Midrash su Levitico 27:78

MEGILLA (Fol. 2b) R. Jeremiah and, according to others, R. Chiya b. Abba, said: "Mantzfach were indited by the Seers (Prophets)." How can you understand that it was indited by the Seers and not by Moses? Is it not written (Lev. 27, 34 ( These are the commandments; [from which we infer] that no prophet has the right to enact from that time hence. And furthermore, did not R. Chisda say that the letters Mem and Samech, on the tablets [of the Ten Commandments], were suspended only (Fol. 3) by a miracle? Indeed they were a [Mosaic] tradition, but it was not known previously which letter must come in the middle of the word and which at the end; so that the Seers prescribed that the open one should be at the middle and the closed one final. But even that much had they then the right to do? Is it not written (Ib.) These are the commandments; [from which we infer that] no prophet has the right to enact a new law from that time hence. Therefore we must say that it was forgotten and the prophets only restored them.

1) (Vayikra 27:11) ("And if any unclean beast, which may not be presented of it as an offering to the L–rd, then the beast shall be stood before the Cohein.") I might think that Scripture is speaking of a beast which is (ritually) unclean. But (Vayikra 27:27) "And if among the unclean beasts, then he shall redeem it with your valuation" already speaks of a (ritually) unclean beast. Our verse, then, must be referring to the redemption of consecrated animals which became blemished. I might think that it must be redeemed even if it contracted a passing blemish; it is, therefore, written "which may not be presented of it as an offering to the L–rd" — to exclude a (beast with a) passing blemish, which is kasher (for sacrifice) when the blemish passes.

1) (Vayikra 27:21) ("And the field shall be, when it goes out on the Yovel year, holy to the L–rd, as a devoted field; to the Cohein shall be his holding.") "And the field shall be, when it (masculine) goes out": This indicates that "field" is masculine. "holy": Just as with "holy" there (Vayikra 27:14) the release is only through redemption, so with "holy" here, the release is only through redemption.

1) (Vayikra 27:14) "then the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad": Consecrations are not redeemed by approximation. "As the Cohein valuates it, so shall it stand": If the owner says (I redeem it) for twenty, and another: for twenty, the owner takes precedence, for he adds a fifth. If one said: It is mine for twenty-one, the owner gives twenty-six; (If he said) twenty-two, the owner gives twenty-seven; twenty-three, the owner gives twenty-eight; twenty-four, the owner gives twenty-nine; twenty-five, the owner gives thirty, for a fifth is not added to the other's "raising." If he (the other) said: It is mine for twenty-six — If the owner wishes to give thirty-one plus a dinar, he takes precedence; if not, he (the other) is told "It is yours."

1) (Vayikra 27:2) ("Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man if he utter a vow in your valuation of souls to the L–rd,"): The children of Israel assess, but gentiles do not assess. I might think, then, that they are (also) not assessed; it is, therefore, written "A man." These are the words of R. Meir. R. Meir said: If one verse includes, and the other excludes, why do I say they are assessed but do not assess? Because the power of the assessed is greater than that of the assessors. For a deaf-mute and a half-wit and a minor are assessed, but do not assess.

1) (Vayikra 27:21) ("And the field shall be, when it goes out on the Yovel year, holy to the L–rd, as a devoted field; to the Cohein shall be his holding.") "And the field shall be, when it (masculine) goes out": This indicates that "field" is masculine. "holy": Just as with "holy" there (Vayikra 27:14) the release is only through redemption, so with "holy" here, the release is only through redemption.

1) (Vayikra 27:27) ("And if [he wishes to redeem] an unclean beast [that he dedicated to Temple maintenance], then he shall redeem it according to your valuation, and he shall add its fifth upon it. And if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold by your valuation.") "And if an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:25) "according to the shekel of the sanctuary," I might think (that he can redeem) only with that. Whence do I derive for inclusion any movable object? From "then he shall redeem"; but on condition that he assesses (the object) monetarily (to coincide with the worth of the animal), e.g., if he said: "This garment for this ass," the latter becomes chullin (non-consecrated) and he must cover any arrears (between the worth of the animal and the worth of the garment).

1) (Vayikra 27:26) ("But a first-born ["bechor"] which is a firstling ["asher yevukar"] to the L-rd among the beasts, a man shall not consecrate it [as a different offering]. Whether ox or lamb, it is the L-rd's.") If it were just written "a first-born … shall not consecrate," I might understand it as: a human first-born shall not make consecrations; it is, therefore, written ("a man shall not consecrate) it" (a first-born beast) — "it" you shall not consecrate, but a human first-born may make consecrations. But I still might understand it as: he (a human first-born) shall not consecrate it, but others may; it is, therefore, written "among the beasts" — It is a first-born beast that is being referred to (and not a first-born human being).

1) (Vayikra 27:11) ("And if any unclean beast, which may not be presented of it as an offering to the L–rd, then the beast shall be stood before the Cohein.") I might think that Scripture is speaking of a beast which is (ritually) unclean. But (Vayikra 27:27) "And if among the unclean beasts, then he shall redeem it with your valuation" already speaks of a (ritually) unclean beast. Our verse, then, must be referring to the redemption of consecrated animals which became blemished. I might think that it must be redeemed even if it contracted a passing blemish; it is, therefore, written "which may not be presented of it as an offering to the L–rd" — to exclude a (beast with a) passing blemish, which is kasher (for sacrifice) when the blemish passes.

1) (Vayikra 27:27) ("And if [he wishes to redeem] an unclean beast [that he dedicated to Temple maintenance], then he shall redeem it according to your valuation, and he shall add its fifth upon it. And if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold by your valuation.") "And if an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:25) "according to the shekel of the sanctuary," I might think (that he can redeem) only with that. Whence do I derive for inclusion any movable object? From "then he shall redeem"; but on condition that he assesses (the object) monetarily (to coincide with the worth of the animal), e.g., if he said: "This garment for this ass," the latter becomes chullin (non-consecrated) and he must cover any arrears (between the worth of the animal and the worth of the garment).

1) "all that shall pass under the staff": to exclude a treifah (an animal with an organic defect), which does not pass. This tells me only of his counting them with the staff. If he did not count them with the staff, or if he counted them lying down or standing, whence do I derive (that it is valid)? From "shall be holy" (in any event). This tells me only of his calling it "the tenth." Whence do I derive (that it is valid) even if he did not call it "the tenth"? From "the tenth shall be holy." I might think that even if he had one hundred and took ten (at random), or ten and took one (that it is valid); it is, therefore, written "the tenth," and this is not ma'aser (lit., the tenth). R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: It is ma'aser.

1) (Vayikra 27:9) ("And if it be a beast, of which men present an offering to the L–rd, all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy.") If one said "The leg of this animal is a burnt-offering," I might think that the entire animal becomes a burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written "all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy" — but all of it is not holy. I might then think that the animal becomes chullin (non-sacred); it is, therefore, written "shall be" — it retains its holiness. What shall he do? He sells it to those who must bring a burnt-offering, and its monies become chullin, except for (the monies for) that foot. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah, R. Yossi, and R. Shimon say: Whence is it derived that even if he said "Its foot is a burnt-offering," all of it becomes a burnt-offering? From "all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy" — "shall be holy," to include all of it.

2) I might think that dedications to Temple maintenance (bedek habayith) are (also) susceptible of substitution (viz. Vayikra 27:10) it is, therefore, written "offering" — to exclude dedications to Temple maintenance, which are not offerings.

2) "unclean": to include (in redemption) a dead (literally unclean) beast which he consecrated (for its money value). I might think that (it is redeemed) even if he said "This beast is consecrated" and (then) it died; it is, therefore, written "then the beast shall be stood … (Vayikra 27:12) and the Cohein shall valuate it." Where there is "standing," there is valuation; where there is no standing, there is no valuation.

2) "unclean": to include (in redemption) a dead (literally unclean) beast which he consecrated (for its money value). I might think that (it is redeemed) even if he said "This beast is consecrated" and (then) it died; it is, therefore, written "then the beast shall be stood … (Vayikra 27:12) and the Cohein shall valuate it." Where there is "standing," there is valuation; where there is no standing, there is no valuation.

2) "the consecrator would redeem": to include his wife. "And if the consecrator would redeem": to include his heir. "then he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation upon it, and it shall be his": If he gives the money, it is his; if not, it is not his.

2) R. Yehudah says: The children of Israel are assessed, but gentiles are not assessed. I might think that they (also) do not assess; it is, therefore, written "A man." R. Yehudah said: If one verse includes, and the other excludes, why do I say they assess but are not assessed? Because the power of the assessors is greater than that of the assessed. For a tumtum (one of unknown sex) and a hermaphrodite assess, but are not assessed.

2) We are hereby taught that the Cohanim (of the Yovel watch) enter it and pay its value (as indicated). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: They enter, but do not pay. R. Elazar says: They neither enter nor pay, but it is called "an abandoned field" until the second Yovel. If the second Yovel arrived and it had not been redeemed, it is called "doubly abandoned" until the third Yovel. The Cohanim may not enter it until another redeems it.

2) "and he shall add its fifth upon it": So that it and the fifth make five (equal parts [as opposed to a fifth of the principal], i.e., he divides the principal by four and adds a fifth part [e.g., if the principal were twenty, he pays twenty-five]).

2) Whence is it derived that if he (erroneously) called the ninth the tenth; the tenth, the ninth; and the eleventh, the tenth, that all three are considered (as ma'aser)? From "the tenth shall be holy to the L–rd." I might think to include the eighth and the twelfth (that he called the tenth). Would you? No. Since it is consecrated and its "error" is consecrated, just as only what is closest to it (i.e., it itself) is consecrated, so only the "error" closest to it (i.e., the ninth and the eleventh) is consecrated (and not the eighth and the twelfth).

2) I might think that dedications to Temple maintenance (bedek habayith) are (also) susceptible of substitution (viz. Vayikra 27:10) it is, therefore, written "offering" — to exclude dedications to Temple maintenance, which are not offerings.

3) I would then exclude dedications to Temple maintenance, which are not offerings, but I would not exclude communal dedications (of offerings); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:10) "He shall not exchange it." I would then exclude communal offerings, but I would not exclude offerings in partnership; it is, therefore, written (again) "and he shall not substitute for it" — An individual can make a substitution, but not the community or partners.

3) Why do you see fit to include (his consecrating) a dead beast, and exclude his saying "This beast is consecrated" and its dying (thereafter)? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. We derive it from an unclean (i.e., blemished) beast. Just as with an unclean beast, the time of its redemption is equivalent to the time of consecration (i.e., at both times the beast is not fit for sacrifice), so, I include (his consecrating) a dead beast, whose time of redemption is equivalent to its time of consecration, and I exclude his saying "This beast is consecrated" and its dying (thereafter), where the time of its redemption is not equivalent to its time of consecration.

3) (Vayikra 27:16) "And if from the field of his holding a man shall consecrate to the L–rd, then your valuation will be according to its sowing; the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels." "from the field of his holding": This tells me only of a field of holding from his father. Whence do I derive (the same for) a field of holding from his mother? From "a man shall consecrate" — in any event. "then your valuation will be according to its sowing": according to its sowing and not according to its growing. "the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels": This is the decree of the King — Both he who consecrates in the sands of Machoz and he who consecrates in the orchards of Sebaste gives the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels.

3) If "the children of Israel," I might think, only the children of Israel. Whence do I derive for inclusion proselytes and bondsmen? From "and say to them." I might think that (also) excluded is a minor (from twelve years and a day) who is able to utter (a vow distinctly). It is, therefore, written "if he utter a vow." It is written here "a vow," and elsewhere (Devarim 23:22) "a vow." Just as "a vow" here is subject to "if he utter," so, "a vow" there is subject to "if he utter." And just as "a vow" there is subject to "do not delay (to pay it"), so, "a vow" here is subject to "do not delay."

3) "as a devoted field, to the Cohein shall be his holding": What is the intent of this? A field that went out to the Cohanim on Yovel, and one of the Cohanim redeemed it, and it is under his hand — I might think that he can say that since it was released to all of his brother Cohanim on Yovel and now it is under his hand (— I might think that he could say) "Now it is mine." It is, therefore, written "as a devoted field, to the Cohein shall be his holding" — the field of holding of the Cohein is his, but this is not his, but is released to all of his brother Cohanim (of that Yovel watch).

3) (Vayikra 27:28) ("But every 'devotion' (cherem) which a man shall devote to the L–rd, of all that he has, of man and beast, and of field of his holding, shall not be sold and shall not be redeemed; every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd.") "of all that he has": and not all that he has. "of man": to include his Canaanite man-servant and maid-servant. — But perhaps, to include his Hebrew man-servant and maid-servant! It is, therefore, written "of" man" and not "every man." "of beast," and not "every beast." "and of field of his holding," and not a field of acquisition. I might think that if a man devoted all of them (to the Temple) they would remain devoted; it is, therefore, written "But" (to exclude this). R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: If a man is not permitted to devote (all) of his possessions (to the Temple), how much, then, must he be solicitous of his possessions!

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) In sum: If he called the ninth the tenth and the tenth the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, all three are consecrated. The ninth is eaten when it sustains a blemish, the tenth is ma'aser, and the eleventh is sacrificed as peace-offerings and makes a substitute. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah said: Can a substitute make a substitute? They said in the name of R. Meir: If it were a substitute, it would not be sacrificed. If he called the ninth the tenth, and the tenth the tenth, and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not consecrated. If he called the ninth the tenth, and the tenth the eleventh, and the eleventh the tenth — Rebbi says that it (the eleventh) is not consecrated and R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says that it is consecrated. This is the rule: R. Meir was wont to say: Whatever the name "the tenth" was not uprooted from, what comes before it is consecrated; what comes after it is not consecrated.

3) I would then exclude dedications to Temple maintenance, which are not offerings, but I would not exclude communal dedications (of offerings); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:10) "He shall not exchange it." I would then exclude communal offerings, but I would not exclude offerings in partnership; it is, therefore, written (again) "and he shall not substitute for it" — An individual can make a substitution, but not the community or partners.

(Lev. 27:1-2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel [and say unto them], “When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord [the value (rt.: 'rk) of human beings (npshwt)].”’” This text is related (to Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Whoever performs deeds like Mine shall be [considered] like Me.” R. Levi said, “[The matter] is comparable to a king who built a city and lit two lanterns¹³Gk.: phanoi, also panoi. within it, and [so] all of those multitudes [in the city] called him, Augustus.¹⁴Agustah, from the Lat.: Augusta. The king said, ‘When anyone builds a city like this and lights two lanterns in it, call him Augustus and I will not be jealous of him.’ Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the heavens and set in them [two lanterns, to give light to the world], the sun and the moon, as stated (in Gen. 1:17), ‘And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Whoever makes [lights] like these shall be equal to Me.’ Thus it is stated (in Ps. 89:7), ‘For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?’ These words can only be words [referring to] light, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:4), ‘He shall set (rt.: 'rk) up [the lamps] upon the unalloyed lampstand.’ Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), ‘For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?’” That is what is written (in Is. 40:25), “’Then unto whom will you liken Me that I should be equal,’ says the Holy [One].” Do not read it as “says [the Holy],” but as “holy, will be said” (meaning, the term holy is applied to him just as holy is applied to Me); in the same way that it is written (Isaiah 17:7), “to the holy.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arok) to the Lord”; R. Eebon the Levite said, “Who like You enlightens the eyes of those in the dark, as it is stated (in Lev. 24:4), ‘He shall set (ya'arok) up [the lamps] upon the unalloyed lampstand…?’”¹⁵Above, 8:20. Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arok) to the Lord”: R. Eebon the Levite said, “Who like You clothes the naked”…. Another interpretation: “Who like you feeds the hungry?” “Is comparable (rt.: 'rk)” can only refer to the hungry, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:8-9), “[He shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) it (i.e., the shewbread) before the Lord regularly] on every Sabbath day […] And it shall belong to Aaron and his children, who shall eat it.” Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord” (in feeding the hungry)? Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord”: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world and wanted to create Adam, the ministering angels said to Him, (in Ps. 8:5), “’What is a human that You are mindful of him, and a person that You should think of him?’ What do You want from this human?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, “Who is to fulfill my Torah and My commandments?” They said to Him, “We will fulfill Your Torah.” He said to them, “It is written in [the Torah] (in Numb. 19:14), ‘This is the Torah: When a person dies in a tent,’ but there are none among you who die. It is written in [the Torah] (in Lev. 12:2), ‘When a woman emits her seed and bears a male,’ but there are none among you who bear [children]. It is written in [the Torah] (in Lev. 11:21), ‘these you may eat,’ (and in Lev 11:4) ‘these you may not eat,’ but in your case there is no eating among you. Ergo, the Torah is not going forth to you,” as stated (in Job 28:13), “nor is it found in the land of the living.” [Rather] when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel that they should make a tabernacle and an altar of burnt offering, they began to sacrifice within it. [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, began to give them several commandments. These commands concerned every single thing, and they carried them out. The Holy One, blessed be He, began to say to the ministering angels, “’Who among you would prepare (rt.: 'rk)’ [everything] for Me just as Israel prepares (rt.: 'rk) for Me, that you were saying to Me (in Ps. 8:5), ‘What is a human that You are mindful of him…?’ They prepare (rt.: 'rk) sacrifices for Me, just as stated (in Lev. 1:12), ‘and the priest shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) them,’ (in Lev. 4:10), ‘upon the altar of burnt offering.’ They set (rt.: 'rk) tables for Me, just as stated (in Lev. 24:8), ‘He shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) it (i.e., the shewbread) before the Lord regularly on every Sabbath day.’ Or is there anyone among you that evaluates the value of human beings, as stated (in Lev. 27:2), ‘When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord the value (rt.: 'rk) of human beings (npshwt).’” Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies?”

(Lev. 27:1-2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel [and say unto them], “When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord [the value (rt.: 'rk) of human beings (npshwt)].”’” This text is related (to Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Whoever performs deeds like Mine shall be [considered] like Me.” R. Levi said, “[The matter] is comparable to a king who built a city and lit two lanterns¹³Gk.: phanoi, also panoi. within it, and [so] all of those multitudes [in the city] called him, Augustus.¹⁴Agustah, from the Lat.: Augusta. The king said, ‘When anyone builds a city like this and lights two lanterns in it, call him Augustus and I will not be jealous of him.’ Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the heavens and set in them [two lanterns, to give light to the world], the sun and the moon, as stated (in Gen. 1:17), ‘And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Whoever makes [lights] like these shall be equal to Me.’ Thus it is stated (in Ps. 89:7), ‘For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?’ These words can only be words [referring to] light, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:4), ‘He shall set (rt.: 'rk) up [the lamps] upon the unalloyed lampstand.’ Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), ‘For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord?’” That is what is written (in Is. 40:25), “’Then unto whom will you liken Me that I should be equal,’ says the Holy [One].” Do not read it as “says [the Holy],” but as “holy, will be said” (meaning, the term holy is applied to him just as holy is applied to Me); in the same way that it is written (Isaiah 17:7), “to the holy.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arok) to the Lord”; R. Eebon the Levite said, “Who like You enlightens the eyes of those in the dark, as it is stated (in Lev. 24:4), ‘He shall set (ya'arok) up [the lamps] upon the unalloyed lampstand…?’”¹⁵Above, 8:20. Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arok) to the Lord”: R. Eebon the Levite said, “Who like You clothes the naked”…. Another interpretation: “Who like you feeds the hungry?” “Is comparable (rt.: 'rk)” can only refer to the hungry, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:8-9), “[He shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) it (i.e., the shewbread) before the Lord regularly] on every Sabbath day […] And it shall belong to Aaron and his children, who shall eat it.” Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord” (in feeding the hungry)? Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord”: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world and wanted to create Adam, the ministering angels said to Him, (in Ps. 8:5), “’What is a human that You are mindful of him, and a person that You should think of him?’ What do You want from this human?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, “Who is to fulfill my Torah and My commandments?” They said to Him, “We will fulfill Your Torah.” He said to them, “It is written in [the Torah] (in Numb. 19:14), ‘This is the Torah: When a person dies in a tent,’ but there are none among you who die. It is written in [the Torah] (in Lev. 12:2), ‘When a woman emits her seed and bears a male,’ but there are none among you who bear [children]. It is written in [the Torah] (in Lev. 11:21), ‘these you may eat,’ (and in Lev 11:4) ‘these you may not eat,’ but in your case there is no eating among you. Ergo, the Torah is not going forth to you,” as stated (in Job 28:13), “nor is it found in the land of the living.” [Rather] when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel that they should make a tabernacle and an altar of burnt offering, they began to sacrifice within it. [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, began to give them several commandments. These commands concerned every single thing, and they carried them out. The Holy One, blessed be He, began to say to the ministering angels, “’Who among you would prepare (rt.: 'rk)’ [everything] for Me just as Israel prepares (rt.: 'rk) for Me, that you were saying to Me (in Ps. 8:5), ‘What is a human that You are mindful of him…?’ They prepare (rt.: 'rk) sacrifices for Me, just as stated (in Lev. 1:12), ‘and the priest shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) them,’ (in Lev. 4:10), ‘upon the altar of burnt offering.’ They set (rt.: 'rk) tables for Me, just as stated (in Lev. 24:8), ‘He shall arrange (rt.: 'rk) it (i.e., the shewbread) before the Lord regularly on every Sabbath day.’ Or is there anyone among you that evaluates the value of human beings, as stated (in Lev. 27:2), ‘When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord the value (rt.: 'rk) of human beings (npshwt).’” Ergo (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies?”

“Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and he said to the reapers: May the Lord be with you. They said to him: May the Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4).
“Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem” – Rabbi Tanḥuma said in the name of the Rabbis: There are three matters that the earthly court decreed and the supernal court agreed with them, and these are: To greet another with the name of God, the Scroll of Esther, and tithes. Greeting others, from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “That think to cause My people to forget My name” (Jeremiah 23:27). When did they think to do so? It was during the days of Atalyahu. The Rabbis say: It was during the days of Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya. Rabbi Ḥananya said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon: It was during the days of Mordekhai and Esther. But Boaz and his court had arisen and instituted to greet another with the name of God, as it is stated: “Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and he said to the reapers: May the Lord be with you.” Likewise, the angel said to Gideon: “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12).
The Scroll of Esther, from where is it derived? Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak: What did Mordekhai and Esther do? They wrote letters and sent them to all the residents of the Diaspora: Do you accept upon yourselves “to observe these two days” (Esther 9:27)? [The residents of the Diaspora] sent and said [in response]: Are our problems with Haman not enough, that you impose upon us to observe these two days?¹⁵⁴They were afraid that their celebration would arouse the ill will of the gentiles. They said to them: If you are afraid of this matter, it is written among the volumes, as it is stated: “[All the acts of his power and his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordekhai, how the king advanced him,] are they not written in the book of chronicles [of the kings of Media and Persia]?” (Esther 10:2). What did they do? They wrote a second letter and sent it to them, “this second letter of Purim” (Esther 9:29).
Rabbi Ḥelbo said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: There were eighty-five elders, among them thirty-plus prophets who were distressed over this verse: “These are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 27:34) – “these” [indicates that] one may not add and one may not subtract, and a prophet is not permitted to introduce anything new from now on; and Mordekhai and Esther are asking us to take upon ourselves something new? [They were distressed] until the Holy One blessed be He enlightened them and they found it written in the Torah, in the Prophets, and in the Writings:¹⁵⁵They found an allusion to the writing of the book of Esther, and therefore were no longer concerned that the observance of Purim was considered a forbidden addition to the Torah. In the Torah, as it is written: “Write this as a memorial in the book” (Exodus 17:14). In the Prophets, as it is written: “They who feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord heeded, and heard, and it was written in the book [of remembrance]” (Malachi 3:16). In the Writings, as it is written: “Are they not written in the book of chronicles” (Esther 10:2). Rav, Rabbi Ḥanina, Rabbi Yonatan, bar Kappara, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This scroll was not stated by the court,¹⁵⁶It was not the court in the time of Mordekhai and Esther that first introduced the book of Esther. but rather was stated at Sinai, but there is no chronological order to the Torah.¹⁵⁷Therefore, it does not appear in writing until the book of Esther. From where is it derived that the Holy One blessed be He agreed with them? Rav said: “The Jews fulfilled and received [vekibbelu]” (Esther 9:27), vekibbelu (pl.) is not written, vekibbel (sing.) is written; the master of the Jews received it.¹⁵⁸The word vekibbelu is written without the concluding vav, such that it can be read in the singular. This is an allusion to the fact that Moses received it at Sinai.
Tithes, from where are they derived? It is as Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Keritzeppa: Due to the sin of [failing to separate] teruma and tithes, they were exiled. Shimon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: When they were exiled they were exempted, and they obligated themselves. What did the members of the Great Assembly do? They wrote a scroll¹⁵⁹Stating that they were obligating themselves to separate teruma and tithes even though they were exempt by Torah law. and unfurled it in the Temple courtyard, and in the morning they found it signed; that is what is written: “For all this we make a covenant, and write it, and it is signed” (Nehemiah 10:1). One verse says: “It is signed [al heḥatum (sing.)]” (Nehemiah 10:1), and one verse says: “It is signed [al haḥatumim (pl.)]” (Nehemiah 10:2). How so? Rather, al heḥatum is the supernal court, and al haḥatumim is the earthly court. Some say, the proscription of Jericho as well:¹⁶⁰Following the capture of Jericho, Joshua declared all its spoils proscribed. So said the Holy One blessed be He to Joshua: “Israel has sinned [and they have even transgressed My covenant; they have also taken from the proscribed spoils]” (Joshua 7:11). Was it not Joshua who issued the decree? This teaches that the Holy One blessed be He, too, agreed with him.¹⁶¹When one of the Israelites took from the spoils, God said that they had “transgressed My covenant.”

The firmament is similar to a lake and above the lake is a covering. From the from the lake heat condensation flows from the covering, and the condensation [as rain] descends to the midst of the salt waters [of the sea] and the rain does not mix itself [with the salt water]. Rabbi Jonah said "do not be amazed, as it is the case that the Jordan River passes through the Sea of Tiberias (the Sea of Galilee) and it does not mix itself with it; this is a miraculous thing to say! A man sifting wheat or chaff in a sieve, the grains have not descended two or three finger-breadths and they have mixed together, but these [raindrops] have traveled and traveled year after year and have not mixed themselves [with salt water]." Rabbi Yudan, son of Rabbi Shimon says "it is because he sends them down by a measured deduction, as it is said "for He draws away (yegara') the drops of water (Job 36:27)". But see how it says "and an abatement shall be made (venigra') from your assessment (Leviticus 27:18)" [showing that the financial use of this root gr' proves that God sends them down in a measured deduction]. The thickness of the earth is equal to the thickness of the firmament, as it is said "He sits above the circle (chug) of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)" [and] "He walked about the circle (chug) of the heavens (Job 22:14)". Since "circle" (chug) occurs in both verses, they are a gezeira shavah [proving the earth and firmament have the same thickness]. Rabbi Acha said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: "This is like a metal plate". Rabbi Joshua, the son of Rabbi Nehemiah, said: "They are about two or three finger-breadths". Rabbi Shimon the son of Pazzi said: "The upper waters are greater than the lower waters by about thirty xestes (pints). "Between the waters above the waters (la-mayim)" [the lamed's gematria is] thirty [thus proving his point that the waters above have thirty extra pints]. The rabbis said "they are half and half".

4) — But something that you learn in one way, you should learn in all the ways that appertain to it, viz.: Just as with the "unclean beast" (mentioned here), its beginning is consecration, (but not its end [i.e., it is unfit as an offering]), and it is subject to me'ilah (defilement of sacred property), and it belongs entirely to Heaven (i.e., before it is redeemed, neither Cohanim not non-Cohanim have any rights in it) — so, I will include (for valuation and redemption) what is like it. And what is that? The bullocks for burning and the he-goats for burning, (which have now become blemished). Whence do I derive (for inclusion) holy of holies, and lower order offerings, both communal and individual? From "and if any unclean beast," instead of (merely) "unclean beast."

4) (Vayikra 27:17) "If from the Yovel year he shall consecrate his field, according to your valuation shall it stand." Whence is it derived that one is not permitted to consecrate his field at the time of Yovel and that if he does, it is not consecrated? From "If from the Yovel year he shall consecrate his field." "his field": What is the intent of this (apparent redundancy)? Where is it derived that if there were in it clefts ten tefachim deep or rocks ten tefachim high they are not measured together with it? From "his field."

4) "a vow in your valuation": Vows are likened to valuations. Just as vows are subject to "Do not delay to pay it," so, valuations.

4) "shall not be sold": to others. "and shall not be redeemed": by the owner. What shall he do with it? (Vayikra 27:21) "To the Cohein (of that watch) shall be his holding." I might think (that this is so) even if he stipulated "to the L–rd." It is, therefore, written "every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd" (i.e., if he stipulates "to the L–rd" it reverts not to the Cohein but to Temple maintenance).

4) (Vayikra 27:22) ("And if the field of his acquisition [from another], which is not of the field of his [family] holding, he shall consecrate to the L–rd, [and he comes to redeem it],") What is the intent of this? If one acquired a field from his father, and his father died, and then he consecrated it, I might think that it is reckoned as a field of acquisition; it is, therefore, written "which is not of the field of his (family) holding" — a field which is not a field of holding, to exclude this, which is a field of holding. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say: If one acquired a field from his father, and he consecrated it and then his father died, I might think that it is reckoned as a field of acquisition; it is, therefore, written "which is not of the field of his holding" — a field which was not fit to be a field of holding, to exclude this, which was fit to be a field of holding. A field of acquisition (which was consecrated and not redeemed) does not revert to the Cohanim on Yovel, for one cannot consecrate something that is not his. (Vayikra 27:23) ("Then the Cohein shall reckon for him michsath your valuation until the Jubilee year, and he shall give your valuation on that day; it is holy to the L–rd.") "Then the Cohein shall reckon for him 'michsath'": michsath connotes "amount of money," i.e., he gives what it is worth.

4) (Vayikra 27:22) ("And if the field of his acquisition [from another], which is not of the field of his [family] holding, he shall consecrate to the L–rd, [and he comes to redeem it],") What is the intent of this? If one acquired a field from his father, and his father died, and then he consecrated it, I might think that it is reckoned as a field of acquisition; it is, therefore, written "which is not of the field of his (family) holding" — a field which is not a field of holding, to exclude this, which is a field of holding. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say: If one acquired a field from his father, and he consecrated it and then his father died, I might think that it is reckoned as a field of acquisition; it is, therefore, written "which is not of the field of his holding" — a field which was not fit to be a field of holding, to exclude this, which was fit to be a field of holding. A field of acquisition (which was consecrated and not redeemed) does not revert to the Cohanim on Yovel, for one cannot consecrate something that is not his. (Vayikra 27:23) ("Then the Cohein shall reckon for him michsath your valuation until the Jubilee year, and he shall give your valuation on that day; it is holy to the L–rd.") "Then the Cohein shall reckon for him 'michsath'": michsath connotes "amount of money," i.e., he gives what it is worth.

4) "shall not be sold": to others. "and shall not be redeemed": by the owner. What shall he do with it? (Vayikra 27:21) "To the Cohein (of that watch) shall be his holding." I might think (that this is so) even if he stipulated "to the L–rd." It is, therefore, written "every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd" (i.e., if he stipulates "to the L–rd" it reverts not to the Cohein but to Temple maintenance).

4) R. Shimon said: Was not ma'aser (a tithe) was in the category (of all consecrated animals in respect to substitution). Why, then, was it singled out for special mention? (viz. Vayikra 27:33) To teach: Just as ma'aser is an individual (as opposed to a communal) offering, so all (such animals) are included (in respect to substitution), and just as ma'aser is an altar offering, so all (such animals are included).

4) (Vayikra 27:33) ("He shall not discriminate between good and bad, and he shall not substitute for it; and if he did substitute for it, then it and its substitute shall be holy. It shall not be redeemed.") Because it is written (Devarim 12:11) "and all the choicest of your vows," I might think that he should "spy out" (his flock) and pick out the choicest (for ma'aser); it is, therefore, written "he shall not discriminate between good and bad." "and he shall not substitute for it": If he did, he receives forty lashes. "if substitute he shall substitute": to include his wife. "and if substitute he shall substitute": to include his heir. "then it and its substitute shall be holy. It shall not be redeemed": About a bechor it is written (Bamidbar 18:17) "you shall not redeem," (but) it is sold, when whole, alive. And when blemished, (it is sold) alive or slaughtered; but (it is) not (sold) slaughtered when whole. And about ma'aser it is written (here) "It shall not be redeemed." And it is not to be sold neither alive nor slaughtered; nor whole nor blemished.

4) "then he shall take one he-lamb as a guilt-offering": R. Akiva asked R. Nechemiah: What is the intent of "one"? He answered: This one (the leper) brings according to his means and one who atones for sanctuary uncleanliness brings according to his means. (I might think that) just as the latter brings two birds (a sin-offering and a burnt-offering) instead of one (ewe-lamb) as a sin-offering, so, this one (the leper) brings two (birds) instead of the (ewe-lamb) sin-offering, (one for a sin-offering; the other for a burnt-offering), and the beast burnt-offering, (for which the rich man brings a he-lamb for a burnt-offering) is binding (also upon the poor man to bring, so that he will have to bring two he-lambs, one for a guilt-offering and one for a burnt-offering.) It, therefore, must be written "one he-lamb as a guilt-offering," (and not more.) R. Akiva said to him: From "the place that you come" (that he must bring two, I can deduce that he brings only one, viz.) This one (the leper) brings from his means, and the sanctuary defiler brings from his means. Just as the latter brings two for (the sin-offering, which is) his atonement (and he need bring nothing more), so this one (the leper), need bring only (these) two (birds) for his atonement, (and nothing more)! He answered: If not (as I say), how do you satisfy it ("one he-lamb as a guilt-offering")? He answered: This one (the leper) brings from his means and in valuations one also brings from his means (viz. [Vayikra 27:8]: "According to the means of the vower shall the Cohein valuate him.") (I might think that) just as there he brings whatever he can attain, so this one brings whatever he can attain, (so that if he can attain two birds and two sheep he should bring them); it is, therefore, written "one" (he-lamb. Even if he can attain two sheep, he brings only one he-lamb as a guilt-offering, and two birds, one as a burnt-offering; the other, as a sin-offering).

4) R. Shimon said: Was not ma'aser (a tithe) was in the category (of all consecrated animals in respect to substitution). Why, then, was it singled out for special mention? (viz. Vayikra 27:33) To teach: Just as ma'aser is an individual (as opposed to a communal) offering, so all (such animals) are included (in respect to substitution), and just as ma'aser is an altar offering, so all (such animals are included).

(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.’”

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2) “When anyone explicitly vows […]”: This text is related (to Prov. 11:30), “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).” If a person is righteous, and does not occupy himself with Torah, even though he is righteous, he has nothing in his possession. Rather, “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; this refers to the Torah. Because when one is a Torah scholar (literally, child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (npshwt), as stated (ibid.), “but a wise person acquires lives.” As if he makes a vow for the value of human beings, he would have learned what to do from the Torah. But if he does not have Torah in his possession, he has nothing in his possession. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he lost his daughter.¹⁶Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the Children of Ammon and made a vow at that time, as stated (in Jud. 11:30-31), “Then Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, [and said, ‘If You indeed give the Children of Ammon into my hand;] Then it shall be that whatever comes forth…, shall belong to the Lord, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.’” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, was angry with him. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to Me.” Hence He summoned his daughter to him. And why so much? So that all those that vow will learn the laws of vows and abnegations. [And the result was (in Jud. 11:34-35),] “and there was his daughter coming out to greet him [….] And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes […].” But was not Phinehas there?¹⁷Since he was an outstanding Torah scholar, and an outstanding Torah scholar could have annulled the vow. And still he said (in vs. 35), “and I cannot retract?” However, Phinehas had said, “I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus ('am ha'arets)?” [And] Jephthah said, “I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?”¹⁸Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished from the world; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the holy spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7), “and he was buried in the cities of Gilead.”¹⁹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. When he sought to sacrifice her, she cried in front of him. His daughter said to him, “My father, I came out to greet you in joy, and [now] you slaughter me? Is it perhaps that the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote in the Torah that Israel offer the lives (npshwt) of people in front of the Holy One, blessed be He? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2), ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord from the beasts.’ ‘From the beasts’ and not from people?” He said to her, “My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31), ‘Then it shall be that whatever comes forth […].’ Is it possible that anyone who makes a vow does not have to fulfill his vow?” She said to him, “Behold, when our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22), ‘and of all that You give me, I will surely set aside a tithe for You’; when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him twelve sons, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? Moreover, does not Hannah [do likewise], when she makes a vow and says (as reported in I Sam. 1:11), ‘And she made a vow and said, “Lord of hosts, if You will surely see… [then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life].”’ Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One, blessed be He?” All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. When she saw that he did not heed her, she said to him, “Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words.” Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37), “leave me alone for two months, so that I may go and come down to the mountains.” R. Zechariah said, “Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of ‘and come down to the mountains?’ These represent the Sanhedrin,²⁰Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2), ‘Hear, O mountains, the lawsuit of the Lord.’” She went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow, because of the sin of those that he slaughtered from the tribe of Ephraim. So it is with reference to him that Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3), “A poor man who exploits the indigent is a torrential rain which leaves no bread.” “A poor man who exploits the indigent.” This is referring to Jephthah; since he was poor in Torah like a [mere] sycamore shoot.²¹The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) “Who exploits the indigent,” since he exploited the indigent, when he said [to the men of Ephraim] (in Jud. 12:6), “Say, ‘Shibboleth’; and he said, ‘Sibboleth,’ not being able to pronounce it correctly.” Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) “a torrential rain, and there is no bread,” in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.), “there is no bread,” in that the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One, blessed be He. Then the holy spirit proclaimed, “Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (npshwt) to Me, [lives] (according to Jer. 19:5), ‘which I never commanded, never spoke for, and which never entered My mind.’” “Which I never commanded” Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12), “Do not raise your hand against the lad.” [This was] in order to make known Abraham’s love [of God] to the nations of the world, that he did not spare his only one from Me and carried out the will of his Maker. (Jer 19:5 cont.:) “Never spoke” to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to Me. Rabbi Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish [differed on the matter]. Rabbi Johanan says, “He was liable for money [in order to fulfill his vow], like the matter is written in Arakhin.” And R. Simoen ben Laquish said, “[He was liable for] nothing, as he made a stipulation about something that is impossible to sacrifice, and [so] there was no [liability] upon him.” “And which never entered my mind,” this is referring to Misha the king of Moab, about whom it is written that when he fell into the hand of the king of Israel (in II Kings 3:27), “And he took his firstborn son, who would become king in his stead, and offered him up as a burnt offering upon the wall.” What caused Misha to sacrifice his son?²²See the parallel text in Buber Tanchuma 10:7, which has the final question being about Jephthah, which fits much better with the continuation of the section. Because he was not a Torah scholar; for if he had read the Torah, he would not have lost his son, since it is written (in Lev 27:2-4) “When anyone explicitly vows [to the Lord the value of human beings (npshwt)] And the value of a male shall be […]. And if it is a female….” Ergo (in Prov. 11:30), “but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).”

An objection was raised from the following passage (Lev. 27, 13) I will lead you Kom'miyuth. R. Maier says: "This means two hundred ells above the surface, double the height of Adam the first, who was one hundred ells." R. Juda says: "It means one hundred ells above the surface, the size of the Temple with its walls, as it is said (Ps. 144, 12) So that our sons may be like plants grown up in their youth, our daughters like corner-pillars, sculptured after the model of a palace." [Hence we see that according to both the height of the Temple will be one hundred cubits at least. Why, then, said R. Jochanan, only twenty in height]? R. Jochanan meant only for the apertures for the air.

5) (Vayikra 27:10) "and he shall not substitute for it." The consecrated animal is susceptible of substitution, but not its substitute. R. Yehudah said: And the offspring (consecrated animals) are not susceptible of substitution.

5) "then the beast shall be stood before the Cohein": A beast can be redeemed, but birds, wood, frankincense, and serving vessels (which became defiled) cannot be redeemed.

5) "according to your valuation shall it stand": He gives forty-nine selaim and forty-nine pondionoth. What is the nature (i.e., the purpose) of this pondion? It is the premium (for exchange of currency).

5) R. Elazar said: It is written here "Then he shall reckon" and elsewhere (Vayikra 27:18) "Then he shall reckon." Just as there, he gives the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels, so, here.

5) "in your valuation": to include an unspecified valuation. Variantly: He gives his entire value and not the value of individual limbs.

5) (another answer:) Because it is written (Vayikra 25:30) "And if it (the house) is not redeemed until its fulfillment of a complete year, etc.", I might think (that this restriction applies) even to the Levites, it is, therefore, written "a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites." (another answer):) Because it is written (Vayikra 27:20-21) "And if he does not redeem the field, and if he sells the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed again. And the field shall be, when it goes out on the Yovel, holy to the L–rd, as a devoted field; to the Cohanim shall be his holding" — I might think that the same applies to the Levites; it is, therefore, written "a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites."

5) (another answer:) Because it is written (Vayikra 25:30) "And if it (the house) is not redeemed until its fulfillment of a complete year, etc.", I might think (that this restriction applies) even to the Levites, it is, therefore, written "a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites." (another answer):) Because it is written (Vayikra 27:20-21) "And if he does not redeem the field, and if he sells the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed again. And the field shall be, when it goes out on the Yovel, holy to the L–rd, as a devoted field; to the Cohanim shall be his holding" — I might think that the same applies to the Levites; it is, therefore, written "a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites."

5) R. Elazar said: It is written here "Then he shall reckon" and elsewhere (Vayikra 27:18) "Then he shall reckon." Just as there, he gives the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels, so, here.

5) R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: Whence is it derived that unspecified "devotions" go to Temple maintenance? From "every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd." I might think, even if he specified "to the Cohein"; it is, therefore, written "it ([i.e., unspecified] to the L–rd").

5) And whence is it derived that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast? From "shall be holy." R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written here "ya'avor" ("that shall pass"), and, elsewhere (Shemoth 13:12) "veha'avarta" ("And you shall set apart [every firstling of the womb"]) — whereby we are apprised that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast.

(Lev. 27:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [AND SAY UNTO THEM]: WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE (rt.: 'RK) OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT). This text is related (to Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD, [IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS]? The Holy One said: Whoever performs deeds like mine shall be like me.²¹Tanh., Lev. 10:4. R. Levi said: < The matter > is comparable to a king who built a city and lit two lanterns²²Gk.: phanoi, also panoi. within it. The king said: When anyone lights two lanterns like these, I will call him Augustus²³Agustah, from the Lat.: Augusta. and not be jealous of him. Similarly, the Holy One created the heavens and set in them [two lanterns, to give light to the world], the sun and the moon, as stated (in Gen. 1:17): AND GOD SET THEM IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVENS TO GIVE LIGHT UPON THE EARTH. The Holy One said: Whoever makes < lights > like these shall be equal to me. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD? These words can only be words < referring to > light, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:4): HE SHALL SET (rt.: 'RK) UP < THE LAMPS > UPON THE UNALLOYED LAMPSTAND. [Ergo²⁴The bracketed section, which extends to the end of this section (6), is missing from Buber’s main Oxford ms. He has added it from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34, and from the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 1:3. (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD, IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS? That is what it is written (in Is. 40:25): THEN UNTO WHOM WILL YOU LIKEN ME THAT I SHOULD BE EQUAL? SAYS THE HOLY ONE. < The term > HOLY is applied to him just as HOLY is applied to me.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2), “When anyone explicitly vows”: The nations say (in Micah 6:6-7), “With what shall I come before the Lord, bow myself before God on high, [….] Does the Lord want thousands of rams […] shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my belly for the sin of my soul?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, “Do you want to offer your children to Me? Neither your children nor your sacrifices do I want. For my children I have given a Parashah on value equivalents (in Lev. 27:1-8) and a Parashah on sacrifices, as it is their sacrifices that are beloved in front of Me.” And so it says (in Ps. 37:16), “Better is the little of the righteous.” You yourself know what is at the beginning of the book (in Lev. 1:2), “Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord,’” [i.e.] “of you,” and not "of the nations." Then at the end of the book [one finds (in Lev. 27:2),] “Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them, ‘When anyone explicitly [vows].’” It also says (in Ps. 147:19), “He declares His words to Jacob….” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel. “If you bring before me your value equivalents, I will ascribe it to you as if you had offered up your lives before Me.” It is therefore stated (in Lev. 27:2), “When anyone explicitly vows [to the Lord the value of human beings].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “By virtue of the value equivalents (rt.: 'rk) I am saving you from the [fiery] preparation (rt.: 'rk) of Geihinnom,²³Cf. Exod. R. 50:5. as stated (in Is. 30:33), “For Topheth has been prepared (rt.: 'rk) from of old.” And I will prepare a table before you, just as David has stated (in Ps. 23:5), “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.”

Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE TO THE LORD? When the Holy One wanted to create Adam, the ministering angels said to the Holy One (in Ps. 8:5 [4]): WHAT IS A HUMAN THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM, AND A CHILD OF ADAM THAT YOU SHOULD THINK OF HIM? What do you want from this human? The Holy One said to them: Who is to fulfill my Torah and my commandments? They said to him: We will fulfill your Torah. He said to them: You are unable. They²⁶Although the Buber text reads “he” here, the context certainly requires the plural, “they.” said to him: Why? He said to them: It is written in < Torah > (in Numb. 19:14): < THIS IS THE TORAH: > WHEN A PERSON DIES IN HIS TENT, but there are none among you who die. It is written in < Torah > (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE, but there are none among you who bear < children >. It is written in < Torah > (in Lev. 11:21): THESE YOU MAY EAT, but in your case there is no eating among you. Ergo, the Torah is not going forth to you, as stated (in Job 28:13): NOR IS < WISDOM > FOUND IN THE LAND OF THE LIVING. Rather when the Holy One said to Israel that they should make a tabernacle for him and < when > they had made it, they began to build the altar of burnt offering, the altar of incense, and to offer sacrifice within it. < Then > the Holy One began to give them several commandments. These commands concerned every single thing, and they carried them out. The Holy One began to say to the ministering Angels: Who among you would prepare (rt.: 'RK) < everything > for me just as Israel prepares (rt.: 'RK) for me? Now you were saying to me (in Ps. 8:5 [4]): WHAT IS A HUMAN THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM…? They prepare (rt.: 'RK) sacrifices for me, just as stated (in Lev. 1:12): AND THE PRIEST SHALL ARRANGE (rt.: 'RK) THEM. They set (rt.: 'RK) tables for me, just as stated (in Lev. 24:8): HE SHALL ARRANGE (rt.: 'RK) IT (i.e., the shewbread) BEFORE THE LORD REGULARLY ON EVERY SABBATH DAY. They prepare (rt.: 'RK) human beings for me, just as stated (in Lev. 27:2): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE (rt.: 'RK) OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT). Ergo (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD (i.e., is capable of making preparations for the Lord)?]

6) "good by bad or bad by good": Whole animals by blemished ones, or blemished ones by whole ones. Whence is it derived that "bad" signifies "blemished"? From (Devarim 17:1) "You shall not sacrifice to the L–rd your G d an ox or a sheep in which there is a blemish, any bad thing." "and if he substitutes substitutes": to include women (in the laws of substitution). "and if he substitutes, substitutes": to include the heir. "beast for beast": one (non-sacred beast) for two (sacred ones), or two (non-sacred ones) for one (sacred one), one for a hundred or a hundred for one. R. Shimon says: (One) beast for (one) beast, and not (one) beast for (many) beasts. They said to him: (One) beast is called a beast, and many beasts are called a beast, as it is written (Yonah 4:11) "and many beast."

6) (Vayikra 27:12) ("And the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad. As the Cohein valuates it for you, so shall it be.") "And the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad.": Consecrated animals are not redeemed by approximation, (but there must be an exact estimate). "As the Cohein valuates it for you, so shall it be": If one said: I will take it for ten selaim; another: for twenty; another: for thirty; another: for forty; another: for fifty — If the "fifty" backed out, his property is attached for ten selaim; if the "forty," his property is attached for ten; if the "thirty," his property is attached for ten; if the "twenty," his property is attached for ten; if the "ten," the animal is sold for its (market) worth, and the balance is made up by the "ten."

6) (Vayikra 27:18) ("And if after the Yovel year he shall consecrate his field, then the Cohein shall reckon for him the money remaining until the Yovel year, and it shall be deducted from your valuation.") "after the Yovel": (This implies) next to the Yovel (i.e., the first year after the Yovel). Whence do we derive (the same for a year) removed from the Yovel (i.e., the second year, the third year, etc.)? From "And (connoting inclusion) if after the Yovel year he shall consecrate his field." "his field": (See 4 above).

6) I might think that I (also) exclude (from valuation even) an organ that one's life is dependent upon; it is, therefore, written "souls" (i.e., if he dedicates such an organ, he pays the value of his entire "soul.") "souls": and not (if he dedicates the value of) a dead body. I would then exclude a dead body, but I would not exclude one who is at the point of death. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:8) "then he shall be stood … and the Cohein shall valuate him." One who can be "stood" is subject to valuation; one who cannot be "stood" is not subject to valuation.

6) "and he shall give your valuation on that day": He should not delay (in expectation of a higher valuation later). For even if the poorest of men has a precious jewel, (which might fetch a very high price elsewhere), he is valuated only according to his present place and time.

6) Whence is it derived that one can "devote" his consecrations (i.e., that (the term) "cherem" can "take" upon his consecrations to the Cohein)? From "cherem holy." Whence is it derived that "cherem" can "take" upon his consecration of holy of holies? From "every cherem holy of holies." I might think that Cohanim and Levites can make "devotions"; it is, therefore, written "But" (to exclude this). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: Cohanim do not "devote," for devotions revert to them. Levites can "devote," for devotions do not revert to them. Rebbi says: The words of R. Yehudah (that Cohanim and Levites cannot "devote") seem correct in respect to land, it being written (Vayikra 25:34) "for it (i.e., their land) is a perpetual holding for them" (and cannot be consecrated). And the words of R. Shimon (that Levites can "devote") seem correct in respect to movable objects, for devotions do not revert to them.

6) R. Akiva says (Devarim 14:22) "Tithe shall you tithe" — two tithes. We are hereby apprised that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast.

6) I might think that I (also) exclude (from valuation even) an organ that one's life is dependent upon; it is, therefore, written "souls" (i.e., if he dedicates such an organ, he pays the value of his entire "soul.") "souls": and not (if he dedicates the value of) a dead body. I would then exclude a dead body, but I would not exclude one who is at the point of death. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:8) "then he shall be stood … and the Cohein shall valuate him." One who can be "stood" is subject to valuation; one who cannot be "stood" is not subject to valuation.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. This text is related (to Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, [BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NPShWT)]. This refers to the Torah, because when one is a Torah scholar (literally: child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (NPShWT), as stated (ibid.): BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES.²⁷Tanh., Lev. 10:5. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he forfeited his daughter.²⁸Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the children of Ammon and made a vow, as stated (in Jud. 11:30–31): THEN JEPHTHAH MADE A VOW TO THE LORD, < AND SAID: IF YOU INDEED GIVE THE CHILDREN OF AMMON INTO MY HAND, > THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…, < SHALL BELONG TO THE LORD, AND I WILL OFFER IT UP AS A BURNT OFFERING >. At that time the Holy One was angry with him. The Holy One said: If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to me. The Holy One summoned his daughter to him, as stated (in Jud. 11:34–35): AND THERE WAS HIS DAUGHTER COMING OUT TO MEET HIM <…. > AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE SAW HER, < THAT HE RENT HIS CLOTHES…. > But was not Phinehas there?²⁹As a high priest he could have annulled the vow, as explained in Eccl. R. 10:15:1, as well as in Gen. R. 60:5 and Lev. R. 37:4. Still he said (in vs. 35): AND I CANNOT RETRACT. However, Phinehas had said: I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus 'am ha'arets)? But Jephthah said: I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?³⁰Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the Holy Spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7): AND HE WAS BURIED IN THE CITIES OF GILEAD.³¹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. His daughter had said to him: My Father, is it ever written in the Torah: They offer the lives (NPShWT) of their sons upon the alter? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2): [WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD FROM THE CATTLE], < YOU SHALL PRESENT YOUR OFFERING > FROM THE HERD OR FROM THE FLOCK, < i.e., > from the cattle and not from the children of Adam? He said to her: My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31): THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…. [She said to him:] When our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22): AND OF ALL THAT YOU GIVE ME, I WILL SURELY SET ASIDE A TITHE FOR YOU, and when the Holy One gave him twelve tribes, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? [Moreover, does not Hannah < do likewise >, when she makes a vow and says (in I Sam. 1:11): THEN I WILL GIVE HIM TO THE LORD ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE. Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One?] All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. She said to him: Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words. Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37): LEAVE ME ALONE FOR TWO MONTHS, [SO THAT I MAY GO AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS]. R. Levi ben Berekhyah said: Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS? These represent the Sanhedrin,³²Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2): HEAR, O MOUNTAINS, THE LAWSUIT OF THE LORD. [She³³The bracketed section, which continues to near the end of the paragraph, is taken from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34, and from the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 10:7. went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow. So it is with reference to him that the Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3): A POOR MAN WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT IS A TORRENTIAL RAIN WHICH LEAVES NO BREAD. A POOR MAN: This is Jephthah, since he was poor in the Torah. He was a < mere > sycamore shoot.³⁴The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT, since he exploited the indigent, when he said (in Jud. 12:6): SAY: SHIBBOLETH; AND HE SAID SIBBOLETH. Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) A TORRENTIAL RAIN, AND THERE IS NO BREAD, in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.): THERE IS NO BREAD, in that the Holy One had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One. Then the Holy Spirit proclaimed: Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (NPShWT) to me, < lives > (according to Jer. 19:5), WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED, NEVER SPOKE FOR, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND. WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12): DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND AGAINST THE LAD…. < It was > in order to make known to you how Abraham carried out my will, when the nations of the world were saying: Why does the Holy One love Abraham so much? For that reason he said to him (in Gen. 22:2): PLEASE TAKE YOUR SON…. Ergo (in Jer. 19:5): WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED Abraham, certainly not to slaughter his son, NEVER SPOKE FOR to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to me, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND, that the king of Moab would fall into the hand of the King of Israel and offer up his firstborn son to me as a sacrifice, as stated (in II Kings 3:27): SO HE TOOK HIS FIRSTBORN SON, WHO WOULD BECOME KING IN HIS STEAD, AND OFFERED HIM UP AS A BURNT OFFERING UPON THE WALL.] Who caused Jephthah to forfeit his daughter? < He himself > because he had not studied the Torah; for if he had studied the Torah, he would not had forfeited his daughter, since it is written (in Lev. 27:2, 4): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS < TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT) >…. AND IF IT IS A FEMALE < …. > Ergo (in Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, < BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NPShWT) >.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. This text is related (to Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, [BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NPShWT)]. This refers to the Torah, because when one is a Torah scholar (literally: child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (NPShWT), as stated (ibid.): BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES.²⁷Tanh., Lev. 10:5. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he forfeited his daughter.²⁸Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the children of Ammon and made a vow, as stated (in Jud. 11:30–31): THEN JEPHTHAH MADE A VOW TO THE LORD, < AND SAID: IF YOU INDEED GIVE THE CHILDREN OF AMMON INTO MY HAND, > THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…, < SHALL BELONG TO THE LORD, AND I WILL OFFER IT UP AS A BURNT OFFERING >. At that time the Holy One was angry with him. The Holy One said: If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to me. The Holy One summoned his daughter to him, as stated (in Jud. 11:34–35): AND THERE WAS HIS DAUGHTER COMING OUT TO MEET HIM <…. > AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE SAW HER, < THAT HE RENT HIS CLOTHES…. > But was not Phinehas there?²⁹As a high priest he could have annulled the vow, as explained in Eccl. R. 10:15:1, as well as in Gen. R. 60:5 and Lev. R. 37:4. Still he said (in vs. 35): AND I CANNOT RETRACT. However, Phinehas had said: I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus 'am ha'arets)? But Jephthah said: I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?³⁰Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the Holy Spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7): AND HE WAS BURIED IN THE CITIES OF GILEAD.³¹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. His daughter had said to him: My Father, is it ever written in the Torah: They offer the lives (NPShWT) of their sons upon the alter? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2): [WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD FROM THE CATTLE], < YOU SHALL PRESENT YOUR OFFERING > FROM THE HERD OR FROM THE FLOCK, < i.e., > from the cattle and not from the children of Adam? He said to her: My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31): THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…. [She said to him:] When our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22): AND OF ALL THAT YOU GIVE ME, I WILL SURELY SET ASIDE A TITHE FOR YOU, and when the Holy One gave him twelve tribes, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? [Moreover, does not Hannah < do likewise >, when she makes a vow and says (in I Sam. 1:11): THEN I WILL GIVE HIM TO THE LORD ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE. Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One?] All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. She said to him: Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words. Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37): LEAVE ME ALONE FOR TWO MONTHS, [SO THAT I MAY GO AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS]. R. Levi ben Berekhyah said: Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS? These represent the Sanhedrin,³²Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2): HEAR, O MOUNTAINS, THE LAWSUIT OF THE LORD. [She³³The bracketed section, which continues to near the end of the paragraph, is taken from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34, and from the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 10:7. went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow. So it is with reference to him that the Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3): A POOR MAN WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT IS A TORRENTIAL RAIN WHICH LEAVES NO BREAD. A POOR MAN: This is Jephthah, since he was poor in the Torah. He was a < mere > sycamore shoot.³⁴The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT, since he exploited the indigent, when he said (in Jud. 12:6): SAY: SHIBBOLETH; AND HE SAID SIBBOLETH. Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) A TORRENTIAL RAIN, AND THERE IS NO BREAD, in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.): THERE IS NO BREAD, in that the Holy One had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One. Then the Holy Spirit proclaimed: Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (NPShWT) to me, < lives > (according to Jer. 19:5), WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED, NEVER SPOKE FOR, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND. WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12): DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND AGAINST THE LAD…. < It was > in order to make known to you how Abraham carried out my will, when the nations of the world were saying: Why does the Holy One love Abraham so much? For that reason he said to him (in Gen. 22:2): PLEASE TAKE YOUR SON…. Ergo (in Jer. 19:5): WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED Abraham, certainly not to slaughter his son, NEVER SPOKE FOR to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to me, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND, that the king of Moab would fall into the hand of the King of Israel and offer up his firstborn son to me as a sacrifice, as stated (in II Kings 3:27): SO HE TOOK HIS FIRSTBORN SON, WHO WOULD BECOME KING IN HIS STEAD, AND OFFERED HIM UP AS A BURNT OFFERING UPON THE WALL.] Who caused Jephthah to forfeit his daughter? < He himself > because he had not studied the Torah; for if he had studied the Torah, he would not had forfeited his daughter, since it is written (in Lev. 27:2, 4): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS < TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT) >…. AND IF IT IS A FEMALE < …. > Ergo (in Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, < BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NPShWT) >.

(Exod. 30:13:) A HALF SHEKEL. R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differ. R. Judah says: Because (in the matter of the calf) they sinned in the middle of the day, they would give the half shekel. But R. Nehemiah said: Because they sinned for six hours in the day, they would give the half shekel,²²ySheq. 2:4 or 3 (46d); see Tanh., Exod. 9:10. See also below, Exod. 9:13. since it consists of six grammata.²³The Greek word (gramma in the singular) denotes a small weight of 1/24 ounce. R. Judah bar Nehemiah said in the name of R. Johanan ben Zakkay: Because Israel transgressed (rt.: 'BR) the Ten Commandments, they would give ten gerahs.²⁴Cf. Exod. 30:13 = Numb. 3:47: THE SHEKEL IS TWENTY GERAHS. Similarly Lev. 27:25; Numb. 18:16; Ezek. 45:12. R. Berekhyah said in the name of Resh Laqish: You sold Rachel's first-born for twenty <pieces of> silver (according to Gen. 37:28); therefore, in the case of every first-born that you shall have, his redemption shall be five shekels of silver, as stated (in Numb. 3:47): YOU SHALL TAKE FIVE <SHEKELS> EACH.

Another interpretation (of Ps. 36:7 [6]): 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.³⁵Lev. 27:1. Thus it is stated (in Is. 3:10): TELL THE RIGHTEOUS THAT < ALL IS > WELL FOR THEM, FOR THEY SHALL EAT THE FRUIT OF THEIR WORKS. To what is the matter comparable? To a gold bell with a pearl³⁶Gk.: margarites, margaritis, margaritarion, or margellion. clapper. Similarly the righteous do good for themselves and do good for others. (Ps. 36:7 [6] 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 to not possess good works. Instead they are distressing for themselves and for others.

7) "beast for beast": not beast for birds and not birds for beast, and not beast for meal-offerings and not meal-offerings for beast, and not beast for them.

7) (Vayikra 27:13) "And if he would redeem, redeem it": to include one's heir. "then he shall add its fifth to your valuations": There are two (valuations) here (Vayikra 27 verse 12 and Vayikra 27 verse 13), one that adds a fifth (Vayikra 27 verse 13) and one that does not add a fifth (Vayikra 27 verse 12), and it is not known whether the owner or other men are being referred to. Just as we find in the "redemptions" mentioned below, the owner adds a fifth, but not other men (who wish to purchase it), so, in the "redemptions" mentioned here, the owner adds a fifth, and not other men.

7) Whence is it derived that there are no consecrations fewer than two years before the Yovel and no redemptions less than one year after the Yovel? From "And the Cohein shall reckon for him the money (to be returned to the Temple) according to the 'years' (a minimum of two) remaining until the Yovel year."

7) Variantly: What is the intent of "souls"? I might think (that the valuation takes effect) only if one (pronounced the formula of) valuation for one. Whence do I derive the same for one who valuated for one hundred? From "souls." Variantly: What is the intent of "souls"? I might think (that the valuation is valid) only if a man valuated either a man or a woman. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman who valuated a man or a woman? From "souls." Variantly: What is the intent of "souls"? I might think that all who are included in money (value) are included in valuations, but those who are (physically) repulsive or covered with boils, and not included in money (value), are not included in valuations. It is, therefore, written "souls."

7) (Vayikra 27:24) "In the Yovel year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought": I might think, to the Temple treasurer, from whom it was bought (by the last purchaser); it is, therefore, written "to the one who has the holding in the land (i.e., the original owner). (In that case let it be written [only] "to the one who has the holding in the land." Why state "to the one from whom it was bought'? (For I might think that) a field which went out to the Cohanim on the Yovel and was sold by the Cohein (who acquired it), and was consecrated by the buyer — I might think that when the second Yovel arrived, it reverted to the original owner (whose field of holding it was before he consecrated it); it is, therefore, written "to the one from whom it was bought" (namely, the Cohein who sold it, [as opposed to the original owner, who consecrated it]). (Vayikra 27:25) ("And all of your valuations (concerning which it is written "shekalim") shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary; twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") "And all of your shekels shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary": There is no valuation less than a sela (the same as a shekel). "according to the shekel of the sanctuary": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:27) "and he shall redeem," I might think, with servants, deeds, and land; it is, therefore written "with the shekel of the sanctuary." This tells me only of the shekel of selaim of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive for inclusion anything that is (of monetary value and is) movable? From "and he shall redeem." If so, why is it written "with the shekel of the sanctuary"? To exclude servants, deeds, and land.

7) (Vayikra 27:24) "In the Yovel year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought": I might think, to the Temple treasurer, from whom it was bought (by the last purchaser); it is, therefore, written "to the one who has the holding in the land (i.e., the original owner). (In that case let it be written [only] "to the one who has the holding in the land." Why state "to the one from whom it was bought'? (For I might think that) a field which went out to the Cohanim on the Yovel and was sold by the Cohein (who acquired it), and was consecrated by the buyer — I might think that when the second Yovel arrived, it reverted to the original owner (whose field of holding it was before he consecrated it); it is, therefore, written "to the one from whom it was bought" (namely, the Cohein who sold it, [as opposed to the original owner, who consecrated it]). (Vayikra 27:25) ("And all of your valuations (concerning which it is written "shekalim") shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary; twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") "And all of your shekels shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary": There is no valuation less than a sela (the same as a shekel). "according to the shekel of the sanctuary": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:27) "and he shall redeem," I might think, with servants, deeds, and land; it is, therefore written "with the shekel of the sanctuary." This tells me only of the shekel of selaim of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive for inclusion anything that is (of monetary value and is) movable? From "and he shall redeem." If so, why is it written "with the shekel of the sanctuary"? To exclude servants, deeds, and land.

7) (Vayikra 27:24) "In the Yovel year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought": I might think, to the Temple treasurer, from whom it was bought (by the last purchaser); it is, therefore, written "to the one who has the holding in the land (i.e., the original owner). (In that case let it be written [only] "to the one who has the holding in the land." Why state "to the one from whom it was bought'? (For I might think that) a field which went out to the Cohanim on the Yovel and was sold by the Cohein (who acquired it), and was consecrated by the buyer — I might think that when the second Yovel arrived, it reverted to the original owner (whose field of holding it was before he consecrated it); it is, therefore, written "to the one from whom it was bought" (namely, the Cohein who sold it, [as opposed to the original owner, who consecrated it]). (Vayikra 27:25) ("And all of your valuations (concerning which it is written "shekalim") shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary; twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") "And all of your shekels shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary": There is no valuation less than a sela (the same as a shekel). "according to the shekel of the sanctuary": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:27) "and he shall redeem," I might think, with servants, deeds, and land; it is, therefore written "with the shekel of the sanctuary." This tells me only of the shekel of selaim of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive for inclusion anything that is (of monetary value and is) movable? From "and he shall redeem." If so, why is it written "with the shekel of the sanctuary"? To exclude servants, deeds, and land.

7) (Vayikra 27:29) "Every cherem which is devoted of man shall not be redeemed, (for) he is to die." Whence is it derived that if one awaiting execution said: "My value upon me" (to give to the Temple), he has said nothing? From (He is) "cherem ['condemned'] … he shall not be redeemed." This tells me only of (those who are guilty) of severe capital offenses, (where unwitting perpetration is not susceptible of atonement.) Whence do I derive (the same for) lesser capital offenses (where unwitting perpetration is susceptible of atonement)? From "Every cherem … shall not be redeemed." I might think that this is so (even) before his verdict has been pronounced. It is, therefore, written "which is devoted 'of man' (connoting one whose verdict has been pronounced) shall not be redeemed," and not one whose verdict has not been pronounced.

7) Rebbi says (Vayikra 27:34) "These are the mitzvoth" [(in juxtaposition with the beast tithe (Vayikra 27:33)] apprises us that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast.

7) Rebbi says (Vayikra 27:34) "These are the mitzvoth" [(in juxtaposition with the beast tithe (Vayikra 27:33)] apprises us that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS. The nations say (in Micah 6:6–7): WITH WHAT SHALL I COME BEFORE THE LORD, BOW MYSELF BEFORE GOD ON HIGH? [….] DOES THE LORD WANT THOUSANDS OF RAMS […? SHALL I GIVE MY FIRSTBORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION, THE FRUIT OF MY BELLY FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL?] The Holy One said to them: Do you want to offer your children to me? Neither your children nor your sacrifices do I want. For my children I have given a parashah on values (in Lev. 27:1–8) and a parashah on sacrifices, < i.e. > which of your offerings are acceptable to me (in Lev. 1). And so it says (in Ps. 37:16): BETTER IS THE LITTLE THAT THE RIGHTEOUS ONE HAS. You yourself know what is at the beginning of the book (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, [AND SAY UNTO THEM]: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING, < i.e. > OF YOU, and not "of the nations." Then at the end of the book < one finds > (in Lev. 27:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. It also says (in Ps. 147:19): HE DECLARES HIS WORDS TO JACOB…. The Holy One said to Israel: If you bring before me your value equivalents, I will ascribe it to you as if you had offered up your lives before me. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 27:2): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS…. The Holy One said: By virtue of the value equivalents (rt.: 'RK) I am saving you from the < fiery > preparation (rt.: 'RK) of Gehinnom,³⁵Cf. Exod. R. 50:5. as he has written about it (in Is. 30:33): FOR TOPHETH HAS BEEN PREPARED (rt.: 'RK) FROM OF OLD; and I will prepare a table before you, just as David has stated (in Ps. 23:5): YOU PREPARE A TABLE BEFORE ME IN THE PRESENCE OF MY ENEMIES; YOU ANOINT MY HEAD WITH OIL; MY CUP OVERFLOWS.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS. The nations say (in Micah 6:6–7): WITH WHAT SHALL I COME BEFORE THE LORD, BOW MYSELF BEFORE GOD ON HIGH? [….] DOES THE LORD WANT THOUSANDS OF RAMS […? SHALL I GIVE MY FIRSTBORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION, THE FRUIT OF MY BELLY FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL?] The Holy One said to them: Do you want to offer your children to me? Neither your children nor your sacrifices do I want. For my children I have given a parashah on values (in Lev. 27:1–8) and a parashah on sacrifices, < i.e. > which of your offerings are acceptable to me (in Lev. 1). And so it says (in Ps. 37:16): BETTER IS THE LITTLE THAT THE RIGHTEOUS ONE HAS. You yourself know what is at the beginning of the book (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, [AND SAY UNTO THEM]: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING, < i.e. > OF YOU, and not "of the nations." Then at the end of the book < one finds > (in Lev. 27:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. It also says (in Ps. 147:19): HE DECLARES HIS WORDS TO JACOB…. The Holy One said to Israel: If you bring before me your value equivalents, I will ascribe it to you as if you had offered up your lives before me. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 27:2): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS…. The Holy One said: By virtue of the value equivalents (rt.: 'RK) I am saving you from the < fiery > preparation (rt.: 'RK) of Gehinnom,³⁵Cf. Exod. R. 50:5. as he has written about it (in Is. 30:33): FOR TOPHETH HAS BEEN PREPARED (rt.: 'RK) FROM OF OLD; and I will prepare a table before you, just as David has stated (in Ps. 23:5): YOU PREPARE A TABLE BEFORE ME IN THE PRESENCE OF MY ENEMIES; YOU ANOINT MY HEAD WITH OIL; MY CUP OVERFLOWS.

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

8) "beast for beast": and not beast for fetuses, and not fetuses for beast, and not limbs for fetuses, and not fetuses for limbs, and not limbs for whole animals and not whole animals for them.

8) (Vayikra 27:14) ("And a man, if he consecrate his house, holy to the L–rd, then the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad. As the Cohein shall valuate it, so shall it stand.") "And a man, if he consecrate his house": I might think that Scripture speaks only of a dwelling, (but not of other property). But (Vayikra 27:15) "And if the consecrator would redeem his house" already speaks of a dwelling. How, then, am I to understand "And a man, if he consecrate his house"? As referring to his property.

8) (Vayikra 27:14) ("And a man, if he consecrate his house, holy to the L–rd, then the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad. As the Cohein shall valuate it, so shall it stand.") "And a man, if he consecrate his house": I might think that Scripture speaks only of a dwelling, (but not of other property). But (Vayikra 27:15) "And if the consecrator would redeem his house" already speaks of a dwelling. How, then, am I to understand "And a man, if he consecrate his house"? As referring to his property.

8) "twenty gerah shall the shekel be": Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the value of the shekel), he may do so? From "shall be" (connoting the possibility of a change). I might then think that if he wishes to decrease (the value) he may do so. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 20:6) "It is (twenty gerah"), (i.e., at least twenty gerah).

8) R. Chananiah b. Akavya said: He is valuated (ne'erach) because his worth (i.e., the worth of one who is valuated) is fixed (by Scripture), but he cannot be made the subject of a vow (nidar) because his worth is not fixed by Scripture. R. Yossi says: He can vow and valuate and consecrate, and if he damages, he is liable for payment.

8) (Vayikra 27:3) "Then your valuation shall be": What is the intent of this? I might think that all who are included in valuations are included in money (vows), and a tumtum (one of undetermined sex) and a hermaphrodite and one less than one month old, since they are not included in valuations are not included in money (vows); it is, therefore, written "shall be."

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).

8) "holy": It is written here "holy," and elsewhere, (in respect to ma'aser [viz. Vayikra 27:30]), "holy." Just as "holy" there requires a one-fifth surcharge (for redemption), and removal (from the house in the fourth and seventh years of the shemitah periods), so, "holy" here requires a one-fifth surcharge and removal.

8) "These are the mitzvoth which the L–rd commanded Moses to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai." "which the L–rd commanded Moses": Worthy is the messenger of his Sender. "Moses to the children of Israel": Worthy is the messenger of those to whom he was sent, and worthy are those to whom he was sent of their messenger. "to the children of Israel": It is the merit of Israel that caused (them to receive the Torah). "on Mount Sinai": All of them (the mitzvoth) were stated on Sinai.

9) R. Yossi says: Limbs are substituted for whole animals, but whole animals are not substituted for them. R. Yossi said: Is it not true of consecration that if one said: Let the foot of this beast be a burnt-offering, that the whole beast becomes a burnt-offering? In the same way, if he said: Let the foot of this (beast) be in place of that, then the whole beast becomes a substitute for it.

9) "holy to the L–rd": We are hereby apprised that "consecrations," unspecified (as to purpose) are for Temple maintenance.

9) And whence is it derived that if he said: I would like to pay in yearly installments, he is not heeded, but must give the entire amount (until the next Yovel) in one sum? From "according to (all) the years remaining.

9) "For the male": and not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might think they are not included in the category of "man," but they are included in the category of "woman"; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:4) "And if she be a female" — either a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. And whence is it derived that the sixtieth year (itself) is regarded as below it? From (Vayikra 27:7) "And if from sixty years and above" — which teaches that the sixtieth year itself is (regarded) as below it.

9) (Vayikra 27:30) ("And all the ma'aser [tithes] of the earth, of the seed of the earth, or the fruit of the tree, it is the L–rd's; it is holy to the L–rd.") "the seed of the earth": to include (the seed of) garlic, onycha, and berries. I might think to include the seed of turnips, radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten; it is, therefore, written "of the seed of the earth," and not all of the seed of the earth. "of the fruit of the tree": to include all the fruit of the tree. I might (also) think to include the carobs of Shikmah and Tzalmonah and those of Giridah, (which are of inferior quality); it is, therefore, written "of the fruit of the tree," and not all the fruit of the tree. Whence do we derive the inclusion of vegetables for ma'aser? From "And all the ma'aser." I might think that Scripture is speaking of two tithes (ma'aser rishon and ma'aser sheni); it is, therefore, written "it (is the L–rd's"). What is mentioned there (in the section of ma'aser (Devarim 14:22-23), (namely, ma'aser sheni), is the same as "it" mentioned here. What is missing here is mentioned there.

9) "For the male": and not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might think they are not included in the category of "man," but they are included in the category of "woman"; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:4) "And if she be a female" — either a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. And whence is it derived that the sixtieth year (itself) is regarded as below it? From (Vayikra 27:7) "And if from sixty years and above" — which teaches that the sixtieth year itself is (regarded) as below it.

9) "For the male": and not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might think they are not included in the category of "man," but they are included in the category of "woman"; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:4) "And if she be a female" — either a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. And whence is it derived that the sixtieth year (itself) is regarded as below it? From (Vayikra 27:7) "And if from sixty years and above" — which teaches that the sixtieth year itself is (regarded) as below it.

10) "then it and its substitute shall be holy": Where does the holiness "take"? In the house of the owner, (but once it has been given to the Cohein, he cannot substitute for it). So it is with the substitute.

10) How so? If he set aside (monies for) a lamb or a goat-kid and he became poor, he may bring a bird (and use the remainder for mundane purposes — thus, "from" the monies). If he became poorer, he may bring a tenth of an ephah. If he became richer, he may (add money and) bring a bird. If he became richer he may (add money and) bring a lamb or a goat-kid (— thus, "on, i.e., in addition to). If he set aside a lamb or a goat-kid and it became unfit — he may bring, from its monies, a bird, (this, too, being subsumed in "from his sin.") If he set aside the bird and it became unfit, he may not bring from its monies the tenth of an ephah (but he purchases from his own funds either a bird or a tenth of an ephah), for there is no redemption for a bird, (but only for a beast, viz. Vayikra 27:11). This (in summary) is the intent of "from his sin," "from his sin," "on his sin."

10) "the years remaining": He reckons the years remaining and not the months. And whence is it derived that if he (the Temple treasurer) wishes to reckon months as a year he may do so? From "then he shall reckon." "until the Yovel year": It (the reckoning) is not to enter into the Yovel year at all. "and it shall be deducted from your valuation": Even from the Temple, so that if the Temple consumed (the field's produce) for a year or two before the Yovel year, or (even if) it did not do so, but it was in its domain, a sela and a pondion is deducted for each year.

10) This tells me only of the sixtieth year. Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., "below it"]) for the fifth year and the twentieth year? It follows (inductively). There is liability for the sixtieth year and there is liability for the fifth year and for the twentieth year. Just as the sixtieth year is regarded as "below it," so, the fifth year and the twentieth year.

10) (Vayikra 27:31) ("And if redeem, will redeem, a man of his ma'aser, its fifth shall he add upon it.") "redeem, will redeem": to include his wife. "and if redeem will redeem": to include his heir. "a man": to exclude a minor. I might think to include one who is nine years and one day (and above); it is, therefore, written "and if redeem will redeem, a man." "of his ma'aser": and not all of his ma'aser — to exclude (from redemption) ma'aser which was brought into Jerusalem and then taken out. (Once it was in Jerusalem, the mitzvah of eating it in Jerusalem devolved upon it, and it can no longer be redeemed), and to exclude (from redemption, ma'aser) which does not have (in itself or in the fifth) the value of a perutah. "shall he add upon it": so that it and its fifth are five (equal parts. See 2) above).

11) (From this verse we learn that) a bechor can be substituted for in the house of the owner, but not in the house of the Cohein. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan asked: Why can (the Cohanim) not make a substitute for the bechor? R. Akiva answered: A sin-offering and a guilt-offering are a gift to the Cohein, and a bechor is a gift to the Cohein. Just as there is no substitution for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, so, there is no substitution for a bechor. R. Yochanan b. Nuri: Why can he not substitute for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? Because he does not own them while they are alive — as opposed to a bechor, which he does own while it is alive! R. Akiva: You refuted the rationale, but how will you refute the verse, "then it and its substitute will be holy"? Just as the holiness "takes" in the house of the owner, so, substitution takes place in the house of the owner, (and not in the house of the Cohein).

11) (Vayikra 27:19) ("And if redeem, will redeem the field, he who consecrates it, then he shall add one fifth of the money of your valuation upon it, and it shall be his.") "redeem, will redeem": to include his (the consecrator's) wife. "And if redeem, will redeem": to include his heir. "the field": What is the intent of this ("the field," instead of simply "it")? (Because it is written (Vayikra 27:16) "the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels,") I might think that this applied only if he consecrated a beth-kor. Whence would I derive (that the same applied for smaller fields, such as) beth lethach, bath sa'ah, and beth kav? From "the field" (— in any event). "then he shall add one fifth of the money of your valuation upon it, and it shall be his": If he gives the money, it is his; if not, it is not his.

11) (Vayikra 27:19) ("And if redeem, will redeem the field, he who consecrates it, then he shall add one fifth of the money of your valuation upon it, and it shall be his.") "redeem, will redeem": to include his (the consecrator's) wife. "And if redeem, will redeem": to include his heir. "the field": What is the intent of this ("the field," instead of simply "it")? (Because it is written (Vayikra 27:16) "the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels,") I might think that this applied only if he consecrated a beth-kor. Whence would I derive (that the same applied for smaller fields, such as) beth lethach, bath sa'ah, and beth kav? From "the field" (— in any event). "then he shall add one fifth of the money of your valuation upon it, and it shall be his": If he gives the money, it is his; if not, it is not his.

11) Now if you make the sixtieth year "below it" for stringency (of liability) would you make the fifth year as the twentieth year "below it" for leniency (of liability)! It is, therefore, written "year" - "year" for a gezeirah shavah (identity) — Just as "year" written in respect to the sixtieth year is "below it," so "year" written in respect to the fifth year and the twentieth year is "below it" — whether for leniency or for stringency. R. Eliezer says; Whence is it derived that one month and one day (above the sixtieth year) is regarded as the sixtieth year? From (Vayikra 27:7) ("And if from sixty years) and above." It is written here "and above," and elsewhere (Bamidbar 3:15) "and above." Just as "and above" elsewhere is one month and one day after the month, so, here, one day and one month after the month is regarded as the sixtieth year.

11) (Vayikra 27:32) ("And all ma'aser of cattle and sheep, all that shall pass under the staff, the tenth shall be holy to the L–rd.") Whence is it derived that one does not tithe from cattle for sheep, and not from sheep for cattle? From "And all the ma'aser of cattle and sheep."

11) Now if you make the sixtieth year "below it" for stringency (of liability) would you make the fifth year as the twentieth year "below it" for leniency (of liability)! It is, therefore, written "year" - "year" for a gezeirah shavah (identity) — Just as "year" written in respect to the sixtieth year is "below it," so "year" written in respect to the fifth year and the twentieth year is "below it" — whether for leniency or for stringency. R. Eliezer says; Whence is it derived that one month and one day (above the sixtieth year) is regarded as the sixtieth year? From (Vayikra 27:7) ("And if from sixty years) and above." It is written here "and above," and elsewhere (Bamidbar 3:15) "and above." Just as "and above" elsewhere is one month and one day after the month, so, here, one day and one month after the month is regarded as the sixtieth year.

(Exodus 13:12) "Veha'avarta every firstling": "ha'avarata" is "setting apart," as in (Numbers 278) "veha'avartem his inheritance for his daughter." Shimon b. Azzai says: What is the intent of "Veha'avarta"? From (Leviticus 27:32) "Whatever (beast) passes ('ya'avor') under the staff" (for tithing), I would think that an orphan, too, (is tithed). And this would follow, viz.: If a blemished animal, which is not fit for the altar, enters the shed for tithing, then an orphan, which is fit for the altar, how much more so! __ (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) a purchased animal, which, although it is fit for the altar, does not enter the shed for tithing. __ No, this may be true of a purchased animal, which was not born in his domain, wherefore it does not enter the shed for tithing, as opposed to an orphan, which was born in his domain, wherefore it should enter the shed for tithing. I have not succeeded (in deriving the halachah) by logic alone. (I must, therefore, derive it thus:) It is written here (Exodus) "Veha'avarta," and there (Leviticus) "ya'avor." Just as here, sanctity attaches to it only in the lifetime of its mother, so, there. In that case, why not say: Just as here, (in the instance of the firstling, only) males (are indicated), there, too, (only) males (should be tithed)? It is, therefore, written (Leviticus, Ibid.) "Whatever passes under the staff" — either males or females.

And thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the womb (ibid. 12). Set apart means to put aside, as in the matter of an inheritance. Then ye shall cause his inheritance to be set apart unto his daughter (Num. 27:8). Simeon the son of Azzai said: Why does Scripture mention Thou shalt set apart all that openeth the womb (Exod. 13:12)? Since it states elsewhere: Whatsoever passeth under the rod,¹⁸Word-play on haavarta (“set apart”) and yavaor (“passeth under”). the tenth shall be holy unto Me the Lord (Lev. 27:32). Does this say (I might deduce) that this includes an orphaned animal? Since the word set aside is used in the former verse, just as in the latter verse, one may not sanctify the priests’ share of the offering except during the life of its mother, so in this instance one may not sanctify the priests’ share except during the lifetime of its mother. If this is so, then just as the latter verse refers only to male animals, so the former verse applies only to male animals. Hence, when Scripture says Whatsoever passeth under the rod, it means (to include) male and female. All that openeth the womb indicates that a prematurely born offspring is exempted from the law of the firstborn. The one that is born after the premature offspring is also considered not to be the firstborn.

12) And once it (bechor, or sin-offering, or guilt-offering) has been given to the Cohein, it is not susceptible of substitution.

12) (Vayikra 27:20) ("And if he does not redeem the field, and if he sells the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed again.") "And if he does not redeem" — the owner, "and if he sells" — the (Temple) treasurer; "to another" — and not to his son. — But perhaps (the meaning is) to another, and not to his brother. (This cannot be, for "another) man" includes his brother. Why do you see fit to include (with the owner) his son and to exclude his brother? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the son, who is in place of his father vis-à-vis yiud (betrothal to a Hebrew handmaid) and vis-à-vis (inheritance of) his Hebrew manservant, and I exclude his brother, who is not in his place for these things.

12) This tells me only of after sixty years. Whence do I derive the same for after five and after twenty? It follows (inductively). There is liability after the sixtieth year and there is liability after the fifth year and after the twentieth year. Just as after the sixtieth year, one month and one day afterwards are regarded as the sixtieth year, so, after the fifth year and after the twentieth year, one month and one day afterwards are regarded as the respective year.

12) I might think that one may not tithe from lambs for goats; and it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If new (animals, those born before Elul) and old (those born after Elul), which are not kilayim ("a forbidden admixture") one with the other, may not be tithed one for the other, then lambs and goats, which are kilayim one with the other — how much more so should they not be tithed one for the other! It is, therefore, written "and sheep," implying that all sheep-like animals are one (for purposes of tithing).

13) "then it and its substitute shall be holy": The sacred (animal) is susceptible of substitution, but not its substitute.

13) "It shall not be redeemed again": I might think that he cannot (even) buy it from the treasurer as a "field of acquisition," (which returns to the Temple on the Yovel year [as opposed to a field of holding" (a patrimony), which returns to him on the Yovel year]); it is, therefore, written "it shall not be redeemed again," i.e., it does not revert to its prior status (a field of holding); but he may buy it from the treasurer as a field of acquisition.

13) A kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) that new and old may be tithed one for the other: If lambs and goats, which are kilayim one with the other, may be tithed one for the other, then new and old, which are not kilayim one with the other — how much more so may they be tithed one for the other! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:22) "Tithe shall you tithe … year by year" — It is forbidden to tithe from one year for the other.

13) (Vayikra 27:8) "And if he be too poor from your valuation": If he is too poor to assign a valuation, "then he shall be stood before the Cohein." What is the intent of this? Because it is written "souls," to exclude the dead, I would exclude the dead, but not the dying; it is, therefore, written "then he shall be stood … and the Cohein shall valuate him" — Where there is "standing," there is valuation; where there is no "standing," there is no valuation.

(Numb. 15:1-2:) “Now the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel ….’” Let our master instruct us: How many things is a father obligated to do for a son?⁵⁸Numb. R. 17:1. Thus have our masters taught: A father is obligated to do five things for a son: to circumcise him, to teach him Torah, to redeem him (according to the redemption of the first-born), to teach him a trade, and to take a wife for him.⁵⁹See TQid. 1:11; yQid. 1:7 (61a); Qid. 29a; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Pisha, 18 (on Exod. 13:13); Eccl. R. 9:9:1. The father is the Holy One, blessed be He, and the son is Israel. Just as a [human] father is obligated to his son, so does the Holy One, blessed be He, do for Israel. The [human] father is obligated to circumcise his son. Similarly the Holy One, blessed be He, circumcised Israel at the hands of Joshua (according to Josh. 5:2), “And he made for himself….” The father is obligated to redeem his son. Similarly the Holy One, blessed be He, did so for Israel. He redeemed them, as stated (in I Chron. 17:21), “And who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth, whom God went to redeem as a people for Himself.” [The father is obligated] to teach him Torah, as stated (in Deut. 11:19), “And you shall teach them to your children by talking about them.” And the Holy One, blessed be He, also taught Torah to Israel, as stated] (in Is. 48:17), “I am the Lord your God, teaching you for your own good.” [The father is obligated] to teach him commandments. The Holy One, blessed be He, taught the commandments to Israel (in Lev. 27:34), “These are the commandments which the Lord commanded.” [Regarding marriage,] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Children of Noah (in Gen. 1:28), “Be fruitful and multiply.” [Moreover,] just as a father has a responsibility to his son to feed him, to give him drink, to wash him, to anoint him and to dress him, so does the Holy One, blessed be He, do for Israel, as stated (in Ezek. 16:9-10), “I bathed you in water, and washed the blood off you […]. I clothed you with embroidered garments, and gave you sandals of dolphin leather (tahash) to wear.” To feed him, as stated (Ezek. 16:19), “And My bread that I had given to you.” To give him to drink, as stated (in Numb. 21:17), “Spring up O well, answer it.” Just as a father bequeaths his properties to his son, so did the Holy One, blessed be He, do for Israel, as stated (in Jer. 3:19), “and I gave you a desirable land, the fairest heritage of all the nations.” Just as the father wills his property to his son, and [as] his son also is obligated to offer him a gift⁶⁰Gk.: doron.; so also did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Israel (in Numb. 15:2-3), “When you come unto the land of your habitations [….] You shall make a burnt offering to the Lord […].” R. Tanhuma bar Abba opened [his discourse] in the name of R. Hanina the father of R. Aha bar Hanina [as follows]:⁶¹Numb. R. 17:2. This parashah concerns libations. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 15:6–7), “Or for a ram you shall make a meal offering […]. And for the oblation [you shall offer] a third of a hin of wine.” See it is about libations. From here on, it is in regard to the hallah, as stated (in vss. 19-20), “And it shall be that, when you eat from the bread of the land, [you shall set aside an offering for the Lord]. Of the first of your dough you shall set aside a loaf (hallah) as an offering….” Thus hallah [is mentioned] last, and libations first. For this reason R. Hanina opened (with Eccl. 9:7), “Go, eat your bread with gladness, [and drink your wine with a joyful heart].”⁶²Cf. below, Numb. 4a:17. What is the meaning of (Eccl 9:7, cont.), “God has already approved your works?” It is with reference to Abraham. When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him (in Gen. 22:2), “Please take your son,” Abraham rose early, took him promptly, led him on, and brought him up to Mount Moriah. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him (in Gen. 22:12), “Do not raise your hand against the lad.” Abraham said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, did you tell me (in vs. 2), ‘Please take your son,’ for no reason?” He said to him, “No! Rather [it was] to make your character known in the world.” Thus it is stated (in Gen. 18:19), “For I have made him known,⁶³This sense is required by the midrash. A more traditional translation would begin the verse: FOR I HAVE KNOWN HIM, or FOR I HAVE CHOSEN HIM. so that he may charge [his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord].” R. Simeon ben Johay said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘By your life, I ascribe [your obedience] to you [as proof] that, if I had told you to take your own life, you would not have refrained [from doing so] for the sake of My name, and would have obeyed [the command] to be killed for the sake of My name.’” Where is it shown? R. Simeon ben Johay said, “As so is it written (in Gen. 22:16), ‘and you have not withheld your son, your only one.’ See, [‘your son’] has already specified Isaac. [So] what is the meaning of ‘your only one?’ It is to imply Abraham's life. Thus the soul is called only one, where it is stated (in Ps. 22:21) ‘Deliver my life from the sword, [my only one from the power of the dog].’” Abraham said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “Is it possible for me to go from here with no sacrifice?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham, “Here is your sacrifice. [It has been] prepared for you from the six days of creation.” (According to Gen. 22:13), “Then Abraham lifted his eyes to look, and there was a ram […].” As so did our masters teach, “The ram of Abraham was created from the six days of creation on the Sabbath eve at twilight.” So at that time, Abraham took it and (according to Gen 22:13, cont.) “he offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son.” Once it said, “he offered it up as a burnt offering,” was the verse missing anything? [So] what is the meaning of “in place of his son?” At that time Abraham said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, see that I am slaughtering the ram; You should so see it as if my son is slaughtered in front of You.” When he took its blood, he said, “You should so see it as if the blood of Isaac is sprinkled before You.” When he took the ram and flayed it, he said to Him, “You should so see it as if Isaac is flayed in front of You on the altar.” When he burnt it, he said to Him, “You should so see it as if his ashes were gathered in front of You on the altar.” [Once it said,] “he offered it up as a burnt offering,” was the verse missing anything? [So] what is the meaning of “in place of his son?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, it is your son that is sacrificed first, but it is simply that this ram is after him.” At that time Abraham said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, I am not moving from here until You swear to me that You will never test me again; for if, heaven forbid, I had not obeyed you, I should have destroyed everything I had accomplished during my lifetime.” R. Hanin said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘By your life, so it is; for if you had not obeyed Me, you would have possessed nothing.’” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, swore to him that He would never test him again. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 22:16), “And he said, ‘I by Myself have sworn,’ says the Lord.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, severe afflictions and other trials had been designated to come upon you, but now they shall not come.” These were the same afflictions which came upon Job.⁶⁴ySot. 5:8 (or 5) (20c); Gen. R. 57:4. They had been designated to come upon Abraham, for the following has been joined to the parashah (in Gen. 22:20–21), “And it came to pass after these things, that it was told to Abraham [saying, ‘Behold Milcah, she also has borne sons to your brother Nahor,] Uz his first-born….’” And this is Job, according to what is stated (in Job 1:1), “There was a man in the land (belonging to) Uz.”⁶⁵So the midrash interprets LAND OF UZ. See BB 15a. At that time, The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham (in Eccl. 9:7), “Go, eat your bread with gladness, [… for God has already approved your works].”

14) (The verse is needed,) for (without it) would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If a consecrated animal, where consecrations does not "take" (ab initio) in an animal with a fixed blemish, is susceptible of substitution, then a substituted animal, where consecration does "take" in an animal with a fixed blemish, how much more so should it be susceptible of substitution! It must, therefore, be written "then it … shall be holy" — the holy is susceptible of substitution, but the substitute is not susceptible of substitution.

14) I might think that even if he said "The valuation of that man is upon me (to give)" and he (that man) died, he would be exempt (from payment); it is, therefore, written "the Cohein shall valuate him" — even if he died. "and the Cohein shall valuate him": He gives only according to (his age) at the time of the valuation (i.e., when he said "My valuation is upon me to give.") "According to the means of the vower (shall the Cohein valuate him"), and not according to the means of the one bevowed, whether man or woman or minor — whence they ruled: The "means" relate to the vower; the "years" (of the valuation) relate to the one bevowed; the "valuations" relate to the one evaluated (i.e., male or female); the "evaluation" relates to (his age at the time of the valuation [see above]).

15) "shall be holy": We are hereby taught that holiness "takes" upon it (the substitute even) with a fixed blemish. (And the verse is needed,) for (without it) would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If in a holy (animal), which is susceptible of substitution, consecration does not "take" (ab initio) in an animal with a fixed blemish, then a substitute, which is not susceptible of substitution, how much more so should consecration not "take" in an animal with a fixed blemish! It must, therefore, be written "shall be holy." We are hereby taught that holiness "takes" upon it (the substitute) even with a fixed blemish.

16) R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: "shall be holy": to equate unwitting (consecration) to witting.

(Deut. 14:22:) YEAR BY YEAR. One does not set aside a tithe from one year for <the crops of> another.⁶⁰According to this the restriction applies only to the second tithe, which was set aside in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of each septennial cycle. So Sifra to Lev. 27:30–34, 277: Behuqqotay, pereq 12 (115b). See Sifre, Deut. 14:22 (105 Ter. 1:5; TBekh. 7:1; RH 8a, 12b (bar.). <These are> the words of R. Aqiva. (Deut. 14:23:) THEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD YOUR GOD, IN THE PLACE WHERE HE SHALL CHOOSE TO HAVE HIS NAME DWELL, YOU SHALL CONSUME THE TITHES OF YOUR GRAIN, YOUR NEW WINE<….> If you are virtuous <in tithing, it is> your grain. If not, <it is> my grain, according to what is stated (in Hos. 2:11 [9]): THEREFORE I WILL TAKE BACK MY GRAIN IN ITS TIME. If you are virtuous <in tithing, it is> your new wine. If not, <it is> my new wine, [according to what is stated (ibid., cont.): AND MY NEW WINE IN ITS SEASON. Resh Laqesh said: [The Holy One said:] I have told you to take your tithes from the choicest part. How is this possible? When a child of Levi comes to you, if you give him some of the choicest part, I will also give to you some of the choicest part. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 28:12): THE LORD WILL OPEN FOR YOU HIS FINEST STOREHOUSE. If you have given him some sword grass and some pulse, I have a right to give you something similar. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 28:24): THE LORD WILL MAKE THE RAINFALL OF YOUR LAND POWDER AND DUST….

R. Hiyya sat and taught: Where is it shown that one does not substitute for a firstling?¹⁰⁷See Lev. 27:33; Tem. 1:1; Tem. 7b-8b; also Pes. 42a. The face of Bar Pada lit up. He said: Now he knows what I have sat and taught.¹⁰⁸For a fuller explanation of the issue involved, see account of the confrontation in yNaz. 5:1 (53d), where the authorities involved are Rabbi <Judah> and R. Pedayah. See also Braude’s translation of PR 14:10, pp. 282-283, n. 64; idem, translation of PRK 4:4, p. 74-75, n. 78.

(Exodus 21:20) "with a rod": I might think, whether or not it is of killing potential; it is, therefore, written (Numbers 35:38) "Or if with a wooden implement, whereby he can die he strike him," whereby we are apprised that he is not liable until he strikes him with something that has the potential to kill. And whence is it derived that it must be in a locus which is critical to life? From (Devarim 19:11) "and he lie in wait for him and he rise up against him and he smite him mortally," whereby we are apprised that it (the weapon) must be of killing potential in a locus which is critical to life. __ Now if (in the killing of) an Israelite, the graver (instance), not being subject to (the provision of [Exodus 21:21]) "But if one or two days," he is not liable unless it be with an implement of killing potential and in a locus which is critical to life, then (in the killing of) a Canaanite, the instance of lesser gravity, being subject to the above provision, how much more so should he not be liable unless it be with an implement of killing potential and in a locus which is critical to life! (Why, then, need it be written?) For if you say this, you have ruled for punishment through a fortiori reasoning, wherefore it is written "with a rod, etc.", to teach that punishment is not to be ruled for through such reasoning. Rebbi says: What is the intent of "with a rod"? It is "extra" towards the formulation of an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: it is written here "rod," and, elsewhere, (vis-à-vis tithing, Leviticus 27:32) "rod." Just as here, excluding (a servant) acquired by two partners, so, there, excluding (from the tithe a beast) acquired by two partners.

(Numb. 4:18:) “Do not cut off.” This text is related (to Ps. 33:18), “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him….” The text speaks along many lines of thought.¹²¹Shittim. For this use of the word, Buber, n. 209, cites Lev. R. 34:8. For the other interpretations, see above, Gen. 6:5. For what we need, however, it is speaking about the tribe of Levi.¹²²Numb. R. 5:1. And where is it shown? Where the tribe of Levi is called those who fear the Lord, as stated (in Mal. 2:5), “and I gave them (i.e., life and peace) as well as fear, and he feared Me.” (Ps. 33:19) “On those who wait for His steadfast love,” because they are always waiting for the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. (Ps. 33:19:) “To deliver their soul from death and to keep them alive in famine,” through the twenty-four gifts which the Holy One, blessed be He, has given them.¹²³THal. 2:7-9; BQ 110b (bar.); Hul. 133b (bar.); cf. Hal. 4:9. These are them: ten in the sanctuary, ten within the borders, and four in Jerusalem. The ten in the sanctuary: the sin offering (Lev. 6:17-23; Zev. 5:3), the guilt offering (Lev. 5:14-16, 20-26; 19:20-22; Zev. 5:5), the peace sacrifices and the community peace sacrifices (Lev. 23:19-20; Zev. 5:5), the sin offering of a fowl (Lev. 5:8), the guilt offering for a doubtful sin (Lev. 5:17-19; Zev. 5:5), the leper's log of oil (Lev. 14:12), the two loaves (Lev. 23:17), the shewbread (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9), the remnant of the omer (Lev. 23:10-12; Men. 10:4), and the remainder of the meal offering (Lev. 2:3).
The ten within the borders: the terumah (Numb. 18:12), the terumah of the tithe (Numb. 18:25-29), the hallah (Numb. 15:18-21), the first of the shorn wool (Deut. 18:4), the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach (Deut. 18:3), the redemption of the [first-born] son (Numb. 18:15-16), [the redemption of] a firstling ass (Exod. 13:13), [the payment for] the robbery of a proselyte (Thal. 2:9; Bq 110b; Hul. 133b), things consecrated (Numb. 18:14; Bik. 3:12), and a field of possession (Lev. 27:16-21)
The four in Jerusalem: the firstlings [of animals] (Numb. 18:17-18), the first fruits (Exod. 23:19; Numb. 18:13; Hal. 4:9), the priest's share from the thank-offering ram and from the nazarite ram, the breast of the peace offerings, and the thigh (Exod. 29:27-28; Lev. 7:12-14; 31-34; 10:14-15; Numb. 6:13-20; 18:18), and skins of [burnt, sin, and guilt] offerings (Lev. 7:8; Zev. 12:3)
Behold, these are twenty-four gifts. Ergo (in Ps. 33:19), “and to keep them alive in famine. (Numb. 4:18) “Do not cut off [the tribe of the Kohathite families from the Levites].” The Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that Korah was going to arise and disagree about the priesthood.¹²⁴Cf. Numb. R. 5:5. The Holy One, blessed be He, said. “I will not destroy the Levites because of Korah.” (Numb. 4:18:) “Do not cut off [the tribe of the Kohathite families from the Levites].” This text is related (to Is. 48:9), “For the sake of My name I will delay My anger, and for My praise I will hold back for you so as not to cut you off.” To what is the matter comparable?¹²⁵Numb. R. 5:6. To a king who had a son that was associated with bandits;¹²⁶Gk.: lestai. and when they were captured, his son was captured with them. The king said, “What shall I do? Shall I execute the robbers? Possibly my son is with them. Instead, for the sake of my son, I will exonerate them for now.” Similarly, the Levites carried the tabernacle. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 7:9), “But to the Children of Kohath he gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy.” When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that Korah and his assembly were going to be opposed to Moses and Aaron, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “What shall I do with these? To kill them in the desert is not possible.” Why? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken half of His name and bestowed it upon them, the yh (of yhwh) in the Kohathite (hqhty in Numb. 4:18).¹²⁷Numb. R. 5:6, and Yalqut Shim‘oni, Is. 48:9, 326 (466) add that the letters from the divine name appear at the end and the beginning of HQHTY, and Numb. R. explains further that the Holy One added the definite article (H) to the name, Kohathite, for this very reason. It therefore says (in Is. 48:9), “For the sake of My name I will delay¹²⁸Literally: LENGTHEN. This verb may have suggested that the Holy One deliberately lengthened the name, Kohathite, with the addition of the article. My anger….”

(Numb. 15:1–2:) NOW THE LORD SPOKE <UNTO MOSES, SAYING>: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN YOU COME UNTO THE LAND OF YOUR HABITATIONS. Let our master instruct us: How many things is a father obligated to do for a son?⁶⁶Tanh., Numb. 4:14; Numb. R. 17:1. [Thus have our masters taught:] A father is obligated to do five things for a son: to circumcise him, to teach him Torah, to redeem him according to the redemption of the first-born, to teach him commandments, and to take a wife for him.⁶⁷See TQid. 1:11; yQid. 1:7 (61a); Qid. 29a; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Pisha, 18 (on Exod. 13:13); Eccl. R. 9:9:1. The father is the Holy One. Just as a <human> father is obligated to his son, so does the Holy One do for Israel. The <human> father is obligated to circumcise his son. Similarly the Holy One circumcised Israel at the hands of Joshua (according to Josh. 5:2): AND AGAIN CIRCUMCISE [THE CHILDREN OF] ISRAEL A SECOND TIME. The father is obligated to redeem his son. Similarly the Holy One did so for Israel. He redeemed them, as stated (in I Chron. 17:21): {AND} WHO IS LIKE YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL, A UNIQUE NATION ON EARTH, [WHOM GOD WENT TO REDEEM AS A PEOPLE FOR HIMSELF]. <The father is obligated> to teach him Torah, {The Holy One taught Torah to Israel.} as stated (in Deut. 11:19): AND YOU SHALL TEACH THEM TO YOUR CHILDREN BY TALKING ABOUT THEM. [And the Holy One taught Torah to Israel, as stated] (in Is. 48:17): I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, TEACHING YOU FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. <The father is obligated> to teach him commandments. The Holy One taught the commandments to Israel (in Lev. 27:34): THESE ARE THE COMMANDMENTS WHICH THE LORD COMMANDED <MOSES>. <Regarding marriage,> the Holy One said to Israel (in Gen. 1:28): BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. Moreover, just as the father wills his property to his son, and <as> his son also is obligated to offer him a gift⁶⁸Gk.: doron.; so also did the Holy One say to Israel (in Numb. 15:2–3): WHEN YOU COME UNTO THE LAND OF YOUR HABITATIONS [….] YOU SHALL MAKE⁶⁹Instead of YOU SHALL MAKE most translations render these words: AND WOULD MAKE, or the equivalent. The passage is understood somewhat differently here to fit the context of the midrash. {A WHOLE BURNT OFFERING} [A BURNT OFFERING] TO THE LORD […,] <TO MAKE> A PLEASING ODOR <TO THE LORD>…. ⁷⁰The text at the end of this section is greatly expanded in the parallels of Tanh., Numb. 4:14; Numb. R. 17:1; and in Buber’s “Spanish” manuscript (described on p. 150 of his “Mavo”).

26) An unclean beast has its mitzvah to the L–rd, viz. (Shemoth 34:20): "And the firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb." An animal of the wild and a bird flying in the air — Scripture has exhorted us concerning them that when they come to your hand they should not be lacking a mitzvah, viz. (Vayikra 17:13): "A man of the children of Israel … that shall hunt a hunting of animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth." And other beasts and animals, unspecified by name, are subsumed in a general ruling so that they not be lacking in mitzvoth, viz. (Vayikra 27:28): Every devotion (cherem) which a man shall devote to the L–rd, etc." — Thus, for consecrations outside of the Temple. With Temple consecrations, there are levels upon levels. How so? Of bullocks that are to be burned and he-goats that are to be burned, Scripture states that their blood and devoted portions are to go to the altar.

The terumah (Numb. 18:12),
The terumah of the tithe (Numb. 18:25-29),
The hallah (Numb. 15:18-21),
The first of the shorn wool (Deut. 18:4),
The shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach (Deut. 18:3),
The redemption of the <first-born> son (Numb. 18:15-16),
<The redemption of> a firstling ass (Exod. 13:13),
<The payment for> the robbery of a proselyte (THal. 2:9; BQ 110b; Hul. 133b),
Things consecrated (Numb. 18:14; Bik. 3:12), and
A field of possession (Lev. 27:16-21)

(Exodus 21:30) "When kofer is imposed upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul": the value of the victim. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: the value of the killer (i.e., the owner of the ox). And thus do we find that redemption is not given for those who are put to death. In all places, those who are liable to death at the hands of man are not redeemed, as it is written (Leviticus 27:24) "Any cherem that is devoted from a man (going out to be executed) shall not be redeemed, (for) he is going to be put to death" (and has no valuation). But here "he shall give the redemption of his soul." R. Yishmael says: Come and see the mercies of the One who spoke and brought the world into being, for flesh and blood. For a man acquires himself with money from the hands of Heaven, as it is written (Numbers 30:12) "When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their number, then each man shall give the ransom of his soul to the L rd, etc.", and (II Kings 12:5) "each man, the money for the valuation of his soul," and (Mishlei 13:8) "A man's wealth may redeem his soul," and (Daniel 4:24) "But, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you. Redeem your soul through charity," and (Job 33:23-24) "If there will be for him but a single defending angel from a thousand to declare a man's uprightness for him, then He will be gracious to him and He will say: Redeem him from descending to the grave I have found kofer for Him!" We find that certain consecrated objects can be redeemed and others cannot be redeemed; certain things that may not be eaten may be redeemed; things from which benefit may not be derived may not be redeemed. The nations of the world cannot be redeemed, as it is written (Psalms 49:8) "A man cannot redeem his brother; he cannot give his kofer to G d. Too costly is their soul's redemption and unattainable forever." Beloved is Israel for whose souls the Holy One Blessed be He has given the nations as kofer, as it is written (Isaiah 43:3) "I gave Egypt as kofer for you." Why? (Ibid. 4) "Because you were honored in My eyes, you were honored and I loved you, and I placed a man in your place and nations in place of your souls."

Jacob wished to cross the ford of the Jabbok, and he was detained there. The angel said to him: Didst thou not speak thus—"Of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give a tenth unto thee" (Gen. 28:22)? What did our father Jacob do? He took || all the cattle in his possession which he had brought from Paddan-Aram, and he gave a tithe of them amounting to 550 (animals). Hence thou mayest learn that all the cattle in the possession of our father Jacob, which he had brought from Paddan-Aram, amounted to 5500 (animals). Again Jacob wished to cross the ford of the Jabbok, but he was hindered here. The angel said: Didst thou not speak thus—"Of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give a tenth unto thee" (ibid.)? Behold, thou hast sons. Thou hast not given a tithe of them. What did Jacob do? He put apart the four firstborn children of the four mothers, and eight children remained. He began (to count) from Simeon, and finished with Benjamin, who was still in his mother's womb. Again he began (to count) from Simeon, and he included Benjamin, and Levi was reckoned as the tithe, holy to God, as it is said, "The tenth shall be holy unto the Lord" (Lev. 27:82).

… And He said to him ‘go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering’ (Bereshit 22:2) What is the land of Moriah? There is a whole bundle of Sages here, each saying their own answer. R’ Yanai says ‘what is Moriah? The place from which awe and fear (morah and yirah) go out to the world,’ “You are feared, O God, from Your Sanctuary…” (Tehillim 68:36) R’ Chiya the elder says ‘the land from which instruction (hora’ah) goes out to the world,’ as it says “…for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth…” (Yeshayahu 2:3) Another explanation: the land from which, in the future, the Holy One will teach that the wicked should descend to gehinnom, as it says “Like sheep, they are destined to the grave; death will devour them, and the upright will rule over them in the morning, and their form will outlast the grave…” From where? “…his dwelling place (zevul).” (Tehillim 49:15) Another explanation of the land of Moriah. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi said ‘the land from which the righteous teach (morim) and make decrees upon the Holy One which He does,’ as it says “…and David and the elders, covered with sackcloth, fell upon their faces. And David said to God, "Did I not say to count the people?…I beg that Your hand be against me and against my father's house, but not against Your people for a plague." (Divre HaYamim I 21:16-17) Another explanation of the land of Moriah. R’ Yehudah bar Padiiya said ‘Moriah - he said to Gd, where is it? He replied – to the land which I will show (mareh) you.’ Another explanation of Moriah. Avraham said to Gd, Master of the World! But am I fit to offer sacrifices? Am I a kohen? Let Shem the High Priest come and receive him from me. The Holy One replied to him – when you arrive at the place I will sanctify you and make you into a kohen. What is the meaning of Moriah? In exchange (temurah) for Shem. His replacement, as it says “He shall not exchange it or offer a substitute for it…” (Vayikra 27:10) Another explanation. What is Moriah? R’ Pinchas said ‘the land in which the master (maruto) of the world dwells,’ as it says “…and My eyes and My heart shall be there at all times.” (Melachim I 9:3) Another explanation. What is Moriah? R’ Shimon bar Yochai said ‘the land which was adorned opposite the altar above “…or cast down… (yaro yireh)” (Shemot 19:13) Another explanation. The land in which the incense is offered – “I will go to the mountain of myrrh (mor)…” (Shir HaShirim 4:6)

… And He said to him ‘go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering’ (Bereshit 22:2) What is the land of Moriah? There is a whole bundle of Sages here, each saying their own answer. R’ Yanai says ‘what is Moriah? The place from which awe and fear (morah and yirah) go out to the world,’ “You are feared, O God, from Your Sanctuary…” (Tehillim 68:36) R’ Chiya the elder says ‘the land from which instruction (hora’ah) goes out to the world,’ as it says “…for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth…” (Yeshayahu 2:3) Another explanation: the land from which, in the future, the Holy One will teach that the wicked should descend to gehinnom, as it says “Like sheep, they are destined to the grave; death will devour them, and the upright will rule over them in the morning, and their form will outlast the grave…” From where? “…his dwelling place (zevul).” (Tehillim 49:15) Another explanation of the land of Moriah. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi said ‘the land from which the righteous teach (morim) and make decrees upon the Holy One which He does,’ as it says “…and David and the elders, covered with sackcloth, fell upon their faces. And David said to God, "Did I not say to count the people?…I beg that Your hand be against me and against my father's house, but not against Your people for a plague." (Divre HaYamim I 21:16-17) Another explanation of the land of Moriah. R’ Yehudah bar Padiiya said ‘Moriah - he said to Gd, where is it? He replied – to the land which I will show (mareh) you.’ Another explanation of Moriah. Avraham said to Gd, Master of the World! But am I fit to offer sacrifices? Am I a kohen? Let Shem the High Priest come and receive him from me. The Holy One replied to him – when you arrive at the place I will sanctify you and make you into a kohen. What is the meaning of Moriah? In exchange (temurah) for Shem. His replacement, as it says “He shall not exchange it or offer a substitute for it…” (Vayikra 27:10) Another explanation. What is Moriah? R’ Pinchas said ‘the land in which the master (maruto) of the world dwells,’ as it says “…and My eyes and My heart shall be there at all times.” (Melachim I 9:3) Another explanation. What is Moriah? R’ Shimon bar Yochai said ‘the land which was adorned opposite the altar above “…or cast down… (yaro yireh)” (Shemot 19:13) Another explanation. The land in which the incense is offered – “I will go to the mountain of myrrh (mor)…” (Shir HaShirim 4:6)

Whence do we derive the same for greens? From (Vayikra 27:30) "and all the tithe of the land." (Ibid.) "of the seed of the land": to include garlic, cress, and berries.

(Bamidbar 18:14) "Every devoted thing (i.e., a thing dedicated to the Temple) in Israel shall be yours (the Cohein's)": This tells me only of the devoted objects of Israelites. Whence do I derive (the same for) the devoted objects of gentiles, women, and bondsmen? From "Every devoted thing in Israel." R. Yossi Haglili says: Unqualified "devotions" revert to the Cohanim, it being written (Vayikra 27:21) "As a devoted field, to the Cohein shall be his holding." Even if he specified "for Temple maintenance"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 28) "Every devoted thing (specified as) holy of holies reverts to the L-rd." R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to Temple maintenance, it being written "Every (unqualified) "devotion" is holy of holies to the L-rd." Even if he specified "to the Cohanim"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid.) "Ach" ("But" [to exclude the above instance]). R. Yehudah b. Bava says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to the Cohanim, it being written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours." Even if he specified "to the L-rd"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Every devoted thing is holy of holies to the L-rd" (when specified as such.) R. Shimon says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to Heaven, it being written "holy of holies to the L-rd." — Even if he specified "to the Cohein"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours (the Cohein's)."

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be." I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast." Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be." I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast." Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.

Greater is the covenant forged with Aaron than that forged with David. Aaron merited (priesthood) for his sons — whether righteous or wicked, and David merited (kingdom only) for the righteous, but not for the wicked, viz. (Psalms 132:12) "If your children will keep My covenant … (they will sit on the throne for you.") (Bamidbar 18:19) "It is a covenant of salt … (21) and to the sons of Levi." Scripture hereby apprises us that just as the covenant is forged with the priesthood, so, is it forged with the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated at Mount Sinai, so, that of the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated with joy, so, that of the Levites, as it is written "and to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given, etc." "Behold" connotes joy, as in (Shemot 5:14) "And, behold, he goes out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "in exchange for their service": All the mitzvoth of the priesthood (i.e., the twenty-four priestly gifts) were acquired by the L-rd and given to the Cohanim; and these (the mitzvoth of the Levites), "in exchange for their services of the tent of meeting." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This, too, was acquired by the land and given to the Levites, as it is written (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land … is the L-rd's; it is holy to the L-rd." "And to the sons of Levi I have given all the tithe of Israel as an inheritance": Just as an inheritance does not change from its place, so, first tithe, (which is given to the Levite), does not change from its place, (unlike second tithe, which in the third and sixth years converts to poor-tithe.) "in exchange for the service which they perform": If he serves, he takes (the tithe); if not, he does not. (Ibid. 22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near": the exhortation. "to bear sin, to die": the punishment (at the hands of Heaven.). (Ibid. 23) "And the Levite shall serve — he": Why is this written? From "in exchange for their service" I might understand, if he wishes, he serves, and if he does not wish, he does not serve; it is, therefore, written "And the Levite shall serve — he" — perforce. Variantly: Why is this written? From "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel (in exchange for their service, etc.") This tells me only (that they must serve) only in the years that the tithes obtain. Whence do I derive (that they must also serve) on shemitoth and yovloth, (when the tithes do not obtain)? From "And the Levite shall serve — he" (in any event). R. Nathan says: If no Levite were there, I might think that a Cohein may serve. And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place (i.e., the priestly service), where Levites are not kasher, Cohanim are kasher, then, in a place (i.e., the Levitical service), where Levites are kasher, how much more so should Cohanim be kasher! It is, therefore, written "And the Levite shall serve — he." "and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of not guarding property)": And others (the Israelites, who, [being unguarded, enter the sanctuary]) will not bear their (the Levites') sin. This is to say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Levites, but the Cohanim, (who enter where they should not), do bear their (the Levites') sin. It is, therefore, written "and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of improper guarding)," and not the Israelites or the Cohanim (who, as a result, enter where they should not.) "a statute forever for your generations": It obtains for all succeeding generations. And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance": Why is this written? For, since it is written (Ibid. 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned," I would think that the Levites, too, are included; it is, therefore, written "And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance." (Ibid. 24) "For the tithe of the children of Israel which they set apart for the L-rd as terumah": Scripture refers to it as terumah until he separates terumath ma'aser from it, whereby it teaches that if he wishes to make it terumah for other (untithed) produce, he may do so. "have I given to the Levites as an inheritance": Why is this written? Because it is written "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel in exchange for the service, etc.", I would think (that first-tithe is given to the Levites) only when the Temple, (in which service is performed), exists. Whence do I derive (that it is given) even when the Temple does not exist? From "as an inheritance." Just as "inheritance" obtains whether or not the Temple exists, so, first-tithe. "Therefore, I have said to them that in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance": Why is this written? Is it not already written (23) "And in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance"? I might think that this applies only at the time of the apportionment of the land; but after the apportionment each tribe sets aside from its portion (a parcel of land for Levi). It is, therefore, written "Therefore, I have said, etc." Variantly: "Therefore, I have said": Why is this written? Because it is written (Devarim 7:1) "And He will cast out many nations from before you, the Chitti, the Girgashi, etc.", but Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni are not mentioned, (so that we might think that when they are conquered, Levi can have inheritance in their land); it is, therefore, written "Therefore, I have said, etc." — forever (are they not to have inheritance). Variantly: (It is written) to exhort beth-din to this end (of their not receiving inheritance).

(Bamidbar 18:26) "And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe (ma'aser) that I have given to you from their inheritance, (then you shall separate from it the terumah of the L-rd, ma'aser from the ma'aser.") Why is this written? To teach that (Ibid. 21) "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe" speaks of (one-tenth of) the produce (of the land, and not of [one-tenth of] the land itself.) You say, the produce, but perhaps (the reference is to) the land (itself)! It is, therefore, written (26) "And to the Levites you shall speak and you shall say to them (… that I have given to you from them in their inheritance"). "that I have given to you from them in their inheritance": Because they have not been given a portion in the land, there has been given to them one-tenth of the produce. "then you shall separate from it": From one kind (of produce) for its kind, and not from one kind for a different kind, and not from what is rooted for what is unrooted, and not from what is unrooted for what is rooted, and not from the new (crop) for the old, and not from the old for the new. And whence is it derived that one is not to take terumah from produce of the land (Eretz Yisrael) for produce outside the land or from produce outside the land for produce of the land? From (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land, etc.)" Variantly: "from it": This is "extra" (mufneh) for formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ) viz.: It is written here "from it," and, in respect to the Paschal lamb, (Shemot 12:9) ("Do not eat) from it, etc." Just as re "with it" mentioned here (in respect to ma'aser), it (ma'aser) is forbidden to a mourner, (viz. Devarim 26:14), so, re "with it" mentioned in respect to Pesach, it (the Paschal lamb) is forbidden to a mourner.

R. Yishmael says: One verse (ours) says: "You shall consecrate," and another, (Vayikra 27:26) "you shall not consecrate"! You can consecrate it (a bechor) for its valuation to Temple maintenance; but you cannot consecrate it (as a different offering) to the altar. This tells me only of a bechor. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the offerings? From "in your cattle and in your sheep … you shall consecrate." Or, something which you learn as obtaining with one thing, you may learn as obtaining with all (similar) things, viz.: Just as a bechor is distinct in being a lower-order offering, and it is eaten for two days, and applies to cattle and sheep — so, (this obtains with) all that are thus characterized (i.e., with lower-order offerings). And whence do I derive (the same [i.e., that it is forbidden to shear or work with them]) for (other offerings which also obtain with cattle and sheep, such as) holy of holies, and individual and communal lower-order offerings? From "in your cattle and in your sheep … you shall consecrate." I might think that this (that they may not be shorn or worked with) applies also to consecrations for Temple maintenance; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:19) "the bechor." Was bechor not included in all offerings? Why was it thus singled out? To teach: Just as bechor is distinct in being an altar offering, etc. — to exclude Temple maintenance consecrations, which are not altar offerings.

(Bamidbar 28:27) "And you shall present a burnt-offering as a sweet savor to the L-rd": You sacrifice these aside from those mentioned in Torath Cohanim (Vayikra 27:18). "You say this; but perhaps they are the same as those mentioned there? — Can you say this? Are they similar? You cannot accept the second supposition, but the first — You sacrifice these aside from those mentioned in Torah Cohanim. "two young bullocks, one ram, etc.": If one found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, I might think that he does not sacrifice any until he finds all. It is, therefore, written "And you shall present a burnt-offering," implying even one. I might then think that even if all are found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, written (to negate this) "two young bullocks, and one ram, etc."

"I have removed the holy thing": This is second-tithe (viz. Vayikra 27:30) and neta revai (fruit of the fourth year [viz. Vayikra 19:24]).