Midrash su Levitico 6:78

(Lev. 6:1–2 [8–9]:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE < UNTO MOSES SAYING >: COMMAND AARON…. This text is related (to Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE TO THE LORD, IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS? The Holy One said: If I had < merely > desired an offering, would I not have told Michael to bring me an offering?¹Tanh., Lev. 2:1. From whom do I desire sacrifice? From Israel. And so it says about the shewbread (in Lev. 24:8) [HE SHALL ARRANGE IT BEFORE THE LORD REGULARLY] ON EVERY SABBATH DAY. But it is written (in Micah 6:7): DOES THE LORD WANT THOUSANDS OF RAMS WITH TEN THOUSANDS OF RIVERS OF OIL? Balaam the Wicked was an advocate²Gk.: synegoros. for the nations of the world. It is in reference to his place (as their advocate)³Cf. the parallels in Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34 and in Tanhuma, which read: “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 log⁴A 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 HIM…. 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, THE FRUIT OF MY BELLY FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL? 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 < sacrifices > 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 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, the market commissioner⁵Gk.: logistes. 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 provisions⁶Gk.: opsonion. to your house. So it was with Balaam. The Holy One 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 EACHALTAR. 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 said to him: O Evil One, if I had desired 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 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE TO THE LORD, IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS? Among the children of Abraham are Isaac and Jacob. < These are the ones > who are the rams of the world. The Holy One 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. He said to him: It is an oath, (in the words of Lev. 24:8, cont.) AN EVERLASTING COVENANT ON THE PART OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, they say, so that I only accept offerings from Israel. It is so stated (in Lev. 6:1–2 [8–9]): COMMAND AARON AND HIS CHILDREN, SAYING: < THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING >…. When the nations said: What is this, whereby Israel is presenting offerings and sacrificing? the Holy One said to them (ibid.): THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING (rt.: 'LH). (Cant. 3:6): WHO IS THIS THAT COMES UP FROM THE DESERT < LIKE COLUMNS OF SMOKE PERFUMED WITH MYRRH AND FRANKINCENSE >…? (Exod. 19:3:) THEN MOSES WENT (rt.: 'LH) UP UNTO GOD.

(Deut. 3:23:) I BESOUGHT THE LORD…. This text is related (to Job 9:22): IT IS ALL ONE; THEREFORE, I SAY: HE DESTROYS THE INNOCENT AND THE WICKED. Moses said: Sovereign of the World, everything is equal before you.¹Tanh., Deut. 2:1. There is one determination for the righteous and for the wicked. Similarly also Solomon says (in Eccl. 9:2): SINCE EVERYTHING <HAPPENS> TO EVERYONE, THE SAME LOT <FALLS> TO THE RIGHTEOUS AND TO THE WICKED, TO THE GOOD, TO THE CLEAN AND TO THE UNCLEAN, TO THE ONE WHO SACRIFICES AND TO THE ONE WHO DOES NOT SACRIFICE. AS IT IS WITH THE GOOD, SO IT IS THE SINNER; THE ONE WHO TAKES AN OATH IS LIKE ONE WHO FEARS AN OATH. (Eccl. 9:2:) TO THE RIGHTEOUS refers to Noah.²Lev. R. 20:1; Eccl. R. 9:2:1; PRK 26:1; cf. Tanh., Lev. 6:1; above, Lev. 6:1. R. Pinhas <said> in the name of R. Johanan, <who spoke> in the name of R. Eleazar the son of R. Jose the Galilean: When Noah came out of the ark, the lion bit him and maimed him so that he became unfit to offer sacrifice; so his son Shem offered sacrifice in his place.³Contrary to Gen. 8:20. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) AND TO THE WICKED refers to Pharaoh Necho. When he wanted to sit on Solomon's throne <and> did not know its mechanism,⁴Gk.: manganon. a lion which was on the throne⁵I Kings 10:19-20 = II Chron. 9:18-19. bit him and maimed him. The former died with a limp, and the latter died with a limp. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) TO THE GOOD refers to Moses, as stated (in Exod. 2:2): AND WHEN SHE SAW THAT HE WAS GOOD, in that he was born circumcised.⁶Sot. 12a; Exod. R. 1:20. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) TO THE CLEAN refers to Aaron, who would cleanse the sins of Israel. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) AND TO THE UNCLEAN refers to the spies. The one group (i.e., the spies) uttered slander against the land of Israel, while the other (i.e., Moses and Aaron) uttered praise for the land of Israel; <still> the former did not enter <the land>, nor did the latter enter it. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) TO THE ONE WHO SACRIFICES refers to Josiah, as stated (in II Chron. 35:7): THEN JOSIAH DONATED TO THE LAY PEOPLE A FLOCK OF LAMBS <AND KIDS, ALL FOR PASSOVER SACRIFICES>. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) AND TO THE ONE WHO DOES NOT SACRIFICE refers to Ahab, who abolished the sacrifices from upon the altar, since this is what is written (in II Chron. 18:2): WHERE AHAB SLAUGHTERED SHEEP AND CATTLE FOR HIM <IN ABUNDANCE>, (ibid.:) FOR HIM (i.e., for Jehoshaphat) as a feast and not for sacrificial offerings. <Nevertheless> the former died by arrows, as written (in II Chron. 35:23): THEN THE ARCHERS SHOT KING JOSIAH,⁷Cf. yQid. 1:7 (61a); Ta‘an 23b; MQ 28b; Sanh. 48:b. and the latter died by arrows, as written (in I Kings 22:34 = II Chron. 18:33): BUT A CERTAIN MAN DREW HIS BOW AT RANDOM <AND STRUCK THE KING OF ISRAEL>. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) AS IT IS FOR THE GOOD refers to David, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 16:12): WITH BEAUTIFUL EYES AND A GOOD APPEARANCE. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) SO IT IS THE SINNER refers to Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is written (in Dan. 4:24 [27]): ATONE FOR YOUR SINNING THROUGH RIGHTEOUSNESS. The former built the Temple and reigned forty years. The latter destroyed the Temple and reigned forty years. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) THE ONE WHO TAKES AN OATH (without keeping it) refers to Zedekiah, of whom it is written (in II Chron. 36:13): AND HE ALSO REBELLED AGAINST NEBUCHADNEZZAR WHO HAD MADE HIM TAKE AN OATH BY GOD. What was his rebellion?⁸Ned. 65a. Zedekiah discovered Nebuchadnezzar as he was actually eating a live rabbit. Nebuchadnezzar said to Zedekiah: Swear to me that you will not reveal it. He swore to him. In the end he was inwardly sorry. He had his oath absolved and told the five kings who had allowed Nebuchadnezzar to rule over them. When the other kings heard <what he did>, they despised him. Moreover they were saying against him: Should this man be ruling the earth, when he eats live rabbit! When Nebuchadnezzar heard <what they were saying>, he sent to have the Sanhedrin⁹Gk.: Synedrion. and Zedekiah come to him. He said to them: Have you seen what Zedekiah has done to me? <Zedekiah> said to them: I had my oath absolved. He (Nebuchadnezzar) said to the Sanhedrin: Who absolved the oath? They said to him: One absolves <an oath, if there is> danger to one's life. He said to them: When? They said to him: On the same day. <He said to them:> in the presence of him <to whom the oath was sworn> or not in his presence? They said to him: In his presence. <He replied:> But what was the reason for not saying so to Zedekiah? Immediately (in the words of Lam. 2:10): THE ELDERS OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION SIT ON THE GROUND AND SILENCE. R. Isaac said: <This teaches that> they removed the pillows and cushions from beneath them. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) LIKE ONE WHO FEARS AN OATH. This refers to Samson, {since it says (in Jud. 15:12):} [THEN SAMSON SAID] TO THEM. SWEAR TO ME THAT YOU YOURSELVES WILL NOT ATTACK ME. From here <we know> that he feared an oath. The former died with his eyes gouged out, and the latter died with his eyes gouged out. [The latter died with his eyes gouged out] according to what is stated (in II Kings 25:7 = Jer. 39:7 = Jer. 52:11): THEN HE PUT OUT ZEDEKIAH'S EYES. This was one of seven who were like the first Adam <in one feature>.¹⁰Cf. Sot. 10a. <In the case of> Zedekiah <it was> because of his eyes. So for they thrust iron lances¹¹Gk.: logchai. into his eyes, but his eyes were not put out until they slaughtered his children before his eyes. It is so stated (in Jer. 39:6 = Jer. 52:10 // II Kings 25:7): AND THE KING OF BABYLON SLAUGHTERED <THE CHILDREN OF ZEDEKIAH BEFORE HIS EYES (AT RIBLAH)>. Samson also [died with his eyes gouged out, as stated (in Jud. 16:21):] SO THE PHILISTINES SEIZED HIM AND GOUGED OUT HIS EYES.

(Lev. 16:1:) NOW THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH OF < AARON'S TWO SONS >…. This text is related (to Eccl. 9:2): SINCE EVERYTHING < HAPPENS > TO EVERYONE, THE SAME LOT < FALLS > TO THE RIGHTEOUS AND TO THE WICKED…. Solomon looked and foresaw the righteous and the wicked in all generations, and he saw things that would happen to the righteous and happen to the wicked.¹Tanh., Lev. 6:1; cf. below, Deut. 2:1; Lev. R. 20:1; Eccl. R. 9:2:1; PRK 26:1. Then he said (in vs. 3): THIS IS AN EVIL IN ALL WHICH HAPPENS UNDER THE SUN, IN THAT THE SAME LOT < FALLS > TO EVERYONE. (Vs. 2:) SINCE EVERYTHING < HAPPENS > TO EVERYONE, THE SAME LOT < FALLS > TO THE RIGHTEOUS. This refers to Abraham, in that he was called righteous, as stated (in Gen. 18:19): FOR I HAVE CHOSEN HIM [SO] THAT HE MAY CHARGE < HIS CHILDREN AND HIS HOUSEHOLD AFTER HIM TO KEEP THE WAY OF THE LORD >, [TO PRACTICE RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTICE]. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) < AND > TO THE WICKED. This refers to Nimrod, who incited all the whole world against the Holy One. The former is dead, and the latter is dead. (Ibid., cont.:) TO THE GOOD, TO THE CLEAN, [AND TO THE UNCLEAN. TO THE GOOD] refers to David, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 16:12): < WITH > BEAUTIFUL EYES AND GOOD APPEARANCE TO THE UNCLEAN refers to Nebuchadnezzar. The former laid the foundation of the Temple, and the latter destroyed it. The former reigned forty years, and the latter reigned forty years. (Eccl., 9:2, cont.:) TO THE ONE WHO SACRIFICES. This refers to Solomon, of whom it is stated (in I Kings 8:63): SOLOMON SACRIFICED TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND OXEN < AND A HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND SHEEP > AS PEACE OFFERINGS, WHICH HE SACRIFICED TO THE LORD. (Eccl., 9:2, cont.:) AND TO THE ONE WHO DOES NOT SACRIFICE. This refers to Jeroboam, who stopped Israel from going up < to Jerusalem > on pilgrimage, as stated (in I Kings 12:28): ENOUGH OF YOUR GOING UP TO JERUSALEM…. The latter one reigned after the former one. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) AS IT IS WITH THE GOOD. This refers to Moses, of whom it is stated (in Exod. 2:2): AND WHEN SHE SAW THAT HE WAS GOOD. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) SO IT IS WITH THE SINNER. This refers to the spies (in Numb. 13–14)), of whom it is stated (in Prov. 13:21): EVIL PURSUES SINNERS. Moses did not enter the land, neither did those < spies > enter the land. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) AND THE ONE WHO TAKES AN OATH (without keeping it). This refers to Zedekiah, of whom it is stated (in II Chron 36:13): < AND > HE ALSO REBELLED AGAINST KING NEBUCHADNEZZAR, WHO HAD MADE HIM TAKE AN OATH [BY] GOD. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) < IS > {EVERYONE} [AS THE ONE] WHO FEARS AN OATH. This refers to Samson, of whom it is stated (in Jud. 15:12): THEN SAMSON SAID {UNTO} [TO] THEM: SWEAR TO ME…. They put out the eyes of the former, and they put out the eyes of the latter.

(Deut. 3:23:) “I besought the Lord.” This text is related (to Job 9:22), “It is all one; therefore, I say, ‘He destroys the innocent and the wicked.’” Moses said, “Master of the world, everything is equal before you. There is one determination for the righteous and for the wicked.” Similarly also Solomon says (in Eccl. 9:2), “Since everything [happens] to everyone, the same lot [falls] to the righteous and to the wicked, [to the good, to the clean and to the unclean, to the one who sacrifices and to the one who does not sacrifice; as it is with the good, so it is with the sinner; the one who takes an oath is like one who fears an oath].” (Eccl. 9:2:) “To the righteous” refers to Noah.¹Lev. R. 20:1; Eccl. R. 9:2:1; PRK 26:1; cf. Tanh., Lev. 6:1; above, Lev. 6:1. R. Phinehas [said] in the name of R. Johanan, [who spoke] in the name of R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose the Galilean, “When Noah came out of the ark, the lion bit him and maimed him so that he became unfit to offer sacrifice; so his son Shem offered sacrifice in his place.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “And to the wicked” refers to Pharaoh Necho. When he wanted to sit on Solomon's throne [and] did not know its mechanism,²Gk.: manganon. a lion which was on the throne³I Kings 10:19-20 = II Chron. 9:18-19. bit him and maimed him. The former died with a limp, and the latter died with a limp. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “To the good” refers to Moses, as stated (in Exod. 2:2), “And when she saw that he was good,” in that he was born circumcised.⁴Sot. 12a; Exod. R. 1:20. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “To the clean” refers to Aaron, who would cleanse the sins of Israel. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “And to the unclean,” refers to the spies. The one group (i.e., the spies) uttered slander against the land of Israel, while the other (i.e., Moses and Aaron) uttered praise for the land of Israel; [still] the former did not enter [the land], nor did the latter enter it. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “To the one who sacrifices” refers to Josiah, as stated (in II Chron. 35:7), “Then Josiah donated to the lay people a flock of lambs and kids, all for Passover sacrifices.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “And to the one who does not sacrifice” refers to Ahab, who abolished the sacrifices from upon the altar, since this is what is written (in II Chron. 18:2), “where Ahab slaughtered sheep and cattle for him (i.e., for Jehoshaphat).” “For him” he slaughtered, but for sacrifices he did not slaughter. [Nevertheless] the former died by arrows, as written (in II Chron. 35:23), “Then the archers shot King Josiah,”⁵Cf. yQid. 1:7 (61a); Ta‘an 23b; MQ 28b; Sanh. 48b. and the latter died by arrows, as written (in I Kings 22:34 = II Chron. 18:33), “But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel….” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “As it is for the good refers to David, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 16:12), “And they sent and they brought him, and he was ruddy with beautiful eyes and a good appearance.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “So it is with the sinner” refers to Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is written (in Dan. 4:24), “atone for your sinning through righteousness.” The former built the Temple and reigned forty years. The latter destroyed the Temple and reigned forty years. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “The one who takes an oath (without keeping it)” refers to Zedekiah, of whom it is written (in II Chron. 36:13), “And he also rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar who had made him take an oath by God.” What was his rebellion?⁶Ned. 65a. Zedekiah discovered Nebuchadnezzar as he was eating a live rabbit. Nebuchadnezzar said to Zedekiah, “Swear to me that you will not reveal it.” He swore to him. In the end he was inwardly sorry, and he had his oath absolved. When the other kings heard [what Nebuchadnezzar did], they disparaged him. [Moreover] they were saying against him, “Be aware of who is ruling the earth, one who eats live rabbit!” When Nebuchadnezzar heard [what they were saying], he sent to have the Sanhedrin⁷Gk.: Synedrion. and Zedekiah come to him. He said to them, “Have you seen what Zedekiah has done to me; did he not swear to me?” [Zedekiah] said to him, “I had my oath absolved.” He (Nebuchadnezzar) said to the Sanhedrin, “Can an oath be absolved?” They said to him, “One absolves [an oath, if there is] danger to one's life.” He said to them, “When?” They said to him, “On the same day.” He said to them, “In the presence of him [to whom the oath was sworn] or not in his presence?” They said to him, “In his presence.” He said to them, “And what was the reason you did not say [so] to Zedekiah?” Immediately (in the words of Lam. 2:10), “The elders of the Daughters of Zion sit on the ground in silence.” R. Isaac said, “[This teaches that] they removed the pillows and cushions from beneath them.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “Like one who fears an oath.” This refers to Samson, [as stated (in Jud. 15:12),] “then Samson said to them, ‘Swear to me that you yourselves will not attack me.’” From here [we know] that he feared an oath. [The former died with his eyes gouged out, and the latter died with his eyes gouged out.] The former died with his eyes gouged out according to what is stated (in II Kings 25:7 = Jer. 39:7 = Jer. 52:11), “then he put out Zedekiah's eyes.” This was one of seven who were like the first Adam [in one feature.⁸Cf. Sot. 10a. In the case of] Zedekiah [it was] because of his eyes. So they thrust iron lances⁹Gk.: logchai. into his eyes, but his eyes were not put out until they slaughtered his children before his eyes, and then they put out his eyes. It is so stated (II Kings 25:7), “And they slaughtered the children of Zedekiah before his eyes and then he put out Zedekiah's eyes.” Samson also [died with his eyes gouged out, as stated (in Jud. 16:21), “] “So the Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes.” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 9:2), “Since everything [happens] to everyone.” Moses said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, everything is the same for You; You destroy (according to Job 9:22) ‘the innocent and the wicked.’ The spies provoked You with anger by slandering the land, as stated (in Numbers 13:32), ‘And they put out slander against the land,’ while I have served your children forty years in the wilderness. [Yet] the same lot is [in store] for me as for them.” A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a king who wanted to take a wife. He sent emissaries¹⁰Shulahin. The word represents the Hebrew concept behind the Greek and Latin words translated “apostles” and denotes people having the ancient equivalent of a power of attorney. to see whether she was beautiful or not. They went to see her. [Then] they came [back] and said to him, “We have seen her and there is no one more desolate and ugly than she.” When her sponsor heard, he said, “My Lord, there is no one in the world more beautiful than she.” He came to marry her. The father of the young woman said to the king's emissaries, “I swear by the life of the king that not one of you shall come to [the wedding feast], seeing that you humiliated her before the king.” When the sponsor came to enter, he said to him, “You also may not come in.” The sponsor said to him, “I did not see her and [yet] I told the king that there was no one more beautiful than she, while those said, ‘There is no one more ugly than she.’ And now allow me [to enter] and I shall see whether [she is] like my report or like their report.” Similarly Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “My master, the spies uttered slander, [in describing the land (in Numb. 13:32) as] ‘a land that eats up its inhabitants.’ I, however, have not seen it, but I have praised it before Your children (in Deut. 8:7), ‘For the Lord your God is bringing you unto a good land.’ And now I shall see whether [it is] like my report or like their report.” Thus it is stated (in Deut. 3:25), “Please let me cross over and see the good land […].” He said to him (in Deut. 3:27), “For you shall not cross over [this Jordan].” Moshe said to him, “If so, everything is the same for You. You destroy (in accordance with Job 9:22) ‘the innocent and the wicked.’”

(Lev. 19:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND SAY UNTO THEM: YOU SHALL BE HOLY, [BECAUSE I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM HOLY]. This text is related (to Is. 5:16): THE LORD OF HOSTS HAS BEEN EXALTED THROUGH JUSTICE, AND THE HOLY GOD HAS BEEN SANCTIFIED THROUGH HOLINESS. When did the Holy One become exalted in his world?¹Tanh., Lev. 7:1. When he brought about judgment and justice among the peoples of the world. It is so stated (in Is. 3:13): THE LORD STANDS UP TO PLEAD A CAUSE, AND RISES TO JUDGE PEOPLES. It also says (in Dan. 7:9): I LOOKED UNTIL THRONES WERE SET IN PLACE < or THROWN DOWN > (remiw).²The Aramaic word can mean both WERE SET IN PLACE and WERE THROWN DOWN. The former meaning better fits the biblical context; but one of the midrashic interpretations given here requires the latter meaning. What is the meaning of THRONES (in the plural)? Were there a lot of thrones, when < there is > that which is written (in Is. 6:1): I SAW THE LORD SEATED UPON A THRONE (in the singular)? What is the meaning of THRONES? R. Jose the Galilean and R. Aqiva differed.³Hag. 14a. One said: THRONES denotes the throne plus its hypopodion⁴The Greek word means “footstool.” {i.e., its footstool}; and the other said: These are thrones that belong to the nations of the world, since the Holy One is going to throw them down, as stated (in Hag. 2:22): THEN I WILL THROW DOWN THE THRONE< S > OF KINGDOMS, AND DESTROY THE KINGDOMS OF THE GENTILES. You know [for yourself] that this is so. "Thrones were set up," is not written here (in Dan. 7:9), but THRONES WERE THROWN DOWN. Thus it is written (in Exod. 15:1 or 21): THE HORSE AND HIS RIDER HE HAS THROWN (rt.: RMH) INTO THE SEA. < Our > masters say: What is the meaning of THRONES? In the age to come the Holy One will sit down, and the angels will place thrones for the great ones of Israel for them to sit down, so that the Holy One will be sitting with them like the president of the court (av bet din). Then they shall judge the peoples of the world, as stated (in Is. 3:14): THE LORD WILL COME IN JUDGMENT ALONG WITH THE ELDERS OF HIS PEOPLE AND THEIR PRINCES.⁵Exod. R. 5:12; see Wisdom 3:8; I Enoch 38:5; 48:9; I Corinthians 6:2. "Against the elders of his people" is not written here, but ALONG WITH THE ELDERS < OF HIS PEOPLE >. < Scripture > is teaching that the Holy One will sit along with the elders and princes of Israel to judge the nations of the world. And which < thrones > are they? These are the thrones of the house of David and the elders of Israel, as stated (in Ps. 122:5): THERE STOOD THE THRONES OF JUDGMENT, THRONES OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID. R. Pinhas said in the name of R. Hilqiyah the Southerner (i.e., from Judah), < who spoke > in the name of R. Reuben: If you say: When thrones stand there for judgment, they are thrones of the house of David. Then what is < the meaning of > (Dan. 7:9): AND THE ANCIENT OF DAYS TOOK HIS SEAT? That he sits among them like the president of the court, and with them he judges the nations. It is therefore written (ibid.): UNTIL THRONES WERE SET IN PLACE. What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.): AND THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD WAS LIKE CLEAN WOOL? When the Holy One cleanses himself from the nations of the world,⁶Cf. the parallel in the traditional Midrash Tanhuma, Lev. 6:11 (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), which reads: “The Holy One cleanses himself from the worshipers of idols.” he gives them compensation for the easy commandments which they have observed in this world. < He does so > in order to judge them and convict them in the world to come, so that they will have no excuse and have no merit found for them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 14:32): AND WHAT WILL HE ANSWER THE ANGELS OF⁷mal’akhe. In the biblical context, the word should be rendered as “messengers of,” but the midrash interprets the passage eschatologically. A < GIVEN > NATION? THAT THE LORD HAS ESTABLISHED ZION, AND IN IT THERE SHALL THE AFFLICTED OF HIS PEOPLE TAKE REFUGE. Then he immediately renders the judgment against them. At that time the Holy One becomes exalted in his world, as stated (in Is. 5:16): THE LORD OF HOSTS IS EXALTED IN JUDGMENT, [AND THE HOLY GOD IS SANCTIFIED IN JUSTICE]. What is the meaning of (ibid.): THE LORD OF HOSTS IS EXALTED IN JUDGMENT? That he is sanctified in his world in justice, because he teaches concerning Israel what is stated (in Is. 63:1): I SPEAK IN JUSTICE. The Holy One said to Israel: I am sanctified in you, as stated (in Is. 29:23): FOR WHEN < JACOB > SEES HIS CHILDREN IN HIS MIDST, THE WORK OF MY HANDS, THEY SHALL SANCTIFY MY NAME; YES, THEY SHALL SANCTIFY THE HOLY ONE OF JACOB…. And so it says (in Is. 49:3): ISRAEL IN WHOM I WILL BE GLORIFIED. So you are sanctified in me, and I am sanctified in you, as stated (in Lev. 11:44; cf. 19:2): [SO YOU SHALL SANCTIFY YOURSELVES] AND BE HOLY, BECAUSE I AM HOLY.

(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).

Alternatively, "These days were formed, but not one from them" [Psalms 139:16] is refering to Yom Kippur for (the nation of) Israel. {continuing}

1) (Vayikra 6:10) ("It shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings; it is holy of holies, as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering.") "It shall not be baked with leaven": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1) "It shall not be made of leaven," I would think that there was one negative commandment for all of them (i.e., for all of the operations that go into making it); it is, therefore, written: "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the category (of "It shall not be made of leaven.") Why did it leave that category (to be singled out here)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular act and subject to liability in and of itself, so I include its kneading, its rolling and all of its particular acts as being subject to individual negative commandments in and of themselves.

1) (Vayikra 2:1): "And a soul" — to include the anointed priest (i.e., the high-priest) as bringing a gift meal-offering. Is it not a kal vachomer (that he may do so), viz.: If an individual (Jew), who does not bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, may bring a gift meal-offering — the high-priest, who does bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, (see Vayikra 6:13), how much more so may he bring a gift meal-offering! — No, the individual (in an instance of extreme poverty) brings a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, whereas the high-priest does not — and since he does not, (I would say that) he may not bring a gift meal-offering. It is, therefore, written: "And a soul," to include a high-priest as bringing a gift meal-offering.

1) (Vayikra 6:13) ("This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer up to the L–rd on the day that he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, a perpetual meal-offering — half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening."): "This is the offering of Aaron and his sons": I might think that Aaron and his sons offer up this offering as one. It is, therefore, written "his sons, which they offer up." How so? Aaron brings for himself and his sons bring for themselves.

1) (Vayikra 6:14) ("On a griddle with oil, shall it be made; soaked shall you bring it; well-baked, a meal-offering of pieces shall you offer it, a sweet savor to the L–rd.") "On a griddle": We are hereby taught that it is a (ministering) vessel. "with oil": Oil is to be added to it (above the amount for the griddle offering of an Israelite). I would not know how much (oil to use). I, therefore, induce: This requires oil and the libation meal-offering (Shemoth 29:40) requires oil. Just as the libation meal-offering (requires) three logs for the issaron (viz. Shemoth 29:40), this, too, requires three logs for the issaron.

1) (Vayikra 6:15) ("And the Cohein that is anointed in his place from his sons shall offer it, a statute forever for the L–rd; it shall be entirely smoked.") "anointed": This tells me only of the (high-priest) anointed with the anointing oil. Whence do I derive the same (that he brings a griddle meal-offering every day) for the many-vestmented priest (see Shemoth 29:30)? From "and the Cohein that is anointed." I might think that I include also the priest anointed for war. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "in his place from his sons." Only one whose son stands in his place brings the tenth of an ephah — to exclude the priest anointed for war, whose son does not stand in his place. And whence is it derived that his son does not stand in his place? From (Shemoth, Ibid.): "Seven days shall he clothe himself in them, his son that is priest in his place, who comes to the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place." Only the son of one "who comes to the tent of meeting, etc." stands in his place — to exclude (the son of) the priest anointed for war, who does not come to the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place.

1) (Vayikra 6:18) ("Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd; it is holy of holies.") "This is the law of the sin-offering": This (the sin-offering) does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood (if it sprinkled onto a garment) requires washing. — Now where is it excluded (from washing that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (Vayikra 6:19): "The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it" and (Vayikra 6:20): "and what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment … shall be washed," I would think that only outer sin-offerings, (which are eaten by the Cohanim) require washing, but not inner sin-offerings, (which are burnt). And (what is more) it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if holy of holies (guilt-offerings), which are similar to outer sin-offerings in requiring scouring and rinsing (of the vessels in which they have been cooked), do not require washing (of garments), then inner sin-offerings, which are not similar (to them) in requiring scouring and rinsing, (not being eaten and not being cooked), how much more so should they not require washing. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood requires washing.

1) R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: A (Cohein) tvul yom (one who immersed in the daytime, and becomes clean at sunset) came and said to (another) Cohein: Give me of the meal-offering (of an Israelite) to eat it (tonight). The Cohein: Now if in a place (i.e., an instance) where you are "strong," in your sin-offering, (i.e., a Cohein who is liable for a sin-offering may bring it at any priestly watch and take its priestly portions), I have pushed you away from the sin-offering of an Israelite (A tvul yom does not share in it, viz. Vayikra 6:19), then in a place where you are "weak," in your meal-offering, (Even a clean Cohein may not eat his own meal-offering, it being entirely burnt), does it not follow that I should push you away from the meal-offering of an Israelite today (when you are a tvul yom and unfit to sacrifice the meal-offering of an Israelite)! The tvul yom: Why would you push me away from the sin-offering of an Israelite? Because you are "strong" in your own sin-offering. Would you then push me away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, when you are "weak" in your own meal-offering? The Cohein (Vayikra 7:9): "To the Cohein that sacrifices (a meal-offering), to him shall it be" — Come, sacrifice (when you are clean) and eat!

1) (Vayikra 6:18) ("Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd; it is holy of holies.") "This is the law of the sin-offering": This (the sin-offering) does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood (if it sprinkled onto a garment) requires washing. — Now where is it excluded (from washing that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (Vayikra 6:19): "The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it" and (Vayikra 6:20): "and what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment … shall be washed," I would think that only outer sin-offerings, (which are eaten by the Cohanim) require washing, but not inner sin-offerings, (which are burnt). And (what is more) it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if holy of holies (guilt-offerings), which are similar to outer sin-offerings in requiring scouring and rinsing (of the vessels in which they have been cooked), do not require washing (of garments), then inner sin-offerings, which are not similar (to them) in requiring scouring and rinsing, (not being eaten and not being cooked), how much more so should they not require washing. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood requires washing.

1) (Vayikra 6:2) ("Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering. It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar all the night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby.") "Command": "Command" connotes a prompting to zeal, for the immediate situation and for future generations. R. Shimon said: Such prompting is all the more necessary where monetary loss ("upon its firewood on the altar all the night") is entailed.

1) (Vayikra 6:18) ("Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd; it is holy of holies.") "This is the law of the sin-offering": This (the sin-offering) does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood (if it sprinkled onto a garment) requires washing. — Now where is it excluded (from washing that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (Vayikra 6:19): "The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it" and (Vayikra 6:20): "and what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment … shall be washed," I would think that only outer sin-offerings, (which are eaten by the Cohanim) require washing, but not inner sin-offerings, (which are burnt). And (what is more) it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if holy of holies (guilt-offerings), which are similar to outer sin-offerings in requiring scouring and rinsing (of the vessels in which they have been cooked), do not require washing (of garments), then inner sin-offerings, which are not similar (to them) in requiring scouring and rinsing, (not being eaten and not being cooked), how much more so should they not require washing. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood requires washing.

1) (Vayikra 6:20) ("And what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment, that which has been sprinkled on, you shall wash in a holy place.") "what shall be sprinkled of its blood": of the blood of an animal that is fit, and not of that of an animal which is unfit. R. Akiva says: If it had a time of fitness and its blood became unfit, (as when its blood remained overnight or became tamei), washing is required. If it did not have a time of fitness and its blood became unfit, (as when it became unfit in being slaughtered or in the receiving of its blood), washing is not required. R. Shimon says: Even if it had a time of fitness and it became unfit, washing is not required.

1) (Vayikra 15:12) ("And an earthen vessel which the zav touches shall be broken, and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water.") "earthen vessel": This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive for inclusion a vessel made of alum crystals? From "And an earthen vessel. "which the zav touches": I might think even if he touches it from the back it becomes tamei. But (why is a verse needed for this?) It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a dead body, the stringent instance (of tumah), does not confer tumah upon an earthen vessel from the back, then zav, the lesser instance, how much more so does it not confer tumah upon an earthen vessel from the back! — No, this may be so with a dead body, which does not effect (tumah of) mishkav and moshav, as opposed to a zav, which does effect such tumah. And since it does, I would think that since it does so, it would confer tumah upon earthen vessels from the back. It is, therefore, written (lit.,) "which the zav touches bo" ["in it"], and, elsewhere (Vayikra 6:21) (lit.,) "which is cooked bo." Just as there, the meaning is "in its atmosphere", here, too, the meaning is "in its atmosphere" (and not if he touches it from the back).

1) (Vayikra 6:21) ("And an earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken. And if it is cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed with water.") "an earthenware vessel": This tells me only of an earthenware vessel. Whence do we derive for inclusion (as requiring breaking) a vessel made of alum crystals? From "and an earthenware vessel." "in which it is cooked shall be broken": This tells me only of (a vessel) in which it was cooked. Whence do I derive the same for one into which hot water was poured? From (lit.) "and which shall be cooked in it shall be broken." This tells me only of an earthenware vessel into which boiling water was poured. Whence do I derive the same for a copper vessel? From "and which shall be cooked in it shall be broken."

1) (Vayikra 6:23) ("And every sin-offering, whereof any of its blood is brought to the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall not be eaten. In fire shall it be burned.") "sin-offering": This tells me only of sin-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings? From "And every sin-offering." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Akiva, even if you "include" all the day only "sin-offering" is written here. Why, then, is "every" written? I would think that only an individual sin-offering were meant. Whence would I derive the same for communal sin-offerings (such as the goats of Rosh Chodesh and of the festivals)? From "every." This tells me only of a male sin-offering. Whence do I derive the same for a female sin-offering? From "And every sin-offering." R. Eliezer says: The guilt-offering, too, (is included), it being written (Vayikra 7:7): "As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering."

1) (Vayikra 6:3) "And the Cohein shall put on his linen (bad) garment (middo)": "middo": kemidatho ("fit to size"). "bad": byssus; "bad": new; "bad": doubled (with six-folded strands); "bad": that other garments not be worn with them. I might think that flaxen garments should not be worn with them, but that woolen garments could be worn with them; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "bad." I might think that consecrated garments should not be worn with them, but mundane garments could be worn with them. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "bad." "shall he put on his flesh": What is the intent of (the seemingly superfluous) "shall he put on"? To include the mitznefeth (the turban) and the avnet (the belt). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Dossa says: To include the (four linen) garments of the high-priest as being kasher for the ordinary Cohein. Rebbi says: There are two arguments against this: Is the avnet of the high-priest (on Yom Kippur) the same as that of the ordinary priest? (The first was of linen alone and the second, of a variety of materials!) And, furthermore, will the garments that served for the highest holiness "descend" to the service of a lesser holiness! The intent of "shall he put on," rather, is that even worn garments may be used.

1) (Vayikra 2:8) If it were written (only) "And you shall bring what shall be made of these to the L–rd, and he (the donor) shall present it to the Cohein, and he shall touch it to the altar," I might think that only the fistful alone required "touching." Whence would I derive that the entire meal-offering is intended? It is, therefore, written ("And you shall bring the) meal-offering." And whence is it derived that this includes the meal-offering of a sinner for "touching"? From "the meal-offering."

1) (Vayikra 6:7) ("And this is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall bring it near before the L–rd in front of the altar.") "This is the law of the meal-offering" — for the eternal house (the Temple), i.e., one law obtains in the Temple as it does in the tabernacle (the mishkan). "This (is the law"): It does not apply to a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the meal-offering": There is one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense, (even the meal-offering of the Cohanim, and of the high-priest, which is entirely burnt).

1) "And what is left (from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron, etc."): even if it were not salted, even if it were not presented (at the southwest corner of the altar) — except if nothing were smoked of its frankincense. "from the meal-offering" — except if it (the meal-offering) were diminished (between kemitzah and smoking), except if nothing were smoked of its frankincense. "for Aaron and for his sons": for Aaron first, and then for his sons; for Aaron without apportionment (with the other Cohanim), and for his sons with apportionment. Just as Aaron, the high-priest, eats without apportionment, so, his sons, the high-priests, eat without apportionment.

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.

[(Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.] R. Abba bar Kahana opened (with Eccl. 2:2): OF LAUGHTER I SAID: IT IS MAD! [AND OF REJOICING, WHAT DOES THAT DO?] How confused is the laughter of the peoples of the world,²Tanh., Lev. 6:1; Eccl. R. 2:2:1; PRK 26(27):2. which they produce in their theater³Gk.: theatra. [houses] and racing arenas.⁴Lat.: circi; cf. Gk.: kirkoi (“circles”). AND OF REJOICING, WHAT DOES THAT DO? What enjoyment would the disciples of the sages have there?⁵I.e., what confused, popular enjoyment can compare to the delights of Torah study?

(Cant. 7:3 [2], cont.:) YOUR BELLY IS A HEAP OF WHEAT. R. Johanan said: A HEAP OF WHEAT (hittim, sing.: hittah): This is the book of Leviticus, all of which <concerns> sin offerings (hatta'ot, sing.: hatta'ah) and guilt offerings (asamot).⁷Similarly Cant. R. 7:3:2; PR 10:3. It is <the law of> the sin offering (hitta; cf. Lev. 6:18 [25]). It is <the law of> the guilt offering (asham; cf. Lev. 7:1). Moreover, <like the belly in the middle of the body,> it (i.e., Leviticus) is set in the middle of Torah, and all of it <concerns> sin offerings (i.e., the wheat of Cant. 7:3 [2]) and guilt offerings. Ergo (in Cant. 7:3 [2]): YOUR BELLY (i.e., Leviticus) IS A HEAP OF WHEAT (i.e.., sin offerings). Resh Laqish said: Why is it likened to wheat? It is simply that just as all of these wheat grains are reckoned by measure, so all of Israel was reckoned by number (minyan). The elders, the saints, the sages, and all Israel are reckoned by number (minyan).

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.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:2), “Command Aaron.” What is the function of Aaron here? Israel was bringing offerings whereas Aaron is mentioned, and Scripture says here, “Command Aaron.” But note, it is written (in Numb. 28:2), “Command the Children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘My offering, My bread,’” but here it says (in Lev. 6:2), “Command Aaron […], ‘This is the Torah of the one who ascends (h'lh).’”⁴The masoretic text vocalizes this word as ha’olah, which means, THE BURNT OFFERING, but the midrash interprets the word as though it were vocalized ha’oleh, which means, “The one who ascends,” with the ascending implying self-exaltation. So also Lev. R. 7:6. The Holy One, blessed be He, said (to warn Aaron and his sons), “Whenever someone raises (rt.: 'lh) himself up, his end is to go in the fire.”⁵M.Ps. 11:5. It is so stated (in Lev. 6:2, cont.), “that is the one which ascends upon the burning place.” The generation of the flood [suffered] because of what they said (in Job 21:15), “What is the Omnipresent that we should serve Him?” For that reason they were sentenced to the fire (of Gehinnom), as stated (Job 6:17), “at the time that they were heated, they were burnt in His heat,” and it is written (Job 22:20), “and the fire consumed their remnant.” And likewise the Sodomites, [as stated] (in Gen. 19:24), “Then the Lord rained down upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire.” When Pharaoh said (in Exod. 5:2), “Who is the Lord, [that I should heed His voice],” he exalted (rt.: 'lh) himself and said (in Ezek. 29:3), “my Nile is my own and I made it myself.” [He is] therefore (in the words of Lev. 6:2) “upon the burning place.” For so it says (in Ps. 18:14), “The Lord thundered in the heavens,” (Ps. 18:13), "From the illumination in front of Him, His clouds were pierced by hail and coals of fire.” And also when Sennacherib exalted (rt.: 'lh) himself and said (in II Kings 19:23 = Is. 37:24), “it is I who have ascended (rt.: 'lh) the mountain heights to the remotest parts of Lebanon.” And what happened to him? (II Kings 19:35:) “The angel of the Lord went out and smote [one hundred and eighty-thousand] in the camp of Assyria.” He had blasphemed (according to II Kings 19:23: cf. 18:17–35) through a messenger (mal'akh);⁶The parallel in Is. 37:24 reads “servant” instead of “messenger.” therefore (in II Kings 19:35 = Is. 37:36 // II Chron. 32:21) “the angel (mal'akh) of the Lord went out and smote.” What did he do to him? (Is. 10:16), “And under his glory there shall burn a burning like the burning of fire.” What is the meaning of “under his glory?” That it burned them from within and left alone their clothes on the outside, since a person's glory is his garment.⁷Cf. Sanh. 94a. And why did the Holy One, blessed be He, leave their clothes behind? Because they were descendants of Shem, as stated (in Gen. 10:22), “The sons of Shem are Elam, Asshur (Assyria)….” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I am indebted to their father Shem, because he took the garment and covered his father's nakedness, as stated (in Gen. 9:23), “Then Shem and Japheth took the garment… [and they covered their father's nakedness].”⁸Cf. Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:21, which interprets the verse to show that Shem took the lead in this act. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, left their clothes alone and burned [only] their body. This is as it is written (Lev. 6:2), “that (i.e. the person who exalts himself) is the one which ascends (ha'oleh) upon the burning place.” And so too Nebuchadnezzar exalted (rt.: 'lh) himself and said (in Is. 14:14), “I will ascend (rt.: 'lh) upon the heights of a cloud; I will become like the Most High (rt.: 'lh).” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Upon your life, was it not enough that you said in your heart (in vs. 13), “I will ascend (rt.: 'lh) to the heavens; above the stars of God I will set my throne,” but that you should say (in vs. 14), “I will ascend (rt.: 'lh) upon the heights of a cloud, I will become like the Most High (rt.: 'lh)?” And so he (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) said to Hananiah and his friends (in Dan. 3:15), “’Now who is the God who shall deliver you out of my hand?’ I have burned His house and exiled His people. He did not stand against me in His house; so will He overcome me in my house?” What did he do? He threw them into the fiery furnace. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He gave a sign to the furnace and it became a highway.⁹PLTYA, from the Gk.: plateia. Buber suggests emending to PLNTYH, from the Gk.: planetes, i.e., “planets.” Whoever was designated to be burned was not burned and whoever was not designated to be burned was burned. So the fire went forth and burned half of the peoples. Thus you find, when they assembled for the dedication of the image, at first there were eight peoples, as stated (in Dan. 3:3), “Then the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates, and all the provincial officials assembled.” That makes eight peoples; but when they came in to see Hananiah and his friends, there were only four peoples written there (in vs. 27), “The satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the royal companions assembled.” So where were [the other] four peoples?] It is simply that (in vs. 22) “the flame of the fire slew them.” Now Nebuchadnezzar also was burned by the fire, and the fright (i.e., repulsiveness) of [a body disfigured by] burning was put upon him.¹⁰For this interpretation, Jastrow, s.v., ‘immus. Why was all of him not burned? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Leave this evil man half of himself so that he may know against Whom he blasphemed.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “O wicked one, did you not say, ‘I do not want to live with the children of Adam, but (in Is. 14:14), “I will ascend (rt.: 'lh) upon the heights of a cloud?”’ By your life, (according to Dan. 4:22) ‘You shall be driven away from humans and your domicile will be with the wild animals outside.’” Just as He brought the plagues upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt, so did He bring [punishment] upon Nebuchadnezzar. It is so stated (in Dan. 3:32), “The signs and wonders which the most high God has worked for me [it seemed good to me to make known].” This fright of [a body disfigured by] burning fell upon him. Therefore it is stated (in Lev. 6:2), “that is the one which ascends (h'lh) upon the burning place.” (Lev. 6.2) “That is the one which ascends upon the burning place.” This is the kingdom of Edom (Rome), which exalted (rt.: 'lh) itself, as stated (in Obad. 1:4), “Though you make [your abode] as high as the eagle, and though [your nest is set] among the stars,” and will be judged by fire, as stated (in Dan. 7:11), “I looked on until the beast was slain and its body destroyed, given over for burning in the fire.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said (in Obad. 1:18), “The House of Jacob shall be fire, and the House of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau shall be straw; [… for the Lord has spoken].” And what did he say? Through Moses (in Lev. 6:2), “that is the one which ascends (ha'olah, rt.: 'lh) upon the burning place.” Then after that [Scripture says] (in Obad. 1:21), “Then saviors shall come up on Mount Zion to judge the Mountain of Esau.” Sisera also [was punished by fire] because he blasphemed. Thus it is written about him (in Jud. 4:3), “and he oppressed the Children of Israel with might,” [i.e.] with blasphemies and invectives.¹¹See M. Ps. 2:1, which derives this interpretation of WITH MIGHT (rt.: HZQ) from Mal. 3:13: YOUR WORDS HAVE BEEN MIGHTY (rt.: HZQ) AGAINST ME. See also below, 9:7. He was therefore punished by fire, as stated (in Jud. 5:20), “The stars fought from the heavens; from their courses they fought with Sisera.”¹²See Pes. 118b, according to which the stars descended and heated the iron implements in Sisera’s army. And in the world to come, when the Holy One, blessed be He, comes to exact retribution from Esau, what [will] Esau do? Wrapped in a prayer shawl like an elder, he comes and takes his seat beside Jacob. It is so stated, (in Obad. 1:4), “and though your nest is set among the stars.” Stars can only mean Israel, since it is stated (in Gen. 15:5), “look toward the heavens and count the stars …; so shall your seed be.” Jacob says to him, “My brother ('hy), you shall not be like me.” Thus it is stated (in Hos. 13:14), “my brother ('hy),¹³The unemended reading below, given in braces, shows that the midrash is reading the he in ‘HY as a het, so that the WHERE of the Masoretic Text cited here is to be interpreted as MY BROTHER. your words¹⁴Devarekha. YOUR WORDS is the translation required by the midrash. In the biblical context devarekha should be rendered, YOUR PLAGUES. are death; my brother ('hy), your descent (qtb) is to Sheol.”¹⁵A traditional translation of the line would read: WHERE IS YOUR PESTILENCE, O SHEOL? Your words are decrees which you decreed over me. You decreed two-edged decrees against me, that I should serve idols. If I had done so, I would have been condemned to death at the hands of Heaven; and if I had not served them, you would have killed me. Ergo (in Hos. 13:14), “my brother, your words are death.” (Ibid., cont.) “My brother ('hy), your descent (qtb) is to Sheol.” [Qtb] is a Hellenistic¹⁶From the Gk. adverb: Hellenisti. word, meaning to descend to Sheol.¹⁷Thus QTB is understood as coming from the Greek, kataba, an aorist imperative meaning, “descend.” When Esau descends to Sheol, Jacob will remain by himself. It is therefore stated (in Zech. 13:8), “And it shall come to pass throughout all the land, says the Lord, that two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die, but one-third shall remain in it.” Now the one-third can only be Israel, since it is stated (in Is. 19:24), “Israel shall be a third.” So Israel – because they made themselves despised and lowly, as stated (Malachi 2:9), “And I also made you despised and lowly” – are avenged and redeemed by fire; as stated (in Zech. 2:9), “And I Myself, says the Lord, will be a wall of fire around it (i.e., around Jerusalem).” When Esau departs from the world, the Holy One, blessed be He, and Israel remain, as stated (in Cant. 6:9), “[Only] one is my dove, my perfect one.” It also says (in Deut. 32:12), “The Lord alone did lead him, and there was no foreign God with Him.”

(Lev. 9:1) “And it came to pass on the eighth day….” This text is related (to Ps. 75:5), “I say to the merrymakers, ‘Do not make merry….’” What is the meaning of [the words], “I say to the merrymakers (rt.: hll), ‘do not make merry (rt.: hll)?’”⁴This root can also mean “act with abandon” and is to be taken in that sense here. For another interpretation of the word, see Lev. R. 20:2. [The verse refers] to whoever sings in a mahanaim dance (mahol),⁵As in Cant. 7:1 [6:13]. In comparing these two words, the midrash assumes that both words come from the root HLL and ignores the fact that in the first case the H is a he while in the second case the H is a het. and so it says (in Jud. 21:21), “to dance (lehol) in the dances.” [Because no happiness endures for a mortal] (Ps. 75:5), “I say to the merrymakers, ‘Do not make merry (rt.: hll).’” Why? The one who is happy today shall not be happy tomorrow; and the one who is depressed today shall not be depressed tomorrow. And so it says (in Eccl. 2:2), “Of laughter I said, ‘It is mad (rt.: hll)….’”⁶Cf. PRK 26:2–3. Are you willing to understand? As behold, even the happiness of the Holy One, blessed be He, did not endure. When? When the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world. He was very happy, as stated (in Ps. 104:31), “the Lord shall be happy in His works.” It also says (in Gen. 1:31), “Then God saw everything which He had made; and behold, it was very good.” [These verses are] to teach you that the Holy One, blessed be He, found pleasure in and took pride in His works. Then He gave the first Adam an easy commandment, but he did not fulfill it. Immediately He rendered him a verdict⁷Gk.: apophasis. [of death], as stated (in Gen. 3:19), “for dust you are, and unto dust you shall return.” So He, as it were, did not remain in His happiness but said, “I created everything only for the human, and now he dies. What pleasure is there for Me? [Now surely if the Holy One, blessed be He,] did not remain [happy], how much the less shall people [remain happy! It is therefore stated (in Ps. 75:5), “I say to the merrymakers, ‘do not make merry.’”] How happy Abraham was! He was blessed in the world, magnified, slew some kings and handed over heaven and earth to the Holy One, blessed be He. Also when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him a son at age one hundred, he circumcised him and reared him. Then finally he was told (in Gen. 22:2), “Please take your son, your only son…, [and go unto the land of Moriah,] and offer him there as a burnt offering.” So he made a three-day journey, as stated (in Gen. 22:4), “On the third day….” When he returned from Mount Moriah, he buried Sarah. He did not find a place to bury her until he bought one for four hundred silver shekels. Then after that, old age came upon him. Now surely if such was the case with Abraham the righteous, how much the more is it the case with the wicked! Isaac did not remain in his happiness: He escaped from the sword and from the men of Gerar. And [God] informed them about who he was, so that they came to him. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 26:26, 28), “Then Abimelech came unto him from Gerar […. And they said, ‘We have clearly seen that the Lord is with you.’]” But he did not remain in his happiness. Rather (according to Gen. 27:1), “Now it came to pass, that when Isaac was old and his eyes were too weak to see.” So just as [this loss of happiness] happened in the case of Isaac the burnt offering of the Holy One, blessed be He, (according to Gen. 22:2), how much the more does it happen in the case of the wicked! Jacob was the first-born of the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated (in Exod. 4:22), “Israel is My first-born son.” How happy he was! He saw a ladder, and (according to Gen. 28:12-13) “the angels of god were ascending and descending [….] And behold, the Lord stood upon it and said, I am the Lord….” Then he went to Laban, fled from Esau, became Laban's servant for twenty years and in the end became wealthy, sired children and returned in peace. He also met Esau and was saved from him, and paid his vow. But in the end he did not remain in his happiness. Instead (according to Gen. 34:1), “Now Dinah [the daughter whom Leah had borne to Jacob] went out…,” and was raped]. There also came upon him the trouble over Joseph. Now surely if Jacob the righteous – one to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, had said, “In whom I will be glorified,” as stated (in Is. 49:3), “Israel, in whom I will be glorified” – did not remain in his happiness, how much the less will the wicked [so remain! It is therefore stated (in Ps. 75:5), “I say to the merrymakers, ‘Do not make merry.’”] How happy Joshua was! He slew thirty-one kings, gave Israel the land to possess, and distributed it. In addition all Israel gave him a [helping] hand and said (in Josh. 1:18), “Anyone who disobeys your command… [shall be put to death.” Such an honor was] something of which [even] Moses our master did not merit. Still he (i.e., Joshua) did not remain in his happiness, but rather died childless. It is therefore stated (in Ps. 75:5), “I say to the merrymakers, ‘Do not make merry.’” How happy Eli was, when he was king, chief justice, and high priest! It is so stated (in I Sam. 1:9), “now Eli [the priest] was sitting on the throne by the doorpost of the Temple of the Lord.” “Now Eli the priest was sitting on the throne,” because he was king. [He was] “by the doorpost of the Temple of the Lord,” because he was chief justice. Still he did not remain in his happiness. Instead (according to I Sam. 4:18), “And it came to pass that when he (i.e., a messenger) mentioned the ark of God, he (i.e., Eli) fell backward from off the throne….” Moreover, his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas died. So just as this [shift in fortune] happened with Eli the righteous, how much the more [does it happen with] the wicked! You find neither man nor woman who saw joys like Elisheba bat Amminadab, [the wife of Aaron, as stated (in Exod. 6:23), “And Aaron took for a wife Elisheba bat Amminadab”].⁸PRK 26:2; Zev. 102a; Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 6:2. She saw her husband become high priest serving in the high priesthood and [as a] prophet. In addition, Moses, her husband's brother, was king and prophet. Moreover, her sons were deputies [to the high priest] in the priesthood, and her brother Nahshon was head of all of the princes of Israel.⁹According to Numb. 10:13, Nahshon was in command of the troops of Judah, and the troops of Judah headed those of the other tribes. See also Numb. 2:3; I Chron. 2:10. Still she did not remain in her happiness. Rather, when two of her sons went in to offer a sacrifice, (according to Lev. 10:2,) “Fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed them, so that they died before the Lord.” It is therefore stated (in Ps. 75:5), “I say to the merrymakers, ‘Do not make merry.’” And so Solomon said (in Eccl. 2:2), “Of laughter I said, ‘It is mad.’” There is a story about one of the great Babylonian [scholars], who married off his son,¹⁰PRK 26:2; Lev. R. 20:2. and made a great banquet for the sages. He said to his son, “Go up and bring us a jar of such and such a wine from the attic.” He went up to the attic. [There] a snake [from] among the jars bit him, and he died. His father remained with those who were reclining [at his table]. So he delayed and did not come. [Finally,] his father said, “Let me go up and see what my son is doing.” His father went up [and] found him cast down dead among the jars. What did that saint do? He waited by himself until the guests had eaten and drunk sufficiently. When they had finished, he said, “You came to say a bridegrooms' blessing over my son. [But instead] say a mourners' blessing over him. You came to bring my son to the wedding canopy. [Instead] bring him to [his] grave.” They said about R. Zakkay of Kabul and they opened about him (in the words of Eccl. 2:2), “Of laughter I said, ‘It is mad; and what does joy do?’”

Question:¹⁶This section is taken virtually verbatim from the Aramaic text of the She’eltot of Ahai of Shabha (d. ca. 762), Mattot, 137. Are those of the House of Israel obligated to abstain from anything unclean, as stated (in Lev. 20:25), “So you shall make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean...?” Now it is not a question of something unclean that is forbidden, but even of [the utensils by which something unclean has been cooked]. As it is forbidden for Israel to cook with them, until each and every piece has been purged, as stated (in Numb. 31:23), “Each thing that will withstand the fire [you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean].” The spits and the grills¹⁷Gk.: escharai. which gentiles have used are not permitted until they have come into the fire, as we are taught (in 'AZ 5:12), “In the case of a skewer and a grill, one makes them white hot in the fire.” For how long does one make them white hot? Until their scaling drops off.¹⁸‘AZ 76a. In the case of pots, kettles (qumqemasin),¹⁹Lat.: cucumae; Gk.: koukkoumai. Variants of this Greek word also occur in the neut. and masc. and heating vessels which you use for boiling, one must purge them with boiling water.²⁰See ‘AZ 75a. Moreover, although in the case of kettles (qumqemasin) it is not customarily to cook in one, sometimes when one does not find the [proper] vessel, it happens that one does cook in them. In the case of a pot into which the head of a free-flying sparrow cannot enter, one need not purge it, as stated (in 'AZ 38b), “When [concerning] the date solids of gentiles, if they are heated in a large pot, they are forbidden. [But when heated] in a small pot, they are permitted. And which pot is small? Any into which the head of a free-flying sparrow cannot enter.” But how does one cleanse them with hot water?²¹‘AZ 76a. One puts a small pot within a large pot. And what about a large pot? [One treats it] like that caldron which belonged to Rav 'Uqba. He made a rim of dough for it, filled it with water, and boiled it.²²According to ‘AZ 76b, the rim of dough built up the mouth of the pot, so that the boiling water would overflow the top and leave no part uncleansed. Boiling water would flow over the top and leave no part uncleansed. Also in the case of a spoon, it is necessary to place it inside of a caldron, and it is purged. In the case of plates, one uses them as a second utensil (a utensil in which food is served, and not one in which it is cooked). If one has taken water from a caldron and poured it over them, it is considered sufficient; but although one has purged them, it is necessary to [also] immerse them in water. It has been taught,²³In ‘AZ 75b. “And they all need immersion in a forty-se'ah ritual bath (miqwah).” And then an Israelite may use them again. Where are these things shown? Rabba said, “Where scripture has said (in Numb. 31:23), ‘Each thing that will withstand the fire you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean. However, it shall be purified with the waters of purification….’²⁴I.e., in a ritual bath. The text has added another cleansing.” Moreover, ‘Bar Qappara has taught, “It is implied by that which is stated (ibid.), ‘however, it shall be purified with the waters of purification,’ that I would infer that sprinkling was needed on the third and seventh day.²⁵According to Numb. 19:12, 19, this is the requirement for one who has been defiled by a corpse. Hence [to prevent that inference], Scripture²⁶Literally: “Talmud.” The word occurs here in the generic sense of a text from which one learns. says (ibid.), ‘and it shall be clean.’ If so, what does the text mean by ‘the waters of purification (which is also the word for a menstruant)?’ Waters in which the menstruant immerses. And how much [is that]? Forty se'ah.” Rav Nahman said that Rabbah bar Abbuha said, “Even new vessels which one acquires from the [gentile] smith need immersion; old [ones], when one makes them white hot, are like new ones, and they need immersion nonetheless. Rav Sheshet raised an objection for him, “If that is so, even an unspecified ‘implement’ also?”²⁷‘AZ 75b is more specific, and objects that under the Nahman/Abbuha ruling, even scissors, would require immersion. Rabba said to him, “Vessels for eating are the ones being spoken of in the parashah, since it is written (in Numb. 31:23), ‘Each thing that will withstand (literally: come into) the fire….’” Rav Isaac bar Joseph [bought] a certain vessel [made] of fresh ordure.²⁸Mirdeta. The word normally denotes dung but here seems to refer to a kind of clay. He planned to immerse it. One of the masters named R. Jacob said, “So did R. Johanan say, ‘Vessels of metal are the ones being spoken of in the parashah, since it is so stated (in Numb. 31:22), “Surely the gold and the silver.”’ But these are new vessels of ordure. New ones need no immersion. Old ones are not purgeable, as we find in the case of the sin offering (according to Lev. 6:21), ‘But an earthen vessel in which it (the sin offering) was boiled shall be broken.’” However, it is necessary to [ask about] these plates with a glaze,²⁹Qonya; cf. the Gk.: konia (“dust”). which are used with boiling leavened foods. Is there a purging for them or not? For while they were earthen vessels originally, one coated them with glaze. [Is it that] that glaze seal is a shield, so that the clay does not absorb, because glaze is [like] metal, and purging is sufficient for it. Or if there is no shield, the clay does absorb [impurities], and there is no remedy for it. Come, hear what they asked Meremar concerning leaven on Passover.³⁰Pes. 30b; ‘AZ 33b-34a. In the case of glazed vessels, is there any purging for them, and is it permitted to use them on Passover or not? When there are cracks in them, we certainly have no question that this does absorb [impurities] where the cracks are. [In the case of] green [glaze], there is certainly no question for us [about its absorption] because it (the glaze) contains alum; while a white or black [glaze certainly does present us with a question]. What is [the law]? He said to them, “We saw with them, that [when they put hot water in them, their outside surfaces] sweat. From this you may infer that they are absorbent. They are therefore comparable to common earthen vessels.” These words [only apply] with reference to leaven during Passover and with reference to usage by gentiles when (the vessels) would be used with boiling [liquids]. With reference to libation wine,³¹I.e., wine handled by a heathen and which may have been used for an idolatrous libation. however, and leaven on Passover when [the vessels] would be used with what is cold, a green glaze is forbidden because it contains alum. As for black and white [glazes, if] there are cracks in it, it is forbidden; if there are no cracks in it, it sufficient with a mere dabbling. It is comparable to a vessel of metal, for it is established for us as a law (halakhah) like [the statement of] Rav Zevid. As Rav Zevid said, “Those vessels with a white or black glaze are permitted; green ones are forbidden. Also if there are cracks in them, they are all forbidden.” And this is the law (halakhah).

Question:¹⁷This section is taken virtually verbatim from the Aramaic text of the She’eltot of Ahai of Shabha (d. ca. 762), Mattot, 137. The section is also found in Tanh., Numb. 6:2. Are those of the house of Israel obligated to abstain from anything unclean, as stated (in Lev. 20:25): SO YOU SHALL MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CLEAN ANIMAL AND THE UNCLEAN, ALSO BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN BIRD AND THE CLEAN? Now it is not a question of [something] unclean that is forbidden, but even of <the> utensils by which something unclean has been cooked. It is forbidden for Israel to cook with them, until each and every piece has been purged, as stated (in Numb. 31:23): EVERY[THING] THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE FIRE [YOU SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN]. For example, the spits and the grills¹⁸Gk.: escharai. which star worshipers have used are not permitted, until thay have come into the fire, as we are taught (in 'AZ 5:12): IN THE CASE OF A SKEWER AND A GRILL, ONE MAKES THEM WHITE HOT IN THE FIRE. For how long does one make them white hot? [R. Mani says:] Until their scaling drops off.¹⁹‘AZ 76a. In the case of pots, kettles (qumqemasin),²⁰Lat.: cucumae; Gk.: koukkoumai. Variants of this Greek word also occur in the neut. and masc. and heating vessels which you use for boiling,²¹RWTH. The final he in this word is certainly a misprint. I have therefore emended Buber’s he to a het, which generally agrees with the het of the parallel texts in the traditional Tanhuma (RTWH) and in the She’eltot (RWTHYN). one must purge them by the flame through boiling.²²See ‘AZ 75a. Moreover, although in the case of kettles (qumqemasin) it is not customarily to cook in one, sometimes when one does not find the <proper> vessel, one does cook in them accidentally. In the case of a pot into which the head of a free-flying sparrow cannot enter, one need not purge it, as stated (in 'AZ 38b. [bar.]): When <concerning> the date solids of star worshipers {i.e., refuse of dates from which they have made beer and which they mix with hot water}, if they are heated in a large pot, <the pot> is forbidden. <When heated> in a small pot, it is permitted. And which pot is small? [R. Jannay said:] Any into which the head of a free-flying sparrow cannot enter. But how does one cleanse them with hot water?²³‘AZ 76a. [R. Huna said:] One puts a small pot within a large pot. And what about a large pot? <One treats it> like a caldron which belonged to {Mar} [Rav] 'Uqba. He made a rim of dough for it, filled it with water, and boiled it.²⁴According to ‘AZ 76b, the rim of dough built up the mouth of the pot, so that the boiling water would overflow the top and leave no part uncleansed. boiling water would overflow the top and leave no part uncleansed. Also in the case of a spoon, it is necessary to place it inside of a caldron, and it is purged. In the case of plates, one uses them in a second utensil. If one has taken <water>²⁵The bracketed word is found the parallel from the traditional Tanhuma. from a caldron and poured it over them, it is considered all right; but although one has purged them, it is necessary to immerse them in the stream. It has been taught:²⁶In ‘AZ 75b (bar.) And they all need immersion in a forty-se'ah ritual bath (miqwah) for Israel to use them again. Where are these things shown? Rabba said: Where Scripture has said (in Numb. 31:23): EVERY [THING] THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE FIRE YOU SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE PURIFIED IN THE WATERS OF MENSTRUAL PURIFICATION….²⁷I.e., in a ritual bath. The text has added another cleansing. Moreover, Bar Qappara has taught: It is stated by implication (ibid.): HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE PURIFIED IN THE WATERS OF MENSTRUAL PURIFICATION. I might infer that this <immersion> was needed on the third and {fourth} [seventh] day.²⁸According to Numb. 19:12, 19, this is the requirement for one who has been defiled by a corpse. The Scripture²⁹Literally: “Talmud.” The word occurs here in the generic sense of a text from which one learns. says (ibid.): AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. If so, what does the text mean by THE WATERS OF MENSTRUAL PURIFICATION? Waters in which the menstruant immerses. And how much [is that]? Forty se'ah. Rav Nahman said: Rabbah bar Abbuha said: Even new vessels which one acquires in the market from a star worshiper need immersion, [since] old [ones], when one makes them white hot, are like new ones. Even so, they need immersion. Rav Sheshet raised an objection for him: Even if that is so, "implement" is undefined.³⁰‘AZ 75b is more specific, and objects that under the Nahman/Abbuha ruling, even scissors, would require immersion. Rabba said: Vessels for eating are the ones being spoken of in the parashah, since it is written (in Numb. 31:23): EVERY [THING] THAT WILL WITHSTAND (literally: COME INTO) THE FIRE…. {And so} Rav Isaac bar Joseph [bought] a certain vessel <made> of fresh ordure.³¹Mirdeta. The word normally denotes dung but here seems to refer to a kind of clay. He planned to immerse it. One of the masters named R. Jacob said to him: Thus did R. Johanan say: Vessels of metal are the ones being spoken of in the parashah, since it is so stated (in Numb. 31:22): SURELY THE GOLD AND THE SILVER. < … > But these are new vessels of clay. New ones need no immersion. Old ones are not purgeable, as we find in the case of the sin offering (according to Lev. 6:21 [28]): BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL IN WHICH IT (the sin offering) WAS BOILED SHALL BE BROKEN.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:2 [9]): 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. Therefore, it is called BURNT OFFERING ('olah, rt.: 'LH), because it ascends ('olah) to the Holy One, who is < the > Most High (rt.: 'LH).

Another interpretation (of Eccl. 7:7): FOR OPPRESSION (rt.: 'SQ) MAKES <A WISE ONE> FOOLISH,… <In regard to> everyday affairs (rt.: 'SQ), when Solomon was engaged (rt.: 'SQ) in matters in which he did not have to <engage>, they led him astray, as stated (in I Kings 11:4): FOR IT CAME TO PASS IN SOLOMON'S OLD AGE [THAT HIS WIVES LED HIS HEART ASTRAY AFTER OTHER GODS]. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: <It would have been> better for him if he had cleaned sewers, so that this verse would not be written about him. And what were the words? (Prov. 30:1:) THE WORDS OF AGUR BEN JAKEH OF MASSA: [THUS SAYS THE MAN TO ITHIEL, TO ITHIEL AND UCAL (ukhal).] Why is his name called AGUR (rt.: 'GR)? Because he gathered ('GR) the Torah. <Why> BEN (BYN)? Because he understood (rt.: BYN) it. <Why> JAKEH (YQ')? Because he regurgitated (rt.: YQ') it up. What is the meaning of TO ITHIEL (itti'el)?¹⁰The name means: “God is with me.” Cf. Tanh., Exod. 2:5, which adds here: “Thus he said: God is with me (itti’el), and I shall overcome (ukhal) <temptation>.” What the Holy One wrote in his Torah (in Deut. 17:17): HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY WIVES FOR HIMSELF, <was written there> so that {HE WOULD NOT GO ASTRAY WITH HIS HEART} [HIS HEART WOULD NOT GO ASTRAY].¹¹ySanh. 2:6 (20c); Eccl. R. 2:2:3. Solomon said: I will multiply them and not be afraid. Thus his heart went astray. R. Joshua ben Levi said: A yod (the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, equivalent to Y or J in English) went up and fell down before the Holy One.¹²Exod. R. 6:1; Lev. R. 19:2; Cant. R. 5:11:3. It said to him: Sovereign of the World, have you had a single letter written in your Torah for nothing? R. Simeon ben Johay said: The book of Mishneh Torah (i.e., Deuteronomy) went up before the Holy One. He said to him: Sovereign of the World, here is Solomon wanting to pluck out a yod which you have written in me. <It is written> (in Deut. 17:16–17): {HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY WIVES FOR HIMSELF.} HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY (YRBH) HORSES FOR HIMSELF <….> [HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY (YRBH) WIVES FOR HIMSELF] <…;> NOR SHALL HE GREATLY MULTIPLY (YRBH) SILVER AND GOLD FOR HIMSELF. He did multiply (RBH)¹³The negative, third-person imperative here adds the prefix yod (= Y). When the verb becomes a simple past tense telling what Solomon actually did, the yod is dropped. Thus by breaking each commandment about multiplying for himself, the king plucked out a yod from the Deuteronomic commandment. horses for himself.¹⁴Below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 6:2, and the note there. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in I Kings 5:6): NOW SOLOMON HAD FORTY THOUSAND STALLS OF HORSES. He did multiply wives (RBH) for himself. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in I Kings 11:3): SO HE HAD SEVEN HUNDRED ROYAL WIVES <AND THREE HUNDRED CONCUBINES; AND HIS WIVES LED HIS HEART ASTRAY >. He did multiply silver and gold for himself. It is so stated (in I Kings 10:27): AND THE KING MADE SILVER <IN JERUSALEM AS PLENTIFUL AS STONES >. The Holy One said to him: By your life, Solomon and a hundred like him have passed away, but not one letter <of my book> has passed away.¹⁵See Matthew 5:17–18. And what caused Solomon to come to this point? Being busy (rt.: 'SQ), for he was engaged (rt.: 'SQ) in matters in which he did not have to <engage>. Ergo (in Eccl. 7:7): FOR OPPRESSION (rt.: 'SQ) MAKES <A WISE ONE> FOOLISH. Now you should mention, not only Solomon, but even Moses at the time that he went to Pharaoh. What is written (in Exod. 5:1)? AFTERWARDS, MOSES AND AARON CAME <AND SAID UNTO PHARAOH >….¹⁶According to the last verses of Exod. 4, Moses was engaged in assembling the elders of Israel before he went to Pharaoh. R. Hiyya b. R. Abba said: It was ambassador¹⁷Gk.: presbeutes. day for Pharaoh,¹⁸Exod. R. 5:14. and all the kings were coming to crown him because he was the cosmocrator¹⁹A Latin adaption of the Gk.: kosmokrator, a title of the Roman emperor. of the world {i.e., powerful one}. Now Moses and Aaron were standing at the palace²⁰Lat.: Palatium. gate. They came in to Pharaoh. They said to him: Two elders are standing at your palace gate. He said to them: Are there crowns in their hands? They told him: No. He said to them: Let them enter last. They came in to Pharaoh. He said to them: What do you want? They said to him (in Exod. 7:16, cf. 5:3): THE LORD GOD OF THE HEBREWS SENT US UNTO YOU; and he said to us, as stated (ibid., cont.): LET MY PEOPLE GO THAT THEY MAY {CELEBRATE A FESTIVAL TO ME} [WORSHIP ME] IN THE DESERT. He said to them (in Exod. 5:2): WHO IS THE LORD THAT I SHOULD HEED HIS VOICE, when he did not know <enough> to send me a crown of his. Rather he comes unto me with <mere> words. So (in Exod. 5:2) WHO IS THE LORD THAT I SHOULD HEED HIS VOICE?

"he is Mine": What is the intent of this? It is written (Devarim 15:19) "the male shall you sanctify to the L rd your G d." (How am I to understand this?) As sanctify it so that you receive reward, or if you sanctify it, it is sanctified, and, if not, it is not sanctified? It is, therefore, written "he is Mine" — in any event. What is the intent, then, of "the male shall you sanctify"? Sanctify it (i.e., dedicate it to the L rd) for the sake of receiving reward. Similarly, (Leviticus 6:5) "And the Cohein shall burn wood upon it every morning, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not written (Isaiah 40:16) "and (the whole forest of Levanon is not sufficient to burn, etc."? What, then, is the intent of "And the Cohein shall burn wood upon it"? For the sake of receiving reward. Similarly, (Numbers 28:4) "the one lamb shall you offer, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not written (Isaiah, Ibid.) "nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt-offering"? What, then, is the intent of "The one lamb, etc."? For the sake of receiving reward. Similarly, (Exodus 25:8) "and they shall make for Me a sanctuary, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not written (Jeremiah 23:24) "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" What, then, is the intent of "And they shall make for Me a sanctuary"? For the sake of receiving reward for making it. Once, the disciples spent a Sabbath in Yavneh, R. Yehoshua not among them. When they returned to him he asked them: "What novelty did you hear in Yavneh?" They answered: "After you, our master" (i.e., there is no one to do so after you). R. Yehoshua: "Who spent the Sabbath there?" They: "R. Elazar b. Azaryah." R. Yehoshua: "Is it possible that R. Elazar b. Azaryah spent the Sabbath there without telling you something novel?" They: He expounded this principle (Devarim 31:12) "Gather the people — the men, the women, and the children." Now do little children know the difference between good and evil? But (He did so) in order to bestow reward upon their bringers, to increase the reward of the doers of His will, as it is written (Isaiah 42:21) "The L rd desires for the sake of His righteousness to magnify Torah and to exalt it." At this, he said to them: "What can be more novel than this? I am seventy years old, and I never merited hearing such a thing until this day! Happy are you, father Abraham, from whose loins Elazar b. Azaryah emerged! The generation is not an orphan in whose midst R. Elazar b. Azaryah resides!" They: Our master, he also expounded this principle: (Jeremiah 23:7) "Therefore, behold, days are coming, says the L rd, when it will no more be said: 'As the L rd lives, who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, etc.'" To what may this be compared? A man desired children and had a daughter — whereupon (when he made a vow) he vowed upon her life. Thereafter, he had a son, and (in vowing) he left off (vowing by) his daughter and vowed upon the life of his son. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: To what may this be compared? A man was journeying and was accosted by a wolf, from which he was rescued — whereupon he would (always) talk about his encounter with the wolf. He was later accosted by a lion, from which he was rescued — whereupon he left off talking about his encounter with the wolf and spoke about his encounter with the lion. Similarly, (Genesis 29:19) "And he called the name of the place Beth-El." The first name was superseded by the second. Similarly, (Ibid. 17:5) "And your name will no longer be called Avram." The first name was superseded by the second. Similarly, (Ibid. 15) "Sarai, your wife, etc." The first name was superseded by the second. (Ibid. 32:28) "Your name will no longer be called Yaakov but Yisrael." The first name remained and the second was superadded. The name of Yitzchak was not changed, for he was thus (originally) called by the Holy One Blessed be He. There are three who were named by the Holy One Blessed be He — Yitzchak, Shlomoh, and Yoshiyahu. Yitzchak — (Ibid. 17:19) "But Sarah your wife will bear a son for you and you shall call his name Yitzchak." Shlomoh (I Chronicles 22:9) "for Shlomoh will be his name." Yoshiyahu (I Kings 13:2) "A son will be born to the house of David. Yoshiyahu will be his name." Others say: Also Yishmael among the gentiles. We find the names of righteous ones and their deeds to be revealed to the L rd before their creation, viz. (Jeremiah 1:5) "Before I created you in the womb, I knew you." Where do we find (the same for) the names of wicked ones? It is written (Psalms 58:4) "The wicked are estranged from the womb, etc."

2) "for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies" — to permit the (remainders of the) meal-offerings of Israelite men. Now why should I (think to) exclude them (Israelite men, that I need a verse to include them)? It is written (Bamidbar 15:13): "All the native-born (men) shall do thus with these, to offer a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd." (Is the intent of the verse that) if he wishes to bring (libations [independent of the offering]) he may do so? Or (is its intent) that (the remainder of the) meal-offerings of (native-born) Israelite men be offered upon the fire (and not be eaten by the Cohanim, [the verse to be rendered: "All the native-born (men) shall do thus (as they do with the libation meal-offering) with these (gift meal-offerings), to offer (the remainder as) a fire-offering, etc."])? And how would I understand "And what is left from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons"? As referring to (the meal-offerings) of proselytes, women, and bondsmen (and not to those of native-born Israelite men); it is, therefore, written: "for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies" — to permit the (remainders of) meal-offerings of Israelite men (to be eaten by Cohanim).

2) "Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings": They are permitted to take of it only what is left over from the fire (i.e., they are not permitted to apportion the meal-offering among themselves until after consigning the fistful to the fire. This tells me only of this instance. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings, (that they are not to be apportioned until their devoted portions have been burned)? From "It is holy of holies." I might think that what has become unfit must also be apportioned; it is, therefore, written ("Their portion have I given) it" — one that is fit, and not one that is unfit. I might think that if it were apportioned (before the burning of the fistful) it becomes unfit; it is, therefore, written "it (is holy of holies") — it remains in its state of holiness.

2) "his sons": These are ordinary Cohanim. But perhaps they are the high-priests, (who are like him in the high-priesthood). "The priest that is anointed in his place from among his sons shall offer it" (Vayikra 6:15) already refers to the high-priest. How, then, am I to understand "his sons" (here)? As referring to ordinary priests.

2) But why not go in this direction: This requires oil and a gift meal-offering requires oil. Just as a gift meal-offering requires one log for the issaron, this, too, requires one log for the issaron!

2) "his sons": These are ordinary Cohanim. But perhaps they are the high-priests, (who are like him in the high-priesthood). "The priest that is anointed in his place from among his sons shall offer it" (Vayikra 6:15) already refers to the high-priest. How, then, am I to understand "his sons" (here)? As referring to ordinary priests.

2) "… from his sons shall offer it": We are hereby taught that his son takes precedence to all others. I might think that this is so even when he cannot fill his father's place (in wisdom and in fear of Heaven). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 16:32): "… who shall fill his place": When he is qualified to fill his father's place, he takes precedence to all others. If he is not qualified to do so, let another come and serve in his stead.

2) And (Vayikra 6:18): ("This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall) the sin-offering be slaughtered" is meant to include the idolatry sin-offering (of the individual), which is a sin-offering that is fixed, atones, comes from the flock, and comes for a known sin — though not a male (but a she-goat). Or, the Yom Kippur goat, which is a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atones, and comes from the flock — though not for a known sin. Since they are equally weighted, let them both be included.

2) I would think that the sin-offering of a bird, (that is "pinched") also requires washing (of the blood on the garment, it also being called a "sin-offering"); it is, therefore, written "This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered" (by shechitah) and not by "pinching" (melikah). "In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before the L–rd.": This is to include every sin-offering for shechitah in the north (of the altar) only. R. Eliezer says: From here we derive that a fixed burnt-offering is to be slaughtered only in the north. "it is holy of holies.": This is to include communal peace-offerings (the Atzereth sheep) for shechitah in the north only. "it is holy of holies": to exclude the thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite, (which are lower-order) offerings (from shechitah in the north).

2) The tvul yom: If not (i.e., if you do not give me of the meal-offering), give me to eat of the sin-offering. The Cohein: Now, if in a place where I am "weak," in my meal-offering, I have pushed you away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, then in a place where I am strong, in my sin-offering, does it not follow that I should push you away from the sin-offering of an Israelite! The tvul yom: No, if you have pushed me away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, it is because I am "weak" in my own meal-offering. Would you then push me away from the sin-offering of an Israelite, when I am strong in my own sin-offering? The Cohein (Vayikra 6:19): "The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it." Come, sacrifice a sin-offering (when you are clean), and eat!

2) R. Yossi Haglili says: From (Shemoth 29:37): "All that touches the altar shall become consecrated," I would think that both things fit for the altar and things unfit for the altar are herein subsumed; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 29:38): "And this is what you shall offer upon the altar: lambs, etc.": Just as lambs are fit for the altar, (so all thus fit are included) — to exclude that which is not fit.

2) "of its blood": and not of the blood of holy of holies, (such as the blood of communal peace-offerings or of guilt-offerings. If it were sprinkled on a garment, it does not require washing.) For would it not follow a fortiori (that it does require washing), viz.: If inner sin-offerings, which are not similar to outer sin-offerings in (requiring) scouring and rinsing (of vessels in which they are cooked), are similar to them in (requiring) washing, then holy of holies, which are similar to outer sin-offerings in (requiring) scouring and rinsing, does it not follow that they should be similar to them in (requiring) washing! It is, therefore, (to negate this,) necessary to write "of its blood." "of its blood": and not of its broth (If its broth sprinkled on a garment, it does not require rinsing.) For would it not follow a fortiori (that it does require washing), viz.: If blood, which does not require scouring and rinsing (of vessels), requires washing (of garments), then broth, which does require scouring and rinsing, should it not follow that it requires washing! It is, therefore, (to negate this,) necessary to write "of its blood" and not of its broth.

2) "and if in a copper vessel": This tells me only of a copper vessel. Whence do I derive for inclusion all other metals? From "and if in a copper vessel." "it is cooked": This teaches us that it could have been cooked in repeatedly, and, in the end, scoured and rinsed. This tells me (in this regard) only of a copper vessel. Whence do I derive the same for an earthenware vessel? From "(an earthenware vessel) shall be broken. And if in a copper vessel it is cooked" (implying that in this regard what applies to a copper vessel applies to an earthenware vessel.) R. Tarfon says: If he cooked in it at the beginning of the festival, he can continue cooking in it the entire festival. And the sages say: Until the time of eating. "it shall be scoured and rinsed": Scouring, in the manner of scouring the (grace) cup (from within). Rinsing, in the manner of rinsing the cup (on the outside). Scouring and rinsing, with cold water (after haga'alah, removal of what has been absorbed, by boiling water). A spit and a grate can be cleansed by haga'alah (and do not require libun ["firing"]).

2) "whereof any of its blood is brought": even part of its blood — whence it was ruled: A sin-offering whose blood was received in two cups — If one of them went outside (the azarah), the inner one is kasher, (the blood applications may be made, and the offering is valid). If one of them went within (the sanctuary), R. Yossi Haglili rules the offering fit with the (application of) the outer blood, and the sages rule it unfit. R. Yossi Haglili said: Now, if in a place where a thought (i.e., where one thought at the time of slaughtering the animal to scatter its blood outside), (that thought of) the outside renders the offering unfit — and yet the outside blood does not render the inside blood unfit — then a place where a thought (i.e., where one thought at the time of slaughtering the animal to apply inside (the sanctuary) the blood that is to be applied outside), (that thought of) the inside does not render the offering unfit — does it not follow that the inner blood should not invalidate the outer blood! They said to him: It is written "of its blood" — even part of its blood (invalidates the offering if it is brought within).

2) R. Shimon says: From "bad" I already know that the four garments (of the high-priest) are subsumed, it being written (Vayikra 16:32): "And he (the high-priest) shall put on the linen garments, the holy garments." If so, why is "middo bad" needed? For kemidatho ("fit to size").

2) Whence did they (oil and frankincense) leave (the general ruling, that they must be reincluded)? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1): "and he shall pour oil upon it and he shall put frankincense upon it … (Vayikra 2:3) and what is left from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons," I might think that only meal-offerings whose remainders are eaten (by the Cohanim) require oil and frankincense, but those which are not eaten, do not. Therefore, it is written "the law of the meal-offering" — There is one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:2 [9]): COMMAND AARON…. What is the function of Aaron here?⁷Tanh., Lev. 2:2. Israel was bringing offerings while Aaron waited. So the Scripture says here: COMMAND AARON. Note also, it is written (in Numb. 28:2): COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND SAY UNTO THEM: MY OFFERING, MY BREAD FOR MY FIRE OFFERING < … YOU SHALL TAKE HEED TO OFFER ME IN ITS DUE SEASON >, but here it says (in Lev. 6:2 [9]): COMMAND AARON < … >: THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE ONE WHO ASCENDS (H'LH).⁸The masoretic text vocalizes this word as ha’olah, which means, THE BURNT OFFERING, but the midrash interprets the word as though it were vocalized ha’oleh, which means, “The one who ascends,” with the ascending implying self-exaltation. So also Lev. R. 7:6. The Holy One said: Whenever someone raises (rt.: 'LH) himself up, his end is to go in the fire.⁹M.Ps. 11:5. [It is so stated (in Lev. 6:2 [9], cont.):] THAT IS THE ONE WHICH ASCENDS UPON THE BURNING PLACE…. The generation of the flood < suffered > because of what they said (in Job 21:15): WHAT IS THE ALMIGHTY THAT WE SHOULD SERVE HIM? AND WHAT DO WE PROFIT WHEN WE PRAY TO HIM? For that reason they were sentenced to the fire (of Gehinnom). And likewise the Sodomites, as stated (in Gen. 19:24): THEN THE LORD RAINED DOWN UPON SODOM AND UPON GOMORRAH BRIMSTONE AND FIRE. When Pharaoh said (in Exod. 5:2): WHO IS THE LORD, [THAT I SHOULD HEED HIS VOICE]? he exalted (rt.: 'LH) himself and said (in Ezek. 29:3): THE NILE IS MY OWN AND I MADE MYSELF. < He is > therefore (in the words of Lev. 6:2 [9]) UPON THE BURNING PLACE, for so it says (in Ps. 18:14 [13]): THE LORD THUNDERED {FROM HEAVEN} [IN THE HEAVENS], AND THE MOST HIGH GAVE FORTH HIS VOICE, HAIL AND COALS OF FIRE. And also when Sennacherib exalted (rt.: 'LH) himself and said (in II Kings 19:23 = Is. 37:24): IT IS I WHO HAVE ASCENDED (rt.: 'LH) THE MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS TO THE REMOTEST PARTS OF LEBANON…, what happened to him? (II Kings 19:35:) THE ANGEL OF THE LORD WENT OUT AND SMOTE < ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THOUSAND > IN THE CAMP OF ASSYRIA…. (According to II Kings 19:23: cf. 18:17–35) he had blasphemed through a messenger (mal'akh);¹⁰The parallel in Is. 37:24 reads “servant” instead of “messenger.” therefore (in II Kings 19:35 = Is. 37:36 // II Chron. 32:21:) THE ANGEL (mal'akh) OF THE LORD WENT OUT AND SMOTE < ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THOUSAND > IN THE CAMP OF ASSYRIA. What did he do to him? (Is. 10:16): AND UNDER HIS GLORY THERE SHALL BURN A BURNING LIKE THE BURNING OF FIRE. What is the meaning of UNDER HIS GLORY? That it burned him from within and left alone his clothes on the outside, since a person's glory is his garment.¹¹Cf. Sanh. 94a. Why did the Holy One leave their clothes behind? Because they were descendants of Shem, as stated (in Gen. 10:22): THE SONS OF SHEM ARE ELAM, ASSHUR,…. The Holy One said: I am indebted to their father Shem, because he took the garment and covered his father's nakedness, as stated (in Gen. 9:23): THEN SHEM AND JAPHETH TOOK A GARMENT…, < AND THEY COVERED THEIR FATHER'S NAKEDNESS >.¹²Cf. Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:21, which interprets the verse to show that Shem took the lead in this act. Therefore, the Holy One left their clothes alone and burned < only > their body. (Lev. 6:2 [9]:) THAT (i.e. the person who exalts himself) IS THE ONE WHICH ASCENDS (ha'oleh) UPON THE BURNING PLACE…. And so < it was in the case of > [Nebuchadnezzar, < who > he exalted (rt.: 'LH) himself. He said (in Is. 14:14): I WILL ASCEND (rt.: 'LH) UPON THE HEIGHTS OF A CLOUD; I WILL BECOME LIKE THE MOST HIGH (rt.: 'LH). The Holy One said to him: O wicked one, was it not enough that you should say (in vs. 13): I WILL ASCEND (rt.: 'LH) < TO THE HEAVENS >; ABOVE THE STARS OF GOD I WILL SET MY THRONE, but that you should say (in vs. 14): I WILL ASCEND (rt.: 'LH) UPON THE HEIGHTS OF A CLOUD, on high (rt.: 'LH)? And so he (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) said to Hananiah and his friends (in Dan. 3:15): {WHO IS} [NOW WHO IS] THE GOD WHO SHALL DELIVER YOU OUT OF MY HAND? I have burned his house and exiled his people. He did not stand against me in his house; so will he overcome me in my house? What did he do? He threw them into the fiery furnace. What did the Holy One do? He gave a sign to the furnace and it became a highway.¹³PLTYA, from the Gk.: plateia. Buber suggests emending to PLNTYH, from the Gk.: planetes, i.e., “planets”. Whoever was designated to be burned [was not burned and whoever was not designated to be burned] was burned. So the fire went forth and burned half of the peoples. Thus you find, when they assembled for the dedication of the image, at first there were eight peoples, as stated (in Dan. 3:3): THEN THE SATRAPS, THE PREFECTS, AND THE GOVERNORS, THE COUNSELORS, THE TREASURERS, THE JUDGES, THE MAGISTRATES, AND ALL THE PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS ASSEMBLED. That makes eight peoples; but when they came in to see Hananiah and his friends, there were only four peoples written there (in vs. 27): THE SATRAPS, THE PREFECTS, THE GOVERNORS, AND THE ROYAL COMPANIONS ASSEMBLED. {That makes four peoples.} [So where were four peoples?] It is simply that (in vs. 22) THE FLAME OF THE FIRE SLEW THEM. Now Nebuchadnezzar also was burned by the fire, and the fright (i.e., repulsiveness) of < a body disfigured by > burning was put upon him.¹⁴For this interpretation, Jastrow, s.v., ‘immus. Why was all of him not burned? The Holy One said: Leave this evil man half of himself so that he may know against whom he blasphemed. The Holy One said to him: O Wicked One, did you not say: I do not want to live with the children of Adam, but (in Is. 14:14): I WILL ASCEND (rt.: 'LH) UPON THE HEIGHTS OF A CLOUD? [By your life,] (according to Dan. 4:22 [25]) YOU SHALL BE DRIVEN AWAY FROM HUMANS. Just as he brought the plagues upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt, so he brought < punishment > upon Nebuchadnezzar. It is so stated (in Dan. 3:32 [4:2]): THE SIGNS AND WONDERS WHICH THE MOST HIGH GOD HAS WORKED FOR ME IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME TO MAKE KNOWN. This fright of < a body disfigured by > burning fell upon him. Therefore it is stated (in Lev. 6:2 [9]): THAT IS THE ONE WHICH ASCENDS (H'LH) UPON THE BURNING PLACE….

(Lev. 16:1:) NOW THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH < OF AARON'S TWO SONS >. This text is related (to Ps. 75:5 [4]): I SAY TO THE MERRYMAKERS (la-holelim): DO NOT MAKE MERRY…. < La-holelim means > "to those who create confusion (la-ma'arbavya')."¹⁴Tanh., Lev. 6:2; PRK 26(27):3; Lev. R. 20:2. These are the ones whose heart is full of evil intrigues (holhaliyot).¹⁵Although the main text reads holhaliyot, Buber cites the word in his notes as the more traditional halholiyot. In either case, whatever the spelling, the midrash interprets holelim and holhaliyot as coming from the same root. R. Levi called them "Woe-makers."¹⁶Dehonayya’ [zehonayya’]. The word seems coined as a pun on “merrymakers” (holelim). See Jastrow, p. 373, s.v., WYNY’. These are the < MERRYMAKERS (holelim) > who bring woe (alelay) into the world. (Ps. 75:5 [4], cont.:) TO THE WICKED, DO NOT LIFT UP THE HORN. The righteous have not been happy in my world, so would you seek to be happy in my world? [The first Adam was not happy in my world, so would you seek to be happy in my world?] R. Levi said in the name of R. Simeon [ben Menasya]: The round of the first Adam's heel outshone¹⁷Literally: Made dim < by comparison >. the sphere of the sun.¹⁸PRK 4:4; 12:1; 26(27):3; PR 14:10; as well as Tanh., Lev. 6:2; Lev. R. 20:2. [And do not be surprised at this. According to universal custom, when a person makes two small plates,¹⁹Gk.: diskarion. one for himself and one for his household, whose does he make the more beautiful? Is it not his own? So the first Adam was created for the service of the Holy One, but the sphere of the sun was created for the service of mortals. Is it not all the more certain that the round of the first Adam's heel outshone the sphere of the sun?] Now if the round of Adam's heel outshone < it >, how much the more < must > the countenance²⁰Gk.: charakter; or possibly krystallos; Lat. crystallum. of his face < have outshone it >. R. Levi said in the name of R. Hama bar Hanina: The Holy One set up thirteen canopies for the first Adam in the Garden of Eden, as stated (in Ezek. 28:13): YOU WERE IN EDEN, THE GARDEN OF GOD, EVERY PRECIOUS STONE WAS YOUR COVERING. Then after all this glory, < he was told > (in Gen. 3:19): FOR DUST YOU ARE AND UNTO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN. Abraham was not happy in my world, so would you seek to be happy in my world? Abraham had a son born to him at the end of a hundred years. Then the Holy One said to him (in Gen. 22:2): PLEASE TAKE YOUR SON, YOUR ONLY SON. So he journeyed, as written (in vs. 4): AND ON THE THIRD DAY [ABRAHAM LIFTED HIS EYES] AND SAW. What did he see? He saw a cloud joined to the mountain. He said to his son: My son, what do you see?²¹See above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 4:46, and the note there. He said to him: I see a beautiful mountain with a cloud joined to it. He said to his lads: Do you see anything? They said to him: We see a mountain and a hill. He said to them (in vs. 5): STAY HERE WITH ('M) THE DONKEY, < i.e., STAY HERE, YOU > PEOPLE ('M) WHO ARE LIKE THE DONKEY.²²So Yev. 62a; Ket. 111a; Qid. 104a; BQ 49a; Nid. 17a; Eccl. R. 9:7:1; PRE 31. See also Gen. R. 56:2; PR 40:6. He took his son Isaac and went up to the top of the mountain. Then he built the altar, arranged the wood, bound him upon the altar, and took the knife. If the Angel had not said to him (in vs. 12): DO NOT RAISE [YOUR HAND AGAINST THE LAD], he would have already been slaughtered. When he came to his mother, she said to him: What did your father do to you. He told her: Daddy took me, brought me up mountains, brought me down valleys, brought me up to the top of a particular mountain, and built an altar. So he told the whole story. If the Angel had not said to him (in Gen. 22:12): DO NOT RAISE [YOUR HAND AGAINST THE LAD], I would have already been slaughtered. She said to him: Woe (vay) to you, < my > poor son! If < the angel > had not said to him (in vs. 12): DO NOT RAISE < YOUR HAND >, you would have already been slaughtered! She did not succeed in finishing the sentence before her breath departed from her. It is so stated (in Gen. 23:2): AND ABRAHAM PROCEEDED TO MOURN FOR SARAH AND WEEP FOR HER. From where had he < just > come? He had < just > come from Mount Moriah.²³Eccl. R. 9:7:2.

Variantly: "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings": From (Leviticus 6:6) "A perpetual fire shall burn on the altar," I might think, both on the weekdays and on the Sabbath. And how would I understand (Exodus 31:14) "Those who profane it shall be put to death"? As referring to other labors, other than that of (lighting) the woodpile. (But perhaps, even the woodpile.) And how would I understand (Leviticus 6:4) "It (the woodpile fire) shall not go out"? As referring to weekdays, and not the Sabbath. It is, therefore, written "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings." For your dwellings you do not light it, but you do light it for the Temple (woodpile). One of the disciples of R. Yishmael asked: What is the intent of "You shall not light a fire"? __ From (Devarim 21:21) "And if there be in a man a sin whose judgment is death, then he shall be put to death," I would understand, both on a weekday or on the Sabbath. And how would I understand "Those who profane it shall be put to death"? As referring to other deaths, other than judicial death penalties. __ But perhaps, even judicial death penalties, and how would I understand "then he shall be put to death"? As referring to weekdays, and not on the Sabbath. __ Or perhaps even on the Sabbath … It is, therefore, written "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings." Burning was in the general category (of all the forbidden labors), and it left that category (for specific mention) to teach, viz.: Just as burning, one of the judicial death penalties, does not override the Sabbath, so, all of the judicial death penalties do not override the Sabbath.

Variantly: "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings": From (Leviticus 6:6) "A perpetual fire shall burn on the altar," I might think, both on the weekdays and on the Sabbath. And how would I understand (Exodus 31:14) "Those who profane it shall be put to death"? As referring to other labors, other than that of (lighting) the woodpile. (But perhaps, even the woodpile.) And how would I understand (Leviticus 6:4) "It (the woodpile fire) shall not go out"? As referring to weekdays, and not the Sabbath. It is, therefore, written "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings." For your dwellings you do not light it, but you do light it for the Temple (woodpile). One of the disciples of R. Yishmael asked: What is the intent of "You shall not light a fire"? __ From (Devarim 21:21) "And if there be in a man a sin whose judgment is death, then he shall be put to death," I would understand, both on a weekday or on the Sabbath. And how would I understand "Those who profane it shall be put to death"? As referring to other deaths, other than judicial death penalties. __ But perhaps, even judicial death penalties, and how would I understand "then he shall be put to death"? As referring to weekdays, and not on the Sabbath. __ Or perhaps even on the Sabbath … It is, therefore, written "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings." Burning was in the general category (of all the forbidden labors), and it left that category (for specific mention) to teach, viz.: Just as burning, one of the judicial death penalties, does not override the Sabbath, so, all of the judicial death penalties do not override the Sabbath.

(Fol. 33) Abaye arranged the order of the daily service in the Temple, according to tradition, in agreement with the opinion of Abba Saul. The [first] great arrangements of [wood] preceded the second arrangement of the incense; and the second order of incense preceded the ranging of the two pieces of wood [upon the altar]; and the ranging of the two pieces of wood preceded the removal of the ashes from the inner altar; and the removal of the ashes from the inner altar preceded the dressing of the five lamps [of the candlestick]; and the dressing of the five lamps, preceded the sprinkling of the blood of the regular [morning] offering; and the sprinkling of the blood of the regular [morning] offering preceded the dressing of the two lamps; and the dressing of two lamps preceded the burning of the incense; and the incense preceded the offering of the members (portions) of the sacrifices; and the offering of the members (portions) preceded the meal-offering; and the meal-offering preceded the baked-meal offering; and the baked-meal offering preceded the drink offerings; and the drink offerings preceded the additional offerings (Musaff); and the additional offerings preceded the [two] spoons of frank incense; and the spoons of frank incense preceded the regular evening offering; as it is said (Lev. 6, 5) And he shall lay the burnt offering in order upon it, and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace-offering (Hashlamim) he shall therewith finish all the offerings of the day.

It is written: “From people by Your hand, O Lord, from people from the world [meḥeled ], their portion is in life; Your hidden treasures will fill their bellies; their sons will be satisfied and they will leave their surplus to their young ones” (Psalms 17:14). Rabbi Ḥanina son of Rabbi Aḥa went to a place and found that this verse was at the head of the discussion: “The remnant of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons…” (Leviticus 2:3, 10), and began: “From people by Your hand, O Lord” – how courageous are those who took their portion from under the hand of God; and who was that? It was the tribe of Levi. “From people from the world” – these are those who did take a portion in the land.⁴The midrash is reading “from the world” as removed from the land, i.e. the tribe of Levi, since it did not receive a portion in the Land of Israel. “Their portion is life” – these are the consecrations of the Temple offerings. “Your hidden treasures will fill their bellies” – these are the consecrations of the borders.⁵Consecrations of the borders refers to teruma, the portion of produce allocated to the priests which they may eat anywhere. “…their sons will be satisfied” – “every male among the priests shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:22). “And they will leave their surplus to their young ones” – “and the remnant of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons…” (Leviticus 2:3, 10).

You find neither man nor woman who saw joys like Elisheba bat Amminadab, [the wife of Aaron, as stated (in Exod. 6:23): AND AARON TOOK FOR A WIFE ELISHEBA BAT AMMINADAB.]⁹PRK 26:2; Zev. 102a; below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 6:2. She saw her husband become high priest serving in the high priesthood and prophet. In addition, Moses, her husband's brother, was king and prophet. Moreover, her sons were deputies < to the high priest > in the priesthood, and her brother Nahshon was head of all of the tribes of Israel.¹⁰According to Numb. 10:13, Nahshon was in command of the troops of Judah, and the troops of Judah headed those of the other tribes. See also Numb. 2:3; I Chron. 2:10. Still she did not remain in her happiness. Rather, when two of her sons went in to offer sacrifice, (according to Lev. 10:2) FIRE CAME FORTH FROM BEFORE THE LORD AND CONSUMED THEM, SO THAT THEY DIED BEFORE THE LORD. It is therefore stated (in Ps. 75:5 [4]): I SAY TO THE MERRYMAKERS: DO NOT MAKE MERRY.

3) "shall not be made of leaven": I might think that they (all of the steps in preparing the meal-offering) are subsumed in one negative commandment (against leaven); it is, therefore, written (to negate this [Ibid. 6:10]): "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the general category (of those steps). Why did it leave the category (for special mention)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular, significant act, and subject to liability (for leaven) in and of itself, so, I will include all such acts, like kneading and mixing, for liability in and of themselves.

3) "as the sin-offering": Just a sin-offering comes (only) from what is non-consecrated (chullin, and not from the tithe, ma'aser), and (is offered only) in the daytime, and (its blood is applied only) with his right hand, so this. If so, we should say: Just as a sin-offering not slaughtered for that specific end is unfit, so this, if its fistful is not taken for that specific end, is unfit. It is therefore, (to negate this) written "as the guilt-offering." Just as a guilt-offering not slaughtered for that specific end is fit, this, too, if its fistful is not taken for that specific end is fit.

3) When the Cohein draws near to the service in the beginning (i.e., at his investiture), he brings his tenth part of an ephah and sacrifices it by himself. Both the high-priest and an ordinary priest who served before bringing his tenth of an ephah — their service is invalid.

3) Let us see what it most closely resembles. We derive it from a meal-offering (the libation meal-offering) which is offered always (every day, with the tamid offering) and which overrides Shabbath and tumah, and not from a gift meal-offering, which lacks these factors.

3) Whence is it derived that if the high-priest died and another Cohein had not been anointed in his stead that his meal-offering is offered up by his heirs? From "… from his sons shall offer it." (even if he has not been appointed as high-priest). I might think that they could bring it by halves (as he does). It is, therefore, written "it" — I have spoken of its whole and not of its parts. (All of it is to be sacrificed with the morning tamid.) These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: It is offered only by the congregation, it being written: "a statute olam": It should come from the olam (lit., the world, i.e., the congregation). "all of it shall be smoked": All of it is for smoking (and not parts of it when it is brought by the congregation).

3) "shall they slaughter": Many slaughterers are herein subsumed: even proselytes, even women, even servants. Shechitah (slaughtering) connotes drawing-forth, viz. (I Kings 10:16): "zahav shachut" ("drawn-forth gold"). R. Eliezer says: From here ("they shall slaughter") we derive that a communal burnt-offering (and not only an individual burnt-offering) is slaughtered only in the north.

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.

3) R. Akiva says: From "All that touches the altar shall become consecrated," I would think that both things fit for the altar and things unfit for the altar are herein subsumed; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): ("It is the) burnt-offering." Just as a burnt-offering is fit for the altar, (so all thus fit are included) — to exclude that which is not fit.

3) "upon a garment": If it sprinkled upon part of a garment, I might think the entire garment required washing. It is, therefore, written "that which has been sprinkled upon you shall wash" — the place of the blood requires washing, and not the entire garment.

3) "it shall be scoured and rinsed": I might think that just as "rinsing" elsewhere (Vayikra 15:11) is in forty sa'ah; here, too, it is in forty sa'ah; it is, therefore, written "with water" — any amount; "with water" — and not with wine; "with water" — and not with a dilution (of wine and water); "with water" — all water (and not just "living waters"); and it follows a fortiori that kiyor (laver) water (may be used).

3) He said to them: Now we have an a fortiori argument for blood that goes out (of the azarah)! viz.: If in a place where a thought of bringing the blood inside (the sanctuary) does not render the offering unfit, the blood brought inside (the sanctuary) renders the blood brought outside (it) unfit — then in a place where a thought (of taking the blood) outside (the azarah), renders the offering unfit, does it not follow that blood taken outside (the azarah) should render unfit the inside blood! They said to him: It is written: "(whereof any of its blood is brought) into the tent of meeting (… in fire it shall be burned.") (The blood) that enters (the tent of meeting) renders unfit, and not (the blood) that leaves (the azarah).

3) "and linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh": and not a plaster (intervening) on his flesh. The intent of "linen breeches shall there be upon his flesh," stated elsewhere (Vayikra 16:4) is that nothing is to be put on before the breeches.

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.

[(Lev. 6.2 [9]:) < THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE ONE WHO ASCENDS (h'lh); >¹⁵See above, note 8. THAT IS THE ONE WHICH ASCENDS UPON THE BURNING PLACE.] This is the evil kingdom (of Rome), which exalted (rt.: 'LH) itself, as stated (in Obad., vs. 4): THOUGH YOU MAKE < YOUR ABODE > AS HIGH AS THE EAGLE, AND THOUGH YOUR NEST IS SET AMONG THE STARS, < I WILL BRING YOU DOWN FROM THERE, SAYS THE LORD >. Moreover, it will be judged by fire, as stated (in Dan. 7:11): < I LOOKED ON THEN BECAUSE OF THE SOUND OF THE ARROGANT WORDS WHICH THE HORN UTTERED. > I LOOKED ON UNTIL THE BEAST WAS SLAIN AND ITS BODY DESTROYED, GIVEN OVER FOR BURNING IN THE FIRE. The Holy One said (in Obad., vs. 18): THE HOUSE OF JACOB SHALL BE FIRE, AND THE HOUSE OF JOSEPH A FLAME, < AND THE HOUSE OF ESAU (i.e., Rome) SHALL BE STRAW; THEY SHALL BURN IT AND CONSUME IT >…, FOR {THE MOUTH OF} THE LORD HAS SPOKEN IT. And what did he say through Moses (in Lev. 6:2 [9])? THAT IS THE ONE WHICH ASCENDS (ha'olah, rt.: 'LH) UPON THE BURNING PLACE.] Then after that < Scripture says > (in Obad., vs. 21): THEN SAVIORS SHALL COME UP ON MOUNT ZION TO JUDGE THE MOUNTAIN OF ESAU, AND THE KINGDOM SHALL BELONG TO THE LORD.

[(Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.] R. Judan of Gallia opened (with Job 39:27): IS IT AT YOUR COMMAND THAT THE EAGLE MOUNTS UP AND MAKES ITS NEST ON HIGH? The Holy One said to Aaron: At your command [I had my Divine Presence rest upon the Ark.²⁵Tanh., Lev. 6:3; Lev. R. 20:4; PRK 26(27):4; see PR 47:3. Was it not at your command that I] removed my Divine Presence that was upon the Ark? In the case of the first temple (according to Job 39:28): IT DWELLS AND LODGES ON THE ROCK, < i.e., the Divine Presence was there for > a lodging of one night. In the case of the second temple (referred to in ibid., cont.): ON A ROCKY CRAG²⁶Literally: ROCKY TOOTH. The midrash finds the expression well suited to the spur of rock on the Temple mount. AND A STRONGHOLD, < i.e., the Divine Presence was there for > a lodging of many nights.²⁷The number of nights that the Divine Presence lodged in the two temples is the reverse of what one would expect; however, the Buber text is supported by the unemended, traditional text of Lev. R. 20:4 and in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Job 926. Cf. Tanh., Lev. 4:3, which does affirm that the Divine Presence lodged many nights in the first temple. Moreover, we learn there (in Yoma 5:2): WHEN THE ARK HAD BEEN TAKEN AWAY, THERE WAS A CERTAIN STONE THERE FROM THE DAYS OF THE FORMER PROPHETS,²⁸According to Rav Huna, as cited in Sot. 48b, the former prophets are David, Samuel, and Solomon. AND IT WAS NAMED FOUNDATION. And why was it named Foundation? Because out of it the world was founded.²⁹Yoma 54b (bar.); yYoma 5:4 (42c); TYoma 3:6 (2:14); Numb. R. 12:4; see below, Tanh. (Buber), 7:10; Tanh. 7:10. And how would a high-priest pray on the Day of Atonement?³⁰Cf. yYoma 5:3 (42c). A version of this prayer is part of a long piyyut composed by Rabbi Meshullam ben Kalonymus in the tenth century. It is known either as the Avodah or by its initial words, Amits Koah, and appears as part of the Musaf Service on the Day of Atonement. See P. Birnbaum, The High Holyday Prayer Book (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1951), p. 26. May it be your will, O Lord our God, that this year be one of rain, warmth, and dew, a year of low prices, a year of abundance, a year of grace, a year of blessing, a year of trade, a year when your people Israel are not dependent on each other, a year when [< the people of > Israel] will not be arrogant with each other. Now The Rabbis of Caesarea said: < It was > with reference to our brothers in Caesarea < that the high priest prayed > for them not to be arrogant with each other. But {our Rabbi} but [the Rabbis of the South] say: < It was > with reference to our brothers in the South,³¹The parallel texts in Tanh., Lev. 6:3; Lev. R. 20:4, and PRK 26(27):4 all read, “in Sharon.” Cf. Sot. 8:3; ySot. 8:7 (23a); Sot 44a. lest their houses become their tombs.³²For example, if the houses collaped from heavy rains or were buried in a sandstorm.

4) R. Shimon says: There are of them (meal-offerings) which are like a sin-offering, and there are of them which are like a guilt-offering. The meal-offering of a "sinner" (in defilement of the sanctuary or of sanctified objects) is similar to a sin-offering. Therefore, if its fistful were not taken for the express purpose of that offering, it is unfit. A gift meal-offering is similar to a guilt-offering, so that if its fistful were not taken for the express purpose of that offering it remains fit.

4) "on the day that he is anointed": The high-priest is anointed only in the daytime. "he": Two high-priests are not anointed together. "on the day that he is anointed": From the day that he is anointed he brings the tenth of an ephah, perpetually. But perhaps it means: On that day he brings a tenth of an ephah and stops! It is, therefore, (to negate the latter) written "a meal-offering perpetually." How, then, am I to satisfy "On the day that he is anointed?" On that day he brings a tenth of an ephah (and he does so) perpetually. "the tenth part of an ephah": one-tenth of three sa'im, which is seven quarters and a fraction (equivalent to seven login, one egg, and a fifth of an egg).

4) But why not go in this direction: We derive an individual meal-offering, which comes in its own right (and not as an adjunct to another offering) and which requires frankincense, from an individual (gift-) offering, which comes in its own right and which requires frankincense; and this is not to be refuted by the libation meal-offering, which lacks these factors!

4) (Vayikra 6:16) ("And every meal-offering of a Cohein shall be entirely (smoked); it shall not be eaten.") The meal-offering of a Cohein is not eaten. The meal-offering of the daughter of a Cohein is eaten. This tells me only of his required meal-offering (above, the griddle meal-offering). Whence do I derive the same for his gift meal-offering? From "every meal-offering of a Cohein." This tells me (that he transgresses only if he eats) all of it. Whence do I derive the same for (his eating) part of it? From "shall it be" — even part of it. This tells me only that the above (Vayikra 6:15) (the griddle meal-offering) comes under "it shall be entirely smoked" and that the lower (Vayikra 6:16) (the gift meal-offering comes under "it shall not be eaten" Whence do I derive that the upper (also) comes under "it shall not be eaten" and the lower under "it shall be entirely smoked"? From the identity of "entire" (kalil, in both instances, so that what applies to one applies to the other). R. Eliezer says: "It shall be entirely (kalil) smoked; it shall not be eaten" — "All that comes under kalil" (even a burnt-offering and devoted portions, which are to be entirely consumed) — if he eats them, he transgresses a negative commandment.

4) (Vayikra 6:16) ("And every meal-offering of a Cohein shall be entirely (smoked); it shall not be eaten.") The meal-offering of a Cohein is not eaten. The meal-offering of the daughter of a Cohein is eaten. This tells me only of his required meal-offering (above, the griddle meal-offering). Whence do I derive the same for his gift meal-offering? From "every meal-offering of a Cohein." This tells me (that he transgresses only if he eats) all of it. Whence do I derive the same for (his eating) part of it? From "shall it be" — even part of it. This tells me only that the above (Vayikra 6:15) (the griddle meal-offering) comes under "it shall be entirely smoked" and that the lower (Vayikra 6:16) (the gift meal-offering comes under "it shall not be eaten" Whence do I derive that the upper (also) comes under "it shall not be eaten" and the lower under "it shall be entirely smoked"? From the identity of "entire" (kalil, in both instances, so that what applies to one applies to the other). R. Eliezer says: "It shall be entirely (kalil) smoked; it shall not be eaten" — "All that comes under kalil" (even a burnt-offering and devoted portions, which are to be entirely consumed) — if he eats them, he transgresses a negative commandment.

5) "In a holy place shall it be eaten": I might think, in the Levite encampment. It is, therefore, written "in the court of the tent of meeting." This tells me only of the court of the tent of meeting? Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the chambers built in a non-sanctified area and opening into the sanctuary? It is, therefore, written (to include these): "In a holy place shall it be eaten."

4) R. Yehoshua says: "It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood.": Just as a burnt-offering, which is fit for the fire, once it goes up, does not come down (whether fit or unfit), so all things that are fit for the fire, once they go up, they do not come down.

4) If it sprinkled from its neck onto a garment, I might think it required washing. It is, therefore, written "And what shall be sprinkled (upon it) of its blood … you shall wash in a holy place": (blood from) a place (i.e., a ministering vessel) from which it is kasher to sprinkle upon it requires washing, and (blood from a place, i.e., the neck,) from which it is not kasher to sprinkle upon it does not require washing.

4) (Vayikra 6:22) ("Every male among the Cohanim may eat it; it is holy of holies.") I might think that even (the utensils of an offering that became) unfit (for the altar) required scouring and rinsing; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Every male among the Cohanim may eat it." Only (the vessels of) a fit one, (which may be eaten,) require scouring and rinsing, and not (those of) an unfit one. R. Yaakov says: If it had a time of fitness and became unfit, scouring and rinsing (of the vessels) is required. If not, it is not required. R. Shimon says: Even if it had a time of fitness and became unfit, scouring and rinsing are not required.

4) "to the tent of meeting": This tells me only of the tent of meeting. Whence do I derive that the same applies in Shiloh and in the Temple? From "to make atonement in the holy place." If one went in (with the blood) to make atonement, even if he did not make atonement, it becomes unfit. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer said: It is written here "to make atonement in the holy place," and elsewhere (Vayikra 16:17): ("And no man shall be in the tent of meeting when he (Aaron) comes) to make atonement in the holy place." Just as there ("to make atonement" implies) that he has not (yet) made atonement, here, too, (the implication is) that he has not yet made atonement. R. Shimon says: It is written here "to make atonement in the holy place," and elsewhere (Vayikra 16:27) ("And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought) to make atonement in the holy place (… and they shall burn in fire, etc.") Just as there ("to make atonement" implies) that he has already made atonement, (for burning comes after atonement), here, too, (the implication is) that atonement has already been made, (the blood having been applied to the altar, but his entering alone does not make the blood unfit.) And if he brought it in unwittingly, it remains kasher, (even if he made atonement on the altar).

4) (Vayikra 6:3): ("And he shall lift up the ashes from the fire consuming the burnt-offering upon the altar") I might think (that this refers to the ashes of) the wood; it is, therefore, written "burnt-offering." If "burnt-offering," I might think (that this refers to) the limbs of the burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written "from the fire consuming" (lit., "that the fire shall consume"). How is this effected? He scoops out the inner coals (i.e., the wholly consumed portions), and goes down. ("and he shall place them beside the altar"): "and he shall place": gently; "and he shall place them": all of them; "and he shall place them": that they not scatter. "beside the altar": close to the altar. Whence is it derived that the limbs and fat-pieces that had not been consumed since the evening are removed to the sides of the altar, and if the sides cannot contain them they are arranged on the sovev (the gallery around the altar) or on the ramp until the wood pile is arranged, when they are returned to it? From: "that the fire shall consume the burnt-offering upon the altar."

4) And when it is written in respect to the ashes (Vayikra 6:4): "outside the camp," let this not be stated, for it is already written (here): "to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out." If so, why is "outside the camp" written? To add a third camp.

4) "The sons of Aaron shall bring it near" — one that is fit, and not one that has become unfit; "it" — all of it at the same time. "the sons of Aaron" — and not the daughters of Aaron (they may not present their own meal-offerings). "before the L–rd": I might think, in the west (of the altar, before the sanctuary); it is, therefore, written "in front of the altar." If "in front of the altar," I would think the south, (where the ramp is). It is, therefore, written "before the L–rd." On which side, then, is it presented? At the southwest corner (at the point of the horn).

4) (Vayikra 10:12) "and eat it unleavened": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it has already been stated, viz. Vayikra 6:9). Because it is a communal meal-offering, and was prescribed only for that time, and not for succeeding generations, it had to be stated "and eat it unleavened."

[(Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.] {R. Isaac} [R. Ahawa] bar Ze'era said: (Job 37:1:) AT THIS ALSO MY HEART TREMBLES AND LEAPS FROM ITS PLACE. What is the meaning of AND LEAPS?³⁶Tanh., Lev. 6:4; PRK 26(27):5; Lev. R. 20:5. "Jumps," as < Scripture > says (in Lev. 11:21): < WHICH HAVE KNEES ABOVE THEIR FEET > WITH WHICH TO JUMP UPON THE EARTH. Moreover, we translate < the word > > "to jump" (in the Targum Onqelos of Lev. 11:21). When Titus the Wicked entered the Holy of Holies and {sawed} [cut] < open > the curtain,³⁷So Sifre, Deut. 32:38; (328); Git. 56b; Gen. R. 10:7; Lev. R. 22:3; Eccl. R. 5:8:4; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2:82; Ant. 20.250; plus the parallels mentioned above. Cf. Exod. R. 51:5, according to which Hadrian committed the sacrilegious act, and M. Pss. 121:3, according to which it was Titus’ nephew. Cf. also Mark 25:38 // Matthew 37:51 // Luke 23:45. he entered in peace and came out in peace; but the sons of Aaron entered to offer sacrifice and came out destroyed by fire. [It is so stated (in Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.

(Lev. 16:1:) “After the death of Aaron's two sons.” R. Berekhyah opened (his discourse with Prov. 17:26), “To punish also the righteous is not good; to smite the noble ones for uprightness.”³⁵Lev. R. 20:6; PRK 26(27):6/7. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “Although I punished Aaron (for the golden calf) by taking his two children from him, it is not good. It was only (according to ibid., cont.) “to smite the noble ones for uprightness.”³⁶Perhaps either because they themselves had sinned or in order to sanctify the Divine Name, since (according to Lev. 10:3) Aaron accepted their deaths in silence. See Enoch Zundel in his commentary on Tanh., Lev. 6:5.

… it is written there “Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You…” (Melachim I 8:27) and here it is written “…the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle.” (Shemot 40:35) R’ Yehoshua of Sachnin said in the name of R’ Levi ‘to what is this likened? To an open cave at the edge of the sea. When the sea storms the cave is filled, but the sea is not reduced. So too, even though it is written that ‘the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle’ the upper and lower worlds did not lose anything of the brilliance of the glory of the Holy One, just as it is written “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth? says the Lord.” (Yirmiyahu 23:24) Therefore it is written here ‘And it was’. Just as the Divine Presence was here below at the beginning of the creation of the world but withdrew to above, now it returned to be below as it had been “And it was that on the day that Moses finished…” (Bamidbar 7:1) ... [Another explanation. “And it was that on the day that Moses finished erecting the Mishkan…” (Numbers 7:1)] R’ Simon said: at the time when the Holy One told Israel to erect the Tabernacle, He hinted that when the Tabernacle below is erected, the Tabernacle above is erected, as it says “And it was that on the day that Moses finished…” (ibid.) It does not say ‘erecting the Tabernacle’ but rather ‘erecting this (et) the Tabernacle.’ This refers to the Tabernacle above. The Holy One said: in this world, when the Tabernacle was erected, I commanded Aharon and his sons that they bless you. In the time to come I, in my glory, will bless you. So it is written “May the Lord bless you from Zion, He Who made heaven and earth.” (Psalms 134:3)

(Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF < AARON'S TWO SONS >. R. Berekhyah opened (with Prov. 17:26): TO PUNISH ALSO THE RIGHTEOUS IS NOT GOOD.³⁸Tanh., Lev. 6:5; Lev. R. 20:6; PRK 26(27):6/7. Although the Holy One punished Aaron (for the golden calf) by taking his two children from him, it IS NOT GOOD. It was only (according to ibid., cont.) TO SMITE THE NOBLE ONES FOR UPRIGHTNESS.³⁹Perhaps either because they themselves had sinned or in order to sanctify the Divine Name, since (according to Lev. 10:3) Aaron accepted their deaths in silence. See Enoch Zundel in his commentary on the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 6:5. This is what is written (in Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF < AARON'S TWO SONS >….

R. Jonah of Bozrah and the rabbis disagreed concerning the meaning of this verse. The rabbis maintained that it refers to Aaron. Because of the word this (in the preceding verse) he was humbled, as it is said: And I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf (Exod. 32:24), and because of the word this he was exalted, as is said: This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons (Lev. 6:13). R.Jonah, however, was of the opinion that this verse refers to Israel: With the word this they debased themselves, and with the word this they exalted themselves. With the word this they debased themselves in saying: As for this man Moses (Exod. 32:1), and with the word this they exalted themselves, as it is said: This they shall give (ibid. 30:13). Scripture states elsewhere: Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people (Prov. 14:34). R. Joshua said: Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people is indicated by the fact that when Israel sinned, the nations of the world turned against them and enslaved them.

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

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

5) "meal" (soleth): Just as the soleth mentioned elsewhere (Shemoth 29:2) is wheat, so the soleth mentioned here is wheat. "a meal-offering": like all meal-offerings, requiring a fistful. "perpetual": even in a state of tumah, even on the Sabbath.

5) R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Berokah says: "Minchah tamid" here (Vayikra 6:13) is like minchath temidim (the libation meal-offering). Just as with the minchath temidim, three logs for the issaron, here, too, three logs for the issaron. R. Shimon says: Oil is added for the griddle meal-offering (of the high-priest, here) and oil is added for the meal-offering of (i.e., accompanying) sheep, (the libation meal-offering). Just as with the sheep meal-offering, three logs for the issaron, here, too, three logs for the issaron. But why not go in this direction: Oil is added for the griddle meal-offering and oil is added for the ram meal-offering (Bamidbar 15:6). Just as with the ram meal-offering, two logs for one issaron; here, too, two logs for one issaron! Let us see what it most closely resembles. We derive a meal-offering (the high-priest's offering), all of which is one issaron, from a meal-offering (the libation meal-offering), all of which is one issaron, and not from the ram meal-offering, all of which is not one issaron, (but two).

5) "beside the altar": and not in the sanctuary, and not on top of the altar. This tells me only of this (the meal-offering). Whence do we derive for inclusion (all) holy of holies? From: ("for it is) holy of holies." "it" (above) and "it" (Vayikra 6:13) ("And you shall eat it") and "it" (Vayikra 6:13) ("and the portion of your sons is it") are (three) terms of exclusion — to exclude (from being eaten beside the altar): the thanksgiving offering and its bread, the ram of the Nazirite and its bread, the miluim ram and its bread, (which may be eaten in all of Jerusalem).

5) R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Berokah says: "Minchah tamid" here (Vayikra 6:13) is like minchath temidim (the libation meal-offering). Just as with the minchath temidim, three logs for the issaron, here, too, three logs for the issaron. R. Shimon says: Oil is added for the griddle meal-offering (of the high-priest, here) and oil is added for the meal-offering of (i.e., accompanying) sheep, (the libation meal-offering). Just as with the sheep meal-offering, three logs for the issaron, here, too, three logs for the issaron. But why not go in this direction: Oil is added for the griddle meal-offering and oil is added for the ram meal-offering (Bamidbar 15:6). Just as with the ram meal-offering, two logs for one issaron; here, too, two logs for one issaron! Let us see what it most closely resembles. We derive a meal-offering (the high-priest's offering), all of which is one issaron, from a meal-offering (the libation meal-offering), all of which is one issaron, and not from the ram meal-offering, all of which is not one issaron, (but two).

5) R. Gamliel says: "It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar": Just as a burnt-offering, which is fit for the altar, once it goes up, does not come down, so all things that are fit for the altar, once they go up, they do not come down.

6) (Vayikra 6:20): "All that touches its flesh shall be sanctified" (see Section 2, Chapter 3:6)

5) If (the blood) sprang from the hand of the sprinkler (onto the garment) before he sprinkled (it on the altar horn), it requires washing. If after he sprinkled, it does not require washing, (for the blood that was left on his finger after sprinkling on the altar horn is not fit for sprinkling.) If it spilled from the vessel onto the floor and he gathered it up and then it sprang upon the garment, it requires washing, (for the blood was still fit for sprinkling). (If it sprang) from the animal's neck onto the floor and was gathered up (and then sprang upon the garment), it does not require washing, (it not being fit for sprinkling, not having been received in the ministering vessel). (If it sprang) from the horn and from the base (of the altar), it does not require washing, (it being written "what shall be sprinkled," and not what was already sprinkled).

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

5) "in the holy place … in fire shall it be burned.": We are hereby taught that it is burned in a holy place (the azarah). This tells me only of this (sin-offering) alone. Whence is it derived that the same applies for invalidated higher order offerings and for the devoted portions of lower order offerings? From "And all … in the holy place … in fire shall it be burned."

5) (Vayikra 10:18): "Behold, its blood was not brought within the sanctuary.": He had said to them: Perhaps some of its blood entered within (the sanctuary). For if the blood of an "outer" sin-offering enters within, it becomes unfit (viz. Vayikra 6:23). R. Yossi Haglili says: This tells us that if the blood of a sin-offering entered the holy of holies (kodesh kadashim) it becomes unfit. This tells me only of the holy of holies. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sanctuary? From "within the sanctuary (kodesh)."

5) Whence is it derived that (fire-hardened) limbs that sprang off the fire before midnight must be returned and that they are subject to me'ilah (their mitzvah not yet having been performed)? From "that the fire shall consume the burnt-offering upon the altar."

5. R. Eliezer says: I might think that he could present it (either) at the south of the horn or at the west. — This cannot be said! If there are two verses, one satisfying itself and satisfying the other, and one satisfying itself but nullifying the other, we choose the former and negate the latter. If you say "before the L–rd" at the west, you have nullified "in front of the altar" at the south; and if you say "in front of the altar" at the south, you have satisfied "before the L–rd" at the west. At which side, then, is it presented? At the south of the horn. (Vayikra 6:8) ("And he shall lift up from it with his fistful from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering; and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, a sweet savor, a remembrance to the L–rd.") "And he shall lift up from it": from what is all joined together, that he not bring one issaron (a tenth of an ephah) in two vessels. "with his fistful": that he not make a vessel for the fistful. "from the fine flour of the meal-offering": and not from the fine flour of its neighbor, (i.e., he should not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel so that they become intermixed and the fistful is taken from both). "and from its oil": and not from the oil of its neighbor — that he not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel. "from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense": (Even though it is not taken with the fistful), frankincense must be in the vessel when it is taken. "and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering and he shall cause it to smoke": He picks out the frankincense and brings it up on the fire.

5. R. Eliezer says: I might think that he could present it (either) at the south of the horn or at the west. — This cannot be said! If there are two verses, one satisfying itself and satisfying the other, and one satisfying itself but nullifying the other, we choose the former and negate the latter. If you say "before the L–rd" at the west, you have nullified "in front of the altar" at the south; and if you say "in front of the altar" at the south, you have satisfied "before the L–rd" at the west. At which side, then, is it presented? At the south of the horn. (Vayikra 6:8) ("And he shall lift up from it with his fistful from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering; and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, a sweet savor, a remembrance to the L–rd.") "And he shall lift up from it": from what is all joined together, that he not bring one issaron (a tenth of an ephah) in two vessels. "with his fistful": that he not make a vessel for the fistful. "from the fine flour of the meal-offering": and not from the fine flour of its neighbor, (i.e., he should not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel so that they become intermixed and the fistful is taken from both). "and from its oil": and not from the oil of its neighbor — that he not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel. "from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense": (Even though it is not taken with the fistful), frankincense must be in the vessel when it is taken. "and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering and he shall cause it to smoke": He picks out the frankincense and brings it up on the fire.

(Lev. 16:1:) “After the death of Aaron's two sons.” It was taught in a baraita in the name of R. Eliezer:³⁷In y‘Eruv. 6:1 (31c); yGit. 1:2 (39c); ‘Eruv. 63b. Nadab and Abihu died only because they had taught halakhah in the presence of their master, Moses.³⁸Lev. R. 20:7; PRK 26(27):6/7; yShevi. 6:1 (36c); yGit. 1:2 (43c). There is a story about a disciple that taught halakhah before his master. So his colleague said to his wife, Mamma Shalom, “This man will not live out the year.” And indeed he did not live out the year. His disciples said to him, “O our master, are you a prophet?” He said to them (in the words of Amos 7:14), “’I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.’ Rather this was handed down to me from my masters, ‘Whoever teaches halakhah in the presence of his master is under sentence of death.’” According to a baraita a disciple is forbidden to teach halakhah in the presence of his master until he is twelve mil³⁹Lat.: mille, i.e., a “thousand” paces. away from him, [a distance] corresponding to the [extent of] the camp of Israel.⁴⁰Lev. R. 20:7. This is what is written (in Numb. 33:49), “They encamped by the Jordan from Beth-Jeshimoth as far as Abel-Shittim.” R. Nahum bar Jeremiah was in [Hefer]. They would ask him, and he would teach. They said to him, “Rabbi, have we not learned thus: A student is forbidden to teach halakhah in the presence of his master until he is twelve mil away from him, [a distance] corresponding to the camp of Israel? And your master, R. Mani, dwells in Sepphoris.” He said to them, “Surely if I had known [of his presence], I would not have taught.” From that time on he did not teach [there]. In four places [Scripture] mentions the death of Aaron's sons,⁴¹In Lev. 10:2-3; 16:1; Numb. 3:4; 26:61. and it also mentions their transgression. And why all this?⁴²PRK 26(27):8; Lev. R. 20:8; Numb. R. 2:24. To inform you that they had only this sin on their hands. R. Eleazar of Modim said, “Go out and see how grievous the death of Aaron's sons was for the Holy One, blessed be He; for in every place that [Scripture] mentions their death, it mentions their transgression. And why all this? So as not to give those who come into the world a pretext for saying, ‘Disgraceful acts were secretly done by them, because of which they died.’” Bar Qappara said in the name of R. Jeremiah bar Eleazar, “Aaron's sons died because of four things: For the drawing near, for the sacrificing, for alien fire, and for not taking advice from each other.⁴³Numb. R. 2:23. For drawing near, in that they entered the innermost sanctuary. For the sacrificing, in that they offered a sacrifice, which they had not been commanded [to offer]. For alien fire, in that they had brought fire from a cookhouse (instead of from off the altar). And for not taking advice from each other.” R. Mani of Sha'av and R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Aaron's sons died because of four things, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with all of them.⁴⁴PRK 26 (27):9; Lev. R. 20:9. Because they entered without washing hands and feet, and it says (in Exod. 30:20), ‘When they come unto the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water lest they die.’ Because they entered while lacking [the proper priestly] clothes, and it says (in Exod. 28:43), ‘And they shall be upon Aaron and his sons in their coming to the tent of meeting….’” And what did they lack? R. Levi said, “They were lacking a robe, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with [that lack], where it is stated (in Exod. 28:35), ‘And it (the robe with golden bells and pomegranates) shall be upon Aaron for officiating, so that the sound of it shall be heard, [when he comes into the sanctuary]… [lest he die].’” “And because they had no children, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with [that lack], where it is stated (in Numb. 3:4), ‘But Nadab and Abihu died…; and they had no children.’ Because they entered and had drunk wine, and it says (in Lev. 10:9), ‘Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor… lest you die.’” Abba Hanin says, “Because they had no wives, and it is recorded (in Lev. 16:6), ‘and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household.’” R. Levi said, “They had a lot of arrogance and were saying, ‘Which woman is worthy of us?’⁴⁵Lev. R. 20:10; below, Lev. 6:13. A lot of women were remaining unmarried and waiting for them. But they were saying, ‘Our father’s brother is king, our father is high priest, our mother's brother is prince, [and] we are deputy high priests. Which woman is worthy of us?’” R. Menahama [said] in the name of R. Joshua bar Hanina, “[It is] about them [that] it says (in Ps. 78:63), ‘Fire devoured their young men, and their maidens had no nuptial song.’ Why had fire devoured their young men? Because of their maidens, who had no nuptial song.” And moreover, [their arrogance may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Exod. 24:1), “Then He said unto Moses, ‘Go up unto the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu.’” This teaches that Moses and Aaron walked first, while Nadab and Abihu came after them; but still they were saying, “When will these two old men die, and we shall assume authority over the community in their place?”⁴⁶See below, Lev. 6:13. R. Judan said in the name of R. Ayyevu, “They said it to each other with their mouths, they said it in front of [Moshe and Aharon].” R. Pinhas said, “They pondered it in their hearts.” R. Berekhyah said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them (in Prov. 27:1), ‘Do not boast of tomorrow, since you do not know what will be born today’; a lot of colts have died, and their skins have been made into coverings for their mothers’ backs.” And in addition [their transgression may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Exod. 24:11), “But He (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) still did not raise His hand against the nobles of the Children of Israel.” From here [it follows] that they deserved to have a hand raised [against them]. R. Hosha'ya said, “Did cellaria⁴⁷The word is Latin. (i.e., provisions) go up with them to Sinai, since it says (ibid., cont.), ‘they beheld God, [and they ate and drank]?’ It is simply that they feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence. [Hence they were] like someone who beholds his colleague in the midst of eating and drinking.” R. Johanan said, “[There was] actual eating [and drinking], since it is written (in Prov. 16:15), ‘In the light of the king's face there is life; His favor is like a rain cloud in spring.’” R. Tanhuma said, “[Exod. 24:11] teaches that they became bold in their hearts and stood on their feet, [while] they feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence.” R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Moses did not feast his eyes on the Divine Presence, as stated (in Exod. 3:6), ‘Moses hid his face….’ In reward for (Exodus 3:6, cont.) ‘and he feared,’ he merited (Exod. 34:30), ‘and they feared to approach him’; in reward for (Exodus 3:6, cont.) ‘from gazing,’ he merited (Numbers 12:8) ‘and he gazed [at] the picture of the Lord’; in reward for ‘Moses hid his face,’ he merited (Exod. 34:30), ‘and behold, his skin of his face shone.‘ But Nadav and Avihu feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence, but did not benefit from the Divine Presence.” And in addition, [the boldness of Aaron's sons may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Numb. 3:4), “But Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord […].” R. Johanan, said, “Was it before the Lord that they died? [The verse] simply teaches that it is grievous for the Omnipresent when children of righteous people pass away during their [parents'] lifetime.” R. Nahman asked in front of R. Pinhas bar Hama beRabbi Simon, “Here (Numb. 3:40), ‘before the Lord’ [occurs] two times. But later (I Chronicles 24:2), ‘in the presence of their father’ [occurs only] one time.” It is simply that it teaches that it was twice as grievous for the Holy One, blessed be He, as for their father. (Numb. 4:3:) “In the Sinai Desert.” R. Meir said, “Did they die in the Sinai Desert? It is simply that from Mount Sinai they received their sentence of death.⁴⁸Their death actually took place at the Tent of Meeting. [The situation is comparable] to a king who was marrying off his daughter, when there was found something obscene in his bridal agent.⁴⁹Gk.: syskenos (“comrade”). The king said, ‘If I kill him now, I shall impede my daughter's joy. Tomorrow my joy is coming, and I will kill him. It is better [to kill him] during my own joyous celebration, and not during my daughter's joyous celebration.’ Similarly the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘If I kill Nadab and Abihu now, I shall impede the joyous celebration of the Torah. Tomorrow My own joyous celebration is coming. It is better [to kill them] during My own joyous celebration, and not during the joyous celebration of the Torah.’ This is what is written (in Cant. 3:11), ‘on his wedding day,’ i.e., the day of the giving of Torah; ‘in the day of his joyful heart,’ i.e., in the tent of meeting.”

(Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF < AARON'S TWO SONS >. {R. Eliezer cited a baraita:} [According to a baraita in the name of R. Eliezer,]⁴⁰In y‘Eruv. 6:1 (31c); yGit. 1:2 (39c); ‘Eruv. 63b. Nadab and Abihu died only because they had taught halakhah in the presence of their master, Moses.⁴¹Tanh., Lev. 6:6; Lev. R. 20:7; PRK 26(27):6/7; yShevi. 6:1 (36c); yGit. 1:2 (43c). There is a story about Rabbi Eliezer, that his disciple taught halakhah before him. So he said to his wife, Mamma Shalom: This man will not live out the year; and indeed he did not live out the year. His disciples said to him: O Our Master, are you a prophet? He said to them (in the words of Amos 7:14): I AM NEITHER A PROPHET NOR THE SON OF A PROPHET. Rather this was handed down to me from my masters: Whoever teaches halakhah in the presence of his master is under sentence of death.

6) "Whatever touches them shall become sanctified": I might think that this were so even if it (what touched them) had not absorbed (its oiliness); it is, therefore, written ("whatever touches, lit.) "in them" — only if it had absorbed it. I might think that if it touched only a part of it, it became entirely unfit (if the offering itself were unfit); it is, therefore, written: "Whatever touches them shall become sanctified." Only the part touching it becomes unfit. What does he do? He cuts off that part. "shall become sanctified" — to become like it. If it is unfit, then it (what touches it) becomes unfit; and if it is fit, then what touches it is to be eaten with its attendant stringencies.

6) "soaked shall it be made": We are hereby taught that it is to be scalded with hot oil to saturation (before baking). There is no other "soaked" (revuchah) in the Torah but this and that of the thanksgiving offering (Vayikra 7:12) and that of the investiture offering (of the Cohanim, Shemoth 29:23). "shall you bring it": I might think after the libations; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 29:23): "shall you offer it" — before the libations. "tufinei" — tofeh na (Bake it lightly). R. Yehudah says: "tofeh na'ah (Bake it beautifully). R. Yossi says: Bake it many (times). "a meal-offering of pieces": We are hereby taught that he folds it once into two parts and does not separate them, and the meal-offering of an ordinary Cohein is folded once into two and two into four and he does not separate them.

6) If it had been written "half in the morning and half in the evening," I might think that he could bring a half issaron in the morning and a half issaron in the evening. It is, therefore, written "its half." He brings half of a whole one.

6) "soaked shall it be made": We are hereby taught that it is to be scalded with hot oil to saturation (before baking). There is no other "soaked" (revuchah) in the Torah but this and that of the thanksgiving offering (Vayikra 7:12) and that of the investiture offering (of the Cohanim, Shemoth 29:23). "shall you bring it": I might think after the libations; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 29:23): "shall you offer it" — before the libations. "tufinei" — tofeh na (Bake it lightly). R. Yehudah says: "tofeh na'ah (Bake it beautifully). R. Yossi says: Bake it many (times). "a meal-offering of pieces": We are hereby taught that he folds it once into two parts and does not separate them, and the meal-offering of an ordinary Cohein is folded once into two and two into four and he does not separate them.

6) There is no difference between R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua but blood and libations (that have become unfit). R. Gamliel says they do not come down (being fit for the altar), and R. Yehoshua says they do come down (not being fit for the fire).

6) "a garment": This tells me only of a garment (as requiring washing). Whence do I derive for inclusion stripped (animal) hide? From "what (i.e., anything that) has been sprinkled upon you shall wash." I might think to include (even) hide which has not been stripped. It is, therefore, written "a garment." Just as a garment is fit to acquire tumah, so all tings that are fit to acquire tumah (are included, excluding unstripped hide). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Eliezer says: "a garment": This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive for inclusion a sack and any (other) thing that acquires tumah? From "what has been sprinkled upon you shall wash." I might think to include hide (immediately) after it has been stripped, (before it has been made a kli, an "implement"). It is, therefore, written "a garment." Just as a garment, which acquires tumah, (being a kli), requires washing, so, all things that acquire tumah, require washing, excluding a thing which, not acquiring tumah, (like an unstripped hide, not having been made a kli), does not require washing.

7) I would exclude (from scouring and rinsing) these, but I would not exclude the thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite, which are eaten for one day, as are higher order offerings. It is, therefore, written "It [the sin-offering] (is holy of holies.)" If he cooked in it consecrated together with non-consecrated food, higher order together with lower order offerings — if it (the lesser) imparts a taste (to the mixture), the lesser may be eaten as (i.e., with the same constraints as) the more stringent, and they (the vessels) do not render unfit by touch and they do not require scouring and rinsing.

6) From here they ruled: The flesh of higher order offerings that became tamei, either by an av hatumah ("proto-tumah") or by a vlad hatumah (generated tumah), whether inside (in the azarah) or outside (the azarah) — Beth Shammai say: All must be burned inside; and Beth Hillel say: All must be burned outside, unless it became tamei by a vlad hatumah inside, (in which case it is burned inside). These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: Beth Shammai say: All is burned inside unless it became tamei by an av hatumah outside, (in which case it is burned outside). And Beth Hillel say: All must be burned outside, unless it became tamei by a vlad hatumah inside.

6) (Vayikra 6:4) ("And he shall take off his garments, and he shall put on other garments, and he shall take out the ashes outside the camp to a clean place." "And he shall take off … and put on": I might think that just as (the high-priest on) Yom Kippur (changes his garments from one sacrificial service to the next), he (the ordinary priest, too,) should change from consecrated garments (after removing the ashes) and put on everyday garments (to carry them out). It is, therefore, written "and he shall take off his garments" "and put on other garments." The garments that he puts on are likened to the garments that he takes off. Just as the garments that he takes off are consecrated ones, so the garments that he puts on must be consecrated ones. If so, why is "other garments" written? (They must be) lesser (than the first in value). R. Elazar says: "acherim (others), and he shall take out the ashes": We are hereby taught that blemished Cohanim, ("others"), who are unfit for other services, are kasher for taking out the ashes, (it not being considered a priestly service and not requiring consecrated garments).

6) "and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, a sweet savor, a remembrance to the L–rd." It is a remembrance through it, (i.e., through its presentation), and through (the smoking of) its fistful, and through (the smoking of) its frankincense.

6) "his full fistful": I might think it should be flowing over; it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Vayikra 6:8): "in his fistful." If "in this fistful," I might think he can take the fistful with his fingertips (and that they need not reach his palm); it is, therefore, written: "his full fistful." How is this done? He bends three fingers over his palm (and bunches the flour in). And with a machvath or a marchesheth (baked meal-offerings, that do flow over [see Vayikra 2:5 and Vayikra 2:7]), he "erases" (the overflow) with his thumb from above and with his little finger from below.

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] And thus you find with the primeval serpent, because he spoke slander < to Eve > against his creator, for that reason he became leprous.²¹Cf. Gen. R. 19:4. What did he say? R. Joshua ben Levi said (citing Gen. 3:5): FOR GOD KNOWS THAT ON THE DAY THAT YOU EAT FROM IT, < YOUR EYES SHALL BE OPENED > [….] He said to her: Every artisan hates his fellow < artisan >.²²The saying is proverbial. See Gen. R. 32:2; M. Pss. 11:6. Now when < the Holy One > wanted to create his world, he ate from this tree. So he created his world. You < two > also eat from it. Then you will be able to create like him. The Holy One said to < the serpent >: You have spoken slander. Your end is to be stricken with leprosy. It is so stated (in Gen. 3:14): SO THE LORD GOD SAID UNTO THE SERPENT: < BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS, MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD…. > With what did he curse him? With leprosy. Now a curse ('arirah) can only be leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:52): FOR IT IS A MALIGNANT (mam'eret) LEPROSY.²³The argument assumes that ‘arirah and mam’eret share the same root. So also Exod. R. 3:13. R. Huna of Sha'av said [in the name of] R. Joshua ben Levi: The scales {i.e., the colors} which are on the snake are his leprosy.²⁴Gen. R. 20:4. And not only that, but when all the deformed are cured in the world to come, the snake shall not be cured.²⁵Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 11:9; Tanh., Gen. 11:8; Gen. R. 95:1. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:14): MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, < THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD >. What is the meaning of THAN ALL? That they all shall be healed, but < the serpent > shall not be healed. The children of Adam shall be healed, as stated (in Is. 35:5–6): {THEN THE LAME SHALL LEAP LIKE A HART…. } THEN THE EYES OF THE BLIND SHALL BE OPENED…. [THEN THE LAME SHALL LEAP LIKE A HART…. ] It is also written about the wild beasts and the cattle (in Is. 65:25): THE WOLF AND THE LAMB SHALL FEED TOGETHER, < AND THE LION LIKE THE OX SHALL EAT STRAW >; but the snake shall not have healing, since it is stated (ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SERPENT'S FOOD SHALL BE DUST. R. Helbo said: Even though he may eat all the delicacies in the world, to him they only taste like dust. Moreover, it shall also be like this in the world to come. (Is. 65:25): BUT THE SERPENT'S FOOD SHALL BE DUST, for he shall have no healing, because he < was the one who > brought mortals down to the dust. And what caused him to have < this punishment >? < It happened > because he had spoken slander. Ergo (in Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. In this book there are a lot of laws. {(Lev. 7:1:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING.} (Lev. 6:2 [9]:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING. [(Lev. 7:1:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING.] (Lev. 7:11:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS. And here also (in Lev. 14:2) I have established the law of the leper: THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER….

In four places where < Scripture > mentions the death of Aaron's sons,⁴⁴In Lev. 10:2–3; 16:1; Numb. 3:4; 26:61. [it also mentions their transgression. And why all this?⁴⁵Tanh., Lev. 6:6; PRK 26(27):8; Lev. R. 20:8; Numb. R. 2:24. To inform you that they had only this sin on their hands. R. Eleazar of Modim said: Go out and see how grievous the death of Aaron's sons was for the Holy One, for in every place that < Scripture > mentions their death, it mentions their transgression. And why all this? So as not to give those who come into the world a pretext for saying: Disgraceful acts were secretly < reckoned > to their < account >, because of which they died.

R. Mani of Sha'av and R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: Aaron's sons died because of four things, and < a sentence of > death is recorded in connection with all of them.⁴⁷PRK 26 (27):9; Lev. R. 20:9. Because they entered and had drunk wine, and it says (in Lev. 10:9): DRINK NO WINE OR INTOXICATING LIQUOR…, LEST YOU DIE. Because they entered without washing hands and feet, and it says (in Exod. 30:20): WHEN THEY COME UNTO THE TENT OF MEETING, THEY SHALL WASH WITH WATER LEST THEY DIE. Because they entered while lacking < the proper > clothes. And what did they lack? R. Levi said: They were lacking a robe, and < a sentence of > death is recorded in connection with < that lack >, where it is stated (in Exod. 28:35): AND IT (the robe with golden bells and pomegranates) SHALL BE UPON AARON FOR OFFICIATING, SO THAT THE SOUND OF IT SHALL BE HEARD, < WHEN HE COMES INTO THE SANCTUARY >…, [LEST HE DIE]. And because they had no children, and < a sentence of > death is recorded in connection with < that lack >, where it is stated (in Numb. 3:4): BUT NADAB AND ABIHU DIED…; AND THEY HAD NO CHILDREN. Abba Hanan says: Because they had no wives, and it is recorded (in Lev. 16:6): AND HE SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIMSELF AND FOR HIS HOUSEHOLD. R. Levi said: They had a lot of arrogance and were saying: Which woman is worthy of us?⁴⁸Lev. R. 20:10; below, Lev. 6:13. A lot of women were remaining unmarried and waiting for them. But they were saying: Our father is high priest, our father's brother is prince, < and > we are deputy high priests. Which woman is worthy of us? R. Menahama [said] in the name of R. Joshua bar Hanina: < It is > about them < that > it says (in Ps. 78:63): FIRE DEVOURED THEIR YOUNG MEN, AND THEIR MAIDENS HAD NO NUPTIAL SONG. Why had FIRE DEVOURED THEIR YOUNG MEN? Because of THEIR MAIDENS, who HAD NO NUPTIAL SONG. And moreover, < their arrogance may be inferred > from this (i.e., from Exod. 24:1): THEN HE SAID UNTO MOSES: GO UP UNTO THE LORD, YOU AND AARON, NADAB AND ABIHU, < AND THE SEVENTY ELDERS OF ISRAEL >. This teaches that Moses and Aaron walked first, while Nadab and Abihu came after them; but still they were saying: These two old men shall die, and we shall assume authority over the community in their place.⁴⁹See below, Lev. 6:13. {R. Ayyevu said:} [R. Judan said in the name of R. Ayyevu:] They said it to each other with their mouths, < while > R. Pinhas said: they pondered it in their hearts. R. Berekhyah said: The Holy One said to them (in Prov. 27:1): DO NOT BOAST OF TOMORROW…. A lot of colts have died, and their skins have been made into coverings for their mother's backs. And in addition < their arrogance may be inferred > from this (i.e., from Exod. 24:11): BUT HE (i.e., the Holy One) STILL DID NOT RAISE HIS HAND AGAINST THE NOBLES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. From here < it follows > that they deserved to have a hand raised < against them >. R. Hosha'ya said: Did cellaria⁵⁰The word is Latin. (i.e., provisions) go up with them to Sinai, since it says (ibid., cont.): THEY BEHELD GOD, < AND THEY ATE AND DRANK >. It is simply that they feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence. < They were > like someone who beholds his colleague in the midst of eating and drinking. R. Johanan said: < There was > actual eating [and drinking], since it is written (in Prov. 16:15): IN THE LIGHT OF THE KING'S FACE THERE IS LIFE. R. Tanhuma said: < Exod. 24:11 > teaches that they became bold in their hearts and stood on their feet, < while > they feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: Moses did not feast his eyes on the Divine Presence, as stated (in Exod. 3:6): MOSES HID HIS FACE…. And in addition, < the boldness of Aaron's sons may be inferred > from this (i.e., from Numb. 3:4): BUT NADAB AND ABIHU DIED BEFORE THE LORD. Was it BEFORE THE LORD that they died? < The verse > simply teaches that it is grievous for the Omnipresent when children of righteous people pass away during their < parents' > lifetime.

7) How is this affected? He brings a whole issaron and divides it, and he offers up half in the morning and half in the evening. If the half of dusk became tamei, I might think he could bring a half issaron from his house in the evening. It is, therefore, written "and its half in the evening." He must bring it from a whole (meal-offering).

7) R. Yehudah says: "This," "It," "the burnt-offering." These are (three terms of) exclusion — to exclude: an animal that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out, and one whose blood was brought outside the curtains, (in which cases, if it was brought up to the altar, it is taken down). R. Shimon says: "burnt-offering" — This implies one that is fit. Whence is it derived (that the following, if they were brought up are not taken down?): one that was allowed to remain overnight (without being sacrificed); one (whose blood or devoted portions) went outside (the curtains); one that became tamei; one that was slaughtered outside of its (authorized) time or place; one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those unfit (for this service); those (such as burnt-offerings and peace-offerings), (whose blood is) to be applied below (the red line), which (i.e., the blood of which) was applied above, and those (such as sin-offerings), (whose blood is) to be applied above, which was applied below; or those which were to be applied outside (the Temple court), which were applied inside; and a Pesach or a sin-offering which were not specifically slaughtered as such. (Whence is it derived that if the foregoing were brought up they are not to be taken down?) From "This is the law of the burnt-offering" (olah, lit., "which goes up:) — There is one law for all (offerings) that go up (on the altar); if they go up, they are not to be taken down.

7) "You shall wash in a holy place": This teaches us that the washing must be done in a holy place. How so? A garment which went outside of the curtains (after blood had sprung upon it) must be returned and washed in a holy place. This tells me only of washing in a holy place. Whence do I derive the same for the breaking of earthenware vessels? From: (the juxtaposition) "shall be washed in a holy place (Vayikra 6:21) And an earthenware vessel … shall be broken." Whence do I derive the same for the scouring of copper vessels? From (Vayikra 6:21): "And if it is cooked in a copper vessel, etc."

7) "You shall wash in a holy place": This teaches us that the washing must be done in a holy place. How so? A garment which went outside of the curtains (after blood had sprung upon it) must be returned and washed in a holy place. This tells me only of washing in a holy place. Whence do I derive the same for the breaking of earthenware vessels? From: (the juxtaposition) "shall be washed in a holy place (Vayikra 6:21) And an earthenware vessel … shall be broken." Whence do I derive the same for the scouring of copper vessels? From (Vayikra 6:21): "And if it is cooked in a copper vessel, etc."

7) R. Eliezer says: What became tamei by an av hatumah, whether inside or outside, is burned outside. What became tamei by a vlad hatumah, whether inside or outside, is burned inside. R. Akiva says: What became tamei outside, whether by an av hatumah or a vlad hatumah is burned outside. What became tamei inside, whether by an av hatumah or a vlad hatumah is burned inside. R. Eliezer says: "it shall not be eaten; in fire shall it be burned": The intent of Scripture is to add (violation of) a negative commandment (in addition to the positive "in fire shall be burned") for eating it.

7) (Vayikra 6:5) ("And the fire upon the altar shall burn thereby; it shall not be extinguished. And the Cohein shall kindle wood on it every morning. And he shall arrange the burnt-offering upon it. And he shall cause to smoke upon it the fats of the peace-offerings.") R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that the kindling of the fire is to take place only on top of the altar (and not by means of splinters kindled below)? From: "And the fire upon the altar shall burn thereby." R. Yossi said: Whence is it derived that a wood pile is provided for the sustenance of the fire? From "And the fire upon the altar shall burn thereby." Whence is it derived that all who put out (the altar fire) transgress a negative commandment? From "it shall not be extinguished."

7) (Vayikra 6:9) ("And what is left of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons. It shall be eaten unleavened; in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting shall they eat it."): "And what is left of it": of a valid offering, and not of one that became unfit. "shall be eaten by," "It shall be eaten," "shall they eat it": "eatings" are multiplied here (to indicate that they may be eaten in any manner they desire, (fried, cooked, etc.) and that non-consecrated food and terumah may be eaten together with it when it does not suffice (for a meal).

8) How is this affected? He brings a whole issaron and divides it. Half is sacrificed and half goes lost. A Cohein who sacrificed half in the morning (and then died or became blemished), and another Cohein was appointed in his stead — I might think he could bring a half issaron from his house. It is, therefore, written "its half in the morning and its half in the evening." He brings half of a whole one in the evening.

8) I might think that the following, too, if they went up, should not come down: (an animal) that had sodomized (a man) or that had been sodomized; (an animal) that had been devoted (to idolatry); (an animal) that had been worshipped; (an animal given as) a harlot's hire or as the exchange (of a dog, viz. Devarim 23:19); (an animal born of) heterogeneous breeding; a torn animal (treifah); (an animal extracted by) caesarian section; and blemished animals. (Whence do I derive that if they went up, they are to be taken down?) From "This (is the law of the burnt-offering.") And why do you see fit to include these (mentioned before) and to exclude these (just mentioned)? — After Scripture included; it excluded. I include (as not to be taken down) those that became unfit after they had entered the azarah, and I exclude those that became unfit not after having entered (but before).

8) From here they ruled: A garment which went outside of the curtains must be returned and washed in a holy place. If it became tamei outside of the curtains, (and it is forbidden to bring things that are tamei into the azarah), it must be torn and returned and be washed in a holy place. An earthenware vessel which went outside of the curtains must be returned and broken in a holy place. If it became tamei outside of the curtains, it must be punctured and returned and broken in a holy place. A copper vessel which went outside of the curtains must be returned and scoured and rinsed in a holy place. If it became tamei outside of the curtains, it must be "reduced" and returned, and scoured and rinsed in a holy place.

8) R. Yossi Haglili says: This entire section ("it shall not be eaten, etc.") applies (not to a sin-offering, but) to (unfit) bullocks which are to be burnt and unfit he-goats which are to be burned, to add (violation of) a negative commandment for eating it, to teach that their unfit offerings are burned before the Temple. They asked him: Whence, then, is it to be derived that (an outer) sin-offering whose blood entered inside (the sanctuary) becomes unfit? He answered: From (Vayikra 10:18): "Behold, its blood was not brought into the sanctuary within. (You should have eaten it in the sanctuary," and not burned it, the implication being that if it had entered within, it, indeed, should have been burned.)

8) "And the Cohein shall kindle wood on it every morning (lit., "in the morning, in the morning")": It is written here "in the morning, in the morning," and in respect to the daily burnt-offering (the tamid) "in the morning" (Bamidbar 28:4): "And the one lamb shall you offer in the morning." I would not know which takes precedence, (the placing of the two logs on the wood pile, "wood" in our instance, or the slaughtering of the tamid). — Let that of which it is written "in the morning, in the morning" take precedence to that of which only one "in the morning" is written. It is written in respect to the wood "in the morning, in the morning," and in respect to the incense (Shemoth 30:7): "in the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lamps he shall burn it (the incense)." I would not know which takes precedence. Which is a prerequisite for which? The wood (i.e., the placing of the two logs) is a prerequisite for the incense, (being a prerequisite for the entire altar service). — Let them precede the incense.

8) In that case, should not the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering, which come by virtue of themselves, require "touching"? It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "and he shall touch it." Why do you see fit to include all of the meal-offerings and to exclude the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Just as these are distinct in that part of them goes to the fire, that they come by virtue of themselves, and that part of them goes to the Cohanim (to be eaten) — (so, all meal-offerings like these require "touching"): to exclude the two loaves and the show bread, no part of which goes to the fire; to exclude the libation meal-offering, which does not come by virtue of itself, and to exclude the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering, no part of which goes to the Cohanim (but which is entirely consumed on the altar). (Ibid. 2:9): "And he shall lift (from the meal-offering its remembrance" [the fistful]): I might think (that he lifts it) in a vessel; it is, therefore, written elsewhere (Ibid. 6:8): "And he shall lift from it in his fist." Just as there, "in his fist," so, here.

8) See Gift Offerings, Chapter 11:1

(Numb. 3:4:) AND THEY HAD NO CHILDREN. R. Jacob bar Abbayi said in the name of R. Aha: If they had had children, they would have taken precedence over Eleazar and Ithamar, since whoever takes precedence {in dignity} [with respect to inheritance] takes precedence with respect to honor, provided that he follows the behavior of his forebears.⁵³Tanh., Lev. 6:7; PRK 26(27):10; Lev. R. 20:11; Numb. R. 2:26.

Said Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Great is peace, for all blessings are included with it, "Adonai grants strength to His people, Adonai blesses his people with peace" (Psalm 29:11). Ḥizkiyah said two things. Ḥizkiyah said: Great is peace, for all the commandments are written this way: "When you see" (Exodus 23:5), "when you encounter" (Exodus 23:4), "when you come across" (Deuteronomy 22:6). If a commandment comes to you you are bound to do it, but if not you are not bound to do it. But here it says "Seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:15) – seek it for your place, and pursue it for other places. Ḥizkiyah said also: Great is peace, for of all the encampments it is written thus (Numbers 33) "And they set out... and they encamped" – they would set out divided and would encamp divided. When they all came before Mt. Sinai it was done as one encampment, as it is written (Exodus 19:2) "And Israel encamped there"—it isn't written "And the Israelites encamped there" in the plural, but "and Israel encamped there" in the singular!—Because of this the Holy Blessed One said, "Here is the gate where I will give the Torah to My children." Bar Kappara said three things. Bar Kappara said: Great is peace, for the scriptures use words of fiction in the Torah so as to impose peace between Abraham and Sarah, as it is written "After I am withered shall I have pleasure? And my husband is so old!" (Genesis 18:12) But to Abraham He didn't say that but rather "And I am so old!" (Genesis 18:13). Bar Kappara also said: Great is peace, for the scriptures use words of fiction in the Prophetic books to impose peace between husband and wife, as it is said, "Look, you are barren and have borne no children, but you will conceive and bear a son" (Judges 13:3), but to Manoaḥ He didn't say that but rather "All that I said to the woman she should follow" (Judges 13:13) – in all that she still needs markers. Bar Kappara also said: Great is peace, for if the celestials who have no jealousy or hatred or rivalry or strife or quarrels or debates or evil eye require peace, as it is written (Job 25:2) "He who makes peace in the heavens," how much more so the mortals who have all those traits? Said Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: Great is peace, because the writings spoke works of fiction in the Torah to impose peace between Joseph and his brothers, as it is written (Genesis 50:17) “Thus say to Yosef, please forgive” - but we do not find Jacob commanding any such thing! Said Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: Great is pace, for even in a time of war we only open with peace, as it is written (Deuteronomy 20:10) "When you approach a city to make war on it, call out to it for peace." Said Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Yosei: Great is peace, for the name of the Holy Blessed One is called peace, as it is written "And he called it "Adonai is peace" (Judges 6:24). Said Rabbi Tanḥum son of Yudan, from here we derive that it is forbidden for one to call out "Peace" to a companion in a filthy place. Taught Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, for even the Great Name written in holiness, the Holy Blessed One said to blot out in water so as to impose peace between husband and wife. (See Numbers 5:19-23). Rabbi Meir was sitting and discoursing on Shabbat evening. There was this one woman who would sit and listen to him give his lecture. Once she waited until the lecture ended, went home, and found the light had gone out. Her husband said to her, "Where have you been?" She said to him, "I was sitting and listening to the voice of the lecturer." He said to her, "Thus and more I vow: I will not let you enter here until you go and spit in the lecturer's face!" She stayed away one Shabbat, another, a third. Her neighbors said to her, "Are you still angry at each other? Let's come with you to the lecture." When Rabbi Meir saw them, he figured it out through the holy spirit. He said to them, "Is there here a woman knowledgeable in treating eyes?" Her neighbors said to her, "If you go spit in his eye you will unbind your husband." When she sat down in front of him she became afraid of him, and said to him, "Rabbi, I am not knowledgeable in treating eyes." He said to her, "Even so, spit in my eye seven times, and I will be cured." She did so. He said to her, "Go tell your husband you told me to do it once and I spat seven times. His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, should people thus abuse the Torah? Couldn't one of us offered a treatment for you?" He said to them, "Is it not enough for Meir to be like his Maker?" For it had been taught: Great is peace, for even the Great Name written in holiness, the Holy Blessed One said to blot out in water so as to impose peace between husband and wife." Said Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta: Great is peace, for when the Holy Blessed One created His universe He made pace between the upper and lower parts. On the first day He created some of the upper and lower parts, as it is written "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). On the second He created some of the upper parts, as it is written "And God said, 'let there be a firmament'" (Genesis 1:6). On the third He created some of the lower parts, as it is written, "And God said, 'gather the waters'" (Genesis 1:9). On the fourth some of the upper parts — "Let there be lights in the heavenly firmament" (Genesis 1:14). On the fifth He created some of the lower parts — "And God said, 'Let the waters swarm'" (Genesis 1:20). On the sixth He came to create humanity. He said, "If I create him from more upper parts, then the upper parts will outnumber the lower by one creation. If I create him from more lower parts, then the lower parts will outnumber the upper by one creation." What did He do? He made him from upper parts and from lower parts, as it is written "And Adonai God created humanity from the dust of the earth" (Genesis 2:7) — lower parts, "and blew into his nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) — upper parts. Rabbi Manei of Sh'av and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Great is peace for all blessings and goodnesses and mercies that the Holy Blessed One gives to Israel are sealed with peace. The reading of the Shema — "spreads the shelter of peace." The standing prayer — "He who makes peace." The Priestly Blessing — "and grant you peace" (Numbers 6:26). And I only know this regarding blessings, so where do we derive this for sacrifices? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering, of the grain-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the fulfillment-offerings, and of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:37). I only know this in general, so where do we derive this in detail? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 6:2), "This is the Torah of the grain-offering" (Leviticus 6:7), "This is the Torah of the sin-offering" (Leviticus 6:18), "This is the Torah of the guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:1), "This is the Torah of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:11). I only know this for individual sacrifices, so where do we derive this for communal sacrifices? The verse (Numbers 29:39) says, "Do these for Adonai on your set times," but finishes with "your peace-offerings." I only know this in this world, so from where do we derive this in the next? "I will extend to her peace like a wadi" (Isaiah 66:12). The Rabbis said, great is peace for when the messianic king will come he will only open with peace, as it is written, "How pleasant on the mountains are the feet of the messenger proclaiming peace!" (Isaiah 52:7)

Said Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Great is peace, for all blessings are included with it, "Adonai grants strength to His people, Adonai blesses his people with peace" (Psalm 29:11). Ḥizkiyah said two things. Ḥizkiyah said: Great is peace, for all the commandments are written this way: "When you see" (Exodus 23:5), "when you encounter" (Exodus 23:4), "when you come across" (Deuteronomy 22:6). If a commandment comes to you you are bound to do it, but if not you are not bound to do it. But here it says "Seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:15) – seek it for your place, and pursue it for other places. Ḥizkiyah said also: Great is peace, for of all the encampments it is written thus (Numbers 33) "And they set out... and they encamped" – they would set out divided and would encamp divided. When they all came before Mt. Sinai it was done as one encampment, as it is written (Exodus 19:2) "And Israel encamped there"—it isn't written "And the Israelites encamped there" in the plural, but "and Israel encamped there" in the singular!—Because of this the Holy Blessed One said, "Here is the gate where I will give the Torah to My children." Bar Kappara said three things. Bar Kappara said: Great is peace, for the scriptures use words of fiction in the Torah so as to impose peace between Abraham and Sarah, as it is written "After I am withered shall I have pleasure? And my husband is so old!" (Genesis 18:12) But to Abraham He didn't say that but rather "And I am so old!" (Genesis 18:13). Bar Kappara also said: Great is peace, for the scriptures use words of fiction in the Prophetic books to impose peace between husband and wife, as it is said, "Look, you are barren and have borne no children, but you will conceive and bear a son" (Judges 13:3), but to Manoaḥ He didn't say that but rather "All that I said to the woman she should follow" (Judges 13:13) – in all that she still needs markers. Bar Kappara also said: Great is peace, for if the celestials who have no jealousy or hatred or rivalry or strife or quarrels or debates or evil eye require peace, as it is written (Job 25:2) "He who makes peace in the heavens," how much more so the mortals who have all those traits? Said Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: Great is peace, because the writings spoke works of fiction in the Torah to impose peace between Joseph and his brothers, as it is written (Genesis 50:17) “Thus say to Yosef, please forgive” - but we do not find Jacob commanding any such thing! Said Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: Great is pace, for even in a time of war we only open with peace, as it is written (Deuteronomy 20:10) "When you approach a city to make war on it, call out to it for peace." Said Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Yosei: Great is peace, for the name of the Holy Blessed One is called peace, as it is written "And he called it "Adonai is peace" (Judges 6:24). Said Rabbi Tanḥum son of Yudan, from here we derive that it is forbidden for one to call out "Peace" to a companion in a filthy place. Taught Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, for even the Great Name written in holiness, the Holy Blessed One said to blot out in water so as to impose peace between husband and wife. (See Numbers 5:19-23). Rabbi Meir was sitting and discoursing on Shabbat evening. There was this one woman who would sit and listen to him give his lecture. Once she waited until the lecture ended, went home, and found the light had gone out. Her husband said to her, "Where have you been?" She said to him, "I was sitting and listening to the voice of the lecturer." He said to her, "Thus and more I vow: I will not let you enter here until you go and spit in the lecturer's face!" She stayed away one Shabbat, another, a third. Her neighbors said to her, "Are you still angry at each other? Let's come with you to the lecture." When Rabbi Meir saw them, he figured it out through the holy spirit. He said to them, "Is there here a woman knowledgeable in treating eyes?" Her neighbors said to her, "If you go spit in his eye you will unbind your husband." When she sat down in front of him she became afraid of him, and said to him, "Rabbi, I am not knowledgeable in treating eyes." He said to her, "Even so, spit in my eye seven times, and I will be cured." She did so. He said to her, "Go tell your husband you told me to do it once and I spat seven times. His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, should people thus abuse the Torah? Couldn't one of us offered a treatment for you?" He said to them, "Is it not enough for Meir to be like his Maker?" For it had been taught: Great is peace, for even the Great Name written in holiness, the Holy Blessed One said to blot out in water so as to impose peace between husband and wife." Said Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta: Great is peace, for when the Holy Blessed One created His universe He made pace between the upper and lower parts. On the first day He created some of the upper and lower parts, as it is written "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). On the second He created some of the upper parts, as it is written "And God said, 'let there be a firmament'" (Genesis 1:6). On the third He created some of the lower parts, as it is written, "And God said, 'gather the waters'" (Genesis 1:9). On the fourth some of the upper parts — "Let there be lights in the heavenly firmament" (Genesis 1:14). On the fifth He created some of the lower parts — "And God said, 'Let the waters swarm'" (Genesis 1:20). On the sixth He came to create humanity. He said, "If I create him from more upper parts, then the upper parts will outnumber the lower by one creation. If I create him from more lower parts, then the lower parts will outnumber the upper by one creation." What did He do? He made him from upper parts and from lower parts, as it is written "And Adonai God created humanity from the dust of the earth" (Genesis 2:7) — lower parts, "and blew into his nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) — upper parts. Rabbi Manei of Sh'av and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Great is peace for all blessings and goodnesses and mercies that the Holy Blessed One gives to Israel are sealed with peace. The reading of the Shema — "spreads the shelter of peace." The standing prayer — "He who makes peace." The Priestly Blessing — "and grant you peace" (Numbers 6:26). And I only know this regarding blessings, so where do we derive this for sacrifices? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering, of the grain-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the fulfillment-offerings, and of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:37). I only know this in general, so where do we derive this in detail? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 6:2), "This is the Torah of the grain-offering" (Leviticus 6:7), "This is the Torah of the sin-offering" (Leviticus 6:18), "This is the Torah of the guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:1), "This is the Torah of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:11). I only know this for individual sacrifices, so where do we derive this for communal sacrifices? The verse (Numbers 29:39) says, "Do these for Adonai on your set times," but finishes with "your peace-offerings." I only know this in this world, so from where do we derive this in the next? "I will extend to her peace like a wadi" (Isaiah 66:12). The Rabbis said, great is peace for when the messianic king will come he will only open with peace, as it is written, "How pleasant on the mountains are the feet of the messenger proclaiming peace!" (Isaiah 52:7)

Said Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Great is peace, for all blessings are included with it, "Adonai grants strength to His people, Adonai blesses his people with peace" (Psalm 29:11). Ḥizkiyah said two things. Ḥizkiyah said: Great is peace, for all the commandments are written this way: "When you see" (Exodus 23:5), "when you encounter" (Exodus 23:4), "when you come across" (Deuteronomy 22:6). If a commandment comes to you you are bound to do it, but if not you are not bound to do it. But here it says "Seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:15) – seek it for your place, and pursue it for other places. Ḥizkiyah said also: Great is peace, for of all the encampments it is written thus (Numbers 33) "And they set out... and they encamped" – they would set out divided and would encamp divided. When they all came before Mt. Sinai it was done as one encampment, as it is written (Exodus 19:2) "And Israel encamped there"—it isn't written "And the Israelites encamped there" in the plural, but "and Israel encamped there" in the singular!—Because of this the Holy Blessed One said, "Here is the gate where I will give the Torah to My children." Bar Kappara said three things. Bar Kappara said: Great is peace, for the scriptures use words of fiction in the Torah so as to impose peace between Abraham and Sarah, as it is written "After I am withered shall I have pleasure? And my husband is so old!" (Genesis 18:12) But to Abraham He didn't say that but rather "And I am so old!" (Genesis 18:13). Bar Kappara also said: Great is peace, for the scriptures use words of fiction in the Prophetic books to impose peace between husband and wife, as it is said, "Look, you are barren and have borne no children, but you will conceive and bear a son" (Judges 13:3), but to Manoaḥ He didn't say that but rather "All that I said to the woman she should follow" (Judges 13:13) – in all that she still needs markers. Bar Kappara also said: Great is peace, for if the celestials who have no jealousy or hatred or rivalry or strife or quarrels or debates or evil eye require peace, as it is written (Job 25:2) "He who makes peace in the heavens," how much more so the mortals who have all those traits? Said Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: Great is peace, because the writings spoke works of fiction in the Torah to impose peace between Joseph and his brothers, as it is written (Genesis 50:17) “Thus say to Yosef, please forgive” - but we do not find Jacob commanding any such thing! Said Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: Great is pace, for even in a time of war we only open with peace, as it is written (Deuteronomy 20:10) "When you approach a city to make war on it, call out to it for peace." Said Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Yosei: Great is peace, for the name of the Holy Blessed One is called peace, as it is written "And he called it "Adonai is peace" (Judges 6:24). Said Rabbi Tanḥum son of Yudan, from here we derive that it is forbidden for one to call out "Peace" to a companion in a filthy place. Taught Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, for even the Great Name written in holiness, the Holy Blessed One said to blot out in water so as to impose peace between husband and wife. (See Numbers 5:19-23). Rabbi Meir was sitting and discoursing on Shabbat evening. There was this one woman who would sit and listen to him give his lecture. Once she waited until the lecture ended, went home, and found the light had gone out. Her husband said to her, "Where have you been?" She said to him, "I was sitting and listening to the voice of the lecturer." He said to her, "Thus and more I vow: I will not let you enter here until you go and spit in the lecturer's face!" She stayed away one Shabbat, another, a third. Her neighbors said to her, "Are you still angry at each other? Let's come with you to the lecture." When Rabbi Meir saw them, he figured it out through the holy spirit. He said to them, "Is there here a woman knowledgeable in treating eyes?" Her neighbors said to her, "If you go spit in his eye you will unbind your husband." When she sat down in front of him she became afraid of him, and said to him, "Rabbi, I am not knowledgeable in treating eyes." He said to her, "Even so, spit in my eye seven times, and I will be cured." She did so. He said to her, "Go tell your husband you told me to do it once and I spat seven times. His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, should people thus abuse the Torah? Couldn't one of us offered a treatment for you?" He said to them, "Is it not enough for Meir to be like his Maker?" For it had been taught: Great is peace, for even the Great Name written in holiness, the Holy Blessed One said to blot out in water so as to impose peace between husband and wife." Said Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta: Great is peace, for when the Holy Blessed One created His universe He made pace between the upper and lower parts. On the first day He created some of the upper and lower parts, as it is written "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). On the second He created some of the upper parts, as it is written "And God said, 'let there be a firmament'" (Genesis 1:6). On the third He created some of the lower parts, as it is written, "And God said, 'gather the waters'" (Genesis 1:9). On the fourth some of the upper parts — "Let there be lights in the heavenly firmament" (Genesis 1:14). On the fifth He created some of the lower parts — "And God said, 'Let the waters swarm'" (Genesis 1:20). On the sixth He came to create humanity. He said, "If I create him from more upper parts, then the upper parts will outnumber the lower by one creation. If I create him from more lower parts, then the lower parts will outnumber the upper by one creation." What did He do? He made him from upper parts and from lower parts, as it is written "And Adonai God created humanity from the dust of the earth" (Genesis 2:7) — lower parts, "and blew into his nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) — upper parts. Rabbi Manei of Sh'av and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Great is peace for all blessings and goodnesses and mercies that the Holy Blessed One gives to Israel are sealed with peace. The reading of the Shema — "spreads the shelter of peace." The standing prayer — "He who makes peace." The Priestly Blessing — "and grant you peace" (Numbers 6:26). And I only know this regarding blessings, so where do we derive this for sacrifices? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering, of the grain-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the fulfillment-offerings, and of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:37). I only know this in general, so where do we derive this in detail? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 6:2), "This is the Torah of the grain-offering" (Leviticus 6:7), "This is the Torah of the sin-offering" (Leviticus 6:18), "This is the Torah of the guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:1), "This is the Torah of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:11). I only know this for individual sacrifices, so where do we derive this for communal sacrifices? The verse (Numbers 29:39) says, "Do these for Adonai on your set times," but finishes with "your peace-offerings." I only know this in this world, so from where do we derive this in the next? "I will extend to her peace like a wadi" (Isaiah 66:12). The Rabbis said, great is peace for when the messianic king will come he will only open with peace, as it is written, "How pleasant on the mountains are the feet of the messenger proclaiming peace!" (Isaiah 52:7)

9) How is this affected? He brings a whole issaron and divides it, and he offers up half, and half goes lost — (so that) it is found that two halves are sacrificed and two halves go lost.

9) It is written in respect to the incense "in the morning, in the morning," and it is written in respect to the lamps (Shemoth 30:7) "in the morning, in the morning." I would not know which takes precedence. "when he cleans the lamps he shall burn it (the incense)" indicates that they, too, precede the incense. Whence is it derived that the great wood pile (on the altar) is to be set up so as to accommodate all of the burnt-offerings (both the mussaf burnt-offerings and the gift burnt-offerings, as well as that of the tamid)? From (Vayikra 6:2): "It is the burnt-offering," (implying all burnt-offerings). Whence is it derived that the devoted portions of the peace-offerings, those of the guilt-offering, those of holy of holies, and those of lower order offerings, (of the atzereth peace-offerings, are also sacrificed thereon)? From "upon it the fats of the peace-offerings," (implying the other offerings as well). Whence do we derive (the same for) the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest and the libation meal-offering? From "upon it." (Vayikra 6:2): "And he shall cause to smoke, etc.": I might think that (the fire for the daily burning of the) incense, too, should be upon it (i.e., that it should be taken from the great wood pile to the inner altar). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "And he shall arrange the burnt-offering upon it. And he shall cause to smoke upon it": Arrange one burning for the wood pile and a separate burning for the incense.

9) The words of R. Shimon resolve themselves into a principle, viz.: Everything that became unfit in the azarah is accepted by the azarah (i.e., if it was brought up, it is not taken down.) If it did not become fit in the azarah, (but before entering), the azarah does not accept it. R. Akiva rules it (a blemished animal) fit (to remain on the altar), for a blemish in a bird is kasher. R. Chananiah, the adjutant high-priest says: My father would "swipe" (but not directly remove) blemished animals from the altar. I might think that the libations, too, (which accompany the sacrifices), once they went up were not taken down; it is, therefore, written, "burnt-offering." Just as a burnt-offering comes "because of itself," (so all offerings which come "because of themselves" are not taken down) — to exclude libations, which come not because of themselves (but became of the offerings which they are accompanying).

9) It is written in respect to the incense "in the morning, in the morning," and it is written in respect to the lamps (Shemoth 30:7) "in the morning, in the morning." I would not know which takes precedence. "when he cleans the lamps he shall burn it (the incense)" indicates that they, too, precede the incense. Whence is it derived that the great wood pile (on the altar) is to be set up so as to accommodate all of the burnt-offerings (both the mussaf burnt-offerings and the gift burnt-offerings, as well as that of the tamid)? From (Vayikra 6:2): "It is the burnt-offering," (implying all burnt-offerings). Whence is it derived that the devoted portions of the peace-offerings, those of the guilt-offering, those of holy of holies, and those of lower order offerings, (of the atzereth peace-offerings, are also sacrificed thereon)? From "upon it the fats of the peace-offerings," (implying the other offerings as well). Whence do we derive (the same for) the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest and the libation meal-offering? From "upon it." (Vayikra 6:2): "And he shall cause to smoke, etc.": I might think that (the fire for the daily burning of the) incense, too, should be upon it (i.e., that it should be taken from the great wood pile to the inner altar). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "And he shall arrange the burnt-offering upon it. And he shall cause to smoke upon it": Arrange one burning for the wood pile and a separate burning for the incense.

9) "from its soleth": not from the soleth of its neighbor (offering); "and from its oil": not from the oil of its neighbor — that he not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel — whence it was ruled: Two meal-offerings from which fistfuls were not taken, which got mixed up with each other — If he can take a fistful from each independently, they are kasher; if not, they are pasul.

9) "It shall be eaten unleavened": This is a mitzvah (and not just an option). I might think that (since in the beginning, before it was consecrated), it was in the category of the permitted (i.e., it could be eaten either leavened or unleavened), and then (after it was consecrated until the fistful was taken) it became forbidden, and then (after the fistful was taken) it became permitted again — I might think that it returned to its original permissibility; it is, therefore, written "It shall be eaten unleavened" — It is a mitzvah ( to do so).

(Numb. 2:2:) <THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL CAMP,> EACH WITH HIS STANDARD, UNDER THE BANNERS FOR THEIR FATHERS' HOUSES…. This text is related (to Ps. 20:6 [5]): LET US SHOUT FOR JOY IN YOUR SALVATION, AND IN THE NAME OF OUR GOD LET US SET UP OUR STANDARDS…. Israel said: Lord God, we are shouting for joy IN YOUR SALVATION,⁶⁰Tanh., Numb. 1:10; Numb. 2:2. which you have brought about for us in your name. (Ibid.:) LET US SHOUT FOR JOY IN YOUR SALVATION. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 14:30): SO THE LORD SAVED WYWSh', voweled as (wayyosha') ISRAEL ON THAT DAY.⁶¹Above, Lev. 6:13, 18, and the notes there. The written text (ketiv) reads {WYSh'} SO <THE LORD> WAS SAVED (WYWSh, voweled as wayyiwwasha' in the passive). Israel, as it were, was redeemed; and like them God was redeemed. (Ps. 20:6 [5], cont.:) AND IN THE NAME OF OUR GOD LET US SET UP OUR STANDARDS, for God has inserted his name]⁶²The whole bracketed section which ends here began in section 3 and represents a missing page in Buber’s primary Oxford Ms. among our names⁶³E.g, the El (“God”) in “Israel.” and has appointed us standards, as stated (in Numb. 2:2): EACH WITH HIS STANDARD, UNDER THE BANNERS. The Holy One cherished Israel with great love,⁶⁴Numb. R. 2:3. in that he appointed them standards like <those of> the ministering angels, so that they would be recognizable, the children of Reuben by themselves, the children of Simeon by themselves, <etc>; but where is it shown that he loved them? Where it is stated (in Cant. 2:4): [HE BROUGHT ME UNTO THE BANQUET HOUSE,] AND HIS STANDARD OVER ME IS LOVE. To what is the matter comparable? To a rich person who had a storehouse full of wine. He went in to inspect it and found it to be vinegar. <When> he went to leave the storehouse, he found there one cask of [good] wine. He said this cask is worth as much to me as the full storehouse. Similarly the Holy One has created seventy nations, but of them all he has found pleasure only in Israel, as stated (in Cant. 2:4): HE BROUGHT ME UNTO THE BANQUET HOUSE (literally: HOUSE OF WINE [YYN]). <Now> Y (yod) plus Y (yod), <which> equals twenty, plus N (nun), <which stands for> fifty, results in seventy; and of all those <seventy nations> he loved only Israel. It is so stated (ibid., cont.): AND HIS STANDARD OVER ME IS LOVE. It also says (in Cant. 6:8-9): THERE ARE SIXTY QUEENS…. ONE IS MY DOVE, MY PERFECT ONE.

“Your cheeks are lovely with ornaments, your neck with beads” (Song of Songs 1:10).
“Your cheeks are lovely”—just as these cheeks were created only for speech, so too, Moses and Aaron were created only for speech; “with ornaments [batorim],” with two Torahs, written and oral.
Another matter, batorim, many Torahs; that is what is written: “This is the law [tora] of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2); “this is the law [tora] of the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:7); “this is the law [tora] of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:1); “this is the law [tora] of the peace offering” (Leviticus 7:11). “This is the law [tora] of a person when he dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14).
Another matter, batorim, with two countenances [te’arim], with two brothers, these are Moses and Aaron, whose countenances were favorable to each other. This one rejoiced over the prominence of the other and that one rejoiced over the prominence of the other. Rabbi Pinḥas said: It is written: “He will speak to the people on your behalf, and he will be a mouth for you, and you will be an elohim for him” (Exodus 4:16). [“He will be a mouth for you,”] a disseminator. “And you will be an elohim for him,” did Moses become a god for Aaron that you say: “And you will be an elohim for him”? Rather, this is what the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘Moses, just as fear of Me is upon you, so too, your fear will be upon your brother.’ But he did not do so. Rather, “Moses and Aaron went and they assembled all the elders of the children of Israel; Aaron spoke all the matters” (Exodus 4:29–30). [Moses] equated his shoulder to [Aaon’s] shoulder,²⁵²They stood shoulder to shoulder and treated each other as equals. Thus, Moses did not send Aaron to do his bidding; they worked together. as this one still rejoiced over the prominence of the other, and that one over the prominence of the other.
From where [is it derived] that Aaron rejoiced over Moses’s prominence? As it is stated: “He will see you and he will rejoice in his heart” (Exodus 4:14). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: The heart that rejoiced over the prominence of Moses his brother will don the Urim and the Tumim. That is what is written: “You shall place the Urim and the Tumim in the breastplate of judgment and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart” (Exodus 28:30).
From where [is it derived] that Moses rejoiced over Aaron’s prominence? As it is stated: “It is like fine oil on the head, descending onto the beard, the beard of Aaron” (Psalms 133:2). Rabbi Aḥa said: Did Aaron have two beards, as it is written: “Descending onto the beard, the beard of Aaron”?²⁵³Why does it say the word beard twice? Rather, when Moses saw the anointing oil descending onto the beard of Aaron, it was comparable for him as though it descended onto the beard of Moses, and he rejoiced; therefore, it is stated: “Onto the beard, the beard of Aaron.”

“Your cheeks are lovely with ornaments, your neck with beads” (Song of Songs 1:10).
“Your cheeks are lovely”—just as these cheeks were created only for speech, so too, Moses and Aaron were created only for speech; “with ornaments [batorim],” with two Torahs, written and oral.
Another matter, batorim, many Torahs; that is what is written: “This is the law [tora] of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2); “this is the law [tora] of the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:7); “this is the law [tora] of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:1); “this is the law [tora] of the peace offering” (Leviticus 7:11). “This is the law [tora] of a person when he dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14).
Another matter, batorim, with two countenances [te’arim], with two brothers, these are Moses and Aaron, whose countenances were favorable to each other. This one rejoiced over the prominence of the other and that one rejoiced over the prominence of the other. Rabbi Pinḥas said: It is written: “He will speak to the people on your behalf, and he will be a mouth for you, and you will be an elohim for him” (Exodus 4:16). [“He will be a mouth for you,”] a disseminator. “And you will be an elohim for him,” did Moses become a god for Aaron that you say: “And you will be an elohim for him”? Rather, this is what the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘Moses, just as fear of Me is upon you, so too, your fear will be upon your brother.’ But he did not do so. Rather, “Moses and Aaron went and they assembled all the elders of the children of Israel; Aaron spoke all the matters” (Exodus 4:29–30). [Moses] equated his shoulder to [Aaon’s] shoulder,²⁵²They stood shoulder to shoulder and treated each other as equals. Thus, Moses did not send Aaron to do his bidding; they worked together. as this one still rejoiced over the prominence of the other, and that one over the prominence of the other.
From where [is it derived] that Aaron rejoiced over Moses’s prominence? As it is stated: “He will see you and he will rejoice in his heart” (Exodus 4:14). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: The heart that rejoiced over the prominence of Moses his brother will don the Urim and the Tumim. That is what is written: “You shall place the Urim and the Tumim in the breastplate of judgment and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart” (Exodus 28:30).
From where [is it derived] that Moses rejoiced over Aaron’s prominence? As it is stated: “It is like fine oil on the head, descending onto the beard, the beard of Aaron” (Psalms 133:2). Rabbi Aḥa said: Did Aaron have two beards, as it is written: “Descending onto the beard, the beard of Aaron”?²⁵³Why does it say the word beard twice? Rather, when Moses saw the anointing oil descending onto the beard of Aaron, it was comparable for him as though it descended onto the beard of Moses, and he rejoiced; therefore, it is stated: “Onto the beard, the beard of Aaron.”

(Lev. 19:23:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND AND PLANT. This text is related (to Eccl. 2:5): I MADE GARDENS AND ORCHARDS FOR MYSELF, AND IN THEM I PLANTED EVERY KIND OF FRUIT TREE. Do not all the children of Adam plant whatever they want?³⁸Tanh., Lev. 7:10. Whatever someone plants in the earth, it produces either pepper or something < else >. If someone plants, they produce, except that no one knows the place of every plant, < i.e. > where to plant it. However, because Solomon was wise, he planted all the species of trees, [as stated (ibid.): I MADE GARDENS AND ORCHARDS FOR MYSELF, IN WHICH I PLANTED EVERY KIND OF FRUIT TREE.] R. Jannay said: Solomon even planted peppers, but how did he plant them? It is simply that Solomon was wise and knew the root of the foundation of the world.³⁹See Eccl. R. 2:5:1. Where is it shown? (Ps. 50:2): OUT OF ZION GOD HAS SHINED FORTH AS THE PERFECTION OF BEAUTY. Out of Zion has all of the whole world been perfected. Why is it called < Foundation > Stone? Because out of it the world was founded.⁴⁰See above, Lev. 6:4, and the note there. Now Solomon knew which vein went to Cush and planted peppers on it. They produced immediately. See what he says (in Eccl. 2:5): AND IN THEM I PLANTED EVERY KIND OF FRUIT TREE.

(Lev. 19:23:) “When you come into the land and plant.” This text is related (to Eccl. 2:5), “I made gardens and orchards for myself, and in them I planted every kind of fruit tree.” Do not all people plant whatever they want, whatever someone plants in the earth, be it pepper or anything [else. But] if he plants, do [the plants automatically] produce? As no one knows the place of every plant, [i.e.] where to plant it. However, because Solomon was wise, he planted all the species of trees [in their place], as stated (ibid.), “I made gardens and orchards for myself, in which I planted every kind of fruit tree.” What is the meaning of “every kind of fruit tree?” R. Jannay said, “Solomon even planted peppers in the land.” But how did he plant them? It is simply that Solomon was wise and knew the root of the foundation of the world.³¹See Eccl. R. 2:5:1. How? (Ps. 50:2), “Out of Zion God has shined forth as the perfection of beauty.” [This means that] out of Zion has all of the whole world been perfected, as it is taught: Why is it called foundation stone? Because out of it the world was founded.³²See above, Lev. 6:4, and the note there. Now Solomon knew which vein went to Cush and planted peppers on it, and they produced immediately. See what he says (in Eccl. 2:5), “and in them I planted every kind of fruit tree.” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 2:5), “and in them I planted every kind of fruit tree.” Just as a navel is set in the middle of a person, so the Land of Israel is the navel of the world. Thus it is stated (in Ezek. 38:12), “who dwell on the navel of the earth.” And the foundation of the world comes out of it, as stated (Ps. 50:1), “A psalm of Asaph. God, the Lord God spoke and summoned the world from East to West.” How is this known? (Ps. 50:2), “Out of Zion God has shined forth as the perfection of beauty.” The Land of Israel sits at the center of the world; Jerusalem is in the center of the Land of Israel; the sanctuary is in the center of Jerusalem; the Temple building is in the center of the sanctuary; the ark is in the center of the Temple building; and the foundation stone, out of which the world was founded, is before the Temple building.³³Cf. Numb. R. 1:4. Now Solomon, who was wise, determined the roots that went out from [that stone] into the whole world and planted all species of trees in them. He therefore said (in Eccl. 2:5), “I made gardens and orchards for myself.”

Another interpretation (of Numb. 6:23-24), “Thus shall you bless the Children of Israel: The Lord bless you and keep you.” “Bless you,” with wealth; “and keep you,” so that may do good works (mitswot). (Vs. 25:) “The Lord make His face shine,” and raise up children from you to be Torah scholars. Thus it is stated (in Prov. 6:23), “For the commandment (mitzvah) is a lamp, and Torah is [a light].” Another interpretation (of Numb. 6:25), “The Lord make His face shine (from he'ir) [upon you],” to raise up priests from you, who kindle fire (from he'ir) upon the altar. Thus it is stated (in Mal. 1:10), “you will not⁵⁹In the biblical context, the sense would be “may you not.” kindle fire (from he'ir) on My altar in vain.” (Numb. 6:25, cont.:) “And be gracious to you.” R. Hiyya the Great taught, “May the Lord encamp with you.”⁶⁰So did R. Hiyya understand the word translated AND BE GRACIOUS TO YOU (WYHNK), and the word can indeed be understood as coming from the root HNH (“encamp”). Another interpretation (of Numb. 6:25), “and be gracious to you,” to raise up prophets from you. Thus it is stated (in Zech. 12:10), “And I will pour out upon the House of David and upon anyone dwelling in Jerusalem a spirit of grace and mercy.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 6:25), “and be gracious to you.” May He set His grace upon you in whatever place you go. Thus it is stated (in Esth. 2:17), “and she won grace and favor.” (Numb. 6:26:) “The Lord lift up His face unto you.” But another text says (of the Holy One, blessed be He, in Deut. 10:17), “who does not lift up His face (i.e., show favor).” How can this be?⁶¹Sifre, Numb. 6:26 (42); PRK 24(suppl. 7):1. [If] one has repented before judgment is sealed, (Numb. 6:26:) “The Lord lift up his face (i.e., show favor).” When judgment has been sealed, (Deut. 10:17:) “who does not lift up His face.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 6:24), “The Lord bless you and keep you.” Along with the blessing there is a keeping.⁶²Numb. R. 11:5. A king of flesh and blood has a friend in Syria, but he dwells in Rome; when the king sent for him, he arose and came to him, and [the king] gave him a hundred pounds⁶³Gk.: litrai; cf. Lat.: librae. of gold; [but when] he loaded it up and set out on the road, bandits⁶⁴Gk.: lestai. fell upon him. They took everything that he had given him and everything [else] that he had with him. Do you suppose that he could have kept him from the bandits? For that reason it is stated (in Numb. 6:24), “The Lord bless you and keep you.”⁶⁵See the parallel in Numb. R. 11:5, which expands here: “THE LORD BLESS YOU with abundance AND KEEP YOU from bandits.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 6:24), “The Lord bless you and keep you.” May He bless you with money, that there not be a tax collection in the province, and that a tax collector not come to the province and say to you, “Give your gold.” Rather (as in Numb. 6:24), “The Lord bless you and keep you.” Another explanation. “Bless you” refers to sons (who can produce wealth), [while] “keep you” refers to daughters, since the females need keeping. And so it says (in Ps. 121:5), “The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade [on your right hand].” (Numb. 6:25:) “The Lord make His face shine upon you. May He make the light of His face shine for you.” Now “make shine” (y'r) can only mean life, since it is written (in Prov. 16:15), “In the light of the king's face there is life.” It also says (in Ps. 118:27), “The Lord is God and has given light (y'r) to us.” And similarly it says (in Ps. 67:2), “May God be gracious to us and bless us; [may He make His face shine for us].” (Numb. 6:26:) “The Lord lift up his face.” Does the Holy One, blessed be He, lift up His face for a creature? Moreover, is it not already written (in Deut. 10:17), “who does not lift up His face (i.e., show favor).”⁶⁶Numb. R. 11:7. It is simply that, just as they lift up their faces (show favor) to Me, so do I lift up My face to them. How so? I have written in the Torah (in Deut. 8:10), “Then you shall eat, be full, and bless [the Lord your God].” So when a person sits down with his children and the children of his house, and when there is not enough before them to be full, they [still] lift their faces to Me as they give the blessing. Moreover, they exercise meticulous care [to recite a blessing] for [something as small] as an olive, for [something as small] as an egg. Therefore (in Numb. 6:26), “The Lord lift up his face unto you […].”⁶⁷Ber. 20b. (Numb. 6:23:) “Thus shall you bless the Children of Israel], ‘Say to them.’” “Say (amor)” is written] fully (i.e., with the o represented by the vowel letter, waw).⁶⁸Numb. R. 11:4. Say to them, i.e., to the priests, “[It does] not [follow that], because I told you to bless Israel, that you will bless them [as though] in forced labor⁶⁹Gk.: aggareia; Lat.: angaria. and in sudden haste. Rather you shall bless them (fully) with religious devotion (kawwanah) of the heart, so that the blessing will be fully effective with them. It is therefore stated, “Say” fully, to say that a person should wish his fellow well with a full [heart].

“Your cheeks are lovely with ornaments, your neck with beads” (Song of Songs 1:10).
“Your cheeks are lovely”—just as these cheeks were created only for speech, so too, Moses and Aaron were created only for speech; “with ornaments [batorim],” with two Torahs, written and oral.
Another matter, batorim, many Torahs; that is what is written: “This is the law [tora] of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2); “this is the law [tora] of the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:7); “this is the law [tora] of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:1); “this is the law [tora] of the peace offering” (Leviticus 7:11). “This is the law [tora] of a person when he dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14).
Another matter, batorim, with two countenances [te’arim], with two brothers, these are Moses and Aaron, whose countenances were favorable to each other. This one rejoiced over the prominence of the other and that one rejoiced over the prominence of the other. Rabbi Pinḥas said: It is written: “He will speak to the people on your behalf, and he will be a mouth for you, and you will be an elohim for him” (Exodus 4:16). [“He will be a mouth for you,”] a disseminator. “And you will be an elohim for him,” did Moses become a god for Aaron that you say: “And you will be an elohim for him”? Rather, this is what the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘Moses, just as fear of Me is upon you, so too, your fear will be upon your brother.’ But he did not do so. Rather, “Moses and Aaron went and they assembled all the elders of the children of Israel; Aaron spoke all the matters” (Exodus 4:29–30). [Moses] equated his shoulder to [Aaon’s] shoulder,²⁵²They stood shoulder to shoulder and treated each other as equals. Thus, Moses did not send Aaron to do his bidding; they worked together. as this one still rejoiced over the prominence of the other, and that one over the prominence of the other.
From where [is it derived] that Aaron rejoiced over Moses’s prominence? As it is stated: “He will see you and he will rejoice in his heart” (Exodus 4:14). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: The heart that rejoiced over the prominence of Moses his brother will don the Urim and the Tumim. That is what is written: “You shall place the Urim and the Tumim in the breastplate of judgment and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart” (Exodus 28:30).
From where [is it derived] that Moses rejoiced over Aaron’s prominence? As it is stated: “It is like fine oil on the head, descending onto the beard, the beard of Aaron” (Psalms 133:2). Rabbi Aḥa said: Did Aaron have two beards, as it is written: “Descending onto the beard, the beard of Aaron”?²⁵³Why does it say the word beard twice? Rather, when Moses saw the anointing oil descending onto the beard of Aaron, it was comparable for him as though it descended onto the beard of Moses, and he rejoiced; therefore, it is stated: “Onto the beard, the beard of Aaron.”

R. Abba bar Abbina said: For what reason is the parashah on < the death of > Miriam (Numb. 20:1) near the parashah on the ashes of the < red > heifer (Numb. 19:1ff.)?⁵⁶Tanh., Lev. 6:7; PRK 26(27):11; Lev. R. 20:12; yYoma 1:1 (38b); MQ 28a. Simply to teach that just as the ashes of the < red > heifer atones, so does the death of the righteous atone. R. [Judan] said: For what reason is the death of Aaron (Deut. 10:6) near the breaking of the tablets (Deut. 9:17)? To teach that the death of the righteous is as grievous to the Holy One as the breaking of the tablets. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: The sons of Aaron died on the first of Nisan.⁵⁷According to Lev. 10:1, they died at the time of the dedication of the Tabernacle; and according to Exod. 40:17, the dedication began with its erection on the first day of the first month, i.e., on the first of Abib, which came to be called Nisan. Why does it mention their death on the Day of Atonement (in Lev. 16:1)? {He said to him:} [It is simply] to teach that, just as the Day of Atonement atones, so does the death of the righteous atone. And where is it shown that the Day of Atonement atones? Where it is stated (in Lev. 16:30): FOR ON THIS DAY ATONEMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR YOU TO CLEANSE YOU. And where it is shown that the death of the righteous atones? Where it is stated (in II Sam. 21:14): THEN THEY BURIED THE BONES OF SAUL…. AND GOD RESPONDED TO THE PLEA OF THE LAND THEREAFTER.

10) "And he slaughter it in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered." Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? In the north. This, too, is slaughtered in the north. But do I derive this from here? Is it not already written (Vayikra 6:18): "In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd"? Why, then, is this specified here? To make it categorical — that if it were not slaughtered in the north, it is pasul.

10) From this it follows: If the offering is fit and the libations unfit; the offering unfit and the libations fit; even if both are unfit — the offering is not taken down and the libations are taken down, (for the libation came only because of the offering).

10) (Vayikra 18:4) "to walk in them": Make them primary and not secondary. "to walk in them": Your converse should be only in them, not intermixed with any mundane matters. Do not say: I have learned the wisdom of Israel; now I will learn the wisdom of the world. "to walk in them": You are not permitted to depart from them. And thus (Mishlei 5:17) "They shall be ours alone … (Vayikra 6:22) In your going forth, it shall guide you" — in this world; "in your reclining, it shall guard you" — at the time of death; "and when you awake, it shall converse with you" — in the world to come. And (Isaiah 26:19) "Awake and sing, you dwellers in the dust!" And lest you say: "Gone is my hope and my prospect!" It is, therefore, written "I am the L–rd." I am your hope and your prospect and upon Me is your trust. And (Isaiah 46:4) "And until (your) old age, I am He, etc." And (Isaiah 44:6) "Thus said the L–rd, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the L–rd of hosts, etc." (Isaiah 48:12) "I am He. I am first and I am last." And (Isaiah 41:4) "I, the L–rd, am first, and with the last shall I be,"

10) Whence is it derived that nothing is to take precedence to the morning tamid? From "upon it the burnt-offering," (implying that nothing is to take precedence to it). Whence is it to be derived that nothing is offered up later than the afternoon tamid? From "upon it (the afternoon tamid, the shelamim, lit., the "completers," i.e., complete all of the offerings with it). (Vayikra 6:6) ("A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished.") "continuous" — (The wood pile is to be made for the temidim and the mussafim) even on the Sabbath; "continuous" — even (if the Cohanim are) in a state of tumah. "it shall not be extinguished" — even during their journeyings. What did they do (to keep the fire from going out)? They inverted a psachter (a large vessel) over it. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: In their journeyings they would remove the fire from the altar (and place it in a vessel until they camped), as it is written (Bamidbar 4:13): "And they shall remove the fire from the altar and spread upon it (the vessel) a purple cloth."

10) Whence is it derived that nothing is to take precedence to the morning tamid? From "upon it the burnt-offering," (implying that nothing is to take precedence to it). Whence is it to be derived that nothing is offered up later than the afternoon tamid? From "upon it (the afternoon tamid, the shelamim, lit., the "completers," i.e., complete all of the offerings with it). (Vayikra 6:6) ("A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished.") "continuous" — (The wood pile is to be made for the temidim and the mussafim) even on the Sabbath; "continuous" — even (if the Cohanim are) in a state of tumah. "it shall not be extinguished" — even during their journeyings. What did they do (to keep the fire from going out)? They inverted a psachter (a large vessel) over it. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: In their journeyings they would remove the fire from the altar (and place it in a vessel until they camped), as it is written (Bamidbar 4:13): "And they shall remove the fire from the altar and spread upon it (the vessel) a purple cloth."

10) "his fistful from its soleth and from its oil": If in taking the fistful there came up in his hand a pebble or a grain of salt or of frankincense, it is pasul. "from its soleth and from its oil, aside from all of its frankincense" There must be frankincense there (on the meal-offering) at the time of the kemitzah. "aside from all of its frankincense and he shall smoke": He picks the (grains of) frankincense (from the meal-offering, places it on the fistful in the vessel) and offers it on the fire (of the altar).

10) Similarly, (in respect to levirate marriage) (Devarim 25:5): "Her yavam (her dead husband's brother) shall come upon her": This is a mitzvah. I might think that (since in the beginning, before she married) she was in the category of the permitted, and then (upon her marriage) she was forbidden, and then (after her husband died) she was permitted again — I might think that she returned to her original permissibility (and that he might just as well resort to chalitzah [release from levirate marriage]); it is, therefore, written "Her levir shall come upon her" (It is a mitzvah for him to come upon her.)

And thou shalt overlay it with brass (Exod. 27:2). R. Judah the son of Shalum stated: Moses had said to the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You told me to make an altar of acacia-wood and to overlay it with brass, and You said also: A fire should burn perpetually unto Me on the altar (Lev. 6:6). But will not the fire penetrate the overlay and burn the wood? The Holy One, blessed be He, replied: Moses, normally this does happen, but think of the angels of glowing fire who are near Me, and of the treasures of snow and hail that I possess, as it is said: Hast thou entered the treasuries of the snow, or hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail? (Job 38:22), and it says also: Who layest the beams of thine upper chambers in the waters (Ps. 104:3). The water, however, does not extinguish the fire, nor does the fire consume the water. The creatures of fire, likewise, are unaffected by the waters of the firmament above their heads, as is said: As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like the coals of fire, burning like the appearance of torches; it flashed up and down among the living creatures (Ezek. 1:13). It is also written there: And over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament, like the color of the terrible ice, stretched forth over their heads above (ibid., v. 22). They bore the entire body of water which was the thickness of the firmament, a distance of five hundred years’ journey, and they also supported the great bodies of fire, which stood between the firmaments, that were a distance of five hundred years’ journey.

(Lev. 16:1:) NOW THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH < OF AARON'S TWO SONS >. This text is related (to Job 37:1): AT THIS ALSO MY HEART TREMBLES. [Who spoke this verse? Elihu spoke it.] Elihu was observing how the sons of Aaron went in to sacrifice and came out destroyed by fire.⁵⁸Tanh., Lev. 6:8; cf. PRK 26(27):5; Lev. R. 20:5. He was amazed and said (ibid.): AT THIS ALSO MY HEART TREMBLES AND LEAPS FROM ITS PLACE. What did he see for him to say this? It is simply at a time when⁵⁹Besha‘ah besha‘ah shennitpaqpeqah, which translates literally as, “In the hour, in the hour that < the priesthood > was shaken.” This repetition may well be an error, which Buber seems to avoid when he cites the passage in his notes. the priesthood was shaken {i.e., when < the priesthood > had become weak} in the hand of Aaron. What is written there (in Numb. 17:21 [6])? THEN MOSES SPOKE UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL; AND THEIR PRINCES GAVE HIM A STAFF, A STAFF FOR EACH PRINCE…. So he wrote the name of each and every tribe on its staff. He also wrote the name of Aaron on the staff of Levi and put it in the middle. Moses said < It was > lest the children of Israel say: It smelled the Divine Presence and bore fruit. [Moses said: See, I am putting it in the middle so as not to give a pretext, as stated (in Numb. 17:21 [6], cont.): AND THE STAFF OF AARON WAS IN THE MIDST OF THEIR STAFFS.] What is written there (in vs. 22–23 [7–8])? THEN MOSES PLACED THE STAFFS < BEFORE THE LORD IN THE TENT OF THE TESTIMONY >…. AND THERE THE STAFF OF AARON < OF THE HOUSE OF LEVI > HAD SPROUTED; IT < HAD PUT FORTH SPROUTS, PRODUCED BLOSSOMS, > AND HAD BORNE ALMONDS. The scriptural text lacked nothing. Why then: AND HAD BORN (rt.: GML) ALMONDS (rt.: ShQD)?⁶⁰Numb. R. 18:23. It repaid (rt.: GML) anyone who was bent on (rt.: ShQD) evil against the tribe of Levi. So while (in Numb. 17:16–24 [1–9]) even dry pieces of wood emitted an aroma among those who live in the world, [sprouted blossoms,] came out alive, and produced fruits; the sons of Aaron, who entered there alive, came out destroyed by fire. So when Elihu beheld the one and the other, he said (in Job 37:1): AT THIS ALSO MY HEART TREMBLES. When? (Lev. 16:1:) NOW THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.

R. Berechiah stated in the name of R. Helbo and in the name of R. Abba: The hoofs of the beasts are also a distance of four hundred years’ journey, and all of them bear fire through the firmament which is filled with water, and the fire does not consume the water, and the water does not extinguish the fire. Why was that? He makes peace in His heavens. Yet because I told you to burn a perpetual light on the altar, you are fearful that it might burn the wood!

Similarly, though Scripture states: And the priests shall kindle wood upon it every morning (Lev. 6:5), it is written: And Lebanon is not sufficient fuel (Isa. 40:16). This was stated so that one might receive a reward for doing so. Similarly, it says: The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning (Num. 28:4), though it has already been said: Nor the beasts thereof sufficient for burnt-offerings (Isa. 40:16). This indicates that you may receive a reward (for its observance). Let them make Me a Sanctuary that I may dwell among them (Exod. 25:8) may be explained in a like manner. Has it not been written already Do not I fill heaven and earth (Jer. 23:24)? This commandment was imposed upon you so that you would receive a reward (for building a Sanctuary). And Moses said unto the people: Remember this day (Exod. 13:3). Scripture states elsewhere: That thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life (Deut. 16:3). Does this mean that they were to remember it only during the day and not at night? Ben Zoma interpreted the verse That thou mayest remember the day when thou came forth … all the days of your life to mean that the days of your life refers to the daytime, while all the days of your life alludes to night time.

The lifeless brought before Me depart alive, yet you fear that the wood in the altar erected in My honor will burn! Who commanded the fire to burn? Learn from your own experience! When you entered into the midst of the wall of fire and walked among the bands (of angels in heaven), you should have been consumed, yet you came unto Me, as it is said: But Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was (Exod. 20:18). I am a consuming fire, as is said: For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire (Deut. 4:24), and it would have been normal for you to have been consumed. Why were you not (consumed)? Because you ascended for My glory. Likewise, in the case of the altar of the burnt offering, concerning which it is written: Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually, neither the brass will be affected, nor will the wood be burned.

If you should be of the opinion that the brass was not affected because it was thick, R. Nehemiah declared that the overlay was but the thickness of a dinar. R. Phinehas the son of Hama said: If you should believe that the fire descended from on high only for a short time, and that is why the altar was not damaged, the fact is that this altar was so important that the fire was not removed from it either by day or by night, as it is said: The fire shall be kept burning on the altar continually. Why was the overlay made of brass? In order to atone for the brazen brow (i.e., Israel’s stubbornness),¹⁹See Kiddushin 70b. as it is said: And thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass (Isa. 48:4).

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) From (Shemoth 29:37): "All that touches the altar shall become consecrated" we learn that the altar consecrates what is appropriate for it. Whence do we derive that even the ramp (leading to the altar) consecrates what is appropriate for the altar? From "eth the altar" ("eth" connoting inclusion). Whence do I derive that even the ministering vessels consecrate what is appropriate for them? From (Shemoth 30:29): "And they (the ministering vessels) shall be holy of holies. All that touches them shall be consecrated."

11) R. Yehudah says: There were two wood piles (on the altar) every day, and three on Yom Kippur, (a pile being added for the coals taken in the fire pan). R. Yossi says: There were three every day and four on Yom Kippur: one, the great wood pile; one, the wood pile for (the daily burning of) the incense; one, for the sustenance of the fire (on the great wood pile); and one, added for Yom Kippur. R. Meir says: There were four wood piles every day and five on Yom Kippur: one, the great wood pile; one, for the incense; one, for the sustenance of the fire; one, for the limbs and the fat-pieces that had not been consumed in the evening; and one, for Yom Kippur.

11 "It shall be eaten unleavened": What is the intent of this? Because it is written "shall they eat it," I might think only all of it (i.e., only if the entire remainder is intact.) Whence do I derive that even part of it (is to be eaten if the rest went lost)? From "It shall be eaten" — any amount.

Rabbi Yitzḥak began: “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and with gladness of heart, due to abundance of everything, you will serve your enemies…” (Deuteronomy 28:47–48) – had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance” (Exodus 15:17), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Let all their evil come before You [and do to them as You did to me]” (Lamentations 1:22).³³The term “You will bring them” in the verse in Exodus and the word “come” in the verse in Lamentations have the same root: tav, bet, alef.
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “Peoples heard, they were agitated” (Exodus 15:14), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “They heard that I am sighing” (Lamentations 1:21).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “I have seen the affliction of My people that is in Egypt” (Exodus 3:7), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “See, Lord, for I am in distress, my innards burn” (Lamentations 1:20).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You shall proclaim on this very day” (Leviticus 23:21), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “I called my lovers; [they deceived me]” (Lamentations 1:19).³⁴The word “proclaim” in Leviticus and the word “called” in Lamentations have the same root: kuf, resh, alef.
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “Justice [tzedek], justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The Lord is righteous [tzadik], for I have defied His word” (Lamentations 1:18).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You shall open your hand [to your brother]” (Deuteronomy 15:11), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Zion spread its hands, [there is no comforter for it]” (Lamentations 1:17).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “These are the appointed times of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:4), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “For these I weep” (Lamentations 1:16).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “We will ascend on the highway [bamsila]” (Numbers 20:19), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The Lord trampled [sila] all my mighty” (Lamentations 1:15).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “I broke the bars of your yoke” (Leviticus 26:13), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The yoke of my transgressions is preserved in His hand” (Lamentations 1:14).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “A perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:6), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “From on high He sent fire into my bones” (Lamentations 1:13).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “[The Lord your God who goes before you, He shall fight for you according to all that He did for you.…] in the entire path [derekh] that you went” (Deuteronomy 1:30–31), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “May it not befall you, all passersby [ovrei derekh]” (Lamentations 1:12).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You will eat your bread to satiation” (Leviticus 26:5), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “All its people are sighing, seeking bread” (Lamentations 1:11).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “No man will covet your land” (Exodus 34:24), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The besieger spread his hand over all its delights” (Lamentations 1:10).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “For on this day he shall atone for you [to purify you]” (Leviticus 16:30), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Its impurity is on its skirts” (Lamentations 1:9).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “From all your sins you shall be purified before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:30), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Jerusalem has sinned” (Lamentations 1:8).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You shall be remembered before the Lord your God” (Numbers 10:9), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Jerusalem remembered in the days of its affliction” (Lamentations 1:7).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “I will walk in your midst” (Leviticus 26:12), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “All the glory of the daughter of Zion has gone” (Lamentations 1:6).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “The Lord will place you as a head [lerosh]” (Deuteronomy 28:13), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Its foes are ascendant [lerosh], its enemies are tranquil” (Lamentations 1:5).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “Three times a year [shall all your males appear before the Lord your God…on the festival]” (Deuteronomy 16:16), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The ways of Zion mourn [without festival pilgrims]” (Lamentations 1:4).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You will dwell securely” (Leviticus 26:5), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Judah has been exiled in affliction” (Lamentations 1:3).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “It is a night of watching of the Lord” (Exodus 12:42), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “It weeps at night” (Lamentations 1:2).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “How [eikha] can I bear alone” (Deuteronomy 1:12), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “How [eikha] does…sit solitary?” (Lamentations 1:1).

Another interpretation [(of Exod. 15:1): THEN (az) SANG MOSES….] This text is related (to Ps. 40:2 [1]): I WAITED PATIENTLY FOR THE LORD…. R. Pinhas ben Hama the Priest said: If you waited patiently and he did not come, continue to wait. David said (in Ps. 27:14): WAIT FOR THE LORD; [BE STRONG AND LET YOUR HEART TAKE COURAGE! O WAIT FOR THE LORD]. If he came, your expectation was right. If not, continue to WAIT FOR THE LORD. David said (in Ps. 40:2 [1]): I WAITED PATIENTLY FOR THE LORD. Because of the waiting, (ibid., cont.:) HE INCLINED TOWARD ME AND HEARD MY CRY. (Exod. 2:24:) AND GOD HEARD THEIR MOANING…. (Ps. 40:3 [2]:) AND HE RAISED ME UP FROM THE PIT OF DESOLATION, FROM THE MIRY CLAY…, <i.e.,> from the clay of bricks. (Ibid.:) AND HE SET MY FEET UPON A ROCK, in that he gave me the booty of Egypt and the booty of the sea. {(Ibid., cont.:) HE ESTABLISHED MY STEPS.} (Ps. 40:4 [3]:) AND HE HAS PUT A NEW SONG IN MY MOUTH. (Exod. 15:1) THEN (az) SANG MOSES. What is the meaning of (az)? With an az the Holy One made the dry land into sea for the generation of Enosh. It is so stated (in Gen. 4:26): THEN (az) THERE WAS PROFANATION IN CALLING <OTHER GODS> BY THE NAME OF THE LORD.³¹The verse is consistently understood in this sense throughout Rabbinic literature. Thus the wickedness resulting in the flood had its beginning in the generation of Enosh. But for us he made the sea into dry land. With az we praised him.³²The midrash is alluding here to Exod. 15:1: THEN (az) SANG MOSES…. See above, Gen. 1:32; below, Lev. 6:14.

The Seers (i.e., the prophets) were the ones who said the doubled letters, mantzepakh (mem, nun, tzadi, peh, and kaf, which are the letters that have a different form when they appear at the end of a word). [The doubling of kaf that is found in Genesis 12:1,] "Lekh lekha (Go for yourself)," hints to Avraham that he will father Yitschak at one hundred years [of age] (as the numerical value of these two words is one hundred). [The doubling of mem that is found in Genesis 26:16,] "ki atsamta memenu (as you have become more powerful than us)" is a hint [to Yitschak] that hints that he and his seed will be powerful in both worlds. The doubling of nun [that is found in Genesis 32:12,] "Hatsileini na (Save me)" [is a hint to] Yaakov, [that] he will be saved in both worlds. The doubling of peh [that is found in Genesis 50:24,] "pakod yifkod (He will surely remember you)" [is a hint to] Yosef, [that] He will remember you in this world, and He will remember you in the world to come. The doubling of tzadi [that is found in Zachariah 6:12,] "hinei eesh, Tsemach shemo, ou'metachtav yitsmach (behold, a man called Branch shall branch out from the place where he is,)" is [referring to] the messiah. And so is it stated (Jermiah 23:5), "vahikimoti leDaveed tsemach tsadeek (and I will raise up a true branch of David)." ["The leader of fifty" (Isaiah 3:3)] ("Sixty were the queens" [Song of Songs 6:8]). Twenty-four books (of the Bible), and add to them eleven of the thirteen [books of the minor prophets] - besides Yonah which is by itself - and six orders of the Mishnah and nine chapters of Torat Kohanim, behold ["The leader of fifty"] ("Sixty were the queens"). "[Sixty were the queens] and eighty were the concubines" (Song of Songs 6:8). Sixty tractates and eighty study halls that were in Jerusalem corresponding to its gates. "And maidens without number" (Song of Songs 6:8). The study outside. "Behold the bed of Shlomo, sixty warriors" (Song of Songs 3:7). [This] corresponds to the [number of] letters of [the priestly blessing,) "May the Lord bless you and keep you, etc." (Numbers 6:24-26). The Satan (HaSatan) has the numerical equivalent of the count of the days of the solar year, as he rules over all the year to slander, except for Yom Kippur. Rabbi Ami bar Abba said, "Avraham was missing five organs before he was circumcised and [before he] fathered. The [letter] hay (with a numerical value of five) was added [to his name] and he became complete and fathered, and he was called Avraham [corresponding to the complete set of organs, two hundred and forty-eight], the numerical count of his letters." [Regarding] Sarai, two Amoraim (later rabbinic teachers) differed. One said, "The [letter] yod [with a numerical count of ten that was taken from her] was divided into two, [to give] a hay to Avaraham and a hay to Sarah." And [the other] said, "The yod that was taken from Sarah raised a protest until Yehshoua came and had a yod added, as it is stated (Numbers 13:16), "and Moshe called Hoshea [...], Yehoshua." And it saved him from the counsel of the [other] spies. [The significance of the letters in the name,] Yitschak [is as follows]: Yod [with a numerical count of ten] corresponds to the ten trials [of Avraham]. [The letter] tsadi [with a numerical count of ninety, as] Sarah was ninety when he was born. [The letter] chet [with a numerical count of eight, as] he was circumcised on the eighth day. And the letter kof [with a numerical count of one hundred, as] Avraham was a hundred years old when he was born. Yaakov was called according to [the significance of the letters of] his [own] name: Yod [corresponds to] the tenth of his offspring going backwards, Levi. Count from (the last son), Binaymin to Levi - there are ten sons, and Levi was the tenth. And he gave him as a tithe to the Omnipresent to fulfill [what he said] (Genesis 28:22), "all that You give to me, I will surely tithe it to You." [The letter] ayin [with a numerical count of seventy corresponds to the number of offspring he took to Egypt], "with seventy souls" (Deuteronomy 10:22). Kof corresponds to the [number of the] letters of the blessing [that he received], "And may He give you [etc.]" (Genesis 27:28). Take away the name [of God] from there, and one hundred [letters] remain. [The letter] bet [with a numerical count of two] corresponds to two angels [that he saw on the ladder in his dream] rising. Yehudah was called according to [the significance of the numerical count of the letters of] his [own] name: Thirty, corresponding to the thirty virtues of the monarchy. There were six hundred and thirteen letters on the tablets - from "I am" (Exodus 20:2) to "to your neighbor" (Exodus 20:14) - corresponding to the six hundred and thirteen commandments. And they were all given to Moshe at [Mount] Sinai; and in them are statutes and judgments, Torah and Mishnah, Talmud and aggadah. "The fear of the Lord is his treasure" (Isaiah 33:6). There is no greater characteristic than fear and humility, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 10:12), "And now Israel, what does the Lord, your God, ask of you [besides to fear Him]." "The fear of" (Yirat) has a numerical value of six hundred and eleven; along with Torah and circumcision, behold that is six hundred and thirteen. [The numerical value of] fringes (tsitsit) is six hundred. [Add] eight strings and five knots, behold that is six hundred and thirteen. "[The man (David)] raised on high" (II Samuel 23:1) - [high (al)] has a numerical value of one hundred, corresponding to one hundred blessings. As on every day, one hundred men of Israel were dying. [So] David and ordained [the daily saying of] one hundred blessings. "And now Israel, what (mah) does the Lord, your God, ask of you" - read it as one hundred (meah), these are the hundred blessings. Once he ordained it, the pestilence ceased. "This is the law of the burnt-offering (olah), it is the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 6:2), [meaning] the yoke (ulah) of Torah and the yoke of repentance. "Two anointed ones" (Zechariah 4:14). These are David and Aharon who were anointed with the anointing oil, such that their anointing was for [all] the generations. With Aharon, it is written (Numbers 25:13), "It shall be for him and his descendants after him, a pact of priesthood for all time." With David it is written (Ezekiel 37:25), "and My servant David as their prince for all time." "Forgive all guilt and take the good (tov)" (Hosea 14:3). Israel said, "Master of the world, at the time that the Temple existed, we would offer a sacrifice and be cleansed. But now all we have in our hand is prayer." The numerical value of tov is seventeen. Prayer [consists of] nineteen [blessings]. Take away from them the blessing for the malfeasers that was composed at Yavneh, and "Let the sprout of David blossom," which they ordained for the sake of "Probe me, Lord, and try me" (Psalms 26:2). Rabbi Simon says, "'Forgive all guilt and take the good (tov).' The numerical value of tov in at-bash (matching letters based on how close they are to the center of the alphabet) is [the same as] soul (nefesh). Israel said, 'Behold the fat from us, from our souls. May it be Your will that it be atonement for us and "that we pay with the words of our lips" (Hosea 14:3).'" "And the Lord gave her conception (herayon)" (Ruth 4:13). [Herayon] has a numerical value of the [number of the] days of the nine months of birthing (two hundred and seventy one). The name of the angel that is appointed for conception is night, as stated (Job 3:3), "and the night [that it was] said, 'A man was conceived." The measure of the water of a mikveh (ritual bath) is forty seah corresponding to the [forty mentions] of well, written in the Torah. And [the volume of] how many eggs is the measure of the mikveh? Five thousand seven hundred and sixty. And a seah is a hundred and forty-four eggs. Forty-three and a fifth eggs is the measure of [what is required for] hallah [tithe]. And from where [do we know] that a mikveh requires forty seah? As it is written (Isaiah 8:6), "Since this nation has rejected the waters of Shiloach that flow gently (le'at)." The numerical value of le'at is forty. Behold the measure of a seah is a tefach by a tefach with the height of [sixteen] tefach [and a fifth]. And one who separates the measure of the hallah [tithe] must separate [one part in forty three] and a fifth [from Torah writ like the numerical value of hallah]. Forty lashes (which are actually thirty-nine) is from Torah writ, as it is written (Exodus 35:1), "These (eleh) are the things which the Lord commanded." [The numerical count of] "eleh" is thirty-six; "things" (being plural) is two; "the things" [indicates an additional] one - behold, forty minus one (thirty-nine). "He shall strike him forty, he shall not add" (Deuteronomy 25:3), corresponds to the forty curses received by the snake, Chava, Adam and the ground, and the sages lessened one, because of "he shall not add." A Sanhedrin is twenty-three, so [that it is possible for] those advocating innocence to have one more (than twenty), and those advocating guilt to have two more. It is best for the two to come and push off one. The numerical value of anathmea (cherem) is two hundred and forty-eight. And Shmuel said, when it takes force it takes force on [all] two hundred and forty-eight organs, and when it leaves, it leaves from two hundred and forty-eight limbs, as it is written (Habakuk 3:2), "in anger, remember to have mercy (rachem, which is made up of the same letters as cherem)." It is written,"tirash," but we read it [as] tirosh. [If] he merits, he becomes a rosh (leader); [if] he does not merit, he becomes a rash (poor person). Our rabbis, may their memory be blessed said, "A man is recognized by three things: by his purse, by his glass and by his anger. Tavel is Ramaliah. Seshach is Bavel (Babylon) [according to] its numerical value of in at-bash. The numerical value of Gog and Magog is seventy, as they are the seventy nations [of the world].

12) A (ministering) vessel for (things that are) wet, i.e., dishes and sprinklers for blood, wine, and oil) consecrates what is wet. A measure for (things that are) dry (e.g., meal) consecrates what is dry. And a vessel for wet does not consecrate what is dry; and a measure for dry does not consecrate what is wet. Ministering vessels that were punctured — if they can perform the function for which they were used when they were whole — consecrate (what touches them); if not, they do not. And all of them do so only in the azarah.

12) "in a holy place shall it be eaten": I might think, in the Levite encampment; it is, therefore, written "in the court of the tent of meeting (i.e., in the azarah) shall they eat it." This tells me only of the court of the tent of meeting. Whence do I derive for inclusion the (Temple) chambers that are built in a non-consecrated area and open into a consecrated one? From "in a holy place." "shall they eat it": They shall not eat along with it non-consecrated food and terumah when it is ample (in itself).

"This is the law of the burnt offering" (Leviticus 6:2): And what is [the meaning of] burnt offering (olah, literally that which rises)? Rather, it is that it rises in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, and atones for the iniquities of Israel. Since at the time that Avraham made the sacrifice of the ram - as it is stated (Genesis 22:13), "And Avraham raised his eyes and he saw, and behold there was a ram after" - what is [the meaning of] "after?" Rather, [it is to say that] after the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that [Avraham] came to sacrifice his son, Yitzchak, as a burnt-offering with all of his heart and with all of his soul, He sent him a ram [as a replacement]. The Sages said that the ram to be offered instead of Yitzchak was created from the six days of creation. And that is [the meaning of] that which is written, "and behold there was a ram after, etc." "And he took the ram, etc." (Genesis 22:13) - there the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him that at the time when his children would offer burnt-offerings, they would be immediately accepted. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, said, "Were it not that Avraham delayed to check the knife, Yitzchak would have been slaughtered. But he did delay to check the knife. Immediately, the mercy of the Holy One, blessed be He, was aroused for Yitzchak. And the Holy One, blessed be He, said to His retinue, 'See how alacritous this righteous one is to fulfill the words of My statement.' Immediately, He told an angel to rescue him, as it is stated (Genesis 22:11), 'And he said, "Avraham, Avraham," and he said, "Here I am."'" And why did he say, "Avraham, Avraham," twice? Since it was [Avraham's] will to slaughter him and do the will of his Maker, the angel was hurrying and said, "Avraham, Avraham." And from where [do we know] that he checked the knife? As it is stated (Genesis 22:10), "and he took the knife." Count the letters of "and he took the knife" (in Hebrew), and you will find twelve, like the tally of examinations that one does on the knife - upon the flesh, the fingernail and on the three sides (of the knife). And from where [do we know this]? As it is stated (I Samuel 14:34), "and you shall slaughter with this (zeh)" - zeh has a numerical value (gematria) of twelve. And what is [the meaning of] (Leviticus 6:1), "And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying?" [That it should be said] to Aharon. From here we learn that Moshe only said that which the Holy One, blessed be He, would tell him. And therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, said to his credit (Numbers 12:7), "Not so My servant Moshe; in all of My house, he is faithful." And so does it state to Shmuel's credit (I Samuel 3:20), "And all of Israel, from Dan to Beersheva, knew that Shmuel was faithful as a prophet for the Lord." You find that [prophecy] began to come to him when the sons of Eli sinned in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated (I Samuel 3:3), "The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Shmuel was laying in the chamber of the Lord." And was he [really] laying in the chamber of the Lord? Rather this is its explanation: The lamp of God had not yet gone out in the chamber of the Lord in which was the ark of the Lord, and Shmuel was laying in his place, [which was] in a different place. "And the Lord called to Shmuel, and he said, 'Here I am'" (I Samuel 3:4) - but he did not understand who was calling him, since he was [still] a youth, as it is stated (I Samuel 2:26), "And Shmuel the youth proceeded to grow in favor with the Lord, as well as with people." "And he ran to Eli and he said, 'Here I am, as you have called me'" (I Samuel 3:5) - as he thought that [it was Eli that] had called him - "and he said, 'I did not call you my son, return and lay down.'" "And the Lord called Shmuel again, a third time, and he rose and went to Eli and said, 'Here I am, as you have called me'; and Eli understood that the Lord was calling to the youth. And Eli said to Shmuel, 'Go lay down, and if He calls to you, say, "Speak, Lord, for Your servant is listening"'" (I Samuel 3:8-9) - but he did not say, "Speak, Lord," but [only] (I Samuel 3:10), "Speak." As he said in his heart, "I do not know if it is the Lord or an angel or something else." And he is equated with Moshe: [About] Moshe, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, (Numbers 12:7), "Not so My servant Moshe; in all of My house, he is faithful"; and [about] Shmuel He said (I Samuel 3:20), "And all of Israel, from Dan to Beersheva, knew that Shmuel was faithful as a prophet for the Lord." Therefore the verse states (Jeremiah 15:1), "Even if Moshe and Shmuel would stand in front of me, My soul would not be towards this people." And he was equated to Moshe and Aharon [together], as stated (Psalms 99:6), "Moshe and Aaron among His priests, and Shmuel among those who call His name." [Shmuel] would brighten the eyes of Israel, as it is stated (I Samuel 3:3), "The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Shmuel was laying in the chamber of the Lord." Moshe and Shmuel were not like Yechezkel, as he said everything that he saw, and as it is stated [it appears that the next section is corrupted, and that the reference is meant to be from Ezekiel 1 - see Etz Yosef] (Isaiah 6:1), "In the year that King Uzziah died, I beheld the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne; and the skirts of His robe filled the Temple." And therefore Scripture calls him, "Son of Man." Four are living but Scripture calls them dead, and these are them: the destitute, the metsora (one stricken with a spiritual skin disease), the blind and one with no children. From where [do I know this about] the metsora? As it is stated, "In the year that King Uzziah died." And why does the verse call him dead (given that he had not yet died)? Rather, because he had become a metsora. As it is stated, "In the year that King Uzziah died," [meaning] that he had become a metsora. "Seraphs stood above Him" (Isaiah 6:2) - in the heavens to serve Him - ["Each of them had six wings:] with two he covered his face" - from modesty that his body should not show before His body - "with two he covered his legs" - so that he not see and peer towards the side of the Divine Presence - "and with two he would fly." And does he [really] fly with the wings? Rather, it is as a result of this that they, may their memory be blessed, ordained that a man should hover on his feet when the prayer leader says (Isaiah 6:3), "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts." And Tanchuma said, "The covering of the feet was because their heel is like the heel of the calf, such that they would not remind [God] about Israel's sin with the calf." "And one called to the other and said" (Isaiah 6:4) - they would get permission from one another, so that one not preempt the other and begin [alone], and [so] become liable for burning; rather they all started as one, and answered, etc. - "and the measure of the doorposts shook" - these were the doorposts of the chamber - "from the voice of the caller" - from the voice of the angels calling. This was the day of the earthquake, about which it is stated (Zechariah 14:5), "it shall be stopped up as it was stopped up as a result of the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, the king of Yehudah." As on the day that Uzziah stood to offer incense in the [Temple] chamber, the heavens and the earth shook and the Seraphs came to burn him (lesorfo) with burning (serefah), as it is stated (Numbers 16:35), "And fire went out from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense," because they offered a foreign fire. And this is [why] it calls them Seraphs, as they came to burn him. And the heavens also came to burn him. And the earth [came] to swallow him, as it thought that his judgement was to be swallowed like Korach, who dissented about the priesthood. [So] a heavenly voice emerged and said, "A reminder for the Children of Israel [...], and not be like Korach and like his assembly who dissented about the priesthood" (Numbers 17:5) - "not be like Korach," with swallowing; "and not like his assembly," with burning. But rather "like the Lord spoke through the hand of Moshe, saying to him" - through the hand of Moshe at the bush, as it is stated (Exodus 4:6), "'Put your hand into your bosom and take it out,' and behold his hand was afflicted with tsaraat like snow." [This is] meaning to say that the dissenter be afflicted with tsaraat. And the tsaraat even broke out on his forehead. And [so] he was considered as if he were dead. And so [too,] do you find with Miriam, as it is stated, "Go out, the three of you" (Numbers 12:4). There was no need for Moshe to go out, as he did not say anything to [Aharon]. Rather it was so that he would be available to pray for Miriam, [in order] to heal her. "And He called Aharon and Miriam" (Numbers 12:5) - why did He call them and leave Moshe. As we [only] say part of a person's praise in front of them, but all of it not in front of him. And so [too,] do we find with Noach. Not in front of him, [God] said, "A perfectly righteous man" (Genesis 6:9); but in front of him, He said, "as I have seen you to be righteous in front of Me" (Genesis 7:1). Another interpretation of [why Moshe was not called]: So that he not hear the redressing of Aharon. He said, "Hear nah My words" (Numbers 12:6) - nah is always an expression of pleading - "if you have a prophet of God, I will make Myself known to him though a vision to him" - My Divine Presence will not be revealed to him through a clear lens, but rather through a dream or a trance." And why [were they disciplined]? Because they spoke [badly] about Moshe, as it is stated (Numbers 12:6), "And Miriam and Aharon spoke (tedaber) about Moshe." And dibbur is only a harsh expression in each place." And so it states (Genesis 42:30), "The man, the master of the land spoke (deeber) harsh things to us." [Whereas] ameera is only an expression of supplication. And so it states (Genesis 19:7), "And He said (vayomer), 'Do not act evilly, my brothers.'" "And He said, 'Hear nah My words'" (Numbers 12:6) - all nah is an expression of pleading. And why did it say Miriam first and Aharon afterwards? However it was because she started first, and therefore the verse mentioned her first. And what did they say? "But was it only to Moshe that God spoke?" (Numbers 12:2) That is to say did He only speak to Moshe, that he separated from his wife? "Did he not also speak to us?" (Numbers 12:2) In the same way did He speak to us and we have not separated from the way of the world (marital relations). And how did Miriam know that Moshe separated from the woman? Rabbi Natan said, "Miriam was alongside Tsipporah when they said to Moshe, 'Eldad and Meidad are prophesying in the camp' (Numbers 11:27); and when Tsipporah heard, she said, 'Woe to the wives of these [men]!' And from what time did Moshe separate? In fact, when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe at Sinai before the giving of the Torah that he should sanctify the people, and say to them, 'for three days do not come close to a woman' (Exodus 19:15). They [then] separated from their wives and Moshe separated from his wife. And after the giving of the Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'Go tell them, "You return to your tents," but you stay here with me' (Deuteronomy 5:27-28) - and do not go back to the way of the world. And [so Miriam knew] when Tsipporah said, 'Woe to the wives of these - they are called to prophecy [and] will be separating from their wives just like my husband separated from me.' And from then, Miriam knew and told Aharon. And if Miriam who did not have intention to disgrace Moshe was punished, all the more so with one who recounts the disgrace of his fellow with evil speech, will that person be punished with tsaraat." "As he took a Cushite (Ethopian) woman" (Numbers 12:1) - the numerical value of Cushite is [equal to that of] beautiful looks. The tally of this one is like the tally for that one. "The Cushite woman" tells [us] that everybody concedes about her beauty, in the same way as everyone speaks about the blackness of a Cushite. "About the matter of the woman" (Numbers 12:1) - about the matter of her divorce. "As he took a Cushite woman" (Numbers 12:1) - what do we learn to say [from here]? Rather, there is a woman who is pleasant in her looks but unpleasant in her deeds, or pleasant in her deeds but unpleasant in her looks, but this one was pleasant in everything. And now he divorced her? And she is called a Cushite because of her pleasantness; in the same way as a man will call his pleasant son, Cushite, so that the [evil] eye not [come to] overpower him. "And the man Moshe was very humble (anav)" (Numbers 12:3) - humble, [meaning] lowly and patient. Another interpretation: "Very anav" is from the expression of answering (oneh), meaning to say that if he had heard these words, he would have known to answer and respond with appropriate arguments. "And the Lord said suddenly" (Numbers 12:4) - when he revealed Himself to them suddenly and they were impure [as a result of] the way of the world, they yelled out, "Water, water." [This was] to show that Moshe acted properly when he separated from his wife, since the Divine Presence was constantly revealed to him, and there was no set time for speaking [with God]. And so did He say to them, "I speak to him face to face" (Numbers 12:8) - face to face did I tell him to separate from the woman - "and a (clear) vision and not with riddles" - and this vision is a vision of speech. And perhaps it is a vision of the Divine Presence? [Hence] we learn to say (Exodus 33:20), "You are not able to see My face." And if you ask, "Behold, it is written (Numbers 12:8), 'and he sees the picture of the Lord?'" [The answer is] that is a vision 'from the back,' like the matter that is stated (Exodus 33:23), "and you shall see My back." "Why were you not afraid to to speak about My servant, about Moshe?" (Numbers 12:8) It does not state, "about My servant, Moshe," but rather "about My servant, about Moshe." [This is] meaning to say, about My servant, even if it is not Moshe; and about Moshe, even if he is not My servant - it would be worthwhile to be afraid in front of him. And all the more so, since he is My servant, and the servant of a king is [like] the king. And you should have said, "The King does not love him for nothing." And if you say that [the King] does not know about [Moshe's] deeds, that is more grievous than the first [mistake of not associating him with the King]! "And the Lord waxed angry at them and left" (Numbers 12:9) - teaches that [only] after He let them know their foulness did He proclaim their excommunication. All the more so with flesh and blood, should a person not get angry with his fellow until after he makes [the other's] foulness known to him. "And the cloud left the tent" - and afterwards - and behold, Miriam was inflicted with tsaraat like snow" (Numbers 12:10). There is a [relevant] parable about a king who said to [his son's] pedagogue, "Strike my child, but do not strike him until I go away from you, as my mercy is upon him." "Please do not place the sin upon us that we sinned and that we blundered. Let her not be like a dead" (Numbers 12:11-12) - just like a dead body transmits impurity through intercourse, so does a metsora transmit impurity through intercourse. "About which upon its exit from its mother's womb" (Numbers 12:12) - it should have stated, "from our mother's womb," but so did Scripture phrase it. And so [too, instead of] "half of its flesh," it should have stated, "half of our flesh." But according to its understanding, it appears to me thus: It is not fitting to leave our sister to be like the dead. Since she exited the womb of the mother of this one (Moshe) that has it in his ability to help, and [yet] doesn't help, behold half of his flesh will be eaten away - as [Aharon's] brother is his flesh. Another interpretation: "Let her not be like the dead" - if you do not heal her with prayer, who will quarantine her, and who will render her impure? As it is impossible for me to observe her, since I am a relative - and a relative may not examine scabs - and there is no other priest in the world. This is [the meaning of] that which is stated, "about which upon its exit from its mother's womb." "God, please, heal her please" (Numbers 12:12) - the verse came to teach you the way of the world (manners), such that one requesting a thing must first say two or three words of supplication, and then make his requests afterwards. "Saying" - what do we learn to say [from here]? [Moshe] said to Him, "Answer me if You will heal her or not," so that He answered him, "And if her father spit in her face [...]" (Numbers 12:14). And why did Moshe not prolong this prayer? So that Israel not say, "His sister is given over to distress and he prolongs his prayer?" "Let her be quarantined for seven days and afterwards she will be gathered" (Numbers 12:14) - and I say that all expressions of gathering that exist with a metsora are because he is sent out from the camps. And when he is healed, he is gathered to the camp; [and] all gathering is an expressions of bringing in. "And the people did not travel until Miriam was gathered" (Numbers 12:15) - the Omnipresent awarded her this honor for the sake of one hour that she delayed for Moshe, when he was sent out to the Nile, as it is stated (Exodus 2:4), "And his sister stood from a distance." She delayed for an hour and all of Israel delayed for her sake for seven days. [The comparison that the Torah nonetheless makes between Miriam when she is struck by tsaraat and a dead body shows that] a metsora is considered like dead. And from where [do we know] that one who does not have children [is considered like dead]? From Rachel, as she said to Yaakov (Genesis 30:1), "Give me children or I am dead." And from where [do we know] that one blind is considered like dead? As it is stated (Lamentations 3:6), "He has made me sit in the darkness, like the dead of yore." And from where [do we know] that one destitute [is considered like dead]? As it is stated (Exodus 4:19), "for all of the men that are seeking your soul (to kill you) are dead." Another interpretation: "This is the law of the burnt-offering, etc." So did our Rabbis teach: The burnt-offering was complete holiness, as it did not come for iniquities. The guilt-offering was brought for thefts. But the burnt-offering was not brought for a sin nor for theft, but it rather came for a thought of the heart. And so one who would have a thought in his heart about something would bring a sacrifice of a burnt-offering, as it is stated (Ezekiel 20:32), "And what goes up (which can also be read as a burnt-offering) upon your spirits."And know that a burnt-offering only comes for a thought of the heart. You learn it from Job, who would sacrifice for his sons, as it is stated (Job 1:5), "And after a round of feasting days, Job sent and prepared them; and rising early in the morning, he would offer burnt-offerings." They said to him, "Job, why are you doing this?" And he would say (Job 1:5), "Perhaps my children have sinned and blasphemed God in their hearts." Hence you find that he arranged atonement for them for the thought of the heart. And this is [how to understand] the sacrifice of the burnt-offering.

"This is the law of the burnt offering" (Leviticus 6:2): And what is [the meaning of] burnt offering (olah, literally that which rises)? Rather, it is that it rises in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, and atones for the iniquities of Israel. Since at the time that Avraham made the sacrifice of the ram - as it is stated (Genesis 22:13), "And Avraham raised his eyes and he saw, and behold there was a ram after" - what is [the meaning of] "after?" Rather, [it is to say that] after the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that [Avraham] came to sacrifice his son, Yitzchak, as a burnt-offering with all of his heart and with all of his soul, He sent him a ram [as a replacement]. The Sages said that the ram to be offered instead of Yitzchak was created from the six days of creation. And that is [the meaning of] that which is written, "and behold there was a ram after, etc." "And he took the ram, etc." (Genesis 22:13) - there the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him that at the time when his children would offer burnt-offerings, they would be immediately accepted. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, said, "Were it not that Avraham delayed to check the knife, Yitzchak would have been slaughtered. But he did delay to check the knife. Immediately, the mercy of the Holy One, blessed be He, was aroused for Yitzchak. And the Holy One, blessed be He, said to His retinue, 'See how alacritous this righteous one is to fulfill the words of My statement.' Immediately, He told an angel to rescue him, as it is stated (Genesis 22:11), 'And he said, "Avraham, Avraham," and he said, "Here I am."'" And why did he say, "Avraham, Avraham," twice? Since it was [Avraham's] will to slaughter him and do the will of his Maker, the angel was hurrying and said, "Avraham, Avraham." And from where [do we know] that he checked the knife? As it is stated (Genesis 22:10), "and he took the knife." Count the letters of "and he took the knife" (in Hebrew), and you will find twelve, like the tally of examinations that one does on the knife - upon the flesh, the fingernail and on the three sides (of the knife). And from where [do we know this]? As it is stated (I Samuel 14:34), "and you shall slaughter with this (zeh)" - zeh has a numerical value (gematria) of twelve. And what is [the meaning of] (Leviticus 6:1), "And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying?" [That it should be said] to Aharon. From here we learn that Moshe only said that which the Holy One, blessed be He, would tell him. And therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, said to his credit (Numbers 12:7), "Not so My servant Moshe; in all of My house, he is faithful." And so does it state to Shmuel's credit (I Samuel 3:20), "And all of Israel, from Dan to Beersheva, knew that Shmuel was faithful as a prophet for the Lord." You find that [prophecy] began to come to him when the sons of Eli sinned in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated (I Samuel 3:3), "The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Shmuel was laying in the chamber of the Lord." And was he [really] laying in the chamber of the Lord? Rather this is its explanation: The lamp of God had not yet gone out in the chamber of the Lord in which was the ark of the Lord, and Shmuel was laying in his place, [which was] in a different place. "And the Lord called to Shmuel, and he said, 'Here I am'" (I Samuel 3:4) - but he did not understand who was calling him, since he was [still] a youth, as it is stated (I Samuel 2:26), "And Shmuel the youth proceeded to grow in favor with the Lord, as well as with people." "And he ran to Eli and he said, 'Here I am, as you have called me'" (I Samuel 3:5) - as he thought that [it was Eli that] had called him - "and he said, 'I did not call you my son, return and lay down.'" "And the Lord called Shmuel again, a third time, and he rose and went to Eli and said, 'Here I am, as you have called me'; and Eli understood that the Lord was calling to the youth. And Eli said to Shmuel, 'Go lay down, and if He calls to you, say, "Speak, Lord, for Your servant is listening"'" (I Samuel 3:8-9) - but he did not say, "Speak, Lord," but [only] (I Samuel 3:10), "Speak." As he said in his heart, "I do not know if it is the Lord or an angel or something else." And he is equated with Moshe: [About] Moshe, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, (Numbers 12:7), "Not so My servant Moshe; in all of My house, he is faithful"; and [about] Shmuel He said (I Samuel 3:20), "And all of Israel, from Dan to Beersheva, knew that Shmuel was faithful as a prophet for the Lord." Therefore the verse states (Jeremiah 15:1), "Even if Moshe and Shmuel would stand in front of me, My soul would not be towards this people." And he was equated to Moshe and Aharon [together], as stated (Psalms 99:6), "Moshe and Aaron among His priests, and Shmuel among those who call His name." [Shmuel] would brighten the eyes of Israel, as it is stated (I Samuel 3:3), "The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Shmuel was laying in the chamber of the Lord." Moshe and Shmuel were not like Yechezkel, as he said everything that he saw, and as it is stated [it appears that the next section is corrupted, and that the reference is meant to be from Ezekiel 1 - see Etz Yosef] (Isaiah 6:1), "In the year that King Uzziah died, I beheld the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne; and the skirts of His robe filled the Temple." And therefore Scripture calls him, "Son of Man." Four are living but Scripture calls them dead, and these are them: the destitute, the metsora (one stricken with a spiritual skin disease), the blind and one with no children. From where [do I know this about] the metsora? As it is stated, "In the year that King Uzziah died." And why does the verse call him dead (given that he had not yet died)? Rather, because he had become a metsora. As it is stated, "In the year that King Uzziah died," [meaning] that he had become a metsora. "Seraphs stood above Him" (Isaiah 6:2) - in the heavens to serve Him - ["Each of them had six wings:] with two he covered his face" - from modesty that his body should not show before His body - "with two he covered his legs" - so that he not see and peer towards the side of the Divine Presence - "and with two he would fly." And does he [really] fly with the wings? Rather, it is as a result of this that they, may their memory be blessed, ordained that a man should hover on his feet when the prayer leader says (Isaiah 6:3), "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts." And Tanchuma said, "The covering of the feet was because their heel is like the heel of the calf, such that they would not remind [God] about Israel's sin with the calf." "And one called to the other and said" (Isaiah 6:4) - they would get permission from one another, so that one not preempt the other and begin [alone], and [so] become liable for burning; rather they all started as one, and answered, etc. - "and the measure of the doorposts shook" - these were the doorposts of the chamber - "from the voice of the caller" - from the voice of the angels calling. This was the day of the earthquake, about which it is stated (Zechariah 14:5), "it shall be stopped up as it was stopped up as a result of the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, the king of Yehudah." As on the day that Uzziah stood to offer incense in the [Temple] chamber, the heavens and the earth shook and the Seraphs came to burn him (lesorfo) with burning (serefah), as it is stated (Numbers 16:35), "And fire went out from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense," because they offered a foreign fire. And this is [why] it calls them Seraphs, as they came to burn him. And the heavens also came to burn him. And the earth [came] to swallow him, as it thought that his judgement was to be swallowed like Korach, who dissented about the priesthood. [So] a heavenly voice emerged and said, "A reminder for the Children of Israel [...], and not be like Korach and like his assembly who dissented about the priesthood" (Numbers 17:5) - "not be like Korach," with swallowing; "and not like his assembly," with burning. But rather "like the Lord spoke through the hand of Moshe, saying to him" - through the hand of Moshe at the bush, as it is stated (Exodus 4:6), "'Put your hand into your bosom and take it out,' and behold his hand was afflicted with tsaraat like snow." [This is] meaning to say that the dissenter be afflicted with tsaraat. And the tsaraat even broke out on his forehead. And [so] he was considered as if he were dead. And so [too,] do you find with Miriam, as it is stated, "Go out, the three of you" (Numbers 12:4). There was no need for Moshe to go out, as he did not say anything to [Aharon]. Rather it was so that he would be available to pray for Miriam, [in order] to heal her. "And He called Aharon and Miriam" (Numbers 12:5) - why did He call them and leave Moshe. As we [only] say part of a person's praise in front of them, but all of it not in front of him. And so [too,] do we find with Noach. Not in front of him, [God] said, "A perfectly righteous man" (Genesis 6:9); but in front of him, He said, "as I have seen you to be righteous in front of Me" (Genesis 7:1). Another interpretation of [why Moshe was not called]: So that he not hear the redressing of Aharon. He said, "Hear nah My words" (Numbers 12:6) - nah is always an expression of pleading - "if you have a prophet of God, I will make Myself known to him though a vision to him" - My Divine Presence will not be revealed to him through a clear lens, but rather through a dream or a trance." And why [were they disciplined]? Because they spoke [badly] about Moshe, as it is stated (Numbers 12:6), "And Miriam and Aharon spoke (tedaber) about Moshe." And dibbur is only a harsh expression in each place." And so it states (Genesis 42:30), "The man, the master of the land spoke (deeber) harsh things to us." [Whereas] ameera is only an expression of supplication. And so it states (Genesis 19:7), "And He said (vayomer), 'Do not act evilly, my brothers.'" "And He said, 'Hear nah My words'" (Numbers 12:6) - all nah is an expression of pleading. And why did it say Miriam first and Aharon afterwards? However it was because she started first, and therefore the verse mentioned her first. And what did they say? "But was it only to Moshe that God spoke?" (Numbers 12:2) That is to say did He only speak to Moshe, that he separated from his wife? "Did he not also speak to us?" (Numbers 12:2) In the same way did He speak to us and we have not separated from the way of the world (marital relations). And how did Miriam know that Moshe separated from the woman? Rabbi Natan said, "Miriam was alongside Tsipporah when they said to Moshe, 'Eldad and Meidad are prophesying in the camp' (Numbers 11:27); and when Tsipporah heard, she said, 'Woe to the wives of these [men]!' And from what time did Moshe separate? In fact, when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe at Sinai before the giving of the Torah that he should sanctify the people, and say to them, 'for three days do not come close to a woman' (Exodus 19:15). They [then] separated from their wives and Moshe separated from his wife. And after the giving of the Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'Go tell them, "You return to your tents," but you stay here with me' (Deuteronomy 5:27-28) - and do not go back to the way of the world. And [so Miriam knew] when Tsipporah said, 'Woe to the wives of these - they are called to prophecy [and] will be separating from their wives just like my husband separated from me.' And from then, Miriam knew and told Aharon. And if Miriam who did not have intention to disgrace Moshe was punished, all the more so with one who recounts the disgrace of his fellow with evil speech, will that person be punished with tsaraat." "As he took a Cushite (Ethopian) woman" (Numbers 12:1) - the numerical value of Cushite is [equal to that of] beautiful looks. The tally of this one is like the tally for that one. "The Cushite woman" tells [us] that everybody concedes about her beauty, in the same way as everyone speaks about the blackness of a Cushite. "About the matter of the woman" (Numbers 12:1) - about the matter of her divorce. "As he took a Cushite woman" (Numbers 12:1) - what do we learn to say [from here]? Rather, there is a woman who is pleasant in her looks but unpleasant in her deeds, or pleasant in her deeds but unpleasant in her looks, but this one was pleasant in everything. And now he divorced her? And she is called a Cushite because of her pleasantness; in the same way as a man will call his pleasant son, Cushite, so that the [evil] eye not [come to] overpower him. "And the man Moshe was very humble (anav)" (Numbers 12:3) - humble, [meaning] lowly and patient. Another interpretation: "Very anav" is from the expression of answering (oneh), meaning to say that if he had heard these words, he would have known to answer and respond with appropriate arguments. "And the Lord said suddenly" (Numbers 12:4) - when he revealed Himself to them suddenly and they were impure [as a result of] the way of the world, they yelled out, "Water, water." [This was] to show that Moshe acted properly when he separated from his wife, since the Divine Presence was constantly revealed to him, and there was no set time for speaking [with God]. And so did He say to them, "I speak to him face to face" (Numbers 12:8) - face to face did I tell him to separate from the woman - "and a (clear) vision and not with riddles" - and this vision is a vision of speech. And perhaps it is a vision of the Divine Presence? [Hence] we learn to say (Exodus 33:20), "You are not able to see My face." And if you ask, "Behold, it is written (Numbers 12:8), 'and he sees the picture of the Lord?'" [The answer is] that is a vision 'from the back,' like the matter that is stated (Exodus 33:23), "and you shall see My back." "Why were you not afraid to to speak about My servant, about Moshe?" (Numbers 12:8) It does not state, "about My servant, Moshe," but rather "about My servant, about Moshe." [This is] meaning to say, about My servant, even if it is not Moshe; and about Moshe, even if he is not My servant - it would be worthwhile to be afraid in front of him. And all the more so, since he is My servant, and the servant of a king is [like] the king. And you should have said, "The King does not love him for nothing." And if you say that [the King] does not know about [Moshe's] deeds, that is more grievous than the first [mistake of not associating him with the King]! "And the Lord waxed angry at them and left" (Numbers 12:9) - teaches that [only] after He let them know their foulness did He proclaim their excommunication. All the more so with flesh and blood, should a person not get angry with his fellow until after he makes [the other's] foulness known to him. "And the cloud left the tent" - and afterwards - and behold, Miriam was inflicted with tsaraat like snow" (Numbers 12:10). There is a [relevant] parable about a king who said to [his son's] pedagogue, "Strike my child, but do not strike him until I go away from you, as my mercy is upon him." "Please do not place the sin upon us that we sinned and that we blundered. Let her not be like a dead" (Numbers 12:11-12) - just like a dead body transmits impurity through intercourse, so does a metsora transmit impurity through intercourse. "About which upon its exit from its mother's womb" (Numbers 12:12) - it should have stated, "from our mother's womb," but so did Scripture phrase it. And so [too, instead of] "half of its flesh," it should have stated, "half of our flesh." But according to its understanding, it appears to me thus: It is not fitting to leave our sister to be like the dead. Since she exited the womb of the mother of this one (Moshe) that has it in his ability to help, and [yet] doesn't help, behold half of his flesh will be eaten away - as [Aharon's] brother is his flesh. Another interpretation: "Let her not be like the dead" - if you do not heal her with prayer, who will quarantine her, and who will render her impure? As it is impossible for me to observe her, since I am a relative - and a relative may not examine scabs - and there is no other priest in the world. This is [the meaning of] that which is stated, "about which upon its exit from its mother's womb." "God, please, heal her please" (Numbers 12:12) - the verse came to teach you the way of the world (manners), such that one requesting a thing must first say two or three words of supplication, and then make his requests afterwards. "Saying" - what do we learn to say [from here]? [Moshe] said to Him, "Answer me if You will heal her or not," so that He answered him, "And if her father spit in her face [...]" (Numbers 12:14). And why did Moshe not prolong this prayer? So that Israel not say, "His sister is given over to distress and he prolongs his prayer?" "Let her be quarantined for seven days and afterwards she will be gathered" (Numbers 12:14) - and I say that all expressions of gathering that exist with a metsora are because he is sent out from the camps. And when he is healed, he is gathered to the camp; [and] all gathering is an expressions of bringing in. "And the people did not travel until Miriam was gathered" (Numbers 12:15) - the Omnipresent awarded her this honor for the sake of one hour that she delayed for Moshe, when he was sent out to the Nile, as it is stated (Exodus 2:4), "And his sister stood from a distance." She delayed for an hour and all of Israel delayed for her sake for seven days. [The comparison that the Torah nonetheless makes between Miriam when she is struck by tsaraat and a dead body shows that] a metsora is considered like dead. And from where [do we know] that one who does not have children [is considered like dead]? From Rachel, as she said to Yaakov (Genesis 30:1), "Give me children or I am dead." And from where [do we know] that one blind is considered like dead? As it is stated (Lamentations 3:6), "He has made me sit in the darkness, like the dead of yore." And from where [do we know] that one destitute [is considered like dead]? As it is stated (Exodus 4:19), "for all of the men that are seeking your soul (to kill you) are dead." Another interpretation: "This is the law of the burnt-offering, etc." So did our Rabbis teach: The burnt-offering was complete holiness, as it did not come for iniquities. The guilt-offering was brought for thefts. But the burnt-offering was not brought for a sin nor for theft, but it rather came for a thought of the heart. And so one who would have a thought in his heart about something would bring a sacrifice of a burnt-offering, as it is stated (Ezekiel 20:32), "And what goes up (which can also be read as a burnt-offering) upon your spirits."And know that a burnt-offering only comes for a thought of the heart. You learn it from Job, who would sacrifice for his sons, as it is stated (Job 1:5), "And after a round of feasting days, Job sent and prepared them; and rising early in the morning, he would offer burnt-offerings." They said to him, "Job, why are you doing this?" And he would say (Job 1:5), "Perhaps my children have sinned and blasphemed God in their hearts." Hence you find that he arranged atonement for them for the thought of the heart. And this is [how to understand] the sacrifice of the burnt-offering.

[From where did the sin come, for which they received [their < repayment >?]⁶⁶In addition to putting all of section 13 within square brackets, Buber has also set individual words and phrases within this section in square brackets. R. Hosha'ya said: When Moses along with the elders of Israel went up from the desert; Aaron, Hur, seventy elders, Nadab, and Abihu went up with him.⁶⁷See above, Lev. 6:7. Moses and Aaron walked first, Nadab and Abihu walked after them, and all the elders of Israel walked after them. Now Nadab and Abihu reflected in their hearts and said: When will these two elders pass away so that we may receive authority and become first in everything: The Holy One said to them (in Prov. 27:1): DO NOT BOAST OF TOMORROW. A lot of colts have died, and their skins have been made into coverings for their mother's backs. He said to them: From that time you should have gotten your < just deserts >, but what shall I do? See, I shall wait for you until the Tabernacle goes up, and after that I shall judge them. Therefore, when the Tabernacle was standing they received their sentence ⁶⁸Gk.: apophasis. and died. (Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.

R. Aha said: From where did they receive their < just deserts >? < It was > simply that they were not coming together for being fruitful and multiplying.⁶⁹See above, Lev. 6:7. They were saying: We are apprentices for the high priesthood; so should we take wives who are not worthy of us? R. Aha said (in the words of Ps. 78:63): FIRE DEVOURED THEIR YOUNG MEN. Why? Because (ibid., cont.) THEIR MAIDENS HAD NO NUPTIAL SONG.

Our masters say: < It was > because their eyes strayed away from the Divine Presence. They (i.e., Nadab and Abihu) said: Moses did not do so, when (according to Exod. 24:9–10) he went into the firmament and beheld the Divine Presence; for he had no need of either eating or drinking. With us also, when we behold the Divine Presence, we shall have no need of either eating or drinking. Even so, (according to vs. 11): THEY BEHELD GOD, but they did need to eat and drink, as stated (ibid., cont.): AND THEY ATE AND DRANK. From that time the Holy One sought to stretch out his hand against them. The Holy One said: I shall wait until the Tabernacle is made. Then when they enter to sacrifice (rt.: QRB), I shall carry out the divine judgment upon them. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 16:1, cont.): WHEN THEY DREW NEAR (rt.: QRB) BEFORE THE LORD, THEY DIED. BEFORE THE LORD is written two times (in Numb. 3:4): BUT NADAB AND ABIHU DIED BEFORE THE LORD, WHEN THEY OFFERED ALIEN FIRE [BEFORE THE LORD]. Why two times? The Holy One said: Bring out the dead from before me, for so it is written (in Lev. 10:4): DRAW NEAR AND CARRY YOUR BROTHERS AWAY FROM BEFORE THE SANCTUARY. When Israel, as it were, is in trouble, he also is with them; for so it is written (in Is. 63:9): IN ALL THEIR TROUBLE, IT TROUBLED HIM. R. Meir said (concerning Exod. 14:30): SO THE LORD SAVED (WYWSh', voweled as wayyosha') < ISRAEL > ON THAT DAY: The written text (ketiv) < reads > SO < THE LORD > WAS SAVED (WYWSh', voweled wayyiwwasha') < ON THAT DAY WITH ISRAEL >.⁷⁰Below, 6:18; below, Numb. 1:10; Tanh. Lev. 6:12; Numb. R. 2:2; cf. Exod. R. 30:24. R. Abbahu said: See what is written (in Ps. 80:3 [2]): BEFORE EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH⁷¹The Masoretic Text reads: BEFORE EPHRAIM, BENJAMIN, AND MANASSEH. STIR UP YOUR MIGHT AND COME TO SAVE US. To you and to us belongs the redemption. The Holy One said: In the world to come I will redeem you. Then you shall be happy, and I will be happy. [It is so stated] (in Ps. 104:31): MAY THE LORD BE HAPPY IN HIS WORKS. (Ps. 149:2:) LET {THE LORD} [ISRAEL] BE HAPPY IN ITS MAKER.]

13) "It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar all the night until the morning": They were to be placed (there at sunset if they had not been sacrificed in the daytime) and they were left burning on the altar the entire night. This tells me only of things which are fit to be burnt at night such as the limbs and fat-pieces of burnt-offerings and the fat-pieces of other offerings. Whence do we derive the same for those things which are fit to be burnt in the daytime (but were not), such as: the fistful, the incense, the frankincense, the wood (gift), the meal-offerings of the Cohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest, and the libation meal-offering? From "the law of the burnt-offering," which is comprehensive (for all offerings).

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."

(I Kings 5:12 [4:32]:) MOREOVER HE COMPOSED THREE THOUSAND PROVERBS. R. Samuel bar Nahmani said: We have gone over all of the Scriptures and have found that Solomon only uttered prophetically approximately eight hundred verses.⁸⁴See Cant. R. 1:1:11. Then what is meant by THREE THOUSAND? <This number> teaches that each and every verse that he spoke contains two <or> three interpretations, just as it says (in Prov. 25:12): LIKE AN EARRING OF GOLD, A NECKLACE OF FINE GOLD, <SO IS A WISE REPROVER TO A LISTENING EAR>.⁸⁵The midrash understands the WISE REPROVER TO BE Solomon himself, who is likened to both a golden earring and a golden necklace. In addition the Rabbis say: Every verse has three thousand proverbs, while each and every proverb has a thousand and five interpretations. (I Kings 5:12 [4:32], cont.:) AND HIS ShYRW NUMBERED A THOUSAND AND FIVE. ShYRH ("song") is not written here, but ShYRW, <which can be read as> sheyaro ("its remainder"): THE REMAINDER (i.e., the thousand and five interpretations) of a proverb.⁸⁶Cf. the parallels in Tanh., Lev. 6:6; Numb. R. 19:3; et al, which argue somewhat differently from the fact that SONG is, not plural, but singular. Cf. also PRK 4:3; PR 14:9.

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. 17:1 & 3:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING…. IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SLAUGHTERS AN OX, A LAMB, OR A GOAT IN THE CAMP. The Holy Spirit proclaims (in Mal. 1:11): FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN TO ITS SETTING [MY NAME SHALL BE GREAT AMONG THE GENTILES AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, EVEN A PURE OBLATION].⁷²Tanh., Lev. 6:9. From the time that the sun rises until it sets, the praise⁷³Qillus. Cf. the Greek, kalos (“beautiful”). of the Holy One never ceases from its mouth, as stated (in Ps. 113:3): FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN TO ITS SETTING, THE NAME OF THE LORD IS PRAISED. And you find it so when Joshua waged war with Gibeon. What is written there (in Josh. 10:12)? THEN JOSHUA SPOKE TO THE LORD…: O SUN, BE QUIET (dom)⁷⁴Although dom can mean “stand still”, it commonly means, “be quiet” in the sense of “be silent.” It is this latter sense which the midrash is stressing here. AT GIBEON. < When > Joshua wanted to silence the sun, he did not say to it: "O Sun, stand still ('amod) at Gibeon," but BE QUIET (dom). Why did he say; BE QUIET? Because every hour that it is traveling, it is praising the Holy One; and as long as it praises < the Holy One >, it has the power to travel < its course >. Joshua therefore told it to be silent, as stated (ibid.): O SUN, BE QUIET AT GIBEON. The sun said to Joshua: Is someone younger saying, BE QUIET, to someone older? I was created on the fourth < day >, while human beings were created on the sixth; so are you saying, BE QUIET, to me? Joshua said to < the sun >: When a young free person has an elderly slave, does he not say to him: Be silent? In the case of our father Abraham, the Holy One delivered (rt.: PNH) heaven and earth to him, as stated (in Gen. 14:19): THEN HE BLESSED HIM, AND SAID: BLESSED BE ABRAM OF GOD MOST HIGH, ACQUIRER (rt.: PNH)⁷⁵Apart from the context in the midrash, a traditional biblical translation would read: CREATOR. OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. And not only that, but you bowed down to Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME. [So would you speak against me?] Ergo (in Josh. 10:12): O SUN, BE QUIET AT GIBEON. The sun said to Joshua: And so are you decreeing over me that I am to be quiet? He said to it: Yes. It said to him: Then who will speak the praise of the Holy One? You be quiet, and I will speak the praise of the Holy One, as stated (in Josh. 10:12): THEN (az) JOSHUA SPOKE TO THE LORD. Now az can only be a hymn, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:1): MOSES SANG THEN (az).⁷⁶THEN is understood as the object of the verb SANG. See above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:32; Exod. 4:12. (Mal. 1:11): AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, < EVEN A PURE OBLATION >. R. Ammi asked R. Samuel bar Nahman: Is it correct that IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME?⁷⁷See Numb. R. 13:4. The Torah warns (in Deut. 12:13–14): TAKE HEED THAT YOU DO NOT OFFER UP YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS IN ANY PLACE THAT YOU SEE, BUT ONLY IN THE PLACE THAT < THE LORD > WILL CHOOSE…. So also it says (in Lev. 17:3–4): IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SLAUGHTERS AN OX, A LAMB, OR A GOAT IN THE CAMP…, AND DOES NOT BRING IT UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF MEETING…, < BLOODGUILT SHALL BE IMPUTED TO THAT PERSON >. But < there seems to be a contradiction when > the prophet says (in Mal. 1:11): AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE (muqtar) IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, < EVEN A PURE OBLATION >. R. Samuel bar Nahman said to him (i.e., to R. Ammi): What is A PURE OBLATION (minhah) which is burned (muqtar) IN EVERY PLACE and offered to the name of the Holy One?⁷⁸The Hebrew wording of this question reproduces almost exactly the wording in Mal. 1:11. This is the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah). INCENSE (muqtar) can only be the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah), since it is stated (in Ps. 141:2): LET MY PRAYER BE SET FORTH AS THE INCENSE BEFORE YOU…. [It also says] (in I Kings 18:36): AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFERING OF THE OBLATION (minhah), < THE PROPHET > ELIJAH DREW NEAR < AND SAID >….⁷⁹Since Elijah carried out this minhah on mount Carmel, it could not have been a temple sacrifice. Thus here also minhah must refer to the afternoon service.

14) You say that "all the night" signifies that they were to be placed there at sunset and left burning on the altar the entire night. But perhaps it signifies that they are to be lifted from the ground to the altar the entire night. (This cannot be contended, for) "There shall not remain the fat of My festival offering until morning" (Shemoth 23:18) (already) teaches that they are to be lifted from the ground to the altar the entire night.

[Another interpretation (of Lev. 17:3): IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. This text is related (to Ps. 51:20–21 [18–19]): MAKE ZION PROSPER IN YOUR GOOD PLEASURE; REBUILD THE WALLS OF JERUSALEM. THEN YOU SHALL DELIGHT IN SACRIFICES OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, BURNT OFFERINGS, AND WHOLE OFFERINGS….⁸⁰Tanh., Lev. 6:10. To what is the matter comparable? To a rich and noble bachelor, who has no wife. His house was not < really > a house. Why? When the tenants came, he said to them: Go to the store. Why? Because he had neither house nor wife. He took a wife. He said to them: Whatever you bring me, from now on bring them up to the house. Thus all the days before Moses erected the tent of meeting, they offered sacrifices {from} [in] any place, as stated (in Exod. 24:5): THEN HE SENT YOUTHS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND THEY OFFERED BURNT OFFERINGS…. And so it says (in Exod. 8:23): LET US GO A DISTANCE OF THREE DAYS INTO THE WILDERNESS AND SACRIFICE TO THE LORD OUR GOD. When the Tabernacle was raised, the [Holy One] said to Moses: From now on you are only permitted to offer sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting; and there they offered up the {gifts} [gift]⁸¹Gk.: doron. to the Holy One. It is so stated (in Deut. 12:13–14): TAKE HEED THAT YOU DO NOT OFFER UP YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS [IN ANY PLACE THAT YOU SEE], BUT ONLY IN THE PLACE THAT THE LORD WILL CHOOSE [WITHIN ONE OF YOUR TRIBES. THERE SHALL YOU OFFER UP YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS]. And where did the Holy One choose? Jerusalem, as stated (in Ps. 132:13): FOR THE LORD HAS CHOSEN ZION; [HE HAS DESIRED IT FOR HIS DWELLING]. Moses therefore warns Israel, saying (in Lev. 17:3–4): IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL < SLAUGHTERS AN OX, A LAMB, OR A GOAT IN THE CAMP >…, AND DOES NOT BRING IT UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF MEETING TO OFFER IT AS A SACRIFICE…, < BLOODGUILT SHALL BE IMPUTED TO THAT PERSON >.

And under His glory, shall be kindled a burning like the burning of fire (Is. 10, 16). R. Jochanan said: "Under His glory, but not His glory itself [referring to His garments] ." R. Jochanan is in acord with his own opinion, for he called his garment "my honors." But R. Elazar said: "Under His glory, means His glory itself." R. Samuel b. Nachmemi said: "Under His glory, has the same meaning as that of the burning of the sons of Aaron; as in the case concerning the burning of Aaron's sons, their souls were burnt but their bodies remained unscathed, so the burning referred to in the above passage also means the burning of the soul, and not of the body." (Fol 114a) R. Acha b. Abba in the name of R. Jochanan said: "Whence do we learn that the changing of clothes [for special occasions] is Biblical? It is said (Lev. 6, 4.) And he shall take off his garments, and put on other garments, and it was explained in the school of R. Ishmael, that 'The Torah teaches [incidentally] a lesson in good manners, viz., that the garments worn while cooking for a master should not be worn when serving the master with a cup of wine at his table.' "R. Chiya b. Abba in the name of R, Jochanan said: "It is a disgrace for a scholar to walk around with patched shoes." R. Chiya b. Abba in the name of R. Jochanan said also: "A scholar upon whose garments a greasy stain is to be found, deserves to be punished with death; as it is said (Pr. 8, 36.) All those that hate me love death." Do not read Mesanai (those who hate me) but read it Masniai (things that cause others to hate me). Rabina said that Rebad was read [in the above, instead of Rabab (grease-stain)] and they do not differ save that the former refers to the over-garment [on which even a grease-stain is disgraceful] but the latter refers to the garment. Further said R. Chiya b. Abba in the name of R. Jochanan: "What is meant by the passage (Is. 20, 3.) Just as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefooted, i.e., naked, with wornout garments; and "barefooted, with patched shoes." R. Jochanan said also: "Scholars are called 'Builders' because they are engaged in [the study of] the preservation of the [mental and moral] world." R. Jochanan also said: "Who can be called a scholar sufficiently trustworthy that a lost article shall be restored to him on his identification from a general description [without describing particular marks of the article]? A scholar who is so particular that, if he happens to put on his night-robe wrong-sided, he will take the trouble to take it off and adjust it properly." Further said R. Jochanan: "Who is the scholar worthy of being made the chief of a congregation? The one who, when asked concerning a law bearing on any subject, knows exactly what to answer, even such a law as contained in the treatise of Kalah." R. Jochanan said also: "Who is to be called a scholar deserving to have his work performed by the people of his town? The one who neglects his own affairs in order to attend to religious affairs." This refers, however, only to the trouble of maintaining him and his family [which he neglects on account of his congregational duties]. R. Jochanan also said: "Who may be called a scholar? One who can give an interpretation of any law in whatever chapter it may be shown him." In regard to what practical difference is this stated? In regard to this: If a man is familiar only with the laws of one treatise, he may be competent to be the chief of only one community; but if he understands them all, he may be made the chief of the academy.

15) How, then, am I to construe "It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar all the night, etc."? That they are to be placed there at sunset (if they had not been sacrificed in the daytime) and left burning (on the altar) the entire night. What is the intent of "until the morning"? If it is not needed for the burning of the limbs, learn it as applying to the removal of the ashes, that they could be removed from the altar the entire night until the morning.

“Awake, north wind, and come, south wind; blow upon my garden, that its perfume will spread. Let my beloved come to his garden and eat his delicious fruits” (Song of Songs 4:16).
“Awake, north wind, and come, south wind” – Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina: Rabbi Elazar said: The descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings. Rabbi Yosei said: The descendants of Noah sacrificed burnt offerings.¹⁶¹All agree that Noah and his descendants sacrificed burnt offerings, as this is explicit in the text (see, e.g., Genesis 8:20). The dispute is whether they also sacrificed peace offerings. Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to Rabbi Yosei: “Abel, too, brought from the firstborn of his flock and from the choicest of them [umeḥelvehen]” (Genesis 4:4).¹⁶²The understanding is that Abel sacrificed offerings from which only the fats [ḥelev] are burned, i.e., peace offerings. What does Rabbi Yosei do with this? He says: From the fattest among them. Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to Rabbi Yosei: “He sent the young men of the children of Israel [and they offered up burnt offerings and they slaughtered peace offerings [shelamim] of oxen to the Lord]” (Exodus 24:5).¹⁶³This verse explicitly states that they offered peace offerings, despite the fact that this took place before the giving of the Torah, when even the Israelites were considered no more than descendants of Noah (Etz Yosef). What does Rabbi Yosei do with this? Their bodies were whole [shelemim], without flaying and cutting.¹⁶⁴This is in contrast to standard burnt offerings, which require flaying and cutting. Rabbi Elazar raised an objection: It is written: “Yitro took…a burnt offering and a peace offering” (Exodus 18:12), a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering and a peace offering for the sake of a peace offering.¹⁶⁵The offerings were sacrificed properly. If an offering is sacrificed with the understanding that it is a different offering, e.g., if an animal designated as a burnt offering is sacrificed as a peace offering, one has not fulfilled one’s vow to bring the burnt offering. What does Rabbi Yosei do with this? He would say to you: Two amora’im disagree. One says: Yitro came after the giving of the Torah;¹⁶⁶When there were both burnt offerings and peace offerings. the other says: Yitro came before the giving of the Torah. The one who said Yitro came before the giving of the Torah [must hold that] the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings. The one who said: Yitro came after the giving of the Torah [holds that] the descendants of Noah sacrificed [only] burnt offerings.
This supports Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina: “Awake, north wind, and come, south wind.” “Awake north wind” – this is the burnt offering, which is slaughtered in the north.¹⁶⁷The north side of the Temple Courtyard. Why was the term “awake” addressed to it? [Because] it is something that was asleep and awakened.¹⁶⁸The patriarchs sacrificed burnt offerings, but the Israelites did not sacrifice burnt offerings while they were in Egypt. “Come, south wind” – this is the peace offering, which is slaughtered in the south.¹⁶⁹Unlike the burnt offering, the peace offering could be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Courtyard. Why was the term “come” addressed to it? Because it was something new.
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa, and Rabbi Yehoshua say in the name of Rabbi Levi: This verse, too, supports Rabbi Yosei. “This is the law of the burnt offering; it is the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2) that the descendants of Noah sacrificed initially. When it arrives at the peace offering, it says: “This is the law of the peace offering [that one shall offer to the Lord]” (Leviticus 7:11). It is not written here, “that they offered,” but rather, that they shall offer, from here forward.
How does Rabbi Elazar interpret this verse: “Awake, north wind, and come, south wind”? When the exiles situated in the north will awaken and they will come and encamp in the south, just as it says: “Behold, I am bringing them from the land of the north, and I will gather them from the ends of the earth” (Jeremiah 31:7). When Gog and Magog, which are situated in the north, will awaken and come and fall in the south, just as it says: “I will lead you astray and I will entice you, and I will take you up” (Ezekiel 39:2). When the messianic king, who is situated in the north, will awaken and come build the Temple, which is located in the south, just as it says: “I have roused one from the north and he came” (Isaiah 41:25).
“Blow upon my garden, that its perfume will spread” – Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Binyamin bar Levi: Because in this world when the southern wind blows the northern wind does not blow, and when the northern wind blows the southern wind does not blow. However, in the future, the Holy One blessed be He will bring an unusual wind to the world, and it will lead two winds simultaneously and both will serve. That is what is written: “I will say to the north: Give, and to the south: Do not withhold” (Isaiah 43:6).
“Let my beloved come to his garden” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Torah teaches you proper etiquette, that a bridegroom should not enter the wedding canopy until the bride gives him permission. What is the reason? “Let my beloved come to his garden.”¹⁷⁰The next verse begins “I came to my garden, my sister, my bride,” which is an indication that he came only after receiving permission from his bride.

16 "and the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby": Whence is it derived that the fire of the inner (incense) altar is to be kindled only from that of the outer altar? From: "the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby." Whence is it derived that the same applies to the fire (i.e., the coals) of the coal pan (which were brought into the holy of holies for the burning of the incense of Yom Kippur) and to the (fire of) the menorah? It follows, viz.: "Burning" is stated in respect to the inner altar, viz. (Shemoth 30:7): "shall he burn it" (the incense, on the inner altar), and "burning" is stated in respect to the coal pan and the menorah. Just as the fire for the inner altar comes from the outer altar, so the fire for the coal pan and the menorah comes from the outer altar. — But why not go in this direction: "Burning" is stated in respect to the inner altar and "burning" is stated in respect to the coal pan and to the menorah — Just as the fire for the inner altar comes from the altar outside of it, so the fire for the coal pan and the menorah should come from the altar (directly) outside of them (i.e., the inner altar)! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the outer altar, Vayikra 6:6): "A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished" — The continuous fire, too, that I told you of (in respect to the menorah, Shemoth 27:20) should be only from the outer altar. This suffices for the fire of the menorah. Whence do I derive the same for (that of) the coal pan? It follows, viz.: "Fire" is written in respect to the menorah, and "fire" is written in respect to the coal pan. Just as there (the menorah, the fire is taken from that) on the outer altar; here, too, (in respect to the coal pan, the fire is taken from that) on the outer altar. — But why not go in this direction: "Fire" is stated in respect to the incense, and "fire" is stated in respect to the coal pan. Just as there (in respect to the incense (altar), the fire is taken from that) nearest it (i.e., the outer altar); here, too, (in respect to the coal pan, the fire should be taken from that altar) nearest it (i.e., the inner altar)! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written(Vayikra 16:12): "And he shall take a full coal pan of coals of fire from off the altar before the L–rd." Which is the altar, part of which, but not all of which, is "before the L–rd"? The outer altar, (which faces the sanctuary, as opposed to the inner altar, which is entirely in the sanctuary).

16 "and the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby": Whence is it derived that the fire of the inner (incense) altar is to be kindled only from that of the outer altar? From: "the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby." Whence is it derived that the same applies to the fire (i.e., the coals) of the coal pan (which were brought into the holy of holies for the burning of the incense of Yom Kippur) and to the (fire of) the menorah? It follows, viz.: "Burning" is stated in respect to the inner altar, viz. (Shemoth 30:7): "shall he burn it" (the incense, on the inner altar), and "burning" is stated in respect to the coal pan and the menorah. Just as the fire for the inner altar comes from the outer altar, so the fire for the coal pan and the menorah comes from the outer altar. — But why not go in this direction: "Burning" is stated in respect to the inner altar and "burning" is stated in respect to the coal pan and to the menorah — Just as the fire for the inner altar comes from the altar outside of it, so the fire for the coal pan and the menorah should come from the altar (directly) outside of them (i.e., the inner altar)! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the outer altar, Vayikra 6:6): "A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished" — The continuous fire, too, that I told you of (in respect to the menorah, Shemoth 27:20) should be only from the outer altar. This suffices for the fire of the menorah. Whence do I derive the same for (that of) the coal pan? It follows, viz.: "Fire" is written in respect to the menorah, and "fire" is written in respect to the coal pan. Just as there (the menorah, the fire is taken from that) on the outer altar; here, too, (in respect to the coal pan, the fire is taken from that) on the outer altar. — But why not go in this direction: "Fire" is stated in respect to the incense, and "fire" is stated in respect to the coal pan. Just as there (in respect to the incense (altar), the fire is taken from that) nearest it (i.e., the outer altar); here, too, (in respect to the coal pan, the fire should be taken from that altar) nearest it (i.e., the inner altar)! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written(Vayikra 16:12): "And he shall take a full coal pan of coals of fire from off the altar before the L–rd." Which is the altar, part of which, but not all of which, is "before the L–rd"? The outer altar, (which faces the sanctuary, as opposed to the inner altar, which is entirely in the sanctuary).

(Lev. 17:3:) IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SLAUGHTERS. R. Aqiva says: When Israel was in the desert, they would slaughter cattle by stabbing and eat them; but here < Scripture > has forbidden them and says to them (ibid.): IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL…. ⁸³Tanh., Lev. 6:11; Lev. R. 22:7; see Hul. 16b-17a; Sifre, Deut. 12:20 (75).Then he told them: You are forbidden to slaughter apart from the Tent of Meeting (cf. vs. 4). R. Ishmael says: When Moses spoke to them, they were craving to eat meat. At that time they were cautioned⁸⁴Hizhiru ‘atsman. The verbal expression is used for an explicit biblical prohibition. away from slaughtering, i.e., not to slaughter apart from the Tent of Meeting. And why so? It is simply that up to then they had been lusting after idols. Where is it shown that they were lusting after idols? Where it is stated (in Lev. 17:7): AND THEY SHALL NO LONGER OFFER SACRIFICES < TO THE GOAT DEMONS AFTER WHOM THEY WENT WHORING >….⁸⁵Lev. R. 22:8. When they wished to enter the Land of Israel, they came to Moses. They said to him: O Our Master, If we wish to eat flesh, how shall we do so? He said to them: In the past, when you were in the desert, you were forbidden to slaughter apart from the Tent of Meeting; but when you enter the land, you are permitted to slaughter in any place, as stated (in Deut. 12:20): WHEN THE LORD YOUR GOD ENLARGES YOUR TERRITORY, AS HE PROMISED YOU, AND YOU SAY: LET ME EAT MEAT, BECAUSE YOUR SOUL LONGS TO EAT FLESH, < YOU MAY EAT FLESH TO YOUR SOUL'S DESIRE >. He said to them: When I shall have permitted you to slaughter, you may not take from your flock and slaughter. Solomon said (in Prov. 27:27): AND THERE WILL BE ENOUGH GOAT'S MILK FOR YOUR FOOD, FOR THE FOOD OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD. Moses was teaching Israel by saying to them: If you have sheep which you shear for your clothing, < then > as stated (in Prov. 27:26): THE SHEEP WILL BE FOR YOUR CLOTHES, AND THE HE-GOATS THE PRICE OF A FIELD. What is the meaning of AND THE HE-GOATS THE PRICE OF A FIELD? That whatever you gain from the goats, you are to buy fields with it.⁸⁶But cf. Hul. 84a. (Prov. 27:27): AND THERE WILL BE ENOUGH GOAT'S MILK. You will have enough GOAT'S MILK FOR YOUR FOOD, FOR THE FOOD⁸⁷The translation here follows the traditional biblical text, which Buber has just quoted correctly a few lines above; however, the Buber text here has substituted LWHM (“flesh”) for the biblical LHM (i.e., “food” or “bread”). OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD. R. Aqiva said: See how the Holy One cares for the assets of the righteous and Israel.⁸⁸The parallel in Tanh., Lev. 6:11 (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.) reads: “of Israel’s righteous.” See what is written (in Deut. 12:21): THEN YOU MAY {TAKE} [SLAUGHTER] SOME OF YOUR CATTLE OR FLOCK. Some of what they bear.⁸⁹T‘Arakh. 4:26. You shall only take and sacrifice some of what they give birth to. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 15:19): < YOU SHALL CONSECRATE TO THE LORD > ALL THE MALE FIRSTLINGS WHICH ARE BORN IN YOUR HERD AND IN YOUR FLOCK. [You are permitted to sacrifice some of what they give birth to.] R. Eleazar [ben Azariah] said: The Torah has taught you a rule of conduct.⁹⁰T‘Arakh. 4:26; Hul. 84a. If someone from Israel should have ten pounds⁹¹Gk.: litrai. of silver, let him eat green vegetables in the pot; if he has twenty, let him eat them in a casserole;⁹²Gk.: lopas (“flat dish”). if he has thirty, let him eat a pound of meat from Sabbath to Sabbath; and if he has fifty, let him eat meat on each [and every] day. Now why all this? In order to care for the assets of Israel. R. Eleazar ben Shammua' said: And when he buys from Sabbath to Sabbath, he should not buy until he consults within his household. Where is it shown? < In Deut. 12:21. > Because it is so written (in Deut. 12:20): [WHEN THE LORD YOUR GOD ENLARGES YOUR TERRITORY,] AS HE PROMISED YOU, AND YOU SAY: LET ME EAT MEAT < BECAUSE YOUR SOUL LONGS TO EAT FLESH, YOU MAY EAT FLESH TO YOUR SOUL'S DESIRE >…. For this reason Moses warned them and gave them a hint (in vs. 21), so that they would not do too much slaughtering.

Another interpretation (of Exod. 20:2): I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. R. Hanina bar Pappa said: The Holy One appeared to them with an angry face, with a neutral face, with a friendly face, <and> with a laughing face.⁶¹PRK 12:25; PR 21:6. An angry face is for Scripture. When someone teaches his child Torah, he is obligated to teach him with fear. A neutral face is for Mishnah. A friendly face is for Talmud. A laughing one is for Aggadah. The Holy One said to them: Even though you see all these likenesses, (according to Exod. 20:2) I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. R. Levi said: The Holy One appeared to them as an image⁶²Gk.:eikonion. with faces on every side. If a thousand people were looking at it, it would be looking <back> at all of them. So it is with the Holy One. When he spoke, each and every person of Israel said: The Divine Word has been with me < alone >. What is written (in Exod. 20:2) is <this>: I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD (with YOUR in the singular). R. Jose bar Hanina said: It was according to the capacity of each and every person that the Divine Word spoke with him, and do not be surprised at this fact. Since we find in the case of the manna that, when it came down to Israel, each one of them savored it according to his capacity (koah), how much the more <would the principle apply> with the Divine Word!⁶³See above, Exod. 1:22; 4:22; Tanh., Exod. 1:25; Exod. R. 5:9. David said (in Ps. 29:4): THE VOICE OF THE LORD IS IN POWER (koah). "In his power" is not written here, but IN POWER (bakoah), <i.e.> according to the capacity (bakoah) of each and every person. In this world Israel was redeemed from Egypt and enslaved in Babylon, < redeemed > from Babylon <and enslaved > to Media, < redeemed > from Media and < enslaved > to Greece, < redeemed > from Greece and enslaved to Edom (i.e., to Rome). But the Holy One will redeem them from Edom, and they shall be enslaved no more, as stated (in Is. 45:17): ISRAEL HAS BEEN SAVED BY THE LORD WITH AN EVERLASTING SALVATION. [YOU SHALL NEITHER BE ASHAMED NOR CONFOUNDED FOREVER AND EVER.]⁶⁴Cf. below, Lev. 6:18, and the notes there.

(Lev. 17:3–4:) IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SLAUGHTERS…, AND DOES NOT BRING IT UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF MEETING < TO OFFER IT AS A SACRIFICE >…, < BLOODGUILT SHALL BE IMPUTED TO THAT PERSON >. Isaiah has said (in Is. 66:3): ONE WHO SLAUGHTERS THE BULL SLAYS A HUMAN. Whenever anyone steals his comrade's bull and slaughters it, it is as if he slays its owner.⁹³Tanh., Lev. 6:12. Another interpretation of ONE WHO SLAUGHTERS (shohet) THE BULL SLAYS A HUMAN. (Zev. 14:4:) BEFORE THE TABERNACLE WAS SET UP, ALL {THE CATTLE} [HIGH PLACES] WERE PERMITTED < …; > BUT SINCE THE TABERNACLE HAS BEEN SET UP, [THE HIGH PLACES HAVE BEEN FORBIDDEN.] The Holy One said: Whoever sacrifices a bull apart from the Tent of Meeting is like one who slays a person. [It is as though he has taken (shohet) a life.] Thus it is stated (in Lev. 17:4): BLOODGUILT SHALL BE IMPUTED [TO THAT PERSON: HE HAS SHED BLOOD]. So whoever slaughters (shohet) at the Tabernacle [honors me, as stated (in Ps. 50:23): WHOEVER SACRIFICES A THANK OFFERING] HONORS ME. Now what reward shall I repay to him? When I bring salvation to Israel, he will have the right to see it, as stated (ibid., cont.): AND TO THE ONE WHO SETS HIS WAY ARIGHT I WILL SHOW THE SALVATION OF GOD. R. Abbahu said: All salvation that comes to Israel is of the Holy One, as stated (in Ps. 91:15–16): I WILL BE WITH HIM IN DISTRESS […, AND SHOW HIM MY SALVATION]. Sovereign of the World, inasmuch as you said, I WILL BE WITH HIM IN DISTRESS, he is saved, as it were; < therefore > (in the words of Ps. 60:7 [5]), SAVE WITH YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ANSWER ME. Thus if you answer us, salvation is yours, as stated (in Ps. 80:2–3 [1–2]) < GIVE EAR, O SHEPHERD OF ISRAEL,… > AND COME TO SAVE US. R. Berekhyah the Priest [Berabbi] said: See what is written (in Zech. 9:9): REJOICE GREATLY, O DAUGHTER OF ZION…; BEHOLD YOUR KING COMES TO YOU RIGHTEOUS AND SAVED.⁹⁴A more traditional translation would read: VICTORIOUS AND TRIUMPHANT. < The active voice, > "saving" is not written here, but < the passive > SAVED.⁹⁵Thus implying that God himself was saved. See Exod. R. 30:24, which interprets this verse and Ps. 91:15 to imply that even apart from good deeds, salvation comes for its own sake. And so it [says] (in Is. 62:11): SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION: BEHOLD, YOUR SALVATION IS COMING. "Your savior" is not written here, but YOUR SALVATION. [He, as it were, was saved.] R. Meir said: (concerning Exod. 14:30): SO THE LORD SAVED (WYWSh', voweled as wayyosha') < ISRAEL > ON THAT DAY: The written text (ketiv) < reads > SO < THE LORD > WAS SAVED (WYWSh', voweled as wayyiwwasha') < ON THAT DAY WITH ISRAEL>.⁹⁶Above, 6:13; below, Numb. 1:10; and the notes in both places. When Israel, as it were, was redeemed, < the Holy One > was redeemed. R. Meir said: Moses praised the congregation of Israel (in Deut. 33:29): BLESSED ARE YOU, O ISRAEL! WHO IS LIKE YOU, A PEOPLE [SAVED THROUGH THE LORD]. "A people the Lord saved" is not written here, but A PEOPLE SAVED THROUGH THE LORD. It is comparable to a person who had a seah of wheat for a second tithe. What does he do? He gives coins to redeem it. So < it was > in the case of Israel. Through what were they redeemed? Through the Holy One, as it were: A PEOPLE SAVED THROUGH THE LORD. The Holy One said to Israel: In this world you are saved by means of flesh and blood: in Egypt by means of Moses and Aaron, in the days of Sisera by means of Barak and Deborah; among the Midianites by means of Shamgar ben Anath,⁹⁷According to Jud. 3:31, Shamgar delivered Israel, not from Midianites, but from Philistines. and so on through the Judges. [But because they were flesh and blood, you again became enslaved]. However, in the world to come, I myself will redeem you, and you will never again be enslaved. Thus it is stated (in Is. 45:17): ISRAEL HAS BEEN SAVED BY THE LORD WITH AN EVERLASTING SALVATION.⁹⁸Cf. above, Exod. 5:17; M. Pss. 31:2; 50:3; Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata 1; Mekhilta d’Rabbi Simeon b. Johay, pp. 72, 78.

(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….”

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).

Isaac was thirty-seven years old when he went to Mount Moriah, and Ishmael was fifty years old. Contention arose between Eliezer and Ishmael. Ishmael said to Eliezer: Now that Abraham will offer Isaac his son for a burnt offering, kindled upon the altar, and I am his first-born son, I will inherit (the possessions of) Abraham. Eliezer replied to him, saying: He has already driven thee out like a woman divorced from her husband, and he has sent thee away to the wilderness, but I am his servant, serving him by day and by night, and I shall be the heir of Abraham. The Holy Spirit answered them, saying to them: Neither this one nor that one shall inherit.

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

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

(Bamidbar 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit, and you will not have a portion in their midst. I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the children of Israel.": Why is (all of) this stated? Because it is written (Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned," I would think that all are included — Cohanim, Levites, Israelites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtum (those of uncertain sex) and androgynous (hermaphrodites); it is, therefore, written: "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit" — This excludes (from inheritance) Cohanim." (Ibid. 23) "And in the midst of the children of Israel, they (the Levites) shall not inherit an inheritance" — This excludes Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit" — This excludes bondsmen and proselytes (Ibid. 54) "A man, according to his numbers shall his inheritance be given" — This excludes tumtum and androgynous. (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit" — in the division of the land. "and you will not have a portion in their midst" — ("a portion") of the spoils. "I am your portion and your inheritance" — At My table (i.e., from the sacrifices) you eat and at My table you drink. An analogy: A king gave gifts to (all of) his sons except one, saying to him: My son, I gave you a gift. At My table you eat and at My table you drink. And thus is it written (Vayikra 6:10) "Their portion have I given to them from My fire-offerings." (Devarim 18:1) "The fire-offering of the L-rd and His inheritance shall they eat." Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to the Cohanim, twelve in the sanctuary and twelve in the borders (i.e., outside of Jerusalem.) Twelve in the sanctuary: sin-offering, guilt-offering, the remnant of the log of oil of the leper, the remnant of the omer, the two loaves, the show-bread, the remnant of meal-offerings, the terumah of the thank-offering (viz. Vayikra 7:14), the terumah of breast and thigh, the shoulder of the ram of the Nazirite.