Midrash su Levitico 5:78

(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. Let our master instruct us: How many children of Adam have no share in the world to come?¹Tanh., Lev. 5:1; Numb. R. 14:1; PR 6:4; ARN, A, 36; Midrash on Proverbs, 22. Thus have our masters taught (in Sanh. 10:1–2): THESE ARE THEY WHO HAVE NO SHARE IN THE WORLD TO COME…. THREE KINGS AND FOUR COMMONERS²Gk.: idiotes. HAVE NO SHARE IN THE WORLD TO COME. THE THREE KINGS ARE JEROBOAM, AHAB, AND MANASSEH.³See Sanh. 101b-104a. R. Judah ben Shallum the Levite said: The sages of the Mishnah wanted to teach that there were four kings and reckon Solomon with them; however, a heavenly voice (bat qol) came forth and said (in the words of Ps. 105:15): TOUCH NOT MY ANOINTED. Nevertheless they returned one day to teaching < as before >. Fire from the heavens came and destroyed their benches. < The heavenly voice > returned and said (according to Job 34:33): SHOULD HE REPAY AS YOU WOULD, WHEN YOU HAVE REFUSED? All the same, why did they so teach? Because it is written (in I Kings 11:1, 6): NOW KING SOLOMON LOVED MANY FOREIGN WIVES < …. > AND SOLOMON DID WHAT WAS EVIL IN THE EYES OF THE LORD. (Sanh. 10:2, at the end:) THE FOUR COMMONERS ARE BALAAM, DOEG, AHITHOPHEL AND GEHAZI. You find that these were condemned to Gehinnom on account of the words of their mouths. In the case of Balaam, he was driven into Gehinnom because of his speech, as stated (in Numb. 23:7): FROM ARAM HAS BALAK BROUGHT ME, THE KING OF MOAB < FROM THE HILLS OF THE EAST: COME, CURSE JACOB FOR ME…. >⁴Numb. R. 20:19; also below, Numb. 7:17. < He said: > I was one of the exalted ones;⁵Heb.: MRMYM, which the midrash seems to understand as related to M’RMYM, i.e., “one of the Arameans.” I was one of the division of < the > patriarchs. BALAK BROUGHT ME (yanheni) and cast me into Gehinnom. Now BROUGHT ME (yanheni, rt.: NHH) can only imply Gehinnom, since it is stated (in Ezek. 32:18): SON OF ADAM, BRING (rt.: NHH)⁶The Buber text reads the middle letter in this root as a het in agreement with Numb. 23:7; but the parallels in Tanh., Lev. 5:1; Numb. R. 20:19, and the Masoretic Text all read the middle letter as a he, a reading which together with the preposition ‘al, requires the translation, LAMENT OVER. THE MASSES OF EGYPT AND CAST THEM DOWN… < UNTO THE LOWEST PART OF THE NETHER WORLD ALONG WITH THOSE WHO GO DOWN TO THE PIT >. So also was Doeg banished because of his speech. When? When David fled to Nob, the city of priests {to Ahimelech}, where Ahimelech received him, Saul noticed and gathered all his servants. He said to them: A fine way you are treating me! For David does whatever he wishes, and not one of you has put a word in my ear. It is so stated (in I Sam. 22:8): IS THAT WHY ALL OF YOU HAVE CONSPIRED [AGAINST ME? FOR NO ONE IS PUTTING A WORD IN MY EAR] < WHEN MY SON IS MAKING A DEAL WITH THE SON OF JESSE >…. Doeg began to utter evil speech, as stated (in vs. 9): THEN DOEG THE EDOMITE, WHO WAS STANDING AMONG THE SERVANTS OF SAUL, < ANSWERED AND SAID: I SAW THE SON OF JESSE COME TO NOB…. > It was also by his hand that eighty-five priests who wear the ephod and the high priest Ahimelech were slain. And he smote Nob the city of priests with the edge of the sword. So also was Ahithophel banished because of his speech. Thus it is stated (in II Sam. 17:23): SO WHEN AHITHOPHEL SAW THAT HIS COUNSEL WAS NOT HEEDED…. THEN HE SET HIS HOUSE IN ORDER AND HANGED HIMSELF. Gehazi also was banished on account of his speech. When Naaman became leprous and was healed at the hands of Elisha, Naaman began to give silver, gold and gifts⁷Gk.: dora. to Elisha, but he did not want to accept them. Now Gehazi was ministering to Elisha. He saw the silver, the gold, and the clothes; so he said (in II Kings 5:20, 21, 27): MY LORD HAS SPARED < THAT ARAMEAN > NAAMAN…. < THEN GEHAZI CHASED AFTER NAAMAN…. > THEREFORE THE LEPROSY OF NAAMAN [SHALL CLEAVE TO YOU AND TO YOUR SEED FOREVER]. Why? Because it is stated (in Deut. 13:18): AND LET NOTHING CLEAVE TO YOUR HAND OF THAT WHICH IS DEVOTED. Now Naaman and the king of Aram served idols; and it is written (in Deut. 7:26): DO NOT BRING AN ABOMINATION UNTO YOUR HOUSE…. Since you said (in II Kings 5:20): AND I WILL ACCEPT SOMETHING FROM {HIS HAND} [HIM], by your life, you shall < also > take his deformity. Thus it is stated (in vs. 27): THEREFORE THE LEPROSY OF NAAMAN SHALL CLEAVE TO YOU. R. Pedat said: The Holy One has made a covenant with the world that anyone who utters evil speech receives leprosy. Where is it shown? From what is written on the matter (in Lev. 14:2): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (hametsora'), < i.e. > the one who proclaims evil (hamotsi' ra').⁸Below, 5:5; ySot. 2:1 (17d); ‘Arakh. 15b; Cf. Lev. R. 16:1.

(Lev. 6:2:) “This is the law of the burnt offering.” This text is related (to Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord, is like the Lord among the children of the powerful ones?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If I had [merely] desired an offering, would I not have told (the angel) Michael to bring me an offering? From whom do I desire sacrifice? From Israel.” And so it says about the shewbread (in Lev. 24:8), “on every Sabbath day shall he arrange it.” But it is written (in Micah 6:7), “Does the Lord want thousands of rams?” Balaam the wicked was an advocate¹Gk.: synegoros. for the nations of the world. It is in reference to the nations that that [Scripture] speaks (in Micah 6:7), “Does the Lord want thousands of rams with ten thousands of rivers of oil?” He wants what you offer to Him, [i.e.] a log²A log is a liquid measure that equals the contents of six eggs. of oil. We (gentiles) offer Him ten thousand times ten thousands rivers of oil. What did Abraham offer to Him? Was it not one ram? It is so stated (in Gen. 22:13), “Then [Abraham] lifted his eyes to look and there was a ram behind….” If He wants, we should offer Him thousands of rams; but what did Abraham offer Him? His son. I might offer Him my son and daughter, as stated (in Micah 6:7, cont.), “shall I give my first-born for my transgression,” this is my first-born son; “the fruit of my belly for the sin of my soul,” this is my daughter. See how crafty Balaam the wicked was! He began to say (in Numb. 23:4), “I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].” He did not say, "seven altars," but, “the [seven] altars.” These are [all of the] seven altars, [which] they had built since the first Adam was created up to now. Now I am offering seven corresponding to the seven of them. And what did they offer? Twelve cakes, as stated (in Lev. 24:5), “Then you shall take fine white flour and bake it into twelve cakes.” When the Holy One, blessed be He, appeared to him, He said to him, “O wicked one, what are you doing?” He said to Him (in Numb. 23:4) “I have prepared the seven altars.” To whom is this wicked one comparable? To a butcher who sold [meat] in the market. When his store was full of meat, thieves saw [him] and looked at the meat. [When] that butcher saw that he was looking at the meat, he said to him, “Sir, I have already sent provisions³Gk.: opsonion. to your house.” So it was with Balaam. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “O wicked one, what are you doing here?” He said to Him (in Numb. 23:4), “I have prepared the seven altars with a bull and a ram on each altar.” He said to Him (in Micah 6:7), “Does the Lord want thousands of rams?” He said to Him (ibid., cont.), “Shall I give my first-born for my transgression?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “O evil one, if I had desired an offering, I would have spoken to Michael and Gabriel, and they would have presented offerings to me.” It is so stated (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord, is like the Lord among the children of the powerful ones?” This is [referring to] Balaam, who desired to imitate [what is done by] the children of the powerful ones to the Holy One, blessed be He. [“Among the children of the powerful ones” is referring to] the children of Abraham [which] are Isaac and Jacob. [These are the ones] who are the rams of the world. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “What do you desire? To deceive yourself before Me? [To persuade] Me to accept offerings from the gentiles? You are not able. It is an oath (in the words of Lev. 24:8, cont.), ‘an everlasting covenant on the part of the Children of Israel.’ It is a stipulation that I only accept offerings from Israel.” It is so stated (in Lev. 6:2), “Command Aaron and his children, saying.” When the nations said, “What is this, whereby Israel is presenting offerings and sacrificing?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them (ibid.), “This is the law of the burnt offering (rt.: 'lh),” [referring to (Cant. 3:6),] “Who is this that comes up (rt.: 'lh) from the desert?” (Exod. 19:3:) “Then Moses went up (rt.: 'lh) unto God.” Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:1-2) “Then the Lord spoke…, ‘Command Aaron…, “This is the law of the burnt offering”’”: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Fulfill what is written above on the matter. Then after that [comes,] ‘This is the law of the burnt offering.’” Why? (Is. 61:8) “Because I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering,” [meaning] even with a burnt offering. What is written above on the matter (in Lev. 5:23)? “And it shall come to pass that, when one has sinned and is guilty, he shall restore the stolen goods which he robbed.” Then after that (in Lev. 6:2), “This is the law of the burnt offering.” If you desire to present an offering, you shall not rob anyone. Why? “Because I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering.” So when do you present a burnt offering so that I accept it? When your hands are clean of robbery. David said (in Ps. 24:3-4), “Who may ascend (rt.: 'lh) the hill of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place? One with clean hands and a pure heart.” “This is the law of the burnt offering,” the one who has hands clean of robbery, he “may stand in His holy place.” “From the beginning of [this book on] offerings you learn (in Lev. 1:2), “Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them, ‘When one (adam) of you presents an offering.” Why is Adam mentioned? It is simply that the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When you sacrifice to Me, you shall be like the first Adam in that he did not rob from others, since he was alone in the world. So also you shall not rob people. Why? (Is. 61:8:) ‘Because I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering.’” Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:2), “This is the Torah of the burnt offering”: Why is it named a burnt offering ('olah, rt.: 'lh)? Because it is the highest (rt.: 'lh) of all the offerings. It is that which ascends ('olah, rt.: 'lh). You should know that when someone brings a sin offering, the priest takes it, and likewise the meal offering. Moreover, the peace offerings belong to their owners and a guilt offering belongs to the priest. In the case of the burnt offering, however, no creature tastes it. Rather all of it belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore, it is called burnt offering ('olah, rt.: 'lh), because it ascends ('olah) to the Holy One, blessed be He, who is [the] Most High (rt.: 'lh).

1) (Vayikra 5:1) ("And if a soul sinned and heard the voice of an oath, and he was a witness or saw or knew — if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin.") If it were written (only) "he heard the voice," and not "of an oath," I might think the intent of the verse to be that if one overheard a man telling his neighbor "Let us go and serve idolatry," and he could have testified in beth-din to this effect and failed to do so, ("I might think") that he is liable. — Now if one who (only) says this ("Let us go and serve, etc.") is not liable, should the one who just overhears it be liable (for withholding testimony)! It must be, then, that the verse is speaking of one being besworn in beth-din not to withhold testimony, and withholding it, in which instance the sayer (i.e., the beswearer himself) is not liable (even if he knows that the oath will be violated) and the hearer is liable (for its violation).

1) R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "and he was a witness or saw or knew, if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin"? It applies only to testimony that can consist in seeing without knowing or in knowing without seeing, and this obtains only with a monetary claim. ("seeing without knowing": as when one says to another: "I counted out a maneh to you in the presence of so and so, who witnessed this, but I did not apprise them whether it were a gift or a loan or a pledge," and the other says: "Let them come and testify that you counted it out to me in their presence and I will pay you." ("knowing without seeing": as when one says to another: "You admitted owing me a maneh in the presence of so and so," and the other says: "Let them come and testify to this, and I will pay you." R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 5:5: "and he be guilty for one of these"): There are among these that for which he is liable (for withholding testimony) and that for which he is exempt. How so? If money is claimed, he is liable; if anything else, he is exempt.

1) (Vayikra 5:11) "And if his hand does not attain to two turtle-doves or to two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering wherein he has sinned, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering.": R. Yehudah says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For he brings a tenth of an ephah immediately, and we do not wait for him until he becomes wealthy and brings a lamb or goat-kid.

1) (Vayikra 5:15) ("A soul, if it profanes, and sins unwittingly of the sanctified things of the L–rd, then he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd"): "a soul": to include the anointed (high-) priest as subject to profanation (me'ilah). (For I would think: It is written (Shemoth 30:33): "If a man compounds its (the anointing oil's) like and places of it upon a stranger," but not upon the anointed priest, who is no stranger to it, (it is, therefore, written, to negate this, "a soul," i.e., any soul). "if it profanes (timol ma'al). "Meilah" is a change (from the sacred to the profane), viz. (Chronicles 5:25): "And they profaned (vayimalu) the G d of their fathers, and went astray after the ba'alim," and (Bamidbar 5:12): "A man, if his wife goes astray and profanes him."

1) (Vayikra 5:15): "of the sanctified things of the L–rd" — which are designated for the L–rd, to exclude lower-order sanctities, which are not "for the L–rd" (but are the property of the owners, for which reason they are not subject to meilah, neither in the flesh nor in the devoted portions, before the sprinkling of the blood.) This tells me (as being subject to meilah) only of bullocks that are burnt (on the altar) and kids that are burnt, which are entirely "for the L–rd." Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a burnt-offering, whose skin is a gift to the Cohein; holy of holies, their flesh and their devoted portions, before the sprinkling of the blood; their devoted portions after the sprinkling of the blood; and lower-order offerings after the sprinkling of the blood? From "the sanctified things of the L–rd," which is inclusive (in connotation).

1) (Vayikra 5:17): ("And if a soul sin and do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd which may not be done, and he not know, and he be guilty, then he shall bear his sin.") "And if" is in addition to the preceding subject, teaching that a doubt of having been guilty of meilah is subject to a suspended guilt-offering (as when one is in doubt as to whether he had eaten consecrated or non-consecrated meat.) These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Tarfon said to him: Why should he bring two guilt-offerings, (this one, and the regulation one if he discovers that he has committed meilah)? Let him, rather, bring meilah (the principal of the loss by meilah) and its fifth, (for if not, he will not be able to bring the regulation guilt-offering), and then let him bring a guilt-offering for two selaim (the lowest possible amount) and say: If I have, indeed, committed meilah, this is my meilah (payment) and this is my guilt-offering, and if I have possibly committed meilah, the money is a gift (to the sanctuary), and the guilt-offering is in suspension (to protect me from afflictions, until it becomes known to me that I have committed meilah); for of the kind that he brings for knowledge (of having committed meilah), he brings for doubt (of having done so).

1) (Vayikra 5:18) ("And he shall bring a ram without blemish, from the flock, by your valuation for a guilt-offering to the Cohein. And the Cohein shall make atonement for his unwitting sin, wherein he sinned unwittingly. For he did not know, and it will be forgiven him.") "And the Cohein shall make atonement, etc.": Whence is it derived that if there came before him a possibility of forbidden fats, and he did not know (that it came before him, or that it might possibly have come before him; and there came before him again) a possibility of forbidden fats and he did not know — and blood, and pigul in one span of forgetfulness — (Whence is it derived) that he is liable for each one? From "his unwitting sin." If it came before him (definitely), and he did not know, whence is it derived that he is liable for only one (guilt-offering)? From "wherein he sinned unwittingly." If there came before him a possibility of forbidden fats and he knew, (and, again,) a possibility of forbidden fats and he knew — Rebbi says: Whence is it derived that just as he brings a sin-offering for each one, so he brings a suspended guilt-offering for each one? From "for his unwitting sin."

1) (Vayikra 5:2) ("Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, or the carcass of an unclean animal, or the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing, and it be hidden from him, and he is unclean and he is guilty") "Or if a soul touch any unclean thing": The early masters were wont to say: I might think that even if one touched something that had touched an unclean thing (tamei), he was liable (for entering the sanctuary or eating consecrated food); it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the carcass of an unclean animal," "the carcass of an unclean beast," "the carcass of an unclean creeping thing" — Just as these are unique in being avoth hatumah (primary causes of tumah), (so all that are avoth hatumah are included), excluding those which are not av hatumah).

1) (Vayikra 5:21) ("If a soul sin, and commit a profanation against the L–rd, and deny to his neighbor a pledge or a deposit or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor") Why is "his neighbor" written twice? "his neighbor" — to exclude (from a guilt-offering for denial) the Exalted (i.e., the sanctuary); "his neighbor" — to exclude others (i.e., idolators). I might think (that this applies even) if one said to his neighbor "I ate today," and he had not eaten; "I went to this and this city," and he had not gone — it is, therefore, written "if he sin … and deny." This applies only to a denial preceded by a sin and not to a denial not preceded by a sin.

1) ("Or if he find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely, in one of all [these things] wherein a man sins" [Vayikra 5:22]) And whence is it derived that he (sometimes) brings one (offering) for many things? From "in one."

1) (Vayikra 5:23): ("And it shall be, when he sinned and he is guilty, then he shall return the theft that he has stolen, or the oppression that he has oppressed, or the pledge which was deposited with him, or the lost object which he found.") "And it shall be": Immediately, what shall he do? "then he shall return, etc." If (only) "then he shall return" were stated, I might think: specifically (the stolen object, and if it were lost, he need not return anything). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:24): "and he shall pay (for) it (if he cannot find it). ("and he shall pay): I might think that he should (both) return (the object) and pay (in addition). And do not wonder about this, for a thief pays double, and, if he slaughtered and sold (the animal), four or five times (its worth). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written the theft," itself, and he does not (both) return (it) and pay (in addition).

1) (Vayikra 5:23): ("And it shall be, when he sinned and he is guilty, then he shall return the theft that he has stolen, or the oppression that he has oppressed, or the pledge which was deposited with him, or the lost object which he found.") "And it shall be": Immediately, what shall he do? "then he shall return, etc." If (only) "then he shall return" were stated, I might think: specifically (the stolen object, and if it were lost, he need not return anything). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:24): "and he shall pay (for) it (if he cannot find it). ("and he shall pay): I might think that he should (both) return (the object) and pay (in addition). And do not wonder about this, for a thief pays double, and, if he slaughtered and sold (the animal), four or five times (its worth). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written the theft," itself, and he does not (both) return (it) and pay (in addition).

1) (Vayikra 5:5): "Then it shall be, if he be guilty for one of these, then he shall confess where he has sinned." Whence is it derived that he is liable for each one of these ("hearing the voice, etc.") utterance of the lips, and tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects) individually, and that all three are not required for liability? From "for one." Each one is implied (in all of its possible applications).

1) (Vayikra 5:4) ("Or if a soul swear, to pronounce with the lips, to do harm or to do good, for all that a man will pronounce with an oath, and it be hidden from him, and he knew, and he is guilty in one of these") I might think (the intent of the verse to be that if one violates any pronouncement of the lips, including) a vow to become a Nazir or to bring a sacrifice, he is liable for an offering; it is, therefore, written: "if a soul swear" — It is for an oath that one is liable, and not for the others.

1) R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "and he was a witness or saw or knew, if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin"? It applies only to testimony that can consist in seeing without knowing or in knowing without seeing, and this obtains only with a monetary claim. ("seeing without knowing": as when one says to another: "I counted out a maneh to you in the presence of so and so, who witnessed this, but I did not apprise them whether it were a gift or a loan or a pledge," and the other says: "Let them come and testify that you counted it out to me in their presence and I will pay you." ("knowing without seeing": as when one says to another: "You admitted owing me a maneh in the presence of so and so," and the other says: "Let them come and testify to this, and I will pay you." R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 5:5: "and he be guilty for one of these"): There are among these that for which he is liable (for withholding testimony) and that for which he is exempt. How so? If money is claimed, he is liable; if anything else, he is exempt.

1) (Vayikra 5:5): "Then it shall be, if he be guilty for one of these, then he shall confess where he has sinned." Whence is it derived that he is liable for each one of these ("hearing the voice, etc.") utterance of the lips, and tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects) individually, and that all three are not required for liability? From "for one." Each one is implied (in all of its possible applications).

1) How so? If five say to another: Come and testify for us that so and so owes us a pledge, a deposit, a theft, and a lost object, and he says: I swear that I have no testimony for you that he owes you a pledge, a deposit, a theft, and a lost object — Whence is it derived that he is liable for each one. From: "for one," etc.

1) ("Or if he find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely, in one of all [these things] wherein a man sins" [Vayikra 5:22]) And whence is it derived that he (sometimes) brings one (offering) for many things? From "in one."

1) This is the rule: A general (unqualified) statement (e.g., "I swear that I will not drink") requires (only) one offering. A specific (qualified) statement (e.g., "I swear that I will not drink wine and oil and honey) requires an offering for each one. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: If he said: (I have no testimony) "not for you and not for you and not for you," he requires an offering for each one. R. Elazar says: He must say (for separate offerings): "… not for you and not for you and not for you, I swear" — "I swear" must be stated at the end. R. Shimon says: He must say "I swear" for each one. R. Akiva says (on 5:5 "if he be guilty for one of these"): There are among these that for which he is liable and that for which he is not liable, viz.:

1) (Vayikra 5:5) ("Then it shall be, if he be guilty for one of these, then he shall confess upon it wherein he has sinned (Vayikra 5:6) And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd for his sin, etc.") "Then it shall be" — Immediately, what shall he do? "he shall bring" the offering (and then confess, even though in the verse "confess" appears before "bring.") Whence is it derived that he needs confession? From "then he shall confess." And whence is it derived that confession is over a living animal? It is written here "confess" and it is written there (Vayikra 16:21, in respect to the sent-away he-goat of Yom Kippur) "confess." Just as there, the confession is over a living animal, here, too, it is over a living animal.

1) Or, perhaps it (Vayikra 4:24 — "and he shall slaughter … in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered") is meant to include (sin-offerings) that are similar to this (the sin-offering of a nassi), viz.: Just as this is characterized by being a sin-offering that is male, fixed, (and not sliding-scale [oleh veyored (see Vayikra 5:6-7)], atoning, coming from the flock, and coming for a known sin — so, I will include all of that kind. What will I include? The idolatry goats, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, coming from the flock, and coming for a known sin. Or, bullocks that are burnt, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, and coming for a known sin — though they do not come from the flock (i.e., this single exception would not bar their inclusion). Or, the festival goats, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, and coming from the flock — though not coming for a known sin. Since they are all (essentially) "equally weighted," let them all be included (as requiring slaughtering in the north).

1) (Vayikra 5:5) ("Then it shall be, if he be guilty for one of these, then he shall confess upon it wherein he has sinned (Vayikra 5:6) And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd for his sin, etc.") "Then it shall be" — Immediately, what shall he do? "he shall bring" the offering (and then confess, even though in the verse "confess" appears before "bring.") Whence is it derived that he needs confession? From "then he shall confess." And whence is it derived that confession is over a living animal? It is written here "confess" and it is written there (Vayikra 16:21, in respect to the sent-away he-goat of Yom Kippur) "confess." Just as there, the confession is over a living animal, here, too, it is over a living animal.

1) (Vayikra 5:7): ("And if his hand cannot attain enough for a lamb, then he shall bring (the offering) of his guilt wherein he has sinned, two turtle-doves, etc.") "his hand": (The implication is that if he does not have the money, he is not told to borrow (for a rich man's offering, even if he has from whom to borrow) and not to ply his trade. If he has a lamb, and he does not have (enough for the food) that it needs (until he reaches Jerusalem), whence is it derived that he should bring a poor man's offering? From "enough for a lamb." "then he shall bring (the offering of his guilt wherein he has sinned, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons,": He must bring two; one does not suffice.

(Bamidbar 5:5-6) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do of all the sins of man": Why is this section mentioned? (i.e., it has already been mentioned elsewhere.) — It is written (Vayikra 5:20-22) "If a soul sin and commit a profanation against the L-rd … or if he find a lost object and swear falsely, etc." But the stolen property of a proselyte is not mentioned. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do all of the sins of man." Scripture comes to teach us about the stolen property of a proselyte that if one swore to him falsely (that he did not steal it) and the proselyte died, he pays the principal and the fifth to the Cohanim and the guilt-offering to the altar, (a proselyte, halachically, not having any heirs). This is a rule in the Torah: Any section stated in one place in the Torah, missing one thing, and repeated in a different place is repeated only for the sake of the thing that is originated. R. Akiva says: Everything stated therein must be expounded. R. Yoshiyah (in explication of R. Akiva) says: Why is "a man or a woman" stated? From (Shemot 21:3) "And if a man open a pit or if a man dig a pit," I would know only of a man. Whence would I derive (the same for) a woman? From "a man or a woman," to liken a woman to a man in respect to all transgressions and damages in the Torah. R. Yonathan says: (The above derivation) is not needed, for it is already written (Ibid. 34) "The owner (whether man or woman) of the pit shall pay," and (Ibid. 22:5) "Pay shall pay the kindler (whether man or woman) of the fire." Why, then, is it stated "a man or a woman"? For its (own) teaching, (i.e., that the law of theft of the proselyte" obtains both with men and with women.) "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 5:21] "If a soul sin and commit a profanation, etc.") Because it is written "If a soul sin and commit a profanation… (22) or find a lost object, etc.", I might think that only one who lies in respect to what is mentioned therein is regarded as one who lies against the L-rd Himself. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who lies in respect to all other things? It is, therefore, written "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd." "to commit a profanation" ("limol ma'al"). "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bima'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu (II Chronicles 26:18), "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta')," and (Bamidbar 5:12) "… and she be false (uma'ala) to him" — whence we see that "me'ilah" is "lying." (Ibid. 6) "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? (i.e., it seems redundant.) "a man or a woman" would seem to indicate specifically these. Whence would I derive (the same for) one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From "and that soul shall be guilty" — All are included, even proselytes and servants. — But this would seem to include all, both the above and minors! — Would you say this? If a minor is exempt from (punishment for) the grave sin of idolatry, how much more so (is he exempt from punishment for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! Whence is it derived that if one stole and swore (falsely) and went to bring the money (to repay) and the guilt-offering and could not manage to bring them before he died, that his heirs are exempt? From "and that soul shall be guilty." — But perhaps just as they are exempt from the guilt-offering, so, they are exempt from the principal. — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "and he shall give it (the principal) to the one to whom he is liable (for payment)." "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? Whence do you derive that if one burned his neighbor's grain sack on the Sabbath that beth-din does not exact payment from him because he is liable to the death penalty? From "and that soul shall be guilty" (i.e., in the aforementioned instance, the life alone is taken.) (Ibid. 7) "and they confess their sin which they have done": This tells me that a sin-offering requires confession. Whence do I derive (the same for) a guilt-offering? From "and that soul be guilty and they confess." R. Nathan says: This is a paradigm (binyan av) for all that are put to death that they require confession.

(Bamidbar 5:5-6) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do of all the sins of man": Why is this section mentioned? (i.e., it has already been mentioned elsewhere.) — It is written (Vayikra 5:20-22) "If a soul sin and commit a profanation against the L-rd … or if he find a lost object and swear falsely, etc." But the stolen property of a proselyte is not mentioned. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do all of the sins of man." Scripture comes to teach us about the stolen property of a proselyte that if one swore to him falsely (that he did not steal it) and the proselyte died, he pays the principal and the fifth to the Cohanim and the guilt-offering to the altar, (a proselyte, halachically, not having any heirs). This is a rule in the Torah: Any section stated in one place in the Torah, missing one thing, and repeated in a different place is repeated only for the sake of the thing that is originated. R. Akiva says: Everything stated therein must be expounded. R. Yoshiyah (in explication of R. Akiva) says: Why is "a man or a woman" stated? From (Shemot 21:3) "And if a man open a pit or if a man dig a pit," I would know only of a man. Whence would I derive (the same for) a woman? From "a man or a woman," to liken a woman to a man in respect to all transgressions and damages in the Torah. R. Yonathan says: (The above derivation) is not needed, for it is already written (Ibid. 34) "The owner (whether man or woman) of the pit shall pay," and (Ibid. 22:5) "Pay shall pay the kindler (whether man or woman) of the fire." Why, then, is it stated "a man or a woman"? For its (own) teaching, (i.e., that the law of theft of the proselyte" obtains both with men and with women.) "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 5:21] "If a soul sin and commit a profanation, etc.") Because it is written "If a soul sin and commit a profanation… (22) or find a lost object, etc.", I might think that only one who lies in respect to what is mentioned therein is regarded as one who lies against the L-rd Himself. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who lies in respect to all other things? It is, therefore, written "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd." "to commit a profanation" ("limol ma'al"). "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bima'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu (II Chronicles 26:18), "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta')," and (Bamidbar 5:12) "… and she be false (uma'ala) to him" — whence we see that "me'ilah" is "lying." (Ibid. 6) "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? (i.e., it seems redundant.) "a man or a woman" would seem to indicate specifically these. Whence would I derive (the same for) one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From "and that soul shall be guilty" — All are included, even proselytes and servants. — But this would seem to include all, both the above and minors! — Would you say this? If a minor is exempt from (punishment for) the grave sin of idolatry, how much more so (is he exempt from punishment for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! Whence is it derived that if one stole and swore (falsely) and went to bring the money (to repay) and the guilt-offering and could not manage to bring them before he died, that his heirs are exempt? From "and that soul shall be guilty." — But perhaps just as they are exempt from the guilt-offering, so, they are exempt from the principal. — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "and he shall give it (the principal) to the one to whom he is liable (for payment)." "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? Whence do you derive that if one burned his neighbor's grain sack on the Sabbath that beth-din does not exact payment from him because he is liable to the death penalty? From "and that soul shall be guilty" (i.e., in the aforementioned instance, the life alone is taken.) (Ibid. 7) "and they confess their sin which they have done": This tells me that a sin-offering requires confession. Whence do I derive (the same for) a guilt-offering? From "and that soul be guilty and they confess." R. Nathan says: This is a paradigm (binyan av) for all that are put to death that they require confession.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:1–2 [8–9]:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE…: COMMAND AARON…: THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING. The Holy One said: Fulfill what is written above on the matter. Then after that < comes > THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING. Why? (Is. 61:8:) BECAUSE I THE LORD LOVE JUSTICE, I HATE ROBBERY WITH A BURNT OFFERING. Even WITH A BURNT OFFERING. What is written above on the matter (in Lev. 5:23 [6])? AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT, WHEN ONE HAS SINNED AND IS GUILTY, HE SHALL RESTORE THE STOLEN GOODS WHICH HE ROBBED. Then after that (in Lev. 6:2 [9]): THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING. If you desire to present an offering, you shall not rob anyone. Why? BECAUSE I THE LORD LOVE JUSTICE, I HATE ROBBERY WITH A BURNT OFFERING. So when do you present a burnt offering so that I accept it? When your hands are clean of robbery. David said (in Ps. 24:3–4): WHO MAY ASCEND THE HILL OF THE LORD? AND WHO MAY STAND IN HIS HOLY PLACE? ONE WITH CLEAN HANDS AND A PURE HEART. From the beginning of < this book on > offerings you learn (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ONE (adam) OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING. Why is Adam mentioned? It is simply that the Holy One said: When you sacrifice to me, you shall be like the first Adam in that he did not rob from others, since he was alone in the world. So also you shall not rob people. Why? (Is. 61:8:) BECAUSE I THE LORD LOVE JUSTICE, I HATE ROBBERY WITH A BURNT OFFERING.

(Fol. 9) R. Jeremiah used to say concerning the passage (Lev. 5, 5) And if his means be not sufficient, and again there is a passage (Ib. ib. 7) If he can not afford; all this speaks of persons that might become either poor or rich, which is not the case with either the High-priest or the priest anointed as the chaplain of the army; for concerning the latter, the passage says (Ib. 4, 22) Of all the things which the Lord his God, which signifies him who has for his superior, only his God; and concerning the High-priest, the passage says (Ib. 21, 10) And the priest that is highest among his brethren; i.e., he shall be highest in beauty, in might, in wisdom and in wealth. Acherim says: "Whence is it inferred that if he (the priest) is not rich, his people should make him so? The passage says highest among his brethren, i.e., he should be made great by his own brethren."

2) You, too, do not wonder that even though one who tells his neighbor "Let us go and serve idolatry" is not liable, the hearer (if he does not testify to this) is liable. To this end, it is written "and he heard the voice of an alah," an alah being an oath, viz. (Bamidbar 5:21): "Then the Cohein shall beswear the woman with the oath of the alah." This tells me only of an oath accompanied by an alah (lit., a curse). Whence do I derive the same for an oath unaccompanied by an alah? From "and heard the alah" - "and heard the voice" ("of an oath"), equating an oath unaccompanied by an alah to an oath accompanied by an alah.

2) R. Shimon says: He is liable here (for an offering in the instance of violating the oath to the witnesses) and he is liable in the instance of a pledge (Vayikra 5 verse 21). Just as the instance of a pledge relates only to a monetary claim, here, too, only a monetary claim is intended.

2) R. Eliezer says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For in (the area of altar) valuations (arachin) he brings a sela immediately, and we do not wait for him until he becomes wealthy and brings fifty selaim.

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

2) Whence do I derive forbidden fats as subject to meilah? (For I would say that the meilah prohibition does not "take" on that of forbidden fats.) From "the sanctified things of the L–rd." I might think that the blood (of holy of holies before sprinkling) was also included. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "of (and not all of) the sanctified things." Why do you see fit to include forbidden fats and to exclude blood? After the verse includes, it excludes. I include (forbidden) fats, which are like flesh in that they are susceptible of pigul (Vayikra 7:18), nothar (Vayikra 7:17), and tumah and I exclude blood, which is not thus susceptible.

2) R. Akiva said to him: Your words stand to reason for a minimal meilah; but if one suspects that he may have committed a meilah of one hundred maneh, is it not better for him that he bring a guilt-offering for two selaim and not bring a "meilah in doubt" for one hundred maneh? R. Akiva concedes, then, to R. Tarfon in the instance of a minimal meilah.

2) R. Elazar b. R. Shimon and R. Shimon b. R. Yehudah said in the name of R. Shimon: He is liable for only one, it being written "for his unwitting sin wherein he sinned unwittingly." "For he did not know (of the 'possibility' having come before him)" — to exclude his being informed by others. I might think (that he is not liable) even though he does not deny (their words); it is, therefore, written "For he did not know, and it will be forgiven him" — but if he does know, it will not be forgiven him.

2) R. Akiva said: I might think that even if one touched food, drink, or earthenware vessels (that had become tamei) he was liable, these are excluded, not being avoth hatumah.

2) Rebbi says: "and he deny to his neighbor a pledge or a deposit or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor, (Vayikra 5:22) or if one find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely": All of these are of a monetary nature — to exclude such things which are not of a monetary nature.

2) Rebbi says: "and he deny to his neighbor a pledge or a deposit or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor, (Vayikra 5:22) or if one find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely": All of these are of a monetary nature — to exclude such things which are not of a monetary nature.

2) "then he shall return the theft that he has stolen": What is the intent of "that he has stolen"? I might think that he pays a guilt-offering for what his father stole. It is, therefore, written "that he has stolen." He pays for his own theft and not for his father's. I might think that he need not return it at all (but simply pay its value). It is, therefore, written: "(the thing) that he has stolen."

2) I might think that if one thought (the oath) in his heart (but did not utter it) he were liable; it is, therefore, written "with the lips," not with the heart. Or I might think that I exclude what is resolved in one's heart (as in an instance when one resolves upon a loaf of wheat, but utters (only) "a loaf." It is, therefore, written "to utter" (i.e., so long as there is no contradiction between the utterance and the resolution of the heart, the resolution stands.)

2) I might think that for tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects, which is punishable by kareth ("cutting-off"), there is liability for each one, whereas for "hearing of the voice" and "utterance of the lips" which are not punishable by kareth, there is liability for one (offering) alone; it is, therefore, written "for one." Each one is implied.

2) I might think that this is so because they are five. Whence do I know that the same applies in the instance of only one claimant? From: "for one," etc.

2) How so? If one said: I swear that I will not drink, and he drank many beverages, whence is it derived that he is liable for only one (oath)? From "in one," etc.

2) Because it is written (Vayikra 11:8) "and their carcass you shall not touch," I might think that Israelites are liable for touching a carcass; it is, therefore, written "of these": there are among these that for which he is liable and that for which he is not liable, (and)

2) Whence is it derived that (the confession) requires placing of the hands (semichah, upon the head of the animal)? "upon it" is written here and "upon it" is written there (Vayikra 16:2). Just as there semichah is required, here, too, semichah is required.

2) (For otherwise I would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori — This one brings what he can afford and a metzora (a leper) brings what he can afford. Just as a metzora brings one (bird sin-offering) for one (lamb sin-offering, and one bird burnt-offering for one bird burnt-offering), this one, too, (in our case), since the rich man brings one (lamb), the poor man should bring one! Therefore, (to negate this) it is written "two turtle-doves or two young pigeons" — he brings two and not one.

(Bamidbar 5:7) "and they confess their sins which they have done": and not for what his father has done. So that if one says to him: Give me the pledge that I deposited with your father and he says: You did not deposit (any pledge), and the other says: I beswear you (to that effect), and he says "Amen," I might think that (if he confesses) he is liable; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:5) "then he shall confess wherein he has sinned," and not for what his father has done. "then he shall restore his guilt at its head": Why is this stated? Because it is written (Ibid. 5:24) "and he shall pay it at its head," I might think that this applies to monetary payment (of the principal). Whence is it derived that he may return the theft itself? From "then he shall restore." (Bamidbar 5:7) "and its fifth shall he add to it": so that it and its fifth make five (equal parts). These are the words of R. Yoshiah. R. Yonathan says: a fifth of the principal. "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable": Why is this stated? Because it is written (Vayikra 5:24) "To whom it belongs shall he give it on the day of (the acknowledgement of) his guilt," I might think that he must give it either to him or to his messenger. Whence do I derive (that he may also give it to) the messenger of beth-din or to the heir (of the one to whom he is liable)? From "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable." R. Nathan says: If one stole a maneh from his neighbor, and he came to beth-din, and he did not manage to pay it before the debtor of the robbed one arrived — Whence is it derived that beth-din may take it from the robber and give it to the debtor? From "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable" — in any manner.

(Bamidbar 5:7) "and they confess their sins which they have done": and not for what his father has done. So that if one says to him: Give me the pledge that I deposited with your father and he says: You did not deposit (any pledge), and the other says: I beswear you (to that effect), and he says "Amen," I might think that (if he confesses) he is liable; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:5) "then he shall confess wherein he has sinned," and not for what his father has done. "then he shall restore his guilt at its head": Why is this stated? Because it is written (Ibid. 5:24) "and he shall pay it at its head," I might think that this applies to monetary payment (of the principal). Whence is it derived that he may return the theft itself? From "then he shall restore." (Bamidbar 5:7) "and its fifth shall he add to it": so that it and its fifth make five (equal parts). These are the words of R. Yoshiah. R. Yonathan says: a fifth of the principal. "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable": Why is this stated? Because it is written (Vayikra 5:24) "To whom it belongs shall he give it on the day of (the acknowledgement of) his guilt," I might think that he must give it either to him or to his messenger. Whence do I derive (that he may also give it to) the messenger of beth-din or to the heir (of the one to whom he is liable)? From "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable." R. Nathan says: If one stole a maneh from his neighbor, and he came to beth-din, and he did not manage to pay it before the debtor of the robbed one arrived — Whence is it derived that beth-din may take it from the robber and give it to the debtor? From "and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable" — in any manner.

3) R. Akiva says: This tells me only of an instance in which he is besworn by others intentionally (this being the common instance). Whence do I derive the same for an instance in which he is besworn by others unintentionally or by himself unintentionally? From: "and he was a witness or saw or knew," which connotes all of the above.

3) What is more, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of a pledge, where women are equated with men, kin with non-kin, those unfit (for testimony) with those fit (i.e., it makes no difference whether the claimee were a woman, or kin of the claimant or unfit for testimony), and there is liability for each (oath, i.e., if he were besworn and he denied five times, he is liable for violation of each oath), and (liability for denial) obtains both (with denial) before beth-din and not before beth-din — ("If in the instance of a pledge") liability obtains only with money claims, here (in the instance of withholding testimony), where women are not equated with men, kin with non-kin, fit with unfit (viz. Vayikra 8:5), and there is liability for only one denial and only before beth-din (viz. Vayikra 8:6), how much more so does liability obtain only with money claims! — No, (this a fortiori argument can be refuted, viz.:) This (limitation to monetary claims) applies only in the instance of a pledge, where the besworn (by others, — where there is no liability —) is not equated with his swearing (on his own, where there is liability) and where deliberate (violation of the oath) is not equated with inadvertent (violation), whereas here (in the instance of withholding testimony), where the besworn is equated with his (own) swearing and deliberate (violation) with inadvertent, (I would say that) it (this instance) obtains both with monetary and with non-monetary claims. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written here (Vayikra 5:1): "if a soul sinned," and there (in respect to a pledge, Vayikra 5:21): "if a soul sinned" — Just as the latter obtains only with a monetary claim, so the former.

3) R. Shimon says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For the fats (of the offerings) may be burned the entire night, and they override the Sabbath in their time, and we do not wait to burn them until the Sabbath has ended.

3) R. Akiva said: Just as we find that Scripture did not discriminate between the sinner's meal-offering of an Israelite and that of a Cohein in respect to not placing (oil and frankincense upon it, viz. Vayikra 5:11), so we should not discriminate between them in respect to the gift meal-offering of an Israelite and that of a Cohein in respect to placing (oil and frankincense upon it, i.e., it should be required in both instances. Why, then, do we need the "one law" teaching for this?) R. Chananiah b. Yehudah countered: Would you compare a negative (not placing) to a positive? doing to not doing? (Certainly not!) It must, therefore, be written "the law of the meal-offering" — There is one law for all (gift) meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense.

3) Just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, there is (liability only where there is) damage and benefit, he who damages benefits, the object damaged provides the benefit, the damage and the benefit are simultaneous, the object in question is not attached to the ground, and the messenger performed his embassy —

3) Whence is it derived that things dedicated to Temple maintenance are subject to meilah? From: "the sanctified things of the L–rd." This tells me only of his dedicating things appropriate for the altar to the altar; things appropriate for Temple maintenance, to Temple maintenance. But if he dedicated to Temple maintenance things appropriate for the altar; or to the altar, things appropriate for Temple maintenance; or to either of them things which are appropriate for neither of them, such as brine, vinegar, fish, or grasshoppers (the objects to be sold and the proceeds to revert to the source originally intended) — Whence is it derived that these objects are subject to meilah? From "the sanctified things of the L–rd."

3) "and he do one of all the mitzvoth": to be liable (for a suspended guilt-offering for each one.) So that if there came before him a doubt (i.e., a possibility of having transgressed) in respect to forbidden fats, blood, nothar (Vayikra 7:17), and pigul (Vayikra 7:18) in one span of forgetfulness, he is liable for each one. If forbidden fats and permitted fats came before him and he ate one of them and he did not know which he ate; if his wife and his sister were in the house, and he lay with one of them and did not know with which one; Sabbath or weekday — If he performed labor on one of them at twilight, and did not know on which day — Whence is it derived that he brings a suspended guilt-offering? From: "And if a soul sin and do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd which may not be done, and he not know, and he be guilty, then he shall bear his sin."

3) Let us see whom he (the high-priest) is most like. If he is most like the congregation, let us derive (his rules) from (those of) the congregation; and if he is most like the nassi, let us derive (his rules) from (those of) the nassi. The congregation brings a bullock (as a sin-offering) and it does not bring an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering [see Vayikra 5:18]), and the high-priest brings a bullock, and he does not bring an asham talui. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) upon error in ruling and deed-unwittingness, so, the high-priest should bring (a sin-offering) only where these obtain.

3) "And he shall bring": Even after Yom Kippur. (For Yom Kippur atones only for transgressions that are not known [to the sinner] upon it) "his guilt-offering": "his guilt-offering" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 5:19): ("It is a guilt-offering; a guilt-offering, a guilt-offering to the L–rd.") Just as with his guilt-offering there, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his guilt-offering here, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering.

3) (Vayikra 5:19): "It is a guilt-offering; he has been guilty (ashom asham) to the L–rd." Whence is it derived that if one brought a suspended guilt-offering, slaughtered it and sprinkled its blood, and afterwards it became known to him that he had sinned or it became known to him that he had not sinned — whence is it derived that he may eat it (and it is not reckoned as non-consecrated food (chullin) slaughtered in the Temple court)? From "a guilt-offering." I might think (this to be so) even if the blood has not been sprinkled. It is, therefore, written "It." What is to be done with it? The blood is spilled out and the flesh goes to the "house of burning." If the blood has been sprinkled it may be eaten. R. Yossi says: Even if the blood is in the vessel, it may be sprinkled and the flesh eaten.

3) Or, if you learn a thing in one way (viz., binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles 3), you learn it in all of its aspects — Just as an unclean beast is unique in that touching it is distinct from carrying it (i.e., by touching it, one's garments do not become tamei, whereas by carrying it they do) and it becomes an av hatumah to render tamei both man and beast, so I include only those things which are like it. What do I include? The qualifying amount of the sprinkling waters of the red heifer and the saddle (mercav) (of a zav, one who is unclean by reason of a seminal emission), the touching of which is distinct from carrying them, (touching not rendering one's garments unclean; carrying, doing so) and which become an av hatumah to render tamei both man and beast. "any unclean thing" includes the chair and the couch (of a zav), whose touching is like its carrying and which become an av hatumah to render a man tamei to make his garments tamei. "unclean" includes the burner of the red heifer, and bullocks (the bullock of the anointed high-priest, the bullock of "forgetfulness" (helem davar) of the congregation, and the Yom Kippur bullock), and the sender-away of the (Yom Kippur) scape-goat, without touching, (a man who touches them not becoming tamei). "any unclean thing" includes (for tumah liability in entering the sanctuary a man who walks under unclean) overhanging boughs, (under unclean) jutting stones (adjoining a cemetery), and (who touches) semen (even though carrying it does not confer tumah). These are the words of R. Yehudah.

3) What is more, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of a pledge, where women are equated with men, kin with non-kin, those unfit (for testimony) with those fit (i.e., it makes no difference whether the claimee were a woman, or kin of the claimant or unfit for testimony), and there is liability for each (oath, i.e., if he were besworn and he denied five times, he is liable for violation of each oath), and (liability for denial) obtains both (with denial) before beth-din and not before beth-din — ("If in the instance of a pledge") liability obtains only with money claims, here (in the instance of withholding testimony), where women are not equated with men, kin with non-kin, fit with unfit (viz. Vayikra 8:5), and there is liability for only one denial and only before beth-din (viz. Vayikra 8:6), how much more so does liability obtain only with money claims! — No, (this a fortiori argument can be refuted, viz.:) This (limitation to monetary claims) applies only in the instance of a pledge, where the besworn (by others, — where there is no liability —) is not equated with his swearing (on his own, where there is liability) and where deliberate (violation of the oath) is not equated with inadvertent (violation), whereas here (in the instance of withholding testimony), where the besworn is equated with his (own) swearing and deliberate (violation) with inadvertent, (I would say that) it (this instance) obtains both with monetary and with non-monetary claims. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written here (Vayikra 5:1): "if a soul sinned," and there (in respect to a pledge, Vayikra 5:21): "if a soul sinned" — Just as the latter obtains only with a monetary claim, so the former.

3) "and commit a profanation against the L–rd": R. Yossi Haglili says: to include lower order sanctities, which are the property of the owner. Ben Azzai says: to include peace-offerings, excluding the beast tithe, which is not considered his property. Abba Yossi b. Dostai says: Ben Azzai was speaking only of a bechor (a first-born). R. Shimon says: Both holy of holies and lower order sanctities, for which a man is responsible, come under "and he deny to his neighbor." Those for which he is not responsible come under "against the L–rd and he deny."

3) "and you shall not deny": What is the intent of this"? (i.e., it is already written, viz.: [Vayikra 5:22]). From there, we learn the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From "and you shall not deny."

3) "or the oppression that he has oppressed": What is the intent of "that he has oppressed." I might think that he pays a guilt-offering for the "oppression" of his father. It is, therefore, written "that he has oppressed." He pays for his own "oppression" and not for his father's.

3) I might think that if one swore to do harm to others (but did not do so) he were liable (for an offering); it is, therefore, written "to do harm or to do good." Just as doing good is one's option — to exclude one's swearing to do harm to others (which is not his option).

3) I might think that for tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects there is liability for one alone. Whence do I derive that there is liability for each even in one act of "hiddenness"? From "for one." Each one is implied.

3) I might think that this is so because there are many different claims. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if one says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat, barley, and spelt, etc. … From "for one," etc.

3) I swear that I will not eat and he ate many foods, etc.

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

3) "And he shall bring": Even after Yom Kippur. (For Yom Kippur atones only for transgressions that are not known [to the sinner] upon it) "his guilt-offering": "his guilt-offering" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 5:19): ("It is a guilt-offering; a guilt-offering, a guilt-offering to the L–rd.") Just as with his guilt-offering there, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his guilt-offering here, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering.

3) (Vayikra 5:7) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": (The dedication of) the sin-offering must precede (the dedication of) the burnt-offering. Alternately: that the burnt-offering be of the same species as the sin-offering (turtle-dove or young pigeon, respectively) (and that) if he separated his sin-offering and died, his heirs bring his burnt-offering. Alternately: What is the intent of "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering?" I might think that since two (birds) are brought in place of a (lamb) sin-offering, they should both be sin-offerings, it is, therefore, written "one for a sin-offering" — and not two; "one for a burnt-offering" — and not two.

3) "one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering": Wherever a sin-offering is being replaced (by a bird, as in the case of tamei mikdash), "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering" (viz. Vayikra 5:7), and here, where a burnt-offering is being replaced, "burnt-offering" precedes "sin-offering." Wherever it (the bird-offering) comes for a sin, (as in tamei mikdash), "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering." Here, where it does not come for a sin, "burnt-offering" precedes "sin-offering." Wherever two (birds) come in place of a sin-offering, (as in tamei mikdash), "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering." Here, where two do not come in place of a sin-offering, "burnt-offering" precedes "sin-offering." Variantly: What is the intent of "one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering" (when in the other instances "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering")? Because in the instances where "sin-offering" precedes "burnt-offering," if he brings the sin-offering first, he must bring the burnt-offering of the same kind (pigeon or turtle-dove) as the sin-offering — whence is it derived that if (in our instance) she brought the burnt-offering first, she must bring the sin-offering of the same kind as the burnt-offering? From "one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering." Variantly: If she brought a turtle-dove for her sin-offering and a pigeon for her burnt-offering, she "doubles" and brings a turtle-dove for her burnt-offering. If she brought a turtle-dove for her burnt-offering and a pigeon for her sin-offering, she "doubles" and brings a pigeon for her burnt-offering, (the sin-offering serving as the criterion, for it is it which effects atonement). Ben Azzai says: We follow the first (as per the first variant). "one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering and the Cohein shall make atonement for her": We are hereby taught (by the proximity of "sin-offering" to the next word "vechiper" [atonement]) that it is the sin-offering which effects atonement. "and she shall be clean": to eat of the sacrifices.

3) (Vayikra 6:19) ("The Cohein that offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it. In a holy lace shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.") "The Cohein that offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it": with the exclusion of one who immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening, and one lacking atonement, and a mourner. "it": a fit (offering) and not one that is unfit, (such as one that went out of the azarah or became tamei). "it": an offering whose blood was applied above (the upper half of the altar), and not one whose blood was applied below. — Now where are you coming from (to assume that it would be fit if its blood were placed below)? — Because it is written (Devarim 12:27): "And the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the L–rd your G d, and the flesh you shall eat," I would assume that a sin-offering whose blood was applied on the lower half was fit. And how would I satisfy "on the horns of the altar"? As being a mitzvah (but not a categorical requirement). For I would think that just as it requires four applications (of blood on the horns of the altar), but if he made (only) one application it atones, so, it would require the application of blood above, but if he did so below it would be fit. And does this not follow, viz.: Blood is applied below (the red line, in the instance of a bird sin-offering, (Vayikra 5:9): "And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering on the wall of the altar," which is expounded to be the lower wall), and blood is applied above (the red line, in the instance of beast sin-offering, where "horns" is written). Just as (it is derived by exegesis) that if what was to be applied below was applied above, there is no atonement, so, if what was to be applied above, was applied below, there is no atonement. But (this could be countered, viz.:) Why does the lower applied above not atone? Because none of it is to be offered up above. Would you then say (because of this) that the higher applied below does not atone — when part of it is offered below! (So that "it" is required to tell us that it does not atone.) — But this would be countered by the instance of the inner (blood), part of which is offered outside, notwithstanding which if it (the inner blood) was offered outside, it would not atone. (So, the question returns: Why is the "it" exclusion necessary?) (Because it could be countered) Why is it that if the inner blood is applied outside it does not atone? Because the inner altar does not complete the process of atonement, whereas with the higher blood, since the horns do complete the process of atonement, I would say that if it were placed below, it would be fit; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): "it" — an offering whose blood was applied above, and not one whose blood was applied below.

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] This text is related (to Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE. Everything depends on the tongue.¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 5:2. < If > one is acquitted, he is acquitted for life; < if > one is not acquitted, he is condemned to death. < If > one is engaged in Torah with his tongue, he is acquitted for life, inasmuch as the Torah [is called life, according to what is stated] (in Prov. 3:18): < WISDOM > IS A TREE OF LIFE TO THOSE WHO TAKE HOLD OF IT. It (i.e., the Torah) is also one's healing for the evil tongue (i.e., slander), as stated (in Prov. 15:4): A HEALING TONGUE IS A TREE OF LIFE. But if one is occupied with slander, his soul is condemned to death, since slander is more harmful than the shedding of blood. Thus whoever kills takes only one life, but the one who speaks slander kills three people: the one who tells it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is told.¹¹PRK 4:2; Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Deut. R. 5:10; M. Pss. 12:2; yPe’ah 1:1 (16a). Doeg spoke slander against Ahimelech; and he (i.e., Ahimelech) was killed, [as stated] (in I Sam. 22:16): BUT {SAUL} [THE KING] SAID: YOU SHALL SURELY DIE, AHIMELECH. Saul also was killed, [as stated] (in I Chron. 10:13): < SO SAUL DIED > FOR THE TREACHERY WHICH HE HAD COMMITTED AGAINST THE LORD. And thus did Saul say (in II Sam. 1:9, to a young man): PLEASE STAND OVER ME AND SLAY ME, FOR DEATH THROES HAVE SEIZED ME. < The young man was > the accuser¹²Gk.: kategoros. of Nob, the city of priests. Now DEATH THROES (ShBTs) can only denote priesthood, since it is stated (in Exod. 28:13 with reference to high-priestly dress): AND YOU SHALL MAKE GOLD BROCADE (rt.: ShBTs). Doeg also was uprooted (ShRSh) from the life of this world and from all life in the world to come. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 52:7 [5]): GOD WILL ALSO TEAR YOU DOWN FOR EVER; HE WILL SEIZE YOU, TEAR YOU AWAY FROM YOUR TENT, AND UPROOT (ShRSh) YOU FROM THE LAND OF THE LIVING. SELAH. < I.e., he will uproot you > from life in the world to come. Who is more severe? One who smites with the sword or < one who > smites with the dart? [Say: The one who smites with the dart.] The one who smites with the sword is only able to kill his companion if he draws near to him and touches him; but in the case of one who smites with the dart, it is not so. Rather one throws the dart wherever he sees him. Therefore, one who speaks slander is comparable to the dart, as stated (in Jer. 9:7 [8]): THEIR TONGUE IS A SHARPENED DART; IT SPEAKS DECEIT. It also says (in Ps. 57:5 [4]): THE CHILDREN OF ADAM, WHOSE TEETH ARE SPEARS AND DARTS, [AND WHOSE TONGUE A SHARP SWORD]. See how harmful slander is, in that it is more harmful than adultery, blood shedding, and idolatry.¹³M. Pss. 52:2. Of adultery it is written (in Gen. 39:9, where Joseph is addressing Potiphar's wife): THEN HOW SHALL I DO THIS GREAT EVIL AND SIN AGAINST GOD? Of blood shedding it is written (in Gen. 4:13): AND CAIN SAID TO THE LORD: MY SIN IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR. Of idolatry it is written (in Exod. 32:31, with reference to the golden calf): ALAS, THIS PEOPLE HAS SINNED A GREAT SIN. But when it (i.e., Scripture) mentions slander, it does not say "great" (in the masculine singular, as in Gen. 4:13), "great" in the feminine singular, as in Gen. 39:9 and Exod. 32:31), but "great" (in the feminine plural). Thus it is written (in Ps. 12:4 [3]): THE LORD SHALL CUT OFF ALL FLATTERING LIPS, < EVERY > TONGUE SPEAKING GREAT THINGS (in the feminine plural). It is therefore stated (in Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE.

(Fol. 23) Our Rabbis were taught (Num. 30, 13) Her husband hath annulled them; and the Lord will forgive her. The passage deals with a woman whose husband annulled her vow, but she was not aware of the fact she needs forgiveness. R. Akiba, when he would reach the foregoing passage, would cry, saying: "If one who only had intention to eat swine meat, and he actually ate lamb meat, nevertheless the Torah says he needs an atonement and forgiveness, how much more so is it necessary for a man who wanted to eat swine meat and really did eat it!" Similar to this is the following passage (Lev. 5, 17) And he knew not whether he had incurred guilt and so bear his iniquity. If one who actually had intentions to eat lamb meat, that is permitted to be eaten, but it turned out that he did eat swine meat, nevertheless the Torah says, and he know not whether he had incurred guilt, and so bear his iniquity, how much more so is this applied to one who intended to eat swine meat and did eat it! Issi b. Juda says: And he know not whether he had incurred guilt. If one who actually had intentions to eat lamb, but it turned out that he ate swine meat, nevertheless the Torah says, and he should bear his iniquity, how much more so is this applied to one who intended to eat swine meat and did eat it! Upon this let mourn all those who feel the affliction."

The disciples of R. Yohanan the son of Zakkai posed the query: Why does the Torah deal more harshly with a thief than with a robber, inasmuch as a thief is required to pay double or even four- or fivefold the value of what he has stolen, while concerning the robber it is written: Then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he stole by robbery (Lev. 5:23)? He explained: The robber equates the dignity of the servant with the dignity of the Master, while the thief does not equate the dignity of the servant to that of the Master. He (the thief) acts as though the eyes of the Almighty were unable to see him and His ears were incapable of hearing him. He moves about stealthily while perpetrating his thievery, as though he can be seen by man but not by God. Therefore it says: Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say: “Who seeth us? Who knoweth us?” (Isa. 29:15); They say, the Lord will not see (Ps. 94:7); and it says also: The Lord seeth us not, the Lord has forsaken the land (Ezek. 8:12).

MISHNAH: How were the witnesses awestruck in criminal cases? They were brought in and warned: Perhaps your testimony is based only on a supposition, or on hearsay, or on that of another witness, or you have had it from a trustworthy man; or perhaps you are not aware that finally we will investigate the matter by examination and cross examination. You may also be aware of the fact that there is no similarity between civil and criminal cases. In civil cases one may repay the money damage and he is atoned; but in criminal cases the blood of the person executed, and of his descendants to the end of all generations, clings to the instigator of his executions, for thus do we find in the case of Cain, who slew his brother, concerning whom it is said (Gen. 4, 10) The voice of the blood of thy brother is crying unto me from the ground. Blood is not mentioned in the singular, but in the plural (bloods), which means his blood and the blood of his descendants. According to others, the bloods of thy brother — i.e., his blood has scattered over all the trees and stones. Therefore the man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being is considered by Scriptures as if he had destroyed the whole world, and he who saves one soul of Israel, Scripture considers it as if he had saved the whole world. And also in order to preserve peace among creatures, so that one should not say: "My grandfather was greater than yours;" and also that the heretic shall not say: "There are many creators in heaven." And also to proclaim the glory of the Holy One, praised be He! For a human being stamps many coins with one stamp, and all of them are alike; but the King of all the kings, the Holy One, praised be He! has stamped every man with the stamp of Adam the first, and nevertheless not one of them is like the other. Therefore every man may say: "The world was created for my sake, hence I must be upright, just," etc. Should the witness say: (Ib. b) "Why should we take so much trouble upon ourselves?" Behold it is written (Lev. 5, 1) And he is a witness, since he hath seen or knoweth something; if he do not tell it, then he should bear his iniquity. And should you say: "Why should we testify to the disadvantage of that man's blood?" Behold, it has been said (Prov. 11, 10) When the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.

We are taught: (Num. 30, 13) Her husband hath annulled them; and the Lord will forgive her. R. Akiba, when he would reach the above passage, would cry, saying: "If one only had the intention to eat swine meat, and he actually ate lamb meat, nevertheless the Torah says he needs an atonement and forgivenness; how much more so is it necessary for a man who wanted to eat swine meat and really did eat it!" Similar to this the following passage (Lev. 5, 17) And he know not whether he had incurred guilt, and so bear his iniquity. "If one who actually had intentions to eat fat that is permitted to be eaten, but it turned out that he did eat such fat which is prohibited, nevertheless the Torah says and he know not whether he had incurred guilt, and so bear his iniquity, how much more so is this applied to one who intended to eat prohibited fat and did actually eat it!" Issi b. Juda says: "Upon the above passage, and he know not whether he had incurred guilt, should a man feel sorry his entire life?"

4) If one sent to them (the witnesses) his son, his servant or his messenger (to make his claim) or if the claimee said to them: "I beswear you that if you know testimony for him (the claimant) you come and testify for him," I might think that they are liable; it is, therefore, written "if he does not tell, he shall bear his sin," ("not" being written plene (lamed, vav, aleph), to be expounded: "If to him (lamed vav), i.e., to the claimant, he dos not (lamed aleph) tell, etc.")

4) (If one says:) "I beswear you if you do not come and bear witness for me that this and this man said he would give me two hundred zuz and he did not give it to me," this constitutes a money claim. I might think, then, that they would be liable (for the witnesses' oath); it is therefore, (to negate this) written (in both instances): "if a soul sinned" - "if a soul sinned," for (purposes of) identity — Just as in the instance of "if a soul sinned" there (a pledge), he claims money and he has the right (to do so), the instance of "if a soul sinned" here (the witnesses' oath) too, must be one in which he claims money and has the right (to do so — to exclude an instance such as the above, where he (the claimant) has no such right by law, the claimee having the right to retract (his agreement to give him the money).

4) "then he shall bring his offering wherein he has sinned, a tenth of an ephah of soleth": This tells me (only) that "a tenth of an ephah" obtains with his obligatory offering. Whence do I derive that it obtains also with his donative offering? From "his offering (in any event) … a tenth of an ephah."

4) — But why not go in this direction? The nassi brings a she-goat (for unwitting transgression of idolatry [see Bamidbar 15:27]), and he brings a categorical guilt-offering (see Vayikra 5:15), and the high-priest brings a she-goat for idolatry and he brings a categorical gift-offering. Just as the nassi brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, without an error in ruling), so, the high-priest! It is, therefore, written: "to the guilt of the people." The high-priest is being compared to the congregation. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) only where (beth-din) erred (in the ruling), and they (the people) sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling), so, the high-priest brings (a sin-offering) only in like circumstances.

4) so with the sin here.

4) If he dedicated a hen to Temple maintenance, both it and its eggs are subject to meilah; a she-ass to Temple maintenance, both it and its milk are subject to meilah; turtle-doves to Temple maintenance, both they and their eggs are subject to meilah. A pit full of water; refuse full of foliage; a dove-cote full of doves; a tree full of fruits; a field full of seed — Whence is it derived that both they and what they contain are subject to meilah? From "the sanctified things of the L–rd."

4) R. Yehudah says: If his wife, a niddah, and his sister were in the house and he sinned unwittingly with one of them and did not know with which one; Shabbath or Yom Kippur — If he performed labor on one of them at twilight and did not know on which one; if forbidden fats and nothar were before him and he ate one of them and did not know which one — R. Eliezer holds him liable for a sin-offering, (for, in any event, he sinned), and R. Yehoshua exempts him, (holding that a sin-offering is brought only for a particular sin). R. Yehudah said: R. Yehoshua also exempted him from a suspended guilt-offering. For it is written: "if he sin … and he did not know" — excluding this one (the above), who did know that he sinned. R. Shimon said: This itself (knowing that one has sinned, but not knowing the particular sin) is precisely what one brings a suspended guilt-offering for, it being written: "if he sin and do … and he did not know (which sin)!" He did, but he does not know what he did! The question to ask is: Whence is it derived that one brings a suspended guilt-offering when he is in doubt as to whether he has sinned or not?

4) I might think that even if it has not been slaughtered, (it should be slaughtered); it is, therefore, written "It" (to exclude such an instance.) What is to be done with it? It is to go out to pasture with the flock, (it being regarded as any other animal). These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: It is to graze until it contracts some blemish, after which it is sold and its monies used for a (communal) guilt-offering. R. Elazar says: It is to be offered up; for if it does not come for this sin, it comes for some other sin.

4) ("the carcass of an unclean animal":) Why is "unclean" needed? (For even the carcass of a clean animal confers tumah!) I might think that (touching) only a whole animal is intended. How do I know that (touching) only an olive-size of it suffices? From "unclean" (i.e., a size that is susceptible of that term.)

4) R. Akiva says: What is the intent of "and commit a profanation against the L–rd"? Because the lender and the borrower and the taker and the giver act only in the context of writ and witnesses, therefore, when one denies, he denies the witnesses and the writ, but one who deposits a pledge with his neighbor wants no one to know about it but the "Third Party" among them, and when he denies, he denies the "Third Party" among them.

4) I might think that he need not return it at all; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "eth the oppression" ("eth is a term of inclusion). What is the intent of "which was deposited with him"? So long as it is with him, he returns it (and may not pay for it instead). If it is not with him, he pays for it.

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

4) I might think that if one thought to harm himself (but did not do so) he were exempt (from an offering); it is, therefore, written "to do harm or to do good." Just as doing good is one's option, so doing harm is one's option — to include in liability (for an offering) one who swears to harm himself.

4) I might think that for all of "tumah of the sanctuary" he is liable only for one (even if he entered and returned and entered (again) and became aware in the middle)

4) I might think that this is so because they are many species. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if he says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat that I deposited with him last night, and before that, etc. … From "for one," etc.

4) I might think that in the instance of an oath of pronouncement, where deliberate violation is not equated with unwitting violation, he is liable for one alone, but in a court-imposed oath, where deliberate violation is equated with unwitting violation, he is liable for each one; it is, therefore, written "in one," etc.

4) R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Because it is written (Devarim 26:14): "I did not eat of it (ma'aser) in my mourning and I did not remove of it in uncleanliness," I might think that Israelites who ate ma'aser in mourning or in tumah would be liable for this offering; it is therefore, written "of these."

4) "his guilt-offering for his sin": Just as with his guilt-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his sin-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering.

4) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": the owner must dedicate them thus. And whence is it derived that if the Cohein dedicated them, his dedication stands? From: "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (Vayikra 5:6): "and he shall bring them to the Cohein."

4) "his guilt-offering for his sin": Just as with his guilt-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his sin-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering.

4) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": the owner must dedicate them thus. And whence is it derived that if the Cohein dedicated them, his dedication stands? From: "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (Vayikra 5:6): "and he shall bring them to the Cohein."

(Lev. 10:8-9:) “And the Lord spoke unto Aaron, [saying], ‘Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.’” Why did He give a commandment concerning wine?¹³Lev. R. 12:1; cf. Numb. R. 10:2; M. Prov. 23. Because anyone who drinks wine will have boils, sores, shame, and reproach come upon him. So the holy spirit cries out (in Prov. 23:29-35), “Who has woe; who has sorrow; who has contentions; who has talk; who has unexplained sores; who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry over wine [….] Do not stare at wine when it is red, [when it gives its color to the cup….] In the end it will bite like a snake; [….] Your eyes will see strange things; [….] You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, [….] They struck me, but I felt no hurt.” (Vs. 29) “Who has woe; who has sorrow” [means,] about whom do they say, “Woe?”; “who has contentions,” [means,] about whom do they say [that he is a master of] quarrels. [(ibid., cont.) “Who has talk, means,] and about whom do they talk? (ibid., cont.) “Who has unexplained sores,” [means,] whom [do they say] has boils on his face? [(ibid., cont.) “Who has redness of eyes ('ayin),” [means,] and about whom do they say that his eyes ('ayin) are bleary and red from wine? About whom do they say all these evils? (Vs. 30) “Those who tarry over wine.” (Vs. 31) “Do not stare at wine when it is red.” Its end is blood. It is fine on the outside and bad on the inside; so never say that it is beautiful on the inside, just as [it appears] on the outside. (According to ibid., cont.,) “When it gives its color ('ayin) to the cup (kos).” [This is the oral text (the qere).] The written text (ketiv) [says] “to the purse (kis).” The drunkard sets his eye on the cup, but the shopkeeper [sets his eye] on the purse. “When it gives its color to the cup.” When one sees his comrade drinking, he says, “Pour one for me to drink.” Then he drinks and defiles himself in dung and urine. (Ibid., cont.) “He/it¹⁴In the Biblical context it is the wine that goes down smoothly. goes down smoothly.” He ends in selling all the objects in his house and all his useful implements. Thus he [is left with] no clothes and no useful implements for the house, so that [he is left] with nothing and the house is empty from [having] everything. “He/it goes down smoothly.” In the end he declares transgressions permissible and makes them something accessible [to all] like a commons. He converses with a woman in the market place where he talks obscenely and says evil things in a drunken state without being ashamed, because he is confused and knows neither what he is saying nor what he is doing. (Prov. 23:32) “In the end it will bite like a snake.” When the snake bites a person, he does not feel it for a time; but after he goes home, [the poison in] the wound permeates him. “In the end it will bite like a snake,” most certainly like a snake. Just as in the case of the snake, [the Holy One, blessed be He,] cursed the land on account of it, as stated (in Gen. 3:17), “cursed is the land because of you”; so in the case of wine, Canaan, who was a third of the world was cursed on account of it, as stated (in Gen. 9:24-25), “Then Noah awoke from his wine…, [And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan].’”¹⁵As Enoch Zundel explains in his commentary on Tanh., Lev. 3:5, Canaan’s curse comes through his father Ham, upon whom the curse actually fell. Since Ham represented a third of Noah’s sons, a third of the world came from him. So also Numb. R. 10:2. Ergo (in Prov. 23:32), “In the end it will bite like a snake….” (Vs. 33) “Your eyes will see strange things.” See what wine causes one who drinks it! “Your eyes will see strange things” [is a reference to], (Ps. 81:10) “There shall not be a strange god with you.” It causes him to serve idols. So it says (in Is. 28:7), “These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink.” What is the meaning of these? [These of] which it is spoken (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel.” Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:6), “and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to engage in amorous sport.” [It was] because of wine that they said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel.” Therefore (in Prov. 23:33), “and your heart will speak deceitful things.” Thus it causes four things: idolatry, uncovering of nakedness, shedding of blood, and evil speech. See how strong wine is! So it is written (in Hab. 2:5), “And moreover, wine betrays an arrogant man.” It is also written (in Prov. 21:24), “An insolent and arrogant one, scorner is his name.” Now “insolent” must mean idolatry. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 119:21), “You rebuke the cursed insolent ones.” Moreover, “insolent ones” must [also] refer to the uncovering of nakedness. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 86:14), “O God, insolent ones have risen up over against me…”; and it says (in Ps. 19:14), “Also keep your servant from insolent ones.” Moreover, when one drinks and transgresses, he sees the whole world as a ship. It is so stated (in Prov. 23:34), “You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea.” When he lies down they smite him, but he does not feel it. Thus it is stated (in vs. 35), “They struck me, but I felt no hurt; they beat me, but I did not know it.” So when he is unknowing and unashamed, he uncovers himself. Then afterwards he returns and seeks it (i.e., wine). [Thus it is stated (ibid.),] “when I wake up, I seek it yet again.” See how evil is the end of those who drink wine. [Isaiah said (in Is. 5:11),] “Woe to those who rise early in the morning to pursue strong drink; who remain behind in the evening for wine to inflame them.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Inasmuch as wine causes such [evils], it is right for Me to command the priests not to drink wine when they minister before Me. Ergo (in Lev. 10:9:), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.” Solomon said (in Prov. 23:20), “Do not be among those who imbibe wine.” Do not cause yourself to drink [wine (yyn), which implies] seventy. Then you would face seventy [judges of the Sanhedrin] and fall into the hands of death. Y (= 10) plus y (= 10), for a subtotal of 20, plus n (= 50) results in seventy.¹⁶Cf. Sanh. 38a. So you would face seventy [members of] the Sanhedrin¹⁷Gk.: Synedrion. and cause your own death. See what is written (in Deut. 21:18-19), “If one has a defiant and rebellious son…, his father and mother shall take hold of him [and bring him out unto the elders of his town]….” Then the sentence shall be passed over him; and (in vs. 21) “[All the people of his own town] shall stone him [to death] with stones.” Why? Because he is (according to vs. 20) “a glutton and a drunkard.” So Solomon has said (in Prov. 23:20), “Do not be among those who imbibe wine, who gorge themselves on meat,”¹⁸See also Prov. 23:22, which adds an admonition to obey parents. lest you bring stoning upon yourself, the most weighty of the executions.
R. Judah bar Shallum the Levite said, “In the Hebrew language the name [for wine] is yyn, and in the Aramaic language its name is hmr. By gematria¹⁹Gk.: geometria or grammateis. Gematria is an exegetical method in which an interpretation is reached from the sum of the numerical value of the letters in a word. hmr becomes two hundred and forty-eight, corresponding to the [number of] parts in a human being. The wine enters into each and every limb, so that the body becomes weakened and knowledge becomes confounded. When wine enters, knowledge departs.” And so Eleazar Haqappar has taught, “Wine (yyn), with a numerical value of seventy enters; and secrets (swd), with a numerical value of seventy,²⁰S (= 60), W (= 6), and D (= 4) add up to 70. depart.”²¹Cf. Sanh. 38a, which attributes the teaching to R. Hiyya. Therefore, the high priest was commanded not to drink wine during the time of the service, lest it confound his knowledge; for he preserves the Torah (and preserves the service) and the knowledge. Thus it is stated (in Mal. 2:6), “The true Torah was in his mouth, and no injustice was found on his lips.” It also says (in vs. 7), “For the lips of a priest preserve knowledge.” Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Aaron (in Lev. 10:9), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor, you and your children as well.” And do [not] think that I may have commanded you [only] for the past in the beginning, at a time when the Temple was standing and you were ministering in it, since it is stated (ibid., cont.), “when you come unto the tent of witness….” [Rather,] you shall also keep yourselves from wine forever, as stated (ibid., cont.), “it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.” Therefore, keep yourselves from wine, because wine is a sign²²Gk.: semeion. of a curse. In the case of Noah, what is written about him? (In Gen. 9:21), “Then he drank of the wine and became drunk.” Cham entered and saw his nakedness. What did [Noah] say to him? He cursed his son (in vs. 25), “And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan.’” Therefore (in Lev. 10:9), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.” And so you find that the ten tribes went into exile only from wine.²³Cf. Lev. 5:3; Numb. 10:3. See what [scripture] says (in Amos 6:1), “Woe to those who are at ease in Zion,” because they were dwelling at ease in pleasure palaces. (Ibid., cont.) “and who have confidence in the mountain of Samaria,” because they were dwelling confidently in [Sebaste].²⁴The city built by Herod on the site of old Samaria. (Ibid., cont.:) “The notables of the leading nation, the ones to whom the House of Israel comes.” In what sense? The peoples of the world would sit and talk. They would say, “Who is the mightiest in Israel?” And they would answer, “Samson.” Then again they would say, “Who is the mightiest among the gentiles?” And they would answer, “Goliath,” about whom it is written (in I Sam. 17:4), “his height was six cubits and a span.” Ergo (in Amos 6:1), “The notables of the leading nation, the ones to whom the House of Israel comes.” Then again they would say, “Who is the wealthiest among the peoples of the world?” And they would answer, “Hadrian.” Then, “Who is the wealthiest in Israel?” And they would answer, “Solomon.” And these would agree with those that Solomon was the wealthiest, as stated (in I Kings 10:27), “And the king made silver [in Jerusalem as plentiful as stones].” Come and see, each and every tribe had its own May festival.²⁵Gk. Maioumas. When one wanted to go to his May festival, he would take his herd with him, so that he would eat fatlings from his flock. It is so stated (in Amos 6:4, 6), “and they would eat lambs from the flock…. Those who drink [straight] from the wine bowls….” What is their end? (Amos 6:7) “Therefore they shall now go at the head of the exiles.” Why? Because they had a passion for wine. For this reason he warns Aaron (in Lev. 10:9), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.” Blessed is the one who does not have a passion for wine, for you find such to be the case with the children of Jonadab ben Rechab, in that their ancestor had commanded them, “Do not drink wine, you and your children forever” (Jer. 35:6). But what was his reason for saying, “Do not drink wine, you and your children?” It is simply that he had heard Jeremiah prophesying that the Temple would be destroyed. He said to them, “From now on, (Jer. 35:6-7), ‘Do not drink wine… You shall not build a house, sow seed, plant a vineyard, [or own such things]; but you shall dwell in tents all your days.” Now they had mourned and observed the commandments of their ancestor; but when Jeremiah was prophesying to Israel [and] telling them to repent, they were not doing so. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jeremiah, “You are telling them to repent, and they are not doing so. Now in the case of the children of Jonadab ben Rechab, when their ancestor gave them a simple commandment, they observed it; but when I tell Israel to repent, they do not observe [My commandment].” It is so stated (in Jer. 35:14), “The words of Jonadab ben Rechab have been upheld. He commanded his children not to drink wine, and to this day they have not drunk it…. But I spoke to you from early morning to late evening, [and you did not hearken unto me].” What is written there? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jeremiah, “Say to them, ‘By your life, whereas you have heeded this commandment, your lineage shall never disappear from before Me, even as it is written (in vs. 19), “Therefore, thus says the Lord [of hosts, the God of Israel], ‘Someone belonging to Jonadab ben Rechab shall not (ever) be cut off [from standing] before Me for ever.’”’” He therefore enlightens them concerning wine (in Lev. 10:9), “Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor.” Isaiah said (in is. 24:11), “There is a cry over wine in the streets; all gladness is obscured.” What is the meaning of “all gladness is obscured (rt.: 'rb)?”²⁶Above, Exod. 11:8. [That ] all gladness has become dark, just as you say (in Gen. 1:5),²⁷Also Gen. 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31. “and there was evening ('rb).” (Is. 24:11, cont.:) “The joy of the earth has [departed], because Zion has come to an end.” Thus it is written (in Ps. 48:3), “Beauteous landscape, joy of the whole earth, [even Mount Zion].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “In this world wine is a sign of a curse, but in the world to come I will make it into fresh grape juice. Thus it is stated (in Joel 4:18), “And it shall come to pass on that day the mountains shall flow with fresh grape juice….”

5) I might think that in the instance of a court-imposed oath ("hearing the voice," viz. Vayikra 5:1), where deliberate violation (of the oath) is equated with unwitting violation (in respect to bringing an offering," "and it be hidden" not being written in that regard), he is liable for each one, but in the instance of an oath of pronouncement, (viz. Vayikra 5:4) where deliberate violation is not equated with unwitting violation, "and it be hidden" (i.e., unwitting) being written in that regard), I might think that he is liable for one (offering) alone; it is, therefore, (to negate this), written (Vayikra 5:5): "for one," to impose liability for each one.

5) If one said to two (witnesses): I beswear you and you that if you have testimony for me that you come and testify for me, and they have testimony for him — one witness from the mouth of another witness, or if one of them were kin (to the claimant) or unfit (to testify) — I might think that they were liable, (being acceptable to the claimee; for if not, this is simply an instance of denial of the claim), it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "if he does not tell (i.e., bear witness)" — when they are fit to bear witness, and not when they are unfit to do so.

5) If he beswore them five times outside of beth-din (and they denied having witnessed [for each oath]) and they came before beth-din and admitted (having witnessed), I might think that they were liable; it is, therefore, written: "and he was a witness or saw or knew — if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin" — This applies only in an instance where if he told, the other (the claimee) would be liable to pay. Which instance is that? That of (telling in) beth-din.

5) (Vayikra 5:8) "and he shall bring them": A bird (that became defective) cannot be redeemed (and replaced with another bird with its monies). ("And he shall bring them) to the Cohein": The burden of getting them (to the Cohein) is his. "And he shall sacrifice the one for the sin-offering first": What are we taught hereby? If that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering in all of its operations, is this not explicitly stated (Vayikra 5:10): "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed (Vayikra 1:14)"? Why, then, need this be repeated? To serve as a prototype (binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles [Vayikra 1:3]) for all sin-offerings accompanied by burnt-offerings:

5) "a tenth of an ephah": one-tenth of three sa'in, which is seven revi'in and an addition. "soleth": Just as soleth stated there (Exodus 29:2) is of wheat, so soleth stated here is of wheat. "for a sin-offering": Its monies must be designated as being for a sin-offering. "he may not place oil upon it": But he may place (oil) upon what remains (of the minchah offering). "he shall not put frankincense upon it": I might think that if he did place frankincense upon it, it becomes unfit; it is, therefore, written: "for it is a sin-offering" (and just as a beast sin-offering is not invalidated by frankincense, this bird sin-offering is, likewise, not invalidated by frankincense. Or, (I might think): "it is a sin-offering" — Even if he placed oil upon it, it is kasher; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written: "it" (with frankincense, is a sin-offering — but not with oil). And why do you see fit to permit it with frankincense and to invalidate it with oil? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I permit it with frankincense? Because it can be picked off — and I invalidate it with oil, because it cannot be picked off.

5) "You shall not steal, and you shall not deny, and you shall not lie, one man to another. (Vayikra 5:12) "and you shall not swear in My name falsely." If you do steal, in the end you will deny; in the end you will lie; in the end, you will swear in My name falsely.

5) "he has been guilty to the L–rd": to include (as going to the L–rd) monies left over (from guilt-offering dedications). I might think that all of it should go for Temple maintenance; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written: "It is a guilt-offering." If it is a guilt-offering, I might think that all of it should go to the Cohein; it is, therefore, written: "he has been guilty to the L–rd." How is this (to be reconciled)? The surplus (monies) of guilt-offerings fall as a donation and burnt-offerings are purchased with them, the flesh to go (as a burnt-offering) to the L–rd; and the hides, to the Cohanim.

5) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah it is (only) he (himself) who eats and derives benefit, here, too, (there is liability only where) he (himself) eats and derives benefit? Whence do I derive (that there is liability, too) for: his eating (of consecrated food) and the eating of his (invited) neighbor, that they combine (for the minimum liability amount), his derivation of benefit (e.g., from the anointment oil) and that of his neighbor, his eating and the benefit of his neighbor, his benefit and the eating of his neighbor? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al" (lit., "profanes, profanes," in any event).

5) I might think that even if he dedicated turtle-doves to the altar their eggs would be subject to meilah; a pit and it was afterwards filled with water; refuse and it was afterwards filled with foliage; a dove-cote and it was afterwards filled with doves; a tree and it was afterwards filled with fruits; a field and it was afterwards filled with grass — I might think that what it contained was subject to meilah. It is, therefore, written, to exclude these, "of the sanctified things of the L–rd." R. Yossi says: If one dedicates his field or his tree, both they and their growth are subject to meilah, for they are (regarded as) "growths of the sanctuary."

5) "and he did not know" — to exclude his knowing (afterwards, in which instance he brings only the sin-offering, for which he is liable). I might think that this applies to both the not knowing of the lesser sins (such as eating carrion and the like, of the negative commandments deliberate transgression of which is not punishable by kareth) and the not knowing of the graver sins, (deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth). All were in the category (of bringing a suspended guilt-offering). If I have exempt (from this offering) their knowing, does it not follow that I should exempt their not knowing? Or, the reverse: If I have made liable (for the guilt-offering) their not knowing, does it not follow that the knowing should be liable? (And which) "knowing" did Scripture exempt (from the guilt-offering)? That of the graver sins, their being exempt from the guilt-offering because of their being liable for the sin-offering; (but transgressors of negative commandments not liable for a sin-offering would be liable, in any event, for a guilt-offering).

5) "he has been guilty to the L–rd": to include (as going to the L–rd) monies left over (from guilt-offering dedications). I might think that all of it should go for Temple maintenance; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written: "It is a guilt-offering." If it is a guilt-offering, I might think that all of it should go to the Cohein; it is, therefore, written: "he has been guilty to the L–rd." How is this (to be reconciled)? The surplus (monies) of guilt-offerings fall as a donation and burnt-offerings are purchased with them, the flesh to go (as a burnt-offering) to the L–rd; and the hides, to the Cohanim.

5) ("the carcass of an unclean beast":) Why is "unclean" needed? I might think that only the carcass itself is intended. How do I know that (touching) the attached horns and hair is included? From "unclean."

5) "and he deny to his neighbor": I might think (a denial) of words; it is, therefore, written: "a pledge," which is (a denial) of money — to exclude what is not money.

5) And I still would say: When does he not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering for what his father stole? When neither he nor his father swore. But if he swore and not his father; his father and not he; he and his father (if they both swore on the same theft), whence is it derived (that he does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering for what his father stole)? From "that (asher) he has stolen," and "asher he has oppressed," and "asher was deposited with him," and "asher was found," (the force of "asher" being to exclude the son from payment in all of these instances).

5) I might think that in the instance of a court-imposed oath ("hearing the voice," viz. Vayikra 5:1), where deliberate violation (of the oath) is equated with unwitting violation (in respect to bringing an offering," "and it be hidden" not being written in that regard), he is liable for each one, but in the instance of an oath of pronouncement, (viz. Vayikra 5:4) where deliberate violation is not equated with unwitting violation, "and it be hidden" (i.e., unwitting) being written in that regard), I might think that he is liable for one (offering) alone; it is, therefore, (to negate this), written (Vayikra 5:5): "for one," to impose liability for each one.

5) I might think that I exclude (from offering-liability) even one who swears to do good to others — "or to do good" includes doing good to others.

5) — How so? If he became tamei and was aware of it, and the tumah was "hidden" from him, and he entered the sanctuary and left, and became aware of it, whence is it derived that he is liable for each one (i.e., for each episode of awareness)? From "for one." Each one is implied.

5) I might think that in the instance of a court-imposed oath ("hearing the voice," viz. Vayikra 5:1), where deliberate violation (of the oath) is equated with unwitting violation (in respect to bringing an offering," "and it be hidden" not being written in that regard), he is liable for each one, but in the instance of an oath of pronouncement, (viz. Vayikra 5:4) where deliberate violation is not equated with unwitting violation, "and it be hidden" (i.e., unwitting) being written in that regard), I might think that he is liable for one (offering) alone; it is, therefore, (to negate this), written (Vayikra 5:5): "for one," to impose liability for each one.

5) How so? If one said to another: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat that I deposited with him last night and before that and he says: I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? etc.

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

5) (Vayikra 5:5): "a female" — not a tumtum (of unknown sex) or hermaphrodite. "flock" — anything that can be subsumed in "flock," even one that is mute, imbecilic, or dwarfish. "of the flock" — not a pilgess (a thirteen month sheep, see Chapter 10:2). "a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering": What does this come to teach us? If that if he did not find a lamb, he may bring a goat-kid, does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If for a sin-offering (a lamb) that is brought for all of the mitzvoth, a bird may not be substituted but a goat-kid may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 4:32) — this offering, for which a bird may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 5:7), a goat-kid may not be substituted? (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?)

5) (Vayikra 5:5): "a female" — not a tumtum (of unknown sex) or hermaphrodite. "flock" — anything that can be subsumed in "flock," even one that is mute, imbecilic, or dwarfish. "of the flock" — not a pilgess (a thirteen month sheep, see Chapter 10:2). "a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering": What does this come to teach us? If that if he did not find a lamb, he may bring a goat-kid, does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If for a sin-offering (a lamb) that is brought for all of the mitzvoth, a bird may not be substituted but a goat-kid may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 4:32) — this offering, for which a bird may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 5:7), a goat-kid may not be substituted? (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?)

5) "umalak" ("And he shall pinch, etc."): I might think from anywhere (i.e., even from the throat); I, therefore, reason: "melikah" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (in reference to a bird-offering [Ibid. 5:8]: "And he shall pinch its head alongside its oref" [the back of the head sloping to the nape]). Just as melikah there is alongside the oref, so, here. — But, in that case, why not say: Just as there, he pinches but does not sunder (the head from the body, pinching only one of the shechitah signs, gullet or windpipe), here, too, he pinches but does not sunder! — It is, therefore, written (in negation of this supposition): "umalak its head and he shall smoke it upon the altar, and its blood shall be wrung out on the wall of the altar." Can this possibly mean that after he smokes it he wrings out his blood! It must mean that he pinches it in the manner that he smokes it, viz.: Just as in smoking, the head (is smoked) by itself, and the body, by itself — so in melikah, the head by itself and the body by itself (i.e., the head is severed completely).

5) (Vayikra 11:46): "This is the law of the beast and the bird": In which law is the beast similar to the bird, and birds, to the beast? A beast confers tumah by being touched or being carried, and a bird does not confer tumah by being touched or being carried, (but only by being eaten)! A bird confers tumah upon one's clothing (if another stuffs it) into his esophagus; and not, a beast! In which law, then, is the beast similar to the bird, and the bird, to the beast? We are hereby being taught that just as a beast (is slaughtered) by shechitah, so birds (are slaughtered) by shechitah. — If so, (why not say, then, that) just as a beast required two (shechitah) signs (to be severed), so, a bird, requires two, or the greater part of two? It is, therefore, written "This" (i.e., only in this respect (shechitah in general) that they are similar, but not in the other). R. Elazar says: In which law is a beast similar to a bird, and a bird to a beast? To teach us that both (are rendered fit) through the throat. — If so, (why not say, then, that) just as a bird (is "pinched") opposite its nape (viz. Vayikra 5:8), so a beast, opposite its nape; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:8) "its head" — the head of a bird opposite its nape, and not the head of a beast.

5) (Vayikra 5:8) "and he shall bring them": A bird (that became defective) cannot be redeemed (and replaced with another bird with its monies). ("And he shall bring them) to the Cohein": The burden of getting them (to the Cohein) is his. "And he shall sacrifice the one for the sin-offering first": What are we taught hereby? If that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering in all of its operations, is this not explicitly stated (Vayikra 5:10): "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed (Vayikra 1:14)"? Why, then, need this be repeated? To serve as a prototype (binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles [Vayikra 1:3]) for all sin-offerings accompanied by burnt-offerings:

6) If one arose in the synagogue and said (to the congregation containing his witnesses): "I beswear you if you have testimony for me, that you come and testify for me," I would think that if they denied it (in beth-din) they were liable; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "and he heard the voice of an oath," implying that he must designate them, specifically.

6) From here they adduced: If he beswore them outside (of beth-din) and they denied, and they came to beth-din and admitted, they are not liable (for violation of the oath). (If he beswore them) outside and they admitted, and they came to beth-din and denied, they are liable, (the denial having been in beth-din). If he beswore them five times outside of beth-din, (and they denied), and they came to beth-din and admitted, they are not liable. If they denied (in beth-din), they are liable for (denial of) each oath. If he beswore them before beth-din five times, and they denied, they are liable for only one oath. R. Shimon said: Why is this so? Because (once they denied in beth-din,) they can no longer claim otherwise.

6) ("He shall not place oil upon it and he shall not put frankincense upon it."): I might think that this is speaking of two Cohanim, (one placing oil and the other, frankincense, but if one does both, he is liable for only one negative transgression; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "upon it," "upon it" — The focus is the body of the meal-offering, and not two Cohanim.

6) (Vayikra 19:21) "And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt-offering." It is written here "a ram for a guilt-offering," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 5:15) "a ram .. for a guilt-offering. Just as there, with shekels of silver, here, too, with shekels of silver.

6) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, two eatings (each one short of the required amount for liability) do not combine (for liability), here, too, two eatings do not combine? Whence is it derived that if he ate today and ate tomorrow, derived benefit today and derived benefit tomorrow, derived benefit today and ate tomorrow, ate today and derived benefit tomorrow — even after three years in one act of forgetfulness — (whence is it derived that they combine )for liability)? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al," (in any event).

6) "Then he shall bring": Even after Yom Kippur (see Section 10:3). "a ram": a sturdy one, a two-year-old. "flock": anything that can be subsumed in flock, even one that is mute, imbecilic, or dwarfish. "of the flock": not a pilgess (see Section 10:5) ("by your valuation, silver shekalim, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt-offering.") "by your valuation, silver": I might think dinarim (the cheapest of silver coins) was intended; it is, therefore, written "shekalim." I might think copper shekalim; it is, therefore, written "silver." I might think Babylonian, Median, or Cappaducian shekalim; it is, therefore, written "according to the shekel of the sanctuary" — selaim of kodesh, selaim of Tyre, (where all the weights of Moses were left). "for a guilt-offering": the money must be designated for a guilt-offering.

6) But is there not a different a fortiori argument, viz.: If in the place where the "knowing" of the graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, their "not knowing" is exempt from a sin-offering, in the place where the "knowing" of the lesser sins is exempt from a guilt-offering, should it not follow that their "not knowing" is exempt from a guilt-offering? Or, the reverse: If in the place where the "not knowing" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, their "knowing" is liable for a sin-offering, in the place where the "not knowing" of the lesser sins is liable for a guilt-offering, should it not follow that their "knowing" should be liable for a guilt-offering? A different a fortiori argument: If in the place where the "knowing" of the graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, the "knowing" of the lesser sins is exempt from a guilt-offering, in the place where the "not knowing" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, should it not follow that the "not knowing" of the lesser sins should be exempt from a guilt-offering? Or, the reverse: If in the place where the "not knowing" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, the "not knowing" of the lesser sins is liable for a guilt-offering, in the place where the "knowing" of graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, should it not follow that the "knowing" of the lesser sins should be liable for a guilt-offering? It is, therefore, written "and he be guilty (ve'ashem)" - "and he be guilty," to posit an identity (gezeirah shava, viz. Hermeneutical Principles 2) — Just as the "ve'ashem" there (Vayikra 4:27, in respect to an individual sin-offering) speaks of a sin, deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth, and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering, so the ve'ashem here (Vayikra 5:17, in respect to a suspended guilt-offering) speaks of a sin, deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering. (And the other negative commandments are not thus liable. And since (in the presence of a gezeirah shaveh) we do not entertain any a fortiori arguments, if it becomes known, too, he is exempt from a guilt-offering.)

6) This tells me only of the surplus of guilt-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for the surplus of sin-offerings, the tenth of the ephah of the bird-couples of zavim and zavoth (those with genital discharges), and the bird-couples of women who had given birth, and the bird-couples of the surplus of the offerings of a Nazirite and of a leper and of one who dedicates his possessions (to the sanctuary) and there are among them things appropriate for the altar — wines, oils, fine flours and birds — Whence is it derived that they are to be sold with those things in mind and burnt-offerings purchased with their monies? From: "he has been guilty": This was expounded by Yehoyada the high-priest: "It is a guilt-offering; he has been guilty to the L–rd" — This is the principle: Everything that comes because of sin or guilt — burnt-offerings should be purchased (with their monies), the flesh to go to the L–rd, and the hides to the Cohanim. Two verses are thus satisfied — "a gift-offering to the L–rd" and "a gift-offering to the Cohein." And it is written (II Kings 12:17): "The (surplus) monies of a guilt-offering and the (surplus) monies of sin-offerings shall not be brought to the house of the L–rd (for Temple maintenance); to the Cohanim shall they be."

6) ("the carcass of an unclean creeping thing [sheretz]":) Why is "unclean" needed? I might think that only its flesh is intended. How do I know that (touching) its blood, its combination (e.g., half a lentil-size of one sheretz with half a lentil-size of another) and its admixture (with other species of sheretz) is included? From "unclean."

6) (Why all these forms of denial? For if that of a pledge alone were written), I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of a pledge? Because he has no right to spend it — as opposed to the case of a loan, where he does have a right to spend it. It is, therefore, written "or a deposit" (i.e., a loan). Then I might say: Why (is there an expiatory guilt-offering) in the case of the others? Because they (the objects) were given to him freely — as opposed to the case of theft, where (the object) was not given to him freely. It is, therefore, written "or a theft." Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For something is taken from the possession of the owner — as opposed to the case of withholding the wages of a hired man, where nothing is taken from the possession of an owner. It is, therefore, written "or if he oppress his neighbor." Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For both of them know (that the second "took" something) — as opposed to the case of finding a lost object, where both do not know, (but only the finder). "and he deny it" (the object, and not (having seen) its finder (and denying having seen him). Ben Azzai says: There are three kinds of (oaths in connection with) lost objects: knowing of it but not knowing of its finder (and denying under oath that he had seen it in that neighborhood, which might have led to the owner's inquiring about it and recovering it); (knowing) of its finder, but not of it (i.e., of its identifying signs); (knowing) neither of it nor of its finder.

6) I still would say: When does the son pay the principal for his father's theft? When both he and his father swore. But whence do I derive the same when there swore: he and not his father; his father and not he; neither he nor his father? From "eth the theft," "eth the oppression," "eth the deposit," "eth the lost object" — they pay in any event, (the force of "eth" being to include the son for payment of the principal in all of these instances).

6) Or I might think that if one swore to transgress a mitzvah (but did not do so) he were liable (for an offering); it is, therefore, written: "to do harm or to do good" — Just as doing good is optional, so doing harm is optional, which excludes one who swears to transgress a mitzvah (which is mandatory).

6) I might think that for all of "tumah of consecrated objects" he is liable only for one; it is, therefore, written "for one." Each one is implied. How so? If he became tamei and then became aware, and then it were hidden from him, and he ate consecrated food, and then became aware, whence is it derived that he is liable for each one? From "for one." For each one is implied.

6) How so? (in the instance of an oath of pronouncement) (If one said:) I swear that I will not eat a wheat loaf and a barley loaf and a spelt loaf and he did eat them, whence is it derived that he is liable for each one, etc.

6) I might think that this is so because it is only one species. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if he says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat and barley and spelt, and he says: I swear that I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? From, etc.

6) For this (a fortiori argument) is refuted by (the sin-offering of) a leper (a lamb), where a bird may be substituted, but not a goat-kid.

6) a bird sin-offering with a bird burnt-offering, a beast sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering, a bird sin-offering with a beast bird-offering — (In all of these instances) the sin-offerings precede the accompanying burnt-offerings.

(Lev. 5:1:) “And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing […, if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity].” This text is related (to Eccl. 5:1), “Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart hasten to bring forth a word before God.” These [words refer to] people who vilify the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. Come and see, when the celestial beings were created, those below were created with half of the [divine] name, as stated (in Is. 26:4), “for through Yh,³⁸YH is the first half of the divine name, which the Hebrew spells out where the translation reads THE LORD. the Lord formed the worlds.”³⁹The midrash interprets tsur ‘olamim as FORMED THE WORLDS (i.e., this world and the world to come) rather than as the more usual EVERLASTING ROCK. For similar interpretations, see yHag. 2:1 (77c); Men. 29b; Gen. R. 12:10; M. Pss. 62:1; 114:3; cf. also M. Pss. 118:14. But why were they not created with all of it? So as not to mention the full name [of the Holy One, blessed be He] with him. Woe to those creatures who vilify the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in vain. See what is written about offerings (in Lev. 1:2), “When one of you presents an offering to the Lord.” It does not say "to the Lord, an offering," but “an offering to the Lord” (so that who changes his mind about an offering in mid-sentence not mention God’s name for no reason).⁴⁰Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:6; Ned. 10ab; Sifra to Lev. 1:2, Wayyiqra, Parashah 2; Sifre, Deut.32:3 (306); Gen. R. 1:13. And [yet] people vilify the name of the Lord in vain. It is therefore stated (in Eccl. 5:1), “Do not be rash with your mouth…. for God is in heaven and you are on earth.” For who would say that God is not in heaven and that people are not on earth? [Accordingly], Solomon has said, “Every time that the weakest of the weak is above, he defeats the warrior below.” Go and learn from Abimelech (in Jud. 9:53), “But a certain woman dropped an upper millstone on Abimelech's head and cracked his skull.”⁴¹Since the woman was above the warrior Abimelech in the tower of Thebez, her killing him is an example of a relatively weak person defeating a warrior from above. And if he was a warrior among warriors and there was none like him, and [yet] a woman [was able to] kill him from above, how much the more so in the case of the Holy One, blessed be He! See what is written about Him (in Dan. 4:32), “All the inhabitants of the earth are of no account, and He does as He wishes [with the host of heaven and with the inhabitants of the earth].” It is also written (in Ps. 47:3), “For the Lord most high is awesome, a great King over all the earth,” and people are below. (Eccl. 5:1:) “Therefore let your words be few.” So what is there for you to do? To put your hand upon your mouth and upon your ear in order to neither speak nor hear. Ergo (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins.”⁴²These words also appear in Lev. 5:21 [6:2]. (Lev. 5:1:) [“And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing,] when he is a witness to what he has either seen or come to know, [if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity].” This text is related (to Prov. 29:24), “The one who shares with a thief hates his own soul; he hears swearing and does not speak out.” What has caused anyone to say of him, “If a soul sins?” [It is] simply because he did not come and tell a sage, “So-and-so blasphemed the name of the Holy One, blessed be He.” He therefore shares his iniquities with him, as stated (in Lev. 5:1), “if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity.” Therefore Solomon has said (in Prov. 29:24), “The one who shares with a thief hates his own soul.” Just as when the thief is caught, his partner is convicted along with him;⁴³Cf. Lev. R. 6:2. so whoever hears blasphemy of the Holy One, blessed be He, and does not speak out is convicted along with him. And let no one say, “What denunciation (lashon hara’ah) do I say?” The Holy One, blessed be He, has said (in Lev. 5:1ff.), “’On every matter,’ there is a denunciation in it. [But] with cursing the name, there is no denunciation.” Why? Because [it is] just like a case of a person cursing his companion. When he hears him, it is of no concern to him. But if he has cursed his father in his presence, he puts his life on the line and says, “You have cursed my father.” Moses said (in Deut. 32:6), “Is He not your Father who created you?” (Lev. 5:1:) [“And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing,] when he is a witness to what he has seen.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If you want to bear witness, bear witness; but if not, I will bear witness.” Thus it is stated (ibid.), “when he (He) is a witness.” And where is it shown that the Holy One, blessed be He, is called a witness? Where it is stated (in Jer. 29:23), “I am the One who knows and bears witness, says the Lord.” Come and see. All the parashioth written in this book have “mistake” written in them, except for this parashah, in which “mistake” is not mentioned.⁴⁴In fact, MISTAKE (shegagah), i.e., UNINTENTIONAL SIN, does appear in this parashah (in 5:15, 18). Elsewhere in Lev. the word only appears in 4:2, 22, 27; 22:4.) About him Solomon has said (in Eccl. 5:5), “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, and do not say before the angel that it was a mistake,” (in Eccl. 5:1), “for God is in the heavens.” It is comparable to two people who threw stones at an image of a king.⁴⁵Gk.: eikonion, a diminutive form of eikon. One was drunk, and one was in possession of his senses. Both of them were caught and went to trial. [The judge] rendered a [guilty] verdict⁴⁶Gk.: apophasis. against the one with his senses and acquitted the one who was drunk. So it is in the case of whoever sins. It is concerning him that “mistake” is written (in Lev. 4:2) – “When a soul sins by mistake (rt.: shgg) [against any of the Lord's commandments]….”; (and likewise in Lev. 4:13) “And if the whole congregation of Israel should err (rt.: shgg).” And [about] all of them; because they sinned by mistake, they bring an offering and it shall be forgiven them. It is so stated (in Numb. 15:26), “The whole congregation of the Children of Israel and the stranger who resides in their midst shall be forgiven because [it happened] to all the people by mistake.” But the one who blasphemes receives a [guilty] verdict, as stated (in Lev. 24:16) “And the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.” It is also written (in Jer. 4:2), “And you shall swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ in truth, in justice, and in righteousness; then shall nations bless themselves in Him, and Him shall they glory.” Scripture also says (in Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear, Him you shall serve, to Him you shall hold fast”; then after that, “and by Him you shall swear.”⁴⁷See Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 9:1; Numb. R. 9:1. (Ibid.:) “The Lord your God you shall fear,” so that you will be like those three of whom it is written, “he feared God (yr' 'lhym)”: Abraham, Joseph and Job. About Abraham it is written (in Gen. 22:12), “for now I know that you fear God (yr' 'lhym).” About Joseph it is written (in Gen. 42:18), “I fear (yr') God ('lhym).” About Job it is written (in Job 1:2), “he feared God (yr' 'lhym) and shunned evil.” (Deut. 10:20, cont.:) “Him you shall serve,” in that you will be busy with the Torah and with [fulfilling] the commandments. (Ibid. cont.:) “To him you shall hold fast,” in that you will honor the Torah scholars and benefit them with your property. Moses said to Israel, “Do not think that I have allowed you to swear by His name, even in truth. It is only, if all these conditions (mentioned earlier in the verse) abide with you, that you are entitled to swear; and if not, you are not entitled to swear [by His name], even in truth.” You shall not be like those of whom it is written (in Jer. 7:9), “[Will you …] swear falsely and sacrifice to Baal?” Rather, fulfill all these conditions and after that you are Mine, as stated (in Jer. 4:1), “If you return, O Israel, says the Lord, if you return unto Me [….]” Then after that [it says] (in vs. 2), “And you shall swear, ‘as the Lord lives’….” Our masters have said, “Even in truth one cannot swear.” Why? Thus have our masters taught (in Dem. 2:3): Let not someone from Israel be unrestrained in vows⁴⁸See also Ned. 20a. or in jesting, (or to lead one's companion astray with an oath by saying it is not an oath). There is a story about the royal mountain where there were two thousand towns, and all of them were destroyed because of a truthful oath that was unnecessary.⁴⁹Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 9:1; Numb. R. 9:1; cf. also Git. 57a. Now if one who swears in truth has this happen, how much the more so in the case of one who swears to a lie? How did they act? One would utter an oath to his companion that he was going to such and such a place to eat and drink. Then they would go and act to fulfill their oath. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing.” Now when the Holy One, blessed be He, comes to judge all people in the world to come, He will judge them along with sorcerers and adulterers. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Mal. 3:5), “Then I will draw near to you in judgment; and I will be a swift witness against sorcerers, against adulterers, against those who swear to a lie (in My name).” And I am finding them guilty and bringing them down to Gehinnom. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “With the mouth that I gave you to be praising and glorifying My name, you are reproaching, blaspheming, and swearing to a lie in My name? Since I created all people to praise Me, as stated (in Prov. 16:4), “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose.” So is it not enough for you that you do not praise Me, but [that] you blaspheme [Me as well]! The Scripture has said (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea, [for it cannot rest (rt.: shqt)].” [They are] just like this [kind of] sea which has waves in its midst exalting themselves upward. When each and every one of them reaches the sand, it is broken and returns (hozer).⁵⁰The word also means “repents.” And its companion also looks at it breaking, and [yet] exalts itself upward without repenting (hozer). So are the wicked, who look at one another and exalt themselves. Therefore, they are likened to the sea, as stated (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea….” So did all the generations, the generation of Enosh, the generation of the flood, and the generation of the dispersion (i.e., of the Tower of Babel), not learn from each other. Instead they were exalting themselves. Therefore they are compared to the sea (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea.” (Is. 57:20, cont.:) “For it cannot rest (rt.: shqt).” The wicked have no rest in the world, but the righteous have serenity (shqt), as stated (in Jer. 30:10), “and Jacob shall again have peace (shqt) and quiet with none to make him afraid.” Another interpretation (of Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea.” Just as the sea has its dirt and mud in its mouth, so the wicked have their stench in their mouth. Thus it is stated (at the end of Is. 57:20), “and its waters toss up slime and mud.” It is not from choice that one hears blasphemies and invectives, but from the midst of the sins which are within him. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins and hears a voice swearing….”⁵¹Most translations equate the sinning with the swearing. This more literal translation illustrates the point that the swearing comes from a soul which has already sinned. You find [that there are] three things under human control and three things not under human control ….⁵²Tanh., Gen. 6:12 (i.e., Toledot 12); Gen. R. 67:12. And not only [now] but even in the world to come. [So it is stated] (in Job 12:23), “He exalts (msgy') nations and destroys them.” The written text (ketiv) is “mshg'” (which means, misleads).⁵³In unpointed Hebrew the Sin (S) and the Shin (Sh) look alike. Since MShG’, which is pointed mashge’, can also be spelled with the extra yod (i.e., Y), the two words are interchangable in an unpointed text. Then He destroys them [and] brings them down to Abaddon,⁵⁴Abbadon is a name for Hell, which means “destruction.” while the righteous watch them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 66:24), “Then they shall go out and look at the corpses of the people who have rebelled against Me; their worms shall not die nor shall their fire be quenched”.

(Bamidbar 5:12) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man, a man, if his wife go astray, and she be faithless to him": What is the intent of this section? From (Devarim 24:1) "If a man take a woman and he cohabit with her, etc.", we hear only that if he had two witnesses (to her adultery) and she had not been forewarned, that she leaves him by divorce. But if she were adulterous in the presence of only one witness or it is in doubt whether she had or had not been adulterous after having been secreted (with the one she had been forewarned against), we did not hear what is to be done with her. It is, therefore, written "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: "A man, a man, if his wife go astray, etc.", that (in the above instance) she must drink the bitter waters. This is the intent of this section. "A man, a man": to include the wife of a deaf mute, an imbecile, one who has gone abroad or been incarcerated, or a dullard — that beth-din forewarns her (if she is deporting herself immodestly) to the end of invalidating her kethubah (her marriage contract). I might think, even to the end of making her drink (the bitter waters); it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Ibid. 11) "Then the man shall bring his wife." R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: also to the end of making her drink when her husband is released from incarceration. Variantly: "A man, a man": to include a woman awaiting levirate marriage (yibum). "if his wife go astray": Scripture speaks of those who are fit to be "wives" — to exclude a widow married to a high-priest, a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who has performed the chaliztah ceremony to break a levirate connection), who are married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a Nethinah (a descendent of the Geveonites) married to an Israelite, and a daughter of an Israelite married to a Nathin or a mamzer. And, according to Akavya b. Mehallalel, (to exclude) a woman who is a proselyte or a freed slave. They (the sages) said to him (Akavya): But there was a freed slave, Charkemis, in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon had her drink (the bitter waters)! He replied: They dissimulated their doing so — whereupon they excommunicated him and he died in his state of excommunication, and beth-din stoned his coffin. ("if his wife go astray,) and she is guilty of ma'al against him": ("ma'al") In the area of illicit relations or in the area of monetary (fraudulence)? (Ibid. 5:13) "And a man lie with her a lying of seed" indicates that ma'al here is in the area of illicit relations, and not in that of monetary (fraudulence). "and she is guilty of ma'al against him": "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bema'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu, king of Judah, (II Chronicles 26:18) "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta)," and (Vayikra 5:21) "and he (the denier) ma'ala ma'al against the L-rd" — whence we see that "me'ilah" in all places is "lying."

(Lev. 5:1:) “And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing […, if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity].” This text is related (to Eccl. 5:1), “Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart hasten to bring forth a word before God.” These [words refer to] people who vilify the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. Come and see, when the celestial beings were created, those below were created with half of the [divine] name, as stated (in Is. 26:4), “for through Yh,³⁸YH is the first half of the divine name, which the Hebrew spells out where the translation reads THE LORD. the Lord formed the worlds.”³⁹The midrash interprets tsur ‘olamim as FORMED THE WORLDS (i.e., this world and the world to come) rather than as the more usual EVERLASTING ROCK. For similar interpretations, see yHag. 2:1 (77c); Men. 29b; Gen. R. 12:10; M. Pss. 62:1; 114:3; cf. also M. Pss. 118:14. But why were they not created with all of it? So as not to mention the full name [of the Holy One, blessed be He] with him. Woe to those creatures who vilify the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in vain. See what is written about offerings (in Lev. 1:2), “When one of you presents an offering to the Lord.” It does not say "to the Lord, an offering," but “an offering to the Lord” (so that who changes his mind about an offering in mid-sentence not mention God’s name for no reason).⁴⁰Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:6; Ned. 10ab; Sifra to Lev. 1:2, Wayyiqra, Parashah 2; Sifre, Deut.32:3 (306); Gen. R. 1:13. And [yet] people vilify the name of the Lord in vain. It is therefore stated (in Eccl. 5:1), “Do not be rash with your mouth…. for God is in heaven and you are on earth.” For who would say that God is not in heaven and that people are not on earth? [Accordingly], Solomon has said, “Every time that the weakest of the weak is above, he defeats the warrior below.” Go and learn from Abimelech (in Jud. 9:53), “But a certain woman dropped an upper millstone on Abimelech's head and cracked his skull.”⁴¹Since the woman was above the warrior Abimelech in the tower of Thebez, her killing him is an example of a relatively weak person defeating a warrior from above. And if he was a warrior among warriors and there was none like him, and [yet] a woman [was able to] kill him from above, how much the more so in the case of the Holy One, blessed be He! See what is written about Him (in Dan. 4:32), “All the inhabitants of the earth are of no account, and He does as He wishes [with the host of heaven and with the inhabitants of the earth].” It is also written (in Ps. 47:3), “For the Lord most high is awesome, a great King over all the earth,” and people are below. (Eccl. 5:1:) “Therefore let your words be few.” So what is there for you to do? To put your hand upon your mouth and upon your ear in order to neither speak nor hear. Ergo (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins.”⁴²These words also appear in Lev. 5:21 [6:2]. (Lev. 5:1:) [“And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing,] when he is a witness to what he has either seen or come to know, [if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity].” This text is related (to Prov. 29:24), “The one who shares with a thief hates his own soul; he hears swearing and does not speak out.” What has caused anyone to say of him, “If a soul sins?” [It is] simply because he did not come and tell a sage, “So-and-so blasphemed the name of the Holy One, blessed be He.” He therefore shares his iniquities with him, as stated (in Lev. 5:1), “if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity.” Therefore Solomon has said (in Prov. 29:24), “The one who shares with a thief hates his own soul.” Just as when the thief is caught, his partner is convicted along with him;⁴³Cf. Lev. R. 6:2. so whoever hears blasphemy of the Holy One, blessed be He, and does not speak out is convicted along with him. And let no one say, “What denunciation (lashon hara’ah) do I say?” The Holy One, blessed be He, has said (in Lev. 5:1ff.), “’On every matter,’ there is a denunciation in it. [But] with cursing the name, there is no denunciation.” Why? Because [it is] just like a case of a person cursing his companion. When he hears him, it is of no concern to him. But if he has cursed his father in his presence, he puts his life on the line and says, “You have cursed my father.” Moses said (in Deut. 32:6), “Is He not your Father who created you?” (Lev. 5:1:) [“And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing,] when he is a witness to what he has seen.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If you want to bear witness, bear witness; but if not, I will bear witness.” Thus it is stated (ibid.), “when he (He) is a witness.” And where is it shown that the Holy One, blessed be He, is called a witness? Where it is stated (in Jer. 29:23), “I am the One who knows and bears witness, says the Lord.” Come and see. All the parashioth written in this book have “mistake” written in them, except for this parashah, in which “mistake” is not mentioned.⁴⁴In fact, MISTAKE (shegagah), i.e., UNINTENTIONAL SIN, does appear in this parashah (in 5:15, 18). Elsewhere in Lev. the word only appears in 4:2, 22, 27; 22:4.) About him Solomon has said (in Eccl. 5:5), “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, and do not say before the angel that it was a mistake,” (in Eccl. 5:1), “for God is in the heavens.” It is comparable to two people who threw stones at an image of a king.⁴⁵Gk.: eikonion, a diminutive form of eikon. One was drunk, and one was in possession of his senses. Both of them were caught and went to trial. [The judge] rendered a [guilty] verdict⁴⁶Gk.: apophasis. against the one with his senses and acquitted the one who was drunk. So it is in the case of whoever sins. It is concerning him that “mistake” is written (in Lev. 4:2) – “When a soul sins by mistake (rt.: shgg) [against any of the Lord's commandments]….”; (and likewise in Lev. 4:13) “And if the whole congregation of Israel should err (rt.: shgg).” And [about] all of them; because they sinned by mistake, they bring an offering and it shall be forgiven them. It is so stated (in Numb. 15:26), “The whole congregation of the Children of Israel and the stranger who resides in their midst shall be forgiven because [it happened] to all the people by mistake.” But the one who blasphemes receives a [guilty] verdict, as stated (in Lev. 24:16) “And the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.” It is also written (in Jer. 4:2), “And you shall swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ in truth, in justice, and in righteousness; then shall nations bless themselves in Him, and Him shall they glory.” Scripture also says (in Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear, Him you shall serve, to Him you shall hold fast”; then after that, “and by Him you shall swear.”⁴⁷See Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 9:1; Numb. R. 9:1. (Ibid.:) “The Lord your God you shall fear,” so that you will be like those three of whom it is written, “he feared God (yr' 'lhym)”: Abraham, Joseph and Job. About Abraham it is written (in Gen. 22:12), “for now I know that you fear God (yr' 'lhym).” About Joseph it is written (in Gen. 42:18), “I fear (yr') God ('lhym).” About Job it is written (in Job 1:2), “he feared God (yr' 'lhym) and shunned evil.” (Deut. 10:20, cont.:) “Him you shall serve,” in that you will be busy with the Torah and with [fulfilling] the commandments. (Ibid. cont.:) “To him you shall hold fast,” in that you will honor the Torah scholars and benefit them with your property. Moses said to Israel, “Do not think that I have allowed you to swear by His name, even in truth. It is only, if all these conditions (mentioned earlier in the verse) abide with you, that you are entitled to swear; and if not, you are not entitled to swear [by His name], even in truth.” You shall not be like those of whom it is written (in Jer. 7:9), “[Will you …] swear falsely and sacrifice to Baal?” Rather, fulfill all these conditions and after that you are Mine, as stated (in Jer. 4:1), “If you return, O Israel, says the Lord, if you return unto Me [….]” Then after that [it says] (in vs. 2), “And you shall swear, ‘as the Lord lives’….” Our masters have said, “Even in truth one cannot swear.” Why? Thus have our masters taught (in Dem. 2:3): Let not someone from Israel be unrestrained in vows⁴⁸See also Ned. 20a. or in jesting, (or to lead one's companion astray with an oath by saying it is not an oath). There is a story about the royal mountain where there were two thousand towns, and all of them were destroyed because of a truthful oath that was unnecessary.⁴⁹Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 9:1; Numb. R. 9:1; cf. also Git. 57a. Now if one who swears in truth has this happen, how much the more so in the case of one who swears to a lie? How did they act? One would utter an oath to his companion that he was going to such and such a place to eat and drink. Then they would go and act to fulfill their oath. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing.” Now when the Holy One, blessed be He, comes to judge all people in the world to come, He will judge them along with sorcerers and adulterers. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Mal. 3:5), “Then I will draw near to you in judgment; and I will be a swift witness against sorcerers, against adulterers, against those who swear to a lie (in My name).” And I am finding them guilty and bringing them down to Gehinnom. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “With the mouth that I gave you to be praising and glorifying My name, you are reproaching, blaspheming, and swearing to a lie in My name? Since I created all people to praise Me, as stated (in Prov. 16:4), “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose.” So is it not enough for you that you do not praise Me, but [that] you blaspheme [Me as well]! The Scripture has said (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea, [for it cannot rest (rt.: shqt)].” [They are] just like this [kind of] sea which has waves in its midst exalting themselves upward. When each and every one of them reaches the sand, it is broken and returns (hozer).⁵⁰The word also means “repents.” And its companion also looks at it breaking, and [yet] exalts itself upward without repenting (hozer). So are the wicked, who look at one another and exalt themselves. Therefore, they are likened to the sea, as stated (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea….” So did all the generations, the generation of Enosh, the generation of the flood, and the generation of the dispersion (i.e., of the Tower of Babel), not learn from each other. Instead they were exalting themselves. Therefore they are compared to the sea (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea.” (Is. 57:20, cont.:) “For it cannot rest (rt.: shqt).” The wicked have no rest in the world, but the righteous have serenity (shqt), as stated (in Jer. 30:10), “and Jacob shall again have peace (shqt) and quiet with none to make him afraid.” Another interpretation (of Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea.” Just as the sea has its dirt and mud in its mouth, so the wicked have their stench in their mouth. Thus it is stated (at the end of Is. 57:20), “and its waters toss up slime and mud.” It is not from choice that one hears blasphemies and invectives, but from the midst of the sins which are within him. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins and hears a voice swearing….”⁵¹Most translations equate the sinning with the swearing. This more literal translation illustrates the point that the swearing comes from a soul which has already sinned. You find [that there are] three things under human control and three things not under human control ….⁵²Tanh., Gen. 6:12 (i.e., Toledot 12); Gen. R. 67:12. And not only [now] but even in the world to come. [So it is stated] (in Job 12:23), “He exalts (msgy') nations and destroys them.” The written text (ketiv) is “mshg'” (which means, misleads).⁵³In unpointed Hebrew the Sin (S) and the Shin (Sh) look alike. Since MShG’, which is pointed mashge’, can also be spelled with the extra yod (i.e., Y), the two words are interchangable in an unpointed text. Then He destroys them [and] brings them down to Abaddon,⁵⁴Abbadon is a name for Hell, which means “destruction.” while the righteous watch them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 66:24), “Then they shall go out and look at the corpses of the people who have rebelled against Me; their worms shall not die nor shall their fire be quenched”.

(Ibid. 7) "You shall not take the name of the L rd your G d in vain": A vain oath, too, was included in (Leviticus 19:12) "You shall not swear falsely in My name," and Scripture removed it from its class to exempt it from an oath, viz. (Leviticus 5:4) "Or if a soul swear in uttering with his lips, etc.", Scripture being more stringent with it (a vain oath) and exempting it from an offering — I would think that just as it is exempt from an offering, it is exempt from stripes. It is, therefore, written "You shall not take the name of the L rd your G d in vain" — It was exempt from an offering, but not from stripes.

7) If one said (beswearing them): "When you have testimony for me come and testify for me," (and they did not come), I might think that they were liable. It is, therefore, written "and he heard the voice of an oath and he was (i.e., had been) a witness" — when the witnessing preceded the oath and not when the oath preceded the witnessing.

7) If both denied in the same interval, they are both liable. If one after the other, the first is liable, (but not the second, for once the first denied (having witnessed), one witness is unfit to testify by himself.) If one denied and the other admitted, the denier is liable. If there were two sets of witnesses — If the first denied, and then the second, they are both liable, for the testimony can stand with both of them.

7) Or, perhaps the meaning is that he is not to place the vessel (of the oil or the frankincense) upon the vessel of the meal-offering; (it is, therefore, written "upon it" (the body of the meal-offering) - "upon it")

7) "as a memorial": "memorial" is written here, and elsewhere (Vayikra 5:12, in respect to a meal-offering.) Just as there a fistful, here, too, a fistful — whereby we are taught two fistfuls are needed: one, for one row, and another for the other.

7) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, (liability obtains only) when he takes it from (a state of) sanctity to (a state of) non-sanctity, here, too, the same applies? Whence do I derive that the same applies (even) when he takes it from (a state of) sanctity to (a state of) sanctity, as when there are brought from the sanctuary funds — the couple of sacrificial birds of those with a discharge (zavim), or of women who had given birth, one's sin-offering and guilt-offering, one's Pesach offering, or one's shekel? [Once he takes the monies out, he is guilty of meilah. These are the words of R. Shimon. And the sages say: He is not guilty of meilah until he sprinkles their blood] — (Whence is it derived that in the above instances he has committed an act of meilah? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al," (in any event).

7) (Vayikra 5:16) "And for what he sinned from the holy he shall pay": to that specific "holy" (area that he profaned. If that of the altar, he pays to the altar; if that of Temple maintenance, to Temple maintenance. Whence is it derived (that he is liable for meilah) for even less than the amount of a perutah? For I would think that since he is not (technically) liable for meilah (of less than a perutah), he should not be liable for payment; it is, therefore, written: "from the holy," to make him liable for meilah of less than the amount of a perutah). Whence do I derive that one pays the fifth and the guilt-offering on meilah of these (the first) payments? From: "the holy he shall pay" (connoting that the payments themselves become holy and one who profanes them must add a fifth and bring a guilt-offering).

7) "and he not know and be guilty, then he shall bear his sin." R. Yossi Haglili says: Scripture punishes one who does not know. If Scripture thus punishes one who does not know, how much more so one who knows (and transgresses)!

7) Whence is it derived that the guilt-offering brought for (cohabitation with) a betrothed Canaanite maidservant, shifchah charufah (Vayikra 19:20) should be bought only with silver shekalim? From (Vayikra 5:19) "ashom asham" (the connotation of which is that the valuation of all guilt-offerings is to be in silver shekalim). I might think that I also include the guilt-offering of a Nazirite and of a leper. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Vayikra 7:5) "It (is a guilt-offering.") And why do you see fit to include the shifchah charufah guilt-offering and to exclude that of a Nazirite and of a leper? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the shifchah charufah guilt-offering, which (as in the above) is a ram, and I exclude that of the Nazirite and the leper, which is not a ram.

7) ("and it be hidden from him":) What is hidden from him? Uncleanliness (i.e., his having become unclean)? Or the sanctuary (i.e., the fact that he had entered the sanctuary)? It is, therefore, written (in clarification) "and it be hidden from him and he is unclean." It is for hiddenness of uncleanliness that he is liable and not for hiddenness of the sanctuary. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer cites "a sheretz and it be hidden from him." It is for hiddenness of the sheretz that he is liable and not for the hiddenness of the sanctuary. R. Yishmael says: "and it be hidden from him" is written twice (verses 2 and 3), to make him liable for hiddenness (i.e., non-awareness) of uncleanliness and hiddenness of the sanctuary.

7) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For it is possible to know them (i.e., to see the damage) — as opposed to cases where it is impossible to know them, such as: mixing wine with water, oil with (extract of) galubia (a kind of grass), honey with mei mayan, resin with ass milk, myrrh with nettles, horse-bears with sand, folium with vine-leaves. It is, therefore, written (to include liability for such cases) (Vayikra 5:22): "and he swears over falsehood" — over anything which contains falsehood.

7) Whence is it derived that what is stated above, (namely, "a deposit") (Vayikra 5:21), (but not repeated in 5:23) is included below (in all of the halachoth that apply to the others)? From (Vayikra 5:24): "of all." "that he swears upon it falsely" — until he intends it (the falsehood, excluding an instance in which he mistakenly thought that he was swearing to the truth, in which case he is exempt). From here it is seen that there is liability for wittingness in the (false) oath, and for unwittingness in the oath (i.e., not knowing that it is forbidden) in combination with wittingness (in denial) of the pledge, and that there is no liability for (complete) unwittingness. What is the liability for wittingness? A guilt-offering (valuated) in silver shekalim.

7) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For it is possible to know them (i.e., to see the damage) — as opposed to cases where it is impossible to know them, such as: mixing wine with water, oil with (extract of) galubia (a kind of grass), honey with mei mayan, resin with ass milk, myrrh with nettles, horse-bears with sand, folium with vine-leaves. It is, therefore, written (to include liability for such cases) (Vayikra 5:22): "and he swears over falsehood" — over anything which contains falsehood.

7) Whence is it derived that what is stated above, (namely, "a deposit") (Vayikra 5:21), (but not repeated in 5:23) is included below (in all of the halachoth that apply to the others)? From (Vayikra 5:24): "of all." "that he swears upon it falsely" — until he intends it (the falsehood, excluding an instance in which he mistakenly thought that he was swearing to the truth, in which case he is exempt). From here it is seen that there is liability for wittingness in the (false) oath, and for unwittingness in the oath (i.e., not knowing that it is forbidden) in combination with wittingness (in denial) of the pledge, and that there is no liability for (complete) unwittingness. What is the liability for wittingness? A guilt-offering (valuated) in silver shekalim.

7) Whence is it derived that what is stated above, (namely, "a deposit") (Vayikra 5:21), (but not repeated in 5:23) is included below (in all of the halachoth that apply to the others)? From (Vayikra 5:24): "of all." "that he swears upon it falsely" — until he intends it (the falsehood, excluding an instance in which he mistakenly thought that he was swearing to the truth, in which case he is exempt). From here it is seen that there is liability for wittingness in the (false) oath, and for unwittingness in the oath (i.e., not knowing that it is forbidden) in combination with wittingness (in denial) of the pledge, and that there is no liability for (complete) unwittingness. What is the liability for wittingness? A guilt-offering (valuated) in silver shekalim.

7) I would exclude swearing to transgress a mitzvah, but I would not exclude swearing to fulfill a mitzvah from liability (for non-fulfillment), as per R. Yehudah b. Betheirah, viz.: If for something optional against which he is not forsworn from Mount Sinai he is liable, does it not follow a fortiori that for something against which he is forsworn from Mount Sinai he should be liable (for breaking his oath)! — No, in an optional oath (as in "to do harm or to do good") the positive (e.g., to eat) is equated with the negative (not to eat) as opposed to a mitzvah oath, where the positive (e.g., to eat matzah) is not equated with the negative (not to eat matzah).

7) I might think that for tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects, which are subject to kareth, he is liable for each one; but for "hearing the voice" or "utterance of the lips," which are not subject to kareth, he is liable for only one —

7) (If one said:) I swear that I will not drink, wine and oil and honey, etc.

7) I might think that they are different types of (one) claim. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if he says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me a pledge and a deposit and a theft and a lost object and he swears: I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? From, etc.

7) No, (this is no refutation). This may be so in the instance of (the sin-offering of) a leper, where a tenth of an ephah (of fine flour) may not be substituted, whereas in our instance, if it (the lamb) went down to a tenth of an ephah (viz. 5:8), (would you say that) it would not go down to a goat-kid? If so, why is it necessary to state "a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering"? For it would follow a fortiori that (in our case) a burnt-offering should come with it (the sin-offering), viz.:

7) "and he shall pinch its head opposite (mul) its nape": opposite the beholder of the nape, as it is written (Numbers 22:5): "and it abides opposite (mul) me." "but he shall not sunder (it)": i.e., he shall pinch only one (shechitah) sign and not more. If he does it is unfit.

(Lev. 14:2:) [THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER:] IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING. With what?²⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:3; Lev. R. 16:7. With (according to vs. 4) TWO LIVE CLEAN BIRDS. How is his offering different from all < other > offerings? It is simply that he has spoken slander; therefore, the text says, BIRDS, because they (like slanderers) carry their utterance, as stated (in Eccl. 10:20): FOR A BIRD OF HEAVEN MAY CARRY THE UTTERANCE.

And so you find that the ten tribes went into exile only because of wine.²⁹Tanh., Lev. 3:5; cf. Lev. 5:3; Numb. 10:3. See what < Scripture > says (in Amos 6:1): WOE TO THOSE WHO ARE AT EASE IN ZION, because they were dwelling at ease in pleasure palaces. (Ibid., cont.:) AND WHO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE MOUNTAIN OF SAMARIA, because they were dwelling confidently in [Sebaste].³⁰The city built by Herod on the site of old Samaria. (Ibid., cont.:) THE NOTABLES OF THE LEADING NATION, THE ONES TO WHOM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL COMES. In what sense? The peoples of the world would sit and talk. They would say: Who is the mightiest in Israel? and they would answer: Samson. Then again they would say: Who is the mightiest among the gentiles? and they would answer: Goliath, about whom it is written (in I Sam. 17:4: HIS HEIGHT WAS SIX CUBITS AND A SPAN. Now these were agreeing³¹In Buber’s Oxford MSS maskim (“agree”) is spelled with a sin instead of a samekh. [with each other] and saying: Samson was the greatest is Israel. Ergo (in Amos 6:1): THE NOTABLES OF THE LEADING NATION. Then again they would say: Who is the wealthiest among the peoples of the world? and they would answer: Hadrian. Then who is the wealthiest in Israel? and they would answer Solomon, as stated (in 1 Kings 10:27): AND THE KING MADE SILVER [IN JERUSALEM AS PLENTIFUL AS STONES]. Come and see: Each and every tribe had its own May festival.³²Gk. Maioumas. When one wanted to go to his May festival, he would take his herd with him, so that he would eat fatlings from his flock. It is so stated (in Amos 6:4 & 6): AND THEY WOULD EAT LAMBS FROM THE FLOCK…. [THOSE WHO DRINK < STRAIGHT > FROM THE WINE BOWLS.] What is their end? (Amos 6:7:) THEREFORE THEY SHALL NOW GO AT THE HEAD OF THE EXILES. Why? Because they had a passion for wine. For this reason he warns Aaron (in Lev. 10:9): DRINK NO WINE OR INTOXICATING LIQUOR.

Man or woman, who does any of the sins etc. - Rabi Abahu says (Hosea 14:8): 'Those that dwell under His shadow' those are the gerim that come and have love for the shadow of the Holy One of Blessing. 'They shall grow as grain' in [the study of] Talmud. 'Shall blossom as vine' in [the study of] Aggadah. 'His memory/scent shall be as the wine of Lebanon' - said the Holy One of Blessing: "The appreciation of the gerim is as dear to me as the wine that was poured on the altar [as libation.]" And why does He call it [the altar] Lebanon (root LVN)? Because it whitens (maLViN) the sins of Israel like snow, as it is written (Isaiah 1:18) 'though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.' Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai says: because all the hearts (LeVavot) become happy due to it. As it says (Psalms 48:2): 'Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth.' And the rabbis say - because of the verse (II Kings 9:3) 'and My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually.' Another interpretation: 'they will grow as grain' - they will make the essence, they are like Israel; as it is said (Zechariah 9:17) 'grain [for] the young men [of Israel]'. 'They shall blossom as vine', as [just like] Israel, as it says (Psalms 80:9) 'You plucked a vine from Egypt.' And so you find that, just as a portion of the Torah was written regarding one Israel and another - that if he misappropriated something of him, that he is obligated to a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 5:21) 'If any one sin, and commit a trespass etc.' - so too you find that the Holy One of Blessing wrote a portion of the Torah regarding what goes on between Israel and gerim, that if a man from Israel steals from a ger, the judgement is as if he stole from another man from Israel. You find that regarding this it is written 'a sin that he sinned' and regarding stealing from a ger it is written 'from any sins of a man.' Regarding this one it is written 'and trespassed a trespass against the Lord' and regarding this one it is written 'to trespass a trespass against the Lord.' Regarding this one it is written: 'And it will be, when he sins and is guilty' and regarding the ger it is written 'and that soul will be guilty'. Regarding this one it is written: 'And he will pay with his head' and regarding the ger it is written 'and he will return his guilt with his head'. Regarding this one it is written: 'and he will add his fifth' and regarding the ger it is written 'and he will add a fifth'. Regarding this one it is written: 'and he will bring his guilt-offering to the Lord' and regarding stealing a ger it is written 'besides the ram for the kipurim'. Behold we have learned: that the essence of the gerim is like Israel's. Therefore, they will be as grain and blossom.

"he shall pay double to his neighbor": R. Shimon says: I read here "he shall pay double to his neighbor," and elsewhere, (Leviticus 5:24) "and he shall pay it (the principal) at its head (and its fifth shall he add to it)!" How are these two verses to be reconciled? One who pays (only) the principal must pay the fifth, and one who pays kefel is exempt from the fifth.

... “And David went and he took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh- gilead… And he brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son…” (Shmuel II 21:12-13) What did David do? He went and gathered all the elders and great ones of Israel, crossed the Jordan River, and came to Yavesh-gilead. He found the bones of Shaul and his son Yonatan, placed them in a casket and crossed back over the Jordan, as it says “And they buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father and they did all that the king commanded…” (Shmuel II 21:14) What does ‘in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father’ mean? It comes to teach us that they brought them to the border of Jerusalem and buried them there. Zela is next to Jerusalem, as it says “And Zelah, Eleph, and the Jebusite, which is Jerusalem…” (Yehoshua 18:28) ‘and they did all that the king commanded’ And what did the king command? He commanded that they carry Shaul’s casket from tribe to tribe. As Shaul’s casket entered each tribe’s territory all the men, women and children came out in order to perform an act of loving kindness to Shaul and his sons and thereby all of Israel would fulfill its obligation to loving kindness. This went on until they reached the land of his portion on the border of Jerusalem. Since the Holy One saw that they did loving kindness to Shaul and fulfilled the judgement of the Givonites He was immediately filled with mercy and sent rain upon the land, as it says “And God was entreated for the land after that.” (Shmuel II 21:14) From this we learn how close the Holy One brings those that are far away, even though they converted not for the sake of heaven. There is no need to even mention how he draws near righteous converts, “O Lord, all the kings of the earth will acknowledge You…” (Tehillim 138:4)

... “And David went and he took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh- gilead… And he brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son…” (Shmuel II 21:12-13) What did David do? He went and gathered all the elders and great ones of Israel, crossed the Jordan River, and came to Yavesh-gilead. He found the bones of Shaul and his son Yonatan, placed them in a casket and crossed back over the Jordan, as it says “And they buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father and they did all that the king commanded…” (Shmuel II 21:14) What does ‘in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father’ mean? It comes to teach us that they brought them to the border of Jerusalem and buried them there. Zela is next to Jerusalem, as it says “And Zelah, Eleph, and the Jebusite, which is Jerusalem…” (Yehoshua 18:28) ‘and they did all that the king commanded’ And what did the king command? He commanded that they carry Shaul’s casket from tribe to tribe. As Shaul’s casket entered each tribe’s territory all the men, women and children came out in order to perform an act of loving kindness to Shaul and his sons and thereby all of Israel would fulfill its obligation to loving kindness. This went on until they reached the land of his portion on the border of Jerusalem. Since the Holy One saw that they did loving kindness to Shaul and fulfilled the judgement of the Givonites He was immediately filled with mercy and sent rain upon the land, as it says “And God was entreated for the land after that.” (Shmuel II 21:14) From this we learn how close the Holy One brings those that are far away, even though they converted not for the sake of heaven. There is no need to even mention how he draws near righteous converts, “O Lord, all the kings of the earth will acknowledge You…” (Tehillim 138:4)

... “And David went and he took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh- gilead… And he brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son…” (Shmuel II 21:12-13) What did David do? He went and gathered all the elders and great ones of Israel, crossed the Jordan River, and came to Yavesh-gilead. He found the bones of Shaul and his son Yonatan, placed them in a casket and crossed back over the Jordan, as it says “And they buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father and they did all that the king commanded…” (Shmuel II 21:14) What does ‘in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father’ mean? It comes to teach us that they brought them to the border of Jerusalem and buried them there. Zela is next to Jerusalem, as it says “And Zelah, Eleph, and the Jebusite, which is Jerusalem…” (Yehoshua 18:28) ‘and they did all that the king commanded’ And what did the king command? He commanded that they carry Shaul’s casket from tribe to tribe. As Shaul’s casket entered each tribe’s territory all the men, women and children came out in order to perform an act of loving kindness to Shaul and his sons and thereby all of Israel would fulfill its obligation to loving kindness. This went on until they reached the land of his portion on the border of Jerusalem. Since the Holy One saw that they did loving kindness to Shaul and fulfilled the judgement of the Givonites He was immediately filled with mercy and sent rain upon the land, as it says “And God was entreated for the land after that.” (Shmuel II 21:14) From this we learn how close the Holy One brings those that are far away, even though they converted not for the sake of heaven. There is no need to even mention how he draws near righteous converts, “O Lord, all the kings of the earth will acknowledge You…” (Tehillim 138:4)

8) And whence is it derived that the claim in question is only a money claim? R. Eliezer said: "Ors are stated here ("or saw or knew") and "ors" are stated in respect to (denying) a pledge [pikadon] (Vayikra 5:21: "or (denying) a deposit or a theft"). Just as the "ors" stated in respect to a pledge involve only money claims, so the "ors" stated here (in respect to withholding testimony) involve only money claims. — This is refuted by the "ors" of a murderer (Bamidbar 35:20): "or if in hatred he thrust him or hurled at him in ambush"), which are "ors" but do not involve money claims. —

8) "for it is a sin-offering": R. Yehudah said: But the (daily) meal-offering of the high-priest is not a sin-offering and requires frankincense.

8) "and sins unwittingly" — to exclude (from an offering) his sinning deliberately. Now does this not follow a fortiori? If in other mitzvoth, where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off), deliberate transgression is exempt (from an offering), meilah, where deliberate transgression is not punishable by kareth, does it not follow that deliberate transgression is exempt (from an offering)? — No, this may be the case with other mitzvoth, which are not subject to death (at the hands of Heaven), as opposed to meilah, which is subject to death (at the hands of Heaven). And since it is subject to death (at the hands of Heaven), (I would say that) deliberate transgression should not be exempt (from an offering)! It is, therefore, (to negate this), written "unwittingly" — to exclude deliberate transgression.

8) "and its fifth he shall add to it": so that it and its fifth equal five (i.e., if the value is four, he shall not take one-fifth of that, but add an additional part). "and he shall give it to the Cohein": to exclude (his deriving benefit from) five dead sin-offerings, (which have no monetary value, in which instance he does not bring a meilah offering and does not add a fifth). "and he shall give it to the Cohein and the Cohein": I would think that if the meilah money came to the hands of the Cohein (to give to the Temple treasurer, and he did not do so, but used the money to purchase the intended offering), (I would think that) the Cohein would not be guilty of meilah; it is, therefore, written: "and he shall give it to the Cohein and the Cohein" to teach us that the Cohein is guilty of meilah.

8) R. Akiva says: If one eats forbidden fats, he brings a sin-offering for a sela. If he is in doubt as to whether or not he has eaten, he brings a guilt-offering for two selaim. If Scripture thus punishes one for an unwitting sin, how much more so will he be punished for a deliberate one!

8) (In the instance of) all the arayoth, a minor (i.e., a male of nine years of age and a female of three years of age) is equated with an adult (in making the adult partner liable for the death penalty); but with a maidservant, a minor maidservant is not equated with an adult (maidservant in making her partner liable for the death penalty [viz. Vayikra 5:2]).

8) And whence is it derived that the claim in question is only a money claim? R. Eliezer said: "Ors are stated here ("or saw or knew") and "ors" are stated in respect to (denying) a pledge [pikadon] (Vayikra 5:21: "or (denying) a deposit or a theft"). Just as the "ors" stated in respect to a pledge involve only money claims, so the "ors" stated here (in respect to withholding testimony) involve only money claims. — This is refuted by the "ors" of a murderer (Bamidbar 35:20): "or if in hatred he thrust him or hurled at him in ambush"), which are "ors" but do not involve money claims. —

8) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For (they treat of things that) do not damage (others) — as opposed to things that do damage, such as: one man's wounding another, a possession against a possession (e.g., one ox against anther), a man against a possession, a possession against a man. It is, therefore, written (to include liability in such instances) (Vayikra 5:22): "(and he swears falsely) in one of all these things that a man does to sin in them."

8) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For (they treat of things that) do not damage (others) — as opposed to things that do damage, such as: one man's wounding another, a possession against a possession (e.g., one ox against anther), a man against a possession, a possession against a man. It is, therefore, written (to include liability in such instances) (Vayikra 5:22): "(and he swears falsely) in one of all these things that a man does to sin in them."

8) And whence is it derived that the claim in question is only a money claim? R. Eliezer said: "Ors are stated here ("or saw or knew") and "ors" are stated in respect to (denying) a pledge [pikadon] (Vayikra 5:21: "or (denying) a deposit or a theft"). Just as the "ors" stated in respect to a pledge involve only money claims, so the "ors" stated here (in respect to withholding testimony) involve only money claims. — This is refuted by the "ors" of a murderer (Bamidbar 35:20): "or if in hatred he thrust him or hurled at him in ambush"), which are "ors" but do not involve money claims. —

8) "of all that he swears upon falsely and he shall pay … and its fifth": He pays (the fifth) only after the oath (and not if there is denial alone, without an oath). Now does this not follow a fortiori? If one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him, who pays kefel (double payment), pays only after the oath, this one, who does not pay kefel, does it not follow that he should pay (the fifth) only after the oath? — No, (it may be argued that) this is true only of the first, who does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, whereas this one does pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, wherefore it may be contended that since he pays a fifth and a guilt-offering, he should pay it both before and after the oath. It is, therefore, written, to indicate that he pays only after the oath "of all that he swears upon falsely and he shall pay … and its fifth."

8) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For (they treat of things that) do not damage (others) — as opposed to things that do damage, such as: one man's wounding another, a possession against a possession (e.g., one ox against anther), a man against a possession, a possession against a man. It is, therefore, written (to include liability in such instances) (Vayikra 5:22): "(and he swears falsely) in one of all these things that a man does to sin in them."

8) (Vayikra 5:3) ("or if he touch the uncleanliness of a man, for all his uncleanliness in which he becomes unclean") "a man" — this is the dead person himself; "with the uncleanliness of a man" — this is one who has come in contact with a body; "his uncleanliness" — to include zavim (men with genital discharges), zavoth (women with genital discharges), menstruating women (niddoth), and women who had given birth. This tells me only of their stringent days (i.e., the days of their sighting). Whence do I derive the same for their less stringent ("white") days? From "for all his uncleanliness." "in (which) he becomes unclean" — to include one who cohabits with a niddah. "bah" (lit., "in it") — to include one who swallows the carcass of a clean bird.

8) "to do harm or to do good": This tells me only of things which are susceptible of "harm" and "good." Whence do I derive the same for (neutral) things, which are not thus susceptible? From (the superfluous) "that a man will pronounce." This tells me only of (an oath to do something in) the future. Whence do I derive that this (also) applies to (an oath of something having been done in) the past? From "all that a man will pronounce." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says "to do harm or to do good" connotes the future. R. Akiva: If so, this should apply only to (matters of) "harm and good." Whence do I derive that it applies (also) to other (i.e., neutral) matters? R. Yishmael: From the superfluous verse ("that a man will pronounce"). R. Akiva: If the verse is superfluous for this (neutral matters), it is also superfluous for that (an oath re the past).

8) I might think that this is so because he is only one claimant. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if five say to him: Come and testify for us that so and so owes us a pledge, etc.

8) Does it not follow? This one (the poor man in our case) brings what his hand can attain, and (the poor man in the case of) the leper brings what his hand can attain. Just as the leper brings two in place of two (i.e., in the instance of poverty he brings two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, respectively, in place of the (rich man's) he-lamb for a burnt-offering and ewe-lambs for a sin-offering — here (in our case), too, (I would think that) since the poor man brings two, the rich man also should bring two, (one for a burnt-offering, aside from the one for the sin-offering). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "a lamb or a goat-kid for a sin-offering." He brings one and not two.

8) "And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering": from the body of the sin-offering (and not from a vessel). "upon the wall of the altar": not upon the wall of the ramp, and not upon the wall of the heichal (the hall containing the altar), but upon the lower wall (under the red line). It would (seem to) follow: Now if a beast, whose burnt-offering is below, its sin-offering is above — a bird, whose burnt-offering is above, should it not follow that its sin-offering is above? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Numbers 22:5): "and what remains of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar, (the wall from which) the left-overs of the blood are drained to the foundation — the bottom wall.

9) We derive "ors" accompanied by an oath (as in our case) from "ors" accompanied by an oath (as in the case of a pledge), and the "ors" of a murderer are no refutation, their not being accompanied by an oath. — This is refuted by the "ors" of sotah (Bamidbar 5:14: "or there had passed over him a spirit of rancor" (Bamidbar 5:30) "or a man if there pass over him, etc."), which are "ors" accompanied by an oath but do not involve money claims.

9) (In respect to a lamb, it is written (Vayikra 5:6) lit.,) "from his sin"; (in respect to a bird, Vayikra 5:10,) "from his sin," (and, in respect to the tenth of an ephah, Vayikra 5:13,) "on (i.e., in addition to) his sin." What is the intent of this? (The intent is that) One may bring from (the monies he set aside to) the sanctuary [hekdesh]: for a lamb, a goat-kid; for a goat-kid, a lamb; for a lamb or a goat-kid, turtle-doves or young pigeons; for turtle-doves or young pigeons, a tenth of an ephah.

9) (Vayikra 5:12): "And he shall bring it to the Cohein, and the Cohein shall take a fistful from it, his entire fistful, as its remembrance; and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, upon the fire-offerings of the L–rd; it is a sin-offering." ("upon the fire-offerings":) It must be devoted to this end. And ("of the L–rd"): it must be dedicated to the L–rd. "it is a sin-offering": All of its operations (taking the fistful, etc.) must be in the name of a sin-offering. "it": "It is a sin-offering" — to exclude one from which the fistful was not taken in the name of a sin-offering (and so with the other operations).

9) (In respect to a lamb, it is written (Vayikra 5:6) lit.,) "from his sin"; (in respect to a bird, Vayikra 5:10,) "from his sin," (and, in respect to the tenth of an ephah, Vayikra 5:13,) "on (i.e., in addition to) his sin." What is the intent of this? (The intent is that) One may bring from (the monies he set aside to) the sanctuary [hekdesh]: for a lamb, a goat-kid; for a goat-kid, a lamb; for a lamb or a goat-kid, turtle-doves or young pigeons; for turtle-doves or young pigeons, a tenth of an ephah.

9) R. Elazar said: This one (the guilt-offering for meilah) comes for a sin, and a sin-offering comes for a sin. Just as a sin-offering does not come for deliberate transgression as it does come for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should not come for deliberate transgression as it does come for unwitting transgression.

9) "and the Cohein shall make atonement for him (with the ram of the guilt-offering"): What is the intent of this? Whence is it derived that if he brought his meilah (the principal) and he did not bring his guilt-offering (the ram) or that if he brought his guilt-offering and he did not bring his meilah, he has not complied (and is not forgiven)? From "with the ram of the guilt-offering (the principal) and it shall be forgiven," which indicates that both are required. I would think that just as "the ram of the guilt-offering is a categorical requirement (for forgiveness) so the one-fifth is a categorical requirement; it is, therefore, written: "with the ram of the guilt-offering" — The ram of the guilt-offering is a categorical requirement, but not the one-fifth. "and it shall be forgiven": This teaches us that his sin is not left "suspended" until Yom Kippur. I might think that even if he (the Cohein) "sat" and did not offer it (the owner nevertheless receives atonement); it is, therefore, written ("and it shall be forgiven) him" (i.e., only him for whom the service has been performed.)

9) R. Menachem b. R. Yossi says: If one derives enjoyment the worth of a perutah from the sanctuary, he brings the meilah payment and a fifth and a guilt-offering for two selaim. Compute the number of perutoth in two selaim — close to two thousand. If Scripture thus punishes one who was accosted with a possibility of transgression, how much more will be the reward of the doer of a mitzvah!

9) (In the instance of) all the arayoth, peripheral intercourse is equated with consummated intercourse (vis-à-vis) the death penalty; but with a maidservant peripheral intercourse is not equated with consummated intercourse [viz. Vayikra 5:2]).

9) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For (they treat of things that are subject to) payment of the principal — as opposed to double payment, "four and five" payment, (payment for) rape, inducement (to intercourse), and libel. It is, therefore, written (to include liability for these) (Vayikra 5:21): "and he commit a profanation against the L–rd."

9) "and he shall pay it": He pays it, but he does not pay kefel. Now should it not follow a fortiori (that he does pay kefel)? For if one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him, who does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, pays kefel, then this one, who does pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, should it not follow that he pays kefel! It is, therefore written (to negate this): "and he shall pay it" — It is it that he pays and not kefel.

9) If the less stringent instances (the tumah of sheretz and carcass) are mentioned (as being liable for an offering), why need the more stringent ones (dead body, zav and zavah) be mentioned? If only the less stringent instances were mentioned, I would say that in these instances he is liable for a sliding-scale (oleh veyored) offering and in the stringent instances, for a fixed offering. The stringent instances must, therefore, be mentioned. Or if (only) the stringent ones and not the les stringent ones were mentioned, I would say that he is liable in the stringent instances but not in the less stringent ones. Therefore, both the less stringent and the stringent instances must be mentioned.

9) "a man … with an oath": This excludes one who swore falsely by mistake (assuming that he was telling the truth). "and it be hidden from him": This excludes one who swore falsely deliberately (and repented of it, in which instance he does not bring an offering). "and it be hidden from him": That the oath was "hidden" (i.e., forgotten by) him (e.g., "Did I say that I will or that I will not eat?") or that the object of the oath were "hidden" from him ("Did I say 'wheat bread' or 'barley bread'?") — "an oath and it be hidden from him" implies that he is liable for "hiddenness" of the oath but not for "hiddenness" of the object.

9) I might think that in the instance of a court-imposed oath and an oath of pronouncement, (violation of) which is not punishable by kareth, he is liable for one alone; but in the instance of tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects, which is punishable by kareth, he is liable for each one, etc.

9) (In respect to a lamb, it is written (Vayikra 5:6) lit.,) "from his sin"; (in respect to a bird, Vayikra 5:10,) "from his sin," (and, in respect to the tenth of an ephah, Vayikra 5:13,) "on (i.e., in addition to) his sin." What is the intent of this? (The intent is that) One may bring from (the monies he set aside to) the sanctuary [hekdesh]: for a lamb, a goat-kid; for a goat-kid, a lamb; for a lamb or a goat-kid, turtle-doves or young pigeons; for turtle-doves or young pigeons, a tenth of an ephah.

9) (In respect to a lamb, it is written (Vayikra 5:6) lit.,) "from his sin"; (in respect to a bird, Vayikra 5:10,) "from his sin," (and, in respect to the tenth of an ephah, Vayikra 5:13,) "on (i.e., in addition to) his sin." What is the intent of this? (The intent is that) One may bring from (the monies he set aside to) the sanctuary [hekdesh]: for a lamb, a goat-kid; for a goat-kid, a lamb; for a lamb or a goat-kid, turtle-doves or young pigeons; for turtle-doves or young pigeons, a tenth of an ephah.

9) "It is a sin-offering." All of its operations must be specifically intended as such — to exclude "pinching" which is not so intended.

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN…, AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes < upon one > for eleven things:³²Tanh., Lev. 5:4; cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for blessing (i.e., for cursing) the name, (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon³³In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing falsely, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say: for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly). [Moreover, you < can > expound them all < from Scripture >.]

10) — We derive "ors" accompanied by an oath (as in our case) and not involving a Cohein from "ors" accompanied by an oath and not involving a Cohein (as in the case of a pledge). And this is not refuted by the "ors" of a murderer, which are not accompanied by an oath. And it is not refuted by the "ors" of sotah, which, though accompanied by an oath, involve a Cohein.

10) (Vayikra 5:10) "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed": As prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast or as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (that does not require sundering in its "pinching," viz. Vayikra 5:7) above)? (Vayikra 1:15) "And the Cohein shall bring it" (a bird burnt-offering — as distinct from the "pinching" of a bird sin-offering (Vayikra 5:8) —) distinguishes a burnt-offering from a sin-offering. For you could say "as prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast" — Just as the sin-offering of a beast comes from chullin (mundane monies, and not from monies of the second tithe), and (is sacrificed only in) the daytime, and (only with) the right hand, so (do these apply to) a bird burnt-offering. R. Yishmael says: "As prescribed" (means) as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (which precedes [Vayikra 5:8]). Just as with the sin-offering of a bird — "opposite its nape," so with the burnt-offering of a bird, opposite its nape. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: As prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird. Just as with the sin-offering of a bird, he holds its head and its body and sprinkles (viz. Vayikra 5:9), so (does he do) with the burnt-offering of a bird. I might think that just as there (with the sin-offering of a bird), (only) one sign (is severed), here, too, (with the burnt-offering of a bird), (only) one sign should be severed. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the donative burnt-offering of a bird [Vayikra 1:15]): "And he shall bring it," (and not the prescribed burnt-offering of a bird — our case — with the severing of the two signs).

10) (Vayikra 5:13): "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has sinned, of one of these." What is the intent of this ("of these")? For I might think: "The most stringent of them (tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects) should be subject to lamb or goat-kid; the less stringent (a court-mandated oath), to a bird; the least stringent (an oath of "pronouncement"), to the tenth of an ephah. It is therefore, (to negate this) written "of one of these" — to equate the least stringent to the most stringent vis-à-vis lamb and goat-kid, and the most stringent to the least stringent vis-à-vis the tenth of en ephah.

10) Or, go in this direction: This one is called a guilt-offering, as other guilt-offerings are called a guilt-offering. Just as other guilt-offerings (such as that for theft (Vayikra 5:25) and that for intercourse with a betrothed Canaanite maidservant (Vayikra 14:21) come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression.

10) R. Yossi says: If you would like to know the reward of the righteous in time to come, go and learn it from the first man, who was commanded only one negative commandment, (not to eat from the tree), and transgressed it. See how many deaths were ordained for him and his generations and the generations of his generations until the end of all the generations. (If so,) one who repents of pigul and nothar and who afflicts himself on Yom Kippur, how much more so will merit be accorded him and his generations and the generations of his generations until the end of all the generations.

10) "one of all," "in it" and "in them" and "of all" are clauses of exclusion — to exclude: one saying to his neighbor, "You injured me on the Sabbath" and the other denying it; "You set fire to my sheaves on the Sabbath" and the other denying it; a father saying to his son, "You struck me and wounded me," and the son saying, "I did not strike you and wound you." It is, therefore, written, (in respect to these instances): "one of all," "in it" and "in them," and "of all," for exclusion. Why do you see fit to include the others and to exclude these? After Scripture includes it excludes. I include the others, where capital judgment is not involved, and I exclude these, where capital judgment is involved.

10) I would then exclude the payment of kefel, but not that of "four and five"! It is, therefore, written "with its principal" — It is its principal that he pays, and not kefel and not "four and five."

10) Or, go in this direction: This one is called a guilt-offering, as other guilt-offerings are called a guilt-offering. Just as other guilt-offerings (such as that for theft (Vayikra 5:25) and that for intercourse with a betrothed Canaanite maidservant (Vayikra 14:21) come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression.

10) And whence is it derived that Scripture here speaks only of tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects, (but if he became tamei and did not thereafter eat consecrated food he is not liable)? It warned and punished for tumah and made one liable for an offering for tumah. Just as the punishment and the warning for tumah stated later (in Emor) were for the tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects, so the offering liability here is for tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects.

10) How so? If he became tamei and was aware of it and ate consecrated food, and (again) ate consecrated food, and in the end he became aware — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone, etc.

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) 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) (Vayikra 5:10) "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed": As prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast or as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (that does not require sundering in its "pinching," viz. Vayikra 5:7) above)? (Vayikra 1:15) "And the Cohein shall bring it" (a bird burnt-offering — as distinct from the "pinching" of a bird sin-offering (Vayikra 5:8) —) distinguishes a burnt-offering from a sin-offering. For you could say "as prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast" — Just as the sin-offering of a beast comes from chullin (mundane monies, and not from monies of the second tithe), and (is sacrificed only in) the daytime, and (only with) the right hand, so (do these apply to) a bird burnt-offering. R. Yishmael says: "As prescribed" (means) as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (which precedes [Vayikra 5:8]). Just as with the sin-offering of a bird — "opposite its nape," so with the burnt-offering of a bird, opposite its nape. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: As prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird. Just as with the sin-offering of a bird, he holds its head and its body and sprinkles (viz. Vayikra 5:9), so (does he do) with the burnt-offering of a bird. I might think that just as there (with the sin-offering of a bird), (only) one sign (is severed), here, too, (with the burnt-offering of a bird), (only) one sign should be severed. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the donative burnt-offering of a bird [Vayikra 1:15]): "And he shall bring it," (and not the prescribed burnt-offering of a bird — our case — with the severing of the two signs).

10) (Vayikra 5:10) "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed": As prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast or as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (that does not require sundering in its "pinching," viz. Vayikra 5:7) above)? (Vayikra 1:15) "And the Cohein shall bring it" (a bird burnt-offering — as distinct from the "pinching" of a bird sin-offering (Vayikra 5:8) —) distinguishes a burnt-offering from a sin-offering. For you could say "as prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast" — Just as the sin-offering of a beast comes from chullin (mundane monies, and not from monies of the second tithe), and (is sacrificed only in) the daytime, and (only with) the right hand, so (do these apply to) a bird burnt-offering. R. Yishmael says: "As prescribed" (means) as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (which precedes [Vayikra 5:8]). Just as with the sin-offering of a bird — "opposite its nape," so with the burnt-offering of a bird, opposite its nape. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: As prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird. Just as with the sin-offering of a bird, he holds its head and its body and sprinkles (viz. Vayikra 5:9), so (does he do) with the burnt-offering of a bird. I might think that just as there (with the sin-offering of a bird), (only) one sign (is severed), here, too, (with the burnt-offering of a bird), (only) one sign should be severed. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the donative burnt-offering of a bird [Vayikra 1:15]): "And he shall bring it," (and not the prescribed burnt-offering of a bird — our case — with the severing of the two signs).

10) (Vayikra 5:10) "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed": As prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast or as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (that does not require sundering in its "pinching," viz. Vayikra 5:7) above)? (Vayikra 1:15) "And the Cohein shall bring it" (a bird burnt-offering — as distinct from the "pinching" of a bird sin-offering (Vayikra 5:8) —) distinguishes a burnt-offering from a sin-offering. For you could say "as prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast" — Just as the sin-offering of a beast comes from chullin (mundane monies, and not from monies of the second tithe), and (is sacrificed only in) the daytime, and (only with) the right hand, so (do these apply to) a bird burnt-offering. R. Yishmael says: "As prescribed" (means) as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (which precedes [Vayikra 5:8]). Just as with the sin-offering of a bird — "opposite its nape," so with the burnt-offering of a bird, opposite its nape. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: As prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird. Just as with the sin-offering of a bird, he holds its head and its body and sprinkles (viz. Vayikra 5:9), so (does he do) with the burnt-offering of a bird. I might think that just as there (with the sin-offering of a bird), (only) one sign (is severed), here, too, (with the burnt-offering of a bird), (only) one sign should be severed. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the donative burnt-offering of a bird [Vayikra 1:15]): "And he shall bring it," (and not the prescribed burnt-offering of a bird — our case — with the severing of the two signs).

That you smashed (Deuteronomy 10:2): Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael [differed on the matter]. One said, "[God was saying,] 'Take this here from Me which you broke, Moshe.'" And one said, "He did well." There is a [relevant] parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a a king who betrothed a woman. He said to her, "After some time, I will send your marriage contract through a nuptial agent. After some time the king sent [it]. While [the agent] was going, he found that she was sullied with another [man]. What did the agent do? He tore that marriage contract. He said, "It is better that [the king] judge her as a single woman, and not as a married woman." So [too,] did the Holy One, blessed be He, betroth Israel, as it is stated (Exodus 19:10), "and you shall be sanctified (a word sometimes used to denote marriage) today and tomorrow." Moshe [then] came to give them the Torah, and found that they did that act [of the golden calf]. What did he do? He broke the talets, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 9:16-17), "I saw how you had sinned against the Lord, your God [...]. Thereupon I gripped the two tablets and flung them away with both my hands, smashing them before your eyes." Rabbi Beracheya said in the name of Rabbi Helbo in the name of Rabbi Yishmael bar Nechemiah, "The length of the tablets was six handbreadths and their width was three. Moshe held on to two and the Holy One, blessed be He, to two and there were two handbreadths of space in the middle. And Moshe's hands became strong and he grabbed the tablets and broke them, as it is stated (Exodus 32:19), 'and he flung from his hands.' Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "that you broke." Why did he break them? Because the writing upon them flew away. And therefore he broke them. There is a [relevant] parable. To what is the matter comparable? To a courier who was going to bring a royal edict in his hand to a province. And he passed through a river and the [documents] fell into the water and the letters were erased. What did that courier do? He tore them. As it is stated (Deuteronomy 9;16), "I saw how you had sinned against the Lord, your God." What did he see? He saw the letters flying away. And so he also broke [the tablets], as it is stated, "which you broke." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "I dictated in My Torah and stated (Leviticus 5:23), 'he would restore that which he got through robbery [...], or the deposit that was entrusted to him.' And [so] restore that deposit that was with you. And this is what is stated (Deuteronomy 10:1), 'Carve out for yourself two tablets of stone like the first ones.' And not only that, but tomorrow they will be reviewing that which they will be learning from you, 'If a barrel is broken, and the intermediary breaks it, [the payment] is from him.' You were the intermediary between us, and you broke [them]. Therefore you have to pay." Therefore it is stated, "Carve out for yourself." The Holy One, blessed be He, said, "In this world, you learn and forget, because of the evil impulse. But in the future to come, I am uprooting the evil impulse from you and you will not forget, as it is stated (Isaiah 36:26), 'I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh.' And not only that, but you will not need [another] person to teach [you the Torah], as it is stated (Jeremiah 31:34), 'No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, "Know the Lord"; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall know Me.'" And so may it be His will; and let us say, "Amen!"

11) (Vayikra 5:13): "and it shall be to the Cohein": That is, the meal-offering service of the Cohein (if he himself is the sinner) can be performed by the Cohein himself. Or perhaps its intent is only to permit (the eating of what remains of) the tenth of an ephah of a Cohein (who sinned). And how would I satisfy (Vayikra 6:16): "And every meal-offering of a Cohein shall be entire, (exclusively for the L–rd); it shall not be eaten"? By his donative meal-offering; but his one tenth of the ephah may be eaten. It is therefore, (to negate this) written ("and it shall be to the Cohein) as a meal-offering" — as his donative meal-offering. Just as his donative meal-offering is not eaten, so the tenth of the ephah is not eaten. R. Shimon says: "and it shall be to the Cohein as a meal-offering": The tenth of an ephah of a Cohein is like the tenth of the ephah of an Israelite, viz. Just as a fistful is taken of the tenth of the ephah of an Israelite, so a fistful is taken of this tenth of an ephah (of a Cohein).

11) Let us see to what it is similar. Shall we derive a thing (meilah) that is subject to the death penalty (at the hands of Heaven) from a thing (such as the sin-offering for eating forbidden fats), which is subject to the death penalty (kareth, and which is not subject to an offering for deliberate transgression) and not be refuted by other guilt-offerings, which are not subject to the death penalty (and which come for both unwitting and deliberate transgression)? Or, go in this direction: Derive a two-year old male offering (the meilah ram [Vayikra 5:15]) from a two-year old male offering (that for unwitting transgression of forbidden fats, where there is no offering for deliberate transgression), and not be refuted by a one-year old female sin-offering (for other sins, where there is an offering for deliberate transgression). It is, therefore, (to resolve this impasse) written "unwittingly" — to exclude (from an offering) his sinning deliberately.

11) R. Akiva says: It is written (Devarim 19:15): "By word of two witnesses or by word of three witnesses, etc." If "two" constitutes valid testimony, why does Scripture specify "three"? To be as exacting in the punishment of the third as in that of the others. If Scripture thus punished the accessory to a transgression as (severely as) the transgressors themselves, how much more so will the accessories to a mitzvah be rewarded (as profusely) as the doers themselves!

11) (Vayikra 9:17): "And he presented the meal-offering and he filled his hand from it": "filling" is stated here, and "filling" is stated elsewhere (Vayikra 5:2). Just as the "filling" there is "his full fistful," so the "filling" here is his full fistful. And just as with the "filling" there, if he took a fistful and there entered into it a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is invalid; here, too, it is invalid.

11) R. Shimon said: I might think that if one said to his neighbor: You raped or enticed my daughter, and the other denied it — (or) if one's servant said to him: You knocked out my tooth or: You blinded my eye, and he denied it — I might think that he were liable; it is, therefore, written: "and he deny to his neighbor a pledge, or a deposit, or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor, or if he find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely, etc." What is common to all of the above is that they are not (i.e., they do not involve) penalty payments — to exclude the aforementioned, which are penalty payments.

11) It would follow a fortiori that one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him should pay a fifth and a guilt-offering (along with kefel), viz.: Now if this one, who does not pay kefel pays a fifth and a guilt-offering, then the first, who does pay kefel, should it not follow that he pays a fifth and a guilt-offering! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: "with its principal and its fifth he shall add to it" — One who pays with the principal adds a fifth; but one who pays kefel and four and five does not add a fifth.

11) And whence is it derived that he is not liable until there be awareness in the beginning and awareness in the end and "hiddenness" in the middle? From its being written twice (verses 2 and 3) "and it be hidden from him," (the implication being that he was aware in the beginning and in the end). These are the words of R. Akiva. Rebbi says: "and it be hidden from him" implies that before that he was aware; "and he knew" makes it two awarenesses.

11) If he became tamei and was aware of it, and the tumah was hidden from him and he entered the sanctuary and left, and (again) entered the sanctuary and left and was not aware of it, and in the end he became aware — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone, etc.

(Numb. 23:4:) “Then God encountered Balaam.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You evil man! What are you doing?” (Ibid., cont.:) “And [Balaam] said unto him, ‘I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].’” [The matter] is comparable to a money-changer who lies about the weights. When the head of the marketplace came, he noticed him. He said to him, “What are you doing inflating and lying about the weights?” [The money changer then] said to him, “I have already sent a gift⁴⁶Gk.: doron. to your house.” So also it was in the case of Balaam. The holy spirit cried out to him. It said to him, “You evil man! What are you doing.” He said to it (in Numb. 23:4), “I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].” It said to him (in Prov. 15:17), “’Better a meal of vegetable greens [where there is love than a fattened ox with hatred in it].’ Better the dinner of unleavened bread and bitter herbs which Israel ate in Egypt, than bulls which you offer with hands of [hatred].” (Numb. 23:5:) “So the Lord put a word (davar) in Balaam's mouth,” which twisted his mouth and pierced it,⁴⁷Both “twisted” and “pierced” connote the use of a bit on a horse. as one would drive a nail into a board. R. Eliezer (understanding davar as word) says, “An angel was speaking.” But R. Joshua says, “[It was] the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated, (in Numb. 23:5), “Return unto Balak and speak thus.” (Numb. 23:6:) “So he returned unto him, and there he was standing beside his burnt offerings with all the ministers of Moab,” who stood anxiously awaiting [the time] when he would come and speak. (Numb. 23:7:) “So he took up his theme and said, ‘From Aram, Balak the king of Moab has brought me, from the hills of the east.’” I was one of the exalted ones,⁴⁸Ramim. The midrash links this word with ARAM in Numb. 23:7. but Balak has brought me down to the pit of corruption.⁴⁹Numb. R. 20:19; also above, Lev. 5:1 and the notes there. (Ibid.:) “Brought me (yanheni, rt.: nhh),” [is to be understood] just as you say (in Ezek. 32:18), “bring (rt.: nhh) the masses of Egypt [and cast them down… unto the lowest part of the netherworld along with those who go down to the pit].”⁵⁰Thus Numb. 23:7 comes to mean that Balak BROUGHT (rt.: NHH) Balaam down to the grave. The unusual Biblical translation is necessary to fit the sense of the midrash. Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram.” I was with the highest (ram) of the high, and Balak has brought me down from my glory. [The matter] is comparable to one who was walking with the king. When he saw [some] robbers,⁵¹Gk.: lestai. he left the king and toured along with the robbers. When he returned to be with the king, the king said to him, “Go with whomever you have toured with, because it not possible for you to walk with me again.” Similarly Balaam had been bound to the holy spirit. When he paired himself with Balak, the holy spirit departed from him. So he returned to being a diviner as in the beginning. Thus it is stated (at his execution in Josh. 13:22), “Balaam ben Beor the diviner….” Therefore did he say, “I was high up (ram), and Balak brought me down.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram, Balak the king of Moab has brought me, from the hills of the east.” [Balaam] said to [Balak], “We are alike, even both of us, for being ungrateful, because were it not for our father Abraham, there would have been no Balak. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 19:29), ‘And it came to pass that when God destroyed the cities of the plain, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot away.’ Except for Abraham, he would not have delivered Lot from Sodom; and you are one of the children of the children of Lot.⁵²As a Moabite, Balak was descended from Moab, the son of Lot. See Gen. 19:37. Moreover, if it were not for their father Jacob, I should not have been present in the world, because Laban had sons only through the merit of Jacob, since it is written at the beginning (in Gen. 29:9), ‘Rachel came with the sheep.’ Now if he had sons, how was his daughter a shepherdess? As soon as Jacob came there, sons were given to him, as stated (in Gen. 31:1), ‘Now he heard the things that Laban's sons [were saying].’⁵³Jewish tradition gives three views on Balaam’s relation to Laban: That he was Laban himself, that he was Laban’s nephew, and that he was Laban’s grandson. See Ginzberg, vol. III, p. 354; vol.. V, p. 303, n. 229; vol. VI, pp. 123f., nn. 722f.; p. 130, n. 764. And it also says [that Laban said] (in Gen. 30:27), ‘I have learned by divination that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.’ So if it were not for their ancestors, you and I would not have been present in the world”. (Numb. 23:7, cont.:) “Come, curse Jacob for me.” Whoever curses the Children of Jacob is cursing himself, since it is stated (in Gen. 12:3), “and the one who curses you, I will curse.” It also says (in Gen. 27:29), “cursed be those who curse you,⁵⁴See above, Gen. 6:16. and blessed be those who bless you.” (Numb. 23:7:) “Come, curse [Jacob] for me.” If you had told me to curse another people, for example, the Children of Abraham from the concubines, I would have been able [to do so]. But Jacob? When a king selects a portion for himself, and someone else gets up and speaks disparagingly about it, will he keep his life? Now these people are the Holy One, blessed be He’s, heritage, His portion, and His treasure. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 32:9), “For the Lord's share is His people; Jacob the portion of His heritage.” And it is written (in Exod. 19:5), “and you shall be My treasure.” (Numb. 23:7, cont.:) “And come, denounce Israel.” When a king takes a crown and puts it on his head, and someone says of it that it is nothing, will he keep his life? Now in regard to these people it is written about them (in Is. 49:3), “Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Numb. 23:8:) “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” When they deserved to be cursed, they were not cursed, when Jacob went in to receive the blessings. It is written (in Gen. 27:16), “Then [she clothed his arms and the hairless part of his neck] with the skins of goat kids.” His father said to him (in Gen. 27:18), “Who are you?” He said to him (in vs. 19), “I am Esau, your first-born.” Does not the one who puts forth a lie with his mouth deserve to be cursed? Yet not only [was he not cursed], but he was blessed; as stated (in Gen. 27:33), “he shall also be blessed.” So how do I curse them? (In the words of Numb. 23:8) “God has not cursed.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” According to universal custom, when a legion⁵⁵Lat.: legio. rebels against the king, it incurs the penalty of death. Now since these denied and revolted against Him, when they said to the calf (in Exod. 32:4), “This is your God, O Israel,” did they not, therefore, deserve to have Him destroy them at that time? [Still] He did not cease to cherish them. Instead He had clouds of glory accompany them. Nor did He withhold the manna and the well from them. And so it says (in Neh. 9:18-20), “Even though they had made themselves a molten calf […], You in Your great mercies did not abandon them in the desert […]; and You did not withhold Your manna from their mouth […].” How can I curse them? This [question] is related (to Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” When He commanded them concerning the blessings and the curses, He mentioned them (as the people) in connection with the blessings where it is stated (in Deut. 27:12), “These shall stand [on Mount Gerizim] for blessing the people;” but He did not mention them in connection with the curses. Thus it is stated (in vs. 13), “And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse.” Moreover, when they sin and He plans to bring a curse upon them, it is not written that He Himself is bringing them (i.e., the curses); but with respect to the blessings, He Himself is blessing them; for so it says (in Deut. 28:1, 8), “And it shall come to pass that, if you diligently obey […], the Lord your God will set you high [over all the nations of the earth]. The Lord will command the blessing to be with you.” But with respect to the curses, it is written (according to Deut. 28:15), “And it shall come to pass that, if you do not obey […], then [all these curses] shall come upon you,” [i.e.,] of their own accord. Ergo (in Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” (Numb. 23:9:) “For from the top of the rocks I see him,” in order to make the hatred of that evil man (i.e., Balaam) known to you. As from his blessing you may know his thoughts. To what is he comparable? To someone who came to chop down a tree. One who is not an expert chops off the branches one at a time and becomes tired, but the clever one exposes the roots and [then] chops it down. Similarly that wicked man said, “How shall I curse each and every tribe? Rather I will go to their roots.” When he came to touch them, he found them hard [to cut]. It is therefore stated (in Numb. 23:9), “For from the top of the rocks I see him.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:9), “For from the top of the rocks,” these are the patriarchs; (ibid., cont.) “and from the hills I behold him,” these are the matriarchs. (Numb. 23:9, cont.:) “Here is a people dwelling alone.” When He makes them rejoice, no nation rejoices along with them. Rather they are all afflicted, [as stated (in Deut. 32:12),] “The Lord alone did lead him, and there was no foreign god with him.” (Numb. 23:9, cont.:), “And they shall not be reckoned (rt.: hshb) among the nations.” But when the nations are rejoicing in this world, they (i.e., the Children of Israel) eat with each and every kingdom, and no one is charging [such pleasures] against their account (rt: hshb).⁵⁶In other words the pleasures that Israel enjoys in this world are not to be deducted from their pleasures in the world to come. It is so stated (in Numb. 23:9, cont.), “and they shall not be reckoned (rt.: hshb) among the nations.” (Numb. 23:10:) “Who has counted the dust of Jacob?” Who is able to count the commandments which they carry out upon the dust: (In Deut. 22:10,) “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together”; (in Deut. 22:9,) “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed”; (in Numb. 19:9,) “Then someone clean shall gather the ashes of the heifer”; (in Numb. 5:17,) “[Then the high priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel] and some of the dust which is on the floor of the tabernacle”; (in Lev. 19:23,) “[Moreover, when you come into the land and plant any tree for food, you shall count its fruit as forbidden,] three years it shall be forbidden to you, [it shall not be eaten]”; and so on with all of them. (Numb. 23:10, cont.:) “Or numbered the sand (rb') of Israel,” [i.e.,] their copulations (rt.: rb').⁵⁷For this interpretation, cf. Nid. 31a. Who can number the masses⁵⁸Gk.: ochloi. that have emerged from them, from those women who seize on and cherish the commandments (of procreation), as stated (in Gen. 30:15), “But she said to her, ‘Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband?’” [And so too (in Gen. 30:3, 9),] “Here is my maid Bilhah; go into her.” “When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, [she took her maidservant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife].” [And so too (in Gen. 16:3),] “So Abraham's wife Sarai took her maidservant Hagar the Egyptian… [and gave her to her husband Abraham as a wife].” (Numb. 23:10, cont.:) “Let me die the death of the upright.” The matter is comparable to a butcher who came to slaughter a cow that belonged to a king. The king began to take notice. When [the butcher] realized [what was happening], he began by discarding the knife, then giving [the cow] a rubdown [and] filling the feeding trough for it. He began to say, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to slaughter it; but observe that I have [now given it sustenance].” Similarly Balaam said, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to curse, but I will bless [them].” Ergo (in Numb. 23:10), “let me die the death of the upright!”

(Bamidbar 5:19) "And the Cohein shall beswear her": The Cohein administers the oath and she does not swear of herself. For it would follow (that she does), viz.: It is written here "swear," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 5:4) "swear." Just as there, he swears of himself, so, here, she should swear of herself. It is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall beswear her." "and he shall say to the woman": in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of yevamah, (the instance) of lesser stringency, the other languages are not equated with the holy tongue (Hebrew) (viz. Devarim 25:9), then, (in the instance of) sotah, the graver instance, how much more so should the other languages not be equated with the holy tongue! It is, therefore, written "and he shall say to the woman" — in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This (derivation of R. Yoshiyah) is not necessary; for it is written (Bamidbar 5:22) "and the woman shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'" If she does not understand, how can she say this! — But perhaps she says "Amen" only on the curse (i.e., "to swell the belly, etc." [and not on the oath])! — (This cannot be,) for she says Amen twice — both on the curse and on the oath. What, then, is the intent of "and he shall say to the women" (according to R. Yonathan)? That the Cohein teaches her (the import of) the order of the oath. (5:19) "If no man has lain with you": We are hereby taught that he opens for merit. He says to her: Much wine causes this. Much frivolity causes this. Much childishness causes this. Many have preceded you and been swept away (by lust). Do not allow His great name written in holiness to be erased by the (bitter) waters. He recounts before her things from the tradition, things mentioned in the early writings (Iyyov 15:18) "which wise men relate and which they did not withhold from their fathers." And he says before her things which are not fit to be heard, by her and by all the families of her father's house. R. Yishmael says: In the beginning he apprises her of the strength of the bitter waters. He says to her: My daughter, what are these bitter waters like? Like a dry powder placed on raw flesh, which causes no harm, but which, when it finds a sore spot, penetrates and descends. You, too, if you are clean, drink and do not refrain, and, if you are unclean, in the end you will be swollen by these bitter, blighting waters.

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND < OF CANAAN…, AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS >. How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted?⁴⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:4. It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:33–34): < HE TURNS…; > A FRUITFUL LAND INTO A SALT MARSH BECAUSE OF THE EVIL OF THOSE WHO DWELL IN IT. For what reason did suffering come into the world? Because of the people, so that they would look, consider, and say: Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted. So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look < at them > and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One intended to exile them. The Holy One said: If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations. What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the Wicked upon all the < other > nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14): MY HAND (the hand of Sennacherib) HAS FOUND THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLES LIKE A NEST. It is also written (in vs. 13): AND I (Sennacherib) HAVE REMOVED THE BORDERS OF PEOPLES. The Holy One said: When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear my judgment. It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6–7): I HAVE ROOTED OUT THE NATIONS; THEIR CORNER TOWERS ARE DESOLATE…. AND I SAID: SURELY YOU WILL FEAR ME… ! When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One warns them and first afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, one is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH…. {Therefore, the stones are afflicted at first.} For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40): WHEN SOMEONE'S HEAD BECOMES HAIRLESS < SO THAT HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN >; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18): AND WHEN ONE HAS BOILS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH [AND IS HEALED].⁴⁷The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges {i.e., blows}: Swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.⁴⁸Numb. R. 14:4. {The Holy One} [Scripture] has said (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS]. The Holy One said: Before I created the human, I prepared all these things for him. < The situation > is comparable to an evil slave who was sold. His < new > master went to buy him. Since he knew about him being an evil slave, he took along chains and whips so that, if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him: Did you not know that I was an evil slave? Why did you buy me? He said to him: Because I knew that you were an evil slave, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them. Also before the Holy One, blessed be his name, created the human one, he prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) he knows THAT⁴⁹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” THE INSTINCT OF ONE'S HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH. He therefore prepared all these things for him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS].

12) (Vayikra 2:2): "its remembrance" (the fistful): The owners are "remembered" (for good) thereby (i.e., by its presentation to the altar), by (the smoking of) the fistful, and by (the smoking of) the frankincense. R. Shimon says: "remembrance" is mentioned here, and "remembrance" is mentioned elsewhere (in reference to the show bread [Vayikra 24:7]). Just as the "remembrance" here is a full fistful, so, the "remembrance" there.

12) Rabbi says: It is written (Devarim 19:5): "And one who comes with his neighbor in the forest to chop wood, and his hand swing the axe to cut the tree, and the iron slip from the haft and it find his neighbor and he die — he shall flee to one of these cities (or refuge), and he shall live." Scripture ordained the saving of the life of one who unwittingly slew another. Deduce therefrom: The collector of charity, the feeder of the poor, the doer of lovingkindness — how much more so will his life be granted him!

12) "vechamishithav" (lit., and its fifths"): This teaches us that (if he gave the claimant the principal and swore that he had given him the fifth, and subsequently admitted that he had sworn falsely, the fifth is accounted a principal and) he pays a fifth on the fifth, (and so, progressively,) until the principal (of the fifth) is less than the value of a perutah. ("and its fifth he shall add upon it"): so that it and its fifth are five (equal parts). "to whom it belongs shall he give it on the day of his guilt.": and not to his (the sender's) messenger to bring it to him. I might then think that he shall not give it to beth-din (on his behalf) or to his heir. It is, therefore, written "shall he give it" (a superfluous construction, implying that there are others who may accept it for him).

(Lev. 5:1:) AND IF A SOUL SINS IN THAT IT HEARS A VOICE SWEARING…, <IF HE DOES NOT SPEAK OUT, HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY>. This text is related (to Eccl. 5:1 [2]): DO NOT BE RASH WITH YOUR MOUTH, AND LET NOT YOUR HEART HASTEN TO BRING FORTH A WORD BEFORE GOD. These < words refer to> the children of Adam who vilify the name of the Holy One.⁵⁰Tanh., Lev. 1:7. Come and see. When the celestial beings were created, those below were created with half of the name, as stated (in Is. 26:4): FOR THROUGH YH,⁵¹YH is the first half of the divine name, which the Hebrew spells out where the translation reads THE LORD. THE LORD FORMED THE WORLDS.⁵²The midrash interprets tsur ‘olamim as FORMED THE WORLDS (i.e., this world and the world to come) rather than as the more usual EVERLASTING ROCK. For similar interpretations, see yHag. 2:1 (77c); Men. 29b; Gen. R. 12:10; M. Pss. 62:1; 114:3; cf. also M. Pss. 118:14. But why were they not created with all of it? So that none of them would repeat the full name of the Holy One. Woe to those creatures who vilify the name of the Holy One in vain. See what is written about offerings (in Lev. 1:2): WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD. It does not say "To the Lord, an offering," but AN OFFERING TO THE LORD;⁵³Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:6; Ned. 10ab; Sifra to Lev. 1:2, Wayyiqra, Parashah 2; Sifre, Deut.32:3 (306); Gen. R. 1:13. so the Children of Adam vilify the name of the Lord in vain. It is therefore stated (in Eccl. 5:1 [2]): DO NOT BE RASH WITH YOUR MOUTH…. [FOR GOD IS IN HEAVEN AND YOU ARE ON EARTH.] For who would say that God is not in Heaven and that the children of Adam are not on earth? However, Solomon has said: Every time that the weakest of the weak is from above, he defeats the warrior from below. Go and learn from Abimelech (in Jud. 9:53): BUT A CERTAIN WOMAN DROPPED AN UPPER MILLSTONE [ON ABIMELECH'S HEAD AND CRACKED HIS SKULL].⁵⁴Since the woman was above the warrior Abimelech in the tower of Thebez, her killing him is an example of a relatively weak person defeating a warrior from above. And how much the more so in the case of a warrior among warriors from above! See what is written about him (in Dan. 4:32 [35]): ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH ARE OF NO ACCOUNT, [AND HE DOES AS HE WISHES WITH THE HOST OF HEAVEN AND WITH THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH]. It is also written (in Ps. 47:3 [2]): FOR THE LORD MOST HIGH IS AWESOME, A GREAT KING OVER ALL THE EARTH. But the children of Adam are below. (Eccl. 5:1 [2]:) THEREFORE LET YOUR WORDS BE FEW. So what is there for you to do? To put your hand upon your mouth and upon your ear in order to neither speak nor hear. Ergo (in Lev. 5:1): IF A SOUL SINS.⁵⁵These words also appear in Lev. 5:21 [6:2].

(Lev. 5:1:) AND IF A SOUL SINS IN THAT IT HEARS A VOICE SWEARING…, <IF HE DOES NOT SPEAK OUT, HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY>. This text is related (to Eccl. 5:1 [2]): DO NOT BE RASH WITH YOUR MOUTH, AND LET NOT YOUR HEART HASTEN TO BRING FORTH A WORD BEFORE GOD. These < words refer to> the children of Adam who vilify the name of the Holy One.⁵⁰Tanh., Lev. 1:7. Come and see. When the celestial beings were created, those below were created with half of the name, as stated (in Is. 26:4): FOR THROUGH YH,⁵¹YH is the first half of the divine name, which the Hebrew spells out where the translation reads THE LORD. THE LORD FORMED THE WORLDS.⁵²The midrash interprets tsur ‘olamim as FORMED THE WORLDS (i.e., this world and the world to come) rather than as the more usual EVERLASTING ROCK. For similar interpretations, see yHag. 2:1 (77c); Men. 29b; Gen. R. 12:10; M. Pss. 62:1; 114:3; cf. also M. Pss. 118:14. But why were they not created with all of it? So that none of them would repeat the full name of the Holy One. Woe to those creatures who vilify the name of the Holy One in vain. See what is written about offerings (in Lev. 1:2): WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD. It does not say "To the Lord, an offering," but AN OFFERING TO THE LORD;⁵³Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:6; Ned. 10ab; Sifra to Lev. 1:2, Wayyiqra, Parashah 2; Sifre, Deut.32:3 (306); Gen. R. 1:13. so the Children of Adam vilify the name of the Lord in vain. It is therefore stated (in Eccl. 5:1 [2]): DO NOT BE RASH WITH YOUR MOUTH…. [FOR GOD IS IN HEAVEN AND YOU ARE ON EARTH.] For who would say that God is not in Heaven and that the children of Adam are not on earth? However, Solomon has said: Every time that the weakest of the weak is from above, he defeats the warrior from below. Go and learn from Abimelech (in Jud. 9:53): BUT A CERTAIN WOMAN DROPPED AN UPPER MILLSTONE [ON ABIMELECH'S HEAD AND CRACKED HIS SKULL].⁵⁴Since the woman was above the warrior Abimelech in the tower of Thebez, her killing him is an example of a relatively weak person defeating a warrior from above. And how much the more so in the case of a warrior among warriors from above! See what is written about him (in Dan. 4:32 [35]): ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH ARE OF NO ACCOUNT, [AND HE DOES AS HE WISHES WITH THE HOST OF HEAVEN AND WITH THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH]. It is also written (in Ps. 47:3 [2]): FOR THE LORD MOST HIGH IS AWESOME, A GREAT KING OVER ALL THE EARTH. But the children of Adam are below. (Eccl. 5:1 [2]:) THEREFORE LET YOUR WORDS BE FEW. So what is there for you to do? To put your hand upon your mouth and upon your ear in order to neither speak nor hear. Ergo (in Lev. 5:1): IF A SOUL SINS.⁵⁵These words also appear in Lev. 5:21 [6:2].

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD < FOR MANY DAYS, NOT AT THE TIME OF HER IMPURITY >…. Let our master instruct us: Is it permitted for a menstruant to sleep in the same bed with her husband, when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, one on one side and one on the other?⁵⁰Tanh., Lev. 5:5; Shab. 13a. Thus have our masters taught: It is forbidden < for them > to lie down < together >, because one does not one put a loophole before the observant person, and certainly not before the thief. Thus the sages compare the matter to a fire in the straw; and it says (in Lev. 18:19): AND YOU SHALL NOT COME NEAR A WOMEN DURING HER PERIOD OF MENSTRUAL UNCLEANNESS. < This is > to teach you that the Holy One warns Israel about sanctification and about purity, lest they act according to the practice of star worshipers and become unclean through their wives when they are menstruating; for whoever has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating is under sentence of being cut off, as stated (in Lev. 20:18): AND IF A MAN LIES WITH A WOMAN < WHEN SHE IS > UNWELL…, THEY BOTH SHALL BE CUT OFF < FROM AMONG THEIR PEOPLE >. Because star worshipers do not stay away from the menstruant they are under sentence of being cut off, as stated (in Deut. 12:29): WHEN THE LORD [GOD] HAS CUT OFF THE GENTILES. Because all the star worshipers are children of menstruants, they like their idolatry are called an impurity, an uncleanness, an abomination, and a destruction. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 7:26): DO NOT BRING AN ABOMINATION UNTO YOUR HOUSE.

13) R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: It is written (Devarim 24:19): "When you reap your harvest in your field, if you forget a sheaf in the field, do not return to take it; to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be, so that the L–rd your G d will bless you in all the work of your hands." Scripture (hereby) ordained a blessing for one to whose hand a mitzvah came without his intending it. Derive from this that if a sela were tied in one's garment, and it fell, and a poor man found it, and fed himself with it that Scripture accords him a blessing just as (it does) one who forgets a sheaf in his field.

13) "on the day of his guilt": Beth Shammai say: (This refers to the status of the stolen object on the day that he was found guilty of the theft.) The owner suffers the loss (if the object decreased in value from the time of the theft to the time of the conviction) and he reaps the gain (if it increased in value). Beth Hillel say: ("the day of his guilt" refers to) the time it was removed (from the owner's domain). R. Akiva says: (It refers to) the time that he was indicted (in beth-din).

(Bamidbar 5:21) "Then the Cohein shall beswear the woman with the oath of the curse." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 5:1) "and he hear the voice of a curse," this tells me only of a curse. Whence do I derive that an oath is like a curse? It is derived inductively, viz.: It is written here (Bamidbar) "curse," and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra) "curse." Just as here "oath" is equated with "curse," (viz. "the oath of the curse"), so, there, "oath" is equated with "curse." And just as here, (the oath is administered) with "yod-keh" (viz. Ibid. "May the L-rd [yod-keh-vav-keh] render you, etc."), so, all the oaths in the Torah (are administered with) "yod-keh." "in the midst of your people": and your people (will remain at) peace. "in the midst of your people": and not at this time (when you are in the midst of gentiles.) There is a (crucial) difference between one being degraded in a place where he is known, and one being degraded in a place where he is not known, (the former degradation being more severe).

(Lev. 5:1:) <AND IF A SOUL SINS IN THAT IT HEARS A VOICE SWEARING,> WHEN HE IS A WITNESS TO WHAT HE HAS EITHER SEEN OR COME TO KNOW, <IF HE DOES NOT SPEAK OUT, HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY >. This text is related (to Prov. 29:24): THE ONE WHO SHARES WITH A THIEF HATES HIS OWN SOUL; [HE HEARS SWEARING AND DOES NOT SPEAK OUT]. What has caused anyone to say of him: IF A SOUL SINS? <It is> simply because he did not come and tell a sage: So-and-so blasphemed the name of the Holy One. He therefore shares his iniquities with him, as stated (in Lev. 5:1): IF HE DOES NOT SPEAK OUT, HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY. Therefore Solomon has said (in Prov. 29:24): THE ONE WHO SHARES WITH A THIEF HATES HIS OWN SOUL. Just as when the thief is caught, his partner is convicted along with him,⁵⁶Cf. Lev. R. 6:2. so whoever hears blasphemy of the Holy One and does not speak out is convicted along with him. And let no one say: What denunciation do I say? The Holy One has said (in Lev. 5:1ff.): On every matter, there is a denunciation in it. <Would there be, therefore> an exception for cursing the Name? Why? Because <it is> just like a case of a person cursing his companion. When one hears him, it is of no concern to him. But if he has cursed his father in his presence, he puts his life on the line and says: You have cursed my father. Moses said (in Deut. 32:6): IS HE NOT YOUR FATHER WHO CREATED YOU?

Another interpretation: "Command Aharon [...]" (Leviticus 6:2) This is what is written (Psalms 51:20), "With Your will, do good to Zion," and afterwards (Psalms 51:21), "Then You will desire sacrifices of righteousness, a burnt-offering and a whole-offering." That is to say, if Israel does not offer a burnt-offering before the Holy One, blessed be He, Zion and Jerusalem will not be built. As they are only built through the merit of the burnt-offering which Israel would offer before the Holy One, blessed be He. And why is the burnt-offering different, [so that it is] better than all of the other offerings? Because it is called "sacrifices of righteousness," as it is stated, "Then You will desire sacrifices of righteousness, a burnt-offering and a whole-offering." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe, "On account of this, the burnt-offering is so beloved to Me. Hence, 'Command Aharon and his sons,' that they be careful with it, to offer it before Me." Why does it state, "This is the law (Torah) of the burnt-offering?" It means to say, the reading of the Torah. See how beloved the reading of the Torah is in front of the Holy One, blessed be He. As there is an obligation upon a man to give all of his money to teach Torah to himself and his sons, as it is stated, "Command Aharon and his sons, saying" - meaning, that they should say it to the Children of Israel, such that they occupy themselves with the reading of the burnt-offering. As even though they [actually] offer a burnt-offering, they would [also] be occupied with its reading, so that they would get merit in the sacrifice and in its reading. And so did Rav Shmuel bar Abba say, "The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, 'Even though the Temple is destined to be destroyed in the future and the sacrifices to be nullified, do not [allow] yourselves to forget the order of the sacrifices; but rather be careful to read about them and review them. And if you occupy yourselves with them, I will count it for you as if you were occupied with the sacrifices [themselves].'" And if you want to know [that this is so], come and see that when the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Yechezkel the form of the [Temple], what did He say? "Describe the [Temple] to the House of Israel; let them be ashamed of their iniquities, and measure the plan" (Ezekiel 43:10). Yehezkel [responded] to the Holy One, blessed be He, "Until now, we are put into exile in the land of our enemies; and You say to me to go and inform Israel [about] the form of the [Temple], and 'write [it] in their eyes, and they should preserve its form and all of its statutes [and do them]' (Ezekiel 43:11). And are they able to do [them]? Leave them until they emerge from the exile, and afterwards, I will go and tell them." [So] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Yechezkel, "And because My children are in exile, the building of My [Temple] should be idle?" The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Its reading in the Torah is as great as its building. Go and say it to them, and they will occupy themselves to read the form of the [Temple] in the Torah. And in reward for its reading, that they occupy themselves to read about it, I count it for them as if they were occupied with the building of the [Temple]." And fortunate is the man who involves himself in Torah and gives his money to teach Torah to his son. As on account of the money that he gives to teach, he merits life in the world to come, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 30:20), "as it is your life and the length of your days" - your life, in the world to come; and length of your days, in the world that is long. And know that it is so. Rabbi Assia said, "Why do the infants of the master's schoolhouse begin by studying the book of Leviticus? Rather it is because all the sacrifices are written in it; and because [the infants] are pure until now and do not know what is the taste of sin and iniquity. Hence, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'Let them begin first with the order of the sacrifices - let the pure ones come and occupy themselves with the acts of purification. Hence I count it for them as if they were standing and offering sacrifices in front of Me.' And He is informing you that even though the Temple is destroyed and sacrifices are not practiced, were it not for the infants that read the order of the sacrifices, the world would not stand." Hence, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "My children, even thought the Temple is destroyed and the sacrifices are annulled and the sacrifice of the burnt-offering is not practiced, if you occupy yourselves and read the section of the burnt-offering and study the section about sacrifices, I count it for you as if you are offering a sacrifice of a burnt-offering in front of Me, as it is stated, 'This is the Torah of a burnt-offering'" - meaning to say, one who occupies himself with the Torah of the burnt-offering merits life in the world to come. What is written above? "A soul that sins and violates a violation of the Lord, and denies against his kinsman, etc." (Leviticus 5:21); and afterwards, "This is the law of the burnt-offering." Isaiah said (Isaiah 61:8), "Since I the Lord love justice, hate theft in a burnt-offering." The Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Do not say, 'I will steal and extort, and [then I will] bring a burnt-offering and it will atone for me.' As I hate theft, even with a burnt-offering made for the theft. And if the world wants that I should accept a burnt-offering, return the theft to its master; and afterwards, if he bring up a burnt-offering for it, I will accept it, as it is stated, 'Since I the Lord [...] hate theft in a burnt-offering' - hate the burnt-offering when the theft is still in his hand." And one who reads the Torah of the burnt-offering is as if he brings up and offers a burnt-offering in front of the Holy One, blessed be He. And therefore, fortunate is the one teaches himself Torah and gives his money to teach himself and his sons, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:11), "This is the law of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" (here read as "This is the Torah of the sacrifice of payments"). Israel said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, "Master of the world, behold You command us that we bring all of these sacrifices. When the Temple was still in existence, a man that sins brings a sacrifice and it is atoned for him. And so [too], he brings a meal-offering and it is accepted for him. But now that the Temple was destroyed, what can we do about our sins and about our guilt?" [So] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, "If you want that they should be atoned for you, keep My laws, and I will count it for you as if you did a sacrifice in front of Me." And from where [do we know this]? "This is the law (Torah) for the burnt-offering, for the meal-offering, for the sin-offering, for the guilt-offering, for the induction-offerings and for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" (Leviticus 7:37) - do not read it so, but rather, "This is the Torah; not for the burnt-offering, not for the meal-offering, not for the sin-offering, not for the guilt-offering, not for the induction-offerings and not for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." Rather, occupy yourselves with Torah, and it will be considered in front of Me, as if you offered all of the sacrifices in front of Me. Hence, David stated (Psalms 119:97), "How much have I loved Your Torah, it is my speech all of the day." Since I know that occupation with Your Torah atones for iniquities - therefore I have loved Your Torah. What is [the understanding of] "upon its burning on the altar all of the night" (Leviticus 6:2)? This is that they would burn the fats and the limbs the whole entire night, and the prayers were instituted corresponding to the sacrifices. Now that we do not have burnt-offerings, nor sacrifices, nor meal-offerings, nor guilt offerings, they instituted them as prayers. And the evening prayer can be brought the whole night, just as we bring limbs and fats the whole entire night. But the forefathers instituted the prayers, and this means to say, its burning is on the altar all of the night. And why was the burning on the altar and not in another place? Rather the verse states (Exodus 20:21), "Make an altar of earth (adamah) for Me" - why of earth? Because man (Adam) was created from the earth, and his name was called Adam, because he was taken from the adamah. And we bring up burnt-offerings and sacrifices on that altar which is made of earth to atone for the body that is taken from the earth. And from where [do we know] that it atones for the soul? As it is written (Leviticus 17:14), "As the soul of all flesh, its blood is in its soul." And it also states (Leviticus 17:11), "as the blood atones for the soul." "And they shall throw the blood on the altar" (Leviticus 1:5) - meaning to say, they shall throw the blood - which is the soul - upon the altar - which is from earth like the body - and it shall atone for the soul. "A permanent fire shall burn upon the altar; you shall not extinguish" (Leviticus 6:6); but it [also] states (Isaiah 66:24), "They shall go out and gaze on the corpses of the men who rebelled against Me, their worms shall not die, nor their fire be extinguished, etc." [That is referring to] those that deny the Omnipresent. But the fire that is permanently burning on the altar atones for the sins of Israel. And what is [the understanding of] "altar" (mizbeach)? [It is an acronym:] Mem is mechilah (pardon), as it pardons their sins; zayin is zechut (merit), as it gives them merit for the world to come; bet is berakha (blessing), as the Holy One, blessed be He, gives them blessing [through it] in the deeds of their hands; chet is chaim (life), as they merit [through it] to life in the world to come. One who leaves all of these - pardon, merit, blessing and life - and goes and worships idolatry, is burned by His great fire, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:24), "As the Lord, your God, is a consuming fire, He is a jealous God." How is He jealous? As it is stated (Hosea 2:22), "And I will betroth you in faith." [Hence,] just as a husband is jealous about his wife, so too is the Holy One, blessed be He, jealous, as it is stated (Isaiah 62:5), "and the joy of the groom towards the bride, etc." One who leaves all these will be burnt by His great fire, as it is stated (Isaiah 66:24), "as their worms shall not die, nor their fire be extinguished, and they will be a disgrace for all flesh." But if he repents, the fire burning on the altar atones for him and expiates the fire of Geihinnom. Moreover, every one of Israel that is circumcised enters the Garden of Eden, since the Holy One, blessed be He, places His name on the Israelite so that he can enter the Garden of Eden. And what is the name and the seal that He places upon them? It is Shaddai (the Omnipotent): The shin He placed in the nose; the dalet in the hand; and the yod in the circumcision. And therefore at the time that an Israelite goes to his final home, there is an appointed angel in the Garden of Eden who takes every son of Israel that is circumcised and brings him to the Garden of Eden. But those that are not circumcised; even though they have two letters of the name of Shaddai - as they have the shin of the nose and the dalet of the hand - they do not have the yod of Shaddai, [and so, the letters they have form] the expression, sheid (demon), meaning to say that a demon brings him to Geihinnom. And an Israelite who is circumcised but worships idolatry [also] goes to enter the Garden of Eden, but the Holy One, blessed be He, commands the angel, such that he pulls his foreskin and makes his foreskin appear as it it were never circumcised, such that he not enter the Garden of Eden but rather Geihinnom. And circumcision is a great thing and beloved in front of the Holy One, blessed be He. And all the creatures of the world - whether people, beasts, animals or crawling things, all of them - fear an Israelite when he is circumcised. And so do you find with Yonah. As he fled from his God on the fifth day. And why did he flee? Rather the first time, [God] sent him to restore the border of Israel. The second time, He sent him to Jerusalem to destroy it; but the Holy One, blessed be He, worked up His great mercies and relented from the bad. And [so] they called him a false prophet. The third time, He sent him to Nineveh to destroy it. Yonah judged the case between him and himself - Yonah said, "I know that the [other] nations are close to repentance. Now they will repent and the Holy One, blessed be He, will [resultantly] send His rage towards Israel. Moreover, Israel will will call me a false prophet" (etc. in Midrash Tanchuma, Vayikra 8). "And the men feared a great fear" (Jonah 1:8) - [this] teaches that fear is greater than wisdom and understanding. As one who has wisdom and understanding, but does not have fear is not anything. As so did King Shlomo, peace be upon him, state (Ecclesiastes 12:13), "At the end of the matter when all is heard; fear God and observe His commandments, as this is all of man."

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD FOR MANY DAYS. But are there not seven days in a menstrual period?⁵¹Tanh., Lev. 5:6. So why did it call them MANY DAYS? [Simply because she is separated from her husband, and they are days of suffering. For that reason it calls them MANY DAYS.] Similarly (in Exod. 2:23): AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE COURSE OF THOSE MANY DAYS < THAT THE KING OF EGYPT DIED >. It calls them MANY DAYS, because they were days of suffering.⁵²Cf. Lev. R. 19:5.

14) See Chapter 20:6

14) (Vayikra 5:25): "And his guilt-offering shall he bring to the L–rd, a ram without blemish from the flock, by your valuation, for a guilt-offering to the Cohein." (See Chapter 20:6). "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd, and it shall be forgiven him for one of all (the transgressions) that he does to incur guilt thereby." (See Chapters 15 and Vayikra 5:16)

14) (Vayikra 5:25): "And his guilt-offering shall he bring to the L–rd, a ram without blemish from the flock, by your valuation, for a guilt-offering to the Cohein." (See Chapter 20:6). "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd, and it shall be forgiven him for one of all (the transgressions) that he does to incur guilt thereby." (See Chapters 15 and Vayikra 5:16)

14) See Chapter 20:6

14) (Vayikra 5:25): "And his guilt-offering shall he bring to the L–rd, a ram without blemish from the flock, by your valuation, for a guilt-offering to the Cohein." (See Chapter 20:6). "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd, and it shall be forgiven him for one of all (the transgressions) that he does to incur guilt thereby." (See Chapters 15 and Vayikra 5:16)

(Lev. 5:1:) AND IF A SOUL SINS IN THAT IT HEARS A VOICE SWEARING, [WHEN HE IS A WITNESS TO WHAT HE HAS EITHER SEEN OR COME TO KNOW.] The Holy One said: If you want to bear witness, bear witness; but if not, I will bear witness. Thus it is stated (ibid.): WHEN HE IS A WITNESS. And where is it shown that the Holy One is called a witness? Where it is stated (in Jer. 29:23): I AM THE ONE WHO KNOWS AND BEARS WITNESS, SAYS THE LORD. Come and see. All the parashioth written in this book have MISTAKE written in them, except for this parashah, in which MISTAKE is not mentioned.⁵⁷In fact, MISTAKE (shegagah), i.e., UNINTENTIONAL SIN, does appear in this parashah (in 5:15, 18). Elsewhere in Lev. the word only appears in 4:2, 22, 27; 22:4.) About him Solomon has said (in Eccl. 5:5 [6]): DO NOT LET YOUR MOUTH CAUSE YOUR FLESH TO SIN, [AND DO NOT SAY BEFORE THE ANGEL THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE]. It is comparable to two people who threw stones at an image of a king.⁵⁸Gk.: eikonion, a diminutive form of eikon. One was drunk, and one was in possession of his senses. Both of them were caught and went to trial. <The judge> rendered a <guilty> verdict⁵⁹Gk.: apophasis. against the one with his senses and acquitted the one who was drunk. So it is in the case of whoever sins. It is concerning him that MISTAKE is written (in Lev. 4:2): WHEN A SOUL SINS BY MISTAKE (rt.: ShGG) < AGAINST ANY OF THE LORD'S COMMANDMENTS >…. (Lev. 4:13:) AND IF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL SHOULD ERR (rt.: ShGG), because they all sinned by mistake, they bring an offering, and shall be forgiven them. It is so stated (in Numb. 15:26): THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND THE STRANGER WHO RESIDES IN THEIR MIDST SHALL BE FORGIVEN BECAUSE <IT HAPPENED > TO ALL THE PEOPLE BY MISTAKE. But the one who blasphemes receives a < guilty> verdict, as stated (in Lev. 24:16) AND THE ONE WHO BLASPHEMES THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. [It is also written] (in Jer. 4:2): AND YOU SHALL SWEAR: AS THE LORD LIVES, IN TRUTH, IN JUSTICE, AND IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. [THEN SHALL NATIONS BLESS THEMSELVES IN HIM, AND HIM SHALL THEY GLORY.] The Scripture also says (in Deut. 10:20): THE LORD YOUR GOD YOU SHALL FEAR, HIM YOU SHALL SERVE, TO HIM YOU SHALL HOLD FAST, then after that, AND BY HIM YOU SHALL SWEAR.⁶⁰See below, Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 9:1; Numb. R. 9:1. (Ibid.:) THE LORD YOUR GOD YOU SHALL FEAR, so that you will be like those three of whom it is written: HE FEARED GOD (YR' 'LHYM). About Abraham it is written (in Gen. 22:12): FOR NOW I KNOW THAT YOU FEAR GOD (YR' 'LHYM)…. About Joseph it is written (in Gen. 42:18): FOR I FEAR (YR') GOD ('LHYM). About Job it is written (in Job 1:2): HE FEARED GOD (YR' 'LHYM) AND SHUNNED EVIL. (Deut. 10:20, cont.:) HIM YOU SHALL SERVE, in that you will be busy with the Torah and with <fulfilling> the commandments. (Ibid., cont.:) TO HIM YOU SHALL HOLD FAST, in that you will honor the disciples of the wise and share your property with them. Moses said to Israel: Do not think that I may have allowed you to swear by my name, even in truth. It is only, if all these conditions (mentioned earlier in the verse) abide with you, that you are entitled to swear by my name; and if not, you are not entitled to swear by my name, even in truth. You shall not be like those of whom it is written (in Jer. 7:9): WILL YOU <…> SWEAR FALSELY AND SACRIFICE TO BAAL? Fulfill all these conditions and after that you are mine, as stated (in Jer. 4:1): IF YOU RETURN, O ISRAEL, SAYS THE LORD, IF YOU RETURN UNTO ME…. Then after that <it says> (in vs. 2): AND YOU SHALL SWEAR: AS THE LORD LIVES….

15) (Vayikra 15:15) ("And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering; and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge.") "And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering": The Cohein must designate them, one for a sin-offering; the other, for a burnt-offering. Whence is it derived that if he (the owner) himself designates them it is valid? From (Vayikra 5:7 and Vayikra 5:8):" one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. And he shall bring them to the Cohein."

15) (Vayikra 15:15) ("And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering; and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge.") "And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering": The Cohein must designate them, one for a sin-offering; the other, for a burnt-offering. Whence is it derived that if he (the owner) himself designates them it is valid? From (Vayikra 5:7 and Vayikra 5:8):" one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. And he shall bring them to the Cohein."

Our masters have said: Even in truth one cannot swear.⁶¹Tanh., Lev. 1:7. Why? Thus have our masters taught (in Dem. 2:3): LET NOT SOMEONE FROM ISRAEL BE UNRESTRAINED IN VOWS⁶²See also Ned. 20a. OR IN JESTING, so as not to lead one's companion astray with an oath by uttering <one> when there is no < occasion for> an oath.⁶³Cf. Matthew 5:33–37; James 5:12. There is a story about a royal mountain where there were two thousand towns, and all of them were destroyed because of a truthful oath.⁶⁴Below, Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 9:1; Numb. R. 9:1; cf. also Git. 57a. Now if one who swears in truth has this happen, how much the more so in the case of one who swears to a lie? How did they act? One would utter an oath to his companion that he was going to such and such a place to eat and drink. Then they would go and act to fulfill their oath. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 5:1): IF A SOUL SINS <IN THAT IT HEARS A VOICE SWEARING >….

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD. Why a woman and not a man?⁵³Tanh., Lev. 5:9. Previously it applied to men and women. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH. R. Meir says: The man's uncleanness was more serious than the woman's uncleanness. Why? Because the uncleanness of women is a sign of children; however, that of a man is < a sign > of suffering. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3): AND THIS SHALL BE THE UNCLEANNESS {FROM} [IN] HIS DISCHARGE, WHETHER HIS FLESH RUNS WITH HIS DISCHARGE OR WHETHER HIS FLESH IS SEALED FROM HIS DISCHARGE,⁵⁴The next verses (4–12) stress just how contagious his discharge really is. < i.e. > something which is sealed and closed. Previously the men saw blood, until Rachel arose [and said] (in Gen. 31:35): FOR THE PERIOD OF WOMEN IS UPON ME. Then it was given to her. Therefore (in Exod. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD.

(Numb. 23:7:) SO HE TOOK UP HIS THEME AND SAID: IT IS FROM ARAM THAT BALAK HAS BROUGHT ME, THE KING OF MOAB FROM THE HILLS OF THE EAST. I was one of the exalted ones,⁵⁹Ramim. The midrash links this word with ARAM in Numb. 23:7. but Balak has brought me down to the pit of corruption.⁶⁰Numb. R. 20:19; also above, Lev. 5:1 and the notes there.

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD…. Thus have our masters taught (in Shab. 2:6): WOMEN DIE AT THE TIME OF THEIR CHILDBIRTH FOR THREE TRANSGRESSIONS:⁵⁵Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:1; Tanh., Gen. 2:1; Lev. 5:9. < BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CAREFUL IN REGARD TO MENSTRUATION, IN REGARD TO THE HALLAH,⁵⁶I.e., the priest’s share of the dough. AND IN REGARD TO THE LIGHTING OF THE LAMP. >⁵⁷I.e., the Sabbath lamp. Why? Because the Adversary (Satan) only makes accusations⁵⁸Gk.: kategorein. in time of danger. Now the three of them are from the Torah. Where is it shown about menstruation? (Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD. Where is it shown about the hallah? (Numb. 15:20:) < YOU SHALL SET ASIDE > THE FIRST OF YOUR DOUGH AS A HALLAH OFFERING…. [Where is it shown] in regard to the lighting of the < Sabbath > lamp? Thus have our masters taught: Where is it shown that a person is to be zealous and diligent in the lighting of the < Sabbath > lamp? Where it is stated (in Is. 58:13): AND YOU CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT. This refers to the lighting of the lamp. And why were < these commandments > transmitted to the woman?⁵⁹Gen. R. 17:8; yShab. 2:4 (5b). The Holy One said: She cut off the lamp of the world, since it is written (in Prov. 20:27): THE LAMP OF GOD IS THE BREATH OF ADAM. Therefore, she shall observe the commandments of the lamp. [In regard to Hallah,] the Holy One said: She defiled the hallah of the world. This was the first Adam, who was the hallah of the world; for R. Jose ben Qetsartah has said: Just as the woman moistens her dough with water and after that takes out hallah, so it was with the first Adam (in Gen. 2:6): AND A MIST ('D) WENT UP FROM THE EARTH, and after that (in vs. 7): [THE LORD GOD] FORMED THE HUMAN ('DM) OUT OF DUST FROM THE GROUND > [….] In regard to menstruation, the Holy One said: She shed the blood of the first Adam, and she was sentenced to have her own blood shed, since it is stated (in Gen. 9:6): WHOEVER SHEDS HUMAN BLOOD, < BY A HUMAN WILL HIS BLOOD BE SHED >. She shall observe her menstrual period to atone for the blood that she shed. Ergo (in Lev. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD…. Therefore, the Holy One compares the uncleanness of Israel to the uncleanness of the menstrual period, when < a woman > is unclean and < then > purified. So the Holy One is going to purify Israel, as stated (in Ezek. 36:25): I WILL SPRINKLE PURE WATER UPON YOU, AND YOU SHALL BE PURE….

Another interpretation: Judah bar Shallum the Levite said: When she came out, the Holy One made her eyes light up and she found them after she had lost them because there is no finding except of what is LOST. Thus it is written (in Lev. 5:22): OR HAS FOUND WHAT IS LOST. Immediately she sent < her tokens of the pledge > to Judah, (according to Gen. 38:25) THE ONE TO WHOM THESE BELONG. She said to him (ibid., cont.): PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE your Creator.⁶¹Gen. R., 97, New Version, on Gen. 49:8 (= p. 1214 in the Theodor-Albeck edition) explains that for Judah to acknowledge the Creator meant for him not to be ashamed in confessing the matter before flesh and blood. Cf. Sot. 10b. Immediately (in vs. 26): JUDAH GAVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT. In that hour a heavenly voice (bat qol) came forth and said to him: You are to say: [She is pregnant from me; lest] she be burned. And afterwards he confessed: The affair stemmed from me. The Holy One said to Him: Judah, for me you have saved three lives from the fire and one (i.e., Joseph) from the pit. By your life, I will save < four lives > for you just as you have saved < them > for me. Who are they? Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the fiery furnace (in Dan. 3:20-27) and Daniel from the lions' pit (in Dan. 6:16-23). What is written about them (in Dan. 1:6)? NOW AMONG THOSE FROM THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH WERE DANIEL, HANANIAH, MISHAEL, AND AZARIAH. "From Hezekiah's children"⁶²See PRE 52 at the end; Sanh. 93b. is not written here, but FROM THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH. For what reason? For the reason that he had saved Tamar and her children < from the fire > and Joseph from the pit. When Reuben heard that Judah had confessed, he immediately arose also and said: I also have violated my father's beds (in Gen. 35:22). Eliphaz said to Job (in Job 15:17-18): I WILL INFORM YOU; HEARKEN TO ME. NOW THIS HAVE I SEEN, AND I WILL DECLARE THAT WHICH SAGES HAVE TOLD. These < sages > are Reuben and Judah. Therefore (in vs. 19): TO THEM ALONE WAS THE LAND GIVEN. When? (Ibid.:) AND NO STRANGER PASSED AMONG THEM. When Moses came to bless them, what did he say (in Deut. 33:6-7)? MAY REUBEN LIVE AND NOT DIE…. AND THIS IS FOR JUDAH….

Another interpretation (of Is. 57:20): BUT THE WICKED ARE LIKE THE TROUBLED SEA. Just as the sea has its mud in its mouth, so the wicked have their stench in their mouth. Thus it is stated (at the end of Is. 57:20): AND ITS WATERS TOSS UP SLIME AND MUD. It is not from choice that one hears blasphemies and invectives, but from the midst of the sins which are within him. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 5:1): IF A SOUL SINS AND HEARS A VOICE SWEARING….⁶⁷Most translations equate the sinning with the swearing. This more literal translation illustrates the point that the swearing comes from a soul which has already sinned. You find <that there are> three things under human control and three things not under human control.⁶⁸Tanh., Gen. 6:12 (i.e., Toledot 12); Gen. R. 67:12. The following are under one's control: The mouth, the hands and the feet. The mouth: If one wants to be engaged in the Torah, he is engaged; <if one wants> to blaspheme and revile, he does so, because his lips are under his control. The hands: If one wants to give alms, he gives them; <if one wants> to steal, he steals. Why? Because they are under his control. The feet: One wanting to go to the synagogue goes; <one wanting> to steal, commit adultery, <or> murder goes, because his feet are under his control. But the following are not under one's control: The eyes, the ears, and the nose. The eyes: If one was passing through the market place and saw someone committing a transgression in the market place, he was seeing what was not under his control. The ears: If one heard the sound of blasphemies and invectives and did not want to hear them, what should he do? He heard what was not under his control. The nose: If one passed through a place of idolatry, smelled idolatrous incense, and did not smell it willingly, what should he do? He smelled what was not under his control. But when the Holy One desires, even these things which are < ordinarily > under one's control are not <any longer> under one's control. The mouth: When Balaam came to curse Israel, the Holy One did not allow him. He blessed them instead, as stated (in Deut. 23:6): BUT THE LORD YOUR GOD DID NOT WANT TO HEED BALAAM; <SO THE LORD YOUR GOD TURNED THE CURSE INTO A BLESSING FOR YOU>…. Also the hands: Thus you find in the case of Jeroboam, when the prophet came AND (according to I Kings 13:2) CRIED OUT {UNTO} [AGAINST] THE ALTAR [ACCORDING TO] THE WORD OF THE LORD AND SAID: O ALTAR, ALTAR, [THUS SAYS THE LORD: BEHOLD, A SON SHALL BE BORN UNTO THE HOUSE OF DAVID…. ] Then Jeroboam said: Moses wrote in the Torah (in Deut. 13:2 [1]): IF THERE ARISES AMONG YOU A PROPHET… AND GIVES YOU A SIGN OR A PORTENT. Now as for you, what portent are you giving me? He said to him: Is it a portent that you want? (I Kings 13:3:) THIS IS THE PORTENT WHICH THE LORD HAS DECREED: BEHOLD, THE ALTAR WILL BE TORN ASUNDER. Then (in vs. 4): JEROBOAM {RAISED} [STRETCHED OUT] HIS ARM FROM OVER THE ALTAR, SAYING: SEIZE HIM, BUT HIS HAND < WHICH HE STRETCHED AGAINST HIM > WITHERED, <AND HE COULD NOT DRAW IT BACK TO HIMSELF>. <This is written > to teach you that it was not under his control. Also the feet: Where it shown concerning them? From the men of Aram (i.e., Syria). When they came against Elisha, the Holy One said to them: Is it in your own right that you have come? What did he do to them? He misdirected them, as stated (in II Kings 6:19): THEN ELISHA SAID TO THEM: THIS IS NOT THE ROAD, AND THIS IS NOT THE CITY. <This is written > to teach you that even the feet are not under one's control. And not only <now> but even in the world to come.⁶⁹Tanh., Lev. 1:7. [So it is stated] (in Job 12:23): HE EXALTS (MSGY') NATIONS AND DESTROYS THEM. The written text (ketiv) is MShG' (which means, "misleads").⁷⁰In unpointed Hebrew the Sin (S) and the Shin (Sh) look alike. Since MShG’, which is pointed mashge’, can also be spelled with the extra yod (i.e., Y), the two words are interchangable in an unpointed text. Then he DESTROYS THEM <and> brings them down to Abaddon,⁷¹Abbadon is a name for Hell, which means “destruction.” while the righteous watch them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 66:24): THEN THEY SHALL GO OUT AND LOOK AT THE CORPSES OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE REBELLED AGAINST ME: THEIR WORMS SHALL NOT DIE NOR SHALL THEIR FIRE BE QUENCHED.

(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. 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….”

(Bamidbar 6:9) "And if one die on him, etc.": to exclude a doubt (i.e., a possibility of one's having died on him.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah) where inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness (viz. (Bamidbar 5:13), doubt (i.e., the possibility of her having been adulterous while closeted) was equated with certainty, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where inadvertency was equated with wilfullness, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! It is, therefore, written "And if one died on him" (i.e., to his certain knowledge) — to exclude an instance of doubt. "of an instant": to include (his shaving and bringing an offering) (if he becomes tamei) inadvertently. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah), where doubt was equated with certainty, inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt was not equated with certainty, how much more so should inadvertency not be equated with wilfullness! It is, therefore, written "of an instant" (i.e., inadvertently). "suddenly": to include (an instance of his becoming tamei) unwittingly. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, (in the instance of sotah), where doubt is equated with certainty, unwittingness (of his being forbidden to her) is not equated with wittingness, here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt (of his having become tamei) is not equated with certainty, how much more so should unwittingness (of his having become tamei) not be equated with wittingness! And whence is it derived that he is liable (to shave and bring an offering) for wilfullness (i.e., for wilfully having become tamei)? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of swearing (falsely) in respect to (having received) a pledge (viz. Vayikra 5:22), where he is not liable (to bring an offering) for unwittingness, he is liable for wilfullness, then here (in the instance of the Nazirite), where he is liable for unwittingness, how much more so is he liable for wilfullness! — No, this may be true of swearing in respect to a pledge, where he does not receive stripes, as opposed to the instance of the Nazirite, where he does receive stripes. And since he receives stripes, he should not bring an offering. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:11) "and he (the Cohein) shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says "of an instant": This refers to unwittingness. "suddenly": This refers to inadvertency.

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 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 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 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 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 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).

"Only your consecrated things" — these are substitutes; "which shall be to you" — these are offspring. "you shall bear and you shall come to the place": I might think that he should bring them to the Temple and keep water and food from them until they die (as is done with the offspring and the substitutes of sin-offerings); it is, therefore, written (27) "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood": As you do with the burnt-offering, you do with its substitute. As you do with the peace-offerings, you do with the offspring of peace-offerings and their substitutes. Just as a burnt-offering requires flaying and cutting into pieces and is all consigned to the fire, so, its substitute. And just as a burnt-offering requires four applications (of blood) on the altar, and spilling (of the blood) on the foundations, so, its substitute. And just as with a burnt-offering, if its limbs sprang from off the altar, they are returned to the woodpile, so, with its substitute. And just as with all offerings, their flesh is permitted to be eaten only after the blood has been sprinkled, so, with their substitutes. I might think that the same applied to the offspring of a sin-offering and its offspring and to the offspring of a guilt-offering; it is, therefore, written "Only" (to exclude these). R. Akiva says: This is not needed. It is written (Vayikra 5:19) "It is a guilt-offering" — It is offered, and not its substitute.

(Bamidbar 15:15-17) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: … upon your coming to the land whither I bring you there": R. Yishmael says: Scripture varied (linguistically) this "coming" from all the other "comings" in the Torah. For in all the other instances it is written "And it shall be, when you come to the land"; "And it shall be when the L-rd shall bring you" (all such expressions connoting permanent settlement), whereas here it is written "upon your coming" (connoting the moment of arrival), to teach that the mitzvah of challah (the Cohein's share of the dough) devolved upon them immediately upon their entering the land "whither I bring you there": From here you derive that produce grown outside the land which enters the land is subject to challah. It is from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there that R. Eliezer ruled it subject to challah, and R. Akiva exempts it. R. Yehudah says: Produce grown outside the land which entered the land — R. Eliezer exempts it, it being written (Ibid. 19) "and it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land," and R. Akiva rules it subject to challah, it being written "there" (i.e., in Eretz Yisrael). What is the intent of "when you eat of the bread of the land"? From (Ibid 20) "the first of your dough," I would understand even other produce (as being subject to challah). You, therefore, reason: It is written here "bread" and elsewhere (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there is of the five species: wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt, so, "bread" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "that you shall separate an offering (terumah)": This speaks of the "great terumah" (taken from one's produce [viz. Devarim 18:4]) — But perhaps it speaks of the challah offering! — (This cannot be, for) (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) "challah, you shall offer up an offering" already speaks of challah. How, then, is "you shall offer up an offering to the L-rd to be understood? As referring to the "great terumah," (which is taken before the challah is separated). (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him" (the Cohein). This is mandatory. You say that it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional (i.e., if you separate it, you must give it to him, but you need not separate it.) It is, therefore, written "You shall separate terumah" — It is mandatory and not optional. I might think that flours, too, are subject to challah; it is, therefore, written "the first of your dough" — when it has become dough. [From here they ruled: One may eat a chance meal of started dough of wheat before it has been rolled out, or of barley before it had been well kneaded, (after which it becomes subject to challah). If one ate of it — of wheat flour, after it had been rolled out, or of barley flour after it had been well kneaded, (without taking challah) — he is liable to the death penalty. Once she had added the water, she must remove her challah, so long as there not remain there (in the kneading-trough) five quarter-kavs or more of flour that had not been mixed with water, (for if there did, they are subject to challah.)] For challah is not taken from (unprocessed) flour. If one had not taken challah from the dough, I might think he may not take it from the bread; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall separate, etc." R. Akiva says: All (vis-à-vis the separation of challah) is contingent upon its forming a crust in the oven. (Ibid. 24) "As terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it" (the challah). Just as with terumah, (the designated separation is) one (part) to a thousand, so, challah. And just as terumah of the threshing floor is "raised" (if it became intermixed) with one hundred and one times (its amount of non-terumah — which may then be eaten by non-Cohanim); and it creates a forbidden admixture for non-Cohanim if it fell into (only) a hundred of non-terumah; and it creates liability to the death penalty and to the one-fifth (chomesh) restitution penalty (viz. Vayikra 5:16) — so, with challah. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan "whispered" to him: You liken it to terumah of the threshing floor, (the percentage of) which is unspecified (in the Torah)? I will liken it to terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26), (the percentage of) which is explicit (in the Torah) — and one-tenth should be taken (as challah). He responded: It is written "As the terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it." It is likened to terumah of the threshing floor, and not to terumath ma'aser.

(Bamidbar 30:7) "And if she be to a man, and her vows be upon her": This refers to one who is betrothed. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: In either case, (i.e., either betrothed or wed) Scripture comes to make a distinction, viz.: As long as she is in her father's house, her father and her husband (jointly) annul her vows. If she is wed, her father does not annul her vows. "and her vows be upon her": the vows that "came along" with her from her father's house to her husband's house. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows that she made on his (her husband's) domain? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If he annuls vows that she vowed not in his domain, how much more so vows that she made in his domain! Variantly: "and her vows be upon her": (Can the husband annul only) vows which were never confirmed (in her father's house) or even vows which were confirmed there? It follows (inductively), viz.: The husband annuls and the father annuls. Just as the father annuls only vows which were never confirmed or annulled, so, the husband. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the father, who has an exclusive prerogative (over his daughter's vows) can annul only vows which were never confirmed, how much more so, the husband, who does not have such a prerogative! — No, this may be true of the father, who does not annul in her maturity — wherefore he annuls only vows which were never confirmed, as opposed to the husband, who does annul (the vows of her) maturity — wherefore he can annul every vow, (even those confirmed in her father's house)? Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination, we must revert to Scripture, viz.: "These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter. Scripture likens the husband to the father, viz.: Just as the father can annul only those vows which were never confirmed, so, the husband. "or the utterance (mivta) of her lips": "bitui" (like "mivta") connotes an oath, as in (Vayikra 5:4) "Or if a soul swear 'levatei' with his lips."

"and they shall break there the neck of the heifer": It is written here "breaking," and elsewhere (Vayikra 5:18) "breaking." Just as there, he breaks the neck with a hatchet from behind, so, here. "and they shall break there the neck": It is written here "there," and, elsewhere, "there." Just as there, he buries it and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, so, here. [("a hard river-bed) which shall not be worked": I might think that it is forbidden to comb flax there and to chisel stones there; it is, therefore, written "and which shall not be sowed." Sowing was included in all (labor). Why was it singled out? To make it a paradigm, viz.: Just as sowing is distinctly in the soil, so, all (such labors are forbidden), to exclude those which are not labors of the soil.]

And whence is it derived that it is forbidden to benefit from vineyard kilayim? It is written here "kodesh" (i.e., "tikdash"), and elsewhere, "kodesh," (Vayikra 5:15 "and he sin unwittingly [by deriving benefit] from the holy tings ["kodshei"] of the L-rd.") Just as there, derivation of benefit is being forbidden, here, too, derivation of benefit is being forbidden.