Midrash su Levitico 22:2

With¹The prefix bet in the first word of the Torah can be translated as “with,” “in,”, “by means of,” etc. the beginning (Gen. 1:1). This is what Scripture means when it says: The Lord with wisdom²“Beginning” and “wisdom” are synonyms for “Torah” in rabbinic literature. See Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 129. founded the earth (Prov. 3:19). That is, when the Holy One, blessed be He, was about to create this world, He consulted the Torah³Seven things were created two thousand years before the creation of heaven and earth, and the Torah was one of them. before embarking upon the work of creation, as it is said: Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, power is mine (ibid. 8:14). How was the Torah written? It was written with letters of black fire on a surface of white fire, as is said: His locks are curled and black as a raven (Song 5:11). What is meant by His locks are curled?⁴The word taltalim (“curls”) is read as tille tillim (“heaps upon heaps”). Each letter in the Torah has numerous strokes upon it which, according to tradition, represent heaps upon heaps of laws. Cf. Leviticus Rabbah 19:2, Song of Songs Rabbah 5:11–12. It means that each crowned stroke on the letters of the Torah contains heaps and heaps of law. For example, it is written in the Torah: Profane not My Holy Name (Lev. 22:2); but if you should change the het in the word yehallelu (“profane”) into a heh, the word would read “praise,” and you would thereby destroy the world. Conversely, where it is written Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord (Ps. 150:6), if you should alter the heh in the word tehallel (“praise”) into a het, the word would read “profane,” and you would thereby destroy the world.

3) (Vayikra 22:2) ("Say to them: Throughout your generations, every man who will draw near, or all your seed, to the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd, and his uncleanliness be upon him, then that soul will be cut off from before Me; I am the L–rd.") "Say to them": to those standing at Mount Sinai. "throughout your generations": that it be binding for all generations. If this was stated for the fathers, why was it stated for the sons, and if it was stated for the sons, why was it stated for the fathers? For there are (mitzvoth) which obtain with the fathers, but not with the sons; and with the sons, which do not obtain with the fathers. (For example:) What is stated for the fathers, (who did not enter Eretz Yisrael, (but not for the sons)? (Bamidbar 36:8) "And every daughter who received an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel" (her father having had no son) "to one of the family of the tribe of her father shall she be as a wife, so that the children of Israel will inherit, each, the inheritance of his fathers" in the midst of the children of Israel). (So that the mitzvah of tribal intermarriage applied only to those who left Egypt, but not to their children after them). And there are many mitzvoth that apply to the sons, (who entered Eretz Yisrael, i.e., those mitzvoth contingent upon the land of Eretz Yisrael), which did not apply to the fathers, (who did not enter). So that because there are (mitzvoth obtaining) with the fathers, which do not obtain with the sons, and (mitzvoth obtaining) with the sons, which do not obtain with the fathers, it must be written in respect to the fathers (i.e., "Say to them"), and it must be written in respect to the sons ("throughout your generations").

4) You say that this is the purpose of these phrases of exclusion (like "it" above). But perhaps its intent is to limit what is said to peace-offerings alone, (that only they entail kareth liability for piggul and nothar). Whence do we derive the same for all offerings? From (Vayikra 22:3): "A man who draws near of all your seed to the holy things (all of the offerings), etc." — But perhaps only those offerings are included which are like peace-offerings, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are characterized by being eaten for two days, so, all that are thus characterized (are included). Whence do I derive (for inclusion) those which are eaten for only one day? From (the redundant) "flesh" (Vayikra 7:18 "the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings.") This tells me only of those (offerings) whose flesh is eaten. Whence do I derive (the same) for those who flesh is not eaten? From "the sacrifice" — even birds, which are a kind of sacrifice. And whence do I derive (the same) for meal-offerings, which are not a kind of sacrifice? (And whence do I proceed) until I derive (the same for) the log of oil of the leper? From (Vayikra 22:3) (all) "the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd."

4) "(every) man": This tells me only of a man. Whence is (the same derived for a woman? From "of all your seed." Whence is (the same derived for all Israelites, (who are not of the seed of Aaron)? From "every man."

5) "every man who will draw near, of all your seed, to the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd, and his uncleanliness be upon him, then that soul will be cut off from before Me": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Bamidbar 7:20) "And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off," I might think that there is kareth liability for tumah only for peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) all of the offerings? From "Say to them: Throughout your generations, every man who will draw near, of all your seed, to the holy things, etc." — But perhaps there should be included only what is similar to peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days. Whence do I derive the same for what is eaten for one day? From "flesh" (i.e., all flesh is implied.) This tells me only (of those offerings) whose remnants are eaten. Whence do I derive the same for (those offerings) whose remnants are not eaten? From "of the sacrifice." This tells me only of (animal) sacrifices. Whence do I derive the same for birds and meal-offerings, which are not types of (animal) sacrifices — to the point of inclusion of the log of oil of the leper? From (Vayikra 22:2) "which they make holy to Me."

6) "then that soul will be cut off": I might think that (he is to be cut off) "from one side to another" (i.e., that he is to be exiled, as Cain was); it is, therefore, written "from before Me; I am the L–rd" — in all places! ("Cutting off," then, must refer to kareth [death].)

7) I might think that tumah liability obtains only where piggul (inappropriate thought) liability obtains. And this, indeed, would follow, viz.: If piggul (transgression), which is subject to a standard (sin-offering) (for unwitting transgression) and which obtains only with one awareness, (at the end, after his having transgressed, his never having been aware that it was piggul before he ate it, [as opposed to tumah, where there is awareness in the beginning, awareness at the end, and non-awareness in the middle]), and where nothing of its class is permitted, (piggul being forbidden even where the entire congregation transgresses, as opposed to tumah, which was forbidden in such an instance) — (If piggul) obtains only with offerings where there are "permitters" (see Chapter 13:5 in Tzav), then tumah transgression, which obtains with two awarenesses, and is subject to a sliding scale (and not a standard) offering, and where something of its class (congregational tumah) is permitted — how much more so should it obtain only where there are "permitters"! Whence, then, (do we derive tumah liability) for the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the libation meal-offering, the meal-offering of Cohanim, and the meal-offering of the anointed (high-priest, where there are no "permitters')? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "to (eat) the holy things which they make holy," to include all.

8) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4) "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters" (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar). "and his uncleanliness is upon him": bodily uncleanliness. I might think the uncleanliness of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to). It is, therefore, written (here) "and his uncleanliness is upon him" (and there, [Bamidbar 19:13] in respect to uncleanliness in entering the sanctuary) "and his uncleanliness is upon him," for an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as there, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, so, here, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, and not uncleanliness of the flesh. Rebbi says: "and his uncleanliness is upon him": Scripture speaks (here) of bodily uncleanliness, and not of uncleanliness of the flesh. R. Chiyya says: The offerings are written in the plural and cleanliness (tumatho) in the singular. How, then, must "tumatho" be understood? As referring to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of the flesh (of the offerings). Others say: Scripture speaks of that from which tumah can depart (i.e., the man), as opposed to the flesh, from which tumah cannot depart.

Rabbi Yoḥanan of Tzippori interpreted the verse regarding mounds [teluliyot] of dirt. One who is foolish, what does he say? Who can completely remove this? One who is wise, what does he say? I will remove two containers during the day and two containers at night, and the same tomorrow, until I clear it all. So too, one who is foolish says: Who can study the entire Torah? Nezikin⁴⁷Bava Kama, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra are each ten chapters long and are considered one integrated tractate (see Bava Kama 102a). is thirty chapters, Kelim is thirty chapters. The wise man says: I will study two halakhot today and two tomorrow, until I learn it all.
Rabbi Yannai said: “Wisdom is lofty to a fool” (Proverbs 24:7) – this is analogous to a perforated loaf that is suspended in the air in a room. The fool says: Who can take this down? The wise man says: Did another not suspend it? I will bring two sticks and attach one to another until I take it down.⁴⁸If one stick is not enough to enable me to reach the loaf, I will tie two sticks together. So too, the fool says: Who can learn all the Torah that is in the heart of my teacher? The wise man says: Did he not learn it from another? I will study two halakhot today and two tomorrow, until I learn all the Torah of this Sage.
Rabbi Levi said: [This is analogous] to a perforated basket whose owner hired workers to fill it with water. The fool says: What am I accomplishing? I fill it from here and it flows out from there. The wise man says: Do I not collect my wage? Do I not collect a wage from my employer for each and every barrel? So too, the fool says: I study Torah and forget it; what am I accomplishing? The wise man says: Does the Holy One blessed be He not give me reward for my effort? As Rabbi Levi said:⁴⁹The text should state: “Another matter: Rabbi Levi said” (Etz Yosef). Even matters that you see as dots [kotzim] in the Torah, they are heaps upon heaps [tilei tilim]; they have the capability to destroy the world and to render it a mound [tel], just as it says: “It shall be an eternal mound” (Deuteronomy 13:17). It is written: “Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one [eḥad]” (Deuteronomy 6:4); if you transform the dalet into a resh you will destroy the world.⁵⁰The word one [eḥad] will become other [aḥer], turning this affirmation of faith into a declaration of heresy. This occurs by merely erasing one small dot of the dalet, thereby turning it into a resh. “For you shall not prostrate yourself to another [aḥer] god” (Exodus 34:14) – if you replace the resh with a dalet you will destroy the world.⁵¹The verse would then state: You shall not prostrate yourself to the one [eḥad] God, which is a heretical statement. It is written: “They shall not profane [yeḥalelu] My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2); if you replace the ḥet with a heh, you will destroy the world.⁵²Profane [yeḥalelu] would become praise [yehalelu]. It is written: “I will wait [veḥikiti] for the Lord” (Isaiah 8:17); if you replace the ḥet with a heh, you will destroy the world.⁵³Wait [veḥikiti] would become strike [vehikeiti]. It is written: “Let all who breathe [tehalel] praise the Lord” (Psalms 150:6); if you replace the heh with a ḥet, you will destroy the world.⁵⁴Praise [tehalel] would become profane [teḥalel]. It is written: “They have denied the Lord” (Jeremiah 5:12); if you replace the bet with a kaf, you will destroy the world.⁵⁵“The Lord [baHashem]” would become: Like the Lord [kaHashem], which implies that the Lord also denies truths. It is written: “They have betrayed the Lord for they have begotten foreign children” (Hosea 5:7); if you replace the bet with a kaf, you will destroy the world.⁵⁶“The Lord [baHashem]” will become: Like the Lord [kaHashem], implying that the Lord betrays others. It is written: “There is no one as holy as the Lord, as there is none like You [biltekha]” (I Samuel 2:2) – Rabbi Abbahu bar Kahana said: Everything wears out but You do not wear out, “as there is none like you,” there is none to outlast you [levalotekha].

(Bamidbar 6:3) "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself": (The intent is) to equate wine of mitzvah with non-mitzvah (i.e., optional) wine, as being forbidden to a Nazirite (viz. Ibid. 4). For (without this verse) it would follow that since a mourner is forbidden to drink wine (viz. Devarim 26:14) and a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine, then since I have learned about a mourner that wine of mitzvah (i.e., second-tithe wine) was not equated with optional wine, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted), also, in the instance of a Nazirite, wine of mitzvah is not to be equated with optional wine, (i.e., the second, being forbidden, the first must be permitted, [wherefore the verse is needed to tell us that mitzvah wine, too, is forbidden to a Nazirite]). — No, this may be so in the instance of a mourner, where mitzvah eating was not equated with optional eating, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted,) wherefore mitzvah wine was not equated with optional wine. But in the instance of the Nazirite, we would say that just as mitzvah eating was equated with optional eating, so, mitzvah wine should be equated with optional wine, (and both should be forbidden. Why, then, is the verse needed to tell us this?). And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that mitzvah wine is forbidden to a Nazirite,) viz.: If in the instance of an officiating (Cohein in the Temple), where the rind was not equated with the fruit, nor eating with drinking, nor the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, (only the last being forbidden), mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, (both being forbidden, viz. [Vayikra 10:9]), then in the instance of the Nazirite, where the rind was equated with the fruit (both being forbidden), and eating with drinking, and the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, how much more so, should mitzvah wine be equated with optional wine (and be forbidden!) Why, then, is the verse needed? — No, (i.e., it is needed.) This (i.e., what you have said), may be so with the officiating (Cohein), whose punishment (for drinking) is death, wherefore mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, whereas in the instance of the Nazirite, whose punishment (for drinking) is not death, we would say that mitzvah wine was not to be equated with optional wine, (and should be permitted.) It must, therefore, be written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself," to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? Because it is written (Devarim 14:23) "and you shall eat before the L-rd your G-d … the (second-) tithe of your grain and wine, etc.", I might think that even Nazirites are included. And how would I satisfy "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? With other wines, excluding mitzvah wines. Or even with mitzvah wines. And how would I satisfy "and you shall eat, etc."? With other men, aside from Nazirites. Or even with Nazirites. It is, therefore, written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself" — to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden.) Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is it written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? For it would follow: Since he (a Nazirite) is forbidden to defile himself (for the dead) and he is forbidden (to drink) wine, then if I learn that (for a Nazirite) a meth-mitzvah [(one who, lacking kin, it is a mitzvah for everyone to bury)] is not equated with a non-meth-mitzvah, then mitzvah wine, likewise, should not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden.) And, further, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If (dead-body) tumah, which voids (one's elapsed period of Nazaritism) does not equate a meth-mitzvah with a non meth-mitzvah, (it being a mitzvah for a Nazirite to render himself tamei for the first, but forbidden to do so for the second), how much more so should mitzvah wine, which does not void (his lapsed Naziritism) not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden)! It must, therefore, be written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself" to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). "From yayin (wine) and shechar he shall separate himself": Now yayin is shechar, and shechar is yayin! — But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues (i.e., synonymously). Similarly: Shechitah (slaughtering) is zevichah, and zevichah is shechitah. Kemitzah (taking the fistful) is haramah, and haramah is kemitzah. Amuka (lowland) is shefelah, and shefelah is amukah. Oth (a sign) is mofeth, and mofeth is oth — but the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. Here, too — "From yayin and shechar he shall separate himself": Now yayin is shechar and shechar is yayin. But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. R. Elazar Hakappar says: "yayin" is diluted; shechar is undiluted. You say this, but perhaps the reverse is the case! — From(Bamidbar 28:7) "And its libation a fourth of a hin for the one lamb. On the holy place (i.e., the altar) shall it be poured (connoting "undiluted"), a pouring of shechar to the L-rd," you must deduce that "yayin" is diluted, and "shechar," undiluted. "From wine and strong drink yazir": "nezirah" in all places connotes separation, viz. (Vayikra 22:2) "and they shall separate ("veyinazru") from the holy things of the children of Israel," and (Ibid. 25:5) "The after-growth of your harvest you shall not reap (in the sabbatical year), and the guarded ("nezirecha," lit., "separated") grapes of your vine you shall not gather," and (Hoshea 9:10)) "And they came to Baal-peor and 'separated themselves' ('vayinazru') to shame," and (Zechariah 7:3) "Shall I weep in the fifth month (Tisha B'av), separating myself ("hinazer"), etc." We find, then, that in all places "nezirah" connotes separation. "From wine and shechar he shall separate himself": I might think, (even) from selling wine or healing (himself with it); it is, therefore, written "he shall not drink," but he is permitted to sell it or to heal himself with it. "Vinegar of wine and vinegar of shechar he shall not drink": We are hereby taught that vinegar is equated with wine. For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since an officiating Cohein may not drink wine, then if I have learned that in his case vinegar is not equated with wine, then for a Nazirite, too, vinegar should not be equated with wine. And, furthermore, this should follow a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) an officiating Cohein, whose punishment (for drinking wine) is death, vinegar is not equated with wine, then (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose punishment is not death, how much more so should vinegar not be equated with wine! (The verse then is needed) to tell us that vinegar is equated with wine. And just as mitzvah wine is equated with optional wine, so, mitzvah vinegar (i.e., second-tithe vinegar) is equated with optional vinegar. What is the intent of "and any steeping of grapes he shall not eat"? We are hereby taught that if he steeped grapes in water, and the taste (of the grapes) was transmitted to the water, it is forbidden. And this serves as a paradigm for everything forbidden by the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re wine) is not for all time, (but only for the period of his Naziritism), and whose prohibition does not extend to derivation of benefit (e.g., selling and healing), and whose prohibition is subject to release (by absolution of his Naziritism), the taste (of the forbidden substance) was regarded as the substance itself, then the other prohibitions in the Torah, whose prohibitions are for all time, and whose prohibition extends to derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is not subject to release — how much more so should the taste (of the forbidden substance) be regarded as the substance itself! "and grapes": Why is this written? It follows (logically) even without being stated, viz.: If he is liable for what issues from the fruit (i.e., wine), should he not be liable for the fruit itself! Rather, what is the intent of "wet" grapes"? To include (as forbidden) half-ripe grapes. You say "to include half-ripe grapes. But perhaps its intent is to exclude dry grapes? (This cannot be) for "and dry" includes dry grapes. What, then, is the intent of "wet"? For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: He is liable for wine and he is liable for grapes. Just as wine is a finished fruit (i.e., product), so, grapes must be a finished product (and not half-ripe). It is, therefore, written "wet" to include half-ripe grapes (as forbidden). Issi b. Yehudah says: What is the intent of "grapes wet and dry"? To impose liability for each in itself (i.e., eating "wet" and "dry" grapes together is regarded as two separate transgressions though one kind of fruit is eaten). (And this serves as a paradigm for all prohibitions in the Torah.) Let it be written "and dry grapes he shall not eat" (i.e., "wet" is understood from "grapes itself," and only "dry" need be written.) If it were stated thus, all dried fruits would be understood (to be forbidden). "wet" and "dry" (in this context) implies what issues from the vine wet and then dried up.