vomit [you out]” (Leviticus 18:28). Man has hands and the earth has hands [yadayim], as it is stated: “The land is spacious [raḥavat yadayim]” (Genesis 34:21). Man has thighs and the earth has thighs [yerekhayim], as it is stated: “I will gather them from the ends [miyarketei] of the earth” (Jeremiah 31:8). Man has a navel [tabbur] and the earth has a navel, as it is stated: “Dwellers in the middle of [betabbur] the earth” (Ezekiel 38:12). Man has nakedness and the earth has nakedness, as it is stated: “To see the nakedness of the land you have come” (Genesis 42:9). Man has feet and the earth has feet, as it is stated: “And the earth abides [omadet] forever” (Ecclesiastes 1:4).²⁹The term omadet literally means standing, implying that it has feet.
What is omadet? Ma’amedet. Rabbi Aḥa and the Rabbis, Rabbi Aḥa said: It fulfills [ma’amedet] its duties. The Rabbis said: It produces [ma’amedet] its food. Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakoneya said: Because in this world a person builds a building and another spends time in it, [a person] plants a sapling and another eats [its produce]. But in the future, they will not build and another will settle, they will not plant and another will eat, as it is stated: “For like the days of the tree will be the days of My people, and My chosen will outlive their handicraft” (Isaiah 65:22).

4) And whence is it derived that there was no people whose acts were more detestable than those of the Canaanites? From (Vayikra 18:3) "And as the deed of the land of Canaan you shall not do." And whence is it derived that those of the last generation were the worst of all? From "to which I bring you." And whence is it derived that the coming of Israel (there) prompted them to all of these deeds? From "to which I bring you you shall not do."

4) (Vayikra 21:2) ("Only for his flesh that is near to him, his mother and his father, his son and his daughter and his brother.") "Only for his flesh that is near to him": "flesh" is his wife, viz. (Vayikra 18:12) "She is the flesh (i.e., the wife) of your father." "that is ner": to exclude one that was betrothed to him. "to him": to exclude one that he divorced. Let it be written (only) "to his mother." Why need "to his father" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori), viz.: If he makes himself tamei to his mother, who becomes a challalah (by relations with one who is unfit), how much more so should he make himself tamei to his father, who does not make himself a challal thereby! — If so, I would say: Just as his mother is definitely known (to be his mother), so his father must be definitely known. Whence would I know (that he makes himself tamei for him even when he is known as) his father by common acceptance? It must, therefore, be written "to his father."

4) (Vayikra 20:19) ("And the nakedness of the sister of your mother and the sister of your father you shall not reveal. For he has bared his kin; they shall bear their sin.") "And the nakedness of the sister of your mother and the sister of your father you shall not reveal.": "the sister of your mother": whether from her father or from her mother. "and the sister of your father": whether from her father or from her mother. — But perhaps the meaning is from her father, but not from her mother. And this would follow, viz.: Since he is forbidden to the wife of his father's brother, and he is forbidden to the sister of his mother and to the sister of his father, then just as he is forbidden (only) to the wife of his brother from his father, and not from his mother, so, he should be forbidden (only) to the sister of his mother and the sister of his mother from her father and not from her mother! It is, therefore, written (a second time, [after 18:12 and Vayikra 18:13]) "And the nakedness of the sister of your mother and the sister of your father you shall not reveal" — "the sister of your mother," whether from her father or from her mother, "and the sister of your father," whether from her father or from her mother. "For he has bared his kin": as we have stated (above, halachah 2).

4) Rebbi says: (Vayikra 18:2) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d." Say to them: "I (Moses), too, was exhorted." Just as I (the L–rd exhorted you (to separate from your wife) and you accepted, so tell them (to separate from arayoth) and they will accept it. (A variant:) "and say to them" This is an exhortation to beth-din (to separate Israel from arayoth). "I am the L–rd your G d" (Elokim = the Judge). I am a Judge to exact payment, and I am trusted to reward.

4) We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:23) "And a woman shall not stand before a beast to mount her; it is perverse."

4) And whence is it derived that there was no people whose acts were more detestable than those of the Canaanites? From (Vayikra 18:3) "And as the deed of the land of Canaan you shall not do." And whence is it derived that those of the last generation were the worst of all? From "to which I bring you." And whence is it derived that the coming of Israel (there) prompted them to all of these deeds? From "to which I bring you you shall not do."

(Lev. 15:25) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days.” Let our master instruct us: Is it permitted for a menstruant to sleep in the same bed with her husband, when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, one on one side and one on the other?³²Shab. 13a. Thus have our masters taught: It is forbidden [for them] to lie down [together], because one does not one put a breech before a proper man, and certainly not before the thief. Thus the sages compare the matter to a fire in the straw; and it says (in Lev. 18:19), “And you shall not come near a women during her period of menstrual uncleanness.” [This is] to teach you that the Holy One, blessed be He, warns Israel about sanctification and about purity, lest they become unclean through their wives when they are menstruating; for whoever has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating is under sentence of being cut off, as stated (in Lev. 20:18), “And if a man lies with a woman [when she is] unwell…, they both shall be cut off.”

5) R. Shimon says (Isaiah 41:4) "Who wrought and did? He who called forth the generations from the beginning." He readied (punishment) for the guilty generation, that Israel come and exact it of them.

5) "they shall bear their sin": We have heard the punishment but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:12-13): "The nakedness of the sister of your father you shall not reveal; she is the kin of your father. The nakedness of the kin of your mother you shall not reveal; for she is the kin of your mother."

(Ib. b) Our Rabbis were taught: (Lev. 18, 4) My ordinances shall ye do. This signifies such ordinances which, even were they not written, ought to be observed as though written; they are, idolatry, adultery, bloodshed, robbery, and blasphemy. (Ib.) And my statutes shall ye keep, refers to things that Satan and others argue against; as, for instance, abstaining from pork, from wearing cloth mixed of wool and linen, Chalitza, purification of a leper, the despatching of the scapegoat and the Para Aduma. Perhaps thou wilt say they are acts of vanity; it is therefore said (Ib.) I am the Lord, your God; i.e., I am the Lord who have commanded it; you must not criticize.

6) R Yossi Haglili says: After Scripture equates the deed of the land of Egypt with that of the land of Canaan, and that of the land of Canaan with that of the land of Egypt, why did the Canaanites merit remaining in their land for forty-seven years, as it is written (Bamidbar 13:22) "And Chevron (in Canaan) was built seven years before Tzoan (in) Egypt" (and add forty years for their sojourn in the desert)? It was because they honored our father Abraham, saying (Bereshith 23:5) "Hear us, my lord, a prince of G d are you in our midst" — wherefore they merited remaining on their land forty-seven years.

6) (Vayikra 20:20) ("And a man who lies with his uncle's wife, the nakedness of his uncle he has revealed. They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who lies with his uncle's wife": The verse speaks of the wife of his father's brother. — But perhaps it speaks of the wife of his mother's brother! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:14): "The nakedness of the brother of your father you shall not reveal. To his wife do not come near"; (she is your uncle []i.e., the wife of your uncle]") It is written here (our verse) "dodathecha" (lit., "dodatho") and there "dodathecha". Just as there the verse refers to the wife of his father's brother; here, too, it refers to the wife of his father's brother. — But perhaps it refers to the wife of his father's brother by his mother, and this would follow, viz.: Just as he is forbidden to the sister of his mother and to the sister of his father, and he is forbidden to the wife of his father's brother, then just as with the sister of his mother and the sister of his father, (he is forbidden) whether (she is his sister) either by her father or by her mother, so, with the wife of his father's brother (i.e., he should be forbidden to her) whether (he is his brother) either by his father or by his mother! And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that he should be forbidden to the wife of his father's brother by his mother), viz.: If in an instance (levirate marriage [yibum]), he is permitted to the wife of his brother by his father by his father, he is forbidden to the wife of his brother by his mother, then in an instance where he is not permitted to the wife of his brother by his father, should it not follow that he should not be permitted to the wife of his brother by his mother! It is, therefore, written "his uncle." It is written "his uncle" here, ("the nakedness of his uncle he has revealed"), and it is written "his uncle" elsewhere ([Vayikra 25:49]) "Or his uncle or his uncle's son shall redeem him). Just as there, the family of the father (is being referred to); here, too, the family of the father (is intended).

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

R. 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.”

(Fol. 82, b) Our Rabbis were taught: During the civil war of the Maccabees, Hurkanoth was within and Aristobulos was without the city wall, and every day those within lowered dinars in a basket, from the top of the wall to those outside, in return for which the latter sent them up cattle for the daily sacrifices. Among the outsiders was an old man who was learned in Greek science, and he said to them: "So long as your enemies continue to perform the holy service [of the sacrifices] you will not subdue them." On the next day, when the basket of dinars was lowered, they sent them up a swine. When the swine reached the centre of the wall he fastened his feet in the wall, and Palestine trembled for a distance of four hundred square parsas. At that time it was declared that cursed be he who raised swine and cursed be he who taught his son Greek science. Concerning this time we are taught that the omar was brought from the gardens of Zriphin and the two loaves from the valley of Ein Socher. (Fol. 83) But is then the study of Greek science prohibited — are we not taught in the following Baraitha that Rabbi said: "In Palestine there is no use for the Syriac language, which is not clear, when there are the Hebrew language and the Greek language;" and R. Jose said: "In Babylon there is no use for the Aramean language, for there are the Hebrew language and the Persian language?" [Hence the Greek language is permitted] . I will tell thee: The Greek language is one thing and Greek science is another. But is, then, the study of Greek science prohibited? Has not R. Juda said in the name of Samuel, who quoted R. Simon b. Gamaliel: "Concerning the passage (Lam. 3, 51) My eye affected my soul because of all the daughters of my city. There were a thousand young men in my father's house, five hundred of whom studied Scripture and five hundred Greek science, and of all of them only two remained: I myself here and my nephew in Assia." [Hence even Greek science was permitted]? R. Gamaliel's house was an exception, because of their association with the government, as we are taught in a Baraitha: He who cuts his hair in Roman fashion, imitates the ways of the Amorites, [which are prohibited. Lev. 18, 3]. Abtulmus b. Reuben, however, was allowed to wear his hair in Roman fashion, because he associated with the government people. The house of R. Gamaliel was also permitted to study Greek science for the same reason."

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) R. Shimon b. Gamliel says in the name of R. Shimon b. Lakish: And thus is it written (Joshua 11:15) ("And the name of Chevron of yore was the city of Arba [Abraham]), the great man among the Anakim, and the land had rest from war." Men who honored the tzaddik merited that their land rest (from war).

7) "They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless (aririm)": If they have children, they bury their children; if they have no children, they die without children. And even though there is no proof for this, there is an "intimation" (i.e., Biblical support) for it, viz. (Jeremiah 29:30): "Write this man down as 'ariri,' a man that shall not prosper in his days, (for no man of his seed shall prosper"). We have heard the punishment, but not he exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Jeremiah 18:14): "The nakedness of the brother of your father you shall not reveal.'

(Ibid. 20:8) "Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it": "Remember" and "Keep" (the Sabbath day to sanctify it [Devarim 5:12]) were both stated in one pronouncement. (Exodus 31:14) "Its profaners shall be put to death" and (Numbers 28:9) "And on the Sabbath day, (sacrifice) two yearling lambs" were both stated in one pronouncement (Leviticus 18:16) "the nakedness of your brother's wife" and (Devarim 25:5) "Her yavam (levir, i.e., her brother-in-law) shall come upon her" were both stated in the same pronouncement. (Ibid. 22:11) "You shall not wear sha'atnez, wool and linen together" and (Ibid. 12) "Fringes (involving sha'atnez) shall you make for yourself" were both stated in the same pronouncement — something beyond the powers of a human being to say. As it is written (Psalms 62:12) "One thing has G d spoken, these two have I heard." (Jeremiah 23:29) "Is My word not like fire, says the L rd (and like a hammer shattering rock!")

Why was the law given in the desert? To teach us that just as the desert is free to all men, so the words of the law are free to all who desire to learn them. Also, lest a man should say: “I am a student of the law that was given to me and my ancestors, while you and your ancestors are not students of the law; your ancestors were strangers”; hence it is written: An inheritance of the congregation of Jacob (Deut. 33:4). This tells us that the law was an inheritance for all who associate themselves with Jacob. Even outsiders who devote themselves to the law are equal to the high priest, as it is said: Which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the Lord (Lev. 18:5). It does not refer to priest or Levite or Israelite but merely to man. Thus, One law and one ordinance shall be both for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with you (Num. 15:16). Observe what is written concerning the sons of Jethro: And the families of the scribes that dwelt at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Succathites (I Chron. 2:55). The name Tirathites (understood as derived from Aramaic tar’a, “gate”) indicates that they sat at the gate to the inner chamber of the Temple; Shimeathites (which includes the letters of the word shema, “hear”) implies that all the Israelites heard the law from their lips; and Succathites (which includes the word sukkah, “covered by”) suggests that they were enveloped by the Holy Spirit. Who were these? They were Kenites who came from The father of the house of Rechab (ibid.). The father-in-law of Moses was a Kenite, and Shemaiah and Abtalion and the descendants of Sisera were also Kenites. They studied the law in public like the men of the Great Synagogue. Why was that? Because the law was given to all Israel. Therefore it is written: These words that the Lord spoke unto all your assembly (Deut. 5:19).

Another matter, “all matters are wearying” – matters of heresy exhaust a person. There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who was apprehended for the purpose of heresy.⁶³He was apprehended by heretics in order to force him to concede to their beliefs. The governor took him and brought him up to the platform to judge him. He said to him: ‘Rabbi, is it appropriate for a great person like you to engage in these idle matters?’⁶⁴The reference is to the Oral Torah. He said to him: ‘I consider the judge trustworthy.’ [The governor] thought that he said it regarding him, but [in fact, Rabbi Eliezer] said it in reference to Heaven. [The governor] said to him: ‘Since you trusted me, although I [still] say what I have believed: [How] is it possible that these academies would be [so] mistaken [as to believe] in these idle matters, [but nonetheless] the verdict is that you are exonerated.’
After Rabbi Eliezer was exonerated [and allowed to descend] from the platform, he was distressed that he had been apprehended for the purpose of heresy.⁶⁵He did not understand why this had happened to him. His students entered to console him, but he did not accept it. Rabbi Akiva entered to him and said to him: ‘Rabbi, did, perhaps, one of the heretics ever say something before you and you found it pleasant?’ He said to him: ‘Yes, by Heaven, you reminded me. Once I was ascending in the upper marketplace of Tzippori, and a person approached me, and his name was Yaakov of the village of Sikhnaya, and he said to me one matter in the name of so-and-so⁶⁶Some say this is a reference to Jesus. and it brought me pleasure. That matter was: ‘It is written in your Torah: “You shalt not bring the fee of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:19). What are they?’ I said to him: ‘They are prohibited.’ He said to me: ‘They are prohibited for an offering, but is it permitted to destroy these [coins]?’⁶⁷Once they have been consecrated. I said to him: ‘If so,⁶⁸That they cannot be destroyed. what will he do with them?’ He said to me: ‘Let him make with them bathhouses and bathrooms.’⁶⁹For use in the Temple complex. I said to him: ‘You have spoken well,’ and a halakha⁷⁰That one must not engage in discourse with a heretic or accept his words. was temporarily concealed from me.
‘When he saw that I accepted his words, he said: ‘So said so-and-so: From repugnance it came, and to repugnance it should be expended,⁷¹The money came from payment to a harlot, and therefore should be used for repugnant matters, such as bathrooms. as it is stated: “For from the fee of a harlot she gathered them, and to the fee of a harlot they will return” (Micah 1:7). Let them be bathrooms for the multitudes,’ and it gave me pleasure. For that matter I was apprehended for heresy. Moreover, I violated what is written in the Torah: “Distance your way from her, and do not approach the door of her house” (Proverbs 5:8). “Distance your way from her,” this is heresy. “And do not approach the door of her house,” this is prostitution. Why? It is because: “For she has felled many wounded; abundant are all she has killed” (Proverbs 7:26).’
How far [must one distance oneself]? Rabbi Ḥisda said: Four cubits. For this, Rabbi Elazar ben Dama, son of the sister of Rabbi Yishmael, died. He was bitten by a snake, and Yaakov of the village of Sikhnaya came to cure him [through incantation] in the name of so-and-so, but Rabbi Yishmael did not allow him to do so. He said: ‘You are not permitted to do thus, ben Dama.’ [Ben Dama] said to him: ‘Allow me, and I will cite you proof from the Torah that it is permitted,’ but he did not manage to cite him proof before he died. Rabbi Yishmael rejoiced and said: ‘Happy are you, ben Dama, as your soul emerged in purity and you did not breach the boundary of the Sages, as anyone who breaches the boundary of the Sages, ultimately punishment befalls him, as it is stated: “One who breaches a fence, a snake will bite him” (Ecclesiastes 10:8).’ But was he not bitten [by a snake]? Rather, that a snake would not bite him in the future.⁷²Had he been cured from this snake bite, he would have thereby sinned and he would have in any event then received another snake bite that would have been incurable (Etz Yosef). What did he have in that regard?⁷³What proof did Rabbi Elazar ben Dama seek to bring? “That a man shall do and he will live by them” (Leviticus 18:5) – and not that he will die by them.⁷⁴This proves that one may violate most prohibitions in order to save a life (Yoma 85b).

8) If "As the deed of the land of Egypt and as the deed of the land of Canaan, you shall not do," I might think they should not build or plant as they do; it is, therefore, written (Joshua 11:15) "and in their statutes you shall not walk." I have proscribed for you only those statutes which were instituted for them and for their forefathers and for the fathers of their forefathers. What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman. A man would wed a woman and her daughter, and a woman would wed two — wherefore Scripture states "and in their statutes you shall not walk."

8) (Vayikra 18:3) "and in their statutes you shall not walk": What did Scripture leave unsaid (that this need be stated)? Is it not already written (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire … (Devarim 18:11) and a chover chaver, etc."? What, then, is the intent of "and in their statutes you shall not walk"? In their customs — those things that are established for them — such as theatres, circuses, and sports. R. Meir says: These are "the ways of the Emorites," which the sages enumerated. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: that you not preen yourself (to attract women), and not cultivate locks, and not wear the hair komi (a gentile fashion). And lest you say: "They have statutes and we have no statutes" — It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:9) "My judgments shall you do and My statutes you shall heed to walk in them; I am the L–rd your G d." — But there is still "hope" for the yetzer hara to reflect and say "But theirs are more beautiful than ours!" — It is, therefore, written (Devarim 4:6) "And you shall heed and you shall do. For this is your wisdom and your understanding."

8) (Vayikra 18:3) "and in their statutes you shall not walk": What did Scripture leave unsaid (that this need be stated)? Is it not already written (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire … (Devarim 18:11) and a chover chaver, etc."? What, then, is the intent of "and in their statutes you shall not walk"? In their customs — those things that are established for them — such as theatres, circuses, and sports. R. Meir says: These are "the ways of the Emorites," which the sages enumerated. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: that you not preen yourself (to attract women), and not cultivate locks, and not wear the hair komi (a gentile fashion). And lest you say: "They have statutes and we have no statutes" — It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:9) "My judgments shall you do and My statutes you shall heed to walk in them; I am the L–rd your G d." — But there is still "hope" for the yetzer hara to reflect and say "But theirs are more beautiful than ours!" — It is, therefore, written (Devarim 4:6) "And you shall heed and you shall do. For this is your wisdom and your understanding."

[(Exod. 37:1:) THEN BEZALEL MADE THE ARK OF ACACIA WOOD.] {R.} Jeremiah said (in Jer. 30:17): FOR I WILL RESTORE HEALTH TO YOU, AND I WILL HEAL YOU OF YOUR WOUNDS. A king of flesh and blood wounds with a knife³⁴Gk.: smile. and heals with a bandage, but the Holy One is not like that.³⁵Exod. R. 50:3; cf. above, 4:18; Exod. R. 23:3; Lev. 18:5. The very thing which he uses for wounding he uses for healing. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 15:23): WHEN THEY CAME TO MARAH, [THEY COULD NOT DRINK THE WATER OF MARAH BECAUSE IT WAS BITTER (marim)]. R. Levi said: Why? BECAUSE IT WAS BITTER. The generation was bitter in its deeds. (Exod. 15:25:) THEN HE (i.e., Moses) CRIED UNTO THE LORD, [AND THE LORD SHOWED HIM A TREE]. The Holy One gave him bitter wood, he put it into the bitter <water>, AND (ibid., cont.) THE WATER BECAME SWEET. Ergo (in Jer. 30:17): AND I WILL HEAL YOU OF YOUR WOUNDS. Also, when Israel sinned at Shittim, the Holy One said to them: By your life, through that in which you sinned, you shall be healed. (Exod. 37:1:) THEN BEZALEL MADE THE ARK [OF ACACIA (shittim) WOOD].

R. Acha b. Chanina lectured, what is the meaning of the passage (Ib. 6) Upon the mountains he eateth not? i.e., He does not live upon the reward of his ancestral merits: his eyes he lifteth not up to idols; i.e., he never walked overbearingly: and the wife of his neighbor he defileth not; i.e., he never tried to compete in the pecial trade of his neighbor; unto a woman on her separation he Cometh not near; i.e., he never tried to derive any benefit from the treasure of charity — and to this it is written: He is righteous, he shall surely live. Rabban Gamaliel,when he came to the passage above, used to weep, saying: "Only he who fulfilled all of these is considered righeous. but not he who has done only one." R. Akiba then said to him: "According to your theory, the passage (Lev. 18, 24) Do not defile yourself with all of these things, also means with all of them, but one of them is allowed? Hence it means to say with any of them. The same is to be explained here: If one does one of the things mentioned above, he is righteous."

9) "He has revealed the nakedness of his brother; they shall be childless (aririm)": If they have children, they bury their children; if they have no children, they die without children. And even though there is no proof for this, there is an "intimation" (i.e., Biblical support) for it, viz. (Jeremiah 29:30): "Write down this man as "ariri," etc." We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Jeremiah 18:16): "The nakedness of the wife of your brother you shall not reveal; she is the nakedness of your brother."

9) (Vayikra 18:4) ("My judgments you shall do, and My statutes you shall heed to walk in them; I am the L–rd your G d.") "My judgments" — these are the laws; "My statutes" — these are the midrashoth (exegetical derivations); "you shall heed" — this is the Mishnah; "to walk in them" — this is the deed; "shall you heed to walk in them" — It is not the Mishnah which conducts you (to the world to come), but the deed.

9) (Vayikra 18:4) "My judgments you shall do": These are the things, which if they had not been written would "ask" to be written, such as (the interdiction of) theft, illicit relations, blaspheming the Name, and bloodshed. (Vayikra 18:4) "and My statutes you shall heed": These are the things that the yetzer hara "queries" and that the idolators query, such as (the prohibition against) eating pig and wearing sha'atnez (a mixture of wool and linen), chalitzah (the levirate-refusal ceremony), the cleansing of the leper and the sent-away he-goat. It is, therefore, written (in response to such "queries") "I, the L–rd," have decreed them, and it is not for you to call them into question.

9) (Vayikra 20:11) ("And a man who lies with his father's wife, he has revealed the nakedness of his father. Both of them shall be put to death; their blood is in them.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who lies with his father's wife": This implies both his father's wife who is his mother and his father's wife who is not his mother. Whence do we derive (for inclusion) his mother who is not his father's wife, (as when his father raped a woman, who gave birth to him)? From "he has revealed the nakedness of his father," which is superfluous for (purposes of) comparison and the derivation of an identity (gezeirah shavah [below]). "Both of them shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah! It is, therefore, written "their blood is in them" and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) "their blood is in them." Just as the penalty there is stoning; here, too, it is stoning. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:7) "The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal." "the nakedness of your father" — this is your father's wife. You say that it is your father's wife, but perhaps it is your father's nakedness, literally, (i.e., sodomy)! — You reason (otherwise), viz.: It is written here (Vayikra 18:7) "the nakedness of your father," and elsewhere (Vayikra 20:11) "he has revealed the nakedness of his father." Just as "the nakedness of his father there refers to the wife of your father, so "the nakedness of your father" here (Vayikra 18:7) refers to the wife of your father, and it implies both the wife of his father who is his mother and the wife of his father who is not his mother. Whence is derived (for inclusion) his mother who is not the wife of his father, (but a woman he ravished)? From (Vayikra 18:7) "the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal." This tells me only of the exhortations. Whence are the punishments derived? You derive it by induction, viz.: It is written here (Vayikra 18:7) of the nakedness of his father, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 10:11) of the nakedness of his father. Just as in the latter instance, his mother who is not the wife of his father, (but a woman he ravished) is equated with his father's wife, in the former instance, too, she is equated with his father's wife, (and this is the "gezeirah shavah" referred to above). (Vayikra 18:7) "she is your mother": You make him liable for (only one sin-offering, by reason of her being) his mother, and you do not make him liable for (another sin-offering, by reason of her being) his father's wife.

"she'eirah": This is her food, as in (Michah 3:3) "and who eat the she'er of My people", and (Psalms 78:27) "He rained she'er (manna) upon them as dust." (Exodus, Ibid.) "kesuthah": as stated (i.e., "her clothing"), "and onathah": her (conjugal) time, as in (Genesis 34:2) "And he lay with her and ye'anehah." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: "she'erah" is her clothing, i.e., clothing that is adapted to her flesh ("she'er"). If she were young, he should not give her (the clothing) of an elderly woman. If she were elderly, he should not give her (the clothing) of a young woman. "and her onah" (time): He should not give her summer (clothing) in the winter or winter (clothing) in the summer, but each (garment) in its time. Whence is "her food" derived? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If he is not permitted to withhold from her things which are not life sustaining, how much more so things which are life sustaining! Whence is "her (conjugal) time derived? It follows a fortiori, viz. If he is not permitted to withhold from her things which she was not married for in the beginning, how much more so things which she was married for in the beginning! Rebbi says: "she'erah" is her conjugal time, as in (Leviticus 18:6) "A man, to all the she'er (flesh) of his kin shall not draw near" (for cohabitation), and (in the same connection) (Ibid. 12, 13) "She is the she'er of your father", "She is the she'er of your mother." "kesuthah": as per its plain meaning (i.e., "her clothing.) "onathah" — "her food", as in (Devarim 8:3) "vayeanchah" and He caused you to hunger."

10) (Vayikra 20:12) ("And if a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death. They have wrought corruption; their blood is in them.") "And a man if he lies with his daughter-in-law … they have wrought corruption": in that they have "twisted the cord" (of procreation, both father and son lying with the same woman). They shall be put to death": by stoning. You say it is by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah! It is, therefore, written "their blood is in them," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) "their blood is in them." Just as the penalty there is stoning; here, too, it is stoning. We have heard the exhortation, but we have not heard the punishment; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:15) "The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not reveal." If "your daughter-in-law," I would think even a maidservant or a gentile woman; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:15) "She is the wife of your son." Scripture speaks only of a woman with whom there is "wifehood" with your son — to exclude a maidservant and a gentile woman, where this does not obtain.

10) (Vayikra 18:18) ("And a woman together with her sister you shall not take, to be rivals, to reveal her nakedness upon her in her lifetime") What is the intent of "upon her"? Because it is written (Devarim 25:5) "Her yavam (her husband's brother) shall come upon her," I might think that this applied even to one of the Scriptural forbidden relations; it is, therefore, written here "upon her," and there "upon her." Just as there, Scripture speaks of a yevamah; here, too, Scripture speaks of a yevamah, (notwithstanding which Scripture states "You shall not take.") This tells me only of (the prohibition against taking) his wife's sister (in yibum). Whence do I derive the same for the other arayoth (i.e., for his daughter married to his brother)? — Just as it is forbidden to take in yibum his wife's sister, who is an ervah, deliberate transgression with which is liable to kareth, and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, so, every ervah which is thus liable.

10) (Vayikra 18:4) "to walk in them": Make them primary and not secondary. "to walk in them": Your converse should be only in them, not intermixed with any mundane matters. Do not say: I have learned the wisdom of Israel; now I will learn the wisdom of the world. "to walk in them": You are not permitted to depart from them. And thus (Mishlei 5:17) "They shall be ours alone … (Vayikra 6:22) In your going forth, it shall guide you" — in this world; "in your reclining, it shall guard you" — at the time of death; "and when you awake, it shall converse with you" — in the world to come. And (Isaiah 26:19) "Awake and sing, you dwellers in the dust!" And lest you say: "Gone is my hope and my prospect!" It is, therefore, written "I am the L–rd." I am your hope and your prospect and upon Me is your trust. And (Isaiah 46:4) "And until (your) old age, I am He, etc." And (Isaiah 44:6) "Thus said the L–rd, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the L–rd of hosts, etc." (Isaiah 48:12) "I am He. I am first and I am last." And (Isaiah 41:4) "I, the L–rd, am first, and with the last shall I be,"

10) (Vayikra 18:5) "And you shall heed My statutes and My judgments, which a man shall do": to ascribe heeding and doing to statutes and heeding and doing to judgments, (the previous verse having ascribed only doing to judgments and heeding to statutes). (Vayikra 18:5) "and he shall live in them": in the world to come. If you would say, in this world, is it not one's end to die? How, then, is "and he shall live in them" to be understood? In the world to come. (Vayikra 18:5) "I am the L–rd" — trusted to reward.

11) (Vayikra 20:13) ("And if a man lies with a male, the lyings of a woman, an abomination has been wrought by both of them. They shall be put to death; their blood is in them.") "a man": to exclude a minor. "who lies with a male": Even a minor is implied. "the lyings of a woman": R. Yishmael says: This comes to teach (something about lying with a male) and ends up being taught (something about lying with a female) — that there are two lyings with a woman (for liability, normative and non-normative). "they shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah; it is, therefore, written "their blood is in them." Just as "their blood is in them" elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) is by stoning, so, here. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:22) "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman." This is an exhortation only against the active participant. Whence is derived the exhortation against the passive participant? From (Devarim 23:18) "There shall be no harlot from the sons of Israel," and (I Kings 14:24) "And also a harlot (masculine) was in the land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations." (and homosexuality, specifically, is called "abomination.") R. Akiva says (In) "And with a male you shall not lie (tishkav) the lyings of a woman," ("tishkav") can (also) be read as "tishachev" ("be lain with"). R. Chanina b. Iddi says: (A man's) lying with a male and with an animal were included in all of the arayoth (illicit relations). Why did Scripture single them out to call them "abominations"? To teach: Just as these are ervah, deliberate transgression of which is liable to kareth, and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, and because of which the Canaanites were exiled, so (for) every ervah which is thus liable, the Canaanites were exiled.

11) (Vayikra 18:5) "And you shall heed My statutes and My judgments": This tells me only of what Scripture specifies. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other exegeses of the parshah? From "And you shall heed (eth) My statutes and (eth) My judgments."

12) "And they shall be cut off before the eyes of their people." We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:9) "The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother … you shall not reveal." This tells me only of ht daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. Whence do I derive (for inclusion his sister) both from his father and from his mother? From (the repetition of ) "your sister" (Vayikra 18:11) — in any event. — But even without the repetition, I could derive it a fortiori, viz.: If he is exhorted for his sister from his father, who is not the daughter of his mother, and from his mother, who is not the daughter of his father, how much more so (is he exhorted for his sister) both from his father and from his mother! — But if you say this, you have exhorted by means of an a fortiori argument — wherefore it is written "your sister," to teach that there is no exhortation by means of an a fortiori argument.

12) "And they shall be cut off before the eyes of their people." We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:9) "The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother … you shall not reveal." This tells me only of ht daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. Whence do I derive (for inclusion his sister) both from his father and from his mother? From (the repetition of ) "your sister" (Vayikra 18:11) — in any event. — But even without the repetition, I could derive it a fortiori, viz.: If he is exhorted for his sister from his father, who is not the daughter of his mother, and from his mother, who is not the daughter of his father, how much more so (is he exhorted for his sister) both from his father and from his mother! — But if you say this, you have exhorted by means of an a fortiori argument — wherefore it is written "your sister," to teach that there is no exhortation by means of an a fortiori argument.

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD < FOR MANY DAYS, NOT AT THE TIME OF HER IMPURITY >…. Let our master instruct us: Is it permitted for a menstruant to sleep in the same bed with her husband, when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, one on one side and one on the other?⁵⁰Tanh., Lev. 5:5; Shab. 13a. Thus have our masters taught: It is forbidden < for them > to lie down < together >, because one does not one put a loophole before the observant person, and certainly not before the thief. Thus the sages compare the matter to a fire in the straw; and it says (in Lev. 18:19): AND YOU SHALL NOT COME NEAR A WOMEN DURING HER PERIOD OF MENSTRUAL UNCLEANNESS. < This is > to teach you that the Holy One warns Israel about sanctification and about purity, lest they act according to the practice of star worshipers and become unclean through their wives when they are menstruating; for whoever has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating is under sentence of being cut off, as stated (in Lev. 20:18): AND IF A MAN LIES WITH A WOMAN < WHEN SHE IS > UNWELL…, THEY BOTH SHALL BE CUT OFF < FROM AMONG THEIR PEOPLE >. Because star worshipers do not stay away from the menstruant they are under sentence of being cut off, as stated (in Deut. 12:29): WHEN THE LORD [GOD] HAS CUT OFF THE GENTILES. Because all the star worshipers are children of menstruants, they like their idolatry are called an impurity, an uncleanness, an abomination, and a destruction. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 7:26): DO NOT BRING AN ABOMINATION UNTO YOUR HOUSE.

One basin of silver – corresponding to the Torah which is compared to wine, as it is stated (Proverbs 9:5), “and drink from the wine that I have mixed.” And since it is the custom of wine to be drunk form a basin, as you say (Amos 6:6), “Who drink from wine basins” – therefore, he brought “a basin that is seventy shekel of the holy shekels.” Why? Just like the numerical equivalent of wine is seventy, so too are there seventy faces to the Torah. Why does it state “one” about the bowl? Corresponding to the Torah that must be one, as you say (Numbers 15:16), “One Torah and one statute shall there be for you.” Why does it state “one” about the basin? Because the words of the written Torah and the words of the Oral Torah were all given by one shepherd – all of them were stated by one God to Moshe at Sinai. Why were they of silver? Corresponding to the Torah, about which it is stated (Psalms 12:7), “The words of the Lord are pure words, silver purged in a crucible, etc.” Both of them filled with fine flour, etc. – Scripture and Mishnah are full, since one does not contradict its fellow. Fine flour – as you say (Psalms 19:11), “drippings (nofet) of the comb” – like flour that one can see on top of the sieve (napah). Mixed with oil – that is Torah, which is required to be mixed with good deeds; like that which we learned (Avot 2:2),” Excellent is the study of the Torah together with a worldly occupation; for the exertion [expended] in both of them causes sin to be forgotten.” That is for the offering – as at that time, he brings a pleasantness of spirit to his Creator, when a man is involved in Torah study and is a master of good deeds and guards himself from sin. One ladle – corresponding to the tablets that were written by the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, as you say (Exodus 32:16), “The tablets were God’s work, and the writing was God’s writing, etc.” Ten of gold – these are the ten statements (commandments) that were written on the tablets, as you say (Deuteronomy 10:4), “And He wrote on the tablets like the first writing, etc.” Gold – like you say (Song of Songs 5:14), “His hands are rods of gold”; and it states (Psalms 19:11), “More precious than gold, etc.” Full of incense – since the six hundred and thirteen commandments are mixed in them. And so do you find that there are six hundred and thirteen letters from “I” (the first word in the ten commandments) to “of your friend” (the last word), corresponding to the six hundred and thirteen commandments; and there are seven letters lacking, corresponding to the seven days of creation – to teach you that the whole world was only created in the merit of the Torah. That is full of incense (ketoret) – since the [letter] kof changes to a dalet [in] at-bash gar-dak (switching the early letters in the aleph-bet with the corresponding later letters), and the [numerical] count of the word then comes to six hundred and thirteen. Another explanation: full of incense – as between each and every statement written on the tablets, the sections and the details were written. And it comes out like that which Chananiah the son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua said: “His hands are rods of gold” – these are the two tablets of the covenant upon which were written, ‘written by the finger of God.' “Rods of gold” – just like these rods, between one large rod and another large rod, there are small rods; so too, between each and every statement, the sections of the Torah were written and its details. One bull of the herd – corresponding to the priests; one ram – corresponding to the Levites; one lamb – corresponding to Israel, as they all accepted the Torah as Sinai. One goat for a sin offering – corresponding to the converts that would convert in the future and were there; as everyone is fitting, as it is stated (Leviticus 18: 5), “which a man shall do and live by them.” It does not state, “priests, Levites and Israelites,” but rather “a man.” [This] teaches that, behold, even an idolater that converts and is involved in Torah is like a high priest. And for peace offerings, two oxen (bakar) – corresponding to the two Torahs; as anyone who checks (mevaker) and sacrifices his inclination to do everything that is written in them is making peace twice – peace above and peace below; as it is stated (Isaiah 27:5), “But if he holds fast to My refuge, peace will he make with Me, with Me he will make peace.” Five rams, five he-goats, and five yearling lambs - corresponding to three verses of the Torah in which the six Orders of the Mishnah are [indicated]. And they are [each] of two sections, and each and every section is made of five words, and these are them (Psalms 19:8-10): “The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the decrees of the Lord, etc.... The ordinances of the Lord, etc.; the commandments of the Lord, etc.... The fear of the Lord, etc.; the judgments of the Lord, etc.” Hence they offered these three types of sacrifices as peace offerings, corresponding to the three verses in which the six Orders of the Mishnah are [indicated]. It comes out like that which Rabbi Tanchuma said: “The Torah of the Lord is perfect, [restoring the soul], etc.” – this is the Order of Women that warns a man to separate from sexual prohibitions in order to save him from death, like the one that says (Proverbs 5:19), “All who go to her cannot return and find again the paths of life.” And it states (Proverbs 5:16), “It will save you from the forbidden woman, etc.” “The decrees of the Lord [are trustworthy], etc.” – this is the Order of Seeds, as one has trust in the world’s Life and sows. “The ordinances of the Lord, [are just, rejoicing the heart], etc.” – this is the Order of Appointed Time that has all of the holidays in it, about which it is written (Deuteronomy 16:14), “And you shall rejoice in your holidays.” “The commandments of the Lord [are lucid, making the eyes light up,]. etc.” – this is the Order of Holy Things, which enlightens the eyes [to differentiate] between profane things and holy things. “The fear of the Lord [is pure], etc.” – this is the Order of Purities, which separates between purity and impurity. “The judgments of the Lord, etc.” – this is the Order of Damages, in which there are most of the laws. And hence they offered five of each type corresponding to the five words written for each and every Order. And why were five words written for each and every order? Corresponding to the Torah which is five books, [in order] to teach you that [the sections of the Mishnah] are bodies of Torah. Why is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, written in [the section of the verse relating to] each and every Order? Since He testifies upon them, that He stated them to Moshe from His mouth, in the same way that He stated the five books of the Torah. That was the offering of Netanel, etc. - once the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that he brought offerings according to the Orders of the Torah, He began to praise his sacrifice – “that was the offering of Netanel son of Tzuar.”

13) If (Vayikra 18:9) "your sister," I might think even by a maidservant or by a gentile woman; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:11) "the daughter of your father's wife." If "the daughter of your father's wife," I would think even (the daughter) by another man; it is, therefore, written "begotten of your father" If so, why is it written (Vayikra 18:9) "born of the home or born of the outside? Whether (born of one concerning whom) we tell him "Keep her" (in the home, i.e., one that he was permitted to marry) or (born of one concerning whom) we tell him "Send her out" (i.e., one that he was not permitted to marry).

13) "a woman and her mother": This tells me only of a woman and her mother. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) her daughter, the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son? It is written here "zimah," and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) "zimah." Just as there, her daughter, her daughter's daughter, and her son's daughter, so, her.

13) We have heard the exhortation (against taking a woman together with her sister in yibum), but we have not heard the punishment. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:29) "For all who do any of these abominations (shall be cut off [kareth]) from the midst of their people.")

13) (Vayikra 18:5) "and he shall live in them": and not die in them. R. Yishmael was wont to say: Whence is it derived that if one is told in private to serve idolatry or be killed, he should transgress and not be killed? From "and he shall live in them," and not die in them. — But perhaps even in public he should accede. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:32) "And you shall not desecrate My holy name, and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel." If you sanctify My name, I, too, will sanctify My name through you. For just as Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah, when all the peoples of the world were prostrated before the idol, stood (straight) as palms — as related of them in the tradition (Shir Hashirim 7:8) "This, your stature, is like a palm" — (Ibid. 9) "I said: 'I shall rise on the palm, I shall grasp its branches'" — This day I shall rise through them in the eyes of the peoples of the world, the deniers of Torah. This day I shall exact punishment for them of their foes — This day I shall resurrect their dead. "I am the L–rd," the Judge, to exact punishment, and trusted to reward.

13) If (Vayikra 18:9) "your sister," I might think even by a maidservant or by a gentile woman; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:11) "the daughter of your father's wife." If "the daughter of your father's wife," I would think even (the daughter) by another man; it is, therefore, written "begotten of your father" If so, why is it written (Vayikra 18:9) "born of the home or born of the outside? Whether (born of one concerning whom) we tell him "Keep her" (in the home, i.e., one that he was permitted to marry) or (born of one concerning whom) we tell him "Send her out" (i.e., one that he was not permitted to marry).

14) Whence is it derived that males re like females (in this regard; i.e., that his progeny outside of wedlock (his daughter, his daughter's daughter and his son's daughter) are like hers (the progeny of his wife by marriage [see above])? It is written "zimah" here, and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) — Just as there, males are like females (in this regard), so, here. And whence is it derived that the lower (i.e., more distant kin — his father-in-law's mother and his mother-in-law's mother) are as the higher (i.e., closer kin — his mother-in-law — in this regard)? It is written here "zimah," and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) "zimah" — Just as there, the lower (i.e., her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter) are as the higher (i.e., her own daughter), so, here.

14) (Vayikra 18:28) "so that the land not vomit you out by your making it unclean, (as it committed out the nation that was before you"): Eretz Yisrael, unlike other lands, does not maintain transgressors (within it). To what may this be compared? To a prince, who being fed something which, (being "princely") he cannot "digest," he vomits it up. So, Eretz Yisrael cannot maintain transgressors (within it) — wherefore it is written "so that the land not vomit you out by your making it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you."

14) (Vayikra 18:6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness" — general. (Vayikra 18:7) "The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal" — specific. General-specific (The rule is:) The general subsumes only the specific. (See Hermeneutical Principles 4) (And no arayoth are to be added (by induction) other than those which are specifically mentioned. For otherwise I would say:) Since he is permitted to marry the daughter of his father's brother and his father's brother is permitted to marry his daughter, then, if I have learned that he is forbidden to marry the wife of his father's brother, so, his father's brother should be forbidden to marry his wife. (A second instance:) Since he is permitted to marry the wife of his stepfather, and his stepfather is permitted to marry his wife, then, if I have learned that he is forbidden to marry the daughter of his stepfather, so, his stepfather should be forbidden to marry his daughter. If so, you have adduced arayoth by induction! — wherefore it is written "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness" — general. "The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal" — specific. General-specific. (The rule is:) The general subsumes only the specific. "I am the L–rd," the Judge, to exact punishment and trusted to reward.

14) (Vayikra 18:6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness" — general. (Vayikra 18:7) "The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal" — specific. General-specific (The rule is:) The general subsumes only the specific. (See Hermeneutical Principles 4) (And no arayoth are to be added (by induction) other than those which are specifically mentioned. For otherwise I would say:) Since he is permitted to marry the daughter of his father's brother and his father's brother is permitted to marry his daughter, then, if I have learned that he is forbidden to marry the wife of his father's brother, so, his father's brother should be forbidden to marry his wife. (A second instance:) Since he is permitted to marry the wife of his stepfather, and his stepfather is permitted to marry his wife, then, if I have learned that he is forbidden to marry the daughter of his stepfather, so, his stepfather should be forbidden to marry his daughter. If so, you have adduced arayoth by induction! — wherefore it is written "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness" — general. "The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal" — specific. General-specific. (The rule is:) The general subsumes only the specific. "I am the L–rd," the Judge, to exact punishment and trusted to reward.

(Ibid. 29) "and the children of Israel walked in the dry land (that had already been made) in the midst of the sea." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: The sun and the moon testify that I have already split the sea for them, viz. (Jeremiah 31:35) "Thus said the L rd who gives the sun for light by day, the laws of moon and stars for light by night, who splits the sea and stuns its waves — the L rd of hosts is His name." R. Bana'ah says: In the merit of the mitzvoth performed by Abraham I will split the sea for them, viz. (Genesis 22:3) "and he split the wood for the burnt-offering" — and here (Exodus 14:21) "and the waters were split." R. Shimon Hatemani says: In the merit of circumcision I will split the sea for them, viz. (Jeremiah 33:25) "If not for My covenant, day and night, I would not have made the statutes of heaven and earth." Which covenant obtains both day and night? Circumcision. R. Avshalom the elder says: An analogy: A man gets angry with his son and drives him from the house. His lover comes in to beseech him to restore him to his house. He responds: Are you beseeching me for my son? I have already come to terms with my son. Thus, the L rd: "Why do you cry out to Me?" I have already come to terms with them." Rebbi says: Last night you said (i.e., you complained to Me) (Exodus 5:23) "And from the time I came to Pharaoh, etc." And now you stand and wax long in prayer? "Why do you cry out to Me?" Rebbi says (Exodus 14:15) "Speak to the children of Israel and have them go forward ('veyisa'u')." Have them retract ('yasiu') the things that they said. Last night they said (Ibid. 11) "Is it for lack of graves, etc.?" and now you stand and wax long in prayer (for them)? "Why do you cry out to Me?" Let them retract what they have said. The sages say: He wrought with them for His name's sake, viz. (Isaiah 48:11) "For My sake, for My sake shall I do, etc." And (Ibid. 63:12) "He split the sea before them." Why? (Ibid.) "To make Himself an eternal name." Rebbi says: Their faith in Me suffices Me to split the sea for them. As it is written (Exodus 14:2) "Let them return and encamp, etc." R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: In the merit of their father Abraham I will split the sea for them, viz. (Psalms 105:42) "For He remembered His holy word to Abraham His servant. (43) And He led out His people with joy, etc." R. Eliezer b. Yehudah of Bortutha says: In the merit of the tribes I will split the sea for them, viz. (Habakkuk 3:14) "You have split (the sea) for his tribes, the heads of his scattered ones, etc." And it is written (Psalms 136:13) "who split the sea into sections." Shmayah says: The faith that Abraham their father had in Me suffices for Me to split the sea for them, viz. (Exodus 4:31) "And the people believed when they heard, etc." Shimon of Kitron says: In the merit of the bones of Joseph I will split the sea for them, viz. (Genesis 39:12) "And he left his garment in her hand and he fled." And it is written (Psalms 114:3) "The sea saw and it fled, etc." R. Nathan says in the name of Abba Yossi Hamechuzi: ("Why do you cry out to Me?") Have I not had it written (Numbers 12:7) "In all of My house he (Moses) is trusted"? You (Moses) are in My dominion and the sea is in My dominion, and I have appointed you a keeper over it. (Therefore, [Exodus 14:16] "Raise your staff, etc.") R. Chanina b. Chachinai says: Have I not had it written (Mishlei 17:17) "A brother is born for (times of) trouble"? I am a brother to Israel in their time of trouble. "Brother" (here) signifies Israel, viz. (Psalms 122:8) "For the sake of My brothers and My friends I will speak for peace in you (Jerusalem)." R. Shimon b. Yehudah says: "Why do you cry out to Me?" Their cries have already preceded yours, viz. (Exodus 14:10) "and the children of Israel cried out to the L rd, etc." R. Acha says: The Holy One Blessed be He said: If not for your outcry, I would have destroyed them for the idolatry in their midst, viz. (Zechariah 10:11) "And tzarah crossed the sea," tzarah (here) being idolatry, as in (Isaiah 28:20) "and the molten image, tzarah, etc." and as in (Leviticus 18:18) "And a woman to her sister do not take litzror" (to be a rival). And because of your outcry I have withdrawn My wrath, as it is written (Psalms 106:22-23) ("… awesome deeds at the Red Sea) and he thought to destroy them if Moses His chosen one had not stood in the breach before Him, to turn His wrath from destruction." R. Eliezer Hamodai says: "Why do you cry out to Me?" I do not have to be commanded for the children of Israel, (Isaiah 45:11) "For My children and the work of My hands would you command Me?" Are they not "readied" before Me from the six days of creation? (Jeremiah 31:36) "Just as these laws (of nature) will not depart from before Me, says the L rd, so the children of Israel will not cease from being a nation before me for all time." Others say: The faith that they had in Me suffices for Me to split the sea for them. They did not say to Moses: How can we go out to the desert without food? But they believed in Moses and followed him. Of this it is written in the Tradition (Jeremiah 2:2) "Go and call out in the ears of Jerusalem, saying … I have remembered for you the lovingkindness of your youth, the love of your espousals, your following Me in the desert, in a land unsown." How were they rewarded for this? (Ibid. 3) "Holy is Israel unto the L rd, the first of His harvest. All of its eaters will be blamed. Evil will come upon them, says the L rd." R. Yossi Haglili says: When Israel entered the sea, Mount Moriah was uprooted from its place, with the altar of Israel built upon it, and its woodpile upon it, and Isaac bound upon it upon the altar, and Abraham stretching out his hand and taking the knife to slaughter his son — whereupon the L rd said to Moses: Moses, My children are in trouble, the sea raging and the foe pursuing them, and you stand and indulge in prayer? Moses: But what can I do? The L rd: "Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea, etc." And you — exalt and praise and accord song and praise and thanks and grandeur and glory and splendor and hallel to the Master of wars!

24 (Numb. 11:16) “Gather Me [seventy men from the elders of Israel]”: But did you not have elders before? Here now it is written concerning Mount Sinai (in Exod. 24:9), “Then there went up Moses […] and the seventy elders of Israel”; and this parashah (with Numb. 11:16) comes after that. So where were the[se earlier] elders? It is simply that, when Israel did those things which are stated (in Numb. 11:1), “Now the people were as murmurers […] then the fire of the Lord burned against them,” they were all destroyed by fire at that time. It is simply that their burning was like the burning of Nadab and Abihu, for they also had acted with disrespect on ascending Sinai, when they saw the Divine Presence. It is so stated (in Exod. 24:11), “they beheld God, and they ate and drank.” Was there eating and drinking there? To what is the matter comparable? To a servant who attended his master while [holding] a slice of bread in his hand and taking bites from it. Similarly had they acted with disrespect as though eating and drinking. So the elders along with Nadab and Abihu deserved to be destroyed by fire on that day; but because the giving of Torah was dear to the Holy One, blessed be He, He therefore did not want to harm them and bring calamity to them on that day. This is what is written (ibid.), “But He (the Holy One, blessed be He,) did not raise His hand against the nobles of the Children of Israel.” From this you may infer that they deserved to have a hand raised [against them]. After a time, however, He collected their debt: Nadab and Abihu were also destroyed by fire as they entered the tent of meeting, while the elders were destroyed by fire when they were filled with lusting, as stated (in Numb. 11:4), “Then the rabble (ha'safsuf) which was in their midst became filled with lust.” Who were the rabble (ha'safsuf)? R. Simeon ben Menasya and R. Simeon bar Abba [differed on the matter]. One said, “These were the proselytes who came up with them from Egypt and who were gathered (ne'esafim) together with them as stated (in Exod. 12:38), ‘And a mixed multitude went up with them.’” But the other said, “Rabble can only be a Sanhedrin, since it is stated (in Numb. 11:16), ‘Gather (esfah) Me seventy men.’” What [else] is written there (in Numb. 11:1)? “Then the fire of the Lord burned against them and consumed them in the outskirts (qetseh) of the camp,” [i.e.,] among the selected (muqetsim) in the camp. And where is it shown that those elders who went up onto the mountain were destroyed by fire? Where it is stated (in Ps. 106:18), “And fire broke out in their company ('edah),” since company ('edah) can only be a Sanhedrin as stated (in Numb. 15:24), “And it shall come to pass that if it was done [by mistake] away from the eyes of the congregation ('edah).”⁵¹I.e. the leaders of the congregation. So Rashi on Numb. 15:24. It is also written (in Lev. 4:13), “And if the whole congregation ('edah) of Israel⁵²This expression was often interpreted as denoting the Sanhedrin. So Sifra to Lev. 4:13 (42: Wayyiqra parashah 4); R. Meir in Hor. 5a; Rashi on Lev. 4:13. should err.” And likewise it says (in Ps. 78:31), “When God’s anger flared up at them, He slew their sturdiest,” these were the Sanhedrin; “struck down the chosen of Israel,” these were the chosen ones that were called elders, about whom it is written (in II Sam. 6:1), “And David still added to the chosen among Israel.” Then they wept again and demanded meat. Now you might say, “What they wanted was animal flesh? Did it not come about that the manna became whatever they wanted inside of their mouths, as stated (in Ps. 106:15), ‘So He gave them what they asked for...’?” And in case you should say that they did not have oxen and cattle in the desert, has it not already stated (in Exod. 12:38), “And a mixed multitude went up with them and flocks and herds.” And in case you should say they ate them in the desert, is it not written (in Numb. 32:1), “Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had much livestock?” From here R. Simeon said, “It was not meat for which they lusted, since it says so (in Ps. 78:27) – ‘And He rained down flesh (she'er) upon them like dust.’ Now she'er must denote illicit intercourse since it is stated (in Lev. 18:6), ‘None of you shall approach any close (she'er) relation to him.’ Ergo, it [really] says that they desired to permit illicit intercourse for themselves; and so it says (in Numb. 11:10), ‘Now Moses heard the people weeping for their families.’”⁵³See Yoma 75a according to which they were weeping here because of the family relations with whom they were forbidden to have intercourse. Thus when they desired such [relations] (ibid. cont.), “the Lord was very angry and it was bad in the eyes of Moses.” At that time Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He, (in vs. 11), “’Why have you mistreated Your servant […]?’ In the past there was one with me who would bear the burden of Israel, but now I am alone.” Thus it is written (in vs. 14-15), “I am not able to bear [all] this people alone…. So if You are dealing like this with me, please truly kill me.” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Appoint other elders instead of those elders.” It is so stated] (in vs. 16), “Gather Me seventy men.”

15) "in fire shall they be burned, he and ethhen" — (acronym of) "eth achath mehen" ("one of them, i.e., even if only one of them [wife and mother-in-law] is alive, she [evidently, the mother-in-law] is to be burned.) These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: he and both of them (i.e., only if both of them are alive is she [his mother-in-law] to be burned.) We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:17) "The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not reveal."

15) (Vayikra 18:19) "You shall not approach to uncover her nakedness" - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, "To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness." I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, "you shall not approach to uncover." "I am the L–rd," the Judge, to exact punishment and trusted to reward.

15) (Vayikra 18:19) "You shall not approach to uncover her nakedness" - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, "To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness." I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, "you shall not approach to uncover." "I am the L–rd," the Judge, to exact punishment and trusted to reward.

(Ibid. 16) "When they have a matter (to be resolved), he (the one who 'has the matter') comes to me": ("a matter") as to uncleanliness or cleanliness. "and I judge between a man": This is a judgment where there is no compromise. "and his neighbor": this is a judgment where there is compromise, where they take leave of each other as "neighbors." "And I make known to them the statutes of G d": These are inferences (from what is written). "and His Toroth": His (written) teachings. These are the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Elazar Hamodai says: "statutes" (the laws governing) illicit relations, as in (Leviticus 18:30) "not to follow the abominable statutes (i.e., the lewd practices) which were practiced before you." "and His Toroth": His teachings.

(Numb. 11:16:) “Gather Me seventy man (sic)⁶³The midrash is ignoring the fact that Hebrew uses singular nouns with large numbers in order to build an interpretation on this singular usage. from the elders of Israel.”⁶⁴Numb. R. 5:23. This text is related (to Prov. 22:11), “The one who loves purity of heart has grace on his lips, has a king as his friend.” Why did He not say to him (in Numb. 11:16), “seventy men" (with "men" in the plural), instead of “seventy man.” It is simply that He said to him, “seventy man (ish) [with the singular ish indicating] singular individuals,⁶⁵I.e. singular individuals like the one described in Prov. 22:11. because they were to be like Me and you, as stated (Exod. 15:3:) “The Lord is a Man (ish) of war,” [and it is likewise] stated (Numb. 12:3), “Now the man (ish) Moses was very humble.” (Numb. 11:16:) “Gather Me [seventy men from the elders of Israel].” But did you not have elders before?⁶⁶Numb. R. 15:24. Here now it is written concerning Mount Sinai (in Exod. 24:9), “Then there went up Moses […] and the seventy elders of Israel”; and this parashah (with Numb. 11:16) comes after that. So where were the[se earlier] elders? It is simply that, when Israel did those things which are stated (in Numb. 11:1), “Now the people were as murmurers […] then the fire of the Lord burned against them,” they were all destroyed by fire at that time. It is simply that their burning was like the burning of Nadab and Abihu, for they also had acted with disrespect on ascending Sinai, when they saw the Divine Presence. It is so stated (in Exod. 24:11), “they beheld God, and they ate and drank.” Was there eating and drinking there? To what is the matter comparable? To a servant who attended his master while [holding] a slice of bread in his hand and taking bites from it. Similarly had they acted with disrespect as though eating and drinking. So the elders along with Nadab and Abihu deserved to be destroyed by fire on that day; but because the giving of Torah was dear to the Holy One, blessed be He, He therefore did not want to harm them and bring calamity to them on that day. This is what is written (ibid.), “But He (the Holy One, blessed be He,) did not raise His hand against the nobles of the Children of Israel.” From this you may infer that they deserved to have a hand raised [against them]. After a time, however, they were destroyed by fire. Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire as they entered the tent of meeting, while the elders were destroyed by fire when they were filled with lusting, as stated (in Numb. 11:4), “Then the rabble (ha'safsuf) which was in their midst became filled with lust.” Who were the rabble (ha'safsuf)? R. Simeon ben Menasya and R. Simeon bar Abba [differed on the matter]. One said, “These were the proselytes who came up with them from Egypt and who were gathered (ne'esafim) together with them as stated (in Exod. 12:38), ‘And a mixed multitude went up with them.’” But the other said, “Rabble can only be a Sanhedrin, since it is stated (in Numb. 11:16), ‘Gather (esfah) Me seventy men.’” What [else] is written there (in Numb. 11:1)? “Then the fire of the Lord burned against them and consumed them in the outskirts (qetseh) of the camp,” [i.e.,] among the selected (muqetsim) in the camp. And where is it shown that those elders who went up onto the mountain were destroyed by fire? Where it is stated (in Ps. 106:18), “And fire broke out in their company ('edah),” since company ('edah) can only be a Sanhedrin as stated (in Numb. 15:24), “And it shall come to pass that if it was done [by mistake] away from the eyes of the congregation ('edah).”⁶⁷I.e. the leaders of the congregation. So Rashi on Numb. 15:24. It is also written (in Lev. 4:13), “And if the whole congregation ('edah) of Israel⁶⁸This expression was often interpreted as denoting the Sanhedrin. So Sifra to Lev. 4:13 (42: Wayyiqra parashah 4); R. Meir in Hor. 5a; Rashi on Lev. 4:13. should err.” And so did David say (in Ps. 78:31), “When God’s anger flared up at them, He slew their sturdiest,” these were the Sanhedrin; “struck down the chosen of Israel,” these were the chosen ones that were called elders, about whom it is written (in II Sam. 6:1), “And David still added to the chosen among Israel.” Then they wept again and demanded meat. Now you might say, “What they wanted was flesh? Did it not come about that the manna became whatever they wanted inside of their mouths, as stated (in Ps. 106:15), ‘So He gave them what they asked for...’?” And in case you should say that they did not have oxen and cattle in the desert, has it not already stated (in Exod. 12:38), “And a mixed multitude went up with them and flocks and herds.” And in case you should say they ate them in the desert, is it not written (in Numb. 32:1), “Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had much livestock?” From here R. Simeon said, “It was not meat for which they lusted, since it says so (in Ps. 78:27), ‘And He rained down flesh (she'er) upon them like dust.’ Now she'er must denote illicit intercourse since it is stated (in Lev. 18:6), ‘None of you shall approach any close (she'er) relation to him.’ Ergo, it [really] says that they desired to permit illicit intercourse for themselves; and so it says (in Numb. 11:10), ‘Now Moses heard the people weeping for their families.’”⁶⁹See Yoma 75a according to which they were weeping here because of the family relations with whom they were forbidden to have intercourse. Thus when they desired such [relations] (ibid. cont.), “the Lord was very angry and it was bad in the eyes of Moses.” At that time Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He, (in vs. 11), “’Why have you mistreated Your servant […]?’ In the past there was one with me who would bear the burden of Israel, but now I am alone.” Thus it is written (in vs. 14-15), “I am not able to bear [all] this people alone…. So if You are dealing like this with me, please truly kill me.” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Appoint other elders instead of those elders.” It is so stated] (in vs. 16), “Gather Me seventy men.” (Numb. 11:17:) “Then I will come down and speak with you there.” [This verse is] to inform you that the day for appointing elders was as dear to the Holy One, blessed be He, as the day for the giving of Torah.⁷⁰Numb. R. 15:25. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 19:11), “for on the third day the Lord will come down”; and also (in Numb. 11:17) with reference to appointing the elders, “I will come down,” is written. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who had an orchard and hired a guard for it. Then he gave him the payment of a guard for him to guard the orchard. After a time the guard said to him, “I cannot guard all of it myself. Rather give me others to guard it with me.” The king said to him, “I have given the entire orchard into your keeping, and I have given you all the payment for guarding it; but now you would say to me, ‘Go and bring others to guard it with me.’ See I am bringing others to guard with you, but observe that I am not giving them their payment from what belongs to me. Rather it is from your payment which I have given you that they are receiving their payment.” Similarly did the Holy One, blessed be He, speak to Moses. When [Moses] said to Him, “I cannot [do everything] alone,” the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I have given you understanding and knowledge to sustain⁷¹PRNS. Cf. Gk.: pronoos (“prudent”). My children. Moreover, I did not want others, simply so that you would have strength and knowledge and so that you would stand alone in that greatness. But now you are the one who wants others. Be aware that they will receive [payment], not from what is Mine, but from what is yours.” It is so stated (in Numb. 11:17.), “and I will set aside some of the spirit which is upon you and put it on them [...].” Nevertheless Moses did not lack anything. You should know that after forty years He said to Moses (in Numb. 27:18, 20), “Take Joshua ben Nun …. And put some of your glory upon him.” Then what is written about Joshua (in Deut. 34:9)? “Now Joshua ben Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom.” Why? (Ibid. cont.:) “Because Moses had laid his hands upon him.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “In this world [only] individuals have prophesied, but in the world to come all Israel shall become prophets.” It is so stated (in Joel 3:1), “And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh so that your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.”⁷²See also above Gen. 10:4; cf. Deut. R. 6:14. So did R. Tanchuma bar Abba expound.

16) (Vayikra 18:24) "Do not become unclean with any of these" (abominations): all or part. For with all of these the nations become unclean: These are the Egyptians. "which I am sending away before you": These are the Canaanites. (Vayikra 18:25) "And the land became unclean" — whereby we are taught that these things (illicit relations) render the land unclean. "and I visited its sin upon it.": As soon as I open the accounting book, I exact payment for everything. "and the land vomited out its inhabitants": as a man vomits out his food.

16) (Vayikra 18:24) "Do not become unclean with any of these" (abominations): all or part. For with all of these the nations become unclean: These are the Egyptians. "which I am sending away before you": These are the Canaanites. (Vayikra 18:25) "And the land became unclean" — whereby we are taught that these things (illicit relations) render the land unclean. "and I visited its sin upon it.": As soon as I open the accounting book, I exact payment for everything. "and the land vomited out its inhabitants": as a man vomits out his food.

17) "And you shall keep My statutes": You are fit to keep them (the laws governing arayoth), for you originated them (in Egypt). And thus is it written (Shir Hashirim 4:12) "A locked garden is My sister, My bride; a locked spring, a sealed fountain."

(Exodus 22:18) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death": What is the intent of this? It is written (Leviticus 20:15) "And a man who cohabits with a beast shall be put to death" — by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps, by one of the other death penalties in Scripture? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the beast shall you kill." It is written here "kill," and elsewhere (Devarim 13:10) "kill." Just as there, stoning (is indicated), so, here, stoning. We have heard the penalty. Whence is the exhortation (derived)? From (Leviticus 18:23) "And you shall not cohabit with any beast." This tells me only of the punishment and the exhortation for the active agent. Whence do we derive the punishment for the passive agent? From (our verse) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death." Scripture (hereby) equated the passive agent with the active one. Just as the second is to be stoned, so, the first. We have heard the punishment. Whence the exhortation (for the passive agent)? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 23:18) "and there shall not be a (male) harlot among the children of Israel," and (I Kings 14:24) "And there was also a (male) harlot in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the L rd drove out."

18) And you shall not do all of these abominations": all or part. "citizen": as it implies. "the citizen": to include the wives of citizens. "stranger": a proselyte. "the stranger": to include the wives of strangers. "in your midst": to include bondsmen.

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.”

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.”

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree" (Ps. 92:12). Just as this palm tree is beautiful in all its appearance, and all its fruits are sweet and good, likewise the son of David is beautiful in his appearance and in his glory, and all his deeds || are good and sweet before the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon" (ibid.). Just as this cedar has very many roots beneath the earth, and even if the four winds of the world came against it, they could not move it from its place, as it is said, "He shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. They that are planted in the house of the Lord" (Ps. 92:12, 13). In the future when the Holy One, blessed be He, will gather Israel from the four corners of the world, just like this gardener who transplants his fir trees from one garden-bed to another garden-bed, likewise in the future will the Holy One, blessed be He, gather them from an impure land and (plant them) in a pure land, as it is said, "They that are planted in the house of the Lord" (ibid.). Like this grass, they shall blossom and sprout forth in the Temple, as it is said, "In the courts of our God they shall flourish" (ibid.).

19) (Vayikra 18:27) "For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land which were before you, and the land became unclean" — whereby we are taught that these things render the land unclean. (Vayikra 18:28) "So that the land not vomit you out … as it vomited out the nation that was before you" — whereby we are taught that the land incurs exile because of those things.

19) (Vayikra 18:27) "For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land which were before you, and the land became unclean" — whereby we are taught that these things render the land unclean. (Vayikra 18:28) "So that the land not vomit you out … as it vomited out the nation that was before you" — whereby we are taught that the land incurs exile because of those things.

(Ibid. 20) "And you shall exhort them in respect to the statutes": the inferences; "and the Toroth," the teachings. These are the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Elazar says: "statutes" — illicit relations (see above); "and the Toroth" — the teachings.

20) "For all who do any of these abominations": all or part; "the souls (plural) shall be cut off." What is the intent of this? Because it is written "a man," I might think that a man incurs kareth by (fornicating with) a woman. Whence do I derive the same for a woman by a man? From "the souls" — two.

21) ("the souls that do"): What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 18:6) "You shall not draw near," I might think they incurred kareth for drawing near (alone); it is, therefore written "that do," and not that draw near. "from the midst of their people": but their people remain at peace.

21) ("the souls that do"): What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 18:6) "You shall not draw near," I might think they incurred kareth for drawing near (alone); it is, therefore written "that do," and not that draw near. "from the midst of their people": but their people remain at peace.

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

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.

Rabbi Azaria in the name of Rabbi Y'hudah son of Rabbi Shimon says: The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had an orchard planted with one row of fig trees, one of vines, one of pomegranates, and one of apples. He entrusted it to a tenant and went away. After a time, the king came and looked in at the orchard to ascertain what it had yielded. He found it full of thorns and briars, so he brought woodcutters to raze it. He looked closely at the thorns and noticed among them a single rose-colored flower. He smelled it, and his spirits calmed down. The king said: "The whole orchard shall be saved because of this flower." In a similar manner, the whole world was created only for the sake of the Torah. . . . God saw a single rose-colored flower, to wit, Israel. God took it and smelled it when God gave them [the Israelites] the Ten Commandments, and God's spirits were calmed when they said, We will do, and we will hear (Exodus 24:7). Said the Holy One, "The orchard shall be saved on account of this flower. For the sake of the Torah and of Israel the world shall be saved." (Vayikra Rabbah 23:3)

23) And in this vein Ezra writes (Ezra 9:14) "Shall we again break Your commandments and make marriages with the people of these abominations? Would You not rage against us until You consumed us, without remnant or escape? (Ezra 9:15) O L–rd, G d of Israel, You are righteous!"

(Ibid. 25) "And he cried out to the L rd, and the L rd showed him a tree, etc.": — whence we derive that tzaddikim are not averse to conciliation, and, in passing, that the prayers of tzaddikim are short. Once, a certain disciple officiated in prayer before his master, and was short in his blessings — whereupon the others mocked him, calling him "a shortening disciple" — to which the master countered: "He is not shorter than Moses, who said (Numbers 12:13) 'G d, I pray You, heal her, I pray you.'" On another occasion, a disciple officiated in prayer before R. Elazar and was long in his blessings — whereupon they said to him: "This one is an elongater" — to which he countered: "Not more so than Moses, who said (Devarim 9:25) 'And I fell (in prayer) before the L rd these forty days and forty nights.'" There is a time to be short and a time to be long. "And the L rd showed him a tree": R. Yehoshua says: a willow tree. R. Eliezer Hamodai says: an olive tree, there being no tree more bitter than an olive tree. R. Yehoshua b. Karcha says: an ivy. R. Nathan says: a cedar. Others say: He uprooted a fig and he uprooted a pomegranate. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Come and see how different are the ways of the Holy One Blessed be He from the ways of flesh and blood. (A man of) flesh and blood heals bitter with sweet, but the Holy One Blessed be He heals bitter with bitter. How so? He places something damaging into something that has been damaged so that a miracle be wrought in it, as in (Isaiah 38:21) "And Isaiah said: Let them take a cake of figs and apply it to the rash and he will recover." Now does not raw flesh, when you apply a cake of figs to it, become putrid? (The resolution:) Place something damaging into something that has been damaged so that a miracle be wrought in it. Similarly, (II Kings 2:21) "And he went to the (polluted) spring and threw salt into it, etc." Now does not even fresh water become putrid when salt is put into it? (The resolution:) Place something damaging, etc. The expounders of metaphors said: He showed him (Moses) words of Torah, which are compared to a tree, viz. (Mishlei 3:18) "It (Torah) is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it, etc." It is not written "Vayarehu etz" ("And He showed him a tree"), but "Vayorehu" ("And He taught him"), as in (Mishlei 4:4) "Vayoreni ('And He taught me') and He said to me: Let My words (of Torah) sustain your heart." "and he cast it into the waters": Others say: Israel were (hereby) imploring (mercy) and praying before their Father in heaven. As a son implores and guards himself before his father, so were Israel imploring and guarding themselves before their Father in heaven, saying before Him (as it were): "L rd of the universe, we sinned before You by caviling against You at the sea." "and the waters were sweetened": R. Yehoshua says: They were bitter for a short while and they were sweetened. R. Eliezer Hamodai says: They were bitter from the beginning, "the waters" being written twice. "There He made for them statute and judgment": "statute" — Sabbath; "judgment" — honoring of father and mother. R. Elazar Hamodai says: "statute" — illicit relations, viz. (Leviticus 18:30) "not to do according to the statutes of the abominations that were done before you." "judgment" — the laws of ravishment, penalties, and injuries. "and there nisahu": He elevated them to greatness, as in (II Kings 25:27) "Evil Merodach … elevated ("nasa") Yehoyachin, etc.", and (Numbers 4:22) "Elevate ("nasso") the sons of Gershon." These are the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Elazar Hamodai said to him: Isn't ("nasso" meaning) greatness written with a shin, but here ("nisahu") is written with a "samech"! What, then, is the intent of "and there nisahu"? There the L rd tried Israel.

(Numb. 11:16:) GATHER ME <SEVENTY PEOPLE FROM THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL>. But did you not have elders before?¹⁰¹Tanh. Numb. 3:16 cont.; Numb. R. 15:24. Here now it is written concerning Mount Sinai (in Exod. 24:9): THEN THERE WENT UP MOSES … AND THE SEVENTY ELDERS OF ISRAEL; and this parashah (with Numb. 11:16) comes after that. So where were the<se earlier> elders? It is simply that, when Israel did those things which are stated (in Numb. 11:1): NOW THE PEOPLE WERE AS MURMURERS […. THEN THE FIRE OF THE LORD BURNED AGAINST THEM], they were all destroyed by fire at that time. It is simply that their burning was like the burning of Nadab and Abihu, for they also had acted with disrespect on ascending Sinai, when they saw the Divine Presence. It is so stated (in Exod. 24:11): THEY BEHELD GOD, AND THEY ATE AND DRANK. Was there eating and drinking there? To what is the matter comparable? To a servant who attended his master while <holding> a slice of bread in his hand and taking bites from it. Similarly had they acted with disrespect as though eating and drinking. So the elders along with Nadab and Abihu deserved to be destroyed by fire on that day; but because the giving of Torah was dear to the Holy One, he therefore did not want to harm them and bring calamity to them on that day. This is what is written (ibid.): BUT HE (the Holy One) STILL DID NOT RAISE HIS HAND AGAINST THE NOBLES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. From this you may infer that they deserved to have a hand raised <against them>. After a time, however, they were destroyed by fire. Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire as they entered the tent of meeting, while the elders were destroyed by fire when they were filled with lusting, as stated (in Numb. 11:4): THEN THE RABBLE WHICH WAS IN THEIR MIDST <BECAME FILLED WITH LUST>. Who were THE RABBLE (ha'safsuf)? R. Simeon ben Menasya and R. Simeon bar Abba <differed>. One said: These were the proselytes who came up with them from Egypt and who were gathered (ne'esafim) together with them as stated (in Exod. 12:38): AND A MIXED MULTITUDE <WENT UP WITH THEM>…. But the other said: RABBLE can only be a sanhedrin, since it is stated (in Numb. 11:16:) GATHER ME [SEVENTY PEOPLE] <FROM THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL>. What <else> is written there (in vs. 1)? THEN THE FIRE OF THE LORD BURNED AGAINST THEM AND CONSUMED THEM IN THE OUTSKIRTS (qetseh) OF THE CAMP, <i.e.,> among the officers (qetsinim) in the camp. And where is it shown that those elders who went up onto the mountain were destroyed by fire? Where it is stated (in Ps. 106:18): AND FIRE BROKE OUT IN THEIR COMPANY ('edah), since COMPANY ('edah) can only be a sanhedrin as stated (in Numb. 15:24): AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT IF IT WAS DONE <BY MISTAKE> AWAY FROM THE EYES OF THE CONGREGATION ('edah)….¹⁰²I.e. the leaders of the congregation. So Rashi on Numb. 15:24. It is also written (in Lev. 4:13): AND IF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION ('edah) OF ISRAEL¹⁰³This expression was often interpreted as denoting the Sanhedrin. So Sifra to Lev. 4:13 (42: Wayyiqra parashah 4); R. Meir in Hor. 5a; Rashi on Lev. 4:13. SHOULD ERR? Then they wept again and demanded meat. Now if you should say: What they wanted was flesh (not manna), did it not come about that the manna became whatever they wanted inside of their mouths. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 106:15): SO HE GAVE THEM WHAT THEY ASKED FOR. Again in case you should say that they did not have oxen and cattle in the desert, he caused to be written (in Exod. 12:38): AND A MIXED MULTITUDE WENT UP WITH THEM WITH FLOCKS AND HERDS. And in case you should say they ate them in the desert, is it not written (in Numb. 32:1): NOW THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN AND THE CHILDREN OF GAD HAD MUCH LIVESTOCK? From here R. Simeon said: It was not flesh for which they lusted, since it says so (in Ps. 78:27): AND HE RAINED DOWN MEAT (she'er) UPON THEM LIKE DUST. Now she'er must denote illicit intercourse since it is stated (in Lev. 18:6): NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH ANY CLOSE (she'er) RELATION TO HIM. Ergo, it <really> says that they desired to permit illicit intercourse for themselves; and so it says (in Numb. 11:10): NOW MOSES HEARD THE PEOPLE WEEPING FOR THEIR FAMILIES.¹⁰⁴See Yoma 75a according to which they were weeping here because of the family relations with whom they were forbidden to have intercourse. Thus when they desired such <relations> (ibid. cont.:) THE LORD WAS VERY ANGRY…. At that time Moses said to the Holy One (in vs. 11): WHY HAVE YOU MISTREATED YOUR SERVANT …? In the past there was one with me who would bear the burden of Israel, but now I am alone. Thus it is written (in vs. 14—15): I AM NOT ABLE TO BEAR <ALL THIS PEOPLE ALONE … SO IF YOU ARE DEALING LIKE THIS WITH ME…. At that time the Holy One said to him: Appoint other elders instead of those elders. [It is so stated] (in vs. 16): GATHER ME SEVENTY PEOPLE <FROM THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL>.

"[And God spoke] all these words, saying" (Exodus 20:1). That God does all at once; kills and gives life at once, harms and heals at once. [God hears the prayers of] a woman on the birthing stool, sailors and desert-walkers and those bound in jail, one in the east and one in the west and one in the north and one in the south, God hears all these at once. And so it says (Isaiah 45:7) "God forms light and creates darkness". Dust, like so, is turned to a person, and returned to dust, as it says (Amos 5:8) "And [God] turns deep darkness to dawn". What is to the morning? Like its beginning. In its beginning what does it say, (Exodus 7:20) "And all the waters in the Nile were turned to blood", and returned blood to water. Living flesh is turned to a corpse, and the corpse is returned to life. The staff is turned to a snake, and the snake is returned to a staff. The sea is turned to dry land, and the dry land is returned to sea, and so it says (Amos 5:8) (Amos 9:6) "Who calls to the waters of the sea [and pours them out upon the earth -- Whose name is the Lord]". And so it is written (Exodus 20:8) "Remember Shabbat to sanctify it", and says (Numbers 28:9) "And on the Shabbat day two yearling sheep". It says (Leviticus 18:16) "The nakedness of your brother's wife you shall not uncover", and (Deuteronomy 25:5) "When brothers dwell together [and one of them dies and leaves no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty]" and all say at once, it happened. "And God spoke all these words, saying." (Exodus 20:1).

(Devarim, Ibid.) "And you shall speak in them": Make them (words of Torah) primary and not secondary, that your dealings be only in them, that you not intermix other words with them, that you not say: I have learned the wisdom of Israel; I shall now go and learn the wisdom of the Canaanites. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:4) "to walk therein," and not to depart therefrom. And thus is it written (Proverbs 5:17) "Let them be to you alone and not to strangers with you."

— But perhaps it is being contrasted with its most demeaning feature; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:3) "in which you dwelt" — the place in which you dwelt, of which it is written (Ibid. 47:6) "In the best (part) of the land settle your father, etc." But perhaps it is being contrasted only with the time of its demeaning (i.e., its being smitten with the plagues). It is, therefore, written "from which you went out." When you were there, it was blessed because of you, but not now that you are not upon it.

You say that this is the intent of the verse. But perhaps it is to liken this coming (i.e., your coming to Egypt) to that coming (i.e., your coming to Eretz Yisrael) — Just as the first was optional (and not mandatory), so, the second! It is, therefore, written "to inherit it." You are coming to inherit it. The difference between the first and the second — the coming to Egypt is optional; the coming to Eretz Yisrael is mandatory. In coming to Egypt, they did not count shemitoth and yovloth; in coming to Eretz Yisrael, they did. The land of Egypt, whether or not they did the will of the L-rd — here is the land of Egypt for you! Not so the land of Canaan (Eretz Yisrael). If you do the will of the L-rd, here is the land of Canaan for you. If not, you will be exiled from it. As it is written (Ibid. 7:12) "And it shall be, if you hearken … then the L-rd will keep for you His oath," and (Vayikra 18:28) "So that the land not vomit you out by your making it unclean."

R. Chanina b. Antignos says: Come and see the rationale of the language of Scripture. Why is it called "Molech" (viz. Vayikra 18:21)? To designate anything that they made to rule (yamlichuhu") over them — even a splinter, even a pebble.

(Bamidbar 18:1) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.": R. Yishmael says: Because the thing (i.e., what follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: Whence is it derived that if he (a Cohein) sprinkled the blood without knowing in whose name he is doing so or smoked the fat without knowing in whose name he is doing so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From "You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary." R. Yonathan says: Whence is it derived that if he took the flesh (of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering) before the blood was sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the breast and the shoulder before the smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31), that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood." And thus do we find that the decree of Eli was sealed only because they (the Cohanim) abused the offerings, as it is written (I Samuel 2:15) "Even before they would burn the fat … (16) And the man would say: Let them first burn the fat today (upon the altar) … (17) And the sin of the youths (the attendants of the Cohanim was very great, etc." And similarly we find that the decree of the men of Jerusalem was decreed only because they abused the offerings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) "You abused My offerings." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.": This refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-priests] from entering the sanctuary). You say this, but perhaps it refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to beth-din, (it being their duty to exhort the Cohanim in this regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7]) "You and your sons, with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar" already speaks of what is relegated to beth-din. How, then, am I to understand "you shall bear the sin of your priesthood"? As referring to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid. 1) "And you and your sons with you": and not Israelites (i.e., they are not to guard the sanctuary.) You say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who also guard the sanctuary) do bear the sin of the Cohanim, (who are remiss in this regard.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And they (the Levites) shall bear their (own) sin" (of remissness), but not the sin of the Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) "And also your brothers": I might think that this also includes Israelites. It is, therefore, written "the tribe of Levi." I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "your brothers" — to exclude the women. "draw near with you": R. Akiva says: It is written here "with you," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) "with you." Just as here, the Levites are being referred to, so, there, the Levites are being referred to — to exhort the Levites (against defect) in the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) "and they shall be joined to you and they shall serve you": through their service. Treasurers and trustees are to be appointed from among them. You say this, but perhaps the intent is that they shall serve you (the Cohanim) in your (priestly) service. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent." — But perhaps (both are intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you in your (priestly) service and they shall serve you through their service. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd." To the L-rd are they given, and not to the Cohanim — whereby we derive that it is not to be construed in the second way (i.e., "for your [priestly] service"), but in the first way, i.e., their being appointed as treasurers and trustees. "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony": the Cohanim within, (in the court of the sanctuary,) and the Levites outside (the court). You say this, but perhaps the intent is both, within. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And they (the Levites) will join you, and they will keep (the watch of) the watch (by the Cohanim within) of the tent of meeting." How, then, am I to understand "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony"? The Cohanim within, and the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent": As stated above: They will serve you through their service, and appoint from among them treasurers and trustees. "But to the vessels of the kodesh they shall not come near." This "hakodesh" ("the holy") refers to the ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "And they (the Levites) shall not come to see (the vessels) when the kodesh is being covered and they (the Levites) die." "and to the altar": This refers to the (sacrificial) service of the altar. "they shall not come near": the exhortation. "and they shall not die": the punishment. This tells me only of the Levites, that they are punished and exhorted for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) Cohanim (appropriating) the service (i.e., singing) of the Levites? From ("so that they not die,) both they (the Levites) and you" (the Cohanim.) And it once happened that R. Yehoshua b. Chanania sought to assist R. Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for you are close to forfeiting your life! For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers. Rebbi says that this ("both they and you") is not needed (for the above learning). For it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-19) "Do not cut off the tribe of the families of the Kehathi … but do this for them and they will live," (the implication being that otherwise they will die.) This tells me only of the sons of Kehath. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid. 19) "Aaron and his sons shall come and set them (the sons of Levi), each man to his service and to his burden." This tells me only that the Levites are punished for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Cohanim (appropriating) the service of the Levites? From (Bamidbar 1:51) "And when the mishkan travels, the Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall dismantle it. And the stranger (a non-Levite) that draws near (to this service) shall be put to death." Whence do I derive (the same for) one who goes from his (assigned) service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38) "And those who encamped before the mishkan, in front, before the tent of meeting on the east" (i.e., only these being assigned to the aforementioned service) … and the stranger (to that service, [even a Levite]) that draws near shall be put to death." What, then, is the need for "so that they not die both they and you"? Because Korach came and contested Aaron's prerogative, Scripture reiterated the entire exhortation (on demarcation of bounds). Variantly: "both they and you": Just as you (the Cohanim, are thus forewarned) vis-à-vis the altar service, so, they (the Levites, are thus forewarned). R. Nathan says: Levitical singing is hereby intimated in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature) was explicated by Ezra. Chanania, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: This (intimation) is not needed, for it is already written (Shemot 19:19) "and G-d answered him (Moses, the Levite) by voice" — relative to the mitzvah of the voice, whence (the mitzvah of Levitical) singing is intimated in the Torah. (Bamidbar 18:4) "And they shall join you": As we have stated, the Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside, and the Levites, on the outside. (Ibid.) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you": Why is this written? (i.e., it has already been mentioned.) — "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death" tells us (only of) the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From "and a stranger shall not draw near to you." (Ibid. 5) "And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar.": This is an exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites to exhort the Cohanim towards the proper performance of the (sacrificial) service, which (service), when properly performed, fends off calamity from the world. (Ibid.) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He has already vented His wrath (viz. 17:11). Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) "and no more shall there be a flood." Why "no more"? For it has already happened. Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the goat-demons." Why "no more"? Because it already happened (in Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7). Similarly, (Bamidbar 18:22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near to the tent of meeting." Why "no more"? Because they had already done so (in the time of Korach, viz. Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He had already vented His wrath, as it is written (Ibid. 17:11) "for the wrath has gone forth, etc."

— But still, here it is written "through fire," and there, "the Molech." Whence do I derive what is written here as applying there, and what is written there as applying here? — It is written "passing" (here), "passing" (there, Vayikra 18:21) for an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: Just as "passing" here is through fire, so, "passing" there is through fire. And just as "passing" there is to the Molech, so, "passing" here is to the Molech. In sum, (to be liable), he must hand over (his child) and pass him through fire to the Molech. Both verses are necessary (to tell us this); if not, we do not know it.

(Vayikra 18:11) "The nakedness of your brother's wife you shall not uncover" and (Devarim 25:5) "Her levir (her husband's brother) shall come upon her" were both stated in one pronouncement.

R. Shimon says: From its place (i.e., from the place where Scripture makes him liable to kareth), it is to be inferred (that once he is smitten he is exempt from kareth), it being written (Vayikra 18:29) "For all who commit any of these abominations (in illicit relations) — the souls that do it are to be cut off (i.e., kareth) from their people," and (Ibid. 18:5) "And you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which, if a man do, he shall live by them," (— followed by (6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh you shall not come near to uncover nakedness.") From this ("he shall live by them") we infer that if one sits (passively) and does not commit transgression, (in this instance, the kareth transgression of illicit relations), he receives the reward of one who (actively) performs a mitzvah ([How much more so is the smitten one exempt from kareth!)].

(Devarim, Ibid.) "They angered Him with abominations": homosexuality, viz. (Vayikra 18:22) "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination," and (I Kings, Ibid. 14:24) "There was also prostitution in the land; they did all the abominations of the nations, etc."