Midrash su Levitico 20:78

Another interpretation: "And he saw their suffering" that they did not have rest. He went and said to Pharaoh, " One who has a slave, if he does not rest one day a week, he will die! While your slaves, if you don't allow them rest one day a week , they will die!" He said to them, "Go and do for them as you are saying." Moses went and established the Sabbath day for them to rest. "And he saw an Egyptian man." What did he see? R. Huna say in the name of Bar Kaprah, for 4 things the Israelites were redeemed from Egypt, one was for not changing their names (Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, Vayikra Rabba 32). And from where do we learn that they didn't engage in adultery? Because it happened once and the verse publicized it, as it's written: And his mother's name was Shlomit bat Divri etc. (Lev 24:10). Our teachers say there were taskmasters among the Egyptians and officers from the Israelites, one taskmaster appointed over ten officers. One officer appointed over ten Israelites. And the taskmasters would go to the houses of the officers at daybreak to make them go call the workers. Once an Egyptian taskmaster went to [do so to] an Israelite officer and he set his eye on his wife who was beautiful without blemish. He called the man and brought him out of his house, then the Egyptian returned and had relations with his wife and she thought that he was her husband and became pregnant from him. Her husband returned and found the Egyptian leaving his house. He asked her, Did he touch you? She said yes, but I thought he was you. When the taskmaster saw that he suspected him he returned him to hard labor and struck him and sought to kill him. Moshe saw this and looked at him and saw with Ruah Hakodesh what he did in the house, and saw what would be done in the field, and said surely he deserves death, as it is written: One who strikes a man shall die. And not only this, but moreover he slept with the wife of Datan and therefore deserved killing, as it says: The adulterer and adulteress shall surely die (Lev 20:10), and that is why it is written: And he turned this way and that etc., he saw what he did to him at home and what he did to him in the field.

1) (Vayikra 20:15) ("And if a man gives his lying to a beast, he shall be put to death, and the beast you shall kill.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who gives his lying to a beast" — whether full grown or not. "he 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 "and the beast you shall kill," and, elsewhere (Devarim 13:10) "You shall surely kill him." Just as there, by stoning; so, here, by stoning.

1) (Vayikra 20:18) ("And a man who lies with a woman in her flow and reveals her nakedness — he has bared her fountain and she has revealed the fountain of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from the midst of their people.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who lies with a woman in her flow" (davah): "davah" is "niddah," as it is written (Vayikra 15:33) "And she who flows (davah) with her niddah flow, and he who flows with his discharge."

1) (Vayikra 20:2) ("And to the children of Israel you shall say: A man, a man, of the children of Israel, and of the stranger who sojourns in Israel, who gives of his seed to the Molech, he shall die; the people of the land shall stone him with a stone.") "And to the children of Israel you shall say": "And to the children of Israel you shall speak," "Say to the children of Israel," "Speak to the children of Israel," "Command the children of Israel," "And you command the children of Israel": R. Yossi says: The Torah spoke in the language of man, in many forms, and all require expounding: "Israel" — as stated; "stranger" — these are the proselytes; "who sojourns" — to include the wives of the proselytes. "in Israel" — to include women and servants.

1) (Vayikra 10:6) "And the soul that turns to the ovoth and to the yidonim to stray after them": Why is this written? From (Vayikra 20:27) "And a man or a woman an ov or a yidoni … with stones shall they stone them," we hear the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Vayikra 19:31) "Do not turn to the ovoth and to the yidonim." We hear the punishment and the exhortation, but we have not heard kareth (cutting-off). It is, therefore, written "And the soul that turns to the ovoth and to the yidonim … I shall cut him off from the midst of his people."

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 10:6) "And the soul that turns to the ovoth and to the yidonim to stray after them": Why is this written? From (Vayikra 20:27) "And a man or a woman an ov or a yidoni … with stones shall they stone them," we hear the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Vayikra 19:31) "Do not turn to the ovoth and to the yidonim." We hear the punishment and the exhortation, but we have not heard kareth (cutting-off). It is, therefore, written "And the soul that turns to the ovoth and to the yidonim … I shall cut him off from the midst of his people."

1) (Vayikra 20:9) ("For a man, a man, who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death. He has cursed his father and his mother; his blood is in him.") "A man": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "A man, a man." "who curses his father": and not the father of his father. "and his mother": and not the father of his mother. "his father": (one who is) definitely (his father), and not one (whose paternity is) in doubt. "his mother": definitely, and not in doubt.

Question:¹⁶This section is taken virtually verbatim from the Aramaic text of the She’eltot of Ahai of Shabha (d. ca. 762), Mattot, 137. Are those of the House of Israel obligated to abstain from anything unclean, as stated (in Lev. 20:25), “So you shall make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean...?” Now it is not a question of something unclean that is forbidden, but even of [the utensils by which something unclean has been cooked]. As it is forbidden for Israel to cook with them, until each and every piece has been purged, as stated (in Numb. 31:23), “Each thing that will withstand the fire [you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean].” The spits and the grills¹⁷Gk.: escharai. which gentiles have used are not permitted until they have come into the fire, as we are taught (in 'AZ 5:12), “In the case of a skewer and a grill, one makes them white hot in the fire.” For how long does one make them white hot? Until their scaling drops off.¹⁸‘AZ 76a. In the case of pots, kettles (qumqemasin),¹⁹Lat.: cucumae; Gk.: koukkoumai. Variants of this Greek word also occur in the neut. and masc. and heating vessels which you use for boiling, one must purge them with boiling water.²⁰See ‘AZ 75a. Moreover, although in the case of kettles (qumqemasin) it is not customarily to cook in one, sometimes when one does not find the [proper] vessel, it happens that one does cook in them. In the case of a pot into which the head of a free-flying sparrow cannot enter, one need not purge it, as stated (in 'AZ 38b), “When [concerning] the date solids of gentiles, if they are heated in a large pot, they are forbidden. [But when heated] in a small pot, they are permitted. And which pot is small? Any into which the head of a free-flying sparrow cannot enter.” But how does one cleanse them with hot water?²¹‘AZ 76a. One puts a small pot within a large pot. And what about a large pot? [One treats it] like that caldron which belonged to Rav 'Uqba. He made a rim of dough for it, filled it with water, and boiled it.²²According to ‘AZ 76b, the rim of dough built up the mouth of the pot, so that the boiling water would overflow the top and leave no part uncleansed. Boiling water would flow over the top and leave no part uncleansed. Also in the case of a spoon, it is necessary to place it inside of a caldron, and it is purged. In the case of plates, one uses them as a second utensil (a utensil in which food is served, and not one in which it is cooked). If one has taken water from a caldron and poured it over them, it is considered sufficient; but although one has purged them, it is necessary to [also] immerse them in water. It has been taught,²³In ‘AZ 75b. “And they all need immersion in a forty-se'ah ritual bath (miqwah).” And then an Israelite may use them again. Where are these things shown? Rabba said, “Where scripture has said (in Numb. 31:23), ‘Each thing that will withstand the fire you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean. However, it shall be purified with the waters of purification….’²⁴I.e., in a ritual bath. The text has added another cleansing.” Moreover, ‘Bar Qappara has taught, “It is implied by that which is stated (ibid.), ‘however, it shall be purified with the waters of purification,’ that I would infer that sprinkling was needed on the third and seventh day.²⁵According to Numb. 19:12, 19, this is the requirement for one who has been defiled by a corpse. Hence [to prevent that inference], Scripture²⁶Literally: “Talmud.” The word occurs here in the generic sense of a text from which one learns. says (ibid.), ‘and it shall be clean.’ If so, what does the text mean by ‘the waters of purification (which is also the word for a menstruant)?’ Waters in which the menstruant immerses. And how much [is that]? Forty se'ah.” Rav Nahman said that Rabbah bar Abbuha said, “Even new vessels which one acquires from the [gentile] smith need immersion; old [ones], when one makes them white hot, are like new ones, and they need immersion nonetheless. Rav Sheshet raised an objection for him, “If that is so, even an unspecified ‘implement’ also?”²⁷‘AZ 75b is more specific, and objects that under the Nahman/Abbuha ruling, even scissors, would require immersion. Rabba said to him, “Vessels for eating are the ones being spoken of in the parashah, since it is written (in Numb. 31:23), ‘Each thing that will withstand (literally: come into) the fire….’” Rav Isaac bar Joseph [bought] a certain vessel [made] of fresh ordure.²⁸Mirdeta. The word normally denotes dung but here seems to refer to a kind of clay. He planned to immerse it. One of the masters named R. Jacob said, “So did R. Johanan say, ‘Vessels of metal are the ones being spoken of in the parashah, since it is so stated (in Numb. 31:22), “Surely the gold and the silver.”’ But these are new vessels of ordure. New ones need no immersion. Old ones are not purgeable, as we find in the case of the sin offering (according to Lev. 6:21), ‘But an earthen vessel in which it (the sin offering) was boiled shall be broken.’” However, it is necessary to [ask about] these plates with a glaze,²⁹Qonya; cf. the Gk.: konia (“dust”). which are used with boiling leavened foods. Is there a purging for them or not? For while they were earthen vessels originally, one coated them with glaze. [Is it that] that glaze seal is a shield, so that the clay does not absorb, because glaze is [like] metal, and purging is sufficient for it. Or if there is no shield, the clay does absorb [impurities], and there is no remedy for it. Come, hear what they asked Meremar concerning leaven on Passover.³⁰Pes. 30b; ‘AZ 33b-34a. In the case of glazed vessels, is there any purging for them, and is it permitted to use them on Passover or not? When there are cracks in them, we certainly have no question that this does absorb [impurities] where the cracks are. [In the case of] green [glaze], there is certainly no question for us [about its absorption] because it (the glaze) contains alum; while a white or black [glaze certainly does present us with a question]. What is [the law]? He said to them, “We saw with them, that [when they put hot water in them, their outside surfaces] sweat. From this you may infer that they are absorbent. They are therefore comparable to common earthen vessels.” These words [only apply] with reference to leaven during Passover and with reference to usage by gentiles when (the vessels) would be used with boiling [liquids]. With reference to libation wine,³¹I.e., wine handled by a heathen and which may have been used for an idolatrous libation. however, and leaven on Passover when [the vessels] would be used with what is cold, a green glaze is forbidden because it contains alum. As for black and white [glazes, if] there are cracks in it, it is forbidden; if there are no cracks in it, it sufficient with a mere dabbling. It is comparable to a vessel of metal, for it is established for us as a law (halakhah) like [the statement of] Rav Zevid. As Rav Zevid said, “Those vessels with a white or black glaze are permitted; green ones are forbidden. Also if there are cracks in them, they are all forbidden.” And this is the law (halakhah).

Question:¹⁷This section is taken virtually verbatim from the Aramaic text of the She’eltot of Ahai of Shabha (d. ca. 762), Mattot, 137. The section is also found in Tanh., Numb. 6:2. Are those of the house of Israel obligated to abstain from anything unclean, as stated (in Lev. 20:25): SO YOU SHALL MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CLEAN ANIMAL AND THE UNCLEAN, ALSO BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN BIRD AND THE CLEAN? Now it is not a question of [something] unclean that is forbidden, but even of <the> utensils by which something unclean has been cooked. It is forbidden for Israel to cook with them, until each and every piece has been purged, as stated (in Numb. 31:23): EVERY[THING] THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE FIRE [YOU SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN]. For example, the spits and the grills¹⁸Gk.: escharai. which star worshipers have used are not permitted, until thay have come into the fire, as we are taught (in 'AZ 5:12): IN THE CASE OF A SKEWER AND A GRILL, ONE MAKES THEM WHITE HOT IN THE FIRE. For how long does one make them white hot? [R. Mani says:] Until their scaling drops off.¹⁹‘AZ 76a. In the case of pots, kettles (qumqemasin),²⁰Lat.: cucumae; Gk.: koukkoumai. Variants of this Greek word also occur in the neut. and masc. and heating vessels which you use for boiling,²¹RWTH. The final he in this word is certainly a misprint. I have therefore emended Buber’s he to a het, which generally agrees with the het of the parallel texts in the traditional Tanhuma (RTWH) and in the She’eltot (RWTHYN). one must purge them by the flame through boiling.²²See ‘AZ 75a. Moreover, although in the case of kettles (qumqemasin) it is not customarily to cook in one, sometimes when one does not find the <proper> vessel, one does cook in them accidentally. In the case of a pot into which the head of a free-flying sparrow cannot enter, one need not purge it, as stated (in 'AZ 38b. [bar.]): When <concerning> the date solids of star worshipers {i.e., refuse of dates from which they have made beer and which they mix with hot water}, if they are heated in a large pot, <the pot> is forbidden. <When heated> in a small pot, it is permitted. And which pot is small? [R. Jannay said:] Any into which the head of a free-flying sparrow cannot enter. But how does one cleanse them with hot water?²³‘AZ 76a. [R. Huna said:] One puts a small pot within a large pot. And what about a large pot? <One treats it> like a caldron which belonged to {Mar} [Rav] 'Uqba. He made a rim of dough for it, filled it with water, and boiled it.²⁴According to ‘AZ 76b, the rim of dough built up the mouth of the pot, so that the boiling water would overflow the top and leave no part uncleansed. boiling water would overflow the top and leave no part uncleansed. Also in the case of a spoon, it is necessary to place it inside of a caldron, and it is purged. In the case of plates, one uses them in a second utensil. If one has taken <water>²⁵The bracketed word is found the parallel from the traditional Tanhuma. from a caldron and poured it over them, it is considered all right; but although one has purged them, it is necessary to immerse them in the stream. It has been taught:²⁶In ‘AZ 75b (bar.) And they all need immersion in a forty-se'ah ritual bath (miqwah) for Israel to use them again. Where are these things shown? Rabba said: Where Scripture has said (in Numb. 31:23): EVERY [THING] THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE FIRE YOU SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE PURIFIED IN THE WATERS OF MENSTRUAL PURIFICATION….²⁷I.e., in a ritual bath. The text has added another cleansing. Moreover, Bar Qappara has taught: It is stated by implication (ibid.): HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE PURIFIED IN THE WATERS OF MENSTRUAL PURIFICATION. I might infer that this <immersion> was needed on the third and {fourth} [seventh] day.²⁸According to Numb. 19:12, 19, this is the requirement for one who has been defiled by a corpse. The Scripture²⁹Literally: “Talmud.” The word occurs here in the generic sense of a text from which one learns. says (ibid.): AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. If so, what does the text mean by THE WATERS OF MENSTRUAL PURIFICATION? Waters in which the menstruant immerses. And how much [is that]? Forty se'ah. Rav Nahman said: Rabbah bar Abbuha said: Even new vessels which one acquires in the market from a star worshiper need immersion, [since] old [ones], when one makes them white hot, are like new ones. Even so, they need immersion. Rav Sheshet raised an objection for him: Even if that is so, "implement" is undefined.³⁰‘AZ 75b is more specific, and objects that under the Nahman/Abbuha ruling, even scissors, would require immersion. Rabba said: Vessels for eating are the ones being spoken of in the parashah, since it is written (in Numb. 31:23): EVERY [THING] THAT WILL WITHSTAND (literally: COME INTO) THE FIRE…. {And so} Rav Isaac bar Joseph [bought] a certain vessel <made> of fresh ordure.³¹Mirdeta. The word normally denotes dung but here seems to refer to a kind of clay. He planned to immerse it. One of the masters named R. Jacob said to him: Thus did R. Johanan say: Vessels of metal are the ones being spoken of in the parashah, since it is so stated (in Numb. 31:22): SURELY THE GOLD AND THE SILVER. < … > But these are new vessels of clay. New ones need no immersion. Old ones are not purgeable, as we find in the case of the sin offering (according to Lev. 6:21 [28]): BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL IN WHICH IT (the sin offering) WAS BOILED SHALL BE BROKEN.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 21:1), “Speak unto the priests”: What is written above the matter (in Lev. 20:27)? “When a man or a woman has a ghost or a familiar spirit […].” And afterwards, “Speak unto the priests.” This text is related (to Is. 8:19), “And when they say unto you, ‘Inquire of ghosts and familiar spirits.’”²Lev. R. 6:6. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “If they say unto you, ‘Inquire of ghosts, and forsake the God who is in the heavens,’ say to them (ibid. cont.), ‘should not a people inquire of its God?’” Just as Elijah said to Ahaziah (in II Kings 1:3), “Is it for lack of a God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baal-Zebub […]?” Why should we forsake the everlasting God? (Jer. 10:10:) “But the Lord is a true God; He is a living God and an everlasting King.” We therefore seek a living God; however, the god[s] of the nations of the world are dead [and (according to Ps. 115:6),] “They have a mouth, but they do not speak; they have eyes but do not see.” [But] about us it is written (in Deut. 4:4), “But you who clung to the Lord your God are all alive today.” We therefore seek a living God. However, [concerning] the god[s] of the nations of the world (according to Ps. 115:6), “Those who make them shall be like them.” What is written after [Is. 8:19], (in vs. 20)? “For instruction (Torah) and for testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, such a one shall have no dawn.”³Similarly in the 1985 JPS translation: FOR ONE WHO SPEAKS THUS THERE SHALL BE NO DAWN. So understood, the clause means that a necromancer will not live to see the dawn. Such a translation fits the immediate context of the midrash. The clause can also mean: SUCH A ONE HAS NO LIGHT, i.e., a necromancer cannot enlighten. This translation better fits the interpretations that follow. R. Johanan and R. Laqish [differed]. R. Johanan said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘If they do not speak according to this word to the nations of the world they (sic) have no dawn; I will not shine the dawn upon them.’”⁴See the previous note. [But] R. Laqish says, “It (i.e., the word of a necromancer) shall have no dawn. The ghosts and the familiar spirits do not enlighten (literally, raise up the dawn upon) themselves, since they are [themselves] set in darkness; and all the more does this [principle] hold true for others.” So if you should say, “Of whom shall we inquire?” See, it says (in Deut. 17:9-11), “And you shall come unto the Levitical priests and unto the judge […. You shall act....] According to the Torah which they shall teach you.” (Lev. 20:27:) When a man or a woman has a ghost or a familiar spirit.” What is written after that (in Lev. 21:1)? “Speak unto the priests.” What relation does the one have to the other? It is simply that the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that Saul was going to be king over Israel and kill the priests [and] then inquire of a ghost and a familiar spirit. It is so stated (in I Sam. 28:7), “Then Saul said to his servants, ‘Seek me out a woman who controls a ghost.’” Resh Laqish said, “To what is Saul comparable?⁵Lev. R. 26:7; M. Sam. 24. To a king who entered a province and said, ‘All the cocks in this province are to be slaughtered tonight. [When] he wished to depart on his way in the morning, he said, ‘Is there no cock to crow here?’ They said to him, ‘Are you not the one who ordered them to be killed?’ Here also (in I Sam. 28:3) ‘Saul had put away the ghosts and the familiar spirits’; and [now] he went back and said (in vs. 7) ‘Seek me out a woman who controls a ghost.’” (Vs. 8:) “Then Saul disguised himself. What is the meaning of “disguised himself (rt.: hpsh)?” That he had become divested (rt.: hpsh) of the kingship. (Ibid., cont.:) “And he went with two men.” Who were they? Abner and Amasa. The Torah has taught proper protocol, that one does not leave on a journey by oneself; as anyone who leaves on a journey by himself become a slave to slaves. R. Ayyevu said, “Two men acted with proper protocol, Abraham and Saul. [Regarding Abraham it is written (in Gen. 22:3), ‘and he (i.e., Abraham) took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac [...].’ And here (in I Sam. 28:8), ‘and he (Saul) went with two men.’” (Ibid., cont.:) “And they came unto the woman at night.” Was it at night? It is simply that this time was for them as black as night. (Ibid., cont.:) “Then he said, ‘Please divine for me through a ghost […].” She said (in vs. 9) “You know what Saul has done, how he has rooted out the ghosts and the familiar spirits from the land.” He said immediately (in vs. 10), “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall befall you over this matter.” Resh Laqish said, “To what is Saul comparable? To a woman who was situated with her lover and swore by the life of her husband.” (Vs. 11:) “Then the woman said, ‘Whom (Mi) shall I bring up for you?’” One of those who say (as in Exod. 15:11), “Who (Mi) is like You among the powers, O Lord,”⁶Words spoken by Moses, typifying the righteous. The verse is suggested by the mi in Saul’s question. or one of those who say (as in Exod. 5:2:),⁷Words spoken by Pharaoh, typifying the wicked. “Who is the Lord?” He said to her (in I Sam. 28:11, cont.), “Bring up Samuel for me,” the master of the prophets. She did what she did and brought him up. (Vs. 12:) “When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out [with] a loud voice, and the woman spoke [unto Saul, saying], ‘Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul.’” How did she know? Our masters have said, “[A ghost] does not come up for a king as it comes up for a commoner.⁸Gk.: idiotes. For the king its face is up and its feet down, just like everyone [on earth]; but for the commoner its feet are up and its face down.” (Vs. 13:) “Then the king said to her, ‘Do not be afraid; for what do you see?’ And the woman said unto Saul, ‘I saw powers (elohim) coming up from the earth.’” Powers (here in the plural form) implies two. So who were they? Moses and Samuel. When Saul heard this, he was afraid, because he had called one, but two had arisen, as stated, “I saw powers coming up from the earth.” (Vs. 14:) “Then he said to her, ‘What does he look like?’ And she said, ‘An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.’” They have said three things about bringing up a [ghost]. 1. The one bringing it up sees it but does not hear its voice. 2. The one asking for it hears its voice but does not see it. 3. Those standing there neither see it nor hear its voice. (Ibid.:) “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” And elsewhere it says (in I Sam. 2:19), “His mother would make a little robe for him.”⁹Cf. above, Gen. 11:9. It was taught that this was the robe that grew upon him; in it he was buried; in it he rose up. It has been taught in the name of R. Nathan: A garment which goes down to the grave with a person is going to rise on him in the resurrection of the dead.¹⁰yKil. 9:4 (32b). Thus it is stated (in Job 38:14), “It is changed like clay under a seal, and they stand forth as in a garment.” (I Sam. 28:14-15) “Then Saul knew that it was Samuel; so he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage. Samuel said unto Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me and brought me up? Have you no way to disturb your Creator except through me, in that you have made me an idol.¹¹See Gen. R. 96:5 (6).Did we not teach the following? Just as one exacts punishment from the worshiper, so does one exact punishment from those worshiped.’” Some say, “’Why have you disturbed me?’ [is meaning] that he said to him, ‘I was disturbed lest it be the Day of Judgment, and I was afraid.’” Now here is an argument a fortiori (qal wahomer): For if Samuel, the master of all the prophets, was afraid of the Day of Judgment, how much the more does the rest of humanity [have to fear]? When Rabbi would reach this verse (Amos 4:13), he would cry: “Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate; perhaps the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.” He said, “So much, and [only] ‘perhaps?’” [Similar is (Zeph. 2:3),] “Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land who have fulfilled His law, seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will find shelter on the day of the Lord’s anger.” R. Haggai said, “[Similarly (in Lamentations 3:29),] ‘Let him put his mouth to the dirt, perhaps there is hope.’” [Similar is the verse (in Lamentations 12:14),] “For God will call every creature to account for everything unknown.” (I Sam. 28:15, cont.:) “And Saul said, ‘I am very distressed […], He (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He) no longer answers me either through prophets or in dreams….” Why did he not [also] say to him, "[Or] by Urim and Thummim"?¹²According to vs. 6, the Holy One had also failed to answer Saul through this medium. R. Isaac said (Prov. 14:10), “’The heart knows its own bitterness,’ in that he had destroyed Nob, the city of priests.”¹³Lev. R. explains further, that if Saul had brought up the matter of the high priest’s Urim and Thummim, Samuel would have replied that it was he, Saul, who had done away with them by killing the priests at Nob. Samuel said to him, (I Sam. 28:17), “The Lord has done for Himself according to what He spoke through me; for the Lord has torn the kingship out of your hand and given it to your companion, to David.” He said to him, “When you were with us [in the flesh], you said to me (in I Sam. 15:28), ‘and given it to a companion of yours who is better than you’; and now you say, ‘to your companion, to David?’” He said to him. “When I was with you, I was in the world of falsehood, and I was telling you words of falsehood, because I was afraid of you, lest you kill me. Now, however, I am in the world of truth, you will only hear words of truth from me. He did not do this thing to you for no reason. Rather (according to I Sam. 28:18-19), ‘Because you did not hearken to the voice of the Lord and did not carry out his wrath against Amalek…. Moreover, the Lord will deliver Israel along with you into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.’”” With me,” [means] in my section [of heaven]. When he heard this, (according to vs. 20), “Immediately Saul fell full length to the ground, for he was terrified because of Samuel's words.” Abner and Amasa said to him, “What did [Samuel] say to you?” He said to them, “He said to me, ‘Tomorrow you will go down to battle and be victorious. In addition, your sons will be appointed to be great leaders’”. Resh Laqish said, “At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, called the ministering angels. He said to them, ‘Come and see the creature that I have created in My world. By universal custom when one goes to a banquet house, he does not take his children with him for fear of the evil eye; but this one, when he is going down to battle and knows that he will be killed, takes his sons with him and is happy over the divine justice that is striking him.’”¹⁴M. Pss. 7:2. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “[This] teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses every generation and its expositors, every generation and its judges, every generation and its kings; and he showed him Saul and his sons falling by the sword.¹⁵Tanna deve Eliyahu Zuta, 6; cf. Sanh. 38b; AZ 5a, according to both of which the expositors and other generational leaders were shown to Adam. He said to him, ‘Master of the world, will the first king to stand over Your children be pierced by the sword?’ He said to him, ‘Moses, [why] are you telling me? Tell the priests whom he killed. [They are the ones] who are denouncing¹⁶Gk.: kategorein. him,’ as stated, ‘And the Lord spoke to Moses, “Speak to the priests.”’” Our masters have taught, “That righteous man (i.e., Saul) was killed for five sins. Thus it is stated (in I Chron. 10:13), ‘So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord’: Because he had destroyed Nob, the city of priests; Because he had spared Agag; Because he had not hearkened to Samuel, as stated (in I Sam. 10:8), ‘wait seven days …,’ since he did not do so; but (according to I Sam. 13:12), ‘and I forced myself to offer the burnt offering’; (In I Chron. 10:13-14) ‘and also he inquired for counsel through a ghost; And he did not inquire through the Lord.’”

2) "if she will have": from the pronouncement on. "a flow": I might think even if she flows from any place she is tamei; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:18) "and she has revealed the source of her blood." This teaches us about (her) blood that (it causes uncleanliness) only if it comes from the source.

2) He has bared (he'erah) her fountain, and she has revealed the fountain of her blood" — whence it is derived that peripheral (non-consummated) intercourse ("he'arah") is reckoned as consummated intercourse. This tells me only of niddah. Whence do I derive the same for all of the arayoth? — Just as with niddah, where willful transgression is liable to kareth and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse — so, with every ervah, where willful transgression is liable to kareth and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse. — No, this may be so with niddah, where tumah obtains, wherefore he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse, but not with all the other arayoth, where tumah does not obtain, wherefore he'arah is not reckoned as consummated intercourse! It is, therefore, written (in relation to the sister of his father or of his mother) "For he has bared (he'erah) his kin." You derive it from both, viz.: Niddah (where tumah obtains) is not like the sister of his father, and the sister of his father, (who is kin), is not like niddah. What is common to both is that they are ervah, where willful transgression is liable to kareth, and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, and he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse. Likewise, I derive that with every ervah, where willful transgression is liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse.

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 20:7) "And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy": This is the holiness of separation from idolatry. You say that it is the holiness of separation from idolatry, but perhaps it is the holiness of (performing) all of the mitzvoth! — "Holy shall you be" (Vayikra 19:2) already speaks of the holiness of all the mitzvoth. "And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy," then, must refer to the holiness of separation from idolatry. (Vayikra 19:7) "For I am the L–rd your G d": I am the Judge, exacting (punishment) and trusted to reward.

2) "He has cursed his father and his mother": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemoth 21:19) "And he who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death," I might think that he is not liable until he curses both of them; it is, therefore, written "He has cursed his father; ("He has cursed) his mother" — either one. A proselyte, then, is liable for (cursing) his mother, but not for (cursing) his father, (there being no "fatherhood" for a proselyte.) These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: "He has cursed his father and his mother": One who is liable for (cursing) his father is liable for (cursing) his mother. One who is not liable for his father is not liable for his mother. R. Akiva concedes that a shtuki (an illegitimate child of unknown fatherhood) is liable for (cursing) his mother even though he is not liable for (cursing) his father.

[(Exod. 30:12): WHEN YOU TAKE <A CENSUS>.] This text is related to Ps. 3:3 [2]): MANY SAY TO MY SOUL….. This refers to David, when that deed (of II Sam. 11) took place at his hand.¹¹Tanh., Exod. 9:4; PRK 2:1; PR 10:10; M. Pss. 3:5/6. They said: What person is there who has carried off the ewe lamb, killed the shepherd, and made Israel fall by the sword?¹²The ewe lamb was Bathsheba, and the shepherd was Uriah the Hittite. Is there salvation for him? (Ibid., cont.:) THERE IS NO SALVATION FOR HIM THROUGH HIS GOD. David said (in vs. 3 [2]): AND YOU, O LORD, have concurred with them and have written in the Torah (at Lev. 20:10): THE ADULTERER AND THE ADULTERESS SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. Still (according to Ps. 3:4 [3]) <YOU, O LORD, ARE> A SHIELD ABOUT ME. You <are the one> who shielded me through the merit of my ancestors, <the one> who restored me to the kingship, AND (ibid. cont.:) THE ONE WHO RAISES UP MY HEAD. Instead of that which I owed you, < namely > the lifting off of the head, you gave me an uplifted head at the hands of the prophet Nathan, [who said to me] (in II Sam. 12:13): THE LORD HAS ALSO REMITTED YOUR SIN; YOU SHALL NOT DIE.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 21:1): SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS. What is written above of the matter (in Lev. 20:27)? WHEN A MAN OR A WOMAN HAS A GHOST OR A FAMILIAR SPIRIT…. This text is related (to Is. 8:19): AND WHEN THEY SAY UNTO YOU: INQUIRE OF GHOSTS AND FAMILIAR SPIRITS.⁴Tanh., Lev. 8:2; Lev. R. 6:6. The Holy One said to Israel: If they say unto you: INQUIRE OF GHOSTS, and forsake the God who is in the heavens, say to them (ibid. cont.): SHOULD NOT A PEOPLE INQUIRE OF ITS GOD? Just as Elijah said to Ahaziah (in II Kings 1:3): IS IT FOR LACK OF A GOD IN ISRAEL < THAT YOU ARE SENDING TO INQUIRE OF BAAL-ZEBUB >…? Why should we forsake the everlasting God? (Jer. 10:10:) BUT THE LORD IS A TRUE GOD; [HE IS A LIVING GOD AND AN EVERLASTING KING]. It is also written (in Deut. 4:4): BUT YOU WHO CLUNG TO THE LORD YOUR GOD ARE < ALL > ALIVE < TODAY >. We therefore seek a living God; however, [the god< s > of] the nations of the world are dead, < and > (according to Ps. 115:8:) THOSE WHO MAKE THEM SHALL BE LIKE THEM. What is written after < Is. 8:19 >, (in vs. 20)? FOR INSTRUCTION (Torah) AND FOR TESTIMONY: [IF THEY DO NOT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, SUCH A ONE SHALL HAVE NO DAWN].⁵Similarly in the 1985 JPS translation: FOR ONE WHO SPEAKS THUS THERE SHALL BE NO DAWN. So understood, the clause means that a necromancer will not live to see the dawn. Such a translation fits the immediate context of the midrash. The clause can also mean: SUCH A ONE HAS NO LIGHT, i.e., a necromancer cannot enlighten. This translation better fits the interpretations that follow. R. Johanan and R. Laqish differed. R. Johanan said: The Holy One said: IF THEY DO NOT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD to the nations of the world THEY (sic) HAVE NO LIGHT;⁶See the previous note. [but R. Laqish says: IT (i.e., the word of a necromancer) HAS NO LIGHT.] The ghosts and the familiar spirits do not enlighten (literally: raise up the dawn) on their own, since they are < themselves > set in darkness; and all the more does this < principle > hold true for the nations of the world. So if you should say: Of whom shall we inquire? see, it says (in Deut. 17:9–11): AND YOU SHALL COME UNTO THE LEVITICAL PRIESTS AND UNTO THE JUDGE…. < YOU SHALL ACT > ACCORDING TO THE TORAH WHICH THEY SHALL TEACH YOU.

3) (Vayikra 20:16) ("And a woman who comes to any beast so that it mount her, you shall kill the woman and the beast. They shall be put to death; their blood is in them.") "They shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is one of the other death penalties in the Torah. It is, therefore, written here "their blood is in them," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) "the blood is in them. Just as there, by stoning; here, too, by stoning.

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) (Vayikra 20:16) ("And a woman who comes to any beast so that it mount her, you shall kill the woman and the beast. They shall be put to death; their blood is in them.") "They shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is one of the other death penalties in the Torah. It is, therefore, written here "their blood is in them," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) "the blood is in them. Just as there, by stoning; here, too, by stoning.

3) (Vayikra 20:8) "And you shall heed My statutes and do them": This tells me only of what Scripture specifies. Whence do I derive (the necessity of observance of) the other inferences of the section? From (Vayikra 20:8) "And you shall heed My statutes and do them."

3) Variantly: "He has cursed his father and his mother": even after death. For (without this verse) would it not follow (that he is not liable), viz.: The striker (of his parents) is liable, and the curser is liable. Just as the striker is liable only in their lifetime, so, the curser. It must, therefore, be written "He has cursed his father and his mother" — even after death. "His blood is in him": (He is to be put to death) by stoning.

[(Exod. 30:12): WHEN YOU TAKE A CENSUS.] What is written <just> before this lection (in Exod. 30:10)? AARON SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT UPON ITS HORNS (i.e., the horns of the incense altar) <ONCE A YEAR>.¹³Tanh., Exod. 9:6; PRK 2:7. When Israel sinned, the Holy One said to Moses: Go and make atonement for them. He said to him: Sovereign of the World, did you not say this: ONCE A YEAR? The Holy One said to him: Go and restore them. R. Abbin the Levite said: Moses said to the Holy One: Sovereign of the World, out of all the peoples that you have in your world, you only charge me concerning Israel. (Lev. 20:2:) AND UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL YOU SHALL SAY. (Exod. 30:31:) UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL YOU SHALL SPEAK. To what is the matter comparable?¹⁴Tanh., Exod. 9:8. To a King who had purple garments.¹⁵Gk.: porphurai. Now he had a certain purple cloak which he cherished more than all of them. So he commanded his servant and said to him: Shake it out; fold it up. He also said to him: Set your mind on it. He said to him: My Lord King, of all your purple garments you have only commanded me concerning this one. He said to him: Because I wore this one when I first became king, I therefore cherish it more than all these <other> garments of mine. In such a way did the Holy One speak, when <Moses> said to him: For what reason did you command me more concerning Israel than all the <other> peoples which are in the world? He said to him: For what reason? Because they were the first to make me king, <when they did so> by the sea. (Exod. 15:18:) THE LORD SHALL REIGN FOR EVER AND EVER.

(Lev. 20:27:) WHEN A MAN OR A WOMAN HAS A GHOST OR A FAMILIAR SPIRIT. What is written after that (in Lev. 21:1)? SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS. What relation does the one have to the other? It is simply that the Holy One foresaw that Saul was going to be king over Israel and kill the priests; then inquire of a ghost and a familiar spirit. It is so stated (in I Sam. 28:7): THEN SAUL SAID {UNTO} [TO] HIS SERVANTS: SEEK ME OUT A WOMAN WHO CONTROLS A GHOST. Resh Laqish said: To what is Saul comparable?⁷Tanh., Lev. 8:2; Lev. R. 26:7; M. Sam. 24. To a king who entered a province and said: All the cocks in this province are to be slaughtered tonight. < When > he wished to depart on his way, he said: Is there no cock to crow here? They said to him: Did you not order them to be killed? Here also (in I Sam. 28:3) Saul had put away the ghosts and the familiar spirits; so Saul said (in vs. 7) SEEK ME OUT A WOMAN WHO CONTROLS A GHOST < …. > (Vs. 8:) THEN SAUL DISGUISED HIMSELF. What is the meaning of DISGUISED HIMSELF (rt.: HPSh)? That he had become divested (rt.: HPSh) of the kingship. (Ibid., cont.:) AND HE WENT WITH TWO MEN. WHO WERE THEY? Abner and Amasai.⁸The parallels in the traditional Tanh., Lev. 8:2, in Lev. R. 26:7, and in M. Sam. 24 all read, “Abner and Amasa.” Torah has taught proper protocol, that one does not leave on a journey (at night) by oneself; and our father Abraham acted accordingly (in Gen. 22:3): AND HE (i.e., Abraham) TOOK WITH HIM TWO OF HIS SERVANTS {AND HIS SON ISAAC}. And so (in I Sam. 28:8): AND HE (Saul) WENT WITH TWO OF HIS SERVANTS (sic). (Ibid., cont.:) AND THEY CAME UNTO THE WOMAN AT NIGHT. Was it at Night? It is simply that this time was for them as black as night. (Ibid., cont.:) THEN HE SAID: PLEASE DIVINE FOR ME THROUGH A GHOST…. (Vs. 9:) BUT SHE SAID UNTO {SAUL} [HIM]: SEE HERE, YOU KNOW WHAT SAUL HAS DONE, HOW HE HAS ROOTED OUT THE GHOSTS AND THE FAMILIAR {SPIRIT} [SPIRITS] < FROM THE LAND >. Immediately (in vs. 10): SAUL SWORE TO HER BY THE LORD, SAYING: [AS THE LORD LIVES,] NO PUNISHMENT SHALL BEFALL YOU OVER THIS MATTER. Resh Laqish said: To what is Saul comparable? To a woman who was situated with her lover and swore by the life of her husband. (Vs. 11:) THEN THE WOMAN SAID: WHOM (mi) SHALL I BRING UP FOR YOU? One of those who say (as in Exod. 15:11): WHO (mi) IS LIKE YOU < AMONG THE GODS, O LORD >?⁹Words spoken by Moses, typifying the righteous. The verse is suggested by the mi in Saul’s question. or one of those who say (as in Exod. 5:2:)¹⁰Words spoken by Pharaoh, typifying the wicked. WHO IS THE LORD? He said to her (in I Sam. 28:11, cont.:) BRING UP SAMUEL FOR ME. She did what she did and brought him up. (Vs. 12:) WHEN THE WOMAN SAW SAMUEL, SHE CRIED OUT [WITH] A LOUD VOICE, AND < THE WOMAN > SPOKE < UNTO SAUL, SAYING >: WHY HAVE YOU DECEIVED ME? FOR YOU ARE SAUL. How did she know? Our masters have said: < A ghost > does not come up for a king as it comes up for a commoner.¹¹Gk.: idiotes. For the king its face is up and its feet down, just like everyone < on earth >; but for the commoner its feet are up and its face down. (Vs. 13:) THEN THE KING SAID TO HER: [DO NOT BE AFRAID; FOR] WHAT DO YOU SEE? AND THE WOMAN SAID UNTO SAUL: I SEE A GOD COMING UP FROM THE EARTH. COMING UP (here in the plural form) implies two. So who were they? Moses and Samuel. When Saul heard this, he was afraid, because he had called one, but two had arisen. (Vs. 14:) THEN HE SAID TO HER: WHAT DOES HE LOOK LIKE? AND SHE SAID: AN OLD MAN IS COMING UP, AND HE IS WRAPPED IN A ROBE. They have said three things about bringing up a ghost. 1. The one bringing it up sees it but does not hear its voice. 2. The one asking for it hears its voice but does not see it. 3. Those standing there neither see it nor hear its voice. (Ibid.:) AN OLD MAN IS COMING UP, AND HE IS WRAPPED IN A ROBE. And elsewhere it says (in I Sam. 2:19): HIS MOTHER WOULD MAKE A LITTLE ROBE FOR HIM.¹²Cf. above, Gen. 11:9. < This verse > teaches that the robe grew on him. In it he was buried; in it he rose up. It has been taught in the name of R. Nathan: A garment which goes down to the grave with a person is going to rise on him in the resurrection of the dead.¹³yKil. 9:4 (32b). Thus it is stated (in Job 38:14): IT IS CHANGED LIKE CLAY UNDER A SEAL, AND THEY STAND FORTH AS IN A GARMENT. (I Sam. 28:14–15:) THEN SAUL KNEW THAT IT WAS SAMUEL; SO HE BOWED WITH HIS FACE TO THE GROUND AND DID HOMAGE. SAMUEL SAID UNTO SAUL: WHY HAVE YOU DISTURBED ME AND BROUGHT ME UP? Have you no way to disturb your creator except through me, in that you have made me an idol.¹⁴See Gen. R. 96:5 (6). Did we not teach the following? Just as one exacts punishment from the worshiper, so does one exact punishment from those worshiped. Some say: WHY HAVE YOU DISTURBED ME? What he said to him was: I was disturbed lest it be the day of judgment, and I was afraid. Now here is an argument a fortiori (qal wahomer); for if Samuel, [the greatest] of all the prophets, was afraid of the day of judgment, how much the more does the rest of humanity < have to fear >? (Vs. 15, cont.:) AND SAUL SAID {UNTO SAMUEL}: I AM VERY DISTRESSED….¹⁵Other midrashim add other vss., such as Amos 5:15, in this context. Apart from the parallels mentioned above, see Lam. R. 3:29f. (9); Eccl. R. 12:14:1. [HE (i.e., the Holy One) NO LONGER ANSWERS ME EITHER THROUGH PROPHETS OR IN DREAMS.] Why did he not < also > say to him: "< Or > by Urim and Thummim"?¹⁶According to vs. 6, the Holy One had also failed to answer Saul through this medium. R. Isaac said: (Prov. 14:10:) THE HEART KNOWS ITS OWN BITTERNESS, in that he had destroyed Nob, the city of priests.¹⁷Lev. R. explains further, that if Saul had brought up the matter of the high priest’s Urim and Thummim, Samuel would have replied that it was he, Saul, who had done away with them by killing the priests at Nob. Similarly, the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 8:2. (I Sam. 28:17:) MOREOVER, THE LORD HAS DONE TO YOU¹⁸The text here follows a reading that agrees with the Septuagint here rather than the Masoretic Text, which reads: FOR HIMSELF. ACCORDING TO WHAT HE SPOKE THROUGH ME; FOR THE LORD HAS TORN THE KINGSHIP OUT OF YOUR HAND AND GIVEN IT TO DAVID. He said to him: [When you were with us < in the flesh >, you said to me (in I Sam. 15:28): < THE LORD HAS TORN THE KINGSHIP OVER ISRAEL FROM YOU TODAY, > AND GIVEN IT TO A COMPANION OF YOURS WHO IS BETTER THAN YOU. He said to him:] When I was with you in the world of falsehood, I was telling you words of falsehood, because I was afraid of you, lest you kill me. Now, however, I am in the world of truth, you will only hear words of truth from me. He did not do this thing to you for no reason. Rather (according to I Sam. 28:18–19): BECAUSE YOU DID NOT HEARKEN TO THE VOICE OF THE LORD, AND DID NOT CARRY OUT HIS WRATH AGAINST AMALEK [….] MOREOVER, THE LORD WILL DELIVER ISRAEL ALONG WITH YOU INTO THE HAND OF THE PHILISTINES; AND TOMORROW YOU AND YOUR SONS WILL BE WITH ME. WITH ME < means >: In my section < of heaven >. When he heard this, (according to vs. 20): IMMEDIATELY SAUL FELL FULL LENGTH TO THE GROUND, FOR HE WAS TERRIFIED BECAUSE OF SAMUEL'S WORDS. Abner and Amasa said to him: What did Samuel say to you? He said to them: He said to me: Tomorrow you will go down to battle and be victorious. In addition, your sons will be appointed their superiors. Resh Laqish said: At that time the Holy One called the ministering angels. He said to them: Come and see the creature that I have created in my world. By universal custom when one goes to a banquet house, he does not take his children with him for fear of the evil eye; but this one, when he is going down to battle and knows that he will be killed, takes his sons with him, and is happy over the divine justice that is striking him.¹⁹M. Pss. 7:2. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: < Lev. 21:1: SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS. These words > teach that the Holy One showed Moses every generation and its expositors, every generation and its judges, every generation and its kings; and he showed him Saul and his sons falling by the sword.²⁰Tanna deve Eliyahu Zuta, 6; cf. Sanh. 38b; AZ 5a, according to both of which the expositors and other generational leaders were shown to Adam. He said to him: Sovereign of the World, will the first king to stand over your children be pierced by the sword? He said to him: Moses, < why > are you telling me? Tell the priests whom he killed. < They are the ones > who are denouncing²¹Gk.: kategorein. him. Our masters have taught: That righteous man (i.e., Saul) was killed for five sins. Thus it is stated (in I Chron. 10:13): SO SAUL DIED FOR HIS TRANSGRESSION WHICH HE COMMITTED AGAINST THE LORD:

Then David cried out: But Thou, O Lord, as if to say, O You who art Master of the world, Your law agrees with them, for You said: The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Lev. 20:10). But art a shield about me refers to the merit of my ancestors. My glory indicates that you have restored me to kingship; and Lifter up of my head implies that though I was guilty of murder, You permitted me to lift up the head; that is, to be forgiven through Nathan the prophet, for he said: The Lord also has put away thy sin; thou shalt not die (II Sam. 12:13).⁹A reference to David’s arranging the death of Uriah, the husband of Bath-sheba.

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) "he shall die": at the hands of beth-din. Whence is it derived that if beth-din lack the power to do so, the people of the land may assist them"? From "the people of the land shall stone him." Variantly: "the people of the land" — the people for whose sake the land was created. R. Gamliel says: the people who are destined to inherit the land by carrying out those things. "shall stone him" — unclad. "with a stone": If he dies through one stone, it sufficed.

4) (Vayikra 20:22) "And you shall heed all of My statutes and all of My judgments, and you shall do them": to assign heeding and doing for statutes, and heeding and doing for judgments. (Vayikra 20:22) "and the land will not vomit you out, whither I bring you, to dwell in it": I bring you there to inherit it — not as the Canaanites, who were caretakers of the place until your coming.

4) (Vayikra 20:8) "I am the L–rd who makes you holy": Just as I am holy, so, you be holy."

(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.”

(Numb. 16:5:) “In the morning [the Lord will make known those who belong to him].” What reason did he have for saying, “In the morning He will make known?”²³Numb. R. 18:7. Moses said, “Perhaps they said this thing because they had been excessively eating and drinking.” He therefore said, “In the morning.” Perhaps between now and then they will repent. He said to them, “I have no authority to enter [the tabernacle] now. Even though there is no eating and no drinking, it is simply because of us [that we are forbidden to enter] as we have taken food and drink.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 16:5), “In the morning.” Moses said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has distinguished boundaries for those in His world. Can you confuse morning with evening? And that is what is written in the beginning (in Gen. 1:5), ‘There was evening and there was morning.’ And (in vs. 4) ‘God separated the light and the darkness,’ for its use in the world. And just as he made a separation between the light and the darkness, so did he separate Israel from the nations, [as stated] (in Lev. 20:26), ‘I have separated you from the [other] peoples to be Mine.’ So also did he separate Aaron, as stated (in I Chron. 23:13), ‘Aaron was separated to consecrate the most holy things.’ If you can confuse those distinctions in which he made a separation between the day and the night, you may be able to nullify this.” For this reason he said to them (in Numb. 16:5), “In the morning the Lord will make known [those who belong to Him].” Such a one is already designated; (according to ibid., end) “the one whom He will choose He will have draw near unto Him.” (Numb. 16:6:) “Do this; take censers, [Korah and all his company].” What was his reason for saying this to them?²⁴Numb. R. 18:8. He said to them, “In the religions of the nations there are many laws,²⁵NYMWSYN. Gk.: nomoi. and they do not all assemble in one house. Now as for us, we only have one God, one Torah, one justice, one altar, and one high priest; but you two hundred and fifty men are [yet all] seeking high priesthood! I also am willing in this regard.” (Numb. 16:11:) “Therefore you and all your company” have come together against the Lord. (Numb. 16:6 -7:) “Do this, take censers. And place fire in them.” Here you have a ministry more precious than all the others. It is the incense, the most precious of the sacrifices. But a deadly poison had been put within it, through which Nadab and Abihu were burned. He therefore warned them (in vs. 7, cont.), “then it shall come to pass that the man whom the Lord chooses is the holy one,” And do we not know that the one that the Lord chooses is the holy one? It is simply that Moses said to them, “See, I am telling you that you are not to incur guilt on your two hundred and fifty souls, because when you sacrifice, [only] the one to be chosen from among you shall come out alive, and all [the rest] of you shall perish.” (Numb. 16:7:) “You Levites have gone too far!” See, I have told you a great thing! Were they not fools, in that when he gave them this warning, they took it upon themselves to offer sacrifice? They had sinned against their own lives, as stated (in Numb. 17:3), “The censers of these who have sinned at the cost of their lives.” Now since Korah was a clever man, how did he see fit to commit this folly? It is simply that his eyes misled him. He foresaw a great lineage stemming from himself, [e.g.,] Samuel, who was the equivalent of Moses and Aaron, as stated (in Ps. 99:6), “Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among those who call His name.” Moreover, the twenty-four [Levitical] shifts would stem from his descendants, all of whom would prophesy by the holy spirit, as stated (in I Chron. 25:5), “All these were sons of Heman,²⁶A descendant of Korah. the king's seer in matters pertaining to God for his greater glory.” He said, “Is it possible that, when this greatness is going to stem from me, I should perish?” But he did not foresee correctly, since his children would repent, and those [great ones] would stem from them. But Moses did foresee well. He therefore participated on this assumption, when he heard from the mouth of Moses that they all would perish, but one would escape, as stated (Numb. 16:7) “then it shall come to pass that the man whom the Lord chooses is the holy one.”

5) (Vayikra 20:23) "And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation" — the Egyptians. "which I am sending away before you" — the Canaanites. "For all of these they did": We are hereby apprised that the Canaanites were steeped in these things, and I am exiling them only because of these things, as a man who despises his food.

5) (Vayikra 20:3) ("And I will set My face against that man, and I will cut him off from the midst of his people; for of his seed he has given to the Molech, to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.") "And I will set My face (panai)": I will "free myself (poneh ani [similar to panai]) from all of My "affairs," and occupy Myself entirely with him. "against that man": and not against the congregation. "that man": and not one who is constrained, or unwitting, or mistaken. "and I will cut him off from the midst of his people": But his people will remain at peace.

5) (Vayikra 20:9) "For a man, a man": What is the intent of this? To include a daughter, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite. "who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death": This tells me only of his father and his mother. Whence do I derive the same for (one who curses) his mother without (cursing) his father, or his father without his mother? From "He has cursed his father and his mother," in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("His father and his mother) implies both together or each by itself unless Scripture explicitly states "together" (as it does in the case of kilaim).

The master said above: "Further: For all transgressions, etc., while here (in the case of oath) the punishment extends also to his family." And for all transgressions, you say, punishment is not extended to the family? Behold it is written (Lev. 20, 5) Then I will set My face against this man and against his family. And there is a Baraitha: R. Simon says: "If he has sinned, what has his family done"; to teach thee that in a family, where there is a robber, the entire family is considered robbers, because it conceals him? There he is punished with the punishment attached to his transgression, but the family with a lenient one; while here the family suffers the same punishment as the perjuror himself. As we have learned in the following Baraitha: Rabbi said: "To what purpose is it written in the above-cited verse, I will cut him off, after it reads I will set my face, etc.?" To teach that only him I will cut off but not the whole family. Concerning the punishment of the whole world, etc. Does it not read (Ib. 26, 37) And they shall stumble one over the other, from which it may be intimated that all Israelites are responsible for one another? (Ib. b) The reason there is because they could have prevented the sin by protesting, which they did not do [hence the responsibility]. But is not one's family included in the whole world? There is a difference in the nature of the punishment — viz., his family is punished more rigorously than the rest of the world. The master said above: "If he says, I will swear, the people say: Depart," etc. Why are both the parties called wicked? Let only him who swears have his name. It is in accordance with the opinion of R. Simon b. Tarfon, who says in the following Baraitha (Ex. 22, 10) Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both. Infer from this that the oath rests upon them both.

Ben Alassa, Rabbi's son-in-law, who was a very rich man, also came to the wedding of R. Simon b. Rabbi. On the morrow Bar Kapara said to Rabbi: "What is the meaning of the word (Lev. 20, 13) To'eba (an abomination)?" To whatever explanation Rabbi gave. Bar Kapara raised an objection. Rabbi then said to Bar Kapara: "Will you then explain it to me?" Whereupon Bar Kapara said: "Let your wife come and pour in a glass of wine for me." She came and did so. Bar Kapara then said to Rabbi: "Come and dance for me and I shall explain the above word for you." Thus said the Torah, To'e atta ha. "Thou art erring in it." At the second glass of wine, Bar Kapara said to Rabbi: "What is the meaning of (Ib. 18, 23) Tebel? He did as in the former case, and he asked him to do as before in order to explain it to him, and when Rabbi did so he said: "Tebel, means Tablin Yes ba [is there any taste in it? Ben Alassa could not stand all these jokes, so he and his wife left the wedding.

6) R. Elazar says: Whence is it derived that he (one who is promiscuous) is as guilty before the L–rd as one who lives with a woman and with her mother? It is written here "zimah," and elsewhere (Jeremiah 20:14) "And a man, if he takes a woman and her mother, it is zimah" — whereby we are taught that he is as guilty before the L–rd as one who lives with a woman and with her mother.

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).

6) (Vayikra 20:24) "And I said to you: You shall inherit their land": You are deservant of it, for you initiated this (i.e., you were chaste in the very beginning, viz. (Shir Hashirim 4:12) "A locked garden is My sister, My bride; a locked spring; a sealed fountain."

6) "for of his seed he has given to the Molech": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire," I might think only his son or daughter. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the daughter of his son and the son of his daughter? From "for of his seed he has given to the Molech."

(Numb. 1:1) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses in the Sinai desert.” [Sinai] was called by six names: Mountain of God (as in Ps. 68:16), Mount Bashan (ibid.), Mountain of Peaks (ibid.), Mountain of Desire (hmd), Mount Horeb (Exod. 3:1; 33:6; etc.), and Mount Sinai.³¹Numb. R. 1:8. The Mountain of God is [so called] because on it God sat in judgment, as stated (in Exod. 21:1), “Now these are the judgments³²Mishpatim. In the biblical context the word would more normally be translated ordinances. which you shall set before them.” Mount Bashan is the mountain where (sham) Holy One, blessed be He, came (ba').³³In the Hebrew text sham and ba’ appear in the opposite order and next to each other as ba’ sham. The Mountain of Peaks (gavenunnim, rt.: gbn) is the mountain where He disqualified all the [other] mountains,³⁴See Gen. R. 109:1, which depicts the mountains contending with each other to host the revelation of the Torah and generally expands what follows. just as you say (in Lev. 21:20), “or a hunchback (gbn) or a dwarf.”³⁵The context is a list of those rejected from serving in the priesthood. The implication here is that, unlike Sinai where the ordinances for priesthood where given, the other mountains were hunchbacks or dwarfs and therefore rejected. Mountain of Desire (rt.: hmd) is [so called], because on it the Holy One, blessed be He, desired (hmd) to dwell, as stated (in Ps. 68:17), “the mountain God desired for His dwelling.” Mount Horeb (rt.: hrb) is [so called], because upon it the sword (rt.: hrb) [of judgment] was unsheathed, as stated (in Lev. 20:10), “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death,” [and] (in Numb. 35:16), “the murderer shall surely be put to death.” Mount Sinai is [so called], because on it the peoples of the world became hateful (rt.: sn') to the Holy One, blessed be He; and He rendered a verdict³⁶Gk.: apophasis. against them, as stated (in is. 60:12), “and the gentiles shall be utterly (hrb) destroyed (rt.: hrb).” R. Abba bar Kahana said in the name of R. Johanan, “’And the gentiles shall be utterly destroyed’ – it was where they received a verdict.”

Another interpretation (of Numb. 1:1): THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES IN THE SINAI DESERT. <Sinai> was called by six names: Mountain of God (as in Ps. 68:16 [15]), Mount Bashan (ibid.), mountain of peaks (ibid.), mountain of desire (HMD), Mount Horeb (Exod. 3:1; 33:6; etc.), Mount Sinai.⁴⁴Tanh., Numb. 1:7; Numb. R. 1:8. The mountain of God is <so called> because on it God sat in judgment, as stated (in Exod. 21:1): NOW THESE ARE THE JUDGMENTS⁴⁵Mishpatim. In the biblical context the word would more normally be translated ORDINANCES. WHICH YOU SHALL SET BEFORE THEM. Mount Bashan is the mountain where (sham) Holy One came (ba').⁴⁶In the Hebrew text sham and ba’ appear in the opposite order and next to each other as ba’ sham. The mountain of peaks (gavenunnim, rt.: GBN) is the mountain where he carved out and rejected⁴⁷Pasal. The word can mean both “carved” and “rejected.” In carving a statue one rejects what is chipped away. The statue itself, like Israel, is what remains. all the <other> mountains.⁴⁸See Gen. R. 109:1, which depicts the mountains contending with each other to host the revelation of the Torah and generally expands what follows. Where is it shown? <It is> just as you say (in Lev. 21:20): OR A HUNCHBACK (GBN) OR A DWARF.⁴⁹The context is a list of those rejected from serving in the priesthood. The implication here is that, unlike Sinai where the ordinances for priesthood where given, the other mountains were hunchbacks or dwarfs and therefore rejected. The mountain of desire (rt.: HMD) is <so called>, because on it the Holy One desired (HMD) to dwell, as stated (in Ps. 68:17 [16]): THE MOUNTAIN GOD DESIRED FOR HIS DWELLING. Mount Horeb (rt.: HRB) is <so called>, because upon it the sword (rt.: HRB) <of judgment> was unsheathed, as stated (in Lev. 20:10): THE ADULTERER AND THE ADULTERESS SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH, <and> (in Numb. 35:16): THE MURDERER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. Mount Sinai is <so called>, because on it the peoples of the world became hateful (rt.: SN') to the Holy One, and he rendered a verdict⁵⁰Gk.: apophasis. against them, as stated (in Is. 60:12): AND THE GENTILES SHALL BE UTTERLY (HRB) DESTROYED (rt.: HRB). R. Abba bar Kahana said in the name of R. Johanan: AND THE GENTILES SHALL BE UTTERLY⁵¹In this repetition of Is. 60:12 the Buber text alters the word translated UTTERLY from harov to mehurav. This change also appears in the parallel text of ySot. 7:5 (21d), but not in the traditional parallel texts of Tanh., Numb. 1:7, and Numb. R. 1:8. DESTROYED. <It was> where they received a verdict.

This is what Scripture says: "Your oils yield a sweet fragrance" (Songs 1:3) the sages say: "there are five things that are metaphors for Torah: water, and wine, and honey, and milk, and oil. Water, as it says: "Ho, all who are thirsty, go to water" (Isaiah 55:1). Wine, as it says: "Come, eat my food, and drink the wine that I have mixed" (Proverbs 9:5). Honey and milk, as it says: "Honey and milk under your tongue" (Songs 4:11). Oil, form where? " Your name is like finest oil" (Songs 1:3). Just as like with oil, which begins bitter and ends sweet, so too the words of Torah: a person suffers in the beginning, but in the end it is sweet for them, as it is written "Though your beginning be constricted/painful, in the end you will grow very great" (Job 8:7). Another interpretation: just as oil lives forever (never spoils) so too the words of Torah never spoil. Just as oil gives light to the world so too the words of Torah give light to the world. Another interpretation: just as oil does not mix with other liquids, so too Israel cannot mix with idolaters. From where do we get this? Because it is written "I have separated you from the [other] peoples to be mine!" (Lev. 20:26). Another interpretation: Just as oil, even if you put it in many different liquids, it comes on top, so too Israel are higher than the idolaters, just as it is written "" (Deut. 28:1). Another interpretation: "and it will be, if you hear" (Deut. 11:13) - Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin says, in the name of Rabbi Levi: the Holy Blessed One said - if you (singular) listen to My mitzvot, I will listen to your (singular) prayers. Another interpretation: Rabbi Yehoshua says, in the name of Rabbi Nachman - everyone who comes to the synagogue and listens to words of Torah will merit to sit among sages in the world to come, as it is written "A ear that listens the directions of life will dwell among sages" (Prov. 15:31).

“In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Aḥashverosh, he had cast a pur, that is, the lot, before Haman for each day and for each month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar” (Esther 3:7).
“In the first month, that is, the month Nisan” – it is taught: When the wicked Haman sought to eliminate Israel, he said: ‘How can I gain control over them? I will cast lots.’ The Holy Spirit cried out: “Over My people they cast lots” (Joel 4:3). The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Wicked one son of wicked one, your lot is drawn to be hanged.’ “He cast a pur, that is [hu],¹¹The midrash is claiming that pronoun hu refers to Haman: He cast a pur; upon him was the lot. the lot” – upon him the lot fell. Why? “Indeed, the rod of wickedness will not rest upon the lot of the righteous, lest the righteous extend their hands for wrongdoing” (Psalms 125:3).
First, he cast a lot for the days, as it is stated: “for each day.” He cast the lot on Sunday. Its [Sunday’s] angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The heavens and the earth were created on me [my day], and You said: “truly My covenant is day and night, have I not set the statutes of heaven and earth?” (Jeremiah 33:25). There is a covenant in their flesh, as it is written: “You shall observe My covenant [you and your descendants that are after you for their generations…circumcise for yourselves every male]” (Genesis 17:9–10), and it is written: “My covenant shall be in your flesh” (Genesis 17:13). And there is a covenant in their mouths, that is the Torah, as it is written: “The book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” (Joshua 1:8). And You said: “If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below probed…”( Jeremiah 31:37) and it is written: “[when these laws should ever be annulled before Me, says the Lord,] so too will the descendants of Israel cease from being a nation before Me all the days” (Jeremiah 31:35), and this wicked one seeks to eliminate them? Uproot the heavens and the earth first, and then annihilate them.’
He cast the lot on Monday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: On the second day you separated the upper waters from the lower waters, and likewise, Israel is separated from the nations. That is what is written: “I have distinguished you from the peoples to be Mine” (Leviticus 20:26), and this wicked one wants to eliminate them? Overturn the upper and the lower worlds and then annihilate them.’
He cast the lot and it fell on Tuesday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The third day – on it, seeds were created, from which Israel separates teruma and tithes, and on it trees were created, with which Israel lauds you. That is what is written: “You shall take for you on the first day: The fruit of a pleasant tree…”¹²The verse refers to the four species; a palm branch, an etrog, myrtle branches and willow branches, that are taken on Sukkot. (Leviticus 23:40). On it the waters were gathered into the sea [during Creation], and the sea split into twelve segments for Israel’s sake. Now, if Israel is eradicated, how do we exist?’
He cast the lot on Wednesday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The fourth day – on it the lights were created to provide light for Israel’s use; that is what is written: “Nations will walk by your light and kings by the aura of your shining” (Isaiah 60:3), and on it the stars were created, and your children were likened to stars; if You eliminate them, how do we exist?’
He cast the lot on Thursday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The fifth day – on it were created birds [and animals], from which you commanded to present offerings, and with which You grant atonement to and are reconciled with people; if they are eradicated, who will present an offering?’
He cast the lot on Friday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The sixth day – on it Adam the first man was created, and you called Your children by his name; that is what is written: “You, My flock, flock of My pasture, you are men [Adam]” (Ezekiel 34:31). If you seek to uproot them, uproot all men and then let him [Haman] gain control over them.’
He cast the lot on Shabbat. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The Shabbat day – on it all your creations were completed and perfected; that is what is written: “God completed on the seventh day” (Genesis 2:2), and it is written: “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever” (Exodus 31:17). If you seek to uproot them, uproot the Shabbat and cancel it; then eliminate them.’
Once that wicked one saw that the lot would not fall on the days, he moved to months.
He began with the month of Nisan, and the merit of Passover arose.
Iyyar had the merit of Pesaḥ sheni,¹³This refers to the fourteenth of Iyyar, when those who had been impure or were too distant from the Temple on the fourteenth of Nisan, could present the Passover offering. and the merit of the manna that was provided to Israel on the fifteenth of the month.
Sivan had the merit of the Torah.
Tammuz had the merit of the land.¹⁴The allusion is obscure. It perhaps refers to the fact that Ezra came to the Land of Israel on the first of that month (Ezra 7:8-9). Alternatively, there are midrashic traditions that Joshua stopped the sun in his war with the five Emorite kings during that month (Seder Olam Rabba:11).
Furthermore, why didn’t the lot fall on Tammuz and Av? Because they said to the Holy One blessed be He: Master of the universe, the calamities that befell your children in us, five in Tammuz and five in Av, are enough.
The possibility of Elul arose – [but it had] the merit of the completion of the wall of Jerusalem that was completed during it. That is what is written: “The wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of Elul” (Nehemiah 6:15). There was also the merit of the animal tithe, as it is taught there: On the first of Elul is the New Year for the animal tithe (Mishna Rosh HaShana 1:1).
The possibility of Tishrei arose – [but it had] the merit of the shofar, Yom Kippur, and the festivals.
The possibility of Marḥeshvan arose – [but it had] the merit of Sarah our matriarch, who died during it.
Kislev – [but it had] the merit of Hanukkah.
The possibility of Tevet arose – [but it had] the merit of Ezra. That is what is written: “The exiles did so. Ezra the priest…sequestered themselves; [they convened on the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter]...they finished with all the men who had settled with foreign women” (Ezra 10:16–17).
The possibility of Shevat arose – [but it had] the merit of the members of the Great Assembly. On the twenty-third of it [the month of Shevat] all Israel gathered over the concubine in Giva (Judges 19–21) and the idol of Mikha (Judges 17–18).
The possibility of the first of Adar arose, and no merit was found for it. The wicked one began rejoicing.
He then checked the signs of the Zodiac. Lamb [Aries] had the merit of the paschal lamb; that is what is written: “Each man, a lamb for each extended family, a lamb for each household” (Exodus 12:3).
Bull [Taurus] – the merit of Joseph, who was called a bull, was found. That is what is written: “A firstborn bull is his majesty” (Deuteronomy 33:17). And the merit of an offering, as it is stated: “A bull, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born…” (Leviticus 22:27).
Twins [Gemini] – the merit of Peretz and Zeraḥ [the sons of Judah], who were called twins, was found in it; that is what is written: “And behold there were twins in her womb” (Genesis 38:27).
Lion [Leo] – the merit of Daniel, who was from the tribe of Judah, who was called a lion, [was found in it], as it is stated: “A lion cub is Judah” (Genesis 49:9).
Virgin [Virgo] – the merit of Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya, who were comparable to a virgin with whom no man was familiar other than her husband, [was found in it]; thus they did not change their God and their laws, and clung to their Judaism.
Scales [Libra] – that is Job, as it is stated: “If only my anger were weighed” (Job 6:2).
Scorpion [Scorpio] – that is Ezekiel, as it is stated: “And you sit among the scorpions” (Ezekiel 2:6).
Bow [Sagittarius] – that is Joseph, as it is stated about him: “His bow remained taut” (Genesis 49:24).
Kid [Capricorn] – that is Jacob, as it is stated: “And the hides of the kids of the goats” (Genesis 27:16).
Bucket [d’li] [Aquarius ] – that is Moses, as it is stated: “And he drew water [dalo dala] for us” (Exodus 2:19).
He arrived at the sign of Fish [Pisces], that serves during the month of Adar, and no merit was found for it. He immediately rejoiced and said: ‘Adar has no merit and its Zodiac sign has no merit. Not only that, but Moses their teacher died in Adar.’ And he did not know that Moses died on the seventh of Adar and Moses was born on the seventh of Adar. He said: ‘Just as fish swallow, so, I will swallow them.’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Wicked one, fish sometimes swallow and sometimes are swallowed. Now, this man will be swallowed by the swallowers.’ Rabbi Ḥanan said: That is what is written: “It was reversed, so that it was the Jews who ruled over their enemies” (Esther 9:1). Rabbi Tanḥuma said: “But the Lord had not determined to expunge [the name of Israel]” (II Kings 14:27); rather, so He spoke: “For I will expunge the memory of Amalek” (Exodus 17:14).

7) (Vayikra 20:24) "And I will give it to you to inherit it": I am destined to give it to you as an eternal inheritance. Lest you say: "Have you nothing to give us, but what belongs to others!" — It is yours, the inheritance of Shem and his sons. And they (the Canaanites) are the sons of Cham. What, then, are they doing there? They were caring for the place until you came!

7) "he 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 "his blood is in him," and elsewhere (Vayikra 24:27), (in respect to ov and yidoni) "Their blood is in them." Just as there, by stoning; here, too, by stoning. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 22:27) "Elohim you shall not curse." If his father is a judge, he is included in "Elohim you shall not curse," and if he is a prince (nassi), he is included in (Shemoth 22:27) "and a prince in your people you shall not revile." If he is neither a judge nor a prince, it is to be derived by induction (binyan av) through both, viz.: Judge is not like prince and prince is not like judge. Their common denominator is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him.

7) This tells me only of kosher seed. Whence do I derive (the same) for seed that is pasul (such as a mamzer)? From (Vayikra 20:4) "when he gives of his seed to the Molech" — all seed.

7) This tells me only of kosher seed. Whence do I derive (the same) for seed that is pasul (such as a mamzer)? From (Vayikra 20:4) "when he gives of his seed to the Molech" — all seed.

Another interpretation (of Exod. 7:1) SEE, I HAVE SET YOU AS A GOD TO PHARAOH. The Holy One said: Because he made himself into a god, they informed him that he was nothing in the world. See, I have made you a god over him.⁴⁹Tanh., Exod. 2:9. And where is it shown that Pharaoh made himself into a god? Where it is stated (of Pharaoh in Ezek. 29:3): {BECAUSE HE} [WHO] SAID {THE} [MY] NILE IS MY OWN, AND I MADE MYSELF.⁵⁰A more traditional rendering would be, AND I MADE IT FOR MYSELF. I am the one who created myself. Now this is one of four sons of Adam who made themselves into gods and had sexual relations like women.⁵¹See Enoch Zundel’s commentary, ‘Ets Yosef, on Tanh., Exod. 2:9, which explains that, because the four promoted themselves to divinity, they would have had to bestow largess like a god, who always bestows it to the world as the male bestows it in the female. He gives and she receives. Therefore, “they had sexual relations like women” to show that they were bestowed upon and did not do the bestowing. Three were from the nations of the world, and one was from Israel. They were the following: Hiram, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and Joash. Where is it shown of Hiram? Where it is stated (in Ezek. 28:2): SAY TO THE PRINCE OF TYRE: THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD: BECAUSE YOUR HEART IS PROUD, YOU HAVE SAID: I AM A GOD. Because he had made himself into a god, he had sexual relations like women, as stated (in vs. 17): YOU HAVE DEBASED YOUR WISDOM…; <I HAVE CAST YOU UPON THE GROUND; I HAVE GIVEN YOU OVER BEFORE KINGS > TO STARE AT YOU. What is the meaning of TO STARE (R'WH) AT YOU? <That> they would work their "friendship" (as if from R'WT) on you. Where is it shown of Nebuchadnezzar? Where it is stated <of the king of Babylon that he said> (in Is. 14:14): I WILL ASCEND UPON THE HEIGHTS OF A CLOUD; I WILL BECOME LIKE THE MOST HIGH. The Holy One said to him: By your life, (in vs. 15) YOU SHALL ALSO BE BROUGHT DOWN UNTO SHEOL, UNTO THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE PIT. What did the Holy one do? He banished him while he was in his kingship and had him eat grass like the cattle. It is so stated (in Dan. 4:22 [25]): AND THEY SHALL FEED YOU GRASS LIKE OXEN…. So, when the cattle and the wild beasts saw him in the likeness of a <female> animal, they had sexual relations with him, as stated (in Hab. 2:17): AND THE VIOLENCE OF THE BEASTS WILL TERRIFY THOSE FEMALES. What is the meaning of TERRIFY THOSE FEMALES (rt.: HTT+N)? <Its meaning > is like what is stated (in Deut. 7:3): YOU SHALL NOT INTERMARRY (rt.: HTN) WITH THEM. So he became a bridegroom (HTN) to all cattle and wild beasts. Where is it shown of Joash? Where it is stated (in II Chron. 24:17): NOW AFTER THE DEATH OF JEHOIADA, THE PRINCES OF JUDAH CAME AND BOWED LOW TO THE KING. What is the meaning of BOWED LOW TO THE KING? That they made him < their > god. Moreover, since he was in agreement, as stated (ibid., cont.): THEN THE KING HEARKENED TO THEM, he had sexual relations like a woman. Thus it is stated (vs. 24): <FOR THE ARMY OF ARAM CAME WITH A FEW MEN….> SO THEY INFLICTED JUDGMENTS ON JOASH. It is just as it says (in Lev. 20:13): IF A MAN LIES WITH A MALE AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN, BOTH OF THEM HAVE COMMITTED AN ABOMINATION.⁵²The midrash is arguing that the JUDGMENT inflicted on Joash is this ABOMINATION. Cf. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, ‘Amaleq 1, which would revowel JUDGMENTS (shefatim) to read “sports” (shipputim). For a similar solution, see Exod. R. 8:2. Pharaoh also made himself into a god and had sexual relations like a woman. It is so stated (in Jer. 44:30): BEHOLD, I AM GIVING PHARAOH HOPHRA, KING OF EGYPT, <INTO THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES>. What is the meaning of HOPHRA (rt.: PR')?⁵³Although the Masoretic Text spells HOPHRA with a gutturalized initial H (het), the midrash text spells the name with a simple H (he), which need not be part of the root. That they uncovered (PR') his posterior. He was a pharaoh who had been a male and became a female. Another interpretation of HOPHRA. <Its meaning is> like that used (in the context of Numb. 5:18): AND HE (the priest) SHALL UNCOVER (PR') THE WOMAN'S HEAD. And to which father's house did he belong? (Is. 19:16:) IN THAT DAY {THE LAND OF EGYPT SHALL BE A FESTIVAL….} [EGYPT SHALL BE LIKE WOMEN.] And what was the cause? <It was> because he made himself into a god. Thus it is stated (in Ezek. 29:3): {BECAUSE HE} [WHO] SAID {THE} [MY] NILE IS MY OWN, AND I MADE MYSELF. For that reason the Holy One said to Moses: Because he has made himself into a god, go and become a god over him. It is so stated (in Exod. 7:1): SEE, I HAVE SET YOU AS A GOD TO PHARAOH. Why? (Eccl. 5:7 [8]:) FOR ONE EXALTED PERSON WATCHES ANOTHER FROM ABOVE, AND THERE ARE MORE EXALTED ONES OVER THEM. Ergo, you are a god over him; so make him an arrogant abomination (ShHTs) in the world because he became exalted by himself. And this is what is written (in Job 41:26 [34]): HE BEHOLDS EVERYTHING EXALTED, {AND} HE IS KING OVER ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABOMINABLE ARROGANCE (ShHTs). Does the Holy One not see the lowly? It is also written (in Zech. 4:10): <THESE SEVEN ARE> THE EYES OF THE LORD. THEY ROAM AROUND ALL THE EARTH. And (in Job 41:26 [34]) what is the meaning of HE BEHOLDS EVERYTHING EXALTED? R. Berekhyah said: These are the proud, whose spirit becomes <too> haughty for them, so that they exalt themselves and make themselves into gods. What does the Holy One do to them? He exhibits them to mortals and makes them arrogant abominations (ShHTs) in the world, as stated (in Job 41:26 [34]): HE IS KING OVER ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABOMINABLE ARROGANCE (ShHTs). <There is> Nebuchadnezzar, for example, in that he made him an arrogant abomination (ShHTs), as stated (in Dan. 5:21): HE WAS DRIVEN AWAY FROM HUMANS…. So also was Sennacherib made an arrogant abomination (ShHTs), as stated (II Kings 19:35 = Is. 37:36 // II Chron. 32:21): SO IT CAME TO PASS IN THAT NIGHT THAT THE ANGEL OF THE LORD WENT OUT AND SMOTE <ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND > IN THE CAMP OF ASSYRIA…. Thus the Holy One shows the abominable arrogance (ShHTs) of the proud to every creature. The Holy One has said (in Jer. 23:24): IF SOMEONE HIDES IN SECRET PLACES, SHALL I NOT SEE (rt.: R'H) HIM? SAYS THE LORD. R. Benjamin bar Levi said: If someone goes to handle the Torah and sits by himself, I will exhibit (rt.: R'H) his deed in the world. And so, if someone conceals himself to commit a transgression, I will exhibit (rt.: R'H)his deed to the world. It is so stated (in Jer. 23:24): SHALL I NOT SEE (rt.: R'H) HIM? SAYS THE LORD. DO I NOT FILL THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH? SAYS THE LORD. What is the meaning of I FILL? R. Hama b. R. Hanina said: The Holy One said: From him (i.e., from his evil works) I will fill the upper and lower worlds. Then I will exhibit (rt.: R'H) him to humankind as an arrogant abomination (ShHTs). Why? Because they (sic) are proud and make themselves into gods. (Job 41:26 [34]:) HE BEHOLDS EVERYTHING EXALTED, {AND} HE IS KING OVER ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABOMINABLE ARROGANCE (ShHTs). Thus he reigns over all those who are proud and makes them arrogant abominations (ShHTs). For that reason, the Holy One said to Moses (in Exod. 7:1): SEE, I HAVE SET YOU AS A GOD TO PHARAOH. Go and exact punishment from him.⁵⁴Exod. R. 8:3. Go and bring the ten plagues (of Exod. 7:14–12:29) upon him. He said to him: How shall I bring the plagues upon him? The Holy One said to him (in Exod. 4:17): AND YOU SHALL TAKE IN YOUR HAND THIS ROD, < WITH WHICH YOU SHALL PERFORM THE SIGNS>. R. Judah bar Ammi said: The rod which he had weighed forty seahs⁵⁵I.e., weighed forty seahs of wheat. and was <made> of sapphire.⁵⁶Gk.: sappheirinon. Moreover ten plagues were inscribed upon it through an acronym,⁵⁷Gk.: notarikon. <i.e.,> DeTsaKh 'aDaSh Be'aHaBh.⁵⁸The acronym stands for the following: Dam (blood), Tsefarde‘im (frogs), Kinnam (gnats), ‘arov (flies), Dever (pestilence), Shehin (boils), Barad (hail), ‘arbeh (locusts), Hoshekh (darkness), and Bekhor (first-born). The Holy One said to him: this rod will bring the plagues upon him. (Exod. 7:1:) SEE, I HAVE SET YOU AS A GOD TO PHARAOH.

(Lev. 22:27) “When a bull or a sheep or a goat.” R. Jacob bar Zavday in the name of R. Abbahu opened [his discourse] (with Ezek. 29:16), “And it shall no more be a source of satisfaction against the House of Israel to recall iniquity (i.e., the iniquity of the golden calf) […].”⁴³Lev. R. 27:3; PRK 9:3. It is also written (in Is. 6:2), “Above Him stood the seraphim, six wings to each one… with two he covered his face,” so as not to look at the Divine Presence, “with two he covered his feet,” so that the face of the Divine Presence would not see them, since it is written (in Ezek. 1:7), “and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot.”⁴⁴Cf. Hag. 13b. [This is] because (according to Ezek. 29:16), “And it shall no more be a source of satisfaction against the House of Israel to recall iniquity.”⁴⁵In other words, the seraphim covered their calf feet, lest they recall the sin of the golden calf. (Is 6:2:) “And with two he flew,” for praise. We are taught there (in RH 3:2), “All the shofars are valid except that of a cow, since it is from a calf; for (according to Ezek. 29:16), “And it shall no more be a source of satisfaction against the House of Israel to recall iniquity.” We have been taught there⁴⁶See Sanh. 7:4. (in Lev. 20:16): “You shall kill the woman and the beast.” If a woman sins, what is the beast’s sin? It is simply because a stumbling block came to the woman on account of [the beast]. Therefore the Scripture said, “So that the beast will not pass through the market, where they will say, ‘This is the beast on account of which such and such a woman was killed.’” [This is] because (according to Ezek. 29:16), “And it shall no more be a source of satisfaction against the House of Israel to recall iniquity.” Now we have been taught: For what reason did they say, “A suspected adulteress (sotah) is not to drink from the cup of her colleague (i.e., another suspected adulteress)?”⁴⁷According to Sot. 2:2, a new earthenware dish was to be used for each such trial by ordeal. [It is] so that the people will not say, “When such and such a woman drank of this cup, she died.” [This is] because (according to Ezek. 29:16), “And it shall no more be a source of satisfaction against the House of Israel to recall iniquity.” So also here (in Lev. 22:27), “When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born.” Is a bull born? Is not a calf born? It is simply because of what is written (in Exod. 32:8), “they have made themselves a golden calf.” Hence the Scripture called it a “bull”, and did not call it a "calf.”

... Teach us, oh master – may one light a lamp for personal use from the Channukah lights? Our masters taught us – R’ Acha said in the name of Rav ‘it is forbidden to light a lamp to use from the Channukah lights, but one may light a Channukah light from a Channukah light.’ From where did they learn that it is permissible to light a Channukah light (from it)? R’ Yaakov ben Aba said, they learned it from the menorah that was in the Holy of Holies, as our rabbis taught that if one found they had gone out, they should be cleaned out and re-lit from those that are still lit. (Tamid 3) If we would relight an extinguished lamp of the menorah, which was placed in the innermost sanctum, from the lamps still burning all the more so it is permissible to light a Channukah light from the lights still burning.’ The Holy One said, just as in this world lamps were lit in the Holy of Holies, so too I will do when I rebuild Jerusalem. From where do we know this? From the words of the prophet “And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will search Jerusalem with candles…” (Tzephaniah 1:12)

Moses cried out: My master, You did not command me about even one of the seventy nations, only concerning Israel: When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, Unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, And unto the children of Israel thou shalt say, Command the children of Israel, Speak unto the children of Israel. You commanded me to do this only to the children of Israel. He replied to him: I did so because they are dearer to me than all the nations. They are My treasure, I love them and have chosen them, as it is said: And the Lord hath chosen thee to be his own treasure out of all peoples (Deut. 14:2). Observe how precious they are that they are mentioned five times in a single verse: I have given the Levites—they are given to Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel, that there be no plague among the children of Israel, through the children of Israel coming nigh unto the Sanctuary (Num. 8:19).

8) (Vayikra 20:10) ("And a man who lives with another man's wife, who lives with the wife of his neighbor — they shall be put to death, the adulterer and the adulteress.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who lives with another man's wife": to exclude the wife of a minor. "who lives with the wife of his neighbor": to exclude the wife of others (i.e., idolators). "shall be put to death": by strangulation. You say by strangulation, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah. Would you say that? Go and see every unqualified "death" in the Torah — you are not permitted to draw it out towards severity, but towards leniency, (and strangulation is the most lenient of the death penalties). These are the words of R. Yoshiah. R. Yonathan says: Not because it is the most lenient, but because it is written unqualified, and every "death" written unqualified is strangulation. Rebbi says (in explanation of R. Yonathan): "Death" is written in respect to death at the hands of Heaven, and "death" is written in respect to death at the hands of man. Just as death at the hands of Heaven leaves no visible trace, so, death at the hands of man leaves no visible trace — whence they said: The procedure for strangulation: They would steep him in waste matter until his hips, place a hard cloth in a soft one, tie it around his neck, and one would pull from one side and one from the other, until his soul expired. We have heard the punishment. Whence is the exhortation derived? From (Shemoth 20:13) "You shall not commit adultery" — both the man and the woman.

8) (Vayikra 20:21) ("And a man who takes the wife of his brother, she is niddah. He has revealed the nakedness of his brother; they shall be childless.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who takes the wife of his brother": either by his father or by his mother. You say: either by his father or by his mother. But perhaps only by his father and not by his mother! And this would follow, viz.: He is liable here, and he is liable with his aunt. Just as his aunt by his father and not by his other, here, too, by his father and not by his mother! Let us see to what he may be compared. Do we derive his own kin from his own kin (i.e., from his sister, to whom he is forbidden — both to his sister by his father or to his sister by his mother), and this is not to be refuted by (the instance of) his aunt, who is the kin of his father — or go in this direction: We derive something (forbidden) through marriage from something (forbidden) through marriage, and this is not to be refuted by (the instance of) his sister, which is something forbidden of itself. It is, therefore, written "he has revealed the nakedness of his brother" — either by his father or by his mother.

8) (Vayikra 20:24) "I am the L–rd your G d, who separated you from the peoples.": See how different you are from the peoples. Among the idolators, a man decorates his wife and gives her to another; a woman decorates herself and gives herself to another!

8) (Vayikra 20:3): "to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name": We are hereby taught that he defiles the sanctuary, and desecrates the Name, and drives out the Shechinah, and causes Israel to fall by the sword, and exiles them from their land.

(Numb. 22:28:) “Then the Lord opened the mouth of the she-ass,” in order to make known to him that the mouth and the tongue are under His (i.e., God's) control, so that if he desired to curse, his mouth was under His control.³²Numb. R. 20:14, cont. (Ibid., cont.:) “And she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you that you have struck me these three times (shalosh regalim)?’” She intimated to him, “You are seeking to uproot a people that celebrate three pilgrimage festivals (shalosh regalim) in the year!” (Numb. 22:29:) “But Balaam said to the she-ass, ‘Because you have made a fool of me!’” Even though he spoke in the holy tongue, he had a foul tongue.³³In the words from Numb. 22:29, the word translated MADE A FOOL (a form of hit‘allel) sometimes has an obscene connotation, as in Jud. 19:25. (Ibid., cont.:) “If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.” [The situation] is comparable to a physician who came to cure with his tongue a person bitten by a snake on the road. On the way he saw a lizard. He began searching for a stick to kill it. They said to him. “Are you unable to get this [creature] (without a stick)? How do you come to cure with your tongue a person bitten by a snake?” Similarly, the she-ass said to Balaam, “You cannot kill me unless you have a sword in your hand. How do you intend to uproot an entire people with your tongue?” He was silent and could not find an answer. The princes of Moab began to express astonishment, for they had seen a miracle the like of which had never happened in the world. Now there are some who say that they said to him, “What is the reason you are not riding on a horse (over which you might have more control)?” He said to them, “She is not mine (and so I did not know she would cause such problems).” [The ass] answered him (in Numb. 22:30), “Am I not your she-ass?” [He said,] “Only for loading.” [She said] (in Numb. 22:30, cont.), “Upon which you have ridden.” [He said,] “Only occasionally.” [She said] (in Numb. 22:30, cont.), “All your life long until this day!” Here you learn that he was not an old man, since [the ass] was older than he. (Numb. 22:30, cont.:) “Have I ever been in the habit of doing this to you?” As soon as she had spoken, she died, so that the people would not say, “This is the she-ass that spoke,” and make it an object of reverence. Another interpretation (of Numb. 22:30): The Holy One, blessed be He, was concerned for the honor of that wicked man, lest they would say, “This is the very one through which Balaam was struck.” And if the Holy One, blessed be He, has concern for the honor of the wicked, it is not necessary to say [the same] about the honor of the righteous. And so is it stated (in Lev. 20:16), “If a woman approaches any beast to mate with it, [you shall kill the woman and the beast].” If the woman sinned, [how] did the animal sin? It is simply since the calamity came to the woman though it. Hence the verse says, “Kill it.” Another interpretation is that [it is so] that the animal should not pass through the marketplace and [people] say, “This is the animal for which x was killed.” [This is] to show how the Holy One, blessed be He is concerned about the honor of the creatures and knows their needs. And [so] He closed the mouth of the animals. As if it could speak, [people] would not be able to subdue it and master it. As this was the silliest of animals and this was the greatest of the sages. [And yet] once she spoke, he could not master her.

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.

9) (Vayikra 20:25) ("And you shall separate between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean fowl and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves disgusting through the beast or the fowl, or through anything with which the ground swarms, which I have separated for you as unclean.") "And you shall separate between the clean beast and the unclean": It should be "between the cow and the ass." But these have already been stated. What is the intent, then, of "between the clean beast and the unclean"? Between what is clean for you and what is unclean for you. Between the severing of the majority of the windpipe, (in which case the animal is kasher) and the severing of half (in which case it is treifah). And what is that difference? A full hairsbreadth!

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.

9) (Vayikra 20:4) ("And if the people of the land avert, they shall avert their eyes from that man when he gives of his seed to the Molech, not to kill him.") Whence is it derived that if they "avert" in one thing, they shall "avert" in many things? From "And if avert, they shall avert."

(Exod. 19:1:) ON THE THIRD NEW MOON…. This text is related (to Eccl. 10:18): THROUGH SLOTH THE ROOF SAGS, <AND THROUGH LAZY HANDS THE HOUSE LEAKS.>²⁹PRK 12:15; yNid. 2:1 (49d); Nid. 6b; Lev. R. 19:4. What causes a woman to discharge excessive blood (in her menstrual flow)? <It happens> because she is slothful in examining herself as to whether she is ritually unclean or not. <This opinion> is in accordance with what our masters taught (in Nid. 2:1): EVERY HAND THAT FREQUENTLY EXAMINES (for menstrual symptoms), behold, IN THE CASE OF WOMEN this <hand> IS PRAISEWORTHY, BUT IN THE CASE OF MEN, LET IT BE CUT OFF. There is a story about a female slave who belonged to Rabban Gamaliel. While she was moving <ritually clean> cups³⁰Gk. chalides (“sheer wine”). Cf. chalidophoros (“cupbearer”). and wine jugs from house to house, she examined herself at each and every jug. At the last one she examined herself and was found to be unclean. Rabban Gamaliel was afraid, saying: Perhaps the clean ones have been become unclean! He said to her: Did you not examine yourself? She said to him: By your life, My Lord, I examined myself between each and every jug, but at the last one I examined myself and was found to be unclean. Rabban Gamaliel said: If this woman had been slothful, all the clean ones would already have been unclean. (Eccl. 10:18:) THROUGH SLOTH THE ROOF SAGS. Note that because a woman is slothful, she discharges excessive blood. Now THE ROOF (MQRH) can only be excessive blood, since it is stated (in Lev. 20:18): THUS HE HAS UNCOVERED HER FOUNTAIN (MQRH) <AND SHE HAS BARED THE FOUNTAIN (MQRH) OF HER BLOOD>.³¹Cf. Eccl. R. 10:18:1. (Eccl. 10:18, cont.:) AND THROUGH LAZY HANDS <THE HOUSE> (of her body) LEAKS. (Lev. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD <FOR MANY DAYS>….

Another interpretation (of Numb. 16:5): IN THE MORNING. Moses said: the Holy One has distinguished boundaries for those in his world. Can you confuse morning with evening? And that is what is written in the beginning (in Gen. 1:5): THERE WAS EVENING AND THERE WAS MORNING. AND (in vs. 4) GOD SEPARATED THE LIGHT AND THE DARKNESS, as a service to the world. And just as he made a separation between the light and the darkness, so did he separate Israel from the nations, [as stated] (in Lev. 20:26): I HAVE SEPARATED YOU FROM THE <OTHER> PEOPLES <TO BE MINE>. So also did he separate Aaron, [as stated (in I Chron. 23:13): AARON WAS SEPARATED] TO CONSECRATE THE MOST HOLY THINGS, HE AND HIS SONS <FOREVER>. If you can confuse those distinctions in which he made a separation between the day and the night, you may be able to nullify this. For this reason he said to them (in Numb. 16:5): IN THE MORNING THE LORD WILL MAKE KNOWN THOSE WHO BELONG TO HIM. Such a one is already designated. (According to ibid., end) THE ONE WHOM HE WILL CHOOSE HE WILL HAVE DRAW NEAR UNTO HIM.

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 20:17) ("And a man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is chesed. And they shall be cut off before the eyes of their people. The nakedness of his sister he has revealed; he shall bear his sin.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother": This tells me only of the 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) "his sister" — in any event. — But even without the repetition, I would derive it a fortiori, viz.: If he is liable 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 liable for his sister) both from his father and from his mother! — But if you say this, you have punished by means of an a fortiori argument — wherefore it is written "his sister," to teach that there is no punishment by means of an a fortiori argument.

10) "which I have separated for you as unclean (i.e., as forbidden, [as in the above]).

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) And whence is it derived that if one beth-din averts (its eyes), many batei-din are destined to do so? From "And if avert, they shall avert."

We are taught there (in RH 3:2): ALL THE SHOPHARS ARE VALID EXCEPT THAT OF A COW, since it is from a calf; for (according to Ezek. 29:16): AND IT SHALL NO MORE BE A SOURCE OF SATISFACTION AGAINST THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO RECALL INIQUITY. We have been taught there:⁵⁵See Sanh. 7:4. (Lev. 20:16): YOU SHALL KILL THE WOMAN AND THE BEAST. If a woman sins with a beast, how does it sin? It is simply because a stumbling block came to the woman on account of < the beast >. Therefore (in vs. 15): AND YOU SHALL KILL THE BEAST. {Another interpretation:} So that the beast will not pass through the market, where they will say: This is the beast on account of which such and such a woman was killed. And this is < why it is written > (in Ezek. 29:16): AND IT SHALL NO MORE BE A SOURCE OF SATISFACTION AGAINST THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO RECALL INIQUITY. Now we have been taught in a baraita: For what reason did they say: A suspected adulteress (sotah) is not to drink from the cup of her colleague (i.e., another suspected adulteress)?⁵⁶According to Sot. 2:2, a new earthenware dish was to be used for each such trial by ordeal. < It is > so that the people will not say: When such and such a woman drank of this cup, she died. And this is < why it is written > (in Ezek. 29:16): AND IT SHALL NO MORE BE A SOURCE OF SATISFACTION AGAINST THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO RECALL INIQUITY. So also here (in Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT < IS BORN (rt.: YLD)… >. Was a bull brought forth (rt.: YLD)? Was not a < golden > calf brought forth (rt.: YLD)? It is simply because of what is written (in Exod. 32:8): THEY HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A GOLDEN CALF. Ergo: BULL is written, and "calf" is not written. [This is what is written] (in Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT < IS BORN (rt.: YLD)… >

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 20:26) "And you shall be holy unto Me, for I, the L–rd, am holy": Just as I am holy, so, you be holy. Just as I am separate, so, you be "separate."

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) Whence is it derived that if the sanhedriyoth of Israel "avert," the Great Sanhedrin is destined to do so and they will forfeit the adjudication of capital offenses?

(Ibid. 12) "Honor your father and your mother": I would think (that they are to be honored) with words. It is, therefore, written (Mishlei 3:9) "Honor the L rd from your wealth." Just as there, "wealth," here, too, food, drink, and a new garment (are understood). Variantly: "Honor your father and your mother': (Leviticus 19:3) "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman/ Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one of indeterminate six) or a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "Honor your father and your mother," — in any event. Just as with honor (of parents) there is no distinction between a man or a woman, so, with fear. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: It is written: "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear and My Sabbaths shall you keep." Just as with (keeping of) Sabbath, there is no distinction between a man or a woman, so, with honor (of parents), there is no distinction between man or woman, tumtum or hermaphrodite. Rebbi says: Beloved is the honoring of parents by Him who spoke and brought the world into being, His having equated their honor and fear to His honor, and their curse (i.e., their being cursed) to His. It is written "Honor your father and your mother" and, correspondingly, "Honor the L rd from your wealth" — their honor being equated. It is written "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear" and (Devarim 6:13) "The L rd your G d shall you fear" — their fear being equated. I is written (Exodus 21:17) "And one who curses his father and his mother" and "A man, if he curse his G d" — their cursing (i.e., their being cursed) being equated. Come and see their reward. It is written "Honor the L rd from your wealth" and, correspondingly, (Ibid. 10) "And your bread will be filled with grain"; Honor your father and your mother" and correspondingly, (Ibid.) "so that your days be prolonged." The L rd your G d shall you fear" — (Malachi 3:20) "And there shall shine for you, who fear My name, a sun of bounty." "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear and My Sabbaths shall you keep." It (fear of mother and father) is likened to Sabbath. What is written of Sabbath? (Isaiah 58:13) "If you keep your feet from (dishonoring) the Sabbath … (14) then you will find pleasure in the L rd and I will set you on the heights of the earth, etc." R. Eliezer says; It is revealed and known to Him who spoke and brought the world into being that a man honors his mother more than he does his father because she cajoles him with words — wherefore he placed father before mother vis-à-vis honor (i.e., "Honor your father and your mother"). And it is revealed and known to Him who spoke and brought the world into being that a man fears his father more than he does his mother because he teaches him Torah — wherefore he placed mother before father vis-à-vis fear (i.e., "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear"), "compensating," as it were, for the lack. __ But perhaps whoever comes first in Scripture takes precedence in practice? (This is not so,) for it is written "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," (the Hebrew phrasing implying that) they are equivalent vis-à-vis practice.

12) (Vayikra 20:14) ("And if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness (zimah). In fire they shall be burned, he and they, and there shall not be lewdness in your midst.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "if he takes a woman and her mother": In all instances (of ervah), "lying" is written, and here "taking" is written, to teach that he is liable (for ervah) only by way of (previous) taking (in marriage) — whence they ruled: One may marry (the close kin) of a woman that he has forced or seduced; but one who forces or seduces (the close kin) or a woman he has married is liable.

12) (Vayikra 20:26) "and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine": If you are separate from the peoples, you are Mine; if not, you are "Nevuchadnezzar's" and his cohorts'. R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: Whence is it derived that a man should not say: I do not desire to wear sha'atnez; I do not desire to eat the flesh of a pig; I do not desire to cohabit with ervah (illicit relations). I do desire it, but what can I do? My Father in heaven has decreed against it! — From "and I have set you apart from the peoples to be unto Me." It is found, then, that he separates from ervah because he accepted upon himself the Kingdom of heaven.

12) From "And if the people of the land avert, they shall avert." "not to kill him": in any manner that they choose (if they cannot do it as indicated here).

(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.

(Ibid.) "You shall not commit adultery": (Leviticus 20:10) "The adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death" tells us of the punishment. Whence the exhortation? "You shall not commit adultery."

13) (Vayikra 20:27) "And a man or a woman, if there be in them an ov or a yidoni, they shall be put to death": This tells me only of a man or a woman. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a tumtum (one of indefinite sex) or a hermaphrodite? From "or a woman." "if there be in them": not (to be put to death are) those who solicit them. "ov": This is a wizard, who speaks from his armpits. "yidoni": This is one who speaks (in magical fashion) through his mouth. They incur stoning, and those who solicit them transgress an exhortation.

13) See 5) above. "and against his family": R. Shimon asked: How did his family sin? We are hereby taught that there is no family with a tax-gouger where all are not tax-gougers; where there is a thief, where all are not thieves — for they (support and) cover up for him.

14) (Vayikra 20:27) "they shall be put to death. With stones they shall stone them; their blood is in them": This is the archetype (binyan av) for all "their blood is in them" mentioned in scripture as referring to death by stoning.

14) (Vayikra 20:5) "And I shall cut off him": What is the intent of this (emphasis upon "him")? "He is to be cut off (kareth), and not his family, but they are to suffer afflictions.

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

(Lev. 20:9:) FOR ANYONE WHATEVER WHO CURSES HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. Solomon said (in Prov. 20:20): < IF SOMEONE > CURSES HIS FATHER OR MOTHER, HIS LIGHT WILL GO OUT AT THE APPROACH OF DARKNESS. Our Masters have said: Because Ham saw his father's nakedness, yet did not utter a curse at him, he and his descendants have < only > been alienated until the end of the whole world.⁵⁶Tanh., Lev. 7:15. How much worse it is for one who does curse his father! The Scripture says (in Prov. 24:20): FOR THERE WILL BE NO FUTURE FOR THE EVIL ONE, < THE LAMP OF THE WICKED GOES OUT >. Come and see the honoring of father and mother, how dear it is before the Holy One; for the Holy One does not withhold his reward, either from the righteous or from the wicked. Where is it shown? From Esau the Wicked. Because he honored his father, the Holy One gave him all this honor. R. Eleazar says: Esau the Wicked shed three tears, [one] from his right eye, one from his left eye, and the third was attached in his eye and did not run down. When? When Isaac blessed Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 27:38): AND ESAU LIFTED UP HIS VOICE AND WEPT.⁵⁷Cf. Tanh., Lev. 7:15, which adds here: “Come and see how much prosperity the Holy One gave him. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 80:6 [5]): YOU HAVE FED THEM THE BREAD OF TEARS AND HAVE HAD THEM DRINK A SHALISH OF TEARS. Shalosh is not written but shalish, because there were not three (shalosh) whole ones.” So if the Holy One recompensed this wicked one, because he honored his father, how much the more < will he do so > in the case of one who honors his fathers. < The Holy One > said (in Job 41:3 [11]): WHO HAS WELCOMED (hiqdim) ME THAT I SHOULD REPAY HIM? [EVERYTHING UNDER THE HEAVENS IS MINE.] The Holy One said: Who is this one who has advanced (hiqdim) honor to his father, and I have not given him children? And so it says in Job (11:5–7): O THAT GOD WOULD SPEAK…; AND THAT HE WOULD TELL YOU THE SECRETS OF WISDOM… ! WOULD YOU DISCOVER THE MYSTERY OF GOD…? To what is Job comparable? To whoever is put in a collare,⁵⁸The Latin word denotes a band or chain, in particular one put around the neck of a prisoner. and said: I know what is within the palace⁵⁹Lat.: palatium. of the king. They said to him: Free your self from the collare, and we shall know that you are speaking the truth.⁶⁰Cf. Mark 15:30 = Matthew 27:40. So also Job was clothed in seven kinds of boils, and in need of alms, as stated (in Job 19:21): HAVE PITY ON ME, HAVE PITY ON ME, O YOU MY FRIENDS, FOR THE HAND OF GOD HAS AFFLICTED ME. He also says: I have reached the end of the works of the Holy One. Thus it is stated (in Job 23:5): I WOULD KNOW {WHAT} WORDS HE WOULD ANSWER ME [AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WOULD SAY TO ME]. His companions said to him (in Job 11:7): WOULD YOU DISCOVER THE MYSTERY OF GOD…? (Job 12:14:) BEHOLD, WHATEVER HE {CONDEMNS TO DESTRUCTION} [DESTROYS] WILL NOT BE REBUILT…. Who, after he had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and had overthrown them, who has rebuilt them? No creature can stand on his own works, as stated (in Eccl. 7:13): SEE THE WORK OF GOD; FOR WHO CAN MAKE STRAIGHT WHAT HE HAS MADE CROOKED? The Holy One said: In this world the children of Adam are afflicted because of the evil drive, but in the world to come I will remove the evil drive from them.⁶¹Above, 7:14. It is so stated (in Ezek. 36:26–27): THEN I WILL REMOVE THE HEART OF STONE FROM YOUR FLESH AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH, AND I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU….

(Lev. 20:9:) “For anyone whatever who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” So too is it stated (Exod. 21:17), “He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” Solomon said (in Prov. 20:20), “[If someone] curses his father or mother, his light will go out [at the approach of darkness].” Our masters said, “Because Ham saw his father's nakedness, even though he did not utter a curse at him, he and his descendants have been alienated until the end of the whole world. How much the more so for one who does curse his father!” Scripture says (in Prov. 24:20), “For there will be no future for the evil one, the lamp of the wicked goes out.” Come and see the honoring of father and mother, how dear it is before the Holy One, blessed be He; for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold the reward, either from the righteous or from the wicked. Where is it shown? From Esau the wicked. Because he honored his father, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him all this honor. R. Eleazar says, “Esau the wicked shed three tears, [one] from his right eye, one from his left eye, and the third was attached in his eye and did not run down. When? When Isaac blessed Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 27:38), ‘and Esau lifted up his voice and wept.’” Come and see how much prosperity the Holy One gave him. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 80:6), “You have fed them the bread of tears and have had them drink a shalish of tears.” Shalosh (three) is not written but shalish (a third), because there were not three (shalosh) whole ones. So if the Holy One, blessed be He, recompensed this wicked one, because he honored his father, how much the more [will He do so] in the case of one who honors his fathers and fulfills other commandments. The Holy One, blessed be He, said (in Job 41:3), “’Who has welcomed (hiqdim) Me that I should repay him; everything under the heavens is Mine’; who is this one who has advanced (hiqdim) honor to his father, and I have not given him children?” And so it says in Job (11:5-7), “O that God would speak […]; And that He would tell you the secrets of wisdom…! Would you discover the mystery of God…?” To what is Job comparable? To whoever is put in a collare,⁴²The Latin word denotes a band or chain, in particular one put around the neck of a prisoner. and said, “I know what is within the palace⁴³Lat.: palatium. of the king.” They said to him, “Free yourself from the collare, and we shall know that you are speaking the truth.” So also Job was clothed in seven kinds of boils and in need of alms, as stated (in Job 19:21), “Have pity on me, have pity on me, O you my friends, for the hand of God has afflicted me.” And [yet] he says, “I have gotten to the bottom of the works of the Holy One, blessed be He.” Thus it is stated (in Job 23:5), “I would know words He would answer me and understand what He would say to me.” His companions said to him (in Job 11:7), “Would you discover the mystery of God…?” (Job 12:14:) “Behold, whatever He destroys will not be rebuilt, whoever He shuts in cannot be set free.” Who, after he had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and had overthrown them, who has rebuilt them? Who, after he is shut the ground in front of Korah and his assembly, can reopen it? No creature can fathom His works, as stated (in Eccl. 7:13), “See the work of God; for who can make straight what He has made crooked?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “In this world the people are afflicted because of the evil drive; but in the world to come I will remove the evil drive from them.”⁴⁴Above, 7:14. It is so stated (in Ezek. 36:26–27), “then I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh [and give you a heart of flesh]. And I will put My spirit within you….”

"And if one strikes his father and his mother": This tells me only of (one who strikes both) his father and his mother. Whence do I derive (liability for one who strikes) his father and not his mother, or (one who strikes) his mother and not his father? It follows, viz.: Just as with cursing — each one, individually (viz. Leviticus 20:9), so, with striking, each one, individually. __ No, this may be true of cursing, for which he is liable both for (cursing) the dead as well as the living, wherefore he is liable for each individually, as opposed to striking for which he is not liable for striking the dead as well as the living, wherefore he should not be liable for striking each individually. It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 24:21) "And one who strikes a man shall be put to death." Let it not, then, be written "And if one strikes his father and his mother he shall be put to death." (The meaning must be, then,) even if he strikes only one of them. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("and") implies both together and each by itself unless Scripture specifies otherwise. R. Yitzchak says: "his mother" must be added for purposes of stringency (i.e., he is liable even for striking his mother). But (if you understand it as "and his mother") you will be implying leniency instead of stringency (i.e., that he is not liable until he strikes both his father and his mother). Perforce, then, it must be understood as "or" his mother.

What was the tree, from which Adam and Eve ate? Rabbi Meir said, it was wheat. When a person lacks knowledge people say "That person has not eaten bread made from wheat even a day." Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzhak asked before Rabbi Zeira and said to him "Is it possible that it is wheat?" He said to him, "Yes!" He said to him, "But isn't it written, 'tree'" He said to him, "It rose like the ceders of Lebanon" Rabbi Yaakov Bar Aha said: Rabbi Nechemiah and the Rabbis disagree. Rabbi Nechemiah said, "[When we bless our bread we should say]...'the one who brings bread from the earth', since bread already came from the earth." But the Rabbis say, "'who is bringing bread from the earth' since in the future he will bring bread from the earth, as it is said, 'There will be a abundant grain in the land.' (Psalm 72:16). What does the word lefet mean? Two [scholars] disagree. They are Rabbi Hanina son of Yitzhak and Rabbi Shmuel Bar Ami. One says: lefet means there was no bread and the other says lefet means there will be no bread in the future. Rabbi Jeremiah recited the blessing before Rabbi Zeira as "The one who brings bread from the earth" and he praised him. But does that mean we hold like Rabbi Nehemiah? Rather we say it so we don't mix up the letters.

15) "And I shall cut off him and all who stray after him to stray after the Molech": to include (as subject to kareth their serving) other idolatries (in one manner of the Molech service). "from the midst of their people": but their people remain at peace.

Rabbi Yudan [said] in the name of Rabbi Ḥama ben Rabbi Ḥanina, and Rabbi Berekhya [said] in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: It is written: “I have separated you from the peoples…” (Leviticus 20:26) – had it been stated: “I have separated the peoples from you,” there would not have been any revival for the enemies of Israel.⁹²It would have been impossible for members of other nations to convert to Judaism. Rather, “I have separated you from the peoples” – for one who separates the bad from the good, does not return to separate again;⁹³If one separates undesirable material from a mixture, he does not have to do so again, because he never returns that undesirable material to the mixture. however, one who separates the good from the bad, he must again separate.⁹⁴If one separates desirable material from a mixture, he may later separate more of the desirable material from the mixture. So too, had it been stated: “I have separated the peoples from you,” there would not have been any revival for the enemies of Israel. Rather, it is stated: “I have separated you from the peoples” – to be for Me, for My name forever. Rabbi Aḥa said: From here [it may be demonstrated] that the Holy One blessed be He said to the nations of the world that they should repent and He would bring them near, under His wings.
Rabbi Levi said: All the actions of Israel are different from the nations of the world, in their plowing, in their sowing, in their planting, in their reaping, in their gathering, in their threshing, on their threshing floors and in their winepresses, on their roofs, regarding their firstborn, regarding their flesh, in their shaving, and in their counting. In their plowing, as it is stated: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey” (Deuteronomy 22:10). In their sowing, as it is stated: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds” (Deuteronomy 22:9). In their planting, as it is stated: “You shall consider its fruit forbidden” (Leviticus 19:23). In their reaping, as it is stated: “When you reap the harvest of your land” (Leviticus 19:9). In their gathering, as it is stated: “And you forget a sheaf in the field” (Deuteronomy 24:19). In their threshing, as it is stated: “You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:4). On their threshing floors and in their winepresses, as it is stated: “The fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses you shall not delay” (Exodus 22:28), and it is written: “Like the produce of the threshing floor, and like the produce of the winepress” (Numbers 18:30). On their roofs, as it is stated: “You shall make a guardrail for your roof” (Deuteronomy 22:8). In their shaving, as it is stated: “You shall not mar the edge of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27). In their counting, as it is stated: “When you take a census of the children of Israel…” (Exodus 30:12).⁹⁵The census is to be conducted by each individual donating a half-shekel and the total sum being counted, rather than by counting the people. Israel counts by the moon⁹⁶The lunar calendar and the nations of the world count by the sun.⁹⁷The solar calendar

(Exodus 22:17) "A witch you shall not allow to live": Both a man and a woman. R. Yishmael says: It is written here "You shall not allow to live," and elsewhere (Devarim 20:16) "You shall not allow to live. Just as there, (the death is) by the sword, so, here, by the sword. R. Akiva says: It is written here "You shall not allow to live," and elsewhere (Exodus 19:13) "Whether beast or man it shall not live." Just as there (the death is) by stoning, so, here, by stoning. R. Yishmael rejoined: I derive "You shall not allow to live" from "You shall not allow to live," and you answer me from "You shall not allow to live" to "it shall not live!" R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written here "A witch you shall not allow to live," and (Ibid. 18) "Whoever lives with a beast shall be put to death." They are juxtaposed to teach that just as the second (is killed) by stoning, so, the first. R. Yehudah says: It is written (Leviticus 20:27) "And a man or a woman, if there be in them an ov or a yidoni" (shall be stoned). Now "ov" and "yidoni" are types of witchcraft. Why were they singled out for special mention? To teach that just as these are (killed) by stoning, so all (types of) witches are (killed) by stoning. We have heard the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, a diviner, a soothsayer an enchanter or a witch."

(Exodus 21:7) "And if one curses his father and his mother, etc.": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 20:9) "Every man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "if one curses his father or his mother." "And if one curses his father and his mother": This ("and") tells me (that he is liable) for cursing only his father and his mother (together). Whence do I derive the same for (cursing) his father and not his mother, or his mother and not his father? From (Leviticus, Ibid.) "His father or his mother he has cursed" — in any event (i.e., either one.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("his father and his mother") implies both together or either one, unless Scripture specifies one. And what is the intent of "And if one curses his father and his mother"? From (Leviticus, Ibid.) "Every man" I would think that only a man (who cursed) is liable. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of doubtful sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "if one curses his father and his mother." This tells me (that he is liable if he curses them) only when they are alive. Whence do I derive (the same for cursing) the dead? From "And if one curses his father and his mother" — in any event, (alive or dead).

(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."

7 (Numb. 16:5) “In the morning [the Lord will make known those who belong to him]”: What reason did he have for saying, “In the morning He will make known?” Moses said, “Perhaps they said this thing because they had been excessively eating and drinking.” He therefore said, “In the morning.” Perhaps between now and then they will repent. He said to them, “I have no authority to enter [the tabernacle] now. Even though there is no eating and no drinking, it is simply because of us [that we are forbidden to enter] as we have taken food and drink.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 16:5): Moses said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has distinguished boundaries in His world. Can you confuse morning with evening? And that is what is written in the beginning (in Gen. 1:5), ‘There was evening and there was morning.’ And (in vs. 4) ‘God separated the light and the darkness,’ for its use in the world. And just as he made a separation between the light and the darkness, so did he separate Israel from the nations, [as stated] (in Lev. 20:26), ‘I have separated you from the [other] peoples to be Mine.’ So also did he separate Aaron, as stated (in I Chron. 23:13), ‘Aaron was separated to consecrate the most holy things.’ If you can confuse this distinction in which he made a separation between the day and the night, you may be able to nullify this.” For this reason he said to them (in Numb. 16:5), “In the morning the Lord will make known those who belong to Him.” Such a one is already designated; (according to ibid., end) “the one whom He will choose He will have draw near unto Him.”

(Bamidbar 5:298) "And if the woman had not been defiled and she be clean": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 20:10) "And a man who lives with another man's wife, etc.", we learn that only where there were witnesses (to her adultery) and she were forewarned that she is put to death. If there were witnesses, but she had not been forewarned, she is not liable to the death penalty. (I would think that) since she is not liable to the death penalty she is permitted to her husband; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 24:1) "If a man take a woman (as a wife) and cohabit with her … having found in her a thing of nakedness … he shall write her a scroll of divorce, etc." — whence we learn that she is forbidden to her husband. Whence is derived (the halachah) in an instance of doubt as to whether or not she has been defiled? From "And the woman had not been defiled and she be clean." Now who defiled her that Scripture must cleanse her? We are being told, then, that since an evil name has gone out against her, she is forbidden to her husband. "and she be clean": clean to her husband, clean to the (suspected) cohabitor (i.e., if her husband divorced her or died, he may marry her), and clean vis-à-vis (the eating of) terumah. "then she shall be absolved": of the curses and of the oath. "and she will sow seed": If she were barren, she conceives. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva said to him: If so, all the barren ones will go astray (and secrete themselves) in order to conceive and the modest (barren) ones will lose out! What, rather, is the intent of "then she will be absolved and she will sow seed"? If she had borne only females, she will now bear males; if she had borne only one, she will now bear two; if she had borne swarthy ones, she will now bear fair ones; if she had borne short ones, she will now bear fair ones. R. Shimon says: Would it enter your mind that she is rewarded for transgression (i.e., secreting herself)? Rather, because she had been forbidden (to her husband) for seed before (drinking), it is, therefore, written "and she will sow seed," i.e., she is now permitted for "seed." Variantly: "and she will sow seed" — to exclude (from drinking) an eilonith (a wombless woman) or one who is (otherwise) unfit to bear.

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.”

Rabbi Zadok said: Whosoever does not make Habdalah at the termination of Sabbaths, or does not listen to those who perform the ceremony of Habdalah, will never see a sign of blessing. Everyone who makes Habdalah at the termination of Sabbaths, or whosoever hears those who perform the Habdalah, the Holy One, blessed be He, calls him holy to be His holy treasure, and delivers him from the affliction of the peoples, as it is said, "And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy" (Lev. 20:26). ||

... [T]he Holy One has pity on the honor of the creatures/b’riyot (here meaning “people”) and knows their needs. And He shut the mouth of the beast/b’heimah, for if she would speak, they could not make her serve or stand up to her /bah, for [there was] this silent one from the animals (the ass) and this wise one from the sages (Bil`am) – [and] when she spoke he could not stand up to her.

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

Rabbi Miasha said: Cain was born, and his wife, his twin-sister, with him. Rabbi Simeon said to him: Has it not already been said, "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a shameful thing"? (Lev. 20:17). From these words know that there were no other women whom they could marry, and these were permitted to them, as it is said, "For I have said, The world shall be built up by love" (Ps. 89:2). With love was the world built up before the Torah had been given. Rabbi Joseph said: Cain and Abel were twins, as it is said, "And she conceived, and bare (with) Cain" (Gen. 4:1). At that hour she had an additional capacity for child-bearing (as it is said), "And she continued to bear his brother Abel" (Gen. 4:2).

Another interpretation (of Cant. 5:16): HIS PALATE (i.e., what he says) IS MOST SWEET. R. Abbahu said: See what is written (in Lev. 20:26): SO I HAVE SET YOU APART FROM THE < OTHER > PEOPLES < TO BE MINE >.⁷⁰PRK 5:5. See the attributes of the Holy One. If it had been written, "So I have set the < other > peoples apart from you," there would have been no hope for a star-worshipping gentile, and no proselyte would have become a Jew. How so? < Consider the case of > someone who has figs. If he picks out the bad from the good, in the end he will not return to the bad ones; but, if he picks out the good ones, if he wants to pick out some of the bad, he picks them out. Therefore, the Holy One has said (in Lev. 20:26): SO I HAVE SET YOU APART FROM THE < OTHER > PEOPLES. He has given a hint to those gentiles who wish to become Jews. Is there a palate (i.e., a saying) more beautiful than this? Ergo (in Cant. 5:16): HIS PALATE (i.e., what he says) IS MOST SWEET.

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.

... Teach us oh, teacher: once the Ninth of Av has ended, is everything permitted? R’ Chiyah the Great taught like this: once the Ninth of Av has ended, one is permitted to do anything. Why? Because it is like the case of a person whose dead is laid out before him, who is forbidden to eat meat or drink wine. Once the dead is buried, the mourner is permitted to do so. So to on the Ninth of Av one is a mourner – once the day has ended one is permitted to do anything. Even though we are permitted, we must always have a sigh in our hearts until the Holy One returns to her. The Holy One said to them: by your lives! I burnt her, as it says “From above He has hurled fire into my bones…” (Lamentations 1:13) I will build her, as it says “Yet again will I rebuild you, then you shall be built, O virgin of Israel…” (Jeremiah 31:3) Zion said to Him: Behold, I have been sitting thus for many years! I have counted the days from old and I have not been redeemed, therefore I have despaired. She said that my master has abandoned me. And from where do we learn that Zion said this? From that which is written regarding it “And Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me.’” (Isaiah 49:14) ... Another explanation. “And Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me…” (Isaiah 49:14) What is written before this? “Sing, O heavens, and rejoice, O earth, and mountains burst out in song, for the Lord has consoled His people, and He shall have mercy on His poor.” (Isaiah 49:13) Once Zion saw that the prophet recalled His people and His poor, but did not mention Zion or Jerusalem she said ‘the Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me.’ Immediately the Holy One replied and said to her: just as it is impossible for a woman to forget her sucking child, so to I am not able to forget you, “Shall a woman forget her sucking child, from having mercy on the child of her womb?” (Isaiah 49:15) She said to Him: Master of the world! How is that possible? There is no end to the evils I have done! I caused Your Holy Temple to be destroyed and I killed the prophets. R’ Berachia the Kohen said in the name of Rebbe: the Holy One said to her, I will forget your evil but I will not forget your good. “…These too shall forget, but I will not forget you.” (ibid.) I have forgotten “"These are your gods, O Israel…” (Exodus32:4) but “I am the Lord, your God…” (Exodus 20:2) I will not forget.

41) (Vayikra 10:6): "and your garments you shall not rend and you will not die." The negative implies the positive (if you do rend them). "and let your brethren, the entire house of Israel, mourn the burning that the L–rd has burned": "burning" is mentioned here, and "burning" is mentioned in respect to (fornication with) a woman and with her mother (Vayikra 20:14) and in respect to the daughter of a Cohein (Vayikra 21:9). Just as the "burning" here is burning of the soul with the body remaining intact, so the "burning" there is burning of the soul with the body remaining intact.

(Bamidbar 15:27) "And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth — for which the individual brings a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; the leader (nassi), a he-goat; and the high-priest and beth-din, a bullock. And here (in respect to idolatry) Scripture removes them from their category, to have an individual, a Nassi, and the high-priest bring "a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering" — for which reason this section was stated. You say that it speaks of idolatry, but perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! Would you say that? What is the subject under discussion? Idolatry! R. Yitzchak says: Scripture (here) speaks of idolatry. — But perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! — You reason as follows: The congregation was in the general category (of all of the mitzvoth, to bring a bullock), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed (to bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering.) And the individual was in the general category (of all the mitzvoth, etc.), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed, etc. Just as there (in respect to the congregation) Scripture speaks of idolatry; here, too, it is understood to be speaking of idolatry. "And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error": to exclude (from the offering) one who sins willfully (without witnesses or warning). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If "light" mitzvoth are liable (for an offering), willful (transgression) as unwitting, how much more the "grave" (transgression of idolatry)! It is, therefore, written "in error" — to exclude willful (transgression). "he shall bring a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering." This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "goat" is written, it must be of the first year. (Ibid. 28) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the soul that is unwitting in sinning": It is the sins that he has done (willfully), which have caused him to err. "unwitting in sinning": to exclude unwittingness of (its being) idolatry, (e.g., mistaking a church for a synagogue and bowing down to it.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he is liable (to bring an offering) for unwitting transgression of other mitzvoth, how much more so for the "grave" transgression of idolatry! It is, therefore, written "unwitting in sinning," but not unwitting as to (its being) idolatry. "to atone for him": to exclude an instance of doubt (as to whether or not he had sinned). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he must bring an offering for an instance of possible transgression of "light" mitzvoth, how much more so for an instance of possible transgression of idolatry (e.g., if there is a possibility of his having bowed down to an asheirah [a tree devoted to idolatry])! It is, therefore, written "And he shall atone" (implying that there has been a sin), to exclude (an instance of) doubt (as to whether a sin has been committed.) "and he shall be forgiven": absolute forgiveness, as with all of the other "forgivings" in the Torah, (even though the sin of idolatry [though unwitting] has been committed). (Ibid. 15:29) "The native-born among the children of Israel, etc." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 24:22) "All of the native-born in Israel shall sit in succoth," I might think that only Israelites are intended. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? It is, therefore, written "the native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger that sojourns among them." This is a prototype: wherever "native-born" is written, proselytes are also included. Variantly: What is the intent of "the native-born among the children of Israel"? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Israelites are commanded against idolatry, and gentiles are commanded against idolatry. If I have learned that Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, so, gentiles should bring an offering for unwitting idolatry. It is, therefore, written "the native-born among the children of Israel": Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, but not gentiles. (Ibid.) "One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. For I would think (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (unwitting transgression of) all of the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for transgression of all of the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring a bullock for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) who brings a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, should bring a bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service), where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest does bring a bullock, then here, (in unwitting transgression of idolatry), where the congregation does bring a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written "One Torah (a she-goat of the first year) shall there be for you": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. "for him who acts unwittingly": R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: One who acts unwittingly (re idolatry) is (in principle) like one who serves idolatry, viz.: Just as serving idolatry is distinct in that it is an act in which deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off [viz. Vayikra 20:3]), and unwitting transgression, by a sin-offering (viz. Bamidbar 16:27) so, (the act of) all who act unwittingly, (in order to be liable to a sin-offering), must be an act where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering.

"and you shall stone them with stones": I might think, with many stones; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:2) "with a stone." I might then think, with one stone. It is, therefore, written "with stones." How is this to be resolved? If he is not killed with the first stone, he is killed with the second.

"one who passes his son or daughter through fire": This tells me only of his son or his daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) the son of his son or the son of his daughter? From (Vayikra 20:3) "for of his seed he has given to the Molech."

What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 20:10) "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife" — whether witnesses testify in the house of her husband that she committed adultery (while yet) in her father's house (i.e., while she was betrothed), or whether they testified in her father's house that she committed adultery in her father's house, I would think that she is executed at the gate of that city (viz. Devarim 22:24), Scripture (here) excludes (from "the gate of the city") the instance of witnesses testifying in the house of her husband that she committed adultery in the house of her father, (and indicates [viz. Ibid. 21]) that she is executed at "the door of her father's house." This is the intent of "If a man take a wife."

"with stones": I might think with many stones; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:27) "with a stone." If "with a stone," I might think even with one stone. It is, therefore, written "with stones." Say, then, (that the meaning is) if she does not die with the first stone, she dies with the second.

"and you shall stone them with stones": I might think with many stones; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:27) "with a stone." If "with a stone," I might think even with one stone. It is, therefore, written "with stones." Say, then (that the meaning is) if they do not die with the first stone, they die with the second.