Midrash su Levitico 22:78

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.

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.

(Gemara) Let us see: when do the priests enter to eat the Terumah? Is it not when the stars appear? Let then the Mishnah say: "From the time the stars appear!" In using this expression, he lets us hear something by the way; namely, that with the appearing of the stars, the priests are allowed to eat their Terumah, because the forgiveness-offering [which will be brought on the morrow] is not a hindrance, as we have been taught; "And when the sun hath set, he shall be clean. (Lev. 22, 7.) i. e., the waiting for the setting of the sun prevents him from eating the Terumah, but not his forgiveness-offering." (Ib. b) R. Jose said: "Twilight lasts as long as a twinkling; this one comes and that one goes, and it is impossible to determine its exact time."

(Gemara) Let us see: when do the priests enter to eat the Terumah? Is it not when the stars appear? Let then the Mishnah say: "From the time the stars appear!" In using this expression, he lets us hear something by the way; namely, that with the appearing of the stars, the priests are allowed to eat their Terumah, because the forgiveness-offering [which will be brought on the morrow] is not a hindrance, as we have been taught: "And when the sun hath set, he shall be clean" (Lev. 22:7.) i.e., the waiting for the setting of the sun prevents him from eating the Terumah, but not his forgiveness-offering.

When Rabbi Yosei of Milḥaya died, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish went up to perform an act of kindness¹³⁶They went to participate in the funeral. and Rabbi Yitzḥak Pesaka went up with them. There was a certain elder there who sought to ascend and begin eulogizing him, but they did not allow him to do so. Rabbi Yitzḥak Pesaka said to him: ‘Before these lions of Torah you open your mouth?’ Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: ‘Leave him, as he is an elder. Let him ascend and be honored in his place.’¹³⁷Since he is an elder and a local, let him deliver the first eulogy. He ascended, began, and said: ‘We find that the departure of the righteous is more difficult before the Holy One blessed be He than the ninety-eight rebukes in Mishne Torah¹³⁸This is a reference to the book of Deuteronomy. The reference is to the warnings of punishment in Deuteronomy 28:15–68. and the destruction of the Temple. In the rebukes it is written: “The Lord will render your blows extraordinary [vehifla]” (Deuteronomy 28:59).¹³⁹The Lord will strike you with extraordinary blows. Regarding the destruction of the Temple it is written: “She has declined extraordinarily [pela’im].” However, regarding the departure of the righteous it is written: “Therefore, behold, I will continue to bewilder [lehafli] this people, bewilderment [hafleh] upon bewilderment [vafeleh]” (Isaiah 29:14). Why to that extent? “The wisdom of her wise will be lost and the understanding of her men of understanding will be concealed” (Isaiah 29:14).’ Rabbi Yitzḥak Pesaka said: ‘May the mouth of this man be blessed.’ Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: ‘Had we not allowed him, from where would we have heard this pearl?’
The Divine Spirit was shouting and saying: “See, Lord, my affliction, for the enemy has expanded.”¹⁴⁰The midrash has returned to explicating the verse in Lamentations 1:8. The point is that the first part of the verse is a description of what has happened, whereas the phrase “see, Lord…” is the prophet, influenced by the Divine Spirit, calling out to God. “Evildoers dig pits for me that do not accord with Your Torah” (Psalms 119:85). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said two [examples]: It is written: “Do not take the mother with the young” (Deuteronomy 22:6), and here: “A mother was torn apart with her children” (Hosea 10:14);¹⁴¹The Torah prohibits trapping the mother bird while she is with her young, but the enemies attacked mothers in the presence of their children. that is, “that do not accord with Your Torah.”
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said another: It is written: “To eradicate an infant from the street” (Jeremiah 9:20), but not from the synagogues; “young men from the squares” (Jeremiah 9:20), but not from the study halls. But here, “the wrath of the Lord arose against them…[He struck down the young warriors among them]” (Psalms 78:31);¹⁴²The “young warriors” refers to those involved in the study of Torah. At times the debate of matters of halakha in the course of study is compared to war (see, e.g., Megilla 15b). Alternatively, some suggest that the correct version of the text is as cited in Yalkut Shimoni, Tehillim 877, which provides a different prooftext: “Who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary” (II Chronicles 36:17) (Rabbi David Luria; Etz Yosef). that is, “that do not accord with Your Torah.”
Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said two [examples]: It is written: “An ox or a sheep, it and its offspring you shall not slaughter on one day” (Leviticus 22:28), but here, child and mother were killed on one day, as it is stated: “A mother was torn apart with her children” (Hosea 10:14); that is, “that do not accord with Your Torah.”
Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said another: It is written: “Who will hunt game of a beast…he shall [pour out its blood and] cover it with dirt” (Leviticus 17:13). But here, “They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them” (Psalms 79:3); that is, “that do not accord with Your Torah.”
Rabbi Berekhya said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, You afforded burial to donkeys, but to Your children You did not afford burial.’ You afforded burial to donkeys, these are the Egyptians. That is what is written: “Whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20). And Rabbi Berekhya said: Because the sea would cast them to the dry land and the dry land cast them to the sea. The sea said to the dry land: ‘Accept your people,’ and the dry land said to the sea: ‘Accept your people.’ The dry land said: ‘If when I accepted only Abel’s blood, it is stated in my regard: “Cursed is the land” (Genesis 3:17), how can I accept the blood of this entire multitude?’ [This continued] until the Holy One blessed be He took an oath to it that He would not place it on trial. That is what is written: “You extended Your right hand; the earth swallowed them” (Exodus 15:12). The right hand is nothing other than an oath, as it is stated: “The Lord took an oath by His right hand” (Isaiah 62:8). But to your people, you did not afford burial, that is, “that do not accord with Your Torah.”

There was an incident involving Miriam daughter of the baker, who was taken captive with her seven sons. The emperor took them and placed them behind seven partitions. He brought the first and said to him: ‘Prostrate yourself to the idol.’ He said to him: ‘God forbid, I will not prostrate myself to the idol.’ He said to him: ‘Why?’ [He responded:] ‘Because so it is written in our Torah: “I am the Lord your God”’ (Exodus 20:2). Immediately, he took him out and executed him.
He took out the second and said to him: ‘Prostrate yourself to the idol.’ He said to him: ‘God forbid, my brother did not prostrate himself and I will not prostrate myself.’ He said to him: ‘Why?’ He said to him: ‘Because so it is written in our Torah: “You shall have no other gods before Me”’ (Exodus 20:3). Immediately, he issued a decree against him and they executed him. He took out the third and said to him: ‘Prostrate yourself to the idol.’ He said to him: ‘I will not prostrate myself.’ He said to him: ‘Why?’ He said to him: ‘Because so it is written in our Torah: “For you shall not prostrate yourself to another god”’ (Exodus 34:14). Immediately, he issued a decree against him and they executed him. He took out the fourth and [the son] recited his verse: “One who sacrifices to gods shall be destroyed” (Exodus 22:19). He issued a decree against him and they executed him. He took out the fifth and he, too, recited his verse: “Hear Israel, the Lord is our God the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Immediately, he issued a decree against him and they executed him. He took out the sixth and he, too, recited his verse: “For the Lord your God is in your midst, a God great and awesome” (Deuteronomy 7:21). Immediately, he issued a decree against him and they executed him.
He took out the seventh, who was the youngest of them all. He said: ‘My son, prostrate yourself to the idol.’ He said to him: ‘God forbid.’ He said to him: ‘Why?’ He said to him: ‘Because so it is written in our Torah: “You shall know this day, and restore to your heart, that the Lord, He is the God in the heavens above and upon the earth below, there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4:39). Moreover, we took an oath to our God that we will not exchange Him for another God, as it is stated: “You have exalted the Lord today [to be your God]” (Deuteronomy 26:17). And just as we took an oath to Him, so He took an oath that He would not exchange us for a different nation, as it is stated: “The Lord has exalted you today [to be a people of distinction for Him]”’ (Deuteronomy 26:18).
The emperor said to him: ‘Your brothers had full days, full lives, and experienced goodness, but you are young, you have not had full days, you have not had a full life, and you have never experienced goodness. Prostrate yourself to the idol and I will do good things for you.’ He said to him: ‘It is written in our Torah: “The Lord will reign forever” (Exodus 15:18). And it says: “The Lord is king forever, nations have been eliminated from His land” (Psalms 10:16). You will cease and His enemies will cease. Flesh and blood lives today and dies tomorrow, is wealthy today and poor tomorrow; but the Holy One blessed be He lives and persists forever and for all time.’ The emperor said to him: ‘See your brothers slain before you. I am casting my ring to the ground before the idol, lift it so everyone will know that you heeded my voice.’ He said to him: ‘It is a shame for you, emperor; if you fear people, who are your equivalent, will I not fear the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, the eternal God?’ He said to him: ‘Is there a God in the world?’ He said to him: ‘Woe are you, emperor, have you seen a world without a master?’
He said to him: ‘Does your God have a mouth?’ He said to him: ‘Regarding your gods it is written: “They have a mouth but cannot speak” (Psalms 115:5). Regarding our God it is written: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made; [by the breath of His mouth, all their hosts]”’ (Psalms 33:6).
He said to him: ‘Does your God have eyes?’ He said to him: ‘Regarding your gods it is written: “They have eyes but cannot see” (Psalms 115:5). Regarding our God it is written: “They are the eyes of the Lord ranging throughout the land”’ (Zechariah 4:10).
He said to him: ‘Does your God have ears?’ He said to him: ‘Regarding your gods it is written: “They have ears but cannot hear” (Psalms 115:6). Regarding our God it is written: “The Lord listened and heard”’ (Malachi 3:16).
He said to him: ‘Does your God have a nose?’ He said to him: ‘Regarding your gods it is written: “They have a nose but cannot smell” (Psalms 115:6). Regarding our God it is written: “The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma”’ (Genesis 8:21).
He said to him: ‘Does your God have hands?’ He said to him: ‘Regarding your gods it is written: “They have hands but cannot feel” (Psalms 115:7). Regarding our God it is written: “My hand, too, laid the foundation”’ (Isaiah 48:13).
He said to him: ‘Does your God have feet?’ He said to him: ‘Regarding your gods it is written: “They have feet but cannot walk” (Psalms 115:7). Regarding our God it is written: “His feet will stand that day on the Mount of Olives”’ (Zechariah 14:4).
He said to him: ‘Does your God have a throat?’ He said to him: ‘Regarding your gods it is written: “They cannot produce sound with their throats” (Psalms 115:7). Regarding our God it is written: “Sound emerges from His mouth”’ (Job 37:2).
He said to him: ‘If there are all these attributes in your God, why does He not rescue you from my hand, like He rescued Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar?’ He said to him: ‘Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya were upright, and Nebuchadnezzar was a king worthy of having a miracle performed through him. But you are not worthy, and we have been condemned to death at the hand of Heaven. If you do not execute us, there are many executioners for the Omnipresent, many wolves, lions, snakes, leopards, and scorpions to attack us and kill us. But ultimately, the Holy One blessed be He is destined to exact retribution from you for our blood.’ Immediately, he issued a decree against him to execute him.
His mother said to him: ‘By the life of your head, emperor, give me my son and I will hug him and kiss him.’ He gave him to her, and she bared her breasts and nursed him with her milk. She said to him: ‘By the life of your head, emperor, execute me first and then execute him.’ The emperor said to her: ‘I will not heed you because it is written in your Torah: “An ox or a sheep, it and its offspring you shall not slaughter on one day”’ (Leviticus 22:28). She said to him: ‘You absolute fool, have you already fulfilled all the mitzvot and only this one remains?’ Immediately, he commanded to execute [the son]. His mother fell upon him and was hugging him and kissing him. She said to him: ‘My son, go to Abraham your patriarch and say to him: So said my mother: Do not be overly impressed with yourself and say: I built an altar and sacrificed Isaac, my son. My mother built seven altars and sacrificed seven sons on one day. Yours was an ordeal, mine was an action.’¹⁸¹Your was a test to see if you were willing to sacrifice your son, but you did not actually sacrifice him. My sons were actually killed. While she was hugging him and kissing him, he issued a decree against him and they executed him upon her. When he was executed, the Sages calculated the age of that child and it was discovered that he was two years, six months, and six and one half hours. At that moment, all the nations of the world screamed out and said: ‘What is the God of these people doing to them that they are killed on His behalf all the time?’ In their regard it is written: “For we are killed all day long for You” (Psalms 44:23).
Sometime later, that woman went mad and she fell from the roof and died, to realize what is stated: “She who bore seven is miserable” (Jeremiah 15:9). A Divine Voice was calling out, saying: “The mother of the children is joyful” (Psalms 113:9). The Divine Spirit was crying out and saying: “For these I weep.”

1) (Vayikra 22:1-2) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name, which they make holy to me; I am the L–rd.") "and that they separate themselves ("veyinozru"): "nezirah" connotes separation, as it is written (Ezekiel 14:7) "who separates himself ("veyinazer") from Me and brings up his idols," and (Isaiah 1:4) "They have turned back" ("nazoru acher") (i.e., separated). "from the holy things of the children of Israel": They are liable for piggul [inappropriate intention), nothar (viz. Isaiah 19:6), and uncleanliness in respect to the offerings of the children of Israel, but not in respect to the offerings of gentiles. "the holy things of the children of Israel": This tells me only of the holy things of the children of Israel. Whence do we derive the same for their own holy things? From "which they make holy to Me" — to include all (holy things).

1) (Vayikra 22:11) ("And a Cohein, if he acquire a soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it, and one that is born in his house — they may eat of his bread.") Whence is it derived that if a Cohein marries a woman and acquires (gentile) servants (as opposed to Hebrew servants, whose body he does not acquire) — whence is it derived that they eat terumah? From "And a Cohein, if he acquire a soul, the acquisition. His acquisition" — Even the acquisition of his acquisition eats.

1) (Vayikra 22:13) ("And the daughter of a Cohein, if she be widowed or divorced, and she have no seed, then she shall return to the house of her father in her maidenhood. From the bread of her father she may et, but no non-priest may eat of it.") If we learned [Vayikra 22:12] (that the mother eats on the strength of the "seed") in respect to terumath hakodshim (the breast and the thigh), why need it be stated [Vayikra 22:11] in respect to kodshim (terumah)? And if it is stated in respect to "kodshim," why need it be stated in respect to "terumah"? For there obtains with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, and with terumoth what does not obtain with kodshim. Kodshim are permitted to a zar and terumoth are not permitted to a zar. Kodshim are liable for piggul, nothar, and tamei, and terumoth are not. So that because there obtains with terumah what does not obtain with kodshim, and with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, both must be stated.

1) (Vayikra 22:13) ("And the daughter of a Cohein, if she be widowed or divorced, and she have no seed, then she shall return to the house of her father in her maidenhood. From the bread of her father she may et, but no non-priest may eat of it.") If we learned [Vayikra 22:12] (that the mother eats on the strength of the "seed") in respect to terumath hakodshim (the breast and the thigh), why need it be stated [Vayikra 22:11] in respect to kodshim (terumah)? And if it is stated in respect to "kodshim," why need it be stated in respect to "terumah"? For there obtains with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, and with terumoth what does not obtain with kodshim. Kodshim are permitted to a zar and terumoth are not permitted to a zar. Kodshim are liable for piggul, nothar, and tamei, and terumoth are not. So that because there obtains with terumah what does not obtain with kodshim, and with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, both must be stated.

1) (Vayikra 22:13) ("And the daughter of a Cohein, if she be widowed or divorced, and she have no seed, then she shall return to the house of her father in her maidenhood. From the bread of her father she may et, but no non-priest may eat of it.") If we learned [Vayikra 22:12] (that the mother eats on the strength of the "seed") in respect to terumath hakodshim (the breast and the thigh), why need it be stated [Vayikra 22:11] in respect to kodshim (terumah)? And if it is stated in respect to "kodshim," why need it be stated in respect to "terumah"? For there obtains with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, and with terumoth what does not obtain with kodshim. Kodshim are permitted to a zar and terumoth are not permitted to a zar. Kodshim are liable for piggul, nothar, and tamei, and terumoth are not. So that because there obtains with terumah what does not obtain with kodshim, and with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, both must be stated.

1) "widowed or divorced": Let "divorced" be stated and not "widowed." And I would say: If a divorcée who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein returns (to her father's house to eat terumah), then a widow, who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein, how much more so does she return! — (No, for) If so, I would say: A divorcée who has no children returns; a widow, whether or not she has children, returns. It is, therefore, written "If she be widowed or divorced and have no seed."

1) "then she shall return to the house of her father": to exclude a woman awaiting levirate marriage, (her being linked to the yavam.) "as in her maidenhood": to exclude one who is pregnant. (— But why is the verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place where a child from her first husband is not made equivalent to a child from her second husband to exempt her from levirate marriage, a fetus is made equivalent to a child (to exempt her), then here, where a child from her first husband is made equivalent to a child from her second husband to disqualify her from terumah (in her father's house), how much more so should a fetus be equivalent to a child to disqualify her from terumah! — No, why is a fetus made equivalent to a child to exempt her from levirate marriage? Because a dead child is made equivalent to a living child (i.e., If her husband had a son who died after his father's death, she is exempt from levirate marriage.) Should we then make a fetus equivalent to a child to disqualify her from terumah, where a dead child is not made equivalent to a living child? (i.e., Only a living child disqualifies her from the terumah of her father's house, and not a dead child. (Therefore, the verse is necessary.) "then she shall return": I might think (that she returns) even to the breast and the thigh. It is, therefore, written "From the bread of her father she may eat. We are speaking only of "the holy things of the boundary" (i.e., terumah, and not of "the holy things of the altar," breast and thigh).

1) (Vayikra 22:18) ("Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to the children of Israel, and say to them: A man, a man, of the house of Israel, and of the ger proselyte in Israel, who will present his offering, of all of their vows and all of their free-will offerings, which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering,") "Israel": as stated; "ger": the proselytes; "the ger": to include the wives of the proselytes; "in Israel": to include bondsmen.

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 22:27) ("An ox, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born, shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day and on, it shall be acceptable as an offering of fire to the L–rd.") "an ox … when it is born" (to exclude [from kashruth] one delivered by Caesarian section) — not a man (i.e., a Cohein delivered by Caesarian section is fit to serve.) (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of a treifah (an organic defect), which forbids an animal for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), the offenders (i.e., the Cohanim), were not made like the offerings (i.e., A Cohein with such a defect is permitted to serve), then in the instance of a Caesarian birth, which is permitted in an animal for mundane purposes, how much more so should the offerings (i.e., Cohanim of Caesarian birth) not be made like the offerers (and should be permitted to serve!) — (No,) this is refuted by the instance of a blemished animal, which, though it is permitted for mundane purposes, the offerers (i.e., Cohanim with blemishes) were made (forbidden) like the offered.

1) (Vayikra 22:29) ("And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the L–rd, with your acceptance shall you sacrifice it. (Vayikra 22:30) On that day it shall be eaten.") Let this ("On that day, etc.") not be stated (i.e., it is already written in 7:15). If it is not to be understood as referring to eating per se, understand it as referring to slaughtering, i.e., the very beginning of the slaughtering should be with the intention of eating it on the day.

1) (Vayikra 22:29) ("And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the L–rd, with your acceptance shall you sacrifice it. (Vayikra 22:30) On that day it shall be eaten.") Let this ("On that day, etc.") not be stated (i.e., it is already written in 7:15). If it is not to be understood as referring to eating per se, understand it as referring to slaughtering, i.e., the very beginning of the slaughtering should be with the intention of eating it on the day.

1) (Vayikra 22:4) ("A man, a man, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein, if he is a leper or a zav (see section 15), of the holy things he shall not eat until he is clean. And one who touches anyone who is unclean through the dead; or a man from whom semen issues,") "the seed of Aaron": This tells me only of the seed of Aaron. Whence is Aaron himself derived (as subsumed in the prohibition)? From "if he is a leper or a zav." "of the holy things (terumah) he shall not eat until he is clean": (i.e., when the sun goes down,) but Israelites may eat ma'aser t'vulei yom (having immersed themselves in the daytime). Whence is it derived that Aaron and his sons (may eat ma'aser, t'vulei yom)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If Israelites, who may not eat of terumah (even) when the sun goes down, may eat of ma'aser t'vulei yom, then Aaron and his sons, who may eat of terumah when the sun goes down — how much more so may they eat of ma'aser t'vulei yom! Israelites, then, are derived (by implication) from the verse, and Aaron and his sons, a fortiori (as being permitted to eat ma'aser t'vulei yom.

1) Above (Vayikra 23:2), intercalation of the year is being spoken of, and here (Vayikra 22:4) sanctification of the month is being spoken of. If (the moon) were seen clearly, or witnesses came and testified (to that effect) before them (beth-din), and they were unable to proclaim "It is intercalated until it became dark — whence is it derived that it is intercalated? From "which you shall call (them) in their times." If you called them, they are My festivals. If not, they are not My festivals.

2) Whence is it derived that our verse is speaking of (a Cohein) who has become tamei? "Profanation" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) (in respect to eating terumah). Just as "profanation" there refers to tumah, so, "profanation" here refers to tumah. And just as "profanation" there is punishable by death) at the hands of Heaven), so, "profanation" here is punishable by death. And just as for "profanation" there, there is (no) placation, so, for "profanation" here there is no placation. R. Yehudah says: It is written here "I am the L–rd," and, below, (Vayikra 22 verse 3) "I am the L–rd." Just as there, the context is kareth ("cutting off"), here, too, it is kareth.

2) I might think that even if he bought a Hebrew servant he eats terumah; it is, therefore, written ("his) money" — to exclude a Hebrew servant, who is not (the acquisition of his) money (see above).

2) And if it were written "widowed," but not "divorced," I would say: A widow who has no seed returns, but a divorcée, whether or not she has seed, does not return. It must, therefore, be written (both) "a widow who has no seed" and "a divorcée who has no seed" — a widow, for stringency; a divorcée, for leniency.

2) Whence is it derived that the daughter of a Cohein who married an Israelite and then ate terumah, and, similarly, a Cohein who ate the terumah of his neighbor — I might think that they are liable for the fifth; It is, therefore, written "but no non-priest (zar) may eat of it, (followed by 22:14) "And a man if he eat the holy thing unwittingly, (then he shall add its fifth [in payment] upon it") — to exclude those who are not zarim to it. "a man" — to exclude a minor.

2) Rebbi says: It is written (Vayikra 22:18): "… who will bring his offering, of all of their vows and of all of their gift-offerings which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering" — All consecrated offerings may be brought in partnership, Scripture excluding only meal-offerings, in respect to which it is written (Vayikra 2:1): "If a soul offer a meal-offering to the L–rd."

2) If so, why "a man, a man"? To include gentiles, who vow votive (offerings) and gift-offerings as a Jew does "which" they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering": This tells me only of a burnt-offering. Whence do I include peace-offerings? From "their vows." Whence do I include the thank-offering? From "their free-will offerings. Whence do I include bird-offerings, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense, and wood? From "of all their vows," "of all their free-will offerings." If so, why is it written "which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering"? To exclude the burnt-offering of a Nazirite. (Naziriteship not "taking" with a gentile). These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Even if you "include" a whole day, only a burnt-offering obtains (i.e., Whatever he brings becomes a burnt-offering). (Vayikra 22:19) According to your wills, a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats.") (According to your wills": No coercion is exercised for the presentation of communal offerings. "a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats": The absence of blemishes and maleness are criteria for beasts but not for birds. I might think (even) if its wing withered, if its eye were gouged out or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:14) "of the bird," and not all of the bird.

2) If so, why "a man, a man"? To include gentiles, who vow votive (offerings) and gift-offerings as a Jew does "which" they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering": This tells me only of a burnt-offering. Whence do I include peace-offerings? From "their vows." Whence do I include the thank-offering? From "their free-will offerings. Whence do I include bird-offerings, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense, and wood? From "of all their vows," "of all their free-will offerings." If so, why is it written "which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering"? To exclude the burnt-offering of a Nazirite. (Naziriteship not "taking" with a gentile). These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Even if you "include" a whole day, only a burnt-offering obtains (i.e., Whatever he brings becomes a burnt-offering). (Vayikra 22:19) According to your wills, a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats.") (According to your wills": No coercion is exercised for the presentation of communal offerings. "a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats": The absence of blemishes and maleness are criteria for beasts but not for birds. I might think (even) if its wing withered, if its eye were gouged out or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:14) "of the bird," and not all of the bird.

2) "you shall not present these to the L–rd.": These you shall not present, but you may present animals designated as sacred with which work was done.

2) Do not wonder, then, if in the instance of Caesarian section, though it is permitted for mundane purposes, the offerers were made (forbidden) like the offered. It must, therefore, be written "an ox … when it is born" (by Caesarian section is forbidden as an offering), and not a man when he is born, (etc.)

2) This tells me only of a thanksgiving offering. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings? From "And when you sacrifice a sacrifice," to include (all) sacrifices that are to be eaten in one day.

Said Rabbi Yochanan: Once I was walking on a path and I came across a man who was collecting firewood. I spoke to him but he did not respond to me. Afterwards he approached me and said "Rabbi, I am dead and not alive", I said to him: "If you are dead - why do you need the firewood?". He responded: "Rabbi, listen carefully to what I am saying to you, when I was alive, my friend and I were doing a sin in my palace and when we came here we were sentenced to punishment by fire, when I gather wood they burn my friend, and when my friend gathers wood they burn me". I asked him: "Till when do you have to endure this punishment?" He told me: "When I came here I left my wife pregnant and I know she is pregnant with a son, therefore, please take caution with him and from the time he is born until he is five years old take him to he house of his rabbi to learn biblical verse (mikrah) because when he can say Barchu Et Hashem HaMevorach then I will be saved from the punishment of Gehenna".

2) "until he is clean": I might think, until he immerses; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7) "And when the sun sets, he shall be clean." Just as his being clean below is with the setting of the sun, so, his being clean here.

2) "until he is clean": I might think, until he immerses; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7) "And when the sun sets, he shall be clean." Just as his being clean below is with the setting of the sun, so, his being clean here.

2) "if he profanes and he sins unwittingly in the sanctified things of the L–rd": I might think that (even) if he derived benefit (from the object), but did not damage it, or if he damaged it but did not derive benefit from it, or it were attached to the ground, or it involved a messenger that did not perform his embassy — (I might think that even then he were liable); it is, therefore, written (here) "and he sins," and it is written "sin" in respect to terumah (Bamidbar 22:9).

2) Whence is it derived that our verse is speaking of (a Cohein) who has become tamei? "Profanation" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) (in respect to eating terumah). Just as "profanation" there refers to tumah, so, "profanation" here refers to tumah. And just as "profanation" there is punishable by death) at the hands of Heaven), so, "profanation" here is punishable by death. And just as for "profanation" there, there is (no) placation, so, for "profanation" here there is no placation. R. Yehudah says: It is written here "I am the L–rd," and, below, (Vayikra 22 verse 3) "I am the L–rd." Just as there, the context is kareth ("cutting off"), here, too, it is kareth.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2), “When a woman emits her seed [and bears a male]”: If the woman comes first, she bears a male; if the man comes first, [she bears] a female.⁸Ber. 60a; Nid. 31ab; see above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 8:18; cf. Sifra to Lev. 22:1-9, (217: Emor, Parashah 4). R. Abbin the Levite said, “The text has given you a clue (in vs. 5), ‘If she bears a female’ (with no mention of her giving her seed). If the man comes first, a female is produced; [if] the woman comes first, a male is produced. Thus it is stated (in vs. 2), ‘When a woman emits her seed and bears a male.’” R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “Therefore, the male is dependent (for his procreation) upon the woman; and the female, upon the man. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 22:20-23), ‘Behold Milcah, she also has borne sons to your brother Nahor, Uz his first-born and Buz his brother…. And Bethuel brought forth Rebekah.’ It also says (in I Chron. 2:48-49), ‘Maacah, the concubine of Caleb bore [Sheber] and Tirhanah. She also bore Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbenah and the father of Gibea. And the daughter of Caleb] was Achsah.’ Thus females are dependent (for procreation) upon the man; and the males, upon the woman. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 12:2), ‘When a woman emits her seed.’” R. Ayyevu said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miraculous act with a person. When a person is put in a hot water for [only] a single day, is not his life struggling [to survive] because of it? But when an infant is put in its mother's belly for nine months,⁹According to Lev. R. 14:3, a woman’s womb is at boiling temperature. the Holy One, blessed be He, protects it.” Our masters have said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has performed a miraculous act with this person. When the person is put in a bath tub¹⁰Gk.: embate. for one day, does not his life fail because of it? But when the infant is put in its mother's womb for nine months, its life does not fail because of it. Why? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, is performing a miraculous act with it (i.e., with the infant).” Job said (in Job 36:3), “I will fetch (‘S’) my knowledge from afar.” Now Job saw people, with a woman ('shh) giving birth to a man,¹¹‘ShH and ‘S’ are more alike in Hebrew than the transliterations show. In the unpointed text S (sin) and Sh (shin) are the same letter. Also a final H (he) sounds so much like a final ‘(alef) that Rabbinic Hebrew sometimes conflates the two. Thus the midrash understands Job 36:3 to mean that the WOMAN in Lev. 12:2 was Job’s KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR. and also the ship (of Prov. 31:14) sails in the midst of the waters inch by inch.¹²The image suggests Prov. 31:14, according to which the heroic wife is LIKE MERCHANT SHIPS; SHE BRINGS HER FOOD FROM AFAR. So Enoch Zundel in his commentary, ‘Ets Yosef, here on Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Now he was surprised over these things and said (in Job 36:3), “I (like the woman of Prov. 31:14) will fetch my knowledge from afar.” R. Judah [bar Simon] said, “A woman's two haunches become like two haunches of stone, in order that she may have strength when she gives birth. As thus it is stated (in Exod. 1:16), ‘look at the birthstool (literally, the pair of stones).’” R. Meir said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miraculous act with the infant. How? Before the woman bears, she retains blood; after she gives birth, the blood departs to the breasts and becomes milk. Then the infant nurses on them.” R. Abba bar Kahana said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miraculous act with the infant. How? When the funda (i.e., pouch)¹³The Latin word means “moneybag”. is full with its mouth down, the coins are scattered; but the woman has her funda [with its opening] down, and the fetus is retained.” Another interpretation: An animal walks about with the fetus in the midst of its belly; but a woman walks about erect with the fetus in the midst of her belly, and the Holy One, blessed be He, preserves it.

(Ib. b) R. Ada b. Ahaba said: "Whence do we learn that a single man must not say the Kedusha? It is said (Lev. 22, 32.) So that I may be sanctified among the children of Israel; i.e., everything holy should not be said by less than ten (men)." How does he prove this? Rabanai, the brother of R. Chiya b. Abba explained it: "We deduce it [first] from the words Toch, Toch: it is written here, So that I may be sanctified Betoch (among) the children of Israel, and it is written there (Num. 16, 21.) Separate yourselves Mitoch (from the midst of) the congregation (Eda); [as in the latter case the word Toch in connection with Eda refers to ten, so in the former case, the word Toch, although alone, also refers to ten]. Again we deduce [that the latter passage where Toch is mentioned in connection with Eda refers to ten], from the words, Eda, Eda: it is written (Ib. 14, 27.) How long (shall indulgence he given) to this evil Eda (congregation). as that passage [where Eda is mentioned alone] refers to ten (the spies, who were twelve, excluding Joshua and Kaleb) so in the passage where Eda is mentioned in connection with Toch, does it also refer to ten."

3) I would exclude a Hebrew servant (from eating terumah), but I would not exclude the servant of partners (i.e., a gentile servant, who is half his master's - half his own); it is, therefore, written "he (may eat of it") — to exclude a (gentile servant), who is part-servant, part-free.

3) "and she have no seed" (vezera ein la): This tells me only of her own children (as disqualifying her from eating terumah). Whence do I derive the same for her children's children? From "vezeira ein (not) lah," (the added yod in "ein" signifying intensification of exclusion). How so? The daughter of a Cohein marries an Israelite and has a daughter by him. (The Israelite dies.) The daughter goes and marries a Cohein and has a son by him, who is fit to be high-priest and to stand and serve on the altar. He "feeds" his mother (terumah) and disqualifies his mother's mother! The latter says "Not like my (grandson, the high-priest, who disqualifies me from eating terumah!

3) "if he eat": There is no "eating" (for "fifth" liability) less then an olive. Just as "the holy thing" there (Vayikra 22:13) speaks of the holy things of the boundary (i.e., terumah), so, "the holy thing" here.

3) "from the fowl" — and not all the fowl. Because it is written (Ibid. 22:19): "a male without blemish, in the cattle, in the sheep, and in the goats," implying that "unblemished male" is a requirement only in the above, but not in fowl, I might think that it is kasher even if its wing were dried up, its eye dug out, or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written: "from the fowl" — and not all the fowl.

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").

3) (Vayikra 22:20) ("All that has a blemish in it you shall not present, for it will not be acceptable for you.") "that has a blemish in it. This tells me only of a permanent blemish. Whence do I derive the same for a passing blemish? From "All that has a blemish in it."

3) (For, without the verse) it would follow otherwise, a fortiori, viz.: If the red heifer, which is not invalidated by a blemish is invalidated by having been worked with, then offerings, which are invalidated by blemishes, how much more so should they be invalidated by having been worked with! It is, therefore, written "These" — These you shall not present (as offerings), but you may present animals which have been worked with.

3) "an ox or a sheep": to exclude a hybrid. "or a goat": to exclude a nidmeh (a sheep which looks like a goat, or vice-versa). When it is born": to exclude one delivered by Caesarian section. "and it shall be seven days": to exclude (acceptability) before that time. "under its mother": to exclude an orphaned animal. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan Beroka says: It is written here "under," and elsewhere (in respect to tithes, Vayikra 27:32) "under (the staff"). Just as "under" here excludes a hybrid, a Caesarian, before its time, and an orphan, so, "under" there. And just as "under" there excludes a treifah, so, "under" here.

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) From (Vayikra 22:29): "And when you slaughter a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the L–rd, that it be acceptable for you shall you slaughter it. (Vayikra 22:30) On that day shall it be eaten." This need not be stated, (for we know it already). If it is not needed for (the halachah of) eating, learn it as applying to sacrifice, that its sacrifice at the outset must be with the thought of eating it for one day.

3) "and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, which is the L–rd's, then that soul shall be cut off from its people": I might think that there is tumah-kareth liability for peace-offerings alone. Whence do I derive that it obtains for all offerings? From (Vayikra 22:3): "Throughout your generations, every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things (… with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off before Me.") I might think (that there are included) only what is like peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night. Whence do I derive the same for those offerings that are eaten for one day? From (Vayikra 7:21) "of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." (For without this verse I would say:) This tells me only (of those offerings) whose remnants are eaten. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a burnt-offering, whose remnants are not eaten? From "the sacrifice." This tells me only of sacrifices. Whence do I derive for inclusion birds and meal-offerings, which are not kinds of sacrifices, (shechitah not obtaining there), until the inclusion (for tumah-kareth liability) of the log of oil of the leper? From (the generalization): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to the holy things, etc."

3) I would then include tevel, which is subject to the death penalty; but I would not include neveilah (carcass), which is not subject to the death penalty; it is, therefore, written (in several places) "you shall afflict your souls" to include (all these). I would include neveilah, which is subject to a negative commandment, but I would not include chullin (mundane food), which is not subject to a negative commandment; it is, therefore, written (in several places) "you shall afflict your souls" (to include (all these). I would include chullin, which is not subject to a positive commandment, but I would not include terumah and second-tithe, which are (in some instances) subject to a positive commandment (e.g., in respect to Cohanim). It is, therefore, written "you shall afflict your souls," for inclusion. I would include terumah and second-tithe, which are not subject to "And you shall not leave over" (Vayikra 22:30); but I would not include consecrated food, which is subject to it; it is, therefore, written "you shall afflict your souls," for inclusion. Variantly: "You shall afflict your souls" — affliction which affects (the preservation of) your souls. Which is that? (Abstention from) eating and drinking.

3) From (Vayikra 22:29): "And when you slaughter a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the L–rd, that it be acceptable for you shall you slaughter it. (Vayikra 22:30) On that day shall it be eaten." This need not be stated, (for we know it already). If it is not needed for (the halachah of) eating, learn it as applying to sacrifice, that its sacrifice at the outset must be with the thought of eating it for one day.

3) (Vayikra 22:31) ("And you shall heed My mitzvoth and you shall do them; I am the L–rd.") "And you shall heed them" — this refers to Mishnah (i.e., learning); "and you shall do them" — this refers to performance (of the mitzvoth). And all who are not in learning are not in doing. "And you shall heed My mitzvoth and you shall do them": This subsumes heeding and doing in "mitzvoth" (i.e., the learning, aside from its leading to doing is a mitzvah in itself). "I am the L–rd" — trusted to reward (for both the learning and doing).

3) "And one who touches anyone who is unclean through the dead": One who is unclean through the dead confers tumah only through touch (i.e., if a man or vessels touch him). "or a man from whom semen issues": This is a ba'al keri (one who had a nocturnal pollution. Whence is the toucher of semen to be included? From "or a man."

3) I would know that only their meal-offerings (are permitted to Cohanim). Whence do I derive that their melikah (bird-offerings are also permitted to be eaten by Cohanim)? R. Shimon says: (If not apprised otherwise) I would read (Vayikra 22:8): "Neveilah (carcass [including, ostensibly, a melikah offering] or treifah (an organically "torn" animal) he (a Cohein) shall not eat to defile himself therewith" (If he does eat it, he is forbidden to eat kodshim). It is, therefore, written: "for Aaron and for his sons," to permit the melikah offerings of Israelites.

[Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE.] If the woman comes first, she bears a male; if the man comes first, {he sires} [she bears] a female.¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 3:3; Ber. 60a; Nid. 31ab; see above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 8:18; cf. Sifra to Lev. 22:1–9, (217: Emor, parashah 4). R. Abbin [Berabbi] the Levite said: The text has given you a clue (in vs. 5): IF SHE BEARS A FEMALE (with no mention of her giving her seed). If the man comes first, a female is produced; < if > the woman comes first, a male is produced. Thus it is stated (in vs. 2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: Therefore, the male is dependent (for his procreation) upon the woman; and the female, upon the man. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 22:20–23): BEHOLD MILCAH, SHE ALSO HAS BORNE SONS TO YOUR BROTHER NAHOR: UZ HIS FIRST-BORN AND BUZ HIS BROTHER,… AND BETHUEL BROUGHT FORTH REBEKAH. It also says (in I Chron. 2:48–49): [MAACAH], THE CONCUBINE OF CALEB BORE¹¹Buber’s Oxford MS recorded this verb in the feminine, but Buber emended it to the grammatically incorrect masculine of the Masoretic text. {SACAR} [SHEBER] AND TIRHANAH. SHE ALSO BORE {SHATSAPH} [SHAAPH] THE FATHER OF MADMANNAH, SHEVA THE FATHER OF MACHBENAH AND THE FATHER OF {GIBEAH} [GIBEA]. AND THE DAUGHTER [OF CALEB] WAS ACHSAH. Thus females are dependent (for procreation) upon the man; and the males, upon the woman. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED. R. Ayyevu said: The Holy One performs a miraculous act with a person. When a person is put in a furnace room¹²Gk.: kaminos (“oven”). Here the word refers to the furnace room of a bathhouse. for < only > a single day, is not his life struggling < to survive > because of it? But when an infant is put in its mother's belly for nine months,¹³According to Lev. R. 14:3, a woman’s womb is at boiling temperature. the Holy One protects it. Our masters have said: The Holy One has performed a miraculous act with this person. When the person is put in a bath tub¹⁴Gk.: embate. for one day, does not his life fail because of it? But when the infant is put in its mother's womb for nine months, its life does not fail because of it. [Why? Because the Holy One is performing a miraculous act with it (i.e., with the infant).] Job said (in Job 36:3): I WILL FETCH ('S') MY KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR. Now Job saw the children of Adam with a woman ('ShH) giving birth to a man.¹⁵‘ShH and ‘S’ are more alike in Hebrew than the transliterations show. In the unpointed text S (sin) and Sh (shin) are the same letter. Also a final H (he) sounds so much like a final ‘(alef) that Rabbinic Hebrew sometimes confuses the two. Thus the midrash understands Job 36:3 to mean that the WOMAN in Lev. 12:2 was Job’s KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR. Also the ship (of Prov. 31:14) sails in the midst of the waters inch by inch.¹⁶The image suggests Prov. 31:14, according to which the heroic wife is LIKE MERCHANT SHIPS; SHE BRINGS HER FOOD FROM AFAR. So Enoch Zundel in his commentary, ‘Ets Yosef, on the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Now he was surprised over these things and said (in Job 36:3): I (like the woman of Prov. 31:14) WILL FETCH MY KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR.

4) "one that is born in his house": What is the intent of this? If "the acquisition of his money" eats (terumah) shall one born in his house not eat it? If so, I would say: Just as "the acquisition of his money" had monetary value, so, one that is born in his house must have monetary value (in order to eat terumah). Whence is it derived that (he eats) even if he is worth nothing monetarily? From "one born in his house" — in any event.

4) This tells me only of legitimate children (as disqualifying her from eating terumah). Whence do I derive the same for illegitimate children? From "and she have no seed." How so? The daughter of an Israelite marries a Cohein or the daughter of a Cohein marries an Israelite. (In both instances, the husband dies.) The daughter goes and marries a servant or a gentile and has a son by him, who is a mamzer (and she, too, dies). If the mother of his mother was the daughter of an Israelite who married a Cohein, she eats terumah (for she has from him "seed of seed," though illegitimate). If she was the daughter of a Cohein who married an Israelite, she does not eat terumah (for she has seed of seed from an Israelite).

4) "unwittingly": to exclude (one-fifth liability) in an instance of knowing violation. R. Yossi said: I have heard that if one ate of the flesh of holy of holies after the sprinkling of the blood, he pays the principal and one-fifth to the Cohanim and they buy peace-offerings for the money. "then he shall add its fifth upon it": so that it and its fifth are five (e.g., if the valve were four, he does not pay one-fifth of the four, but adds, as it were, an equal fifth part to the four parts.

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."

4) "you shall not present": If to prohibit the slaughtering (of animals with blemishes), this is already stated below (Vayikra 22:22). Its intent must be, then, that you shall not designate as sacred.

4) "you shall not present": If to prohibit the slaughtering (of animals with blemishes), this is already stated below (Vayikra 22:22). Its intent must be, then, that you shall not designate as sacred.

4) "and a fire-offering you shall not make": This refers to (the smoking of) the fats (of a blemished animal). This tells me only of all of them. Whence is (the prohibition against smoking even) part of them derived? From "of them." "on the altar": (to include in the prohibition) the blood (of a blemished animal. "to the L–rd": to include the sent-away he-goat (of Yom Kippur as being invalidated by a blemish.)

4) R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "it shall be seven days under its mother"? Because it is written (Shemoth 22:19) "seven days shall it be with its mother," I might think that it must be with its mother all seven days; it is, therefore, written "under its mother" (negating [in the Hebrew] the above assumption). If under its mother I might think (that it is acceptable) even if it left the mother's womb after she died; it is, therefore, written "with its mother." How is this to be reconciled? Even if its mother survives for only one moment (after its birth, it is acceptable).

4) I might think that tumah-kareth liability obtains only with things for which there is piggul (thought) liability. And this, indeed, would follow, viz.: If piggul (transgression) which is subject to a standard (sin-offering) (for unwitting transgression) and which obtains with only 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 permitted in such an instance) — (If piggul) obtains only (with offerings) where there are "permitters" (see Chapter 13:5), 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-kareth 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.

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) (Vayikra 22:32) ("And you shall not profane My holy name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel; I am the L–rd who sanctified you.") From "And you shall not profane" I understand that he should sanctify it. (Why, then, is "that I may be sanctified" needed?) (It means:) Commit yourself (in your thoughts) to the sanctification of My name. I might think (that if he does not give his life for sanctification of the Name even) in private (he incurs the death penalty); it is, therefore, written "in the midst of the children of Israel" — in public (i.e., in the midst of ten Jews).

4) (Vayikra 22:5) ("Or a man who touches any creeping thing by which he becomes unclean, or a (dead) man by which he becomes unclean, to all his uncleanliness") "who touches (any) creeping thing": This tells me only of a creeping thing (sheretz). Whence is animal carcass (neveilah) to be derived (for inclusion)? From "any sheretz." "by which he becomes unclean": to include (becoming unclean not only by touching the whole object, but even particles of) the size required for uncleanliness. "man": This is a dead body. "has uncleanliness": to include zavim, zavoth, niddah, and yoledeth (a woman after childbirth). This tells me only of their stringent days (i.e., the days of their seeing the discharge). Whence do I derive (the same for) their lenient days? (i.e., the days of their counting)? From "to all of his uncleanliness." "by which he becomes unclean": to include one who cohabits with a niddah. "by which he becomes clean (lit.,) "to it"): to include one who swallows the carcass of a clean bird.

(Lev. 22:26-27:) “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born.” This text is related (to Ps. 36:7), “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains; Your judgments are like the great deep….”²⁷See above, Gen. 2:8; below, Numb. 1:1. “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains.” These are the righteous ones, in that they have been compared with mountains, where it is stated (in Micah 6:2), “Hear, O mountains, the claim of the Lord.” (Ps. 36:7, cont.:) “And Your judgments are like the great deep.” These are the wicked, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:5), “The depths covered them.” “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains.” These are the righteous, [for] just as these mountains grow herbs, so the righteous possess good works. (Ibid., cont.:) “And Your judgments are like the great deep.” These are the wicked, [for] just as the deep does not grow herbs, so the wicked do not possess good works. (Ps. 36:7:) “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains.” Just as the mountains are suitable for sowing and producing fruit; so do the righteous produce fruit, in that they do good for themselves and do good for others.²⁸Lev. 27:1. To what is the matter comparable? To a gold bell with a pearl²⁹Gk.: margarites, margaritis, margaritarion, or margellion. clapper. Similarly the righteous do good for themselves and do good for others. Thus it is stated (in Is. 3:9), “Tell the righteous that [all is] well for them, for they shall eat the fruit of their works.” (Ps. 36:7 cont.:) “And Your judgments are like the great deep.” These are the wicked. Just as the deep is unable to sow and grow fruit, so the wicked do not possess good works and do not grow fruit. Instead they are distressing for themselves and for others. Thus it is stated (in Is. 3:10), “Woe to the bad wicked, as the recompense of his hands will be done to him.” He is bad for himself and bad for others. (Ps. 36:7:) “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains [and Your judgments are like the great deep].” Transpose the text and interpret it:³⁰See also Gen. R. 33:1; PRK 9:1; M. Pss. 36:5. Your righteousness over your judgments is like the mighty mountains over the great deep. Just as these mountains hold down the deep, so that it does not rise up and inundate the earth, so the works of the righteous hold back the divine retributions, so that they will not come into the world. (Ps. 36:7:) “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains.” Just as these mountains have no end, so there is no end to the reward of the righteous in the world to come. (Ibid., cont.:) “Your judgments are like the great deep.” Just as the deep has no limit, so there is no limit to the divine retributions of the wicked in the world to come. (Ps. 36:7:) “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains (literally, mountains of God); [Your judgments are like the great deep].” R. Ishmael and R. Aqiva [differ]. R. Ishmael says, “Since the righteous (rt.: tsdq) carry out the Torah, which was given from the mountains of God, the Holy One, blessed be He, treats them with a charity (rt.: tsdq) like the mountains of God. But since the wicked do not carry out the Torah, which was given from the mountains of God, the Holy One, blessed be He, deals strictly with them, even unto the great deep.” R. Aqiva says, “The Holy One, blessed be He, is as strict with the former as with the latter. From the righteous he collects in this world for a few evil deeds which they have committed, in order to render them full payment in the world to come; while he gives prosperity in abundance to the wicked and pays them in this world for the few good deeds that they have done, in order to punish them in the world to come.” R. Meir says, “[Scripture] has spoken metaphorically of the righteous in their abode, and it has spoken metaphorically of the wicked in their abode.³¹Above, Gen. 2:8, and the note there. It has spoken metaphorically of the righteous in their abode, even as stated (in Ezek. 34:14), “I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the mountains of the Lofty One of Israel shall be their fold.” And it has spoken metaphorically of the wicked in their abode, as stated (in Ezek. 31:15), “Thus says the Lord God, ‘In the day that he went down to Sheol, I caused him to mourn (he'evalti); I covered him with the deep.’” The written text is "I led" (hovalti, not “I caused… to mourn [he'evalti]”).³²Gen. R. 33:1; Exod. R. 14:2. So interpreted the verse means: “I led him [into Geihinnom]. R. Judah bar Ammi told a parable, “One does not make a cover for a vat of silver, gold, bronze or iron, but rather of clay, because that is a material of the same sort. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Geihinnom is darkness,’ as stated (in Ps. 35:6), ‘Let their path be darkness and slipperiness, with the angel of the Lord pursuing them.’ Moreover, the deep is darkness, as stated (in Gen. 1:2), ‘with darkness upon the face of the deep.’ And the wicked are darkness, as stated (in Is. 29:15), ‘for their works are in darkness; so they say, “Who sees us and who knows about us?”’ So let darkness come and cover darkness, just as you have said (in Eccl. 6:4), ‘For it comes in vanity and goes in darkness; even its name is covered in darkness.’”

5) But I still would say: One born in his house eats whether or not he has monetary value. But the acquisition of his money eats only if he has monetary value. It is, therefore, written "the acquisition of his money and one that is born in his house. Just as the second eats even if he has no monetary value, so, the first.

5) I might think that seed from a maidservant or from a gentile woman disqualifies or "feeds" (with the daughter of a Cohein married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohein, respectively). It is, therefore, written "and she have no seed" — excluding the above, which is not considered her seed. How so? The daughter of an Israelite is married to a Cohein or the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite. She has a son by him [(the son dying later)], who goes and consorts with a maidservant or a gentile woman, who begets a son by him. I might think that he can disqualify or "feed" (see above). It is, therefore, written "and she have no seed" — excluding the above, which is not considered her seed.

5) Whence is it derived that he does not pay (for what he ate of the terumah) from shikchah (viz. Devorim 24:19), from peah (viz. Vayikra 19:9), from hefker (what is ownerless), from first tithe whose terumah has been taken, or from second tithe which was redeemed? From "and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing" — that which can become holy (thus, the signification in the Hebrew).

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."

5) From here they ruled: One who dedicates animals with blemishes to the altar transgresses five injunctions: "You shall not make sacred"; "You shall not slaughter"; "You shall not sprinkling the blood"; "You shall not cause (the fats) to smoke"; "You shall not cause part (of the fats) to smoke." R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Also "You shall not receive the blood." "for it will not be acceptable for you." We are hereby taught it (for blood) does not effect conciliation (at all).

5) (Vayikra 22:23) ("And an ox or a lamb, sarua or kalut, a gift you may make it, and as a vow it shall not be accepted.") Whence is it derived that all of the disqualifiers of ox and lamb render them unacceptable (as offerings)? From (the superfluous) "And an ox or a lamb" — to include all disqualifiers of ox and lamb (as rendering them unacceptable as offerings).

5) "and from the eighth day and on it shall be acceptable": I might think that from the eighth day on it is permitted, but on the eighth day itself it is forbidden. It is, therefore, written in respect to a bechor (a first-born male animal, Shemoth 22:29) "On the eighth day you shall give it to Me." I might think that a bechor is permitted on the eighth day, but that from the eighth day on it is forbidden; it is, therefore, written of the holy things (here) "and from the eighth day and on it shall be acceptable." But why do I not rule that a bechor is permitted (only) in the eighth day, and the holy things from the eighth day and on? Whence do I derive that I apply what is stated in respect to bechor (also) in respect to the holy things, and what is stated in respect to the holy things also in respect to bechor? From "its mother" (here, in respect to the holy things) - "its mother" (there, in respect to bechor), a gezeirah shavah (identity).

5) 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-kareth) 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).

5) From here they ruled: One who commits himself (to be killed for sanctification of the Name on condition that a miracle be performed for him — a miracle is not performed for him. If not on condition that a miracle be performed for him — a miracle is performed for him. For thus do we find with Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who said to Nevuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:16-18) "We have no need to answer you in this matter. For if so it must be, our G d whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will save us from your power, O king. But even if He does not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the statue of gold that you have set up." And when Toraynus caught Lulianus and his brother, Pappus in Laodicea, he said to them: "If you be the people of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your G d come and save you from my hand, just as He saved Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar!" They answered: "Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were perfectly righteous, and were worthy of having a miracle performed for them; and Nebuchadnezzar was a bona fide king, who deserved having a miracle wrought through him. But you are a wicked king and are not fit to have a miracle wrought through you. And we have incurred the penalty of death, and if you do not kill us, the L–rd has many emissaries. There are many fiery serpents, many scorpions that can kill us. But in the end, the Holy One Blessed be He will exact payment from you for our blood!" It was said: He did not budge from there until officers came from Rome and split his skull with axes.

5) 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-kareth) 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).

5) (Vayikra 22:6) ("The soul that touches it shall be unclean until the evening; and he shall not eat of the holy things until he bathes his flesh in water.") "The soul that touches it": and not one (that becomes unclean) by moving it. "The soul that touches it shall be unclean until the evening; and he shall not eat of the holy things.": There are holy things of which he may not eat, to include intermixtures of less than a hundred.

5) I might think that the neveilah of a beast confers tumah upon clothing (when it is) in the esophagus; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) "A neveilah and a treifah he shall not eat to become unclean." (The allusion is to the neveilah of an animal [i.e., a bird],) which confers tumah only by being eaten — to exclude the neveilah of a beast, which confers tumah (even) before it is eaten.

5) I would exclude (from liability, eating) ma'aser (in a state of tumah), for it is not punishable by death, but I would not exclude (from an offering eating) terumah (in a state of tumah), it being written of that (Vayikra 22:9): "And they (the Cohanim) will die for it if they profane it"; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "of these” — there are among these that for which he is liable and that for which he is not liable.

(Bamidbar 5:10) "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": All kodshim ("holies") were included in "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be." Scripture "pulled out" all the kodshim and gave them to the Cohanim, leaving over (to the owners) only ("portions") of thank-offerings, peace-offerings, the Pesach offering, beast-tithe, second-tithe, and neta revai (plantings of the fourth year). Variantly: And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": From here you derive that to the Cohein who performs the sacrifice (even in a different watch), its service (i.e., its flesh) and its skin belong "to him" (the Cohein). Variantly: "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 19:24) "And in the fourth year all of its fruit shall be holy in praise of the L-rd," (I would not know) "holy" to the owners or "holy" to the Cohanim? It is, therefore, written "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be." Scripture here speaks of neta revai, that it belongs to the owners. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon says: "holy" to the owners. You say "holy" to the owners, but perhaps it is "holy" to the Cohanim! — You derive it thus: second-tithe is called "holy" (viz. Devarim 26:13) "and neta revai is called "holy." Just as second-tithe is "holy" to the owners, so, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by terumah, which is called "holy" (viz. Vayikra 22:14) and yet belongs to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe requires bringing to the place (Jerusalem) and neta revai requires bringing to the place. If I learned that second-tithe belongs to the owners, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, belong to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe is called "holy," and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And neta revai is called "holy," and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And this is not to be refuted by terumah, which, even though it is called "holy," does not require bringing to the place, nor by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, do not require redemption. I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will reason out a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing of three facets from a thing that is similar in (these) three facets, and I will not learn a thing of three facets from a thing which is not similar in (these) three facets, but only in one or two. If I have learned, then, that second-tithe belongs to the owners, then neta revai, too, should belong to the owners. R. Yossi says "holy" to the owners. You say "holy" to the owners, but perhaps it is "holy" to the Cohanim! — It is, therefore, written (of neta revai, Vayikra 19:25) "And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit to increase for you its produce." For whom is it increased? For him to whom it has already been given (in the fourth year, i.e., the owner.)

(Ps. 36:7:) “Your righteousness (rt.: tsdq) is like the mighty mountains; [Your judgments are like the great deep].” R. Judah bar Simon said, “The charity (rt.: tsdq) which You did with Noah in the ark was like the mighty mountains.³³Lev. R. 27:1. [Thus it is stated (in Gen. 8:4),] ‘And the ark came to rest in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.’ And the judgments are those which You rendered with [his] generation and carried out strictly with them as far as the great deep. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:11), ‘on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth.’ Moreover, when You remembered him, You did not remember him alone, as stated (in Gen. 8:1), ‘Then God remembered Noah, all the beasts, and all the cattle […].’” When R. Joshua ben Levi went away to Rome, he saw there two marble columns covered with bedding³⁴Gk.: koitai (“beds”). so that they would neither be cracked in the burning heat nor frozen in the cold.³⁵Above, Gen. 2:8; Gen. R. 33:1; PRK 9:1. He [also] saw there a certain pauper with a reed mat under him and a reed mat over him. With reference to the columns, he read (Ps. 36:7), “Your righteousness (i.e., your charity) is like the mighty mountains.” Indeed, when You give, You bestow abundantly. But with reference to the pauper, he read (ibid., cont.), “and Your judgments are like the great deep.” [Indeed,] when You are striking, you deal strictly. What is the meaning of (Ps. 36:7, cont.), “You save man and beast, O Lord.” Alexander of Macedon went off to the king of Qatsia beyond the mountains of darkness.³⁶Lev. R. 27:1; PRK 9:1; Tamid 32ab. He arrived at the province named Carthage, which was entirely [inhabited by] women. They came out to meet him. They said to him, “If you wage war with us and are victorious against us, your name will go forth in the world as one who destroyed [a province of] women; and if we wage war with you and conquer you, your name will go forth in the world for having women wage war with you and conquer you. Then you will never again stand up to [another] kingdom.” When he went away, he wrote over the entrance³⁷Gk.: pylai. gate, “I, King Alexander of Macedon, was a fool until I came to the province of Carthage and learned [to take] counsel from women.” He went to another province named Africa. They came out to meet him with golden apples, with golden pomegranates and with golden bread. He said to them, “Is gold eaten in your land?” They said to him, “Was it not like this for you in your own country, why did you come to us?”³⁸Cf. Tamid 32b: “If you wanted [regular] bread, did you have no bread in your own place to eat that you should have taken [to the road] and come here?” He said to them, “I have not come to see your wealth. Rather I have come to see your laws.” While they were sitting [there], two men came before the king for judgment. One said, “Your majesty, I bought a deserted building from this man; and when I cleaned it out, I found a treasure in it. So I said to him, ‘Take your treasure, because I [only] bought a deserted building. I did not buy a treasure.’” But the other said, “Just as you are afraid of a punishment for robbery, so likewise am I afraid of punishment for robbery; for when I sold you the deserted building, I [also] sold you whatever was in it.” The king summoned one of them. He said to him, “Do you have a son?” He said, “Yes.” He called the other one. He said to him, “Do you have a daughter?” He told him, “Yes.” [The king] said to them, “Let them go and marry one another. Then both of them will use up the treasure.” Now Alexander began to be amazed. The king said to him, “What reason do you have to be amazed? For did I not judge well?” He told him, “Yes.” He said to him, “If this case had arisen in your land, what would you have done about it?” He said to him, “We would have taken the head off of this one and off the other one. Then the treasure would go to the house of the king.” He said to him, “But does the sun shine upon you?” He told him, “Yes.” “And does the rain come down upon you?” He told him, “Yes.” “Are there perhaps [some] sheep and goats in your land?” He told him, “Yes.” He said to him, “[Woe to] that man! It is for the sake of the sheep and the goats that the sun shines for you and that the rain comes down upon you. So it for the sake of the [flocks] that you are saved.” Thus it is written (in Ps. 36:7, cont.), “You save human and beast, O Lord.” For the sake of the beast does the Lord save man. Israel said, “Master of the world, we are like man; [but] save us like beasts,³⁹Unlike humans, cattle are not responsible for what they do wrong. since we are drawn after You like beasts, as stated (in Cant. 1:4), “Draw me after you […].” Where are we drawn after You? To the Garden of Eden, as stated (in Ps. 36:9), “They feast on the abundance of Your house, and You have them drink at the river of Your Edens.” R. Eleazar bar Menahem said, “’Your Eden’ (in the singular) is not written here, but ‘Your Edens,’ because each and every righteous person has an Eden for himself.” (Ps. 36:7, cont.:) “You save human and beast, O Lord.” R. Isaac said, “The ordinance for humanity and the ordinance for the beast are one. An ordinance for humanity is (Lev. 12:3), ‘And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.’ And an ordinance for the beast is (Lev. 22:27), ‘and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable.’”

"When you shall go out... When you shall happen upon a birds nest before yo..." (Deuteronomy 22:6) - Law: What is the law if an infant was born circumcised, may one circumcise him? So taught the sages: An infant born circumcised requires a prick of covenantal blood from him because of the covenant of Abraham. Where do you learn this from? From the Torah, as it says, (Genesis 17:13) "Whether born in your household or bought with your money... [they must be circumcised]." Another explanation:

"When you shall go out... When you shall happen upon a birds nest before yo..." (Deuteronomy 22:6) - Law: What is the law if an infant was born circumcised, may one circumcise him? So taught the sages: An infant born circumcised requires a prick of covenantal blood from him because of the covenant of Abraham. Where do you learn this from? From the Torah, as it says, (Genesis 17:13) "Whether born in your household or bought with your money... [they must be circumcised]." Another explanation:

“That the sun has tanned me,” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great: It is written: “For My people have performed two evils” (Jeremiah 2:13). Did they not forsake many more [than two commandments]? Rather, it teaches that they performed one that is as severe as two, as they prostrated themselves to idols while exposing themselved toward the Temple. That is what is written: “He brought me to the inner courtyard of the House… [twenty-five men, their backs toward the Sanctuary of the Lord and their faces to the east…to the sun]” (Ezekiel 8:16). Just as you say: “Their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them” (Leviticus 22:25).
Another matter, “that the sun has tanned me,” because I prepared horse-drawn chariots for the sun, as it is written: “He abolished the horses that the kings of Judah had designated for the sun, from going to the House of the Lord” (II Kings 23:11). ²⁰⁵The kings of Judah had horse-drawn chariots rush toward the rising sun as a form of honor and worship.

6) Whence is it derived that a son (born of an Israelitess married to a Cohein, who later died) "feeds" his mother terumah (i.e., qualifies her to eat terumah)? — It follows, viz.: If the seed becomes like the father to disqualify (her from eating terumah, in the instance of the daughter of a Cohein married to an Israelite, who left her with a son), then he becomes like the father to qualify her to do so. — (No,) If the seed become like the father to disqualify, shall the seed become like the father to qualify, the "thrust" for disqualifying being greater (than that for qualifying)? It is, therefore, written "and one that is born in his house "feeds" ("feeds" is a possible construction in the Hebrew). "they may eat": They may eat (terumah), but animals may not eat it. I might think that they are not even permitted to eat carshinah (horse-bean, rarely used as a human food); it is, therefore, written "soul," (and animals are also subsumed under that term). "of his bread": to exclude (authorization to eat the terumah of) the dead, who do not have bread (i.e., who are not considered to possess it). (That is, if the Cohein died and his heirs are not Cohanim, his servants do not eat the terumah even if the heirs have not yet acquired them.)

6) And whence is it derived that payment is made only with the same kind (of food) that he ate? From "and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing" — the same holy thing that he ate. Therefore, if he ate cucumbers of the eve of the Sabbatical year, he waits for those of the end of the sabbatical year and pays with them. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Elazar says: Payment may be made from one kind for another, as long as he pays from a superior kind for an inferior one. How so? If he ate figs and paid in dates — "May he be blessed!"

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].)

6) (Vayikra 22:21) ("And if a man present a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L–rd, for an explicit vow or as a free-will offering, of the cattle or of the sheep, perfect shall it be for acceptance; no blemish shall be in it.") "a man": An individual brings gift peace-offerings, and not the community.

6) sarua: an animal whose thigh has come out of joint. "and kalut": one whose hooves are fused (and not split), as those of an ass. "a gift you may make it": For Temple maintenance. And whence is a vow derived (as similarly permissible)? From "and as a vow." I might think (that it is permissible) even for the altar (i.e., as an offering); it is, therefore, written "it shall not be accepted." This tells me only of a vow. Whence do I derive the same for a gift? (— It is understood as if it were written) "and as a vow and as a gift (for the altar) it will not be received." Rebbi says: It is derived from its context (that altar offerings are being referred to), it being written "and as a vow it shall not be accepted." And which holy thin effects acceptance? The altar (offerings), as it is written (in that context, Vayikra 1:4, "and it shall effect acceptance for him and make atonement for him.")

6) "it shall be accepted isheh": to be brought up upon the fires (ishim, of the altar). Whence is it derived also that one may not dedicate an animal before its time )for offering, i.e., before it is eight days old?) From "as an offering." "to the L–rd": to include the sent-away he-goat of Yom Kippur (as forbidden to be brought before its time, eight days).

6) (Vayikra 22:33) ("Who took you out of the land of Egypt to be your G d; I am the L–rd.") "Who took you out of the land of Egypt": On condition did I take you out of the land of Egypt — that you dedicate yourselves to the sanctification of My name. "to be your G d": (even) against your will. "I am the L–rd" — trusted to reward.

6) This tells me only of an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of terumah, (i.e., that a Cohein may not eat a sa'ah of unclean terumah that became intermixed with less than a hundred sa'ah of clean terumah.) Whence do I derive the same for an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of chullin (non-terumah), foods of chullin with foods of terumah, foods of terumah with sanctified foods, sanctified foods with foods of terumah, terumah drink with chullin drink, chullin drink with terumah drink, terumah drink with sanctified drink, sanctified drink with terumah drink, sanctified drink with (another kind of) sanctified drink? To this end it is written "of the holy things," to include (all of the above).

6) I might then think that the neveilah of a bird confers tumah (in the esophagus) by Scriptural edict, and that of a beast, a fortiori (viz.: If the neveilah of a bird, which does not confer tumah by touch, does so by being eaten, how much more so, the neveilah of a beast, which does confer tumah by touch!) It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) ("to become unclean through it" [the neveilah of a bird]) — Only through it is tumah conferred upon clothing by being swallowed, and not through the neveilah of a beast.

(Lev. 22:27:) WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT IS BORN…. This text is related (to Ps. 36:7 [6]): YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IS LIKE THE MIGHTY MOUNTAINS; YOUR JUDGMENTS ARE LIKE THE GREAT DEEP.³⁴Tanh., Lev. 8:5; also above, Gen. 2:8; below, Numb. 1:1. < YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IS LIKE THE MIGHTY MOUNTAINS. > These are the righteous ones, in that they have been compared with mountains, where it is stated (in Micah 6:2): HEAR, O MOUNTAINS, THE LAWSUIT OF THE LORD…. (Ps. 36:7 [6], cont.:) AND YOUR JUDGMENTS ARE LIKE THE GREAT DEEP. These are the wicked, since it is stated (in Ps. 136:15): BUT OVERTHREW PHARAOH AND HIS HOST IN THE REED SEA.

R. Tanhuma opened [his discourse] (with Job 41:3), “Who has advanced Me anything that I shall repay him; everything under the heavens is Mine.”⁴⁰Lev. R. 27:2; PRK 9:2. This refers to a bachelor who dwells in a province and gives an allowance to scribes and Mishnah teachers.⁴¹In elementary school one studied Bible under a sopher, or scribe. Secondary school involved the study of Oral Torah. Since a bachelor has no children, the money he gives is an act of charity. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “It is for me to pay him the compensation of a male child.” R. Jeremiah bar Eleazar said, “There is going to be a heavenly voice (bat qol) that shall explode on the tops of the mountains and say, ‘Whoever has done [something] along with God, let him come and receive his reward.’” The holy spirit also proclaims (in Job 41:3), “’Who has advanced Me anything that I shall repay him?’ Who offered Me praise⁴²Qilles. Cf. the Greek, kalos (“beautiful”). before I gave him breath? Who has performed circumcision for Me before I gave him a male child? Who made a tassel for Me before I gave him a prayer shawl? Who made a parapet (in accord with Deut. 22:8) for Me before I gave him a roof? Who made a sukkah for Me before I gave him room? Who set aside pe'ah before I gave him a field? Who set aside the priestly tithe and the [other] tithes before I gave him a threshing floor? Who offered a sacrifice before I gave him a beast?” Ergo (in Lev. 22:27), “When a bull or a sheep or a goat [is born…].”

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

7) (Vayikra 22:12) ("And the daughter of a Cohein, if she will be (wed) to a man who is a zar, she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat.") "And the daughter of a Cohein, if she will be (wed) to a man who is a zar": This tells me only of a mamzer (a bastard). Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even (if she were wed) to (a Levite or an Israelite)? From "to a man who is a zar" (a non-priest). Whence is (the same derived) for a widow (wed) to a high-priest or a divorcée or one who had performed chalitzah (levirate refusal), who was (wed) to an ordinary Cohein? From "to a man" (including) the man who feeds her, (who in the above instances, is a zar [ineligible] to her.)

7) I might think that its separation (by the zar for payment) makes it holy towards liability for the principal and a fifth (if he eats it); it is, therefore, written "and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing." His living renders it holy towards liability for the principal and a fifth, and not its separation. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: His separation, too, renders it holy towards liability for the principal and fifth.

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.

7) But perhaps the intent of "man" is to exclude partners. "And a man" includes partners. How, then, am I to understand "man"? An individual brings gift peace-offerings, and not the community.

7) "a gift you may make it": "It you may make a gift, but you may not make an unblemished animal a gift for Temple maintenance.

7) (Vayikra 22:28) ("And an ox or a sheep, it and its son you shall not slaughter in one day.") Whence is it derived that if one slaughtered "it and its son" of consecrated (and not only mundane) animals he is in transgression of "it shall not be accepted." From (the juxtaposition of) "shall be accepted as an offering of fire to the L–rd. And an ox or a sheep, it and its son you shall not slaughter in one day" — whereby we are taught that one who does slaughter "it and its son" of consecrated animals in one day is in transgression of "it shall not be accepted."

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.

7) "until he bathes his flesh": I might think that he could bathe each limb individually; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22 verse 7) "And when the sun sets he shall be clean" — Just as the sun sets as a whole, so the bathing in water must be as a whole (and not limb by limb).

7) I might think that the carrion of a beast would confer tumah upon one's clothes (if stuffed) into his esophagus (without his having touches or carried it, it being written (Vayikra 11:40) "And he who eats it shall wash his clothes"); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) "Carcass or treifah he shall not eat to become tamei through it" — (We are speaking of that [a bird]) which confers tumah only through eating (and not through touching or carrying), excluding a beast, which confers tumah before it is eaten (by touching or carrying). I might think that bird carcass confers tumah according to Scripture, and beast carcass, a fortiori; it is, therefore, written "through it" — Through "it" (bird carcass) confers tumah in the esophagus, and not beast carcass. If so, why is it written (in reference to beast carcass, Vayikra 11:40) "And he who eats? To assign a (minimum) amount for (tumah of) touching and carrying — Just as for "eating," an olive-size, so, for "touching," an olive-size.

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

8) (Why is the verse needed to tell me this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If an Israelite, whose cohabitation (with the daughter of a Cohein) does not disqualify her from the priesthood (i.e., an Israelite widow may marry a Cohein), still, it disqualifies her from terumah), then, a high-priest, whose cohabitation disqualified her from the priesthood (i.e., he renders her a challalah) — how much more so must his habitation disqualify her from terumah? — No, this may be so with an Israelite, who does not feed feed (terumah to) others (i.e., to his other wives, who are not daughters of a Cohein). Would you say the same for a high-priest, who does feed his other wives? (i.e., Even after she becomes a challalah, he is not disqualified from his priesthood.) Since he feeds others, his cohabitation should not disqualify her from terumah! It must, therefore, be written "to a man" (including) the man who feed her.

8) (Vayikra 22:15) ("And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they will lift to the L–rd.") "And they shall not profane": to include (in the prohibition) one who anoints (himself with terumah) as well as one who drinks it. "the holy things of the children of Israel": There is one-fifth liability for the holy things of the children of Israel, but not for those of the gentiles. These are the words of R. Shimon.

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.

8) "if a man present a sacrifice of peace-offerings": Whence is a burnt-offering included? From "vow." Whence is a thank-offering included? From "a free-will offering." Whence are child-birth and Nazirite offerings included? From "explicit." Whence are sin-offerings and guilt-offerings included? From "of the sheep." Whence is a tithe offering included? From "of the cattle." Whence are offspring and exchanges included? From "or the cattle."

8) From here they ruled: If one designates an unblemished animal for Temple maintenance, he transgresses a positive commandment. Whence is it derived that he also transgresses a negative commandment? From (Vayikra 1:17): "And the L–rd spoke to Moses lemor" (also construable as "lo amar" ["He said not"]. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: There is no transgression here of a negative commandment.

8) "an ox": and not an animal (is subject to "it and its son") (The verse is needed, for without it I would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori that an animal is subject to "it and its son," viz.: If a beast, which is not subject to the mitzvah of covering (its blood), is subject to the mitzvah of "it and its son," then an animal, which is subject to the mitzvah of covering, how much more so should it be subject to the mitzvah of "it and its son!" It must, therefore, be written "an ox" — and not an animal.

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.

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.

8) "it shall be put into water": I might think even part of it (i.e., piece after piece). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7): "And when the sun sets, he shall be clean." Just as there, the coming (i.e., setting) of the sun is all at once; here, too, the coming of the vessel (into the water must be) all at once.

8) (Vayikra 22:7) ("And when the sun sets he shall be clean, and then he may eat of the holy things, for it is his bread.") "And when the sun sets he shall be clean": The setting of the sun is a prerequisite for his eating terumah, but his atonement (i.e., the bringing of his offering) is not a prerequisite for his eating terumah.

8) (Vayikra 12:4) "All that is holy she shall not touch": I might think even (second-) tithe, (which is called "holy" [viz. Vayikra 27:30]); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:4)" and into the sanctuary she shall not come." Just as (entering the sanctuary in a state of tumah) is liable to "taking of the soul" (kareth), so (eating) "holy" (terumah, in a state of tumah) is liable to "taking of the soul" (death at the hands of Heaven, viz. Vayikra 22:9), to exclude the tithe. — But perhaps: Just as one who enters the sanctuary in a state of tumah is liable to kareth, so one who eats "holy" in a state of tumah is liable to kareth, to exclude terumah, (which is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.) It is, therefore, written "All that is holy," to include terumah. — But perhaps: Just as (eating) "holy" involves touching, so (entering) the sanctuary must involve touching (it). Whence is it derived (that he is liable for entering it even) if he does not touch it, (as when he enters in a box)? From "and into the sanctuary she shall not come" (— in any event). "until the fulfillment of the days of her purification": to include a woman who bears a female (in the prohibitions against entering the sanctuary and eating consecrated food).

(Lev. 22:27:) “When a bull or a sheep or a goat.” This text is related] (to Eccl. 3:15), “That which is has already happened.” R. Judah and R. Nehemiah [differ].⁴⁸PRK 9:4; Lev. R. 27:4; Eccl. R. 3:15 (1). R. Judah says, “If someone says to you that if the first Adam had not sinned, he would have remained alive forever, you say to him, ‘Look at Elijah. Since he did not sin, he has remained alive forever.’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘And that which is to be has already happened.’ If someone says to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, will be raising the dead, say to him, ‘Look, He has already done so through Elijah, through Elisha, and through Ezekiel.’” [But] Rabbi Nehemiah says, “If someone says to you that the whole world was water within water, you say to him, ‘The ocean is all water within water.’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘And that which is to be has already happened.’ If someone says to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to make the sea into dry ground, say to him, ‘He has already done so in the days of Moses, as stated (in Exod. 14:29), “But the Children of Israel went through the sea on dry ground, and the waters were a wall for them to the right and to the left.”’” [Moreover,] R. Aha said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman, “Everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to do in the world to come He has already anticipated and partly done at the hands of the righteous in this world. In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to raise the dead; He has already done so at the hands of Elijah, at the hands of Elisha, and at the hands of Ezekiel. In the future, He is going to make the sea into dry ground; He has already done so (ibid.), “But the Children of Israel went through the sea on dry ground.” In the future, He is going to open the eyes of the blind; He has already done so, as stated (in II Kings 6:17), ‘so the Lord opened the eyes of the servant [and he saw].’ In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to going visit barren women; He has already done so through Abraham and Sarah, as stated (in Gen. 21:1), ‘Then the Lord visited Sarah […].’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, (in Is. 49:23), ‘Kings shall be your guardians [… they shall bow down before you, nose to the ground, and lick the dust of your feet].’ It has already happened at the hands of Daniel, when the wicked Nebuchadnezzar bowed down to Daniel, as stated (in Dan. 2:46), ‘Then king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, [paid homage to Daniel].’” This is what Scripture stated (in Eccl. 3:15, cont.), “then God seeks the pursued.” R. Huna said in the name of R. Joseph, “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to claim the blood of the pursued from the hand of those who pursue them.⁴⁹Lev. R. 27:5. When a righteous person pursues a righteous person, God seeks the pursued. When a wicked person pursues a wicked person and when a wicked person pursues a righteous person, then God seeks the pursued. It comes out that you will say that even when a righteous person pursues a wicked person, in any case, then God seeks the pursued.”⁵⁰Cf. PR 48:2. You know that this is so. Note that Abel was pursued by Cain; and therefore (in Gen. 4:4), “and the Lord paid heed unto Abel and unto his offering.” Noah was pursued by his generation, but (according to Gen. 6:8), “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” Abraham was pursued by Nimrod; and it is written (Neh. 9:7) “You are the Lord, the God who chose Abraham […].” Isaac was pursued by the Philistines; and it is written (Gen. 26:28), “And [they] said, ‘We see plainly that the Lord has been with you […].’” Jacob was pursued by Esau; and it is written (Ps. 135:4) “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself.” Joseph was pursued by his brothers; and it is written (Gen. 39:2) “And the Lord was with Joseph […].” Moses was pursued by Pharaoh; and it is written (Ps. 106:23), “therefore He said He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen [stood in the breach before Him…].” Israel is being pursued by the nations of the world; and it is written (Deut. 7:6), “the Lord your God has chosen you […].” R. Judah bar Simon said in the name of R. Nehoray, “Here also (in the case of sacrificial animals), the bull is pursued by the lion; the sheep is pursued by the wolf; the goat is pursued by the leopard. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘You shall not bring me a sacrifice from the pursuer but from the pursued.’ [Thus it is stated] (Lev. 22:27), ‘When a bull or a sheep or a goat […].’”

Israel said: Sovereign of the World, we are human, but you shall save us as cattle,⁴⁷Unlike humans cattle are not responsible for what they do wrong. because we are drawn after you like cattle, as stated (in Cant. 1:4): DRAW ME AFTER YOU. Where are we drawn after you? To the Garden of Eden, as stated (in Ps. 36:9 [8]): THEY FEAST ON THE ABUNDANCE OF YOUR HOUSE, AND YOU HAVE THEM DRINK AT THE RIVER OF YOUR EDENS. R. Eleazar bar Menahem said: "Your Eden" (in the singular) is not written here, but YOUR EDENS, because each and every righteous person has a section in Eden for himself. (Ps. 36:7 [6]:) HUMAN AND CATTLE YOU SAVE, O LORD. R. Isaac said: An ordinance for humanity and an ordinance for cattle [are on a par].⁴⁸Below, 8:17. An ordinance for humanity is (Lev. 12:3): AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED. And an ordinance for cattle is (Lev. 22:27): AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY ON IT SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE….

9) "she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat": She does not eat, but she feeds her mother.

9) I might think that there is liability (for the principal and a fifth) for the terumah in the tevel (i.e., if one unwittingly ate the food before terumah was taken from it); it is, therefore, written "which they will lift to the L–rd." They are liable for what has been lifted (from the tevel), and they are not liable for the terumah in the tevel.

9) "perfect shall it be for acceptance": a positive commandment. Whence the negative commandment? "No blemish shall be in it." If it fell from a roof and were broken I might think that he (the owner) is in transgression; it is, therefore, written "No blemish shall be on it" — Do not cause a blemish in it.

9) (Vayikra 22:24) ("And one [whose testicles are] bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not present to the L–rd; and in your land you shall not do this.") "or bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut": All of these refer to the testicles. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Eliezer says: All of these refer to the organ. R. Yossi says: "bruised or crushed," to the testicles; "torn or cut," to the organ.

9) "a sheep"; and not birds: Does it not follow (otherwise)? viz.: If a beast, which is not subject to the mitzvah (against taking) the mother with the yond, is subject to the mitzvah of it and its son, then a bird, which is subject to the mitzvah (against taking) the mother with the young, how much more so should it be subject to the mitzvah of "it and its son!" It must, therefore, be written "a sheep" — and not a bird.

9) "and then he may eat of the holy things": There are holy things of which he may eat, to include intermixtures of more than a hundred.

9) if the kidneys were removed; if the spleen were removed; if the lower jaw were removed; if the womb were removed; if the (lungs) were shrunk by some natural shock, (such as thunder) (I might think that these are considered treifah); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8): "neveilah (carrion) or treifah (he shall not eat") — Just as neveilah is not alive, so treifah is not viable, to exclude the above, which are viable.

R. Tanhuma opened < his discourse > (with Job 41:3 [11]): WHO HAS ADVANCED ME ANYTHING? I SHALL REPAY HIM. EVERYTHING UNDER THE HEAVENS IS MINE.⁴⁹Tanh., Lev. 8:7; Lev. R. 27:2; PRK 9:2. This refers to a bachelor who dwells in a province and gives an allowance to Bible and Mishnah teachers.⁵⁰In elementary school one studied Bible under a sopher, or scribe. Secondary school involved the study of Oral Torah. Since a bachelor has no children, the money he gives is an act of charity. The Holy One said: It is for me to pay him the compensation of a male child. R. Jeremiah bar Eleazar said: There is going to be a heavenly voice (bat qol) that shall explode on the tops of the mountains and say: Whoever has done < something > along with God, let him come and receive his reward. [This is what is written (in Numb. 23:23): NOW (in the age to come) IT IS SAID FOR JACOB AND FOR ISRAEL: WHAT HAS GOD DONE?] The Holy Spirit also proclaims (in Job 41:3 [11]): WHO HAS ADVANCED ME ANYTHING? I WILL REPAY HIM. Who offered me praise⁵¹Qilles. Cf. the Greek, kalos (“beautiful”). before I gave him breath? Who has performed circumcision for me before I gave him a male child? Who made a tassel for me before I gave him a prayer shawl? Who made a parapet (in accord with Deut. 22:8) for me [before I gave him a roof? Who made a mezuzah] before I gave him a house? Who made a sukkah for me before I gave him room? Who set aside pe'ah before I gave him a field? Who set aside grain offering and tithe before I gave him a threshing floor? Who set aside first fruits, tithes, and sacrifice before I gave him cattle? [This is what is written] (in Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT < IS BORN…. >

(Lev. 22:27:) “When a bull or a sheep or a goat […].” This text is related (to Micah 6:3), “My people, what have I done to you and how have I wearied you; testify against Me.”⁵¹PRK 9:5; Lev. R. 27:6; Numb. R. 10:1. R. Aha said, “Testify against Me (i.e., prove me wrong by keeping the commandments), and receive a reward. And do not testify (against your neighbor falsely), and receive a settlement of accounts.” R. Samuel bar Nahman said, “On three occasions the Holy One, blessed be He, came to dispute with Israel, when the nations of the world rejoiced: At that time, when He said to them (in Is. 1:18), ‘Please come and let us dispute together,’ they rejoiced and said, ‘Now He will finish them off.’ When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that they were rejoicing, He reversed [the punishment] for the better. He said (ibid.), ‘though your sins be as scarlet, they shall become as white as snow […].’ When the nations of the world heard this, they were astonished and said, ‘Is this an answer; is this a rebuke? He has only come to amuse Himself with His children (and not to dispute with them seriously).’ In the second [occasion], when He said to them (in Micah 6:2), ‘[Hear, O mountains, the claim of the Lord …] for the Lord has a claim with His people, and He will dispute with Israel,’ they rejoiced and said, ‘Now He will finish them off.’ When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that, He reversed [the punishment] for the better and said (in Micah 6:5), ‘My people, please remember what King Balak of Moab plotted and what Balaam answered him….’⁵²Cf. PR 48:1. When the nations of the world heard this, they were astonished and said, ‘Is this an answer; is this a rebuke? He has only come to amuse Himself with His children.’ The third [occasion] when He said (in Hos. 12:3), ‘The Lord has a claim with Judah,’ they rejoiced and said, ‘Now He will finish them off.’ When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that, He reversed [the punishment] for the better and said (in Hos. 12:4) ‘In the womb he grabbed his brother by the heel […].’” [The situation] is similar to a woman who complained to the judge about her son and brought him for trial. Everyone came to see. They said, one to another, “See that this woman has brought her son to be killed in the case.” When the woman saw this and heard what they said, she reversed [her mind] to speak with different words. When she came before the judge, he said to her, “What has your son done to you?” She said to him, “When he was in my womb, he kicked me.” He said to her, “Has he done anything else to you?” She said, “No.” He said to her, “There is no legal offense at all.” Everyone was astonished and said, “Is this an answer; is this a rebuke? She only came to amuse herself with her son.” So they left with embarrassment on their faces. So too did the Holy One, blessed be He, go back and reverse His rebuke to love, and the nations of the world left confounded. (Micah 6:3:) “And how have I wearied you?” R. Berekhyah said, “[The situation] is similar to a king who sent his proclamation⁵³Gk.: prostagma. to a province. What did the people of the province do? When they received it, they uncovered their heads, and read it in fear, in awe and in trembling. So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Israel, ‘The reading of the Shema is My proclamation. I did not burden you and I did not tell you that you were to read it either standing upon your feet or with your heads uncovered, but (according to Deut. 6:7) “when you are sitting in your house, when you are walking on the road, when you are lying down, and when you are getting up.”’” Another interpretation (of Micah 6:3), “and how have I wearied you”: R. Judah bar Simon said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I have delivered ten [kinds of] beasts to you (for food).⁵⁴See also PR 16:1; Numb. R. 20:5; 21:16. Three are in your possession, and seven are not in your possession. Now these are those which are in your possession (according to Deut. 14:4), “the bull, the sheep, and the goat.” And these are those which are not in your possession (according to Deut. 14:5), “The deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.” I did not burden you, nor did I tell you to go up into the mountains or tire yourselves out in the fields in order to bring Me a sacrifice from those [which are not in your possession]. Rather [your sacrifices come] from those which are in your possession, which grew up at your feeding trough. This is what is stated (in Lev. 22:27), “A bull or a sheep or a goat.”’”

“So I saw the wicked buried and come; they would go from a holy place, but would be forgotten in the city where they acted like that; this, too, is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 8:10).
“So I saw the wicked buried and come.”³⁴The midrash interprets this as referring to someone wicked who died and came back to life. Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: If it is regarding the dead of Ezekiel³⁵See Ezekiel chap. 37. that the verse is speaking, but is it not already stated “the wicked,” and they were nothing other than righteous? If it is regarding the son of the woman from Tzorfat,³⁶See I Kings chap. 17. but is it not already stated “buried,” and he was not buried? If it is regarding Tzidkiya ben Kenaana that the verse is speaking,³⁷The midrash is identifying Tzidkiya ben Kenaana, a false prophet, as the wicked man whose remains were thrown into the prophet Elisha’s burial cave, and touched Elisha’s remains (see II Kings 13:21). The wicked man got up on his feet and moved away so that he would not be buried with Elisha. but is it not already stated “and come”? But he did not come [fully back to life]; rather, “It was as they were burying a man…and he came to life” (II Kings 13:21) – could it be that it was forever? The verse states: “He stood on his feet” (II Kings 13:21) – this teaches that his standing was only temporary, merely to separate him from that righteous one. What is “and come [vava’u]”? Rabbi Shmuel said: Their sun set and they were purified; this is as it is stated: “The sun will set [uva] and he will be purified” (Leviticus 22:7).³⁸Rabbi Shmuel interprets the verse as referring not to the dead who come alive, but to those who are ritually impure and then become pure. Rabbi Levi said: “All the days of the wicked, he trembles [mitḥolel]” (Job 15:20) – he is dead [met] and a corpse [veḥalal], just as you say: “You are a wicked corpse [ḥalal]” (Ezekiel 21:30).
Another matter, it is referring to proselytes who come and repent. “They would go from a holy place” – because they went to a holy place, these are the synagogues and study hall. “But would be forgotten in the city” – their wicked deeds will be forgotten. “Where they acted like that” – and the good deeds that they performed in the city will be found. “This, too, is vanity.” Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This is not vanity, but it is vanity that they do not come on their own. Rabbi Bon said: The righteous went there and then they came, e.g., Joseph to Asenat, Joshua to Raḥav, Boaz to Ruth, and Moses to Ḥovav.³⁹In each case a gentile became a righteous convert, but only through direct contact with a righteous individual. Rabbi Aḥa said: It is vanity only that the people do not come and sanctify themselves under the wings of the Divine Presence.

A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof, no matter who owns him (ibid., v. 45). A sojourner refers to an alien who is not an idolater, but who commits other forbidden acts. A hired servant alludes to one who serves idols. Hence, just as the words a sojourner and a hired servant, etc., mentioned in the chapter on the paschal lamb disqualify an uncircumcised man from eating the paschal lamb, so does the phrase A sojourner and a hired servant used with reference to the terumah teach us that an uncircumcised man is disqualified from eating the terumah (the priest’s share of the crop).

10) R. Shimon said: The halachah is according to Ben Naness, but not the rationale. For everything mentioned in Bamidbar was offered in the desert, and what is mentioned in Vayikra was not offered in the desert. And when they come to Eretz Yisrael, both were offered, as it is written (Vayikra 22:10) "When you come to the land … then you shall bring." Why do I say that lambs are to be offered (even) without bread? Because the lambs "permit" themselves (with the sprinkling of their blood and the offering of their devoted portions). And there is no bread without lambs, for there is no one to permit them, (it being forbidden to eat the bread until the lambs are offered up).

10) How so? The daughter of an Israelite, who married a Cohein (who later died), and she had a daughter by him, who went and married an Israelite (and he died, and the daughter returned to her father's house) — I would say that just as she does not eat the terumah ["the lifting"] of the holy things [i.e., the breast and the thigh), so, her mother should not eat. It is, therefore, written "she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat" — She does not eat, but she "feeds" her mother.

10) (Vayikra 22:16) ("And they will cause them to bear the sin of guilt when they eat their holy things; for I am the L–rd who makes them holy.") "And they will cause them to bear the sin of guilt": For eating tevel, too (before terumah has been taken from it), there is death liability. "when they eat their holy things": to exclude (from such liability) burning or conferring tumah (upon the tevel). "for I am the L–rd who makes them holy." This is the "rationale" for the death liability.

10) From here they ruled: A first-born animal afflicted by (an access of) blood, even if it would die (without bloodletting), is not to undergo bloodletting (lest a blemish be caused thereby). These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: It is to undergo blood-letting, with care taken not to cause a blemish. And if a blemish were caused, it is not to be slaughtered (for mundane eating) because of it. R. Shimon said: It should undergo bloodletting even if it might sustain a blemish.

10) "you shall not present": This is as R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: If this (not "present") refers to not designate (a blemished animal) as sacred, this has already been stated; if not to sprinkle the blood, this has already been stated; if not to slaughter, this has already been stated; if not to smoke (all of) the fats, this has already been stated; if not to smoke part of it, this has already been stated. It must be stated here, then, only (to teach us) not to receive the blood.

10) If it were written "an ox and a sheep and its son," I would think that he were not liable until he slaughtered both of them and their son; it is, therefore, written "or a sheep" — either one or the other.

10) This tells me only of an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of terumah (i.e., that a Cohein may eat a sa'ah of unclean terumah that became intermixed with more than a hundred sa'ah of clean terumah.) Whence do I derive the same for an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of chullin, foods of chullin with foods of terumah, foods of terumah with sanctified foods, sanctified foods with foods of terumah, terumah drink with chullin drink, chullin drink with terumah drink, terumah drink with sanctified drink? To this end it is written "of the holy things," (to include all of the above).

(Lev. 22:27:) “A bull or a sheep or a goat.” This text is related (to Is. 41:24), “Behold (hen), you are nothing (me'ayin), and your work is naught (me’afa’); an abomination shall He choose among you.”⁵⁵Lev. R. 27:7; PRK 9:6. “Behold, you are nothing,” full of nothing, from a putrid liquid. “Naught (me’afa’)”; from the hundred screams (meah puot), that a woman screams when she sits on the birthing chair, ninety-nine are for death and [only] one is for life. “An abomination shall He choose among you.” What is the meaning of, “an abomination shall He choose among you?” [It is] speaking about this baby; even though it comes out from its mothers womb dirty, defiled and full of mucous, everyone kisses it and everyone hugs it, and especially if it is a male. Another interpretation: That (hen) is Greek. Hen [in Greek] means "one." You (Israel) are the one for Me, from (min) the nations of the world, who are called "nothing ('ayin),"⁵⁶Since min is commonly abbreviated to me, me’ayin is understood to mean “as compared to nothing” (literally: “than nothing.”) as stated (in Is. 40:17), “All the nations are as nothing ('ayin) before Him.” (Is. 41:24, cont.:) “And your work is naught.” R. Levi said, “All the good works and consolations which the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to bring about with Israel are only as reward for a single shout which they shouted on Sinai, when they said (according to Exod. 24:7), ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will carry out and obey.’” (Is. 41:24, cont.:) “An abomination shall He choose among you.” That is the abomination which you made as a molten calf. Of that very abomination, bring Me sacrifice, and I will choose you. And what is it? (As in Lev. 22:27), “A bull or a sheep or a goat.” [This text is related (to Hos. 7:3),] “They make a king glad with their evil.”⁵⁷Lev. R. 27:8; PRK 9:7–8. What did He see in the bull for making it first among the sacrifices? R. Levi said, “[The situation] is similar to a matron⁵⁸Lat.: matrona. concerning whom there went forth an evil report in connection with one of the notables in the kingdom. The king looked into the rumors and found no substance in them. What did the king do? He made a great banquet and sat him at the head of those reclining in order to show that the king had looked into the rumors and found no substance in them. [Similarly,] because the nations of the world were saying to Israel, “You made the calf,” the Holy One, blessed be He, examined the rumors and found no substance in them. Therefore the bull was made first among the sacrifices. How is this shown? From that which they read about the matter (in Lev. 22:27), “A bull or a sheep or a goat.” R. Huna and R. Idi [said] in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman, “Israel was saved from that act. Because if they had made the calf, it would have been [natural] for them to say (in Exod. 32:8), ‘These are our Gods, O Israel.’ However, it was the proselytes who came up with them from Egypt that made it, and they directed Israel [by saying] (in Exod. 32:8), ‘These are your Gods, O Israel.’” R. Judah bar Simon said, “It is written (in Isaiah 1:3), ‘An ox knows its owner, and an ass..., Israel does not know [...].’ And did they not know? It is simply that they trampled [the notion] with their heel.” And similar to it is (Hos. 2:10) “And she did not know that it was I who bestowed on her the grain....” And did she not know? It is simply that she trampled it with her heel.

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].

A firstborn human must be redeemed when thirty days old;¹³Firstborn boys are redeemed through the pidyon ha-ben ceremony at the end of thirty days. As indicated above, those born by Caesarean section are exempt. if it survives less than this it is considered a premature child and is exempt from this regulation. The firstborn beast must be redeemed on the eighth day; if it survives less than this it is considered a premature birth. In reference to a human, it is written: And their redemption money—from a month old shalt thou redeem them (Num. 18:16), while in regard to beasts, it is written: But from the eighth day and henceforth it may be accepted (Lev. 22:27). That is, after one is able to lead it to the Temple, since it is said: And thither you shall bring your burnt offerings (Deut. 12:6). In the case of the firstborn of your flock and herds, Scripture says: Thou shalt redeem. This implies that one may redeem the offering from the priest whenever (he wishes). (But if that is so)¹⁴Etz Joseph omits the parenthesized words. Why does the Scripture say: Thou shalt sanctify to the Lord? So that you receive a reward for so doing. But even if you should not sanctify it, it is consecrated, nevertheless, to the Lord, since as Scripture says: It is mine. Why then does Scripture decree Thou shalt sanctify it? In order that you may be rewarded for doing so (voluntarily).

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

A firstborn human must be redeemed when thirty days old;¹³Firstborn boys are redeemed through the pidyon ha-ben ceremony at the end of thirty days. As indicated above, those born by Caesarean section are exempt. if it survives less than this it is considered a premature child and is exempt from this regulation. The firstborn beast must be redeemed on the eighth day; if it survives less than this it is considered a premature birth. In reference to a human, it is written: And their redemption money—from a month old shalt thou redeem them (Num. 18:16), while in regard to beasts, it is written: But from the eighth day and henceforth it may be accepted (Lev. 22:27). That is, after one is able to lead it to the Temple, since it is said: And thither you shall bring your burnt offerings (Deut. 12:6). In the case of the firstborn of your flock and herds, Scripture says: Thou shalt redeem. This implies that one may redeem the offering from the priest whenever (he wishes). (But if that is so)¹⁴Etz Joseph omits the parenthesized words. Why does the Scripture say: Thou shalt sanctify to the Lord? So that you receive a reward for so doing. But even if you should not sanctify it, it is consecrated, nevertheless, to the Lord, since as Scripture says: It is mine. Why then does Scripture decree Thou shalt sanctify it? In order that you may be rewarded for doing so (voluntarily).

GEMARA: Why such a punishment [to him who says that the resurrection is not intimated in the Torah]? It was taught in a Baraitha: He denied resurrection, therefore as punishment he will not have a share in it; for all retributions of the Holy One, praised be He! are commensurate with man's doings." And R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whence do we know that all the retributions of the Holy One, praised be He! are commensurate with man's doings?' It is said (II Kings 7, 1-2) Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus hath said the Lord, About this time tomorrow a s'ah of fine flour shall be sold for a shekel, and two s'ahs of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned, answered the man of God, and said, Behold, will the Lord make windows in heaven, that this thing shall be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but thereof shalt thou not eat. (Ib. b) And further it is written, And it happened unto him so; for the people trod him down in the gate and he died." But perhaps this was because Elisha cursed him? As R. Juda, in the name of Rab, said: "If a sage curses anyone, even for no cause, it nevertheless comes to pass?" If this were the cause, it should read: And the people trod on him and he died. Why "in the gate"? Because of [his protest which he made at] the gate. R. Jochanan said: "Where is the resurrection of the dead intimated in the Torah?" It is said (Num. 18, 28) And ye shall give thereof the heave-offering (T'rumah) of the Lord to Aaron the priest. Would then Aaron remain alive forever that Israel should give him heave-offerings? Infer from this that he will come to life again and Israel will give him heave-offerings. Hence here is an intimation in the Torah of the resurrection. The school of R. Ismael, however, explained the above passage in this manner: 'To Aaron,' means priests who are similar to him — viz., scholars as he was. And from this it is inferred that no T'rumah should be given to an ignorant priest. R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said: "Whence do we know that one must not give the heaveoffering to a priest who is an ignoramus? It is said (I Chron. 31, 4) To give the portion of the priests, and the Levites, in order that they might hold firmly to the law of the Lord. Hence the priest who knows how to hold firmly to the law has a portion, but not he who is ignorant of the law." R. Acha b. Ada said in the name of R. Juda: "Whoever gives T'rumah to an ignorant priest acts as if he threw it before a lion; just as in throwing it before a lion there is a doubt whether it shall be trodden upon and eaten or not, so is it doubtful whether the priest will eat it in Levitical cleanliness or uncleanliness." R. Jochanan said: "He may even cause death to the ignorant priest [by doing so] as it is said (Lev. 22, 9) That they may not bear sin through it, and die therefor, if they profane it." At the college of R. Eliezer b. Jacob it was taught that (Ib. ib. 16) also applies to him who gives heaveoffering to an ignoramus. There is a Baraitha: R. Simi said: "Whence is the Biblical intimation of the resurrection of the dead? It is said (Ex. 6, 4) And as I did also establish my covenant with them, to give unto them the land of Canaan." It does not read to you (lachem), but (lahem) to them — hence this is an intimation of the resurrection. The Sadducees questioned Rabban Gamaliel: "Whence do you infer that the Holy One, praised be He! would restore the dead to life?" And he answered: "From the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa." However, they did not accept it. From the Pentateuch, — it is written (Deut. 31, 16) And the Lord said unto Moses, Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers (v-kam) and arise. And they answered: "Perhaps the word v-kam is connected with its succeeding words, and the people will go astray." From the Prophets, — it is written (Is. 26, 19) Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for a dew on herbs is thy dew, and the earth shall cast out the departed. [They also rejected this explanation, saying] "Perhaps this refers to those dead who were revivified by Ezekiel (Ez. 36)." From the Hagiographa: — It is written, (Son. 7, 10) And thy palate like the best wine, that glided down for my friend, gently exciting the lips of those that are asleep. And they answered: "Perhaps only their lips moved [in the graves], as R. Jochanan said; for R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Simon b. Jehozadak: "Whoever reports a traditional law in the name of its author, [causes] his [the author's] lips to move in the grave, as it is said, Exciting the lips of those that are asleep." Thereafter, when Rabban Gamaliel mentioned to them (Deut. 11, 9) And the Lord hath sworn unto your fathers to give unto them, which does not read to you, but to them — hence it is an intimation for resurrection from the Torah — his explanation was accepted. According to others, he inferred from this passage (Deut. 4, 4) But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day, i.e., just as this day you are all alive, so also will you be alive in the world to come. The Romans questioned R. Joshua b. Chananiah: "Whence do you know that the Holy One, praised be He! will restore the dead to life and that it is revealed before Him all that will happen in the future?" And he answered: "Both things are inferred from the following passage (Deut. 31, 16) And the Lord said unto Moses, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers (v'kam) and arise." "Perhaps the word v'kam belongs to its succeeding words, And the people will go astray?" He rejoined: "Accept at least the explanation of the [half] of your question, that it is revealed before Him all that will happen in the future." The same was taught also by R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "Whence do we infer that the Holy One, praised be He! will restore the dead to life and that it is revealed before Him all that will happen in the future? It is said, Thou shalt sleep with thy parents and (v'kam) arise."

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) "you shall not present": This tells me only of presenting (a blemished animal as an offering). Whence is derived the prohibition of making (a blemish)? From "you shall not do this." This tells me only of (blemishing) unblemished animals. Whence do I derive (the same for already) blemished animals? ?instances? This tells me only of a beast, unblemished or blemished. Whence do I derive (the same for) a bird and an animal? From "in your land." This tells me only of your land. Whence do I derive (that the same obtains) outside of your land? From "you shall not do this" — wherever you are. Chanina b. Chachinai says: Whence do I derive (the same for) a man? From (the exegetical construction) "and in you" ("uvachem") [a combination of the first two letters (vav beth) and the last two letters (chaf mem) of "uvearzechem."]

11) I might think that "it and its son" applied both to males (i.e., the father animal and his child) and females (the mother animal and her child), and it would follow (even without a verse that it applied only to mother and child, viz.: There is liability here and there is liability in the instance of "mother with her young" (re birds) — Just as there, males were not equated with females, here, too, males are not to be equated with females.

8) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart): (Vayikra 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 from its people." Now were peace-offerings not in the category of all sacrifices? viz. (Vayikra 7:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the offering of investiture (miluim), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings," and (Vayikra 22:3): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things that the children of Israel make holy unto the L–rd, with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off from before Me." (Why, then, do peace-offerings "depart" from the category for special, additional, mention?) When they depart from the category to teach, it is not to teach about themselves, but about the entire category, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that their sanctity is altar sanctity (i.e., bodily sanctity), so, all whose sanctity is altar sanctity (are included in the interdict) — to exclude those things dedicated to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance, where the sanctity is not body-related but value-related).

11) ("It should have been written )"for (holy) bread." (Why) "his bread"? (To teach that) he sifts the flour as he wishes and perforates the greens as much as he wishes. I might think that the remnants of the perforated greens are rendered profane (not holy); it is, therefore, written "it is his bread" — it remains in its holiness.

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).

[Another interpretation of (Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT < IS BORN… >. This text is related] (to Eccl. 3:15): THAT WHICH IS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differ.⁵⁷Tanh., Lev. 8:9; PRK 9:4; Lev. R. 27:4; Eccl. R. 3:15 (1). R. Judah says: If someone says to you that, if the first Adam had not sinned, he would have remained alive forever, you say to him: Look at Elijah. {Did he sin?} [Since he did not sin,] he has remained alive forever. (Ibid., cont.:) AND THAT WHICH IS TO BE HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. If someone says to you that the Holy One will be raising the dead, say to him: Look, he has already done so through Elijah, through Elisha, and through Ezekiel. [But Rabbi Nehemiah says: If someone says to you that the Holy One is going to make the sea into dry ground, say to him: He has already done so in the days of Moses, as stated (in Exod. 14:29): BUT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WENT THROUGH THE SEA ON DRY GROUND, AND THE WATERS WERE A WALL FOR THEM TO THE RIGHT AND TO THE LEFT.] Moreover, R. Aha said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman: Everything that the Holy One is going to do in the world to come he has already anticipated and partly done at the hands of the righteous in this world. The Holy One said: I am going to raise the dead. I have already done so at the hands of Elijah, at the hands of Elisha, and at the hands of Ezekiel. The Holy One said: I am going to make the sea into dry ground. I have already done so (ibid.): BUT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WENT THROUGH THE SEA ON DRY GROUND. The Holy One said: I am going to open the eyes of the blind. It has already happened, as stated (in II Kings 6:17): < THEN ELISHA PRAYED AND SAID: LORD, PLEASE OPEN HIS EYES AND LET HIM SEE. > SO THE LORD OPENED THE EYES OF THE SERVANT < AND HE SAW >. The Holy One said: I am going visit barren women. It has already happened, as stated (in Gen. 21:1): THEN THE LORD VISITED SARAH…. The Holy One said: [I am going to make kings bow down to you, as stated] (in Is. 49:23): KINGS SHALL BE YOUR GUARDIANS…. < THEY SHALL BOW DOWN BEFORE YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. > It has already happened at the hands of Daniel, when Nebuchadnezzar bowed down to Daniel, as stated (in Dan. 2:46): < THEN KING NEBUCHADNEZZAR FELL ON HIS FACE, > PAID HOMAGE TO DANIEL, < AND SAID… >.

The bull was due to the merit of Abraham of whom it is stated (in Gen. 18:7), “Then Abraham ran unto the herd [...] (for a calf to feed his heavenly visitors).”⁵⁹Lev. R. 17:9; PRK 9:9. The sheep was due to the merit of Isaac, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 22:13), “And Abraham lifted his eyes and he saw, and behold there was a ram [...] (to replace an obedient Isaac as a sacrifice).” The goat was due to the merit of Jacob, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 27:9), “Please go unto the flock, and bring me two good kids of the goats from there.” What is the meaning of “good” (in reference to the two kids)? R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Helbo, “[They are] good for you and good for your children.⁶⁰Gen. R. 65:14; PR 47:4. [They are] good for you, because through them you are to receive the blessings;⁶¹When Jacob brought the meat from the goats to his father, he received a blessing. and they are good for your children, because through them atonement is granted to your children on the Day of Atonement.” (Lev. 22:27, cont.:) “It shall remain seven days with its mother.” R. Joshua of Sikhnin says in the name of R. Levi, “[The situation] is similar to a king who entered a province⁶²Lev. R. 27:10; PRK 9:10. where he issued a proclamation and said, ‘Let no strangers⁶³Gk.: xenoi. who are here see my face before they first see the face of [my] matron.’⁶⁴Lat.: matrona. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, ‘My children shall not approach me with an offering until the Sabbath [queen] has passed over it. For there are no seven [days] without a Sabbath, and there is no circumcision without [the passing of] a Sabbath.’” R. Isaac said, “An ordinance for humanity and an ordinance for beasts [are on a par].⁶⁵Above, 8:9. An ordinance for humanity is (Lev. 12:3), ‘And on the eighth day [the flesh of his foreskin] shall be circumcised.’ And an ordinance for beasts is (Lev. 22:27), ‘and from the eighth day on, it shall be acceptable [for an offering by fire to the Lord].’”

(Eccl. 3:15:) THEN GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED. R. Huna said in the name of R. Joseph: The Holy One is going to claim the blood of the persecuted from the hand of those who persecute them.⁵⁸Lev. R. 27:5. When a righteous person persecutes a righteous person, GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED. When a wicked person persecutes a wicked person, GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED. [When a wicked person persecutes a righteous person, THEN GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED. Even if you come back and say: When a righteous person persecutes a wicked person, in every case, THEN GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED.]⁵⁹Cf. PR 48:2. You know that this is so. Note that Abel was persecuted by Cain; therefore, it is stated (in Gen. 4:4): AND THE LORD PAID HEED UNTO ABEL AND UNTO HIS OFFERING. Noah was persecuted by his generation, BUT (according to Gen. 6:8): NOAH FOUND FAVOR < IN THE EYES OF THE LORD >. As for his generation, (cf. Gen. 7:23): AND HE BLOTTED OUT ALL EXISTENCE. Abraham was persecuted by Nimrod; (cf. Neh. 9:7:) YOU ARE THE LORD, THE GOD WHO CHOSE ABRAHAM. Isaac was persecuted by Philistines; (cf. Gen. 26:28:) AND THEY SAID: WE SEE PLAINLY < THAT THE LORD HAS BEEN WITH YOU >. Jacob was persecuted by Esau; (cf. Ps. 135:4:) FOR THE LORD HAS CHOSEN JACOB FOR HIMSELF. Joseph was persecuted by his brothers; (cf. Gen. 39:2:) AND THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH. Moses was persecuted by Pharaoh; (cf. Ps. 106:23:) THEREFORE HE SAID HE WOULD DESTROY THEM, HAD NOT MOSES HIS CHOSEN < STOOD IN THE BREACH BEFORE HIM >. Israel is being persecuted by the nations of the world; (cf. Deut. 7:6:) THE LORD YOUR GOD HAS CHOSEN YOU. R. Judah bar Simon said in the name of R. [Jose bar] Nehoray. Here also (in the case of sacrificial animals) the bull is persecuted by the lion; the sheep is persecuted by the wolf; the goat is persecuted by the leopard. The Holy One said: You shall not bring me a sacrifice from the persecutor but from the persecuted. Thus it is stated (Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT….

12) charutz: if the lid of its eye were pierced, injured, or split; and so the lip; if its outer incisors were broken off or leveled (with the gum), or its inner ones rooted out. R. Chananiah b. Antignos says: No examination is required from the bicuspids inwards, including the bicuspids themselves.

12) (Vayikra 22:25) ("And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present the bread of your G d of all these, for their corruption is in them; a blemish is in them; they will not be acceptable for you.") Whence is it derived that shekalim (coins for communal offerings) are not accepted from idolators? From "And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present the bread of your G d." This tells me only of daily offerings, which are called "bread," as it is written (Bamidbar 28:2) "My offerings, My bread for My fires." Whence do I derive the same for the other communal offerings? From "of all these." Whence is it derived that females are subject to (the interdict against) sterilization? From "for their corruption is in them; a blemish is in them." R. Yehudah says: "in them" (masculine) — Females are not subject to (the interdict against) sterilization. "for their corruption is in them; they will not be acceptable." We are hereby taught that they do not effect acceptance (i.e., atonement).

12) No, this may be true of "mother with her young," where domesticated birds were not equated with non-domesticated ones (to be subject to the mitzvah, as opposed to our instance (of "it and its son) where domesticated beasts were equated with non-domesticated ones. And since this is so, we would think that "it and its son" should apply to males as well as to females; it is, therefore, written "it and its son."

12) (Vayikra 22:8) ("A neveilah [the carcass of an animal that died by itself] and a treifah [a torn animal] he shall not eat to become unclean thereby; I am the L–rd.") I might think that the neveilah of an unclean beast made one's clothing unclean upon entering the esophagus; it is, therefore, written "A neveilah and a treifah he shall not eat to become unclean" — what confers tumah only by being eaten, to exclude the neveilah of a beast, which confers tumah before being eaten (by being touched or carried).

[Another interpretation of (Lev. 22:27): A BULL OR A SHEEP < OR A GOAT >. This text is related] (to Micah 6:3): MY PEOPLE, WHAT HAVE I DONE TO YOU? AND HOW HAVE I WEARIED YOU? TESTIFY AGAINST ME.⁶⁰Tanh., Lev. 8:10; PRK 9:5; Lev. R. 27:6; Numb. R. 10:1. R. Aha said: TESTIFY AGAINST ME (i.e., prove me wrong by keeping the commandments), and receive a reward. (Exod. 20:13 [16]): DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR, and you will receive settlement of accounts. R. Samuel bar Nahman said: On three occasions the Holy One came to dispute with Israel, when the nations of the world rejoiced and said: How can these people dispute with their creator? Now he will finish them off. At that time, when he said to them (in Is. 1:18): PLEASE COME AND LET US DISPUTE TOGETHER, they rejoiced and said: Now he will finish them off. When the Holy One saw that they were rejoicing, he reversed < the punishment > for the better. He said (ibid.): THOUGH YOUR SINS BE AS SCARLET, < THEY SHALL BECOME AS WHITE > AS SNOW < …. > When the nations of the world heard this, they were astonished and said: Is this an answer? Or is this a rebuke? They said: He has only come to amuse himself with his children (and not to dispute with them seriously). The second < occasion > was when he said to them (in Micah 6:2): HEAR, O MOUNTAINS, THE LAWSUIT OF THE LORD < …; > [FOR THE LORD HAS A LAWSUIT WITH HIS PEOPLE, AND HE WILL DISPUTE WITH ISRAEL]. The nations of the world rejoiced and said: Now he will finish them off. When the Holy One saw that, he reversed < the punishment > for the better and said (in Micah 6:5–6): MY PEOPLE, PLEASE REMEMBER WHAT KING BALAK OF MOAB PLOTTED…. WITH WHAT SHALL I COME BEFORE THE LORD?⁶¹Cf. PR 48:1. The nations of the world were astonished and said: Is this an answer? Or is this a rebuke? He has only come to amuse himself with his children. The third < occasion > was when he said (in Hos. 12:3 [2]): THE LORD HAS A LAWSUIT WITH JUDAH [AND WILL PUNISH JACOB ACCORDING TO HIS WAYS]. The nations of the world said: Now the Holy One will finish them off. When the Holy One saw that, he reversed < the punishment > for the better. (Hos. 12:4 [3]:) IN THE WOMB HE GRABBED HIS BROTHER BY THE HEEL…. < The situation > is similar to a woman who complained to the judge about her son. When she {decided} [saw] that the judge was sentencing {her} [the] people to death, [she said]: If I make known the offense of my son, he will say to kill him. What did she do? She hung around [until] he had finished his cases. He said to her? What was your son's offense? She said to him: When he was in my womb, he kicked me. He said to her: But has he done anything to you now? She said: No. He said to her. Be gone! There is no legal offense at all. The nations of the world were astonished [and said]: He has {not} [only] come to amuse himself with his children.

(Lev. 22:28:) “In the case of an animal from the herd or the flock, [you shall not slaughter] it and its offspring on the same day.”⁶⁶Although the nouns here are masculine singular and would normally read: IN THE CASE OF A BULL OR A SHEEP, Rashi understands the verse as only prohibiting the slaughter of a female beast and its offspring on the same day. Others like Ibn Ezra understand the prohibition in the verse as referring to both sexes. For a discussion of the two interpretations, see Hul. 78b-80a. This text is related (to Prov. 12:10), “A righteous one regards the life of his beast, but the compassion of the wicked is cruel.”⁶⁷Lev. R. 27:11: PRK 9:11. “A righteous one regards the life of his beast.” This refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written in the Torah (in Deut. 22:6 with reference to birds), “you shall not take the mother with the young.”⁶⁸Cf. Tos. Meg. 25a. “But the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” This refers to Sennacherib, of whom it is written (in Hos. 10:14), “the mother was dashed to pieces with the children.” “A righteous one regards the life of his beast.” This refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written in the Torah (in Lev. 22:28), “In the case of an animal from the herd or the flock, [you shall not slaughter] it and its offspring….” “But the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” This refers to Haman, of whom it is written (in Esth. 3:13), “to destroy and to annihilate [all the Jews].” R. Levi said, “Woe to the wicked, because they devise secret plans against Israel.⁶⁹M. Ps. 2:4. Each and every one says, ‘My plan is better than your plan.’ Esau said, ‘Cain was stupid to kill [his brother] Abel during his father's lifetime.⁷⁰Cf. Gen. R. 75:9. Did he not know that his father would be fruitful and multiply [afterwards]? I am not acting like that. Instead (in Gen. 27:41), “Let the days of mourning for my father come; then I will kill my brother Jacob.”’ Pharaoh said, ‘Esau was stupid to say, “Let the days of mourning for my father come.” Did he not know that his brother would be fruitful and multiply during his father's lifetime? I will not act like that. Instead, while they are tiny under their mothers' birthstool, I will strangle them.’ Thus it is written (in Exod. 1:22), ‘Every son born you shall throw into the Nile.’ Haman said, ‘Pharaoh was stupid to say, “Every son born [you shall throw into the Nile, but every daughter you shall keep alive].” Did he not know that, when the daughters are married to men,⁷¹According to Yafat Toar, this means foreign men, but it appears to me to be speaking about older Jewish men who were born before this decree (Ed. FN). they are fruitful and multiply through them. I will not act like that. Instead, [I will act] (in Esth. 3:13), “to destroy and to annihilate [all the Jews, young and old, children and women, on a single day].”’” R. Levi said, “Gog and Magog as well are going to say the same, ‘The former ones were stupid because they devised secret plans against Israel. Did they not know that they have a Patron⁷²Lat.: patronus. in the heavens? I will not act like that. First I will join in battle with their Patron, and after that I will join in battle with them.’” Thus it is written (in Ps. 2:2), “The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “O wicked one, have you come to Me to join in battle?⁷³Rt.: ZWG. The root more commonly refers to joining in wedlock as does the Greek verb, zeugnunai. By your life I will wage war with you,” as stated (in Is. 42:13), “The Lord shall go forth like a warrior […].” It also says (in Zech. 14:3) “Then the Lord will come forth and fight with those nations.”

Another interpretation (of Micah 6:3): AND HOW HAVE I WEARIED YOU? R. Judah bar Simon said: I have delivered ten < kinds of > beasts to you (for food).⁶³See also PR 16:1; Numb. R. 20:5; 21:16. Three are under your control, and seven are not under to your control. Now these are those which are under your control (according to Deut. 14:4): THE BULL, THE SHEEP, AND THE GOAT. And these are those which are not under your control (according to Deut. 14:5): THE DEER, THE GAZELLE, THE ROEBUCK, THE WILD GOAT, THE IBEX, THE ANTELOPE, AND THE MOUNTAIN SHEEP. I did not burden you, nor did I tell you to go up into the mountains or tire yourselves out in the fields in order to bring me a sacrifice from those [which are not under your control]. Rather < your sacrifices come > from those which are under your control, which grew up at your feeding trough. This is what is written (in Lev. 22:27): A BULL OR A SHEEP < OR A GOAT >.

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

13) I might think that the neveilah of a bird confers tumah via the verse and the neveilah of a beast, a fortiori, [viz.: If the neveilah of a bird, which does not confer tumah by being touched or carried, does confer tumah in the esophagus, then the neveilah of a beast, which does confer tumah by being touched or carried, how much more so should it confer tumah in the esophagus!) It is, therefore, written "to become unclean thereby. Tumah is conferred thereby (i.e., a by a bird) in the esophagus, and not by the neveilah of a beast.

[Another interpretation of (Lev. 22:27): A BULL OR A SHEEP < OR A GOAT >. This text is related (to Is. 41:24): BEHOLD (hen), YOU ARE NOTHING (me'ayin), AND YOUR WORK IS NOUGHT. AN ABOMINATION SHALL HE CHOOSE AMONG YOU.⁶⁴Tanh., Lev. 8:11; Lev. R. 27:7; PRK 9:6. That (hen) is a Greek word. Hen < in Greek > means "one." You are the one for me [as compared to nothing (me'ayin),] < i.e., > as compared to (min) the nations of the world, who are called "nothing ('ayin),"⁶⁵Since min is commonly abbreviated to me, me’ayin is understood to mean “as compared to nothing” (literally: “than nothing.”) [as it is written} (in Is. 40:17): ALL THE NATIONS ARE AS NOTHING ('ayin) BEFORE HIM. (Is. 41:24, cont.:) AND YOUR WORK IS NOUGHT. R. Levi said: All the good works and consolations which the Holy One is going to bring about with Israel are only {in the name of} [as reward for] a single shout which they shouted on Sinai, when they said (according to Exod. 24:7): ALL THAT THE LORD HAS SPOKEN WE WILL CARRY OUT AND OBEY. (Is. 41:24, cont.:) AN ABOMINATION SHALL HE CHOOSE AMONG YOU. That is the abomination which you made as a molten calf. Of that very abomination, bring me sacrifice, and I will choose you. (Lev. 22:27): A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT.

(Lev. 22:29:) “And when you sacrifice an offering of thanksgiving to the Lord.” R. Pinhas, R. Levi, and R. Johanan said in the name of R. Menahem of Galilee, “In the future to come, all [other] offerings shall cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving shall not ever cease.⁷⁴Lev. R. 27:12; PRK 9:12; M. Pss. 56:4. All [prayers] shall cease, but the [prayer] of thanksgiving shall not ever cease. Thus it is stated (in Jer. 33:11), ‘The sound of joy and the sound of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of those who say, “Give thanks to the Lord of hosts, for the Lord is good, for His mercy endures forever”; [as they bring thanksgiving to the house of the Lord].’ ‘Give thanks to the Lord,’ this refers to the prayers; ‘as they bring thanksgiving,’ this refers to the sacrifice of thanksgiving.” And so David said (in Ps. 56:13), “Your vows, O God, are upon me; I will repay You with thanksgivings.” "Thanksgiving" (in the singular) is not written here, but “thanksgivings” (in the plural), [i.e., both] the thanksgiving prayer and the sacrifice of thanksgiving.

Another interpretation (of Ps. 37:28): FOR THE LORD LOVES JUSTICE < AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS >. [THEY ARE PROTECTED FOREVER]. < The verse > speaks about Joseph. And how did he protect him? [See] what is written (in Gen. 37:28): WHEN MIDIANITE TRADERS PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And with what were they laden?⁴²Gen. R. 84:17. Now is it not the custom for camels to bear only < foul-smelling > 'itran?⁴³One of various kinds of tar products or tree resin used for lighting, etc. Yet it is written here (in Gen. 37:25): < WITH THEIR CAMELS BEARING > SPICE, BALSAM, AND LABDANUM! It is simply that the Holy One said: Should this righteous man be set in the midst of a bad odor? Instead, I will order a good odor for him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28) AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS. (Ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. This refers to Potiphar, who did not take him for work but for something else.⁴⁴I.e., for sodomy. So Rashi on Sot. 13b; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 39:1; Gen. R. 86:3. What did the Holy One do? He castrated him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28): BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. Now CUT OFF only denotes castration. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 22:24): < ANYTHING WITH ITS TESTICLES > CRUSHED, SMASHED, TORN OUT, OR CUT OFF < YOU SHALL NOT OFFER TO THE LORD >. And where is it shown that he was not a eunuch < already >, but that the Holy One had castrated him? Where it is stated (in Gen. 39:1): < WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT >, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.

14) (Vayikra 22:9) ("And they shall keep My charge, that they not bear sin because of it. And they will die for it if they profane it; I am the L–rd who makes them holy.") "And they shall keep My charge": They shall keep a charge for Me (i.e., they shall make "fences" for My charge.)" And they shall keep My charge": Beth-din is hereby being charged (to exhort the Cohanim to guard His terumah against tumah.) "that they not bear sin": I might think that Scripture speaks here of neveilah; it is, therefore, written "because of it" ("terumah" in context). Scripture here speaks of the holy thing and not of neveilah.

[Another interpretation of (Lev. 22:27): A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT. This text is related] (to Hos. 7:3): THEY MAKE A KING GLAD WITH THEIR EVIL.⁶⁶Tanh., Lev. 8:11; Lev. R. 27:8; PRK 9:7–8. What did he see in the bull for making it first among the sacrifices? R. Levi said: < The situation > is similar to a matron⁶⁷Lat.: matrona. concerning whom there went forth an evil report in connection with one of the notables in the kingdom. The king looked into the rumors and found no substance in them. What did the king do? He made a great banquet and sat him at the head of those reclining in order to show that the king had looked into the rumors and found no substance in them. [Similarly, because the nations of the world were saying to Israel: You made the calf, the Holy One examined the rumors and found no substance in them.] Therefore [the bull] was made first among the sacrifices. [Thus it is written] (in Lev. 22:27): A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT.

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

“What has been, already is, and what will be has already been; and God seeks the pursued” (Ecclesiastes 3:15).
“What has been, already is” – Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya, Rabbi Yehuda says: If a person says to you: Is it possible that the entire world was water [and the world’s water was gathered] into water?⁶⁵God gathered the water that covered the land into the oceans (see Genesis 1:9); but how is that possible given that there was already water in the oceans? Say to him: ‘It “already is.”’ The ocean is entirely water in water.⁶⁶Even though it is full of water, rivers stream into it and it does not overflow.
“And what will be has already been…” – if a person will say to you: ‘Is it possible that the Holy One blessed be He is destined to transform sea into dry land?’ Say to him: ‘It “has already been.”’ Did He did not do so by means of Moses, as it is stated: “The children of Israel went on dry land” (Exodus 14:29), and it is written: “Now raise your staff…” (Exodus 14:16), and it is written: “And the children of Israel will come into the sea on dry land” (Exodus 14:16).
If a person will say to you: ‘Is it possible that had Adam, the first man, not sinned, he would have lived and endured forever?’ Say to him: ‘It “already is,”’ – Elijah, may he be remembered for good, who never sinned, lives and endures. “And what will be has already been” – if a person will say to you: ‘Is it possible that the Holy One blessed be He is destined to revive the dead?’ Say to him: ‘It “has already been,”’ He already revived the dead by means of Elijah, by means of Elisha, and by means of Ezekiel.
Rabbi Aḥa [said] in the name of Rabbi Ḥalafta: Everything that the Holy One blessed be He is destined to perform and to innovate in His world in the future, He has already performed partially by means of a prophet in this world. It is I⁶⁷This phrase, and the coming phrases, are stated from the perspective of God. who am destined to turn the sea into dry land; I have already done so in this world, [as it is stated]: “Now raise your staff…” (Exodus 14:16), It is I who am destined to remember the barren; I have already remembered by means of Abraham, as it is stated: “God remembered Sarah…” (Genesis 21:1).⁶⁸God informed Sarah of this fact through a prophecy granted to Abraham (Maharzu). It is I who am destined to revive the dead; I have already revived by means of Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel. It is I who am destined to cause kings to prostrate themselves to you; I have already done it for you by means of Daniel, as Nebuchadnezzar prostrated himself to Daniel, as it is stated: “Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and he prostrated himself to Daniel” (Daniel 2:46). It is I who am destined to open the eyes of the blind in the future; I have already done so by means of Elisha, as it is stated: “The Lord opened the eyes of the lad” (II Kings 6:17).
“And God seeks the pursued” – Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: God will always seek [to save] the pursued. You find a righteous man pursuing a righteous man; “and God seeks the pursued.” A wicked man pursuing a righteous man; “and God seeks the pursued.” A wicked man pursuing a wicked man; “and God seeks the pursued.” God seeks the pursued in any circumstance.
Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon, in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Nehorai: The Holy One blessed be He always seeks the blood of the pursued from the pursuers.⁶⁹He holds the pursuers accountable for their actions, and He grants favor to the pursued. Know that it is so; Abel was pursued by Cain, and the Holy One blessed be He chose only Abel, as it is stated: “The Lord turned to Abel and to his offering” (Genesis 4:4). Noah was pursued by the members of his generation, and the Holy One blessed be He chose only Noah, as it is stated: “For you I have seen righteous before Me” (Genesis 7:1). Abraham was pursued by Nimrod, and the Holy One blessed be He chose Abraham, as it is stated: “You are the Lord God who chose Abram” (Nehemiah 9:7). Isaac was pursued by the Philistines, and the Holy One blessed be He chose Isaac, as it is stated: “They said: We have seen that the Lord has been with you” (Genesis 26:28). Jacob was pursued by Esau, and the Holy One blessed be He chose Jacob, as it is stated: “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His treasure” (Psalms 135:4). Joseph was pursued by his brothers, and the Holy One blessed be He chose Joseph, as it is stated: “He established it as testimony for Joseph when he went out over the land of Egypt” (Psalms 81:6).
Moses was pursued by Pharaoh, and the Holy One blessed be He chose Moses, as it is stated: “Were it not for Moses, His chosen, who stood in the breach before Him” (Psalms 106:23). David was pursued by Saul, and the Holy One blessed be He chose David, as it is stated: “He chose David His servant and took him from the sheepfolds” (Psalms 78:70). Saul was pursued by the Philistines, and the Holy One blessed be He chose Saul, as it is stated: “Have you seen the one whom the Lord has chosen?” (I Samuel 10:24). Israel was pursued by the nations, and the Holy One blessed be He chose Israel, as it is stated: “[For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God] has chosen you as a treasured people” (Deuteronomy 7:6). Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra said: The same is true regarding offerings. The Holy One blessed be He said: A bull is pursued by a lion, a goat by a leopard, a sheep by a wolf; do not sacrifice the pursuers before Me, but rather the pursued, as it is stated: “A bull, a sheep, or a goat…[it shall be accepted as a fire offering before the Lord]” (Leviticus 22:27).

R. Yehudah says: "shall you eliminate leaven from your houses": by burning. You say this, but perhaps in any manner? You reason as follows: Nothar (left-overs of the Paschal lamb) may not be eaten, and chametz may not be eaten. If you have learned of chametz (that it is eliminated) only by burning (viz. 29:34), so, chametz, only by burning. __ (No,) this is refuted by neveilah (carcass) which may not be eaten, yet need not be burned. __ Would you say that? There is a difference (between neveilah, [from which benefit may be derived] and chametz, [from which benefit may not be derived,], so that the resultant equation is:) Benefit may not be derived from nothar, and benefit may not be derived from chametz. If you have learned of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz only by burning. __ (No,) this is refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, need not be burned — Then say the same for chametz! Would you say that? There is a difference, viz.: (Eating) nothar is subject to kareth ("cutting-off") and chametz is subject to kareth. If you have learned of nothar (that it is to be eliminated) only by burning, so should you learn of chametz. __ (No,) this is refuted by (eating of the) fats of a stoned ox, which, though (the eating is) subject to kareth, the ox need not be burned. __ Would you say this? I will derive four determinants from four like determinants. Nothar is forbidden in eating, and in derivation of benefit, and it is subject to kareth, and it is time (i.e., Pesach)-conditioned, as is chametz. And this is not to be refuted by neveilah, which, though forbidden to be eaten, is not forbidden in derivation of benefit. Nor is it to be refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not subject to kareth. Nor is it to be refuted by (eating) the fats of a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not time-conditioned. But I will learn a thing from a (like) thing, and I will judge a thing from a (like) thing. And I will not learn a four-faceted thing from another which is not like it in one way or two ways or three ways. If you have learned, then, of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz (is to be eliminated only by burning). R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Do you think that you are being stringent with him (by having him burn it)? You are being lenient with him. For if he does not find fire, he will sit and not burn it! Rather, express it thus: Before the arrival of the time for eliminating it (by Torah mandate, i.e., the entire sixth hour), the mitzvah of eliminating it is by burning. Once that time has arrived, the mitzvah of eliminating it is in any manner. Rebbi says: We learn (that chametz is to be eliminated by burning) from its being subject to the ban on its being found or its being seen. And this is found (ideally) only by burning. (Exodus, Ibid.) "that soul": (This connotes) volition (as opposed to unwittingness). "from Israel": I might think that it is cut off from Israel but may annex itself to a different nation; it is, therefore, written (Leviticus 22:3) "and that soul shall be cut off from before Me; I am the L rd" — All places are My domain.

15) "And they will die for it," and not for (eating) ma'aser sheni (in a state of uncleanliness) "if they profane it": to exclude one who is clean, who ate something (already) unclean.

[Another interpretation of (Lev. 22:27): A BULL OR A SHEEP < OR A GOAT >. The BULL was due to the merit of Abraham, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 18:7): THEN ABRAHAM RAN UNTO THE HERD (for a calf to feed his heavenly visitors).⁶⁸Tanh., Lev. 8:12; Lev. R. 17:9; PRK 9:9. The SHEEP was due to the merit of Isaac, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 22:13): AND THERE WAS A RAM (to replace an obedient Isaac as a sacrifice). The GOAT was due to the merit of Jacob, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 27:9): PLEASE GO UNTO THE FLOCK, AND BRING ME TWO GOOD KIDS OF THE GOATS FROM THERE. What is the meaning of GOOD (in reference to the two kids)? R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Helbo: < They are > good for you and good for your children.⁶⁹Gen. R. 65:14; PR 47:4. < They are > good for you, because through them you are blessed;⁷⁰When Jacob brought the meat from the goats to his father, he received a blessing. and they are good for your children because through them atonement is granted you (on the Day of Atonement).

(Lev. 22:27:) “When a bull or a sheep or a goat.” This text is related (to Ps. 27:6), “And now shall my head be lifted up over my enemies round about me and I will offer sacrifice in His tent with a loud cry.” When Israel carried out that deed (of the golden calf), the nations of the world said, “There will be no recovery for them, and He will never return to them.” When Israel heard that they would sacrifice a bull, their head was lifted up, as stated (ibid.), “And now shall my head be lifted up […].” Then they said, “Now we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, has been reconciled to us, as stated (ibid., cont.), “and I will offer sacrifice in his tent with a loud cry; I will sing and chant praise to the Lord.” (Lev. 22:27:) “When a bull or a sheep or a goat [is born].” Is there a bull that is born? Or a calf born to become a bull, that it should be stated, “to sacrifice a bull.” [So] why did [the Holy One, blessed be He], say to sacrifice a bull? To atone for the image of the bull, as stated (in Ps. 103:3), “Who forgives all your sins [...].” You should know this on your own. See what is written (in Ezek. 1:6), “Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings.” What is written there (in vs. 7), “And their legs became a straight leg, and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot.” Now it was for the atonement of Israel that He added two [more] wings to them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 6:2), “[each] of them had six wings.” Why? So that their feet would be covered, because they resembled the calf. [It was] so that, as it were, He would not see them and recall the incident of the calf. [Hence (in Is. 6:2, cont.),] “with two he covered his feet.” And why all this? Simply to atone for Israel. This is the meaning of (Ps. 103:3), “Who forgives all your sins.” You have no larger fowl than the eagle, so it became a face for the living angel, as stated (in Ezek. 1:10), “and the face of an eagle.” The largest among the animals is the lion, so it [also] became a face for the living angel, as stated (in Ezek. 10:14), “and the face of a lion.” And the bull is the largest among the beasts, so that He made it a face for the living angel, as stated (in Ezek. 1:10), “and the face of a bull on the left.” (Ibid.:) “And the face of a human.” But for the sake of Israel, the Holy One, blessed be He, blotted out the bull and put a cherub in its place. As you find that it only mentions a cherub there, as stated (in Ezek. 10:14), “the face of the one was the face of a cherub.” And why all this? To atone for Israel. Ergo (in Ps. 103:3), “Who forgives all your sins.” Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, remove the calf? So that Israel would be innocent before Him. And not only that, but when someone from Israel thinks about a transgression or something evil in his heart, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not connect it to a deed (to punish him for it). As therefore David says (in Ps. 66:18), “If I had perceived iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.” Now what does the Holy One, blessed be He, hear? [What is thought] when a person stands up to meditate in prayer. It is so stated (in Ps. 31:223) “truly God has listened; He has hearkened to the sound of my prayer.” And not only that, but when two people sit and occupy themselves with the Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He, hearkens and listens, as stated (in mal. 3:16), “Then those who feared the Lord spoke with one another; the Lord has hearkened and listened.”⁸⁰Avot 3:2, 6; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 1; Ber. 62; ARN, A, 8. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Through the merit of the Torah, when you occupy yourselves with it, I am hearkening and listening to your prayers; but in the future, before you [even] call to Me, I will answer you.” It is so stated (in Is. 65:24), “And it shall come to pass that before they cry out, I will answer.”

16) If the lesser (transgression), (touching a sheretz and then eating ma'aser sheni) is mentioned, why mention the graver (touching a dead body) (i.e., why not derive one from the other?) For if the lesser were mentioned and not the graver, I would say that for the lesser he is liable (only) for (transgression of) a negative commandment, and for the graver, for death. Therefore, the graver must be mentioned (as not being liable to death, but only for transgression of a negative commandment). And if the graver were mentioned and not the lesser, I would say that for the graver he was liable (for transgression of a negative commandment), but for the lesser he was not liable at all. Therefore, both the graver and the lesser must be mentioned. (Vayikra 22:10) ("And every zar [a non-priest] shall not eat the holy thing [terumah]; the tenant of a Cohein and his hired man shall not eat the holy thing.") "zar": I might think that "zar" refers to a "mamzer" (a bastard). Whence do I derive that it denominates even a Levite, even an Israelite? From "every zar." "shall not eat": "eating" is not less than the size of an olive. "the holy thing": Just as "the holy thing" stated elsewhere (Devarim 26:13) refers to "the holy things of the boundary" (i.e., terumah and ma'aser, which may be eaten within the entire boundary of Eretz Yisrael [as opposed to "the holy things of the altar," which may be eaten only in Jerusalem]), so "the holy thing" stated here refers to "the holy things of the boundary."

16) If the lesser (transgression), (touching a sheretz and then eating ma'aser sheni) is mentioned, why mention the graver (touching a dead body) (i.e., why not derive one from the other?) For if the lesser were mentioned and not the graver, I would say that for the lesser he is liable (only) for (transgression of) a negative commandment, and for the graver, for death. Therefore, the graver must be mentioned (as not being liable to death, but only for transgression of a negative commandment). And if the graver were mentioned and not the lesser, I would say that for the graver he was liable (for transgression of a negative commandment), but for the lesser he was not liable at all. Therefore, both the graver and the lesser must be mentioned. (Vayikra 22:10) ("And every zar [a non-priest] shall not eat the holy thing [terumah]; the tenant of a Cohein and his hired man shall not eat the holy thing.") "zar": I might think that "zar" refers to a "mamzer" (a bastard). Whence do I derive that it denominates even a Levite, even an Israelite? From "every zar." "shall not eat": "eating" is not less than the size of an olive. "the holy thing": Just as "the holy thing" stated elsewhere (Devarim 26:13) refers to "the holy things of the boundary" (i.e., terumah and ma'aser, which may be eaten within the entire boundary of Eretz Yisrael [as opposed to "the holy things of the altar," which may be eaten only in Jerusalem]), so "the holy thing" stated here refers to "the holy things of the boundary."

(Lev. 22:27, cont.:) IT SHALL REMAIN SEVEN DAYS WITH ITS MOTHER. R. Joshua of Sikhnin < said > in the name of R. Levi. < The situation > is similar to a king who entered a province,⁷¹Tanh., Lev. 8:12; Lev. R. 27:10; PRK 9:10. [where he issued a proclamation] and said: Let no strangers⁷²Gk.: xenoi. who are here see my face before they first see the face of < my > matron.⁷³Lat.: matrona. Similarly, the Holy One said to Israel: My children shall not approach me with an offering until the Sabbath < Queen > has passed over it; for there are no seven < days > without a Sabbath, and there is no circumcision without < the passing of > a Sabbath. R. Isaac said: An ordinance for humanity and an ordinance for cattle < are on a par >.⁷⁴Above, 8:9. [An ordinance for] humanity is (Lev. 12:3): AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY < THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN > SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED. [And an ordinance for] cattle is (Lev. 22:27): < IT SHALL REMAIN SEVEN DAYS WITH ITS MOTHER, > AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY ON IT SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE < FOR AN OFFERING BY FIRE TO THE LORD >.

17) "the tenant of a Cohein or his hired man" ("toshav Cohein vesachir"): "toshav" is one that is acquired forever (i.e., a servant whose ear is bored and who serves until the Jubilee year). "Sachir is one that is acquired for years (i.e., a servant who leaves after six years). Let it be written (only) "toshav." Why is "sachir"? If one that is acquired forever does not eat, should one who is acquired (only for several) years eat? If so, I would say that "toshav" denotes one that is acquired for (several) years. Now that "sachir" is written, it reveals "toshav" to mean one that is acquired forever.

(Lev. 22:28:) IN THE CASE OF AN ANIMAL FROM THE HERD OR THE FLOCK, YOU SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER IT AND ITS OFFSPRING ON THE SAME DAY.⁷⁵Although the nouns here are masculine singular and would normally read: IN THE CASE OF A BULL OR A SHEEP, Rashi understands the verse as only prohibiting the slaughter of a female beast and its offspring on the same day. Others like Ibn Ezra understand the prohibition in the verse as referring to both sexes. For a discussion of the two interpretations, see Hul. 78b-80a. This text is related (to Prov. 12:10): A RIGHTEOUS ONE REGARDS THE LIFE OF HIS CATTLE….⁷⁶Tanh., Lev. 8:13; Lev. R. 27:11: PRK 9:11. This refers to the Holy One, who said (in Deut. 22:6 with reference to birds): YOU SHALL NOT TAKE THE MOTHER WITH THE YOUNG.⁷⁷Cf. Tos. Meg. 25a. (Prov. 12:10, cont.:) BUT THE COMPASSION OF THE WICKED IS CRUEL. This refers to Sennacherib, of whom it is written (in Hos. 10:14): THE MOTHER WAS DASHED TO PIECES WITH THE CHILDREN.

[Another interpretation] (of Prov. 12:10): A RIGHTEOUS ONE REGARDS < THE LIFE OF HIS CATTLE >. This refers to the Holy One, who said (in Lev. 22:28): IN THE CASE OF AN ANIMAL FROM THE HERD OR THE FLOCK, < YOU SHALL NOT SLAUGHTER > IT AND ITS OFFSPRING…. (Prov. 12:10, cont.:) BUT THE COMPASSION OF THE WICKED IS CRUEL. This refers to Haman, of whom it is written (in Esth. 3:13): TO DESTROY AND TO ANNIHILATE < ALL THE JEWS >… < ON A SINGLE DAY >. R. Levi said: Woe to the wicked, because they devise secret plans against Israel.⁷⁸M. Ps. 2:4. Each and every one says: My plan is better than your plan. Esau said: Cain was stupid to kill [his brother] Abel during his father's lifetime.⁷⁹Cf. Gen. R. 75:9. Did he not know that his father would be fruitful and multiply? I am not acting like that. Instead < he said > (in Gen. 27:41): PLEASE⁸⁰Na. The word is added to the Masoretic Text. LET THE DAYS OF MOURNING FOR MY FATHER COME; [THEN I WILL KILL MY BROTHER JACOB]. Pharaoh said: Esau was stupid to say: LET THE DAYS OF MOURNING [FOR MY FATHER] COME. Did he not know that his brother would be fruitful and multiply during his father's lifetime? I will not act like that. Instead, while they are tiny under their mothers' birthstool, I will strangle them. Thus it is written (in Exod. 1:22): EVERY SON BORN YOU SHALL THROW INTO THE NILE … Haman said: Pharaoh was stupid to say: EVERY SON BORN < YOU SHALL THROW INTO THE NILE >, [BUT EVERY DAUGHTER YOU SHALL KEEP ALIVE]. Did he not know that, when the daughters are married to men, they are fruitful and multiply through them. I will not act like that. Instead, < I will act > (in Esth. 3:13): TO DESTROY AND TO ANNIHILATE [ALL THE JEWS, YOUNG AND OLD, CHILDREN AND WOMEN, ON A SINGLE DAY]. R. Levi said: Gog [and Magog] as well are going to say the same: The former ones were stupid because they devised secret plans against Israel. Did they not know that they have a patron⁸¹Lat.: patronus. in the heavens? I will not act like that. First I will join in battle with their patron, and after that I will join in battle with them. Thus it is written (in Ps. 2:2): THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TAKE THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS TAKE COUNSEL TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS ANOINTED. The Holy One said to him: O wicked one, have you come to me to join in battle?⁸²Rt.: ZWG. The root more commonly refers to joining in wedlock as does the Greek verb, zeugnunai. By your life I will wage war with you, as stated (in Is. 42:13): THE LORD SHALL GO FORTH LIKE A WARRIOR…. It also says (in Zech. 14:3): THEN THE LORD WILL COME FORTH AND FIGHT WITH THOSE NATIONS AS WHEN HE FIGHTS IN THE DAY OF BATTLE.

18) R. Yishmael says: "Toshav vesachir" are written here and in respect to the Paschal lamb (Shemoth 12:48). Just as with "toshav vesachir" stated in respect to the Paschal lamb, an aral (one who is uncircumcised) may not eat of it," so with "toshav vesachir" stated here (in respect to terumah), an aral may not eat of it. R. Akiva said: This (identity) is not needed. It is written (Shemoth 12 verse 4) "A man, a man," to include the aral.

(Lev. 22:29:) AND WHEN YOU SACRIFICE AN OFFERING OF THANKSGIVING TO THE LORD. R. Pinhas, R. Levi, and R. Johanan said in the name of R. Menahem of Galilee: In the age to come all < other > offerings shall cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving shall not [ever] cease.⁸³Tanh., Lev. 8:14; Lev. R. 27:12; PRK 9:12; M. Pss. 56:4. All prayers shall cease, but the prayer of thanksgiving shall not [ever] cease. Thus it is stated (in Jer. 33:11): THE SOUND OF JOY AND THE SOUND OF GLADNESS, THE VOICE OF THE BRIDEGROOM AND THE VOICE OF THE BRIDE, THE VOICE OF THOSE WHO SAY: GIVE THANKS TO THE LORD [OF HOSTS, FOR THE LORD IS GOOD,] FOR HIS MERCY ENDURES FOREVER! [AS THEY BRING THANKSGIVING TO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD. (Ibid.:) GIVE THANKS TO THE LORD. This refers to the prayers. AS THEY BRING THANKSGIVING. This refers to the sacrifice of thanksgiving. And so David said (in Ps. 56:13 [12]): YOUR VOWS, O GOD, ARE UPON ME; I WILL REPAY YOU WITH THANKSGIVINGS. "Thanksgiving" (in the singular) is not written here, but THANKSGIVINGS (in the plural), < i.e., both > the thanksgiving prayer and the sacrifice of thanksgiving.

“For the fate of the sons of man and the fate of the animal, there is one fate for them; like the death of this one, so is the death of that one, and there is one spirit for all. The superiority of man over animal is non-existent, as everything is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 3:19).
“For the fate of the sons of man and the fate of the animal” – is it not just like the fate of man, so is the fate of the animal? The Holy One blessed be He said: Is it not so that just as I decreed and said regarding man: “On the eighth day, you shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin” (Leviticus 12:3), I decreed so regarding the animal, as it is stated: “From the eighth day onward it shall be accepted as a fire offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27)?
“The superiority of man over animal is non-existent [ayin], as everything is vanity.” What is ayin? Rav Naḥman ben Rabbi Yitzḥak said: He made an embellishment for his [man’s] bottom,⁸²The flesh is shaped such that the anal opening is not visible. so that he would not be debased like an animal. Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yudan, one said: He made for him a lock and a stool on it so he would not be debased like an animal.⁸³The references to a lock and stool refer to two functions of the buttocks: They obscure the anal opening and allow a person to sit comfortably. And one said: He made padding for his bottom so he would not experience discomfort while sitting.
Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Ami, one said: He arranged burial for him, and one said: He arranged a coffin for him, and one said: He arranged a coffin and a shroud for him.⁸⁴God arranged for people to think to bury others in a respectable manner, which differentiates them from animals. In Bereshit Rabba (17:6) the text is: “One said: He arranged burial for him, and one said: He arranged a shroud for him.” This text better reflects the fact that only two Sages are cited (Etz Yosef).

"You shall not cook": This tells me only that cooking it is forbidden. Whence to I derive (the same for) eating it? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so may they not be eaten! __ No, this may be true of the Pesach offering, which may not be cooked in any liquid — wherefore it may not be eaten. Would you say the same for meat and milk, which (meat) is not forbidden, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten? R. Akiva says: It need not be written (that eating meat and milk is forbidden), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh), which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, then meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so should it be forbidden to be eaten! __ No, this may be true of the thigh sinew, which was forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it is forbidden to be eaten, as opposed to meat and milk, which was not forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten. This is refuted by (the instance of) carrion, which, even though it was not forbidden before the giving of the Torah, is forbidden to be eaten. __ No, this may be true of carrion, which confers tumah by being carried, as opposed to meat and milk, which does not confer tumah by being carried! __ This is refuted by the instance of fats and blood, which, though they do not confer tumah by being carried are forbidden to be eaten, so that meat and milk, likewise, though it does not confer tumah by being carried, should be forbidden to be eaten. __ No, this (that they may not be eaten) may be true of fats and blood, which are liable to kareth, as opposed to meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 12:24) "You shall not eat it," to include meat and milk as forbidden to be eaten. Issi says (Ibid. 23) "You shall not eat the life with the flesh" — to include meat (cooked) in milk as forbidden to be eaten. Issi b. Guria says: "Holiness" is mentioned here (in respect to meat and milk [Devarim 14:21]), and "holiness" is mentioned elsewhere (Exodus 22:30) "And men of holiness shall you be unto Me, and flesh in the field, treifah (torn) you shall not eat." Just as there, eating is forbidden, so, here. This tells me only of the prohibition against eating. Whence do I derive the prohibition against the derivation of benefit? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from arlah (the fruit of trees of the first three years), with which no transgression has been done, how much more so from meat cooked in milk, with which a transgression (the cooking) has been done! __ No, this may be true of arlah, which was never permitted, as opposed to meat and milk, which was permitted (before the cooking)! __ This is refuted by chametz on Pesach, which was permitted (before Pesach) and from which benefit may not be derived. __ No, this may be true of chametz on Pesach, which is liable to kareth (cutting-off), as opposed to (cooking) meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth. __ This is refuted by klai hakerem (forbidden hybridization of plants), which, though not liable to kareth is forbidden in the derivation of benefit. Rebbi says: It is written (Devarim 14:21) "… or sell it to the gentile. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Scripture hereby tells us: If you sell it, do not cook it and sell it — whence it is derived that it is forbidden in the derivation of benefit. "You shall not cook a kid, etc.": This tells me only of its mother's milk. Whence do I derive (the same for) its older sister's milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to cook it in the milk of its mother, who does not enter the shed alone with it to be tithed, how much more so is it forbidden in the milk of its sister, who does enter the shed along with it to be tithed! Whence is (the same derived for cooking) its flesh in its own milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If re shechitah (slaughtering), where "fruit" with "fruit" is permitted (i.e., it is permitted to slaughter two siblings on the same day), "fruit" (child) with mother is forbidden, then here (re cooking) where "fruit" (child) with "fruit" (milk) is forbidden, how much more so is it forbidden to cook "fruit" (milk) with mother! Whence is (the same derived for cooking) the milk of goats with sheep? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in reviah (mating of animals) where the Torah permitted "fruit" with mother (in cooking) it forbade "fruit" with (milk of) mother, then here where in reviah it forbade "fruit with fruit" (i.e., mating goat and sheep), how much more so does it forbid (in cooking) "fruit" with (milk of) mother! And this is, likewise, the halachah for cattle. Why, then, does Scripture speak (specifically) of a goat? Because a mother goat has a plentiful supply of milk. Rebbi says: It is written here "its mother," and elsewhere (Leviticus 22:27) "its mother." Just as there Scripture writes "ox, sheep, or goat," so here (these are intended).

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 22:27): AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY ON [IT SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE FOR AN OFFERING BY FIRE TO THE LORD]. But will not your < evil > drive lead you astray by saying that he has food and drink?⁸⁴Tanh., Lev.8:15. Who sacrificed to him {until} [before] Israel arose? David said (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (ya'arokh) TO THE LORD? Who offered sacrifices to him? R. Abbin the Levite said: < This verse means: > Who is like unto the Holy One in sustaining orphans and feeding the hungry? After all, this word (ya'arokh) can only be a word concerning sustenance, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:8): ON < EVERY > SABBATH DAY HE SHALL < REGULARLY > ARRANGE (ya'arokh with a suffix) IT (i.e., the bread) < BEFORE THE LORD >.

5 "And he sent messengers" (Numbers 22:5). The Holy One, blessed be He, made miracles for them; and the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "I redeem you and do miracles for you, but your rebel against Me. Come and see the seven salvations that I saved you - and you should have been obligated to praise Me seven times, corresponding to the seven salvations. And likewise it states (Judges 10:11-12), "But the Lord said to the Children of Israel, 'Is it not that from the Egyptians, from the Amorites, from the Ammonites, and from the Philistines. And the Sidonians, Amalek, and Maon, etc., when you cried out to Me, I saved you from them.'" Behold seven salvations. But you rebelled against Me with seven idolatries, as it is stated (Judges 10:6), "The Israelites again did what was offensive in the eyes of the Lord; they served the Baalim and the Ashtaroth [...]." And likewise does He rebuke them, "'My people, what wrong have I done you; what hardship have I caused you' (Micah 6:3) What burden have I given to you? Did I say to you, 'Bring me burnt-offerings from the animals in the mountains?' Three animals are in your possession (according to Deuteronomy 14:4): 'the bull, the sheep, and the goat.' And seven are not in your possession (according to Deuteronomy 14:5): 'The deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.' Did I burden you to bring a sacrifice in front of Me from the animals which are not in your possession? I only commanded you from the animals which are in your possession, as it is stated (in Leviticus 22:27), 'A bull or a sheep or a goat.' And likewise, 'from the animals; (and) from the cattle and from the sheep' (Leviticus 1:2). And when Sichon and Og came out to fight against you, did I not bring them down before you? 'What hardship did I cause you?' Did I say to you to bring a sacrifice to them? Did Balak son of Tsippor not see that I did all of the miracles for you, so he hired Bilaam against you? But I turned the curses into blessings.

R. Hiyya bar Abba said: When a mighty man who is walking on the road is thirsty and goes to drink water, how much does he drink with his hands? Ten handfuls? Six handfuls? Four handfuls? Less than two he does not drink. Now all the water that is in the world would be a filling for the hollow of < the Holy One's > hand, as stated (in Is. 40:12): WHO HAS MEASURED THE WATERS IN THE HOLLOW OF HIS HAND? < It is so written > in order to make known that for him there is no eating or drinking. < Then > why did he tell me to offer sacrifice? In order to benefit you. Ergo (in Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT IS BORN, < … AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY ON IT SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE FOR AN OFFERING BY FIRE TO THE LORD >.

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

(Gen. 31:3:) THEN THE LORD SAID UNTO JACOB: RETURN UNTO THE LAND OF YOUR ANCESTORS WHERE YOU WERE BORN, AND I WILL BE WITH YOU. Let our master instruct us: In the case of an Israelite courtyard with star-worshiping foreigners dwelling within it, is it right that its eruv is a < legitimate > eruv? Thus have our masters taught:⁶⁷Cf. Eruv. 6:1; Eruv. 61b-62a. In the case of an Israelite courtyard with star-worshipping foreigners dwelling within it, it is forbidden for an Israelite to use anything within it until he has acquired a right < to the property > from the star-worshipping foreigner.⁶⁸According to Rashi on Eruv. 6:1 (61b), one must rent the idolater’s property for the eruv to be valid. Why? Because it is written (in Exod. 20:21 [24]): IN EVERY PLACE WHERE I CAUSE MY NAME TO BE MENTIONED < I WILL COME UNTO YOU AND BLESS YOU >. The Holy One will not assign his name in the midst of those who serve idols. Rather (according to Lev. 20:32): THAT I MAY BE SANCTIFIED IN THE MIDST OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Thus, you are not to associate with the wicked ones because the Holy One will not assign his name in their midst. You know yourself that it is so.⁶⁹Tanh., Gen. 7:10. R. Eleazar ben Padat said in the name of R. Jose ben {Qisma} [Zimra]: During the whole time that Lot was attached to Abraham, you never find a divine oracle being conferred upon Abraham. As soon as Lot was separated from him (in Gen. 13:11-13), the divine word was conferred upon him, as stated (in Gen. 13:14). THEN THE LORD SAID UNTO ABRAHAM AFTER LOT HAD DEPARTED FROM HIM. And so you find that, when Jacob went away to Mesopotamia to go to Laban, he spent twenty years at his place; but all the time that Jacob was in Laban's house, the Holy One did not speak with him. Then Jacob did some pondering and said: So the Holy One has forsaken me! Not so. The Holy One said to me (in Gen. 28:15): AND SEE, I AM WITH YOU. The Holy One knew what he pondered in his heart. The Holy One said to him: Do you want me to be with you? Separate yourself from Laban the Wicked, and I will be with you. Where is it shown? Where they read on the matter (in Gen. 31:3): THEN THE LORD SAID UNTO JACOB: < RETURN UNTO THE LAND OF YOUR ANCESTORS WHERE YOU WERE BORN, AND I WILL BE WITH YOU >.

(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 interpretation (of Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT < IS BORN >….] This text is related (to Ps. 27:6): AND NOW SHALL MY HEAD BE LIFTED UP OVER MY ENEMIES ROUND ABOUT ME; [I WILL OFFER SACRIFICE IN HIS TENT WITH A LOUD CRY;] < I WILL SING AND CHANT PRAISE TO THE LORD >. When Israel carried out that deed (of the golden calf), the nations of the world said: [There will be no recovery for them, and he will never return to them].⁹⁰Tanh., Lev. 8:16. When Israel heard that they had sacrificed a bull, their head was lifted up, as stated (ibid.): AND NOW SHALL MY HEAD BE LIFTED UP…. Then they said: Now we know that the Holy One has been reconciled to us. They began a song. (Ibid., cont.:) I WILL OFFER SACRIFICE IN HIS TENT WITH A LOUD CRY; I WILL SING AND CHANT PRAISE TO THE LORD.

(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.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 22:27): A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT. Why did the Holy One say to sacrifice a bull. To atone for the image of the bull, as stated (in Ps. 103:3): WHO FORGIVES ALL YOUR SINS. You should know this on your own. See what is written (in Ezek. 1:6): EACH HAD FOUR FACES, AND EACH OF THEM HAD FOUR WINGS. What is written there (in vs. 7): AND THEIR LEGS BECAME A STRAIGHT LEG, AND THE SOLE OF THEIR FEET WAS LIKE THE SOLE OF A CALF'S FOOT. Now it was for the atonement of Israel that he added two [more] wings to them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 6:2): < ABOVE HIM STOOD THE SERAPHIM. > [EACH] OF THEM HAD SIX WINGS: [WITH TWO HE COVERED HIS FACE, WITH TWO HE COVERED HIS FEET,] < AND WITH TWO HE DID FLY >. Why? So that their feet would be covered, because they resembled the calf. < It was > so that he would not see them and recall the incident of the calf. WITH TWO HE COVERED HIS FEET. And why all this? Simply to atone for Israel. (Ps. 103:3:) WHO FORGIVES ALL YOUR SINS. You have no larger fowl than the eagle, so it became a face for the living being, as stated (in Ezek. 1:10): AND THE FOUR OF THEM HAD THE FACE OF AN EAGLE. The largest among the beasts is the lion, so it < also > became a face for the living being, as stated (in Ezek. 10:14): AND THE {FACE OF THE ONE} [THIRD] WAS THE FACE OF A LION. And the bull is the largest among the cattle, so that he made it a face for the living being, as stated (in Ezek. 1:10): AND THE FOUR OF THEM HAD THE FACE OF A BULL [ON THE LEFT]. {(Ibid.:) AND THE FACE OF A HUMAN.} But for the sake of Israel, the Holy One blotted out the bull and put a cherub in its place. Thus it is stated (in Ezek. 10:14): THE FACE OF THE ONE WAS THE FACE OF A CHERUB. And why all this? To atone for Israel. Ergo, < Scripture > says it well (in Ps. 103:3:) WHO FORGIVES ALL YOUR SINS. Why did the Holy One remove the calf? So that Israel would be innocent before him. And not only that, but when Israel thinks about a transgression or something evil in its heart, {the Holy One purifies it.} [does not the Holy One purify it?] Therefore David says (in Ps. 66:18 [17]): IF I HAD PERCEIVED INIQUITY IN MY HEART, THE LORD WOULD NOT HAVE LISTENED. Now what does the Holy One hear? < What is thought > when a person stands up to meditate in prayer. It is so stated (in vs. 19 [18]): TRULY GOD HAS LISTENED; HE HAS HEARKENED TO THE SOUND OF MY PRAYER. And not only that, but when two children of Adam sit and occupy themselves with the Torah, the Holy One hearkens and listens, as stated (in Mal. 3:16): THEN THOSE WHO FEARED THE LORD SPOKE WITH ONE ANOTHER. THE LORD HAS HEARKENED AND LISTENED, AND A BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BEFORE HIM.⁹¹Avot 3:2, 6; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 1; Ber. 62; ARN, A, 8; Matthew 18:20. The Holy One said: Through the merit of the Torah, when you occupy yourselves with it, I am hearkening and listening to your prayers; but in the world to come, before you utter a prayer before me and cry aloud before me, I will listen to your prayers. It is so stated (in Is. 65:24): AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT, BEFORE THEY CRY OUT, I WILL ANSWER; [WHILE THEY ARE YET SPEAKING, I WILL LISTEN].

Rabbi Yoḥanan began: “A prophecy of the Valley of Vision” (Isaiah 22:1) – the valley about which all the seers prophesy, the valley from which all the seers originated, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Every prophet the name of whose city was not articulated was a Jerusalemite. “Valley of Vision” – as they cast the words of the seers to the ground.⁹³The residents treated the prophecies with derision, reflected in the term valley, as a valley is low ground. “What, indeed, happened to you, that you all ascended to the roofs?” (Isaiah 22:1). Did they in fact ascend to the roofs? Rabbi Levi said: These are the arrogant.
“Full of tumult [teshuot]” (Isaiah 22:2) – Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov said: This expression is used in three senses: Troubles, tumult, and gloom. Troubles, as it is stated: “Does not hear the troubles [teshuot] caused by the oppressor” (Job 39:7); tumult, as it is stated: “Full of tumult [teshuot].” Gloom, as it is stated: “Darkness, gloom [shoa], and desolation” (Job 30:3).
“Clamorous city” (Isaiah 22:2) – a city of commotion; “merry town” (Isaiah 22:2) – a lively city; “your slain are not slain by the sword and they did not die in war” (Isaiah 22:2) – what are they? “Bloated by famine and ravaged by plague” (Deuteronomy 32:24).
“All your officers wandered together; from the bow [mikeshet] they were bound” (Isaiah 22:3) – due to their stubbornness [kashyutam], they were delivered to the kingdoms. Alternatively, “all your officers wandered together; from the bow they were bound” – as [the enemies] would untie the strings of their bows and bind with them. “All those found among you were bound together, they fled afar” (Isaiah 22:3) – they distanced themselves from hearing the words of Torah, just as it says: “From afar the Lord has appeared to me” (Jeremiah 31:2).
“Therefore, I said: Turn from me, I will weep bitterly” (Isaiah 22:4) – Reish Lakish said: On three occasions the ministering angels sought to recite song before the Holy One blessed be He but He did not allow them to do so. These are: In the generation of the Flood, at the sea, and upon the destruction of the Temple. Regarding the generation of the Flood, what is written? “The Lord said: My spirit shall not abide in man forever” (Genesis 6:3).⁹⁴The midrash interprets the word abode [yadon] in the sense of singing praise [yaron], such that the verse means that God’s praise will not always be able to be sung over the occurrences regarding mankind. This interpretation is based on the fact that the Hebrew letters dalet and resh look very similar and are sometimes interchanged (Etz Yosef). At the sea it is written: “One did not approach the other the entire night” (Exodus 14:20).⁹⁵The terminology of this verse is reminiscent of the verse in Isaiah (10:3) describing the angels singing song to God. Regarding the destruction of the Temple it is written: “Therefore, I said: Turn from me, I will weep bitterly; do not rush to comfort me” (Isaiah 22:4). It is not written here: Do not continue [to comfort me], but rather, “do not rush [ta’itzu].” The Holy One blessed be He said to the ministering angels: The words of comfort that you are reciting before Me, they are insults [ni’utzin] for Me. Why? “For it is a day of turmoil, trampling and confusion [mevukha] from the Lord, God of hosts” (Isaiah 22:5) – a day of turbulence, a day of plundering, and a day of weeping [bekhiya]. “Of the Valley of Vision” (Isaiah 22:1) – it is the valley about which all the seers prophesy. “Breaching the wall and crying [vesho’a] to the mountain” (Isaiah 22:5) – for they were breaching the walls of their houses, using [the materials] for shields, and placing them atop their citadels [sho’eihem].
“Elam carried the quiver” (Isaiah 22:6) – Rav said: This is a collection of arrows. “Among chariots of men are horsemen, and Kir bared a shield” (Isaiah 22:6), for they were breaching the walls [kirot] of their houses and using [the materials] for shields. “And it was that your choicest valleys [amakayikh] filled with chariots” (Isaiah 22:7) – Rav said: To the full depth of [umkah] the sea waters. “And the horsemen directed themselves [shot shatu] to the gate” (Isaiah 22:7) – like weaving [mishteyei] they went and like weaving they came,⁹⁶They crossed like the warp and woof strings on a loom. and they appeared to be many.
“He laid bare the covering of Judah” (Isaiah 22:8) – exposing what was covered. “You looked on that day to the weapons in the house of the forest” (Isaiah 22:8) – Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: The Israelites had a weapon at Sinai, and the ineffable name was etched upon it. When they sinned it was taken from them. That is what is written: “The children of Israel were stripped of their ornament from Mount Ḥorev” (Exodus 33:6). How was it taken from them? Rabbi Aivu and the Rabbis: Rabbi Aivu said: It peeled off on its own. The Rabbis say: An angel descended and peeled it off.
“You saw that the breaches of the city of David were many.… And you counted the houses of Jerusalem, and you broke the houses to fortify the wall” (Isaiah 22:9–10) – this teaches that they would shatter their houses and add to the wall. But did Hezekiah not already do so? Is it not written: “He took courage and rebuilt the entire breached wall…” (II Chronicles 32:5)?⁹⁷Isaiah criticized the people for adding to the wall, whereas Hezekiah similarly rebuilt the walls as protection from his enemies and was not criticized. Hezekiah, however, put his trust in the Lord, God of Israel, but you did not put your trust in Him. That is what it says: “You did not look to the One who planned it, and you did not see the One who fashioned it long ago” (Isaiah 22:11).
“The Lord, God of hosts, called on that day for weeping and for lamentation” (Isaiah 22:12) – the ministering angels said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, it is written: “Majesty and glory are before Him” (Psalms 96:6), and You say this?’ He said to them: ‘I will teach you. That is what it says: “Disrobe and bare yourselves, and place a belt upon your waist” (Isaiah 32:11) – this is how you shall lament. “Smiting upon the breasts” (Isaiah 32:12) – on the first destruction and on the second destruction. “Over pleasant fields” (Isaiah 32:13) – on the house of My delight, which I made like a field. That is what it says: “Zion will be plowed like a field” (Micah 3:12). “Over a fruitful vine” (Isaiah 32:12) – this is Israel, just as it says: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9).’
Another matter: “The Lord, God of hosts, called on that day…” (Isaiah 22:12) – that is what was stated in the verse by the sons of Koraḥ through the Divine Spirit: “These I remember, and pour out my soul within me, [how I passed on with the throng and led them to the house of God]” (Psalms 42:5). Regarding whom did the sons of Koraḥ recite this verse? Regarding the congregation of Israel, as the congregation of Israel said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, I remember the security, tranquility, and calm in which I existed, and now it has grown distant from me. I am weeping and moaning and saying: If only I could be restored to the earlier times when the Temple was built, and You would descend to it from heaven On High and rest Your Divine Presence upon me. The nations of the world would laud me, and when I would request mercy for my iniquities, You would answer me. But now I am in shame and humiliation.’ They also said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, my soul is desolate within me when I pass by Your Temple and it is destroyed, and a still small voice within it says: The place where the descendants of Abraham sacrificed offerings before You, the priests would stand on the platform, and the Levites would laud with their lyres, shall foxes prance in it? That is what is written: “On Mount Zion, which is desolate; foxes walk upon it” (Lamentations 5:18). But what shall I do? My iniquities have brought this upon me, the false prophets who were in my midst misled me from the path of life to the path of death.’ That is why it is stated: “These I remember, and pour out my soul within me…”
Another matter: “The Lord, God of hosts, called on that day for weeping and for lamentation…” (Isaiah 22:12) – when the Holy One blessed be He sought to destroy the Temple, He said: As long as I am inside it, the nations of the world will not touch it. So, I will avert My eyes from it, and I will take an oath that I will not attend to it until the time of the end of days. Then the enemies will come and destroy it. Immediately, the Holy One blessed be He took an oath by His right hand, and withdrew it behind Him. That is what is written: “He withdrew His right hand from before the enemy” (Lamentations 2:3). At that moment, the enemies entered the Sanctuary and burned it. Once it was burned, the Holy One blessed be He said: I no longer have an abode on the earth; I will remove My Divine Presence from it, and I will ascend to My original location. That is what is written: “I will go and return to My place, until they will be punished and they seek My presence” (Hosea 5:15). At that moment, the Holy One blessed be He was weeping and saying: Woe is Me for what I have done. I rested My Divine Presence below for the sake of Israel. Now that they have sinned, I have returned to My original place. Heaven forbid that I have become a laughingstock to the nations and a mockery to the people. At that moment, Metatron⁹⁸This is the name of an important angel. came and fell on his face and said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, I will weep but You shall not weep.’ He said to him: ‘If you do not allow Me to weep now, I will enter a place into which you have no authorization to enter, and I will weep, as it is stated: “But if you will not heed it, my soul will weep in concealed places due to your arrogance…”’ (Jeremiah 13:17).
The Holy One blessed be He said to the ministering angels: ‘Come and let us go, you and I, and let us see what the enemies did in My Temple.’ Immediately, the Holy One blessed be He and the ministering angels went, with Jeremiah before Him. When the Holy One blessed be He saw the Temple, He said: Certainly, this is My Temple and this is My resting place that enemies entered and did in it as they pleased. At that moment, the Holy One blessed be He was weeping and saying: Woe is Me for My Temple. My children, where are you? My priests, where are you? My beloved, where are you? What could I do for you? I warned you but you did not repent. The Holy One blessed be He said to Jeremiah: ‘Today I am like a person who had an only son, made a wedding canopy for him, and he died within his wedding canopy; do you not feel pain for Me or for My son? Go and call Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses from their graves, as they know how to weep.’ [Jeremiah] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, I do not know where Moses is buried.’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Go, stand on the bank of the Jordan, raise your voice, and call: Son of Amram, son of Amram, arise and see your flock who have been consumed by enemies.’ Immediately, Jeremiah went to the Cave of Makhpela and said to the patriarchs of the world: ‘Arise, as the time has arrived that you are summoned before the Holy One blessed be He.’ They said to him: ‘Why?’ He said to them: ‘I do not know,’ because he feared that they would say: In your days this befell our children? Jeremiah left them and stood on the bank of the Jordan, and called out: ‘Son of Amram, son of Amram, arise, the time has arrived that you are summoned before the Holy One blessed be He.’ He said to him: ‘What is different about today that I am summoned before the Holy One blessed be He?’ Jeremiah said to him: ‘I do not know.’ Moses left him and went to the ministering angels, as he was familiar with them from the time of the giving of the Torah. He said to them: ‘Ministers On High, do you know why I am summoned before the Holy One blessed be He?’ They said to him: ‘Son of Amram, do you not know that the Temple has been destroyed and Israel has been exiled?’ He was screaming and weeping until he reached the patriarchs of the world. Immediately, they rent their garments, placed their hands on their heads, and were screaming and weeping until the gates of the Temple. When the Holy One blessed be He saw them, immediately, “the Lord, God of hosts, called on that day for weeping and for baldness and for donning sackcloth” (Isaiah 22:12). Had it not been for the verse that is written, it would have been impossible to say it. They were weeping and walking from this gate to that gate like a person whose deceased relative is lying before him. The Holy One blessed be He was lamenting and saying: Woe to a king who was successful in his youth and in his old age was not successful.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: When the Temple was destroyed, Abraham came before the Holy One blessed be He weeping, pulling out his beard, tearing out the hair of his head, striking his face, rending his garments, ashes on his head, and he was walking in the Temple and lamenting and screaming. He said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Why am I different from all nations and tongues that I have come to this state of shame and humiliation?’ When the ministering angels saw him, they too composed lamentations standing in rows and saying: “[Behold, their angels cry out outside.…] The highways are desolate, wayfarers have ceased; [he breached the covenant, rejected cities, regarded no man]” (Isaiah 33:7–8). What is “the highways are desolate”? The ministering angels said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘The highways to Jerusalem that You prepared so that travelers would never cease from them, how have they become desolation?’ “Wayfarers have ceased” – the ministering angels said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘The ways upon which Israel would travel on the festivals, how have they become idle?’ “Breached the covenant” – the ministering angels said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, the covenant of their patriarch Abraham has been breached, by means of whom the world was settled, and by means of whom You were recognized in the world as God on High, Maker of the heavens and the earth.’ “Rejected cities” – the ministering angels said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Have You rejected Jerusalem and Zion after You chose them?’ That is what is written: “Did You reject Judah, did Your soul loathe Zion…?” (Jeremiah 14:19). “Regarded no man [enosh]” – the ministering angels said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘You did not consider Israel even like the generation of Enosh, who were the originators of idol worshippers.’ At that moment, the Holy One blessed be He attended to the ministering angels. He said to them: ‘Why are you composing lamentations like this, standing in rows?’ They said to Him: ‘Master of the universe, why did You not pay attention to Abraham, Your beloved, who came to Your House and lamented and wept?’ He said to them: ‘From the day that My beloved passed away from before Me to his eternal home, he did not come to My House, and now: “What has My beloved to do in My House?”’ (Jeremiah 11:15).
Abraham said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe: Why did You exile my children, deliver them into the hand of the nations, kill them with all kinds of uncommon deaths, and destroy the Temple, the place where I elevated my son Isaac as a burnt offering before You?’ The Holy One blessed be He said to Abraham: ‘Your children sinned and violated the entire Torah and the twenty-two letters that are in it.’ That is what is written: “All Israel have violated Your Torah” (Daniel 9:11). Abraham said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, who will testify against Israel that they violated Your Torah?’ He said to him: ‘Let the Torah come and testify against Israel.’ Immediately, the Torah came to testify against them. Abraham said to it: ‘My daughter, you have come to testify against Israel that they violated your mitzvot, and you have no shame before me? Remember the day that the Holy One blessed be He circulated you among every nation and they did not want to accept you, until my descendants came to Mount Sinai and accepted you and honored you. Now you come to testify against them on their day of distress?’ Once the Torah heard this, it stood to one side and did not testify against them.
The Holy One blessed be He said to Abraham: ‘Let the twenty-two letters come and testify against Israel.’ Immediately, the twenty-two letters came. Alef came to testify against Israel that they violated the Torah. Abraham said to it: ‘Alef, you are the leader of all the letters, and you come to testify against Israel on their day of distress? Remember the day that the Holy One blessed be He revealed Himself on Mount Sinai and began with you, “I am [anokhi]⁹⁹Anokhi begins with the letter alef. the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2) – no nation other than my descendants accepted you, and you come to testify against my descendants?’ Immediately, alef stood to one side and did not testify against them.
Bet came to testify against Israel. Abraham said to it: ‘My daughter, have you come to testify against my descendants, who are diligent in the five books of the Torah, as you are at the head of the Torah?’ That is what is written: “In the beginning [bereshit]¹⁰⁰Bereshit, the first word of the Torah, begins with a bet. God created” (Genesis 1:1). Immediately, bet stood to one side and did not testify at all.
Gimel came to testify against Israel. Abraham said to it: ‘My daughter, have you come to testify against my descendants that they violated the Torah? Is there any nation who fulfills the mitzva of ritual fringes, which you appear at its head?’ That is what is written: “You shall make for yourselves twisted threads [gedilim]” (Deuteronomy 22:12).¹⁰¹Gedilim, which in Hebrew is the first word of this verse, begins with a gimel. Immediately, gimel stood to one side and did not testify at all. When all the letters saw that Abraham had silenced them, they were ashamed, stood by themselves, and did not testify against Israel.
Immediately, Abraham began [speaking] before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe, at one hundred years You gave me a son. When he achieved cognition and was a thirty-seven-year-old young man, You said to me: Sacrifice him as a burnt-offering before Me. I became like a cruel person to him and had no mercy on him. Rather, I, myself, bound him. Will You not remember this on my behalf and have mercy on my descendants?’
Isaac began and said: ‘Master of the universe, when my father said to me: “God, Himself, will see to the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Genesis 22:8), I did not delay fulfillment of Your words, and I was bound willingly upon the altar and extended my neck under the knife. Will You not remember this on my behalf and have mercy on my descendants?’
Jacob began and said: ‘Master of the universe, did I not remain in Laban’s house for twenty years? When I departed from his house, the wicked Esau encountered me and sought to kill my children, and I endangered my life on their behalf. Now they are delivered into the hand of their enemies like sheep to slaughter after I raised them like chicks and suffered the travails of child raising on their behalf, as most of my days I experienced great suffering for their sake. Will You not now remember this on my behalf to have mercy on my descendants?’
Moses began and said: ‘Master of the universe, was I not a loyal shepherd over Israel for forty years? I ran before them like a horse in the wilderness, yet when the time came for them to enter the land, You decreed against me that my bones would fall in the wilderness. Now that they have been exiled you sent to me to lament them and weep over them.’ This is the parable that people say: From the goodness of my master it is not good for me, and from his evil it is bad for me.
At that moment, Moses said to Jeremiah: ‘Go before me so I may go and bring them. I would like to see who is going to restrain them.’¹⁰²If I bring them back no one will dare stand in their way. Jeremiah said: ‘It is impossible to go on the way due to the corpses.’¹⁰³I am a priest, and it is prohibited for me to contract impurity imparted by a corpse. He said to him: ‘Nevertheless.’ Immediately, Moses went and Jeremiah was before him, until they reached the rivers of Babylon. They saw Moses and said to each other: ‘The son of Amram has come from his grave to redeem us from the hand of our adversaries!’ A Divine Voice emerged and said: ‘It is a decree from before Me.’ Immediately, Moses said to them: ‘My children, to return you is impossible, as the decree has already been issued. Rather, the Omnipresent will return you speedily.’ He left them. At that moment, they raised their voice in great weeping until their weeping ascended On High. That is what is written: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and also wept” (Psalms 137:1).
When Moses came to the patriarchs of the world, they said to him: ‘What have the enemies done to our descendants?’ He said: ‘Some of them they killed, some of them they tied their hands behind them, some of them were bound in iron chains, some of them were stripped naked, some of them died on the way and their carcasses were left for the bird of the heavens and the animals of the earth, and some of them were cast in the sun hungry and thirsty.’ Immediately, they all began weeping and lamenting: ‘Woe over what has befallen our children! How have you become like orphans without a father; how do you lie in the afternoon and in the summer without garment and without covering; how have you walked on mountains and on gravel with shoes removed and without sandals; how have you carried bundles filled with sand; how have your hands been bound behind you; how have you been unable to swallow even the spittle in your mouths?’ Moses began and said: ‘Cursed sun! Why did you not darken when the enemy entered the Temple?’ The sun responded to him: ‘Moses, loyal shepherd, how could I darken, they did not allow me and did not relent from me, as they took me with sixty rods of fire and said to me: Go and shine your light.’
Again Moses began and said: ‘Woe over your radiance, Temple, how has it gone dark? Woe that its time to be destroyed arrived, the Sanctuary was burned, schoolchildren killed, and their fathers sent to captivity, exile, and the sword.’ Again Moses began and said: ‘O captors, by your lives! You killers, do not kill cruelly and do not implement total annihilation, do not kill a son in the presence of his father, or a daughter in the presence of her mother, for the time will come when the Master of heaven will settle the score with you.’ But the wicked Chaldeans did not do so, but rather, would seat the son on his mother’s lap and say to his father: Rise and slaughter him. The mother would cry and her tears would fall on him, and his father would hang his head. He also said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, You wrote in Your Torah: “An ox or a sheep, it and its offspring you shall not slaughter on one day” (Leviticus 22:28). But have they not killed many, many children and their mothers, and yet You are silent!’
At that moment, Rachel our matriarch interjected before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe, it is revealed before You that Your servant Jacob loved me abundantly and worked for my father seven years for me. When those seven years were completed and the time for my marriage to my husband arrived, my father plotted to exchange me with my sister for my husband. The matter was extremely difficult for me when I became aware of that plot, and I informed my husband and gave him a signal to distinguish between my sister and me so that my father would be unable to exchange me. Afterward, I regretted what I had done and suppressed my desire. I had mercy on my sister, so that she would not be led to humiliation. In the evening they exchanged me with my sister for my husband, and I transmitted to my sister all the signals that I had given to my husband, so that he would think that she is Rachel. Moreover, I entered beneath the bed on which he was lying with my sister. He would speak with her and she would be silent, and I would respond to each and every matter that he said, so that he would not identify my sister’s voice. I performed an act of kindness for her, I was not jealous of her, and I did not lead her to humiliation. If I, who is flesh and blood, was not jealous of my rival, and I did not lead her to humiliation and shame, You who are a living and eternal merciful King, why were You jealous of idol worship that has no substance, and You exiled my descendants, and they were killed by sword, and the enemies did to them as they pleased?’ Immediately, the mercy of the Holy One blessed be He was aroused and He said: ‘For you, Rachel, I will restore Israel to its place.’ That is what is written: “So said the Lord: A voice is heard in Rama, wailing, bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be consoled for her children, as they are not” (Jeremiah 31:14). And it is written: “So said the Lord: Restrain your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears, as there is reward for your actions.… And there is hope for your future, the utterance of the Lord, and your children will return to their borders” (Jeremiah 31:15–16).

Vayikra Rabbah 27:5

(5) And God seeks that which is pursued (Eccl. 3:15). Always ‘God seeks that which is pursued’. You find a case where a righteous man pursues a righteous man, ‘And God seeks that which is pursued’; where a wicked man pursues a righteous man, ‘And God seeks that which is pursued’; where a wicked man pursues a wicked man, ‘And God seeks that which is pursued’; even where a righteous man pursues a wicked man, ‘And God seeks that which is pursued.’ Whatever the case, ‘And God seeks that which is pursued.’ …

The Holy One demands satisfaction for the blood of the pursued at the hands of the pursuers. Abel was pursued by Cain and the Holy One chose Abel... Noah was pursued by his generation, and the Holy one chose Noah. Abraham was pursued by Nimrod, and the Holy One chose Abraham. Isaac was pursued by the Philistines, and the Holy One chose Isaac. Jacob was pursued by Esau, and the Holy One chose Jacob. Joseph was pursued by his brothers, the Holy One chose Joseph.

Moses was pursued by Pharoah, and the Holy One chose Moses. David was pursued by Saul, and the Holy One chose David. Saul was pursued by the Philistines, and the Holy One chose Saul. Israel are pursued by the nations, and the Holy One chose Israel.

In the case of the sacrifices, also it is so. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘The Ox is pursued by the lion, the goat is pursued by the leopard, the lamb by the wolf; do not offer unto Me from those that pursue but from those that are pursued.’ Hence if is written, “When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth …It may be accepted for an offering” (Lev. 22:27).

all embrace and kiss it, especially so if it is a male.

(Bamidbar 6:10) "And on the eighth day he shall bring, etc.": to exclude the seventh day. You say, to exclude the seventh day; but perhaps, to exclude the ninth day? Would you say that? If (the eighth day), which is close to the forbidden (seventh day), is permitted, how much more so should (the ninth day), which is close to the permitted (eighth day) be permitted! — This is refuted by the time for eating the Paschal offering, where the time (the night of the fifteenth of Nissan), which is close to the forbidden (the day preceding that night) is permitted, and (after midnight on the night of the fifteenth), which is close to the permitted, is forbidden. Do not wonder, then, about this (forbidding of the offering on the ninth day) that even though what is close to the forbidden is permitted, what is close to the permitted is forbidden. We have not succeeded (with this argument). Let us derive it from the offered (i.e., the animals offered on the altar.) A time has been fixed for the offered (viz. Vayikra 22:17) "From the eighth day (of its birth) on it shall be accepted as a fire-offering"), and a time has been fixed for the offerers ("And on the eighth day he shall bring, etc." Just as with the offered, the eighth day and beyond was permitted, so, with the offerers. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If with the offered, where Scripture enumerates many that are unfit (for offerings), it validates (offerings) of the eighth day and beyond, how much more so with the offerers, where Scripture did not enumerate many that are unfit, should (offering) be validated from the eighth day and beyond! — No, this may be so with the offered, this time obtaining with all offerings, wherefore the eighth day and beyond was permitted, would you say the same for the offerers, where this time does not obtain for all, (but only for the Nazirites) — wherefore it would not be permitted from the eighth day on. I have not succeeded with ratiocination; I derive it by identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written here (in the instance of the Nazirite) "the eighth day," and elsewhere (in the instance of the offerings), "the eighth day." Just as there, the eighth and beyond is validated, so, here.

"Seven days shall it be with its mother': What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Leviticus 22:27) "then it shall stay seven days under its mother" — with its mother (i.e., while its mother is living). __ But perhaps, "under," literally, (i.e., instead of its mother, [when its mother has died]). It is, therefore, written (here) "Seven days shall it be with its mother." Just as here, with its mother, so, there, with its mother. R. Nathan says: The verse "under its mother" comes to be expounded, viz.: "under its mother" — after its mother has died. You say "under its mother" — after its mother, but perhaps it is to be understood literally, (i.e., near its mother)? __ You reason thus: It is written here "its mother," and elsewhere, "its mother" ([Devarim 14:21] "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk.") Just as there, (the meaning is "(milk) of the same kind" (as it is, i.e., both it and the milk being of the same source), so, here, "of the same kind." [This has a specific halachic implication.] What is the intent of "Seven days shall it be with its mother"? Just as a consecrated first-born nurses only from a non-consecrated animal, so, all of them. From here they ruled: All consecrated animals do not nurse their young, and a tithed animal does not nurse its young. And all are derived from the (instance of the) first-born. What is done (to nurse them)? Money is taken from Temple funds, with which a non-consecrated animal is bought, which (is placed before them and) "pities" them and nurses them — even though there are some who donate (an animal) with this intent (that if they are consecrated, their milk will be non-consecrated.)

"On the eighth day shall you give it to Me": This tells me (that it is acceptable) only on the eighth day itself. Whence do I derive (that it is acceptable) from the eighth day onward? It follows, viz.: It is written here "eighth," and elsewhere (Leviticus 22:27) "eighth." Just as there, from the eighth day on, so, here, from the eighth day on. Just as here (it is acceptable) on the eighth day itself, so, there.

"and flesh in the field, treifah ("torn"): This tells me only of the field. Whence do I derive (that a treifah is forbidden also) in the house? From (Leviticus 22:8) "Neveilah (carrion) and treifah he shall not eat." Treifah is likened to neveilah. Just as neveilah is forbidden both in the house and in the field, so, treifah. If so, why is "field" (specifically) written here? Scripture speaks of the common instance. Similarly, (in respect to a ravished maiden) (Devarim 22:27) "For in the field he found her" — Scripture speaks of the common instance. Similarly (Ibid. 20:6) "Who is the man who has planted a vineyard?" This tells me only of a vineyard. Whence do I derive (the same for) all trees? Scripture speaks of the common instance. Here, too, "in the field treifah" — Scripture speaks of the common instance.

... Said the Holy One: You are indebted/obligated/chayavim to the dogs, for in the hour that I killed the firstborn of Egypt . . . the Egyptians were sitting all night and burying their dead, and the dogs barked at them, and at Israel they didn’t bark. . . therefore . . . “to the dog you will

(Bamidbar 6:13) "This is the law of the Nazirite": "This," for the offering of purity (i.e., when the Nazirite is in a state of purity) or also for the offering of tumah (i.e., when the Nazirite is in a state of tumah)? (Ibid.) "On the day of the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism" — Scripture is speaking only of one who has an end to his Naziritism (i.e., a thirty-day Naziritism, a Naziritism of purity) "This is the law of the Nazirite": (i.e., the offerings that follow) obtain with both a Nazirite of "days" and with an "eternal" Nazirite. "yavi otho (to the door of the tent of meeting"): Now do others bring him? ([this being the usual connotation of "yavi otho"]). Does he not bring (i.e., present) himself? — This is one of the three ethim (as in "otho") which R. Yishmael would expound in the Torah as (being reflexive,) "himself" (rather than accusative, "it" or "him"). Similarly, (Vayikra 22:16) "And they will bear otham the sin of guilt": Now do others bear them? Is it not they who bear upon themselves, etc.? Similarly, (Devarim 34:6) "And he buried otho in the valley." Now did others bury him? Did he not bury himself? Here, too, "yavi otho" — he brings (i.e., presents) himself, and others do not bring him.

(Bamidbar 15:3) "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock": What is the intent of this? Because it is written "and you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd, a burnt-offering or a sacrifice," I might think that a burnt-offering of fowl (also) requires libations; it is, therefore, written "of the herd or of the flock" — to exclude a burnt-offering of fowl as not requiring libations. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yochanan says: This is not needed, for it is already written "or a sacrifice." Just as "a sacrifice" is a beast, so, a burnt-offering. What is the intent, then, of "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock"? Because it is written (Vayikra 1:2) "A man if he offers of you an offering to the L-rd … from the herd and from the flock," I might think that if he said: I take it upon myself to bring a burnt-offering he must bring one of each; it is, therefore, written (here) "of the herd or of the flock," that he brings either one by itself. It is written in respect to the Pesach offering (Shemot 12:5) "from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it." Either one by itself? Or, one of each? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:10) "And if of the flock is his offering, of the sheep or of the goats for a beast-offering." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a burnt-offering, the "graver" may be brought from one kind, then Pesach, the "lighter," how much more so may it be brought from one kind! What, then, is the intent of "from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it"? Either one by itself. Issi b. Akiva says: "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd (of the herd or of the flock"): either one by itself. You say either one by itself, but perhaps (the intent is that he brings) one of each. Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the atzereth (Shavuoth) lambs, of which two must be brought (viz. Vayikra 23:19), may come of one kind, then a burnt-offering, two of which need not be brought, how much more so may it come of one kind! — No, this may be true of the two atzereth lambs, Scripture limiting their bringing (to atzereth), for which reason they may come of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing — wherefore it must be brought from two kinds! — This is refuted by the he-goats of Yom Kippur, Scripture "expanding" their bringing (to two) and yet being brought from one kind. (And they will refute "burnt-offering" — that even though Scripture "expands" its bringing, it may be brought of one kind.) — No, this may be true of the Yom Kippur he-goats, Scripture limiting their bringing, for they are not brought the whole year, wherefore they may be brought of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing in that it may be brought the entire year — wherefore it should be permitted only of two kinds. This is refuted by a sin-offering, which, even though Scripture "expands" its bringing to all the days of the year, may be brought of one kind — so that a burnt-offering, too, should be able to come from one kind. — No, this may be true of a sin-offering, Scripture limiting its bringing, in that it may not be brought as vow or gift, wherefore it is permitted to bring it of one kind, as opposed to burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing in that it may be brought as vow or gift — wherefore it should be permitted to bring it only of two kinds. It must, therefore, be written (15:3) "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock" — either one by itself. (15:4) "Then the offerer shall offer": Because it is written (Vayikra 22:18) "A man, a man … who offers, etc.", this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "Then the offerer shall offer" — in any event. "Then the offerer shall offer his offering to the L-rd, a meal-offering, an issaron of flour." R. Nathan says: This is a prototype for all who donate a meal-offering not to give less than an issaron. "mixed with a revi'ith of a hin of oil. (5) And wine for libations, a revi'ith of a hin": oil for mixing and wine for libations. "shall you present with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice": What is the intent of this? From (3) "And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd," I might think that if he said "I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings" that he may bring one libation for both; it is, therefore, written "the burnt-offering or the sacrifice (of peace-offerings)" — he brings one for each in itself. I might think if he said ("I vow) five lambs for a burnt-offering, five lambs for peace-offerings," that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written "with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice for each lamb" — he brings for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of this ("with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice")? For I would think: If where the rule for an ox burnt-offering is the same as that for a lamb burnt-offering (i.e., that they are both burned), they are not similar in libations, (an ox requiring a half hin, and a lamb, a quarter hin,) then where the rule for a lamb burnt-offering is not the same as that of a lamb of peace-offerings, (the first being burned and the second eaten,) how much more so should they not be similar in libations! It is, therefore, written "shall you present with the brunt-offering or the sacrifice" — Even though the rule (for the offering) is not the same, the libations are. R. Nathan says: "shall you present with the burnt-offering": This is the burnt-offering of a leper (i.e., even though it is mandatory and not vow or gift, it requires libations). "or the sacrifice": This is his (the leper's) sin-offering. "or the sacrifice": This is his guilt-offering. "for each lamb": to include the burnt-offering of a woman after birth as requiring libations. "for each lamb": to include (as requiring libations) the eleventh (which one erroneously designated as the first-born beast-tithe (instead of the tenth). For we nowhere find in the entire Torah that the secondary (the eleventh in this instance, which requires libations,) is severer than the primary (the tenth, which does not). "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering (two esronim of flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil": Scripture here comes to differentiate between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: cattle require libations and sheep require libations. If Scripture did not differentiate between the libations for a calf, and those for an ox, so, it would not differentiate between those for a lamb and those for a ram. It is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc." Scripture differentiates between the libations for a lamb, ("a quarter of a hin") and those of a ram ("a third of a hin"). Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then where libations (in general) were decreased, how much more so should no differentiation be made between a lamb and a ram! It is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a lamb and a ram. (Ibid.) "mixed with oil, a third of a hin": For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the lamb of the omer requires two esronim (viz. Vayikra 23:13), and the ram of a burnt-offering requires two esronim, then just as I learned about the lamb of the omer that even though its esronim were doubled, its libations were not doubled (viz. Ibid.), so, the ram of the burnt-offering, even though its esronim were doubled, its libations should not be doubled; it is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering, etc., mixed with oil, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that just as its esronim were doubled, so, its libations were doubled (i.e., increased). "with oil a third of a hin and wine for libations": oil for mixing; wine, for libations. "shall you offer, a sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 8) "And if you offer a bullock as a burnt-offering or as a sacrifice for an expressed vow, etc.": "Bullock" was included in the general category and it departed from that category (for special mention) to teach about the category that just as a bullock comes for a vow or a gift and requires libations, so, all that come for a vow or a gift require libations. (Ibid. 9) "Then he shall present with the bullock a meal-offering": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3) "And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd," I might think that if he said "I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings," he brings one libation for both; it is, therefore, written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings)," whereby we are taught that he brings one for each in itself. Or (I might think that) even if he said "I vow to bring five oxen for a burnt-offering; five oxen for peace-offerings," I might think that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering or a sacrifice," whereby we are taught he brings one for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of "or a sacrifice"? For it would follow: If (even though) what transpires with a lamb burnt-offering is the same as that which transpires with an ox burnt-offering (i.e., that they are entirely burnt), still, they are not equivalent for libations, then, where what transpires with an ox burnt-offering is not the same as that which transpires with ox peace-offerings, (which are eaten), how much more so should they not be equivalent in libations; it is, therefore, written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings)," to teach that even though they are not equivalent in what transpires with them, they are equivalent for libations. (Ibid. 10) "And wine shall you offer for libations": oil for mixing; wine, for libations — on bowls. You say "on bowls," but perhaps (the intent is) on the fire. If you say this, you will put out the fire, and the Torah writes (Vayikra 6:6) "A perpetual fire is to be kept burning on the altar, not to go out." How, then, am I to understand "for libations"? As meaning "on bowls." "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done." (Ibid. 11) "Thus shall it be done for the one ox": Scripture here tells us that the Torah did not differentiate between the libations for a calf and those for an ox. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Sheep require libations and cattle require libations. If I have learned that the Torah differentiates between libations for a lamb and those for a ram, then so should it differentiate between those for a calf and those for an ox. It is, therefore, written "Thus shall it be done for the one ox," (big or small), the Torah not differentiating between the libations for a calf and those for an ox. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If where libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then, where libations (in general) were increased, how much more so should a differentiation be made between a calf and an ox! It is, therefore, written "Thus shall it be done for the one ox." Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox. (Ibid.) "or for the one ram": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations of a one-year old ("a lamb") and the libations of a two-year old ("a ram"), so it should differentiate between the libations of a two-year old and those of a three-year old. Scripture hereby apprises us (by "the one ram") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or for the lamb among the sheep": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a sheep and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between the libations for a ewe (female)-lamb and those for a (ewe-) sheep. We are hereby apprised (by "the [female] lamb [one year old] among the sheep [two years old]") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or among the goats": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between those for a kid and those for a (full-grown) he-goat; it is, therefore, written "or among the goats." The largest of the goats is hereby equated with the youngest of the lambs. Just as the latter, three logs (i.e., a quarter of a hin), so, the former, three logs. (Ibid. 12) "Thus shall you do for (each) one": This tells me only of these (i.e., the original sacrifices). Whence do I derive (the same for) their exchanges? From "Thus shall you do for each one." (Ibid. "According to the number (of animals) that you offer": He may not decrease (the number of libations). — But perhaps if he wishes to increase (the number) he may do so. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "According (i.e., strictly according) to their number." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonah says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 15) "All the native-born shall do (precisely) thus, these things" — neither to decrease nor to increase. What, then, is the intent of "According to the number that you offer"? I might think that if he wishes to double (the original number as a gift) he may do so. It is, therefore, written "Thus shall you offer (libations) for (each) one, according to their number." From here they ruled: It is permitted to intermix the libations for bullocks with those of rams; the libations of lambs with the libation of (other) lambs; the libations of individuals with those of the congregation; the libations of the day with those of the preceding evening (— their numbers being the same.) But it is not permitted to intermix the libations of lambs with those of bullocks and rams (— their numbers not being the same).

(Ibid. 13) "All the native-born shall thus do, etc.": From here we learn that libations can be donated. How much? Three logs, (which suffice for a lamb). And whence is it derived that if he wishes to add he may do so? From "shall do." I might think he can decrease; it is, therefore, written "thus." From here it was derived: One is not to donate two or five, (which do not [exactly] suffice for anything), but he may donate three or four or six or above, (which do [exactly] suffice for something). Variantly: What is the intent of "All the native-born, etc."? Because it is written (Vayikra 22:25) "And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present (as a sacrifice) the bread of your G-d of all these (blemished animals)" — These you do not accept (from gentiles), but you do accept unblemished animals. After we have learned that a gentile may bring a burnt-offering, I can now conclude: An Israelite brings a burnt-offering and a gentile brings a burnt-offering. Can I also conclude: Just as an Israelite brings libations, so, a gentile brings libations? It is, therefore, written "All the native-born shall thus do these (libations)" — An Israelite brings libations, but a gentile does not. I might, then, think that his burnt-offering does not require libations; it is, therefore, written "shall thus do" (to bring libations) — whence they ruled: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad and sent libations along with it, his own are used; and if not they are to be brought by the congregation.

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "For all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, etc.": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) to declare a law to make a covenant with them. And why was this necessary? For Korach arose against Aaron and contested the priesthood. An analogy: A king of flesh and blood had a retainer to whom he gave a field of holding as a gift, without writing or sealing (the transaction) and without recording it, whereupon someone came and contested his (the retainer's) ownership of the field. At this, the king said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. Come (now) and I will write, seal, and record it. Korach came and contested his (Aaron's) claim to the priesthood, at which the L-rd said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. I am (now) writing and sealing and recording it — wherefore this section is juxtaposed with (the episode of) Korach. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "to you have I given them (the gifts)": in your merit "lemashchah": "meshichah" connotes greatness, as in (Vayikra 7:35) "This is mishchath Aaron and mishchath his sons, etc." R. Yitzchak says "mishchah" (here) connotes anointment, as in (Psalms 133:2) "the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and to your sons": in the merit of your sons. "as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. (Ibid. 9) "This shall be for you from the holy of holies from the fire": I would not know of what this speaks. Go out and see: What remains (for the Cohanim) of the holy of holies, all of which is consigned to the fire? You find this as obtaining only with a beast burnt-offering, (the hide of which reverts to the Cohanim.) "all of their offerings": the two loaves and the show-bread. "all of their meal-offerings": the sinner's meal-offering and the donative meal-offering. "all of their sin-offerings": the sin-offering of the individual and the communal sin-offering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird sin-offering and the beast sin-offering. "all of their guilt-offerings": the "certain" guilt-offering, the "suspended" guilt-offering, the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. "which they shall return to Me": This refers to the theft of a proselyte, (which reverts to the Cohanim [viz. Ibid. 5:8]). "holy of holies": This refers to the leper's log of oil. "to you and to your sons": in your merit and in the merit of your sons. (Ibid. 10) "In the holy of holies shall you eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten only in a holy place, within the curtains (i.e., in the azarah [the Temple court]). R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the azarah, they may be eaten (even) in the sanctuary? From "In the holy of holies shall you eat it." (Ibid.) "Every male shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten by males of the priesthood. "Holy shall it be to you": What is the intent of this? I might think that only something fit for eating should be eaten in holiness. Whence do I derive (the same for) something which is not fit for eating? From "Holy shall it be to you." (Ibid. 11) "And this is for you the terumah of (i.e., what is set apart from) their gift-offerings": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included holy of holies to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include lower-order offerings. "From all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel": This thing requires waving. "To you have I given them, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. "Every clean one in your house shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with lower-order offerings that they are to be eaten only by those who are clean. "All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the wheat": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included the offerings of the sanctuary to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include the border offerings (i.e., those outside the sanctuary) to decree a law to make a covenant with them. "All the best of the oil": This is terumah gedolah (Devarim 18:4). "and all the best, etc.": This is terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26). "the first of them": the first of the shearing (Devarim 18:4). "which they shall give": shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3). "to the L-rd": challah (Bamidbar 15:20). (Ibid. 18:13) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land": Scripture here comes to teach us about the bikkurim that holiness "takes" upon them while they are yet attached to the ground. For it would follow (otherwise, viz.:) Since holiness "takes" on bikkurim and holiness "takes" on terumah, then, if I have learned about terumah that holiness does not "take" on it while it is yet on the ground, so, with bikkurim. It is, therefore, written "the first-fruits of all that is in their land," to teach us otherwise. (Bamidbar 18:12) "To you have I given them": Scripture comes to teach that it is given to the Cohein. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "Every clean one of your household shall eat it": Why is this stated? Is it not already written (Ibid. 11) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it (terumah)"? Why repeat it? To include the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as eating terumah. Does this include one who is betrothed? Perhaps it speaks only of one who is married! — (This is not so, for) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it" already speaks of one who is married. How, then, am I to understand "Every clean one of your household"? As including the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, as eating terumah. This would seem to include (as eating terumah) a betrothed one and a toshav (a ger toshav [sojourner]) and a sachir (a hired non-Jew). How, then, am I to understand (Shemot 12:45) "a toshav … shall not eat of it"? A toshav who is not in your domain; but one who is in your domain may eat of it. Or even a toshav who is in your domain (may eat of it). And how am I to understand "Every clean one of your household may eat of it"? As excluding a toshav and a sachir. Or perhaps, including a toshav and a sachir! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:10) "and a sachir shall not eat the holy thing" (terumah): whether or not he is in your domain. And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in Netzivim: I heard about you that you said that the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah. He sent back: And I held you to be expert in the recesses of Torah when you cannot even expound a kal vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse (with her master) does not acquire her (or him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, her money (i.e., the money by which he acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) causes her to eat terumah — then the daughter of an Israelite, whose intercourse (with her husband) acquires her (to him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, how much more so should her money (by which he betroths her) acquire her for (purposes of) eating terumah! But what can I do? The sages said: The daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to a Cohein) does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah (the marriage canopy). Once she enters the chuppah, even if there were no intercourse, she eats terumah, and if she dies, her husband inherits her.

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "For all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, etc.": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) to declare a law to make a covenant with them. And why was this necessary? For Korach arose against Aaron and contested the priesthood. An analogy: A king of flesh and blood had a retainer to whom he gave a field of holding as a gift, without writing or sealing (the transaction) and without recording it, whereupon someone came and contested his (the retainer's) ownership of the field. At this, the king said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. Come (now) and I will write, seal, and record it. Korach came and contested his (Aaron's) claim to the priesthood, at which the L-rd said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. I am (now) writing and sealing and recording it — wherefore this section is juxtaposed with (the episode of) Korach. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "to you have I given them (the gifts)": in your merit "lemashchah": "meshichah" connotes greatness, as in (Vayikra 7:35) "This is mishchath Aaron and mishchath his sons, etc." R. Yitzchak says "mishchah" (here) connotes anointment, as in (Psalms 133:2) "the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and to your sons": in the merit of your sons. "as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. (Ibid. 9) "This shall be for you from the holy of holies from the fire": I would not know of what this speaks. Go out and see: What remains (for the Cohanim) of the holy of holies, all of which is consigned to the fire? You find this as obtaining only with a beast burnt-offering, (the hide of which reverts to the Cohanim.) "all of their offerings": the two loaves and the show-bread. "all of their meal-offerings": the sinner's meal-offering and the donative meal-offering. "all of their sin-offerings": the sin-offering of the individual and the communal sin-offering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird sin-offering and the beast sin-offering. "all of their guilt-offerings": the "certain" guilt-offering, the "suspended" guilt-offering, the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. "which they shall return to Me": This refers to the theft of a proselyte, (which reverts to the Cohanim [viz. Ibid. 5:8]). "holy of holies": This refers to the leper's log of oil. "to you and to your sons": in your merit and in the merit of your sons. (Ibid. 10) "In the holy of holies shall you eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten only in a holy place, within the curtains (i.e., in the azarah [the Temple court]). R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the azarah, they may be eaten (even) in the sanctuary? From "In the holy of holies shall you eat it." (Ibid.) "Every male shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten by males of the priesthood. "Holy shall it be to you": What is the intent of this? I might think that only something fit for eating should be eaten in holiness. Whence do I derive (the same for) something which is not fit for eating? From "Holy shall it be to you." (Ibid. 11) "And this is for you the terumah of (i.e., what is set apart from) their gift-offerings": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included holy of holies to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include lower-order offerings. "From all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel": This thing requires waving. "To you have I given them, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. "Every clean one in your house shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with lower-order offerings that they are to be eaten only by those who are clean. "All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the wheat": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included the offerings of the sanctuary to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include the border offerings (i.e., those outside the sanctuary) to decree a law to make a covenant with them. "All the best of the oil": This is terumah gedolah (Devarim 18:4). "and all the best, etc.": This is terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26). "the first of them": the first of the shearing (Devarim 18:4). "which they shall give": shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3). "to the L-rd": challah (Bamidbar 15:20). (Ibid. 18:13) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land": Scripture here comes to teach us about the bikkurim that holiness "takes" upon them while they are yet attached to the ground. For it would follow (otherwise, viz.:) Since holiness "takes" on bikkurim and holiness "takes" on terumah, then, if I have learned about terumah that holiness does not "take" on it while it is yet on the ground, so, with bikkurim. It is, therefore, written "the first-fruits of all that is in their land," to teach us otherwise. (Bamidbar 18:12) "To you have I given them": Scripture comes to teach that it is given to the Cohein. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "Every clean one of your household shall eat it": Why is this stated? Is it not already written (Ibid. 11) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it (terumah)"? Why repeat it? To include the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as eating terumah. Does this include one who is betrothed? Perhaps it speaks only of one who is married! — (This is not so, for) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it" already speaks of one who is married. How, then, am I to understand "Every clean one of your household"? As including the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, as eating terumah. This would seem to include (as eating terumah) a betrothed one and a toshav (a ger toshav [sojourner]) and a sachir (a hired non-Jew). How, then, am I to understand (Shemot 12:45) "a toshav … shall not eat of it"? A toshav who is not in your domain; but one who is in your domain may eat of it. Or even a toshav who is in your domain (may eat of it). And how am I to understand "Every clean one of your household may eat of it"? As excluding a toshav and a sachir. Or perhaps, including a toshav and a sachir! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:10) "and a sachir shall not eat the holy thing" (terumah): whether or not he is in your domain. And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in Netzivim: I heard about you that you said that the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah. He sent back: And I held you to be expert in the recesses of Torah when you cannot even expound a kal vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse (with her master) does not acquire her (or him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, her money (i.e., the money by which he acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) causes her to eat terumah — then the daughter of an Israelite, whose intercourse (with her husband) acquires her (to him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, how much more so should her money (by which he betroths her) acquire her for (purposes of) eating terumah! But what can I do? The sages said: The daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to a Cohein) does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah (the marriage canopy). Once she enters the chuppah, even if there were no intercourse, she eats terumah, and if she dies, her husband inherits her.

(Bamidbar 18:27) "And your terumah will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the pit": R. Yishmael says: When is your terumah accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor? When you have taken it as prescribed (i.e., a kind for its kind, new for new, etc. [see above]). If you have not taken it as prescribed, it is not thus accounted for you. Variantly: "And your (the Levites') terumah (terumath ma'aser) will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor" (terumah gedolah). Now what do we learn from terumah (gedolah) to terumath ma'aser? It (terumah gedolah) comes (apparently) to teach (something), and it ends up being learned (i.e.,) Just as terumath ma'aser is obligatory, so, terumah (gedolah) is obligatory. Abba Eliezer b. Gomel says: Scripture comes to teach you that just as terumah (gedolah) may be taken by estimate and by thought (i.e., without actually handling it), so, terumath ma'aser may be taken by estimate and by thought. "as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the pit": Why is this stated? From (26) "then you shall separate from it," I might think that he could take ears (of grain as terumah) for grain; grapes, for wine; and olives, for oil; it is, therefore, written "as corn from the threshing floor," i.e., (he may take) from what is processed — whence they ruled; (He may take terumah:) from grain, from the time that it (i.e., its pile) has been evened; from wine, from the time that it is skimmed; from oil, from the time that it has dripped down into the trough. (Ibid. 28) "Thus shall you, too, separate the terumah of the L-rd": Why is this written? From (26) "And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel, etc.", (I would say:) The children of Israel give ma'aser to the Levites, but the Cohanim do not give ma'aser to the Levites. And since they do not give ma'aser to the Levites, I might think that they could eat it (the produce) tevel (i.e., untithed); it is, therefore, written: "thus shall you separate, you (the Cohanim), too, the terumah of the L-rd." (i.e., the Cohanim separate terumah, and ma'aser, and terumath ma'aser which reverts to them.) R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed, for if challah, which does not obtain with all produce (i.e., with all the varieties of grain), obtains with the produce of Cohanim, then ma'aser, which does obtain with all produce, how much more so should it obtain with all the produce of Cohanim! What, then, is the intent of "Thus shall you separate, you, too"? I might think that only the ma'aser of an Israelite (is subject to terumath ma'aser). Whence do I derive the (same for) their (the Levites') own tithe (i.e., the tithe that they separate from what is theirs)? It is, therefore, written "Thus shall you separate, you, (the Levites,) too." (Ibid. 29) "From all of your gifts, etc." Scripture hereby teaches that ma'aser obtains with all (produce [see above]) — whence you rule to terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser), viz.: If ma'aser, the "lighter," (not being subject to the death penalty), obtains with all produce), then terumah, the "graver," (being subject to the death penalty, [viz. Vayikra 22:9]), how much more so does it obtain with all (produce [of first tithe])! Variantly: If ma'aser (second tithe), which does not obtain in the third and sixth year (of shemitah, [being replaced by poor-tithe]), obtains with all (produce), then terumah, the graver, how much more so should it obtain with all (produce [of second tithe])! Issi b. Menachem says: If ma'aser (second tithe), which comes only as an incentive to fear and to learning (viz. Devarim 14:23), obtains with all (produce), how much more so does it obtain with the "graver," terumah! (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you shall give of it the terumah of the L-rd to Aaron the Cohein": Just as Aaron was a chaver (a Torah scholar, so the (other) Cohanim (to receive the priestly gifts, should be chaverim) — whence it was ruled: Priestly gifts should be given only to a chaver. (Ibid. 29) "From all of your gifts shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd. From all of its best (shall you separate) its hallowed part from it." Is Scripture here speaking of terumah gedolah or of terumath ma'aser? "from all of your tithes" (28) speaks of terumath ma'aser. How, then, is "From all of your gifts shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd" to be understood? As referring to terumath gedolah. (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him": This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional! It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 11:29) "shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd" — It is obligatory and not optional. These are the words of R. Yonathan. "from all of its best, its hallowed part from it.": So that if it (terumath ma'aser) fell (back) into it (what it was taken from), it "hallows" it — whence they ruled: Terumah is "neutralized" (from its hallowed state) if it fell into one hundred parts of non-terumah when (it is) one to (that) one hundred. This tells me only of terumah that is (ritually) clean. Whence do I derive (the same for) terumah that is tamei, (that if it fell into a hundred of clean terumah, it is neutralized in such a mixture?) It follows a fortiori, viz.: [Note: The translator, with all his consultation of the commentaries, has not been able to render meaningfully what follows (from here until #122)]

(Devarim 16:9) "Seven weeks shall you count for yourself": I might think that beth-din (is being exhorted to do the counting); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:15) "And you shall count for yourselves" — each individual (is exhorted to do the counting).

(Bamidbar 28:8) "And the second lamb": Why is this written? Since it is written "the one lamb shall you offer in the morning," I might think that if it were not offered in the morning it could be offered in the evening. It is, therefore, written "the second shall you offer up towards evening," implying that if the morning tamid had not been offered, the evening tamid is not to be offered. When is this so? When the altar had not been inaugurated. But if it had been inaugurated, even the first may be offered in the evening. R. Shimon said: When is this so? When they were unwitting or under constraint (in not offering it in the morning), but if they were deliberate (in not doing so), if they did not offer the lamb in the morning, it could not be offered in the evening. If they did not smoke the frankincense in the morning, they can do so at twilight, for the altar is inaugurated only with the frankincense smoking of twilight, and the burnt-offering altar only with the morning tamid. Nor (is) the table (inaugurated) except with the show-bread of the Sabbath; nor the menorah except with the seven lamps of twilight. R. Shimon said: Even if the (pertinent) vessels were finished before their (relevant) time, they are inaugurated only in their time. And thus is it written (Shemot 39:43 - 40:1-2) "And when Moses saw all the work — that they had performed it as the L-rd had commanded them, thus did they do — that Moses blessed them, saying: On the first day of the first month shall you set up the mishkan, etc." With what blessing did he bless them? He said to them: "May it be His will that the Shechinah repose upon the work of your hands." And they responded "May the beauty of the L-rd our G-d be upon us. And establish the work of our hands upon us. The work of our hands — establish it." And though this is not written in the Torah, it is explicated in the writings, viz. (Psalms 90:16) "May Your works be beheld by Your servants, and Your glory by their children. (17) And may the beauty of the L-rd our G-d be upon us, etc." Variantly: What is the intent of "and the second lamb"? Because it is written (of the Paschal lamb, Shemot 12:6) "and they shall slaughter it at twilight," I do not know which takes precedence, the tamid or the Paschal lamb. It is, therefore, written "the second" — the second to the tamid, and not second to the Pesach (i.e., it is slaughtered before the Pesach.) From here they ruled: Nothing precedes the morning tamid but (the smoking of) the frankincense. And nothing follows the tamid of twilight but the incense, the Pesach, and those lacking atonement on Pesach eve, so that they can bring their atonement (and observe the Pesach.) (Bamidbar 28:8) "As the meal-offering of the morning and its libation shall you offer it." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 4-5) "the one lamb shall you offer in the morning and the second lamb shall you offer towards evening. And a tenth of an ephah, etc.", I might think that first the two temidim are offered. And then their libations; it is, therefore, written "As the meal-offering of the morning and its libation shall you offer it," whereby we are apprised that when each sacrifice is offered, the libations are offered with it. "a fire-offering": Though it is consigned to the fire, it is not accepted until it is completely burned. "a sweet savor": gratifying to Me, in that I spoke and My will was done. "to the L-rd": Shimon ben Azzai says: Come and see that with all of the offerings in the Torah it is not written of them "Elokim" or "Kel" or "Shakkai" or "Tzevakoth," but only Yod-Keh-Vav-Keh, the Tetragrammaton — so as not to give an opening to the heretics for their heresies (i.e., that there is a plurality of gods). And just as "a sweet savor" is written in respect to an ox, so is it written in respect to a lamb and in respect to a bird — whereby the Torah teaches us that there is no "eating" or "drinking" before the Holy One Blessed be He, but (that His) only ("gratification") is that He speaks and His will is done. And thus is it written (Psalms 50:12) "Were I hungry, I would not tell you. For Mine is the world and its fulness. (11) I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are with Me." Lest I think He eats and drinks, it is written (Ibid. 13) "Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of he-goats?" Why, then, do I ask you to sacrifice to Me? To do My will. And thus is it written (Vayikra 22:29) "When you sacrifice a thank-offering to the L-rd, it is to your favor that you sacrifice it."