Midrash su Levitico 21:78

(Lev. 21:1:) THEN THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES: SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS, THE SONS OF AARON, < AND SAY UNTO THEM: LET NO ONE DEFILE HIMSELF FOR A DEAD SOUL AMONG HIS PEOPLE >. This text is related (to Ps. 12:7 [6]): THE SAYINGS OF THE LORD ARE PURE SAYINGS…. Everything < against > which the Holy One warned Israel is for the sake of their holiness and their purity.¹Tanh., Lev. 8:1. (Ibid.:) THE SAYINGS OF THE LORD ARE PURE SAYINGS. (Lev. 21:1:) SPEAK (literally: SAY) UNTO THE PRIESTS, THE SONS OF AARON, AND SAY UNTO THEM. Note that "say" < occurs > two times. To what is the matter comparable? To a cook who would go in and out before the king. The king said: I am commanding you not to look at a dead person all your days, since you come in and out before me, lest you defile my palace.²Lat.: praetorium, Gk.: praitorion. Similarly, the Holy One had commanded the priests who enter the Temple not to be defiled for a dead person. It therefore says (in Lev. 21:1): LET NO ONE DEFILE HIMSELF FOR A DEAD SOUL AMONG HIS PEOPLE.

(Lev. 21:1:) “Speak unto the priests.” This text is related (to Ps. 12:7), “The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings….” Everything [against] which the Holy One, blessed be He, warned Israel is for the sake of their holiness and their purity. Hence, “The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings.” Another interpretation (of Lev. 21:1), “Speak (literally, say) unto the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say unto them”: Note that "say" [occurs] two times. To what is the matter comparable? To a cook who would go in and out before the king. The king said, “I am commanding you not to look at a dead person all your days since you come in and out before me, lest you defile my palace.”¹Lat.: praetorium, Gk.: praitorion. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, had commanded the priests who enter the Temple not to be defiled for a dead person. It therefore says (in Lev. 21:1), “Let no one defile himself for a dead soul among his people.”

Another matter, “who is like the wise man” – this is Moses, in whose regard it is written: “A wise man ascended against the city of the mighty” (Proverbs 21:22).¹³This is an allusion to Moses ascending
heavenward to the stronghold of the angels to receive the Torah. “And who knows the meaning of a matter” – as he explained the Torah to Israel. Rabbi Mana of Shaab said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: For each and every matter that the Holy One blessed be He would say to Moses, He would tell him its ritual impurity and purity.¹⁴For each form of ritual impurity He taught Moses, God would also teach him how to return to a state of ritual purity. When he reached the portion of: “Say to the priests” (Leviticus 21:1),¹⁵This is the prohibition against priests subjecting themselves to the impurity imparted by a corpse. [Moses] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, but if they do become impure, in what manner is their purification?’ He did not respond to him. At that moment, Moses’s face changed. When they reached the portion of the red heifer,¹⁶Numbers chap. 19. Being sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer in a specific ritual removes the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘That statement that I said to you: “Say to the priests,” and you said to Me: ‘In what manner is their purification,’ and I did not respond to you; this is their purification: “They shall take for the impure from the ashes of the burning of the purification” (Numbers 19:17).’ [Moses] said to Him: ‘Master of the universe, is that purification?’¹⁷How can sprinkling ashes remove impurity imparted by a corpse? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘It is a statute, and I issued a decree, and no creature can comprehend My decree,’ as it is written: “This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:2).

GEMARA: It is quite right that they should say to him, "Perhaps thou hast forgotten." "But that they should say to him: "Perhaps thou hast not studied," how can an ignorant man be made a High-priest? Have we not learned in a Baraitha: (Lev. 21, 10) And the priest that is highest of his brethren; i.e., he must be highest among his brethren in personal beauty, in physical strength, in wealth and in wisdom. Others say: "Whence do we know that if he is not rich, his brethren, the priests, must make him rich? Read the text, That is highest of his brethren; i.e., his brethren must contribute to make him highest." [Hence he ought to be a great scholar?] "This is not difficult to explain," replied R. Joseph, "for the latter case refers to the time of the first Temple, and the former case refers to the time of the second Temple"; as R. Assis said: "A Tarkabful of dinarim did Martha, the daughter of Baituth, give to king Jannai, until she succeeded in obtaining the appointment of Joshua b. Gamla [her husband] as High-priest."

“From on high He sent fire into my bones, and He crushed them; He spread a net for my feet, He turned me back. He rendered me desolate, suffering all day” (Lamentations 1:13).
“From on high He sent fire into my bones.” Rabbi Ami asked Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, he said to him: ‘Because I heard about you, that you are a master of aggada, what is [the meaning of] that which is written: “For Your righteousness [vetzikatekha], God, reaches on high”?’ (Psalms 71:19). He said to him: ‘Just as those below are required to perform charity [tzedaka] with one another, so those on high are required to perform charity with one another.’
Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Any place where it is stated: “He said, he said,”¹⁵¹Wherever the term “he said” appears twice in the introduction to a single statement. it is stated only to be expounded. That is what is written: “He said to the man clothed in linen, and He said: Come to between the galgal [beneath the cherub, and fill your hands with smoldering coals from between the cherubs, and cast them upon the city]” (Ezekiel 10:2). What is “He said,” “He said,” twice? It is that the Holy One blessed be He spoke to the angel, and the angel [then] said to the cherub: ‘Even though the Holy One blessed be He decreed upon me to take the coals, I am not allowed to enter behind your partition. Rather, perform an act of kindness and give me two of your coals so I will not be burned.’ That is what is written: “He carried it and placed it into the cupped hands of the one clothed in linen” (Ezekiel 10:7). What is “he carried it and he placed it”? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: He cooled them and placed them in his hand.
Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin [said] in the name of Rabbi Levi: For six years the coals were dimly smoldering in Gabriel’s hand, and he believed that Israel would repent. When they did not repent, he sought to cast them upon them in rage. The Holy One blessed be He summoned him and said to him: ‘Gabriel, Gabriel! Slowly, slowly, for there are among them those who perform charity with one another.’ That is what is written: “On the cherubs the form of a man’s hand was seen beneath their wings” (Ezekiel 10:8).¹⁵²The hand represents the Holy One blessed be He preventing Gabriel from casting the coals on them.
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Levi: What holds up the supernal and the earthly? It is the charity that Israel performs with the hand. That is what is written: “For Your righteousness, God, reaches on high” (Psalms 71:19).¹⁵³The verse is interpreted to mean that the merit of the charity that God commanded Israel to perform “reaches on high,” in that it supports even the heavens.
Similarly, “The man of God approached and said to the king of Israel, and said: So said the Lord: [Because Aram said: The Lord is a God of mountains and not a God of lowlands, I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you will know that I am the Lord]” (I Kings 20:28). What is “and said” twice? It is that in the first statement he said to him: ‘If ben Hadad comes under your control, have no pity on him.’ In the second statement, he said to him: ‘How many traps have I laid, how many signals have I sent, how many conquests did I perform before I subdued him before you, and now you have freed him in peace?’ Therefore, “your life shall be in place of his life, and your people instead of his people” (I Kings 20:42).
Similarly, “King Aḥashverosh said and he said to Queen Esther” (Esther 7:5). What is “he said,” “he said,” twice? Rav said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Before he sensed that she was Jewish, he would speak to her directly. Once he sensed that she was Jewish, King Aḥashverosh spoke to the translator and the translator spoke to Queen Esther.
Similarly, “The Lord said to Moses: Speak to the priests, sons of Aaron, and say to them” (Leviticus 21:1). Why do I need these two sayings? It is that in the first saying, He said to him: “He shall not become impure from a corpse among his people” (Leviticus 21:1). In the second, He said to him: ‘If you come upon a corpse that it is a mitzva to bury, impurify yourself for it.’¹⁵⁴Although a priest is forbidden from becoming impure from a corpse, if there is a corpse that has no one to bury it, it is a mitzva for anyone, even a priest, to see to the burial. Since in this world you impurify yourself for a corpse that it is a mitzva to bury, in the future you will not become impure from any corpse, for there will be no death in the future, as it is stated: “He will eliminate death forever” (Isaiah 25:8).
Alternatively, “for Your righteousness, God, reaches on high, [for the great deeds You have done]” these are the two luminaries.¹⁵⁵This refers to the sun and the moon. “God, who is comparable to You” (Psalms 71:19), in that You suppress the attribute of justice. At that moment, the accuser leapt before the Throne of Glory and said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, will this wicked one arrogantly say: I destroyed the house of the Lord and burned His Temple? If it is so,¹⁵⁶If the Temple must be destroyed. let fire descend from on high and burn it.’ Immediately, what is written: “From on high He sent fire into my bones.” Rabbi Yehoshua said: That is why the prophet rebukes Babylon and says to it: “Take a millstone and grind flour” (Isaiah 47:2). Everyone grinds wheat, yet it says “grind flour”? Rather, Jerusalem said to the daughter of Babylon: Had war not been waged against me from on high, could you have waged war against me? Had fire not been sent against me from on high, could you have overcome me? Rather, you killed a dead lion. You ground already ground flour. You set fire to a burned city. That is why it says: “From on high He sent fire into my bones and He crushed them [vayirdena].” What is “and He crushed them [vayirdena]”? Moved them, just as you say: “He scooped [vayirdehu] it into his hands” (Judges 14:9).¹⁵⁷The midrash is interpreting the word vayirdena to mean “he moved them” rather than “He crushed them.” Thus, the verse is interpreted to mean that God sent fire from on high against the Temple, and the enemy merely moved the burned bones.
Alternatively, vayirdena [means] ruled, just as it says: “He will rule [veyerd] from sea to sea” (Psalms 72:8). Alternatively, vayirdena [means] subjugated, just as it says: “For he subjugated [rodeh] the entire region beyond the River” (I Kings 5:4). Alternatively, vayirdena [means] plowing [radya], as it is taught: Rufus plowed the Sanctuary. Rabbi Beiva of Rangaya said: Vayirdena, he saw [vayar] the attribute of justice [din] harming it.
“He spread a net for my feet.” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: If you see benches filled with Babylonians situated in the Land of Israel, anticipate the footsteps of the Messiah. What is the source? “He spread [paras] a net for my feet.”¹⁵⁸This is expounded as a reference to Persia [paras]. When the Persians, whose empire included Babylon, spread their net in the Land of Israel, it will be a harbinger of the Messiah. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: If you see a Persian horse tied in the Land of Israel, anticipate the footsteps of the Messiah. What is the source? “This will be peace: When Assyria [will come into our land and when it will tread in our palaces, we will raise against it seven shepherds, and eight princes of men]” (Micah 5:4). “He turned me back,” away from the priesthood, away from the kingdom. “He rendered me desolate,” set for destruction; “suffering all day,” [sent] to the gallows.

1) (Vayikra 21:1) ("And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron, and you shall say to them: For a dead body he shall not become tamei among his people." The sons of Aaron may not become tamei for a dead body; the daughters of Aaron may become tamei for a dead body. "the sons of Aaron": I might think that challalim (those of imperfect priestly status, are also included in the interdict); it is, therefore, written "Cohanim" — to exclude challalim. And whence is it derived that those with blemishes are included? From "the sons of Aaron." "the sons of Aaron": even the minors.

1) (Vayikra 21:10) ("And the Cohein who is greater than his brothers [i.e., the high-priest], upon whose head the oil of anointment has been poured, and who has been invested to wear the garments — his hair he shall not dishevel and his garments he shall not rend.") "And the Cohein who is greater than his brothers": He must be greater than his brothers in wealth, strength, strength, and wisdom. Whence is it derived that if he is lacking these attributes, his brother Cohanim are to elevate him? From "greater than (lit., "from") his brothers" — his greatness should come from his brothers. They said about Pinchas of Havata upon whom the lot fell to be high-priest, that the (Temple) treasures and trustees went after him and found him quarrying, whereupon they filled the quarry with golden dinars. R. Chananiah b. Gamliel said: Now was he a quarrier? Was he not our son-in-law, and did they not find him plowing? As it was related: Twelve (ox-) pairs went before him, and he came after the twelfth!

1) (Vayikra 21:14) ("A widow, and a divorcée, and a challalah, and a zonah — these he shall not take; but only a virgin from his people shall he take as a wife.") Let it be stated (only) "a widow." Why is "a divorcée (also) written? For if "a widow" (alone) were stated and not "a divorcée," I would say: If a widow, who is permitted to an ordinary Cohein, is forbidden to a high-priest, then a divorcée, who is forbidden to a high-priest, how much more so is she forbidden to a high-priest! If so, I would say: A widow, who is permitted to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is profane (vis-à-vis the priesthood); a divorcée, who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is a mamzer. It is, therefore, written "a divorcée …" (Vayikra 21:15) And he shall not profane."

1) (Vayikra 21:14) ("A widow, and a divorcée, and a challalah, and a zonah — these he shall not take; but only a virgin from his people shall he take as a wife.") Let it be stated (only) "a widow." Why is "a divorcée (also) written? For if "a widow" (alone) were stated and not "a divorcée," I would say: If a widow, who is permitted to an ordinary Cohein, is forbidden to a high-priest, then a divorcée, who is forbidden to a high-priest, how much more so is she forbidden to a high-priest! If so, I would say: A widow, who is permitted to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is profane (vis-à-vis the priesthood); a divorcée, who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is a mamzer. It is, therefore, written "a divorcée …" (Vayikra 21:15) And he shall not profane."

1) (Vayikra 21:17) ("Speak to Aaron, saying: "A man of your seed, to their generations, who will have in him a blemish, shall not come near to offer up the bread of his G d": ("A man of your seed"): R. Elazar b. R. Yossi said: A child is unfit even if he is unblemished. When is his service kasher? Once he grows two (pubic) hairs. But his fellow Cohanim do not initiate him in his service until he is twenty years old.

1) "you shall not present": If (the meaning is) that you shall not designate as sacred, this is already stated above (Vayikra 21:20). Its intent must be, then, that you shall not slaughter.

1) (Vayikra 21:21) ("Every man in whom there is a blemish, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein, shall not come near to offer up the fire-offerings of the L–rd. There is a blemish in him; the bread of his G d he shall not come near to offer up.") This tells me only of these (i.e., the aforementioned blemishes). Whence are the other blemishes derived? From "in whom there is a blemish, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein." (i.e., only those who bear a normal human semblance may serve.)

1) (Vayikra 21:5) ("They shall not make a baldness upon their head, and the corners of their beard they shall not shave off, and in their flesh they shall not cut any cutting.") "They shall not make a baldness": I might think that (even) if he made four or five bald spots he would be liable for one alone; it is, therefore, written "a baldness," to stipulate liability for each one individually.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 21:1): SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS. This text is related (to Ps. 19:3–4 [2–3]): ONE DAY POURS OUT SPEECH TO ANOTHER…; THERE IS NO SPEECH, NOR ARE THERE WORDS. You find that in the days of autumn the day lends to the night, while in the days of summer the night lends to the day.³See Lev. R. 26:4; M. Pss. 19:10. (Vs. 4:) THERE IS NO SPEECH, NOR ARE THERE WORDS. No creature hears < about any difference > between them, as stated (in Ps. 19:4 [3]): THERE IS NO SPEECH, NOR ARE THERE WORDS, [NOR IS THEIR VOICE HEARD]. Down below, however, when the children of Adam lend to each other, how many quarrels they generate! Thus it is stated (in Ps. 19:4–5 [3–4]): THERE IS NO SPEECH, NOR ARE THERE WORDS…. [THEIR LINE GOES OUT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH, AND THEIR WORDS TO THE END OF THE WORLD]. The heavenly creatures need neither talk nor speech, but earthly creatures need talk (rt.: 'MR), speech, and words (rt.: 'MR). (Lev. 21:1:) SPEAK (rt.: 'MR)… AND SAY (rt.: 'MR). Perhaps they will attend to them (i.e., the double command). Thus it is stated (ibid.): SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS, [AND SAY UNTO THEM].

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) "and you shall say to them: For a dead body (nefesh) he may not become tamei among his people.": This tells me only of the dead body. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the blood? It is, therefore, written "for a nefesh," and elsewhere (Devarim 12:23) it is written "for the blood is the nefesh."

2) "upon whose head the oil of anointment has been poured": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemoth 29:31) "Seven days shall he anoint his sons, who ministers in his stead put them on, when he comes to the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place," I might think (that he is ordained as high-priest) only if he is anointed for seven days and invested (in the garments) for seven days. Whence do I derive that the same applies if he is anointed for seven and invested for one, or anointed for one and invested for seven, or if he is anointed for one and invested for one — even for one moment? From "upon whose head the oil of anointment has been poured" — even for one moment; "and who has been invested to wear the garments" — even for one moment.

2) Or if it were written "divorcée" and not (only) "widow," I would say: A divorcée, who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is profane; a widow, who is permitted to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is kasher. It is, therefore, written "A widow … And he shall not profane," "A divorcée … And he shall not profane" — "a widow," for severity; "a divorcée," for leniency.

2) "who will have in him a blemish": This tells me (that for his service to be kasher) he is not to have a blemish after the pronouncement (of the law), as in the instance of zivah and negaim (plague-spots). Whence is it derived (that his service is not kasher) if he has the blemish before the pronouncement? From "in him a blemish." This tells me only of his having been born unblemished and having become blemished. Whence do I derive the same for one who was born blemished from his mother's womb? From "in him a blemish."

2) Whence is derived (for inclusion) (one with the skin-coloring of) a Cushite, one who is red-spotted, one who is white-spotted, one who is pole-like in appearance (i.e., unusually long and thin), one who is dwarf-like, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and those with (halachically) clean plague-spots? From "Every man."

2) "upon their head": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 14:1) "Do not lacerate yourselves and do not make baldness between your eyes for the dead," I might think that only "between the eyes" entails liability. Whence is the head included? From "upon their head," to include (all of) the head.

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.

(Lev. 21:1:) “Then the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Say unto the priests […], and say unto them.”¹⁷A somewhat awkward translation of this verse and others that follow is necessary, because the midrash is concerned with the double use of the verb “say/said” (rt.: ‘MR). R. Johanan said, “Wherever it says, ‘say […,]’ and ‘say,’ it must be interpreted.”¹⁸Lev. R. 26:8; see Lam. R. 1:13 (41); Meg. 16a. (Esth. 7:5:) “Then said King Ahasuerus, and he said to Queen Esther.” Why “said […]” and “he said?” He said to her, “If this (Haman) is the man, well and good; but if not, say that he is [regardless].” Another interpretation: Before [the king] came to know about her being Jewish, he talked with her through an interpreter; when he came to know about her, he began to talk with her [by himself]. Similarly (in I Kings 20:28), “Then the man of God approached and said unto the king of Israel and said, ‘Thus says the Lord.’” “Why “said […,]” and “said?”¹⁹ySanh. 11:7/5 (30c). He was saying to him (with the first said), “When Ben-Hadad falls into your hand, you shall not take pity on him.” A second saying: He said to him, “Be aware of how many nets and enticements I set out for him before he comes into your hand. So now, if he is missing (according to vs. 42), it will be your life for his life and your people for his people.” [Similarly (in Ezek. 10:2),] “Then he said unto the person clothed in linen, and said, ‘Go in among the wheel work, [under the cherub].’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said unto the angel, and the angel said to the cherub. He said to him, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded me, but I do not have the authority to enter your section [of heaven]; so do me a favor and give me two burning coals.” Immediately (in vs. 7), “he took some and put them into the hands of the one who was clothed in linen.” R. Pinhas said, “He cooled them and gave them to him.”²⁰Cf. Yoma. 77a. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Two burning coals were being quenched in Gabriel's hand. He was thinking that Israel would repent. When they did not do so, he sought to hurl them and destroy them. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Gabriel, slowly, slowly. There are among them people who are doing acts of charity with each other.’ Thus it is stated (in vs. 8), ‘And there the cherubim appeared to have the form of a human hand²¹A symbol of the almsgiving. under their wings.’” So also here (in Lev. 21:1), “Say unto the priests…, and say.” The first saying is for the unclaimed corpse, for which [a priest] must become unclean; and the second is for other [corpses], for which he may not become unclean. Ergo, “say […,]” and “say.” Since in this world, a priest becomes unclean for an unclaimed corpse, but in the future you will not become unclean at all. Why? As there will be no death in the future. That is as written (in Isaiah 25:8), “He will swallow death forever.”

3) I would exclude (from liability, Israelites,) who are not exhorted against primary states of tumah (avoth hatumah) all year round, but I would not exclude Cohanim, who are exhorted against avoth hatumah all year round, viz. (Vayikra 21:1): "Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron and say to them: 'For a dead body he (a Cohein) shall not become unclean among his people'"; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "of these" (and they are excluded from liability for an offering in touching a carcass.)

3) Whence is derived for inclusion all the tumah segments that separate from the body? From "and you shall say to them" — to include these. "For a dead body he shall not become tamei among his people": When his people are there [i.e., when there are non-priests who can tend to the body, he is not to become tamei, but he is to become tamei for a meth mitzvah (a body which has no one to tend to it.)

3) If it were written "The hair he shall not dishevel and the garment he shall not rend, I might think that this refers to the hair and to the garment of a sotah (See Bamidbar 5:18); it is, therefore, written "his (the high-priest's) hair" and "his garments." R. Meir says: "his hair he shall not dishevel and his garments he shall not rend" — for his dead, as others do for their dead. How so? The high-priest rends from the bottom (of his garment), and others, from the top.

3) "and a challalah": Which is a "challalah"? A woman who was born of one of those forbidden to the priesthood (e.g., the daughter of the union of a widow and a high-priest).

3) "he shall not come near to offer up the bread of his G d": This tells me only of the temidim (the daily burnt-offerings), which are called "bread," (viz. Bamidbar 28:2) "My offering, My bread for My fires." Whence do I derive the same for the other offerings? From the repetition of "bread" (here). Whence is the same derived for the (sprinkling of) the blood? From "to offer up" (here) and (Bamidbar 9:9) "And the sons of Aaron offered up the blood to him."

3) "he shall not come near to offer up the bread of his G d": This tells me only of the temidim (the daily burnt-offerings), which are called "bread," (viz. Bamidbar 28:2) "My offering, My bread for My fires." Whence do I derive the same for the other offerings? From the repetition of "bread" (here). Whence is the same derived for the (sprinkling of) the blood? From "to offer up" (here) and (Bamidbar 9:9) "And the sons of Aaron offered up the blood to him."

3) (For without "every" we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori, (that all of the aforementioned (#2) should be permitted in a Cohein), viz.: If a beast, which is unfit (for consummation) in the instances of "it and its son" (Vayikra 22:28), are treifah (organic defect) and Caesarian section, is kasher in all of the aforementioned instances,

3) I might think that (only) with Cohanim, to whom Scripture relegated additional mitzvoth, is there liability for each bald spot and for the head as well as between the eyes, but with Israelites, where this does not obtain, there is liability there for one bald spot only, and only for "between the eyes." It is, therefore, written "baldness" (here, in respect to Cohanim). "baldness" (there, in respect to Israelites), to create an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as with Cohanim there is liability for each bald spot and for the head as well as for between the eyes, so, with Israelites. And just as with Israelites liability for (creating) baldness obtains only vis-à-vis the dead, so, with Cohanim.

(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:

What is written after this passage (in Lev. 21:10)? “And the priest that is highest among his brothers”²²Lev. R. 26:9. Why is he called by the name, “high priest?”²³THE PRIEST THAT IS HIGHEST, without the addition, AMONG HIS BROTHERS, would normally be translated, HIGH PRIEST. Because he was highest (literally: greatest) in five things: in beauty, in strength, in wealth, in wisdom, and in age.²⁴TYoma 1:6; Yoma 18a; see yYoma 1:3 (39a); cf. ‘Eduy. 2:9; Avot. 6:8. In regard to beauty, because he was more handsome than his brothers. In regard to strength, because he was powerful in strength. Come and consider Aaron. When he waved the Levites (as in a wave offering), he waved twenty-two thousand in one day. How did he wave them? Back and forth, up and down. Ergo, he was highest in strength. With regard to wealth, where would it come from? If he was not wealthy, his brother high priests would magnify (rt.: gdl) him. There is a story about Phineas the Stonecutter. When they appointed him high priest, his brother priests went out and saw him cutting stone. So they filled the quarry before him with gold dinars.²⁵Lat.: denarii. And where is it shown that if he had nothing, his brother high priests would magnify (rt.: gdl) him? Where it is stated (in an alternate translation of Lev. 21:10), “And the priest that is highest (rt.: gdl) because of his brothers.” And [this rule applies] not to the high priest alone, but to the king as well. And so you find in the case of David, when he went to fight with Goliath the Philistine, Saul said to him (in I Sam. 17:33), “You cannot go unto this Philistine […].” David said to him (in vs. 34-36), “Your servant tended his father's sheep; and when a lion or a bear came and carried off a lamb from the flock, I would go out after it, smite it, and deliver it out of its mouth…. Your servant smote both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them.” Saul said to him, “And who told you that you could slay him?” Immediately David replied, (vs. 37), “The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.” Immediately (we read in vs. 38), “Saul clothed David with his military garments.” Now it is written (in I Sam. 9:2), “he was a head taller²⁶More literally: TALLER FROM HIS SHOULDERS ON UP. than any of the people.” When he had clothed him in his garments and seen that they were fit for him, he immediately cast a jaundiced eye at him. When David saw that he had offended Saul, he said to him (in I Sam. 17:39), “I cannot go in these, for I am not used to them.” Here you learn that even though a person may be short, when he is appointed king, he becomes tall. Why? Because as soon as he is anointed with the anointing oil, he becomes superior to his brothers. David said, “I rejoiced over the anointing oil with which I was anointed.” It is so stated (in Ps. 16:9), “So my heart rejoices, and my glory exalts; my flesh also dwells in safety.”

(Ezek. 11, 16) Yet will I be to them as a minor sanctuary. R. Samuel b. Isaac said: "This refers to the houses of study that are in Babylon." R. Elazar said: "This refers to the house of our master who is in Babylon; i.e., Rab]." Raba lectured: What is the meaning of the passage (Ps. 90, 1) Lord, a place of refuge hast thou been unto us. That refers to the prayer- and learning-houses." Abayi said: "Formerly I used to learn at home, and pray at the house of Prayer; but since I heard what David said (Ps. 16, 6) Lord, I love the site of thy house, I began to study in the prayer-house also." In a Baraitha it was taught, R. Elazar ha-Kapar said: "The prayer - and learning - houses outside of the land of Israel will in the future be established in the land of Israel, as it is said (Jer. 46, 18) As Thabor is among the mountains, and as Carmel is by the sea, so shall He come, etc. Can this not be inferred through a fortiori conclusion? If Thabor and Carmel, at which only occasionally the Law was studied, are deemed within the land of Israel, how much more so will the prayer-houses and schools, at which the Law is studied, be established in the land of Israel?" Bar Kapara lectured: "What does this passage mean (Ps. 68, 17) Why watch ye enviously, ye many-peaked mountains? This means: A heavenly voice went forth and said to the mountains: 'Why should ye be jealous of Mount Sinai? Ye, all great mountains, are blemished in comparison with Sinai; for it is written Gabnunim in connection with mountains, and the same analogy of expression is used (Lev. 21, 20) A Giben (crook-backed) ." .From this," said Abaye, "we may infer that a man who is haughty is to be considered as blemished." (Fol. 31) R. Jochanan said: "Whenever you find in the Scripture a description of the greatness of the Holy One, praised be He! you find also a description of His modesty. This is written in the Pentateuch, repeated in the Prophets, and mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa. In the Pentateuch it is written (Deut. 10, 17) For the Lord your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of Lords; and immediately follows. Who executeth justice for the fatherless and the widow. It is repeated in the Prophets (Is. 57, 15) Thus hath said the High and Lofty One, who inhabiteth Eternity, whose name it Holy; and after this it is written: Yet also with the contrite and humble in spirit. The third time in Hagiographa (Ps. 68, 5) Extol him who rideth upon the heavens. The Everlasting is His name; and after this it is written: A father of the fatherless and the judge of the widows."

4) (Vayikra 21:11) ("And to any dead body he shall not come. For his father and for his mother he shall not become tamei.") "And to any dead body he shall not come": R. Akiva said: Whence is it derived that a fourth of a log of blood issuing from two dead bodies (is tamei)? From "And to any dead (lit., "bodies, he shall not come" — two bodies and one amount (of blood [connoted by "dead body"]). "he shall not come" "he shall not come" and "he shall not become tamei": He is liable for (both) "he shall not come" (into the tent of the dead body) and "he shall not become tamei." This tells me only that the high-priest is liable for both. Whence is it derived that the same applies to an ordinary Cohein, (in respect to whom only "he shall not become tamei" is written [viz. Vayikra 21:1])? From gezeirah shavah (identity) of "he shall not become tamei" (here) and "he shall not become tamei" (there) — Just as with that written in respect to the high-priest there is liability for both "he shall not come" and for "he shall not become tamei," so with that written in respect to an ordinary Cohein. "For his father and for his mother he may not become tamei": (but) he does make himself tamei for a meth mitzvah (a dead body without anyone else to bury it).

4) (Vayikra 21:11) ("And to any dead body he shall not come. For his father and for his mother he shall not become tamei.") "And to any dead body he shall not come": R. Akiva said: Whence is it derived that a fourth of a log of blood issuing from two dead bodies (is tamei)? From "And to any dead (lit., "bodies, he shall not come" — two bodies and one amount (of blood [connoted by "dead body"]). "he shall not come" "he shall not come" and "he shall not become tamei": He is liable for (both) "he shall not come" (into the tent of the dead body) and "he shall not become tamei." This tells me only that the high-priest is liable for both. Whence is it derived that the same applies to an ordinary Cohein, (in respect to whom only "he shall not become tamei" is written [viz. Vayikra 21:1])? From gezeirah shavah (identity) of "he shall not become tamei" (here) and "he shall not become tamei" (there) — Just as with that written in respect to the high-priest there is liability for both "he shall not come" and for "he shall not become tamei," so with that written in respect to an ordinary Cohein. "For his father and for his mother he may not become tamei": (but) he does make himself tamei for a meth mitzvah (a dead body without anyone else to bury it).

4) "a zonah": Why is this written? (i.e., I can derive it a fortiori from her being forbidden to an ordinary Cohein.) For I might think that only the seed of a high-priest by those unfit for him become challalim. Whence do I derive the same for the seed of an ordinary Cohein? It is, therefore, written "zonah" (here) and "zonah" (Vayikra 21:7, in respect to an ordinary Cohein), for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as the seed of a high-priest by those unfit for him are challalim, so, the seed of an ordinary Cohein.

4) Whence do I derive the same for the devoted portions of the sin-offering and of the guilt-offering and of holy of holies and of lower-order offerings? From "he shall not come near (to offer up.") Whence do I derive the same for the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, and meal-offering of the anointed Cohein, and the meal-offering of the libations? From (Bamidbar 9:26) "the fire-offerings of the L–rd." Whence do I derive the same for the oil pouring, the mixings, the wavings, the presentings, the fistful takings the incense takings, the pinchings, and the (blood) receivings? From "he shall not come near to offer up." I might think that Cohanim with blemishes are liable (stripes) for performing all of them; it is, therefore, written "bread." Just as "bread" connotes the (sacrificial) service itself, (so all, for such liability must characterize the sacrificial service), excluding the above, which are not intrinsic to the service (i.e., if they are omitted, the offering is still kasher.)

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

4) Whence do I derive the same for the devoted portions of the sin-offering and of the guilt-offering and of holy of holies and of lower-order offerings? From "he shall not come near (to offer up.") Whence do I derive the same for the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, and meal-offering of the anointed Cohein, and the meal-offering of the libations? From (Bamidbar 9:26) "the fire-offerings of the L–rd." Whence do I derive the same for the oil pouring, the mixings, the wavings, the presentings, the fistful takings the incense takings, the pinchings, and the (blood) receivings? From "he shall not come near to offer up." I might think that Cohanim with blemishes are liable (stripes) for performing all of them; it is, therefore, written "bread." Just as "bread" connotes the (sacrificial) service itself, (so all, for such liability must characterize the sacrificial service), excluding the above, which are not intrinsic to the service (i.e., if they are omitted, the offering is still kasher.)

4) then a man (i.e., a Cohein, who is fit (for the sacrificial service) in the instances of he and his son, etc., how much more so should he be kasher in all of the aforementioned instances! It must, therefore, be written "Every man, etc."

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

4) "and do not destroy the corners of your beard": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 21:5) "and the corners of their beard they (Cohanim) shall not shave off," I might think that even cutting off with a scissors as with a razor makes him liable; it is, therefore, written "and do not destroy the corners of your beard." If (it were written only) "do not destroy the corners of your beard," I might think that even if he removed it with a tweezer or a depilatory it makes him liable; it is, therefore, written "and the corners of their beard they shall not shave off." How is this to be understood? As referring to shaving where there is destruction, i.e., (shaving with) a razor.

4) "and in their flesh they shall not cut": If this alone were written I might think that if he made five cuts he is liable only for one; it is, therefore written "any cutting," to impose liability for each cutting.

4) "a zonah": Why is this written? (i.e., I can derive it a fortiori from her being forbidden to an ordinary Cohein.) For I might think that only the seed of a high-priest by those unfit for him become challalim. Whence do I derive the same for the seed of an ordinary Cohein? It is, therefore, written "zonah" (here) and "zonah" (Vayikra 21:7, in respect to an ordinary Cohein), for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as the seed of a high-priest by those unfit for him are challalim, so, the seed of an ordinary Cohein.

(Lev. 21:1:) THEN THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES: SAY UNTO THE PRIESTS < …, AND SAY UNTO THEM >.²²A somewhat awkward translation of this verse and others that follow is necessary, because the midrash is concerned with the double use of the verb “say/said” (rt.: ‘MR). R. Johanan said: Wherever it says: SAY < …, > AND SAY, it must be interpreted.²³Tanh., Lev. 8:5; Lev. R. 26:8; see Lam. R. 1:13 (41); Meg. 16a. (Esth. 7:5:) THEN SAID KING AHASUERUS, AND HE SAID TO QUEEN ESTHER. Why SAID < … > AND HE SAID? He said to her; If this (Haman) is the man, well and good; but if not, they have said that he is.²⁴Buber’s fifth Oxford ms (Hunt 74 Uri Nc No. 2337) reads, “They have said to me that he is.” The first two parallels mentioned in the previous note have, “But if not, say that he is.” R. Abbin said: Before < the king > came to know about her being Jewish, he talked with her through an interpreter; when he came to know about her, he began to talk with her by himself. Similarly (in I Kings 20:28): THEN THE MAN OF GOD SAID UNTO {AHAB} THE KING OF ISRAEL, AND SAID: THUS SAYS THE LORD. Why SAID < …, > AND SAID?²⁵ySanh. 11:7/5 (30c). He was saying to him (with the first SAID): When Ben-hadad falls into your hand, you shall not take pity on him. A second saying: He said to him: Be aware of how many nets and enticements I set out for him before he comes into your hand. So now, if he is missing, (according to vs. 42) IT WILL BE YOUR LIFE FOR HIS LIFE AND YOUR PEOPLE FOR HIS PEOPLE. [Similarly] (in Ezek. 10:2): THEN HE SAID UNTO THE PERSON CLOTHED IN LINEN, AND SAID: GO IN AMONG THE WHEEL WORK, < UNDER THE CHERUB >. < The Holy One > said unto the angel, and the angel said to the cherub. He said to him: The Holy One has commanded me, but I do not have the authority to enter your section < of heaven >; so do me a favor and give me two burning coals. Immediately (in vs. 7), HE TOOK SOME AND PUT THEM INTO THE HANDS OF THE ONE WHO WAS CLOTHED IN LINEN. R. Pinhas said: He cooled them and gave them to him.²⁶Cf. Yoma. 77a. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: Two burning coals were being quenched in Gabriel's hand for two years and a half. He was thinking that Israel would repent. When they did not do so, he sought to hurl them and destroy them. The Holy One said to him: Gabriel, do not act. There are among the children of Adam those who are repenting and doing acts of righteousness with each other. Thus it is stated (in vs. 8): AND THERE THE CHERUBIM APPEARED TO HAVE THE FORM OF A HUMAN HAND²⁷A symbol of the almsgiving. < UNDER THEIR WINGS >. Ergo (in vs. 2): SAID < …, > AND SAID. So also here (in Lev. 21:1:) SAY UNTO THE PRIESTS…, AND SAY. The first saying is for the unclaimed corpse, for which < a priest > may become unclean; and the second is for other < corpses >, for which he may not become unclean.

R. Levi stated: He then took the list of gods and began to read: The god of Edom, the god of Moab, the god of Sidon, etc. And he said to them: “I have read the entire list, but the name of your God is not upon it.” R. Levi said: This may be compared to a priest who had a foolish servant. On one occasion, after the priest had left the city, his servant went to the cemetery to seek him. He inquired of the men loitering about: “Have you seen my master here?” They replied: “Isn’t your master a priest?” Indeed, he replied. “Fool,” they said, “who has ever seen a priest in a cemetery?”⁷Priests are not permitted to enter cemeteries (Lev. 21:1 and the halakhic codes). Moses and Aaron likewise rebuked Pharaoh, saying: “Fool, these gods that you mentioned are all dead, but the Lord, the true God, is a living God, the King of the Universe.” Pharaoh asked them: “Is He young or old? How many cities has He captured? How many provinces has He humbled? How long has He been King?” They replied: “The strength and power of our God permeates the world. He was before the world was created, and He will be at the end of all worlds. He fashioned you and placed within you the breath of life.” “What else has He done?” he asked. They replied: He stretched forth the heavens and the earth and His voice heweth out flames of fire (Ps. 29:7); He rends the mountains and breaketh in pieces the rocks (I Kings 19:11); His bow is of fire; His arrows are flames; His spear is a torch; His shield is of the clouds; His sword is lighning; He formeth mountains and hills; covereth the mountains with the grass; the heavens with clouds; He bringeth down rain and dew, cạuseth plants to grow and fruits to ripen; He afflicteth the beasts; He formeth the embryo in the womb of the mother and bringeth it forth into the light of the world. He removeth kings and setteth up kings (Dan. 2:21). He said to them: “You have been speaking falsehood from the start! For I am the lord of the world, and I created myself and the Nile, as is written: The Nile is mine, I made it (Ezek. 29:3).” At that moment he gathered all the wise men of Egypt, and said to them: “Perhaps you have heard about the god of these?” They said to him: “We have heard that he is the son of wise men and the son of early kings.” The Holy One, blessed be He said: They call themselves wise men, but Me (they call) a son of wise men! By your life, I will destroy you for your wisdom, as is written: All the wisdom of Pharaoh’s advisers, their plans are foolish. How can you say to Pharaoh, “I am a son of wise men, I am the son of early kings? (Isa. 19:11). See what is written of them: The wisdom of his wise men and the understanding of his discerning men will be hidden (ibid. 29:14). He (Pharaoh) answered them (Moses and Aaron): “I do not understand what you are saying. Who is God that I should harken to His voice? (Exod. 5:2).” The Holy One, blessed be He responded: Evil one! Who is God? you asked. (With) who (mi) you will be plagued. Mi equals fifty in gematria.⁸Mem = 40, yod = 10. These are the fifty plagues which the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt. What does Scripture say regarding Egypt? The sorcerers said to Pharaoh: “This is the finger of God” (ibid. 8:15), and regarding the sea, what does (Scripture) say? Israel saw the great hand (ibid. 14:31). How many plagues did they suffer with a finger? Ten plagues. Calculate the five fingers on a great hand; each one corresponds to ten, hence fifty. Another interpretation: mi (“who”), switch the letters of mi (mem-yod)and you spell yam (yod-mem, “sea”); the Red Sea will inform you who God is. By your life! With your own mouth you will exclaim: ‘The Lord is righteous.’ You have said: I will not send, but tomorrow you will take hold of each of them by the hand and say: Go in peace, take even thy sheep and thy cattle, and the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste (ibid. 12:33). And thus it is said: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go (ibid. 13:17).

5) (Vayikra 13:45) ("And the leper in which the plague-spot is found, his clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long, and his upper lip shall be covered, and 'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry.") "And the leper": Even if he is the high-priest. Because it is written (of the high-priest, Vayikra 21:10) "His hair he shall not grow long and his clothes he shall not rend," I might think (that this holds) even if he is afflicted (with leprosy), and how will I satisfy "His clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long? With others, aside from the high-priest; it is, therefore, written (the redundant) "in which the plague-spot is found" — even if he be the high-priest.

5) (Vayikra 21:12) ("And from the sanctuary he shall not go out, and he shall not profane the sanctuary of his G d; for the crown of the anointing oil of his G d is upon him, I am the L–rd.") "And from the sanctuary he shall not go out": He does not go out (i.e., he does not follow the litter), but follows after them, when they (the litter bearers) are concealed" (in an alleyway), he is revealed." When they are concealed (in a second alleyway), he is revealed. And he goes out with them until the entrance of the city. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: "And from the sanctuary he shall not go out": He does not go out at all.

5) "these he shall not take": "these he shall not take … And he shall not profane." But his seed from a niddah do not become chullin (i.e., challalim). For it would follow a fortiori (that they do become challalim), viz.: If the children of these, cohabitation with which does not render him liable to kareth — if the children of these are challalim, how much more so the children of niddah, cohabitation with which does render him liable to kareth! It is, therefore, written "these he shall not take … And he shall not profane," (but) his seed from a niddah is not profaned.

5) (Vayikra 21:18) ("For every man who has in him a blemish shall not come near: a man who is blind, or lame, or charum or asymmetrical of limb.") "every man who has in him a blemish": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 21:21) "the seed of Aaron," I might think that the halachah applied to his seed only. Whence do I derive that it applies (also) to Aaron himself? From "For every man." This tells me only of a permanent blemish. Whence do I derive the same for a passing blemish? From "every man who has in him a blemish."

5) Or, if it were written "to his father" and not "to his mother," I would say: If he makes himself tamei for his father, who is such only by common acceptance, how much more so does he make himself tamei for her, (who is definitely known to be his mother!) — If so, I would say: Just as his father does not make himself a challal (see above), (then he may make himself tamei) only for his mother who has not become a challalah. Whence would I know that he does so even if she has become a challalah? It must, therefore, be written "to his mother."

5) "There is a blemish in him": to exclude (from disqualification in the instances of) "he and his son," treifah, and Caesarian section. (For without "in him" we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori: (that all of these are forbidden in a Cohein), viz.: If a beast, which is kasher in the instances of Cushite, etc., is unfit in the instances of "it and its son, etc.", then a man (a Cohein), who is unfit in the instances of Cushite, etc., how much more so should he be unfit in the instances of "he and his son, etc."! It must, therefore, be written "There is a blemish in him," to exclude "he and his son, etc."

5) (Vayikra 21:18) ("For every man who has in him a blemish shall not come near: a man who is blind, or lame, or charum or asymmetrical of limb.") "every man who has in him a blemish": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 21:21) "the seed of Aaron," I might think that the halachah applied to his seed only. Whence do I derive that it applies (also) to Aaron himself? From "For every man." This tells me only of a permanent blemish. Whence do I derive the same for a passing blemish? From "every man who has in him a blemish."

5) (Vayikra 6:11) ("Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat it. It is a statute forever for your generations of the fire-offerings of the L–rd. Whatever touches them shall become sanctified.") "Every male": to include those who are blemished. To what end? If for eating, this is already written (viz. Vayikra 21:22). If so, why is "Every male" written? To include those who are blemished for apportionment. "shall eat it": if it is fit, but not if it has become unfit. "It is a statute forever." — for the eternal house (the Temple). "For your generations" — to span the generations (for the second Temple and beyond). "of the fire-offerings of the L–rd": They may not eat it (even if it had been apportioned earlier) until after the fire-offering.

6) "Every male": to include all those with blemishes. Why need this be stated? If (to tell us that they are fit) for eating, this has already been stated (Vayikra 21:22), and if for apportionment, (that he receive a portion as one of the fit ones), this has already been stated (Vayikra 6:11, see Chapter 3:5 here). If so, why is "Every male" written? For (if it were not written) I might think that only those with passing blemishes (were permitted). Whence would I derive (for inclusion) even those with permanent blemishes? It is, therefore, written: "Every male among the Cohanim may eat." "it": one that is consecrated and not one that is unfit. "it is holy of holies": Why is this mentioned? I might think that (the vessels of) a sin-offering alone require scouring and rinsing. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings? From "holy of holies." I might think that the same holds true for terumah. It is, therefore, written ("may eat) it" — excluding terumah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: (Vessels of) higher order offerings require scouring and rinsing. (Those of) lower order offerings do not.

5) I might think that (only) with Cohanim, to whom Scripture relegated additional mitzvoth, is there liability for each laceration but with Israelites, where this does not obtain, there is liability for one (laceration) only; it is, therefore, written "cutting" (here, in respect to Cohanim) - "cutting" (there [Devarim 19:22] in respect to Israelites), to create an identity, viz.: Just as with Cohanim there is liability for each cutting, so with Israelites. And just as with Israelites liability (for cutting) obtains only vis-à-vis the dead, so, with Cohanim.

[(Lev. 21:1:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES: SAY UNTO THE PRIESTS.] What is written after this passage (in vs. 10)? AND THE PRIEST THAT IS HIGHEST AMONG HIS BROTHERS.²⁸Tanh., Lev. 8:4; Lev. R. 26:9. Why is he called by the name HIGH?²⁹THE PRIEST THAT IS HIGHEST, without the addition, AMONG HIS BROTHERS, would normally be translated, HIGH PRIEST. Because he was highest (literally: greatest) in five areas: In beauty, in strength, in wealth, in wisdom, and in age.³⁰TYoma 1:6; Yoma 18a; see yYoma 1:3 (39a); cf. ‘Eduy. 2:9; Avot. 6:8. In regard to beauty, because he was more handsome than his brothers. In regard to strength, because he was heroic in strength. Come and consider Aaron. When he waved the Levites (as in a wave offering), he waved twenty-two thousand in one day. How did he wave them? Back and forth, up and down. Ergo: He was highest in strength. Also in regard to wealth, because if he had not been wealthy, his brother priests would have made him wealthy. There is a story about Pinhas the Stone Cutter. When they appointed him high priest, his brother priests went out and saw him cutting stone. So they would not permit him to continue, but filled the quarry before him with gold dinars.³¹Lat.: denarii. [And where is it shown] that, if he had nothing, his brother high priests would magnify (rt.: GDL) him? Where it is stated (in an alternate translation of Lev. 21:10): AND THE PRIEST THAT IS HIGHEST (rt.: GDL) BECAUSE OF HIS BROTHERS. And < this rule applies > not to the high priest alone, but to the king as well. And so you find in the case of David, when he went to fight with Goliath the Philistine, Saul said to him (in I Sam. 17:33): YOU CANNOT GO UNTO < THIS > PHILISTINE … David said to him (in vs. 34–36): YOUR SERVANT TENDED HIS [FATHER'S] SHEEP; < AND WHEN A LION OR A BEAR CAME AND CARRIED OFF A LAMB FROM THE FLOCK, > I WOULD GO OUT AFTER IT, SMITE IT, < AND DELIVER IT OUT OF ITS MOUTH >…. < YOUR SERVANT > SMOTE BOTH THE LION AND THE BEAR, < AND THIS UNCIRCUMCISED PHILISTINE SHALL BE AS ONE OF THEM >…. Saul said to him: And who told you that you could slay him? David replied: Hunting³²Gk.: kynegia. has trained me, Papa. (Vs. 37:) THE LORD WHO DELIVERED FROM THE PAW OF THE LION… < WILL DELIVER ME FROM THE HAND OF THIS PHILISTINE >. Immediately (we read in vs. 38): SAUL CLOTHED DAVID WITH HIS MILITARY GARMENTS…. Now it is written (in I Sam. 9:2): HE WAS A HEAD TALLER³³More literally: TALLER FROM HIS SHOULDERS ON UP. THAN ANY OF THE PEOPLE. When he had clothed him in his garments and seen that they were made for him, he immediately cast a jaundiced eye at him. When David saw that he had offended Saul, he said to him (in I Sam. 17:39): I CANNOT {GO FORTH} [GO] IN THESE, FOR I AM NOT USED TO THEM. Here you learn that even though a person may be short, when he is appointed king, he becomes tall. Why? Because as soon as he is anointed with the anointing oil, he becomes superior to his brothers. David said: I rejoiced over the anointing oil with which I was anointed, in that I shall never move away from my glory. It is so stated (in Ps. 16:9): SO MY HEART REJOICES, AND MY GLORY EXALTS; MY FLESH ALSO DWELLS IN SAFETY.

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

[(Lev. 21:1:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES: SAY UNTO THE PRIESTS.] What is written after this passage (in vs. 10)? AND THE PRIEST THAT IS HIGHEST AMONG HIS BROTHERS.²⁸Tanh., Lev. 8:4; Lev. R. 26:9. Why is he called by the name HIGH?²⁹THE PRIEST THAT IS HIGHEST, without the addition, AMONG HIS BROTHERS, would normally be translated, HIGH PRIEST. Because he was highest (literally: greatest) in five areas: In beauty, in strength, in wealth, in wisdom, and in age.³⁰TYoma 1:6; Yoma 18a; see yYoma 1:3 (39a); cf. ‘Eduy. 2:9; Avot. 6:8. In regard to beauty, because he was more handsome than his brothers. In regard to strength, because he was heroic in strength. Come and consider Aaron. When he waved the Levites (as in a wave offering), he waved twenty-two thousand in one day. How did he wave them? Back and forth, up and down. Ergo: He was highest in strength. Also in regard to wealth, because if he had not been wealthy, his brother priests would have made him wealthy. There is a story about Pinhas the Stone Cutter. When they appointed him high priest, his brother priests went out and saw him cutting stone. So they would not permit him to continue, but filled the quarry before him with gold dinars.³¹Lat.: denarii. [And where is it shown] that, if he had nothing, his brother high priests would magnify (rt.: GDL) him? Where it is stated (in an alternate translation of Lev. 21:10): AND THE PRIEST THAT IS HIGHEST (rt.: GDL) BECAUSE OF HIS BROTHERS. And < this rule applies > not to the high priest alone, but to the king as well. And so you find in the case of David, when he went to fight with Goliath the Philistine, Saul said to him (in I Sam. 17:33): YOU CANNOT GO UNTO < THIS > PHILISTINE … David said to him (in vs. 34–36): YOUR SERVANT TENDED HIS [FATHER'S] SHEEP; < AND WHEN A LION OR A BEAR CAME AND CARRIED OFF A LAMB FROM THE FLOCK, > I WOULD GO OUT AFTER IT, SMITE IT, < AND DELIVER IT OUT OF ITS MOUTH >…. < YOUR SERVANT > SMOTE BOTH THE LION AND THE BEAR, < AND THIS UNCIRCUMCISED PHILISTINE SHALL BE AS ONE OF THEM >…. Saul said to him: And who told you that you could slay him? David replied: Hunting³²Gk.: kynegia. has trained me, Papa. (Vs. 37:) THE LORD WHO DELIVERED FROM THE PAW OF THE LION… < WILL DELIVER ME FROM THE HAND OF THIS PHILISTINE >. Immediately (we read in vs. 38): SAUL CLOTHED DAVID WITH HIS MILITARY GARMENTS…. Now it is written (in I Sam. 9:2): HE WAS A HEAD TALLER³³More literally: TALLER FROM HIS SHOULDERS ON UP. THAN ANY OF THE PEOPLE. When he had clothed him in his garments and seen that they were made for him, he immediately cast a jaundiced eye at him. When David saw that he had offended Saul, he said to him (in I Sam. 17:39): I CANNOT {GO FORTH} [GO] IN THESE, FOR I AM NOT USED TO THEM. Here you learn that even though a person may be short, when he is appointed king, he becomes tall. Why? Because as soon as he is anointed with the anointing oil, he becomes superior to his brothers. David said: I rejoiced over the anointing oil with which I was anointed, in that I shall never move away from my glory. It is so stated (in Ps. 16:9): SO MY HEART REJOICES, AND MY GLORY EXALTS; MY FLESH ALSO DWELLS IN SAFETY.

6) And when is it derived that if he performed the (sacrificial) service (and does not go out after the hearse), it is valid? From "And (if he does not go out after the hearse) he does not profane the sanctuary of his G d." But if an ordinary Cohein serves while in mourning, his service is invalid. "for the crown of the anointing oil of his G d is upon him": This tells me (that he may not go out) only if he is anointed with the oil of anointment. Whence is the same derived for one who is clothed in the many vestments (of the high-priest)? From "for the crown of the anointing oil of his G d is upon him": This (i.e., the "crown" of the high-priesthood [the many vestments, along with the anointing oil] is the cause (of his not going out).

6) "but only a virgin": We are hereby taught that it is a mitzvah for him to wed a virgin. "from his people": to include the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte (from a Cohein) as fit for (marriage to) the priesthood. "he shall take as a wife': What is the intent of this? Whence is it derived that if one (a Cohein) betrothed a widow and he was then appointed high-priest, he is permitted to wed her (even though she is not a virgin)? From "he shall take as a wife." It happened with Yehoshua b. Gamla that he betrothed Marta the daughter of Baisus and the king appointed him high-priest, and he wed her. I might think that the same applied if he made a ma'amar (verbal betrothal) in his yevamah (a woman that fell to him for levirate marriage); it is, therefore, written "he shall take a wife," and not a yevamah. "and he shall not profane his seed": This tells me only of his seed. Whence is it derived that she herself becomes a challalah? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If her seed, who did not transgress, are rendered challalim, she, who did transgress, how much more so!

6) "blind": whether he is blind in both eyes or only in one. Whence is it derived that white spots on the cornea or constant watery occlusion (are also considered blemishes)? From "a man who is blind" (i.e., though the impairment in vision is due not to the eye itself, but to some mal-functioning of the man.")

6) Let it be written (only) "to his son and to his daughter." Why need "to his mother and to his father" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori), viz. If he makes himself tamei to his son and to his daughter, whom he is not commanded to honor, how much more so should he make himself tamei to his mother and father, whom he is commanded to honor! — If so, I would say (that the verse speaks also of) his aborted son or daughter. It is, therefore, written "to his mother and to his father." Just as his mother and his father were alive, so, his son or daughter (must have been) alive — to exclude his aborted son or daughter, who were not alive.

6) "there is a blemish in him": to exclude (from disqualification) one whose blemish has left him. (The verse is needed, for without it we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori (that this should disqualify him, viz.:) If a beast, which is unfit in the instance of "it and its son, etc.," is kasher in an instance of the blemish leaving it, then a man (a Cohein), who is kasher in the instance of he and his son, etc., should he not be kasher in an instance of the blemish leaving him?

6) "there is a blemish in him": to exclude (from disqualification) one whose blemish has left him. (The verse is needed, for without it we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori (that this should disqualify him, viz.:) If a beast, which is unfit in the instance of "it and its son, etc.," is kasher in an instance of the blemish leaving it, then a man (a Cohein), who is kasher in the instance of he and his son, etc., should he not be kasher in an instance of the blemish leaving him?

6) (Vayikra 21:6) "Holy shall they be to their G d": perforce (i.e., even if they are willing to be unclean) "and they shall not profane the name of their G d; for the fire-offering of the L–rd, the bread of their G d, they offer up — and they shall be holy": This is the cause (i.e., by divesting themselves of the mitzvah of the priesthood, they divest themselves of their holiness.) "they offer up": and not the Levites. "and they shall be holy": to include those with blemishes.

(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.

(Fol. 52) We are taught in a Baraitha R. Maier used to say: "What does (Lev. 21, 9) Her father doth she profane, mean? This means that if, until that time he was treated like a holy man, from that time on he was treated common; if until that time he was honored, from that time on he would be disgraced. People would say: 'Cursed be such a man who begot such a daughter; cursed is he who has brought her up; cursed is he who has such an offspring.'" R. Ashi said: "In accordance with whose opinion do we act when we name a wicked person, wicked the son of a wicked, although his father was a righteous? It is in accordance with the above Tanna." We are taught in a Baraitha that Aba Jose b. Dusthai said: "Two fire cords came out from the Holy of Holies, and were divided into four: two of them entered the nostrils of one, and two the nostrils of the other, and burnt them (the two sons of Aaron)." But is it not written (Lev. 10, 2) And consumed them? [Hence something was left]. Yea — them, but not their garments.

7) (Vayikra 21:13) ("And he, a woman in her virginity he shall take"): "He" (the high-priest), and not the king (is under the interdict); "he" and not the Nazirite, (though they, too, are "crowned"): "he," to include (in the interdict) the Cohein anointed for war. "a woman in her virginity he shall take": excluding a bogereth (a maid after twelve and a half years), whose (signs of) virginity have diminished. R. Eliezer and R. Shimon permit a bogereth.

8) No! (This is no proof.) He (the Cohein) himself refutes it, having transgressed and not having become a chalal. No, this may be so with a man, who does not become a chalal elsewhere, as opposed to a woman, who does become a challalah elsewhere. Or, if you will, it is derived that she herself becomes a challalah from (the repetitious) "and she shall not profane."

7) "lame": whether he is lame in both legs or only in one. Whence is it derived that if his foot is arched and curved in the shape of a scythe (this is also considered a blemish)? From "or lame" (connoting extension of inclusion). "charum": one whose nose is sunken in. Whence do I derive that noses which are fore-shortened, fused at the nostrils, or cadent (i.e., falling beneath the lip) (are also considered blemishes)? From "or charum."

7) And why are "to his son" and "to his daughter" mentioned (separately)? (i.e., let one be mentioned and I would know the other). Because there obtains with a son what does not obtain with a daughter, and there obtains with a daughter what does not obtain with son. With a son, the father is commanded to perform mitzvoth — to circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade and to get a wife for him, which does not obtain with a daughter. With a daughter, the father has title to what she finds, to the work of her hands, and to the nullification of her vows, which does not obtain with a son. Therefore, both "to his son" and "to his daughter" must be written.

7) (No,) it may be that a beast is kasher in such an instance because he is kasher in the instances of Cushite, etc. Would you say the same for a man (a Cohein), who is not kasher in all of these instances? It must, therefore, be written "there is a blemish in him," to exclude one whose blemish has left him.

7) (Vayikra 21:7) ("A woman who is a zonah and a challalah they shall not take, and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take; for he is holy to his G d.") "a woman who is a zonah": R. Yehudah says: This is an aylonith (a barren woman [i.e., the term "zonah" also includes an aylonith]). And the sages say: This is a proselytess or a freed maidservant or one whose cohabitation was one of znuth (i.e., illicit). R. Eliezer says: Also (included) is cohabitation of a single man with a single woman not for the sake of marriage.

Wilt Thou, indeed, sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What is implied by this verse? That he spoke harshly to Him and said: Anger consumes a human being, but is it possible that you are so angry that you would sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Would You judge the innocent as You judge the wicked? Would You destroy the innocent and the evil together? It is far from Thee to do after this manner (Gen. 18:25). Since the Hebrew word hallilah (“it is far from thee”) contains the letters of the word hallalah (“profaned”), as in the verse A woman that is a harlot, or profaned (Lev. 21:7), this verse implies that he was suggesting, “Would it not be a profanation of Your name if You were to act in this manner? Did You do that with the generation of the flood, or the generation of the separation? Surely, that is not Thy way.”

Raba raised the following contradiction: "It is written. And I thy servant have feared the Lord from my youth. And again it is written (Pr. 27, 2) Let another man praise thee and not thy own mouth. The latter refers to a place where a man is known, [he should not praise himself], but the former refers to a place where he is unknown." Raba said further: "It is permitted for a scholar to say: 'I am a scholar, decide my case first,' as it is written (Sam. II 8, 18) And the children of David were priests. Were they then priests? But it means [that they were treated like priests:] just as a priest is to get the first share [amongst an audience,] so also are the scholars entitled to get the first share." And whence do we infer that a priest should get the first share? It is written (Lev. 21, 8) And thou shalt sanctify him: for the bread of thy God doth he offer, etc. Concerning which it was explained in the college of R. Ishmael to mean thou shalt sanctify him, for everything that is Holy, (Ib. b) to be the first one to recite a blessing, and the first one to get a good portion [whenever something is given.] Raba said further: "It is permitted for a scholar to say that he will not contribute towards capitation tax, as it is written (Ezra 4, 13) They will not give minda, balu, vehaloch, etc., which was explained by R. Juda that minda refers to royal tax; balu, refers to poll tax; vehaloch, refers to toll tax."

8) (Vayikra 11:8) "Of their flesh you may not eat" — but not of their bones, or sinews, or hooves (i.e., you may eat those). "and their carcass do not touch": I might think that Israelites (as opposed to Cohanim) are exhorted against touching a carcass; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 21:1): "Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a dead body he (a Cohein) shall not become tamei among his people." Cohanim are not to become tamei to the dead; Israelites are to become tamei to the dead.

9) "from his people": to include the daughter of a male chalal as unfit for (marriage to) the priesthood. R. Yehudah says: The daughter of a male proselyte is (a challalah) like the daughter of a male chalal. "for I am the L–rd who makes him holy": This is the basis of the law.

8) Abba Yossi says: Who is "charum"? One (whose nose is so sunken that he can "blue" his two eyes as one. They said to him: You are exaggerating. (He is considered "charum") even if he cannot blue his two eyes as one.

8) Let it be written (only_ "to his brother and to his sister." Why need "to his son and to his daughter" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori) viz.: If he makes himself tamei to his brother and to his sister, in respect to whom he is not commanded to perform mitzvoth, how much more so should he make himself tamei to his son and to his daughter, in respect to whom he is commanded to perform mitzvoth! — If so, I would say that "to his brother" and "to his sister" applies (also) to his maternal brother and sister; it is, therefore, written "to his son and to his daughter. Just as his son and daughter inherit him, so his brother and his sister (to whom he makes himself tamei) inherit him — to exclude his maternal brother and sister, who do not inherit him.

8) (Vayikra 21:22) "The bread of his G d, of the holy of holies, and of the holy he may eat.": If "holy of holies" is written, why is "holy" written; and if "holy" is written, why is "holy of holies" written? For if "holy of holies" were written, and not "holy," I would say that he (a Cohein with a blemish) may eat holy of holies, for there is an instance of "holy of holies" (a meal-offering on a small bamah), which is permitted to a non-Cohein; but he may not eat lower-order offerings. It must, therefore, be written "of the holy." And if "holy" were written, and not "holy of holies," I would say that he may eat of the first but not of the second. It must, therefore, be written both "of the holy of holies" and "of the holy."

8) "and a challalah" What is a challalah? A woman that was born of a marriage forbidden (to the priesthood).

9) "asymmetrical of limb (sarua): a thigh that has come out of joint. Whence is it derived (that the following are also included?): the projection of a bone from his thumb, a retro-projection of his heel, a goose-footed broadness of sole? From "or sarua."

9) Let it be written (only) "to his brother." Why need "to his sister" be written? If it were written "to his brother," and not "to his sister," I would say: Just as (he makes himself tamei) for his brother, whether married or unmarried, so, for his sister, whether a virgin or not; it is, therefore, written "and for his sister, the virgin," and not one who is not a virgin.

9) "he may eat": even in the machloketh (the regular allotment of his father's priestly house). (For if it were not written "he may eat") we would say:) Does it not follow (that he should not eat in the machloketh), viz.: If tvul yom (A Cohein who immersed in the daytime) and one lacking atonement, who are fit for the (sacrificial) service of the next day, may not eat in the machloketh, then a blemished Cohein, who is not fit for the service of the next day — how much more so may he not eat in the machloketh! It must, therefore, be written "he may eat" — even in the machloketh.

9) "a woman divorced": This tells me only of a divorcée. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in unfitness to the priesthood) a chalutzah (a woman "released" from levirate marriage)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a divorcée, who is permitted (for remarriage) to the divorcer, is unfit to the priesthood, then a chalutzah, who is forbidden to revert to the choletz (the man in the chalitzah ceremony) — how much more so, should she be unfit to the priesthood! — (No,) this is refuted by tzarah (the co-wife), who is forbidden to revert to the choletz, yet is permitted to the priesthood.

Rabbi Berachiyah said in the name of Rabbi Abbah Bar Kahana expounding on the verse about Aaron. At the time when the Israelites were about to commit the act [make the golden calf] they first came to Chur, and they said to him: "Make us a god!" Since he did not listen to them, they rose up and slew him. This is why it's later written in the prophets: "Also in your wings we find the blood of the souls of the innocent and the poor etc." This refers to the blood of Chur. . . . " Afterwards, they went to Aaron and said to him: "Make us a god." Aaaron had heard about what they did to Chur, and became afraid. It is therefore written: "Aaron was frightened and built an alter before them." Aaron was frightened that he might be the one who was going to be slaughtered. Aaron said, what should I do? They've already killed Chur, and he was was a prophet. Now if they kill me, the priest, they will fulfill the word later written in scripture: "Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of YHWH (Eicha 2:20)." If they kill me, they will all be exiled. Here is another interpretation (Davar Acher): Aaron saw this, and built an altar before it (Exodus 32:5). What did he see? He saw the situation playing out like this: If they build it, one will bring a pebble, another a larger stone, and they will finish the building of the idol in one day. If I build it, then I can delay and dally, and give time for our teacher Moses to come down the mountain and then destroy this idol worship. And if I build it, I can dedicate it to the name of the Holy one Blessed be God, therefore it is written: "Aaron called and said this shall be a festival for YHWH." It is not written a feast for the calf, but a feast to YHWH. Another interpretation: "And Aaron saw this, etc." What did he see? He saw the situation playing out as follows: "If they build it the sin will be upon them, but if it will be better if I build it, so that the sin should be upon me and not the people. Rabbi Abba Bar Yodan said in the name of Abbah, we can give a parable that demonstrates this. It's like the son of a king who became filled with pride in his heart and took a sword and rose up to try and cut his father. The son's tutor said to him: Don't trouble yourself, leave it to me and i'll do cut him for you." The king saw the tutor and said to him: "I know what your intention was, it was that you believed it better that the sin should be upon you than upon my son. As you live, you shall not leave my palace, and that which remains over from my table, you shall eat it, and you will receive twenty four perks. So too with Aaron: "You shall not leave my palace" is compared to "He shall not go out of the sanctuary Leviticus 21:12"And that which remains of the table, you shall eat it" is compared to: "That which is let of the meal-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons (Leviticus 2:3)." The twenty four perks is paralleled to the twenty four gifts of the priesthood assigned to Aaron and his sons. . . .

10) (Vayikra 21:19) ("Or a man that has in him a brokenness of foot or a brokenness of hand") "a brokenness of foot": This tells me only of a brokenness of foot. Whence do I derive for inclusion one who is knock-kneed or bandy-legged or club-footed? From "a man."

10) If it were written "for his sister," and not "for his brother," I would say: Just as his sister, who has not had intercourse, so, his brother who is unmarred; it is, therefore, written "for his brother," whether married or unmarried.

10) (Vayikra 21:23) ("But to the veil he shall not come, and to the altar he shall not come near, for a blemish is in him; and he shall not profane My holy things, for I am the L–rd who sanctifies them.") If "to the veil" is written, why "to the altar"? And if "to the altar" is written, why "to the veil"? For if it were written "to the veil" and not "to the altar," I would say that he should be unfit for (entry to) the veil, which is within (the sanctuary), but not for the altar, which is not within. It must, therefore, be written "to the altar." And if it were written "to the altar," but not "to the veil," I would say that he is unfit for the altar, which is kasher for the (sacrificial) service, but not for the veil, which is not fit for the service, (but only for the sprinkling of the blood. It must, therefore, be written (both) "to the altar" and "to the veil."

10) (No,) there is a (crucial) difference (between them), viz.: In the instance of a divorcée the man performs an act (in the woman), and in the instance of chalutzah, the man is involved in an act (with the woman). And this is not to be refuted by tzarah, where he is not involved in an act (with the tzarah). And if you would say that just as "and" a woman" includes a chalutzah" (as forbidden to a Cohein), I should say that tzarah, too, is like a chalutzah and should be forbidden to a Cohein, it is, therefore, written "and a woman divorced from her husband" — where her divorce is in the hands of her husband, and not when it is in the hands of the woman (as in the instance of tzarah).

11) I might think that he (a blemished Cohein) could not enter (between the hall and the altar) to do repair work; it is, therefore, written "But (to the veil he shall not come"), ("But" connoting limitation of exclusion. This is the mitzvah (for entry): Cohanim enter. If there are no Cohanim, Levites enter. If there are no (ritually) clean ones, unclean ones enter. If there are no unblemished ones, blemished ones enter. And whence is it derived that if he (a blemished Cohein) performed his (sacrificial) service, it is invalid? From "and he shall not profane My holy things." And whence is it derived that a blemished Cohein is liable to the death penalty (for such profanation)? R. Yehudah says: It is written here "profanation," and elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) "profanation." Just as profanation there is punishable by death, here, too. And the sages say: A blemished Cohein is not subject to death, but to (violation of) an exhortation (Vayikra 21:17).

11) (Vayikra 22:22) ("Blind or broken or charutz or yabeleth or garev or yalefeth — you shall not present these to the L–rd; and a fire-offering you shall not make of them on the altar of the L–rd.") "Blind": whether blind in both eyes or in one. "broken": What is the intent of this? Because if is written (Vayikra 21:19) "a brokenness of foot or a brokenness of hand, I might think (that the rule applies) only if its foreleg or hind leg were broken. Whence do I derive (the same rule for) a broken tail? From "or broken." I might think that I include a broken rib; it is, therefore, written "a brokenness of foot or a brokenness of hand." Just as these blemishes are external, (so, all that are external), to include a broken rib, which is not external.

11) "a brokenness of hand": This tells me only of a brokenness of hand. Whence do I derive for inclusion one whose fingers are fused at the tips or from the base to the middle phalange without being incised? From "or a brokenness of hand."

11) I might think that he (a blemished Cohein) could not enter (between the hall and the altar) to do repair work; it is, therefore, written "But (to the veil he shall not come"), ("But" connoting limitation of exclusion. This is the mitzvah (for entry): Cohanim enter. If there are no Cohanim, Levites enter. If there are no (ritually) clean ones, unclean ones enter. If there are no unblemished ones, blemished ones enter. And whence is it derived that if he (a blemished Cohein) performed his (sacrificial) service, it is invalid? From "and he shall not profane My holy things." And whence is it derived that a blemished Cohein is liable to the death penalty (for such profanation)? R. Yehudah says: It is written here "profanation," and elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) "profanation." Just as profanation there is punishable by death, here, too. And the sages say: A blemished Cohein is not subject to death, but to (violation of) an exhortation (Vayikra 21:17).

11) (Vayikra 21:3) ("And for his sister, the virgin, who is near to him, who was not wed to a man — for her shall he make himself tamei.") "and for his sister, the virgin": to exclude one who was forced or seduced. I might think that I (also) exclude one whose hymen was accidentally ruptured. It is, therefore, written "who was not wed to a man," (the implication being) one who lost her virginity by being possessed by a man, and not through other causes.

11) "and a woman divorced from her husband" This was expounded by R. Elazar b. Mattia: If her husband (a Cohein) went abroad and they told her that her husband had died and she were betrothed (to another) and her husband returned — whence is it derived that she may return to the first even if the second gave her a divorce, this divorce not making her unfit to the priesthood? From "and a woman divorced from her husband" (is forbidden to the priesthood), and not (a woman who was given a divorce) by a man who was not her husband.

12) (Vayikra 21:20) ("Or one who is gibein or dak or tevalul in his eye; or one who is garav or yalefeth or meroach ashech.") "gibein": one who has two eyebrows (that are fused). Whence do I derive from inclusion one who has no eyebrows or only one? From "or gibein." R. Dossa says ("Gibein refers to) one whose brows droop (over his eyes.) R. Chanina b. Antignos Says ("Gibein refers to) one who has two backs and two spines. "dak": This is cataract. Whence do I derive for inclusion chilazon, nachash, and einav? From "or dak."

12) (Vayikra 21:24) "And Moses spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel": He exhorted Aaron ( in respect to blemishes) by way of the sons, and the sons by way of Aaron, and the sons by each other (i.e., by mutual surveillance), and the (beth-din of the) Israelites over them (the Cohanim).

12) "who is near": to include one who was betrothed. "to him": to include a bogereth (one beyond the age of twelve and a half, even if she lost part of her virginal signs in the process of maturing). "for her shall he make himself tamei": It is a mitzvah to do so. If he demurred, we force him to do so. And it happened with Yosef the Cohen, whose wife died on the eve of Pesach, and who did not wish to make himself tamei for her, that the sages pushed him and made him do so perforce.

12) "they shall not take … they shall not take": (twice) We are hereby apprised that the woman is exhorted against this as well as the man.

13) "tevalul": If the white (of the eye) enters the black or the black enters the white. R. Yossi says: There is no blemish in the white. What is "tevalul"? If the white breaks through the ring and enters the black.

13) yabeleth: This is nominal (i.e., an animal with warts [and not a warty limb.]) "garav": a scabby condition. "yalefeth": the Egyptian lichen. Here (in respect to the blemishes of a beast) "dak" and "tevalel" are not stated, and there (Vayikra 21:20) in respect to the blemishes of a man) "yabeleth" is not stated. Whence do we derive that what is stated (to be a blemish) in a beast is also (a blemish in) a man, and what is stated (to be a blemish in a man is also (a blemish in) a beast? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) "garav" - "garav"; "yalefeth" - "yalefeth" (stated in respect to both man and beast, to serve as a paradigm for mutual inclusion).

13) "for him shall he make himself tamei": for (one who is his sister of) a certainty; and he does not make himself tamei for one who is not his sister or a certainty. "for her shall he make himself tamei": and not for others with her, i.e., he should not say: Since I have already made myself tamei (for her), I shall collect the bones of so and so. "for him shall he make himself tamei": but not for her (discrete) limbs, which she lost when she was alive, his being forbidden to do so (even) for the limbs of his father; but he does make himself tamei for a bone the size of a barley-corn of his father.

13) (Vayikra 21:8) ("And you shall make him holy, for he offers up the bread of your G d; holy shall he be unto you, for holy am I the L–rd, who sanctifies you.") And whence is it derived that if he refuses (to divorce her), he is forced to do so? From "And you shall make him holy" — (even) against his will. "for he offers up the bread of your G d": We are hereby apprised of the reason (for his being forced). "holy shall he be unto you": to include blemished Cohanim, (who are forbidden to sacrifice, as being thus exhorted). "for holy am I the L–rd who sanctifies you": to include beth-din as being thus exhorted.

14) "in his eye": Any defect of the eye is implied. From here it is derived that if both his eyes were oriented upwards or downwards, if one eye were oriented upwards and the other downwards, if he saw the room or the attic as one, if he "hated the sun," if his eyes were unmatched, if he spoke with one person and gave the impression that he was looking at him [— all of these are considered blemishes).

14) It once happened with Yosef b. Pachsas (a Cohein) that his foot ulcerated and the surgeon wished to amputate it, at which (Yosef) said: "When it is hanging by a thread, let me know." When it reached that point, the surgeon told him and he (Yosef) called to Nechunya his son: "Chunia, my son, until now you were obligated to attend upon me. But now, leave, for the son (of a Cohein) does not make himself tamei for a limb (amputated) from a live father." And when the sages heard about this, they said (on Koheleth 7:15): "The tzaddik has lost, but his righteousness remains with him."

14) (Vayikra 21:9) ("And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profanes herself through fornication, it is her father that she profanes; in fire shall she be burned.") "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profanes": I might think that even if she desecrated the Sabbath she should be subject to burning; it is, therefore, written "if she profanes … through fornication" — when the profanation were that of fornication, and not any other kind.

15) "garav": a scabby condition. "yalefeth": the Egyptian lichen, "meroach ashech": R. Yishmael says: one whose testicles are crushed. R. Akiva says: one with distended testicles. Chanania b. Antignos says: one whose skin has taken on a swarthy coloration.

15) (Vayikra 21:4) ("Let a husband not become tamei among his people to become profaned.") "Let a husband not become tamei among his people to become profaned." What is the intent of this? Because it is written that he makes himself tamei for his mother and his father, his son and his daughter, his brother and his sister, whether they are or are not fit (for the priesthood), I might think that he does so also for his wife." It is, therefore, written "Let a husband (who is a Cohein) not become unclean (for his wife." There is a husband who becomes unclean and there is a husband who does not become clean. How so? He makes himself tamei for his wife who is kasher, and does not make himself tamei for his wife who is pasul (i.e., who makes his children challalim, this being the thrust of "to become profaned").

15) I might think that the penalty was burning even if she were single when she fornicated; it is, therefore, written here "her father," and there (Devarim 22:21, in respect to a betrothed maiden) "her father. Just as there, the reference is to fornication within the context of marital ties, so, here. — But perhaps the thrust of "her father (a Cohein)" is to exclude (from burning a maiden [even a single maiden] who fornicated with her father) — with any man (i.e., with her father who is not a Cohein)! — (This cannot be, for) "she profanes (her father)" implies (that her fornication is with) "any man." (For if it were with her father, then he would be profaning her). How, then, am I to understand "her father"? As "Just as there, the reference is to fornication within the context of marital ties, so, here."

16) "among his people": when they act as his people do, and not when they have strayed from the ways of the congregation. "to become profaned": If he (the strayer) follows this course, he (the Cohein in question) becomes chullin ("mundane," and unfit for the priestly service.) I might think that he remains chullin forever; it is, therefore, written "beamav." As long as he (the strayer in question) is "with it" (imo [i.e., as long as he persists in this course]), then he (the Cohein) is chullin. Once he departs from it, he (the Cohein) reverts to his original sanctity.

16) — But why not say, then, that just as "her father" there is mentioned within the context of a betrothed maiden [na'arah (between twelve and twelve and a half)] so, too, here, too, the context must be one of a betrothed maiden. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a wedded maiden, a betrothed bogereth (after twelve and a half), a wedded bogereth — even an old woman? From "And the daughter of a Cohein" — in any event.

Another explanation of Thou art fairer than the children of men. This refers to Abraham, for the Holy One, blessed be He, did not speak to any generation prior to his, as it is stated: And God said unto Abraham (Gen. 17:19). Grace is poured upon thy lips is said because he pleaded in behalf of the Sodomites: That be far from Thee (halilah) to do after this manner (ibid. 18:25). Some say That be far from Thee would be a profanation of Thy name (halil shemkha) to do this, while others say it means to be set aside (halelah), as in the case of an unchaste woman who is set aside. R. Huna said: It would be a profanation of the name of God if He were to destroy the righteous with the wicked, for men would then say: He did this to the generation of Enoch (which suffered a flood), the generation of the flood,²⁶All were punished, righteous or not. (and) the generation of the dispersion²⁷Punishment for building the Tower of Babel, though all were not involved. (Gen. 11:1–9), for they refrained from repenting. Grace is poured upon thy lips implies that you should be convinced that it (the law) will go forth from your descendants, since I gave him the Torah and he will teach it to your descendants, as is said: He gave unto Moses.

(Gen. 38:24, cont.:) THAT IT WAS TOLD TO JUDAH, SAYING: YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW TAMAR HAS PROSTITUTED HERSELF; AND SHE IS ALSO PREGNANT FOR LEWDNESS. What is the meaning of FOR LEWDNESS? That she would enter a bathhouse and say to her women friends: Go away from me because I am bearing kings. But Isaac, Jacob, and Judah were sitting there in judgment. They said (ibid., cont.): BRING HER OUT AND LET HER BE BURNED. R. Johanan said: In property cases one begins with the eldest, but in capital cases one begins with the youngest and finishes with the eldest.⁵⁹Sanh. 4:2; Git. 59a. Thus the younger judges would not be unduly influenced by their elders. And why does one say: WITH THE YOUNGEST? Because one ascribes corruption to the youngest. Why did he say (in Gen. 34:24): LET HER BE BURNED, and not say: "Let her be killed"? Ephraim the Disputant said in the name of R. Me'ir: She was Shem's daughter, and Shem was a priest. For this reason he said: BRING HER OUT, AND LET HER BE BURNED.⁶⁰See Lev. 21:9. Now they were dragging her and bringing her out against her will, as stated (in Gen. 38:25): AS SHE WAS BEING BROUGHT OUT. Now while she was being brought out, she sought < the tokens of > the pledge but did not find them. In that hour she raised her eyes to the heavens. Immediately the Holy One sent her others.

17) This tells me (of the penalty of burning) of the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Cohein. Whence do I derive the same for the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Levite, the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to an Israelite — even (of the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Nathin or to a mamzer? From "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, even if she herself is not wedded to a Cohein.

And he gave unto Moses, etc. (Exod. 31:18). Scripture states elsewhere in allusion to this verse: Thy lips, O my bride, drop honey (Song 4:11). R. Abba the son of Judah said: The community of Israel praised the Holy One, blessed be He, from on high to below, while the Holy One, blessed be He, praised Israel from below to on high. Israel praised Him from on high to below when she caused Him to descend from the upper spheres to the lower sphere, as it is said: That they make me a Sanctuary (Exod. 25:8). He praised them from below to on high when He said: The Lord Thy God will set them on high (Deut. 28:1). Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness? (Song 3:16). Israel praised him from above to below, that is, from His head to His foot: His head is as the most fine gold … His eyes … His locks … His eyes … His cheeks … His lips … His hands … His loins … His legs … His mouth is most sweet … this is my Beloved (Song 5:11–16), while He praised them from below to above: How beautiful are thy steps … the roundings of thy thighs … thy navel is like a round goblet … thy belly is like a heap … thy two breasts … thy neck is as a tower … thine eyes … thy nose … thy head upon thee is like Carmel (ibid. 7:2–6). Thy lips drip honey (ibid. 4:11).

"and the whole mountain trembled": (Mount Sinai) was included in all of the mountains, viz. (Judges 5:5) "The mountains quaked before the L rd — This is Sinai, etc." and (Psalms 68:17) "Why do you quake, you mountains gavnunim"? ("givnonim" = "peaked"), as in (Leviticus 21:20) "or a hunchback ('gibein') or a dwarf." He said to them: You are all givnonim (in spite of which He chose [the 'lowly'] Sinai). And why was the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Temple) reposed on the portion of Benjamin? For all of the tribes took part in the selling of Joseph, but Benjamin was not with them. And also, all the tribes were born outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Benjamin was born in Eretz Yisrael.

18) "she profanes her father": R. Eliezer: When she is with (i.e., in the domain of) her father (i.e., when she is betrothed), the penalty is stoning (the severest of the penalties), and with her in-laws (i.e., when she is wedded), it is burning. "in fire shall she be burned": Her penalty is burning; but the penalty of her consort is not burning, (but strangulation). She shall be burned, but not "scheming witnesses" against her. (Their penalty is strangulation.

4 (Eccl. 8:1) “Who is like the wise person, and who knows the explanation of a saying”: (Eccl. 8:1) “Who is like the wise person”: This is the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated about Him (in Prov. 3:19), “Through wisdom the Lord founded the earth.”⁴⁵Eccl. R. 8:1:1; PRK 4:4; PR 14:10. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.) “And who knows the explanation of a saying”: This [also] is the Holy One, blessed be He, who explained the Torah for Moses. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.) “A person's wisdom lights up his face”: R. Judan said, “Great is the power of the prophets, as they [are able to] compare the Almighty above to the form of a man, as stated (Daniel 8:16), ‘And I heard the voice of a man.’” And R. Judah bar Simon says [the proof] is from here (in Ezekiel 1:26), “and on the image of a chair was an image of a man […].” (Eccl. 8:1, cont.) “And the radiance ('oz) of his face is changed (for the better),” in that He changes the principle of judgment into a principle of mercy with respect to Israel. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Over each and every word that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to Moses, He spoke to him of its [related] uncleanness and of its purification.⁴⁶See Numb. R. 19:4. When he made known the Parashah (starting with Lev. 21:1), ‘Speak (Emor) unto the priests,’ [Moses] said to him, ‘Master of the world, if [a priest] becomes unclean (through touching a human corpse), what means is there for his purification?’ When [the Holy One, blessed be He,] did not answer, at that time the face of Moses turned yellow (with shame). Then when the Holy One, blessed be He, reached the parashah on the [red] heifer, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Moses, [when I gave you] that saying which I spoke to you (in Lev. 21:1), “Go, speak unto the priests,” then you said to me, “If one becomes unclean, what means will there be for his purification,” I did not answer [you at that time. Now] this is his purification (in Numb. 19:17), “They shall take some ashes from the burning of the sin offering (i.e., the red heifer).”‘”

The awe of the LORD is pure (Psalm 19:10) — said Rabbi Levi, since Aaron would revere the Name, as it is written And I gave to him awe and he revered Me. (Malachi 2:5) thus a single section of the Torah was given to him, which will not move from his sons or his sons' sons until the end of all generations. And which is this? The portion of the dead, to not be defiled by death. As it written, Say to the priests the children of Aaron... (Leviticus 21:1). And correct together (Psalm 19:10) — R. Shim'on son of Laqish said, "Correct by means of an a fortiori." But the rabbis said, "Correct by means of a verbal analogy."

[Another interpretation (of Eccl. 8:1): WHO IS LIKE THE WISE PERSON? This is Moses, of whom it is written (in Prov. 21:22): A WISE MAN WENT UP TO A CITY OF THE MIGHTY (i.e., Sinai).¹¹¹Eccl. R. 8:1:5; PRK 4:4; PR 14:10. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) AND WHO KNOWS THE INTERPRETATION OF A SAYING? <This is the one> who interpreted Torah for Israel. (Ibid., cont.:) A PERSON'S WISDOM LIGHTS UP HIS FACE.] R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: Over each and every word that the Holy One spoke to Moses, he spoke to him of its <related> uncleanness and of its purification.¹¹²The parallel text begins again in Tanh., Numb. 6:6, end. See also Numb. R. 19:4. When he made known the parashah (of Lev. 21:1): SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS, he said to him: Sovereign of the World, if one becomes unclean (through touching a human corpse), what means is there for his purification? When <the Holy One> did not answer, at that time the face of Moses turned yellow (with shame). This is what is written (in Eccl. 8:1): AND THE RADIANCE OF HIS FACE IS CHANGED. Then when the Holy One reached the parashah on the <Red> Heifer, the Holy One said to him: Moses, <when I gave you> that saying which I spoke to you (in Lev. 21:1): GO, SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS, then you said to me: If one becomes unclean, what means will there be for his purification? <At that time> I did not answer <you>. <Now> this is his purification (in Numb. 19:17): FOR THE UNCLEAN THEY SHALL TAKE SOME ASHES FROM THE BURNING OF THE SIN OFFERING (i.e., the red heifer).

(Bamidbar 6:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man or a woman, if he shall declare to vow the vow of a Nazirite, to be a Nazirite to the L-rd": What is the intent of this section? (i.e., the section of vows has already been stated!) — Because it is written (Ibid. 30:3) "A man if he vow a vow to the L-rd, or if he take an oath to bind upon his soul, etc.", whence if he vows (to forbid) something for one day it is forbidden for one day; for two days, it is forbidden for two days; (to forbid) a specific thing, that specific thing is forbidden — I would think that the same is true of Naziritism. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." that if he vowed (Naziritism, to forbid something to himself) for one day or for one moment, it is forbidden to him for thirty days. And he is forbidden to drink wine and to render himself tamei for the dead and to cut his hair. This is the intent of this section. "a man or a woman": to equate women with men (in respect to Naziritism). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where minors are equated with adults, (i.e., in respect to Cohanim not rendering themselves tamei for the dead, viz. Vayikra 21:1), women are not equated with men, then here (in respect to Naziritism), where minors are not equated with adults, how much more so should women not be equated with men! It is, therefore, written "a man or a woman," to equate women with men. "a man": and not a minor. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where women are not equated with men (see above), minors are equated with adults, then here, (in respect to Naziritism), where women are equated with men, how much more so should minors be equated with adults! It is, therefore, written "a man," and not a minor. "if he shall declare": to include (Naziritism as obtaining with) one who knows how to declare (i.e., one who is cognizant of the import of what he is saying.) From here they ruled: The vows of a girl of eleven years and one day are examined (for such cognizance); of twelve years and one day — her vows stand. The vows of a boy of twelve years and one day are examined; of thirteen years and one day — his vows stand. "if he declare": willingly, and not under coercion. — But perhaps even under coercion! — It follows (that they must be willing), viz.: It is written here "declare," and, in respect to vows and gifts (Vayikra 22:21) "declare." Just as there, willingly; here, too, willingly. "to vow a vow": I might think that even if he vows to bring an offering he becomes a Nazirite; it is, therefore, written "to make a Nazirite" — he must make the vow of a Nazirite. I might think (from "to make a Nazirite") that he may make even others Nazirites. It is, therefore, written "nazir," (which connotes that) he makes himself a Nazirite, and not others. If so, why is it written (lit.,) "nazir, to make a nazir"? To equate epithets of Naziritism with Naziritism and "signals" of Naziritism with Naziritism. This tells me only of Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows? From "the vow of a Nazirite," to equate vows with Naziritism and Naziritism with vows, viz.: Just as in Naziritism, epithets of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, and signals of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, so, with vows, epithets of vows are equated with vows, and signals of vows are equated with vows. And just as vows are subject to transgression of (Bamidbar 30:3) "He shall not profane his word" and (Devarim 23:22) "You shall not delay to pay it," so, Naziritism. And just as with vows a father may void the vows of his daughter, and a husband, the vows of his wife, so, with Naziritism. R. Yehoshua says: "to make a Nazirite": (to make) even others (Nazirites, e.g., a father, vis-à-vis his son). "to make a Nazirite to the L-rd": It is a mitzvah to become a Nazirite to the L-rd. Shimon Hatzaddik said: I never ate the guilt-offering of a Nazirite who had become unclean (by contact with a dead body) but once. Once a Nazirite came to me from the south. His eyes were beautiful, he was very handsome, and his hair was wavy. I said to him: "What prompted you to destroy this beautiful hair?" (at the end of the Nazirite period). He answered: "I was a shepherd for my father in my town. Once, while drawing water from the well, I gazed upon my reflection and my evil inclination seized hold of me and threatened to snatch me from the world — whereupon I said to it: 'Empty one, why do you vaunt yourself in a world that is not yours, where you are destined to be consigned to worms and maggots? I swear, I shall shear you in the name of Heaven!'" I thereupon arose, and, kissing him on the head, said to him: "May Nazirites like you multiply in Israel, doing the will of the L-rd! Of such as you it is written 'A man … if he shall declare to vow the vow of the Nazirite to be a Nazirite to the L-rd.'"

Another comment on early in the morning: Righteous men are always anxious to fulfill their religious duties as early as possible. For example, though Scripture states; And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised (Lev. 21:3), thereby indicating that the entire day is appropriate for circumcision, a righteous man will fulfill the precept of circumcision as early in the day as possible.

(Bamidbar 6:6) "All the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd, upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come." Scripture now leaves the subject of shaving and comes to speak of tumah. "upon the soul … he shall not come": I might think that even beasts are herein subsumed, as in (Vayikra 24:18) "One who strikes the soul of a beast, etc."; it is, therefore, written: "upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come," Scripture referring to a human being. R. Yishmael says: This (proof) is not needed, for it is written "he shall not come." Scripture is speaking of a (dead) soul that confers tumah by entry (into his tent, [i.e., the soul of a man, and not that of a beast]). (6:7) "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah (one who has no one to bury him). Why need this be stated? It is understood a fortiori, viz.: If the high-priest, whose holiness is permanent, becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, how much more so, a Nazirite, whose holiness is temporary! — No, this may be true of a high-priest, who does not bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, as opposed to a Nazirite, who does bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he should not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah! It must, therefore, be written "For his father and his mother he shall not become tamei" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But perhaps the intent of the verse is: "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei," but he does become for other dead! — Would you say such a thing? If an ordinary Cohein, who does become tamei for his kin, may not become tamei for other dead, how much more so a Nazirite, who may not become tamei for his kin! What, then, is the intent of "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei? He does not become tamei for his father and his mother, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But even without this verse, I can derive it by reasoning, viz.: There is a general rule for a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11: "And upon all souls of the dead he shall not come"), and there is a general rule for a Nazirite ("Upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come.") Just as with the general rule for the high-priest, he may not become tamei for kin, so with the general rule for the Nazirite, he may not become tamei for kin. You derive it from the high-priest, but I can derive it from an ordinary priest, viz.: There is a general rule for an ordinary priest and there is a general rule for a Nazirite. Just as with the general rule for the ordinary priest he does become tamei for kin, so, with the general rule for the Nazirite, he should become tamei for kin. It must, therefore, be written "For his father and his mother; for his brother and for his sister, he shall not become tamei, etc." R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 21:11): "souls" — these are the distant (i.e., non-kin); "the dead" — these are kin; "for his (the high-priest's) father and his mother" — For his father and his mother he does not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. (Bamidbar 6:7) "for his brother": If he were a high-priest or a Nazirite, he may not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. "and for his sister": What is the intent of this? If one (an ordinary Cohein) were going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, and he hears that one of his kin had died, I might think that he should become tamei for them; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "he shall not become tamei." I might think that he should (also) not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah; it is, therefore, written "and for his sister" — He does not become tamei for his sister, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. But (a verse) is not needed for his (young) son and daughter; for minors cannot become Nazirites. "he shall not become tamei for them in their death": In their death he does not become tamei for them, but he does become tamei for them in their leprous or zivah (genital discharge) state. This tells me only of a Nazirite. Whence do I derive (the same for) a high-priest? It is written in respect to a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11) "for his mother (he shall not) become tamei." This is superfluous, for I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may become tamei for his father's brother, a high-priest may not become tamei for his father, then in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may not become tamei for his father's brother, how much more so may a high-priest not become tamei for his father! If I can derive it, then, a fortiori, why is the verse "for his mother, etc." needed in respect to a high-priest? It is "extra," to the end of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written "his mother" here (in respect to a high-priest), and it is written "his mother" elsewhere (in respect to a Nazirite). Just as there he does become tamei (for them) in their leprous or zivah state, so, here. Variantly: "He shall not become tamei for them in their death": In their death he may not become tamei for them, but he may stand at their eulogy and in the mourner's row. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "for the crown of his G-d is on his head": whether or not he has hair. These are the words of R. Yonathan.

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.

42) (Vayikra 10:7): "And from the door of the tent of meeting you shall not go out": I might think (that they shall not go out) whether or not they are officiating; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 21:12): "and he shall not go out (to follow the litter) and he will not profane (the sanctuary of his G d") [by serving while he is an onein (a mourner)]. When is it that he does not go out and does not profane? When he is officiating. Here, too, "you shall not go out" (speaks of an instance) when he is officiating. (Vayikra 10:7) "lest you die": The negative implies the positive (if you do go out).

Whence is it derived that the entire head is included? From (Vayikra 21:5) "They (the Cohanim) shall not make a baldness upon their heads" — the entire head is included. And whence is it derived that there is liability for each baldspot in itself? From "They shall not make a baldness (lit., "baldness, baldness"). I might think that only the Cohanim, to whom Scripture accorded additional mitzvoth, were liable for each baldspot and for the (entire) head as between the eyes, but not Israelites, to whom additional mitzvoth were not accorded. It is, therefore, written "baldness" (there) - "baldness" (here) for an identity (gezeirah shavah ). Just as Cohanim are liable for the above, so, Israelites; and just as "baldness" in respect to an Israelite refers only to baldness only "for the dead," so, "baldness in respect to the Cohanim.

[“Benjamin is a wolf, he will prey…” (Bereshit 49:27)] “Why do you lurk, you lofty mountains, for the mountain that God desired for His dwelling?” (Tehillim 68:17) R’ Yosi haGalili and R’ Akiva: R’ Yosi haGalili explained the verse as referring to the mountains. At the moment when the Holy One came to give the Torah on Sinai the mountains came running and arguing with each other. This one said ‘the Torah will be given on me!’ and this one said ‘the Torah will be given on me!’ Mount Tabor came from Bet Elim and Mount Carmel from Espamia, this is what is written “As long as I live, says the King, Whose name is the Lord of Hosts, that as sure as Tabor is among the mountains, and Carmel is by the sea, it shall come about.” (Yimiyahu 46:18) This one said ‘I was called!’ and this one said ‘I was called!’ The Holy One said ‘Why do you lurk, you lofty mountains?’ You are all high mountains, but what does lofty (gavnunim) mean? As it says “…or one with long eyebrows (gibein), or a cataract…” (Vayikra 21:20) Idolatry was done on all of you, but Sinai upon which idolatry was never done “…the mountain that God desired for His dwelling,” (Tehillim 68:17) “The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai…” (Shemot 19:20) Nevertheless, “…Even the Lord will dwell [there] forever,” (Tehillim 68:17) refers to the eternal House. R’ Akiva explained the verse as referring to the tribes. At the moment when Shlomo said to build the Holy Temple, the tribes came running and arguing with each other. This one said ‘in my portion it will be built!’ This one said ‘in my portion it will be built!’ The Holy One said to them ‘tribes, why are you lurking? All of you are tribes, all of you are righteous – but lofty (gavnunim). What is gavnunim? Ganavim (thieves). You were all partners in the sale of Yosef; but Benyamin, who did not participate in the sale of Yosef, “…the mountain that God desired for His dwelling.” (Tehillim 68:17) So we find that four hundred and eighty years beforehand the children of Korach prophesied on this, that in the future it would be in the portion of Benyamin as it says “My soul yearns, yea, it pines for the courts of the Lord…” (Tehillim 84:3) So too it says “Behold we heard it in Ephrath…” (Tehillim 132:6) R’ Yehudah says ‘the Holy Temple was built in the portion of Yehudah, as it is written “…Ephrathite man from Bethlehem of Judah…”’ (Shmuel I 17:12) R’ Shimon says ‘in the portion of the son of she who died in Ephrathah. And who died in Ephrathah? Rachel. Perhaps it was in the portion of Yosef who is also among her sons? The verse says “…we found it in the fields of the forest.” (Tehillim 132:6) In the portion of the one who is compared to a beast of the forest, and who is so compared? Benyamin, as it is written “Benjamin is a wolf, he will prey…” (Bereshit 49:27)

"and he shall be unto you a servant forever" — the "forever" of Yovel. — But, perhaps, "forever" literally! — It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 25:10) "And each one of you will return to his holding" (at the Yovel). Why, then, is it written "a servant forever"? For I might think that (after his ear is bored) he serves only six years, so that his end (i.e., the end of his servitude) not be graver than his beginning; it is, therefore, written "a servant 'forever'" — even thirty years, even forty, until the Yovel. "and he shall be unto you a servant forever," and, elsewhere, (Vayikra 21:5) "and he shall serve him forever" — not his son and not his daughter — whence it is ruled: A Hebrew man-servant serves the son, but not the daughter. One whose ear was bored and one who was sold to a gentile serves neither the son nor the daughter. Whence is it derived that what is stated here (Devarim) applies there (Vayikra), and what is stated there applies here? From "forever" (Devarim 15:17) - "forever" (Vayikra 21:5), for an identity (gezeirah shavah ).

(Bamidbar 25:1) "And Israel sat in Shittim, and the people began to stray after the daughters of Moav. "sitting" in all places connotes subversion (of morality), as in (Shemot 32:6) [in connection with the golden calf] "And the people sat down to eat and to drink," and (Bereshit 37:25) [in connection with the selling of Joseph] "And they sat down to eat bread." R. Akiva says: Every section (in the Torah) which is juxtaposed with another is meant to be learned from. It is written above (Bamidbar 24:14) "Come, I (Bilam) will counsel you" (how to undo Moav). He said to them: The G-d of this people hates harlotry, and they lust after flaxen garments. Come and I will counsel you. Put up tents for them, and seat old women outside and a young girl inside, and let them sell them flaxen garments, etc." Rebbi says: There are many adjoining sections n the Torah which are as far from each other as east from west. To wit (Shemot 6:12) "Behold, the children of Israel have not listened to me, etc." — (Shemot 6:13) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He commanded them unto the children of Israel." What does one verse have to do with the other? What did He command them? What He had already told them, viz. (Shemot 3:18) "And they will listen to you, etc." Similarly, (Vayikra 21:9) "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profane herself by harlotry" — (Vayikra 21:10) "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A centurion served his term but failed to enter his primipilate (a high office) and fled. The king sent and had him returned and sentenced to decapitation. Before his execution the king says: Bring a heap of golden dinars before him and tell him: If you had done as your fellows did, you would have been granted this heap and your life. Now, you have lost both your life and your money. Likewise, the daughter of a Cohein who played the harlot. The high-priest goes out before her and says to her: If you had conducted yourself as your elders did, you would have merited bearing a high-priest such as I. Now you have lost both yourself and your honor. This is the intent of "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, etc." and "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 1:9) "You are not my people" — (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted, and in place of their being told 'You are not My people,' etc." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A king gets angry with his wife and sends for a scribe to write her a divorce. But before the scribe arrives, the king is reconciled with his wife, whereupon the king says: "Shall the scribe leave here empty-handed? Tell him to come and write that I am doubling her kethubah." This is the intent of "for you are not My people, etc." and "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 14:1) "Shomron shall bear her guilt, for she has defied her G-d" — (Ibid. 2) "Return, O Israel to the L-rd your G-d." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A province rebels against the king, who sends for a general and orders him to devastate it. The general, being wise and seasoned tells them: "Put together something for me to relay to the king, or I will do to you what I did to this and this province." This is the intent of "Shomron shall bear her guilt for she has defied her G-d" and "Return, O Israel, etc."

(Bamidbar 25:1) "And Israel sat in Shittim, and the people began to stray after the daughters of Moav. "sitting" in all places connotes subversion (of morality), as in (Shemot 32:6) [in connection with the golden calf] "And the people sat down to eat and to drink," and (Bereshit 37:25) [in connection with the selling of Joseph] "And they sat down to eat bread." R. Akiva says: Every section (in the Torah) which is juxtaposed with another is meant to be learned from. It is written above (Bamidbar 24:14) "Come, I (Bilam) will counsel you" (how to undo Moav). He said to them: The G-d of this people hates harlotry, and they lust after flaxen garments. Come and I will counsel you. Put up tents for them, and seat old women outside and a young girl inside, and let them sell them flaxen garments, etc." Rebbi says: There are many adjoining sections n the Torah which are as far from each other as east from west. To wit (Shemot 6:12) "Behold, the children of Israel have not listened to me, etc." — (Shemot 6:13) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He commanded them unto the children of Israel." What does one verse have to do with the other? What did He command them? What He had already told them, viz. (Shemot 3:18) "And they will listen to you, etc." Similarly, (Vayikra 21:9) "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profane herself by harlotry" — (Vayikra 21:10) "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A centurion served his term but failed to enter his primipilate (a high office) and fled. The king sent and had him returned and sentenced to decapitation. Before his execution the king says: Bring a heap of golden dinars before him and tell him: If you had done as your fellows did, you would have been granted this heap and your life. Now, you have lost both your life and your money. Likewise, the daughter of a Cohein who played the harlot. The high-priest goes out before her and says to her: If you had conducted yourself as your elders did, you would have merited bearing a high-priest such as I. Now you have lost both yourself and your honor. This is the intent of "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, etc." and "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 1:9) "You are not my people" — (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted, and in place of their being told 'You are not My people,' etc." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A king gets angry with his wife and sends for a scribe to write her a divorce. But before the scribe arrives, the king is reconciled with his wife, whereupon the king says: "Shall the scribe leave here empty-handed? Tell him to come and write that I am doubling her kethubah." This is the intent of "for you are not My people, etc." and "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 14:1) "Shomron shall bear her guilt, for she has defied her G-d" — (Ibid. 2) "Return, O Israel to the L-rd your G-d." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A province rebels against the king, who sends for a general and orders him to devastate it. The general, being wise and seasoned tells them: "Put together something for me to relay to the king, or I will do to you what I did to this and this province." This is the intent of "Shomron shall bear her guilt for she has defied her G-d" and "Return, O Israel, etc."