Midrash su Levitico 19:36

(Fol. 49) It was taught: "Words," Rab said, "[if they are not kept] cannot be considered lacking in honesty." But R. Jochanan said that it could be considered [if not kept] as lacking in honesty. An objection was raised from the following: R. Jose b. Juda said: "Why is repeated (Lev. 21, 36) Just hin, is this not included in the word, just ephah? But this is to teach thee that your Yea (hin) shall be just, and your Nay shall be just [hence we see that words must be kept]?" Said Abaye: "The cited verse signifies that one shall not talk with his mouth differently from what he thinks in his heart."

R. Jochanan said: "Every place where the Minim gave their wrong interpretation, the answer of annulling it is to be found in the same place — i.e., they claim from (Gen. 1, 26) Let us make man. [Hence it is in the plural]; however, in (Ib. 27) it reads: And God created in His image (singular) (Ib. 9, 7) Let us go down [plural).] However, (Ib., ib. 5) And the Lord came down [singular]. (Deut. 4, 7) For what great natoin is there that hath gods so nigh unto it? However it reads further on, as is the Lord our God every time we call upon Him. (II Sam. 7, 23) Whom God went? [plural]. However, (Dan. 7, 9) I was looking down until chairs were set down, and the Ancient of days seated Himself [singular]. But why are all the above-mentioned written in the plural? This is in accordance with R. Jochanan; for R. Jochanan said: "The Holy One, praised be He! does not do anything until he consults the heavenly household, as it is said (Ib. 4, 14) Through the resolve of the angels is this decree, and by the order of the holy ones is this decision. However, this answer is for all the plurals mentioned, except the last one, the chairs. Why are they in plural? One for Him and one for David, as we are taught in a Baraitha: One for Him and one for David, so said R. Akiba. R. Elazar b. Azaryah then said to him: "Akiba, how do you dare to make the Shechina so common? It means one chair for Divine judgment and one for Divine righteousness." Did R. Akiba accept R. Elazar's answer, or did he not? Come and listen: from the following Baraitha: R. Elazar b. Azaryah said to him: "Akiba, what hast thou to do with Aggada? Give thy attention to Negaim and Ohaloth. One is a chair and one a footstoll, the chair to sit upon and the footstoll to put the feet upon." R. Nachman said: "He who knows how to give a right answer to the Minim like R. Aidith may discuss with them, but he who is not able to do so, it is better for him not to discuss with them at all." There was a Min who said to R. Aidith: "It is written (Ex. 24, 1) Come up unto the Lord. It ought to be, Come up to Me. [And when God said to him: Come up to the Lord, there must be one lord more]." And he answered: "That is the angel Mattatron, who bears the name of his master, as it is written (Ib., ib. 21) Because My name is in him." "If so," rejoined the Min, "let us worship him." It reads (Ib., ib.) Al tamer bee (Do not exchange Me). Hence Thou shalt not exchange him for Me." The Min said again: "But does it not read he will not pardon your transgression?" And Aidith answered: "Believe me, that even as a guide we refused to accept him, as it is written (Ib. 33, 15) If thy presence go not [with us], carry us not up from, here." A Min asked R. Ishmael b. R. Jose: It reads (Gen. 19, 24) And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire. From the Lord, etc. From the Lord! It ought to be from Him [hence there was one more Lord]? And a certain washer said to R. Ishmael: "Let me answer him. It reads (Gen. 4, 23) And Lemech said unto his wives, Adah and Zellah. Hear my voice, ye wives of Lemech, etc. Wives of Lemech! My wives, it ought to be. You must then say that so is it customary in the language of the verse, the same is the case here." And to the question of R. Ishmael to the washer: "Whence do you know this?" he answered: "From the lectures of R. Maier. As R. Jochanan used to say that R. Maier's lectures consisted always of one part Halacha, of another part Aggada, and the rest of parables." R. Jochanan said further: "R. Maier had three hundred fox parables, but we have only three. (Fol. 39) (Ezek. 18, 2) The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children have become blunt; (Lev. l9, 36) Just balances, just weighs, and (Prov. 11, 8) The righteous is delivered out of distress, and the wicked cometh in his stead.

7) (Vayikra 19:36) ("Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin shall you have; I am the L–rd your G d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.") "just balances": Justify the scales precisely. "just weights": Justify the weights precisely. "a just ephah": Justify the eiphoth (dry measures) precisely. "and a just hin": Justify the hin (liquid measure) precisely. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Is not "hin" included in "ephah"? Why, then, is it written "and a just hin"? To teach that your "No" should be just and that your "Yes" ("hehn," similar to "hin") should be just.