Midrash su Levitico 7:78

(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.

1) (Vayikra 7:1) ("And this is the law of the guilt-offering; it is holy of holies.") "This is the law of the guilt-offering": for the Temple. It does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the guilt-offering": There is one law for all guilt-offerings (even that of a leper), that their blood is applied below (the red line on the altar).

1) (Vayikra 7:9) ("And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle, to the Cohein who offers it up, to him shall it be. (Vayikra 7:10) And every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall it be, one man as well as another.") R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if one said: "I vow (to bring) a burnt-offering of meal baked in an oven" that he should not bring half-cakes (challoth) and half-wafers (rekikim)? From "every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle … and every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry." Just as the latter ("stewing-pan and griddle" and "mixed with oil or dry") are (respectively) two kinds, so, these ("cakes and wafers" — viz. Vayikra 2:4 ("baked in an oven…) cakes and wafers") are two kinds (and cannot combine with each other to constitute a vow connoting a single kind). "and all that is made in the marchesheth (stewing-pan) and the machavath (griddle)." These terms connote the vessels (themselves) and not their products. Just as a tanur ("oven") is a vessel, so marchesheth and machavath are vessels.

1) (Vayikra 3:1): "And if a sacrifice of peace-offerings (shelamim) is his offering": R. Yehudah says: Whoever brings shelamim brings shalom (peace) to the world. This tells me only of shelamim. Whence do I derive a thanksgiving offering (as bringing peace)? I include it, for it is a variety of shelamim (see Vayikra 7:11-12). And whence do I derive a burnt-offering? In include it, for it is brought (in fulfillment of) a vow and (as) a gift. And whence do I derive (offerings of) the first-born, the tithe, and the pesach? I include them (as bringing peace), for they are not brought for sin. And whence do I derive a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? From (the extra) "sacrifice." And whence do I derive (offerings of) fowl, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense and wood? From (the extra) "his offering" — so that all who bring an offering bring peace to the world.

1) (Vayikra 7:11) ("And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which one shall offer to the L–rd. (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened cakes spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil.") What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:11) "which one shall offer" (and (Vayikra 7:12) "he shall offer it")? (It could simply have been written "If for thanksgiving, then he shall offer, etc.") (They are written for the following purpose:) Whence do we derive that if one set aside his thank-offering and it was lost, and he set aside a different one in its place, after which the first was found, so that now both are standing before him — whence do we derive that he may offer up whichever he wishes, and its loaves along with it? From (a thank-offering) "which one shall offer." I might think that both required loaves. It is, therefore, written "he shall offer it" — one requires loaves and not both.

1) (Vayikra 7:11) ("And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which one shall offer to the L–rd. (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened cakes spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil.") What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:11) "which one shall offer" (and (Vayikra 7:12) "he shall offer it")? (It could simply have been written "If for thanksgiving, then he shall offer, etc.") (They are written for the following purpose:) Whence do we derive that if one set aside his thank-offering and it was lost, and he set aside a different one in its place, after which the first was found, so that now both are standing before him — whence do we derive that he may offer up whichever he wishes, and its loaves along with it? From (a thank-offering) "which one shall offer." I might think that both required loaves. It is, therefore, written "he shall offer it" — one requires loaves and not both.

1) (Vayikra 7:14) ("And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering (terumah) to the L–rd. To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be.") "And he shall offer of it": of the conjoined loaves. "one": he must not take a broken one. "of each offering": All the offerings must be equal. (He may not take a greater portion of one on behalf of the other), and he may not take from one offering for the other. "terumah to the L–rd": I would not know from how many (challoth he takes one); it is, therefore, written here "terumoth," and, in respect to terumath ma'aser (Numbers 18:29) "terumah." Just as there, one of ten; here, too, one of ten.

1) (Vayikra 7:15): "And the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings, on the day of his offering shall it be eaten." This comes to teach us of those (offerings) that are eaten for a day, that their eating is one day and one night. This tells me of the thank-offering (itself). Whence do I derive the same for the bread? From "his offering," (bread having been referred to as "offering" in the preceding verse). Whence do I derive the same for the offering and substitutes (of a thank-offering)? From (the redundant) "And the flesh." Whence do I derive the same for sin-offering and guilt-offering? From "the sacrifice." Whence do I derive the same for the peace-offerings of a Nazirite, (which require bread as it does) and peace-offerings that come from the (surplus of the) Pesach offering? From "his peace-offerings."

1) (Vayikra 19:5) "And if you slaughter a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L–rd, for your will shall you slaughter it. (Vayikra 19:6) On the day that you slaughter it, it shall be eaten, and on the next day.": Let this not be stated, (for it has already been written, viz. [Vayikra 7:16]). If it is not needed for eating, learn it as applying to slaughtering, i.e., even when you slaughter it, your intent should be to eat it for two days.

1) (Vayikra 7:18) ("And if there be eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings on the third day, it shall not be accepted. He that offers it shall not bethink himself. It shall be piggul ("rejected"), and the soul that eats of it shall bear his sin.") "And if there be eaten … on the third day, it shall not be accepted": R. Eliezer said: Incline your ear to hear: (Scripture is speaking not of actual eating, but of thinking, i.e.,) "If one thinks to eat of his sacrifice on the third day, it shall not be accepted." R. Akiva said: I would understand the verse (literally) as meaning that if he (actually) ate of it on the third day it becomes unfit. — But it is impossible to say this. For after it has been validated (by the priestly service), can it then become unfit? — Yes, (indeed it may)! For we find in respect to a zav (a man with a genital emission) or a zavah (a woman with a genital emission), or a woman who watches a day (without emission) against a day (of emission), that when they are in a state of taharah (ritual cleanliness) and (again) witness an emission, they annul (that state of taharah) — this (offering), too, if he ate of it on the third day, it becomes unfit. It is, therefore, written (to negate this,) "he that offers" — It is at the time of offering (with wrong intent) that it becomes unfit, and not on the third day (when it is eaten).

1) I might think that (piggul) thought invalidated only outside of its (the offering's) prescribed time. Whence do I derive (that it also invalidates) outside of its prescribed place? It follows by induction, viz.: Time invalidates and bound invalidates. Just as (piggul) thought invalidates outside of the prescribed time it should also invalidate outside of the prescribed bound.

1) (Vayikra 7:19) ("And the flesh (of consecrated peace-offerings) that shall touch anything that is tamei shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And the flesh — everyone that is clean may eat the flesh.") I might think one who is tamei makes consecrated flesh tamei by carrying it, and that it follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if the ashes of purification (of the red heifer), which a tvul yom (one who immersed in the daytime) does not make tamei by touch, makes it tamei by carrying, then consecrated flesh, which a tvul yom does make tamei by touch, does it not follow that he makes it tamei by carrying it! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "that shall touch" — he makes it tamei by touch and not by carrying it.

1) R. Yehoshua says: A Pesach offering that came (i.e., that was slaughtered, when the entire congregation [as opposed to an individual] was) in a state of tumah, (this being permitted), and zavim and zavoth (men and women with genital discharges) and niddoth and women who had given birth ate of it, (even though it is forbidden for them to do so) — I might think that they are liable (for tumah-kareth transgression); it is, therefore, written "Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh, and the soul that eats flesh, etc." — There is tumah (-kareth) liability only for that which is slaughtered for the clean, but not for that which is slaughtered for the unclean (as in the Pesach instance).

1) "For as the sin-offering is the guilt-offering, for the Cohein": Just as the sin-offering comes from chullin (what is mundane [and not from second-tithe]), in the daytime, and (whose blood is sprinkled) with the right hand, so, the guilt-offering. Just as the sin-offering requires a vessel (for the collection of the blood), so, the guilt-offering. Just as (with) the sin-offering, the blood (sprinkled on) the altar permits it (to be eaten by the Cohein), so, (with) the guilt-offering, the altar blood permits it (to be eaten by the Cohanim). If so, let us say: Just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (the red line on the altar), so, the blood of this guilt-offering; it is, therefore, written (of guilt-offerings, Vayikra 7:2): "It is holy of holies … and its blood shall he dash on the altar roundabout," to include all of the guilt-offerings, along with the guilt-offering of the leper, as requiring their blood to be applied below (the red line).

1) (Vayikra 7:21) ("And if a soul touch any thing that is tamei — the tumah of a man, or a beast that is tamei or any abomination that is tamei — and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which is the L–rd's, then that soul shall be cut off from its people.") I might think that in the area of the consecrated what is tamei can impart tumah to one who is clean, through carrying (i.e., by the one carrying the other); it is, therefore, written "And if a soul touch" — He imparts tumah by touching and not by carrying.

1) (Vayikra 7:23) ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: All fat (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat.") The children of Israel are exhorted against eating cheilev, and non-Jews are not exhorted against eating cheilev. For it would follow a fortiori (that they are thus exhorted), viz.: Now if (the prohibition against (eating) ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal), which is not liable to kareth, obtains with the sons of Noach (non-Jews) as it does with Jews, then the prohibition against (eating) cheilev, which is liable to kareth, how much more so should it obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Jews! It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "the children of Israel" — The children of Israel are exhorted against cheilev, and not non-Jews.

1) (Vayikra 7:29) ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: He who presents the sacrifice of his peace-offerings to the L–rd shall bring his offering to the L–rd from the sacrifice of his peace-offerings. (Vayikra 7:30) His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of the L–rd. The fat of the breast shall he (a Cohein) bring it. The breast, to wave it, as a wave-offering before the L–rd.") The children of Israel wave; non-Jews (who offer vows and gifts as the Jews do) do not wave. Now which measure is greater? That of semichah (the placing of the hands on the animal's head) or the measure of tenufah (waving)? The measure of semichah is greater than the measure of tenufah. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If I exclude them from semichah, the greater measure (viz. Vayikra 1:2), should I not exclude them from tenufah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for tenufah would seem to be superfluous). Perceived thus, semichah is (indeed) the greater measure, and tenufah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise tenufah is the greater measure and semichah, the lesser. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life, (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), with the living (peace-offerings) and with the slaughtered, whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life, and with the living alone. Tenufah obtains both with individual offerings and communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with communal offerings alone. If I exclude them from semichah, the lesser, would I (without the verse) exclude them from tenufah, the greater? So that because there obtains with semichah what does not obtain with tenufah, and with tenufah, what does not obtain with semichah, it must be written "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." The children of Israel perform semichah and not the gentiles; the children of Israel perform tenufah and not the gentiles.

1) (Vayikra 7:29) ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: He who presents the sacrifice of his peace-offerings to the L–rd shall bring his offering to the L–rd from the sacrifice of his peace-offerings. (Vayikra 7:30) His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of the L–rd. The fat of the breast shall he (a Cohein) bring it. The breast, to wave it, as a wave-offering before the L–rd.") The children of Israel wave; non-Jews (who offer vows and gifts as the Jews do) do not wave. Now which measure is greater? That of semichah (the placing of the hands on the animal's head) or the measure of tenufah (waving)? The measure of semichah is greater than the measure of tenufah. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If I exclude them from semichah, the greater measure (viz. Vayikra 1:2), should I not exclude them from tenufah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for tenufah would seem to be superfluous). Perceived thus, semichah is (indeed) the greater measure, and tenufah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise tenufah is the greater measure and semichah, the lesser. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life, (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), with the living (peace-offerings) and with the slaughtered, whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life, and with the living alone. Tenufah obtains both with individual offerings and communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with communal offerings alone. If I exclude them from semichah, the lesser, would I (without the verse) exclude them from tenufah, the greater? So that because there obtains with semichah what does not obtain with tenufah, and with tenufah, what does not obtain with semichah, it must be written "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." The children of Israel perform semichah and not the gentiles; the children of Israel perform tenufah and not the gentiles.

1) Or, (this binyan av) adduces (the tenufah-haramah identity) only for what is similar to it (the miluim [investiture] ram [viz.: Shemoth 29:27]). (That is,) just as this (investiture offering) is a sturdy, two-year-old ram and requires bread, so (the binyan av applies only to a thanksgiving ram [similar to the miluim ram]), sturdy, two years old, and requiring bread. Whence do I derive (that it applies also to an offering that is) "sturdy" and does not require bread (i.e., a peace-offering ram); to one that is "soft" and requires bread (i.e., a one-year-old thanksgiving lamb); and to one that is soft and does not require bread (a peace-offering lamb)? — until you include "cattle, lambs, and goats" (that obtained at the miluim)? From (Shemoth 29:28): "For it is terumah and terumah shall it be from the children of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace-offerings, their terumah to the L–rd" — to include all of them (in the tenufah-haramah identity).

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 7:35) ("This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons from the fire-offerings of the L–rd on the day He drew them near to minister to the L–rd.") "This is the anointment": R. Shimon said: I might think that unless Aaron and his sons had been combined with each other they would not have merited the oil of anointment; it is, therefore, written "This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons. Each was worthy of the anointment in his own right. I might think that Aaron and his sons would require (re-anointment with) the oil of anointment in the future (i.e., at the resurrection); it is, therefore, written: "This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons." How, then, are we to understand (Zechariah 4:14): "These are the two sons of the oil who stand before the L–rd of all the earth"? (i.e., Aaron and his sons are three!) The reference is to Aaron (anointed for priesthood) and David (anointed for kingdom). "from the fire-offerings of the L–rd": We are hereby taught that the fire (destined to descend from Heaven upon the altar) also "assisted" (in Aaron and his sons' meriting the oil of anointment). "on the day he drew them near to minister to the L–rd": We are hereby taught that the (holiness of the) day also "assisted."

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 7:7) ("As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering. There is one law for them. The Cohein that makes atonement with them, to him shall it be.") "As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering": Just as a sin-offering comes (only) from what is non-consecrated (chullin, and not from the tithe, ma'aser) and (its blood is applied only) with his right hand, and (is offered only) in the daytime, so, a guilt-offering. "There is one law for them": as requiring semichah (placing of the hands.) "The Cohein that makes atonement with them, to him shall it be": to exclude one who has immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening), one who lacks atonement (until he brings a sacrifice), and a mourner (before the burial of his kin). (Vayikra 7:8) ("And the Cohein that offers up the burnt-offering of a man, the hide of the burnt-offering which he offered up is the Cohein's. To him shall it be.") "And the Cohein that offers up the burnt-offering of a man": to exclude a burnt-offering of (i.e., devoted to) the Temple (where the hide does not go to the Cohanim, but is sold, and its monies given to the Temple). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: To exclude the burnt-offering of a proselyte. "the burnt-offering of a man": Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the burnt-offering of proselytes, (who have died without heirs [this, in opposition to R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah]), women, and servants? From the hide of the burnt-offering." If so, why is it written "the burnt-offering of a man"? A burnt-offering that is accounted to the man, to exclude one that was slaughtered outside of its (proper) place.

1) (Vayikra 7:7) ("As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering. There is one law for them. The Cohein that makes atonement with them, to him shall it be.") "As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering": Just as a sin-offering comes (only) from what is non-consecrated (chullin, and not from the tithe, ma'aser) and (its blood is applied only) with his right hand, and (is offered only) in the daytime, so, a guilt-offering. "There is one law for them": as requiring semichah (placing of the hands.) "The Cohein that makes atonement with them, to him shall it be": to exclude one who has immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening), one who lacks atonement (until he brings a sacrifice), and a mourner (before the burial of his kin). (Vayikra 7:8) ("And the Cohein that offers up the burnt-offering of a man, the hide of the burnt-offering which he offered up is the Cohein's. To him shall it be.") "And the Cohein that offers up the burnt-offering of a man": to exclude a burnt-offering of (i.e., devoted to) the Temple (where the hide does not go to the Cohanim, but is sold, and its monies given to the Temple). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: To exclude the burnt-offering of a proselyte. "the burnt-offering of a man": Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the burnt-offering of proselytes, (who have died without heirs [this, in opposition to R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah]), women, and servants? From the hide of the burnt-offering." If so, why is it written "the burnt-offering of a man"? A burnt-offering that is accounted to the man, to exclude one that was slaughtered outside of its (proper) place.

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 7:9) ("And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle, to the Cohein who offers it up, to him shall it be. (Vayikra 7:10) And every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall it be, one man as well as another.") R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if one said: "I vow (to bring) a burnt-offering of meal baked in an oven" that he should not bring half-cakes (challoth) and half-wafers (rekikim)? From "every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle … and every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry." Just as the latter ("stewing-pan and griddle" and "mixed with oil or dry") are (respectively) two kinds, so, these ("cakes and wafers" — viz. Vayikra 2:4 ("baked in an oven…) cakes and wafers") are two kinds (and cannot combine with each other to constitute a vow connoting a single kind). "and all that is made in the marchesheth (stewing-pan) and the machavath (griddle)." These terms connote the vessels (themselves) and not their products. Just as a tanur ("oven") is a vessel, so marchesheth and machavath are vessels.

1) Whence is it derived that the time (for eating offerings) of the bamoth (temporary altars, when such altars were permitted), is the same as that of the time (for eating them) in the tent of meeting (i.e., two days and one night for peace-offerings and a day and a night for thank-offerings)? Since Scripture states that lan, an offering that remains overnight (without being eaten in its prescribed time), is to be burnt, and that an offering that becomes tamei is to be burnt — just as tamei is unfit in a bamah, so, lan is unfit in a bamah. Or, go in this direction: lan is unfit, and yotzei (an offering leaving its prescribed bounds) is unfit (in the tent of meeting) — just as yotzei does not obtain in a bamah, (for which there are no prescribed bounds), lan, too, does not obtain in a bamah!

(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. 19:2:) YOU SHALL BE HOLY. The Holy One said to Israel: Before I created my world, the ministering angels praised my name through you and sanctified me through you by saying (in I Chron. 16:36): BLESSED IS THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL FROM EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING.⁸Tanh., Lev. 7:2. When the first Adam was created, the angels said: Sovereign of the World, is this the one in whose name we are praising you? He told them, [No]. This person is a thief, since it is stated (of him in Gen. 3:17): < BECAUSE YOU OBEYED YOUR WIFE AND > ATE OF THE TREE ABOUT WHICH I COMMANDED YOU, < SAYING: DO NOT EAT OF IT. CURSED IS THE LAND BECAUSE OF YOU >. < When > Noah came, they said to him (i.e., to the Holy One): Is this the one? He told them, [No]. This person is a drunkard, since it is stated (of him in Gen. 9:21): THEN HE DRANK OF THE WINE AND BECAME DRUNK…. < When > Abraham came, they said to him: Is this the one? He told them: This is a stranger (ger). < When > Isaac came, they said to him: Is this the one? He told them: This one loves my enemy, as stated (in Gen. 25:28): NOW ISAAC LOVED ESAU. When Jacob came, they said to him: Is this the one? He told them, Yes, for so it says (in Gen. 35:10): GOD SAID TO HIM: YOUR NAME SHALL NO LONGER BE JACOB, BUT YOUR NAME SHALL BE ISRAEL…. So all Israel was called by his name. At that time the Holy One, Blessed be He, sanctified them because of his name, as stated (in Is. 49:3): ISRAEL, IN WHOM I WILL BE GLORIFIED. The Holy One said to him: Since you were sanctified for my name before I created my world, Be holy as I am holy. It is so stated (in Lev. 19:2:) YOU SHALL BE HOLY, BECAUSE I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM HOLY. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who betrothed a wife. He said to her because you have been betrothed (literally: sanctified) to my name, I am a king and you, a queen. Just as it (i.e., my name) is an honor for me, so it is an honor for you. Why? Because you are my wife. Thus the Holy One said to Moses. Go and sanctify (i.e., go and betroth) Israel, as stated (in Exod. 19:10): GO UNTO THE PEOPLE AND SANCTIFY (rt.: QDSh) THEM TODAY AND TOMORROW. {The Holy One sanctified them} [He sanctified them. The Holy One came] and said to them (in Exod. 19:6): BUT YOU SHALL BE FOR ME A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS, A HOLY (rt.: QDSh) NATION. Why? (Lev. 19:2:) BECAUSE… I AM HOLY. And you also shall be sanctified (rt.: QDSh) just as you have sanctified me, as stated (in Lev. 19:2) SPEAK UNTO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND SAY UNTO THEM: YOU SHALL BE HOLY (rt.: QDSh)…. The Holy One said unto them: If you are worthy, you shall be called a congregation of saints (rt.: QDSh); < if > you are unworthy, you shall be called an evil congregation. (Numb. 14:27:) HOW LONG SHALL THIS EVIL CONGREGATION…?

(Numb. 16:1:) “Now Korah […] took.” What is written above the matter (in Numb. 15:38)?⁵Numb. R. 18:3. “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels (zizit) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, “In the case of a prayer shawl (tallit) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassel?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five parashiot in it⁶Cf. yShab. 16:1 (15c); Soferim 16:10; M. Pss. 22:19, according to which there are 175 parashiot in the Torah where an expression of speaking, saying, or commanding occurs. See also Alfa Beta deRabbi ‘Aqiva, longer recension, Tsade (Eisenstein, p. 421). and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the two parashiot which are in the mezuzah exempt the house?” [He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.” Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” (Numb. 16:1:) “Now Korah […] took.” Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: lqh). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: lqh) […].” This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9), “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you [from the congregation to draw you near unto Himself, to perform the service of the Lord's tabernacle …?” Plus] that whole passage up to (vs. 29), “If these people die the common death of every person.” The sages have said, “Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the children of Kohath He gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy objects, which they carried on their shoulders.’” Now Korah was the son of Izhar, [who was] the son of Kohath. When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38), “And put on the tassel of each corner a thread of blue,” what did Korah do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of sanhedraot who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2), “And they rose up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel.” And who are they? (Numb. 16:2, cont.:) “Princes of the congregation, chosen in the assembly, men of repute.” Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves in blue prayer shawls. [When] Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, [namely the] breast and right thigh,⁷I.e., the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32. they arose against them and said to them, “Who commanded you to receive such? Was it not Moses? [If so,] we shall not give you anything, as the Holy One, blessed be He, has not commanded it.” They came and informed Moses. He went to placate⁸Rt.: PYS. See the Gk.: peithein, peisai in the aroist. them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.), “And they rose up against Moses.” And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions (the princes), the men (according to Numb. 1:17) “who were mentioned by name.” Although the text has not publicized⁹From PRSM. Cf. Gk: parresiazesthai. their [names], it has given clues¹⁰Gk.: semeia. to their [identity], so that you [can] identify them from the [various] verses. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his [name. Rather,] he began to give clues about his [identity]. When they said to him, “Who stole your articles,” he said, “A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and black hair.” After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their [identity]. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16), “These were elected by the congregation, princes of their ancestral tribes, heads of thousands within Israel.” Then it is written (in vs. 17), “So Moses and Aaron took these men who were mentioned by name.” Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2-3), “princes of the congregation, elected by the assembly, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron.”

(Numb. 1:1:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES IN THE SINAI DESERT. This text is related (to Jer. 2:31): 0 GENERATION, UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF THE LORD: [HAVE I BEEN A DESERT FOR ISRAEL <OR A LAND OF THICK DARKNESS>?] The Holy One said to Israel: Because you said to Moses (in Numb. 20:5 = 21:5): WHY DID YOU BRING US UP FROM {THE LAND OF} EGYPT <TO DIE IN THE DESERT? FOR THERE IS NO BREAD AND NO WATER>⁷Tanh., Numb. 1:2; Numb. R. 1:2. (Jer. 2:31:) HAVE I BEEN A DESERT FOR ISRAEL? Did I act like a desert to you? Is it customary for a king of flesh and blood, when he leaves for the desert, [to find] easy living [there] just like that which he had found in his palace,⁸Lat.: palatium. either <palace> food or <palace> drink? However, when you were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and when I brought you out from there, I had you lie down under clouds of glory and raised up three redeemers for you to serve you, [as stated] (in (Micah 6:4): AND I SENT MOSES, AARON, AND MIRIAM BEFORE YOU. [Through the merit of Moses you ate manna, <a food> which <even> the holy ancestors had not seen, as stated (in Deut. 8:3): SO HE AFFLICTED YOU WITH HUNGER BUT FED YOU WITH MANNA, <WHICH NEITHER YOU HAD KNOWN NOR HAD YOUR ANCESTORS KNOWN….> Through the merit of Aaron I surrounded you in clouds of glory, as stated (in Ps. 105:39): HE SPREAD A CLOUD FOR A COVER AND A FIRE TO GIVE LIGHT AT NIGHT. There were seven clouds: one from above, one from below, one from each of the four winds, and one before you. He smote snakes and scorpions, leveled the mountains and valleys for them, and burned the thornbushes so that they sent up smoke. When all the kings of the East and West saw this, the peoples of the world said (in Cant. 3:6): WHO IS THIS THAT COMES UP FROM THE DESERT LIKE COLUMNS OF SMOKE? It is also written (in Deut. 29:4): I LED YOU FORTY YEARS IN THE DESERT; [YOUR CLOTHES DID NOT WEAR OUT….] In the case of a baby, all the time that it was growing, its garments and clothes were growing along with it. Now the well <came> through the merit of Miriam, who uttered a song by the waters <of the Reed Sea>.:⁹See above, Lev. 7:7. R. Berekhyah the Priest said in the name of R. Levi: <The matter> is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who has a province. So he sends high ranking people into its midst to conduct their affairs and and administer their justice. Who has to be responsible for their maintenance? Do not the people of the province have to be responsible for their maintenance? But the Holy One did not act like that. Instead he sent out Moses, Aaron, [and Miriam], as stated (in Micah 6:4): AND I SENT MOSES, AARON, AND MIRIAM BEFORE YOU. Thus through their merit, Israel was sustained. The manna was through the merit of Moses. [You yourself know that it is so. When Moses passed away, what is written (in Josh. 5:12)? THE MANNA CEASED ON THE NEXT DAY (i.e., the day after Moses died).]¹⁰Heb.: MMHRT. The midrash understands MMHRT (“on the next day”) as two words, MHR and MT, which can be translated: “On the day after he died.” In adopting this interpretation the midrash goes against the weight of Rabbinic and other traditions that Moses died sometime during the month of Adar, usually on the seventh of that month (as in Qid. 38a; etc.), since (according Josh. 5:12) the manna did not cease until the sixteenth of Nisan. The interpretation here and in Numb. R. 1:2 may result from the simple assertion commonly found in Rabbinic sources (e.g., in TSot. 11:8 [10]; Ta‘an 9a.) that, when Moses died, the manna ceased. The clouds of glory <came> through the merit of Aaron. You yourself know that it is so. When Aaron passed away, what is written (in Numb. 21:4)? BUT THE TEMPER OF THE PEOPLE GREW SHORT ON THE WAY, because the sun was shining down upon them (without a cloud cover). And the well <came> through the merit of Miriam,¹¹See above, Lev. 7:7. since it is stated (in Numb. 20:1-2): BUT MIRIAM DIED THERE <AND WAS BURIED THERE>. NOW THE CONGREGATION HAD NO WATER. And how was [the well] constructed? Like a kind of rock. It rolled along and came with them on the journeys.¹²See above, Lev. 7:7; below, Numb 6:35, 47-50. When the standards <for each tribe> came to rest and the Tabernacle arose, the rock would come and settle down in the court of the Tent of Meeting. Then the princes would stand beside it and say (in the words of Numb. 21:17): RISE UP, O WELL; and the well would rise up. After that, I brought them quails (cf. Numb. 11:31). (Jer. 2:31:) HAVE I BEEN A DESERT FOR ISRAEL? Have I treated you like a desert? (Ibid., cont.:) OR A LAND OF UTTER DARKNESS. Did not I become a light for you a light by myself? It is so stated (in Exod. 13:21:) AND THE LORD WENT BEFORE THEM BY DAY….

(Numb. 1:1:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses in the Sinai desert.” This text is related (to Jer. 2:31), “0 generation, understand the word of the Lord, ‘Have I been a desert for Israel or a land of thick darkness?’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Because you said to Moses (in Numb. 21:5), ‘Why did you bring us up from Egypt to die in the desert?’³Numb. R. 1:2. (Jer. 2:31:) ‘Have I been a desert for Israel?’ Did I act like a desert to you? Is it customary for a king of flesh and blood, when he leaves for the desert, [to find] easy living [there] just like that which he had found in his palace, either [palace] food or [palace] drink? However, when you were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and when I brought you out from there, I had you lie down on couches, as it states (Exod 13:18), ‘And the Lord made the people circumvent (Vayasev) through the desert.’” What is [the meaning of] ”circumvent?” It teaches that He made them recline in the way that kings dine (mesavin), reclining upon their beds. “And I did not even bring three fleas to trouble you. And I even raised up three redeemers for you to serve you, as stated (in Micah 6:4), ‘and I sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam before you.’” Through their merit, Israel was able to travel. Through the merit of Moses there was manna, as stated (Deut. 8:3), “And He subjected you to hunger [and then gave you manna to eat].” Through the merit of Aaron I surrounded you in clouds of glory, as stated (Exod. 13:21), “And the Lord went in front of them during the day [in a pillar of cloud. And it is written (in Ps. 105:39), “He spread a cloud for a cover.” There were seven clouds: one from above, one from below, one from each of the four directions, and one going before them. [That last one] smote snakes and scorpions, leveled the mountains and valleys for them, and burned the thornbushes so that they sent up smoke. When all the kings of the East and West saw this, the peoples of the world said (in Cant. 3:6), “Who is this that comes up from the desert [like columns of smoke]?” It is also written (in Deut. 29:4), “your clothes did not wear out from upon you.” In the case of a baby, all the time that it was growing, its garments and clothes were growing along with it. Now the well [came] through the merit of Miriam, who uttered a song by the waters [of the Reed sea].⁴See above, Lev. 7:7. R. Berekhyah the Priest said in the name of R. Levi, “[The matter is comparable to] a king of flesh and blood who has a province. So he sends high ranking people into its midst to conduct their affairs and administer their justice. Who has to be responsible for their maintenance? Do not the people of the province have to be responsible for their maintenance? But the Holy One, blessed be He, did not act like that. Instead he sent out Moses, Aaron, [and Miriam], as stated (in Micah 6:4), ‘and I sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam before you.’” Thus through their merit, Israel was sustained. The manna was through the merit of Moses. You yourself know that it is so. When Moses passed away, what is written (in Josh. 5:12)? “The manna ceased on the next day (i.e., the day after Moses died).”⁵Heb.: MMHRT. The midrash understands MMHRT (“on the next day”) as two words, MHR and MT, which can be translated: “On the day after he died.” In adopting this interpretation the midrash goes against the weight of Rabbinic and other traditions that Moses died sometime during the month of Adar, usually on the seventh of that month (as in Qid. 38a; etc.), since (according Josh. 5:12) the manna did not cease until the sixteenth of Nisan. The interpretation here and in Numb. R. 1:2 may result from the simple assertion commonly found in Rabbinic sources (e.g., in TSot. 11:8 [10]; Ta‘an 9a.) that, when Moses died, the manna ceased. The clouds of glory [came] through the merit of Aaron. You yourself know that it is so. When Aaron passed away, what is written (in Numb. 21:4)? “But the temper of the people grew short on the way,” because the sun was shining down upon them (without a cloud cover). And the well [came] through the merit of Miriam,⁶See above, Lev. 7:7. since it is stated (in Numb. 20:1-2), “and Miriam died there and was buried there. Now the congregation had no water.” And how was [the well] constructed? Like a kind of boulder or a type of hive or a type of ball. It rolled along and came with them on the journeys.⁷See above, Lev. 7:7; below, Numb 6:35, 47-50. When the standards [for each tribe] came to rest and the tabernacle arose, the rock would come and settle down in the court of the tent of meeting. Then the princes would stand beside it and say (in the words of Numb. 21:17), “Rise up, O well”; and the well would rise up. After that, I brought them quails (cf. Numb. 11:31). (Jer. 2:31:) “Have I been a desert for Israel?” Have I treated you like a desert? (Ibid., cont.) “Or a land of utter darkness?” Did not I become a light for you, a light by My own glory? It is so stated (in Exod. 13:21:) “And the Lord went….” Another interpretation (of Jer. 2:31): What is the meaning of “utter darkness? Have I [ever] said to you that I am bringing a benefit and delayed it? Utter darkness (rt.:'pl) can only be a term of delay, as it is used (in Exod. 9:32), “But the wheat and the spelt were not hurt, because they ripen late (i.e., are delayed: rt.:'pl).”⁸Below, Numb. 10:7; I Corinthians 10:4. Joshua said (in Josh. 21:45), “Not a thing has failed (npl) of any good thing which the Lord (your God) promised unto (you); it all came to you.” [And how are we to understand the rest of the verse] (in Jer. 2:31), “why did my people say, ‘we have let loose (radnu - rt.: rwd)’?” What is the meaning of “radnu?” The word is mishnaic (as in ter. 10:3), “one who removes (rwdh) a hot loaf” (adhering to an oven).⁹Bread is usually baked adhering to the roof or wall of the oven with the fire beneath. They (i.e., Israel) said, “When the bread is baked in the oven and is taken out of it, can it stick¹⁰Rt.: QB‘ (which normally means “fix in” or “fix on”). On the translation of this root, see Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, 1971/72), vol. II, p. 647, n. 2, which regards it here as the equivalent of the root DBQ (which means (“stick to”). In a similar vein, see Wolf Einhorn’s commentary, Perush Maharzaw, on Numb. R. 1:2. Since the root QB‘ can also mean “rob” or “defraud,” the meaning for Israel would be that, as bread removed from an oven cannot stick to it again, neither can Israel once removed from Jerusalem ever defraud again. to the oven again? Now we in Jerusalem were as in an oven, as stated (in Is. 31:9), ‘says the Lord, who has a fire in Zion and has an oven in Jerusalem.’ Now You exiled us to Babylon. ‘What do you still want from us?’” [That is the meaning of] (Jer. 2:31:), “why did my people say, ‘radnu’” (i.e., he has already removed us from the oven of Jerusalem). Another interpretation (of Jer. 2:31), “why did my people say, ‘radnu?” What [is the meaning of] “radnu (rt.: rwd)?” Compare what is said (in I Kings 5:4), “For he subjugated (rwdh) everything beyond the river (i.e., West of the Euphrates), from Tipsah to Gaza.” They said to [the Holy One, blessed be He,], “You have destroyed for us the sanctuary, and You have taken away your Divine Presence from us. ‘Now what do You still want from us?’” (Jer. 2:31) [Why did my people say, “He has dominion over us (radnu)]”; He said to them, “Would that I were now in the desert, where I did those miracles for you.” And so does it state (in Jer. 9:1), “Would that I were in the desert, at an inn for wayfarers….” Where? Where I was praised,¹¹Rt.: QLS, a word related to the Gk.: kalos (“beautifully”). as stated (in Is. 42:11), “Let the desert and its cities lift up [their voice].” [The matter] is comparable to a prince who entered a metropolis. When the inhabitants of the metropolis saw him, they fled. He entered a second one, and [again] they fled from him. He entered into another city that was ruined (harevah); and when the inhabitants saw him, they praised him. That prince said, “This city is better than all the metropolises. Here I will build myself a lodging place¹²Gk.: xenia (“guestchamber”).; here I will dwell.” Similarly, when the Holy One, blessed be He, came to the sea, it fled from Him, as stated (in Ps. 114:3), “The sea saw [Him] and fled.” He revealed Himself on Mount Sinai, [it also] fled, as stated (in Ps. 114:4), “The mountains danced like rams.” When he came to the desert wasteland (harevah), it received Him and praised Him, as stated (in Is. 42:11), “Let the desert and its cities lift up [their voice].” He said, “This city is better than all of the cities. Here I will build a lodging place.” When He came down into its midst, they began rejoicing, because the Holy One, blessed be He, was dwelling in their midst, as stated (in Is. 35:1), “The desert and the arid land shall be glad, and the wilderness shall rejoice and blossom like a crocus.”

2) Now where is it excluded (from such application, that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (in respect to the guilt-offering of a leper (Vayikra 14:13): "For, as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering to the Cohein," (I would think that just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (with the Cohein's finger on the corners of the altar), so, the blood of this (guilt-offering); it is, therefore, written, (to negate this,) "the law of the guilt-offering" (including the guilt-offering of the leper). (Vayikra 7:2) ("In the place where they slaughtered the burnt-offering shall they slaughter the guilt-offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar roundabout.") "and its blood shall he sprinkle": All guilt-offerings, including that of a leper, are herein subsumed, for the application of their blood below (the red line). Whence do we derive that if the blood of a guilt-offering became intermixed with that of peace-offerings (both being applied below the red line) it is (still) to be sprinkled (for whichever he desires)? From "holy of holies … and its blood shall he sprinkle." I might think that the same applied if they became interchanged when alive; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "it (is holy of holies," i.e., it must be specially designated by type). What, then, can he do? He lets them graze until they sustain a blemish, after which he sells them and offers a higher priced animal as one type, (guilt-offering or peace-offering, as he chooses), and a higher priced animal as the other type, making up the difference (between higher priced and lower priced) from his pocket, (for either guilt-offering or peace-offering could have been higher priced originally). R. Shimon says: If a guilt-offering became interchanged with a peace-offering, both are to be slaughtered in the north (of the altar, as per the stringency of a guilt-offering); one, as a guilt-offering; the other, as a peace-offering; and each is to be eaten according to the more stringent of them (the guilt-offering, which is eaten for a day and a night). They said to him: But do not peace-offerings require waving (viz. Shemoth 29:26), and guilt-offerings not require waving? He said to them: What of it? Let him wave the guilt-offering! They answered: Offerings, (in this case, peace-offerings,) are not brought to "the house of unfitness" (i.e., By doing this you are opening the door to the invalidation of peace-offerings).

2) "to the Cohein who offers it up, to him shall it be.": I might think, to him alone; it is, therefore, written "to all the sons of Aaron shall it be." I might think, to all of them; it is, therefore, written "to the Cohein who offers it up." How is this to be reconciled? It is (divided among) the (particular) priestly household that offers it up.

2) But does it not follow a fortiori (that lan obtains in a bamah), viz.: If a bird, which is not rendered unfit (as an offering) by a blemish, is rendered unfit by lan, bamah offerings, which are rendered unfit by a blemish — how much more so should they be rendered unfit by lan! — No, why is it that a bird, even though it is not rendered unfit by a blemish is rendered unfit by lan? Because (sacrifice by) a zar (a non-Cohein) renders it unfit. But would you, therefore, say of bamah offerings that because a blemish renders them unfit, lan should render them unfit? (This is not so,) because a zar does not render them unfit. And because a zar does not render them unfit, lan should not render them unfit! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:11): "And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, etc." (i.e., there is one law for all offerings, whether in the tent of meeting or in a bamah) — equating the time (and the lan) factor in a bamah with that in the tent of meeting.

2) And whence is it derived that the offspring and substitutes for (a thank-offering are to be sacrificed (even if atonement has been effected by the first)? From "If for (im al) thanksgiving," ("im al" being a term of inclusion). I might think that all of them require loaves; it is, therefore, written "the thank-offering" (hatodah). The thank-offering (itself) requires loaves, and not its offspring, or exchange, or substitute.

2) "soleth mixed (with oil"): We are hereby taught that it is mixed (with oil) while it is soleth. Rebbi says: It is (thus) mixed (when they are at the stage of) challoth, viz. (Vayikra 2:4): "challoth … mixed" — whereupon they said to him: Are not "challoth" mentioned in respect to the thanksgiving loaves (Vayikra 7:12), and it is impossible to mix them (with oil) when they are challoth, (there being too little oil for that); but (it must be that the oil is mixed with) soleth. How is this done? He places oil in the vessel before processing (the meal-offering). Then he places oil on it (the soleth), and mixes it, and kneads it, and breaks it into pieces, and pours oil on it, and takes the fistful. Rebbi says: He mixes them (with oil) when they are challoth, viz.: "challoth … mixed with oil." How is this done? He places oil in the vessel before processing it, and places (oil) on it, and kneads it, and bakes it, and crumbles it, and places oil on it, and mixes it, and then again pours oil on it, and takes the fistful. "unleavened": I might think that this is a mitzvah specification only; it is, therefore, written "shall it be" — Scripture makes it a categorical requirement.

2) But does it not follow a fortiori (that lan obtains in a bamah), viz.: If a bird, which is not rendered unfit (as an offering) by a blemish, is rendered unfit by lan, bamah offerings, which are rendered unfit by a blemish — how much more so should they be rendered unfit by lan! — No, why is it that a bird, even though it is not rendered unfit by a blemish is rendered unfit by lan? Because (sacrifice by) a zar (a non-Cohein) renders it unfit. But would you, therefore, say of bamah offerings that because a blemish renders them unfit, lan should render them unfit? (This is not so,) because a zar does not render them unfit. And because a zar does not render them unfit, lan should not render them unfit! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:11): "And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, etc." (i.e., there is one law for all offerings, whether in the tent of meeting or in a bamah) — equating the time (and the lan) factor in a bamah with that in the tent of meeting.

2) Or go in this direction. It is written here "terumah," and, in respect to bikkurim (first-fruits) "terumah" (Devarim 12:17). Just as "terumah" of bikkurim has no limit, this, too, has no limit!

2) "on the day of his offering shall it be eaten.": This tells me only that its eating is for one day. Whence is it derived that its sacrifice at the outset be with the thought of eating it for one day?

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

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

2) But perhaps it could be contended that "he that offers" is none other than the officiating Cohein (i.e., that he is disqualified from future service)! It is, therefore, written ("he that offers) it" — It is the offering that is being referred to and not the Cohein.

2) — Now if (piggul) thought invalidates outside of its prescribed time, which (invalidation) obtains in a bamah (a temporary altar), should it also invalidate outside of its prescribed bound, which (invalidation) does not obtain in a bamah! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:7): "And if it is eaten on the third day, it is rejected (piggul); it shall not be accepted." Let this not be stated, (for it is already written here). If it is not needed for (piggul invalidation) outside of its time, learn it as applying to (piggul invalidation) outside of its place. I might think that it (piggul thought outside of its place) entails kareth liability); it is, therefore, written in respect to peace-offerings (Vayikra 7:18) ("And the soul that eats of it) shall bear its sin" — Outside of its time entails kareth, and not outside of its place. I might think that even one who slaughters for gentiles or for those who are tamei (to eat it or to offer up the devoted portions) should come under (Vayikra 7:18) "It shall not be accepted"; it is, therefore, written ("It shall not be accepted; he that offers) it." It (burning the devoted portions after they have become invalidated by piggul thought) comes under the interdict, but not slaughtering for gentiles or for those who are tamei.

2) This tells me (as not imparting tumah by carrying) only of the lesser forms of tumah (such as that of a sheretz (a creeping thing) or of carrion, which do not make a man tamei). Whence do I derive the same for graver forms of tumah, such as dead-body tumah, and that of cohabiting with a niddah, and all (forms of tumah) which make a man tamei? From "anything that is tamei" (imparts tumah to consecrated flesh) — even one who is lacking atonement (viz. Vayikra 12:7). R. Yossi said: Whence is it derived that fourth-degree tumah invalidates consecrated offerings, and that it follows a fortiori? (From the following:) If one lacking atonement, who is permitted to eat terumah, invalidates consecrated offerings, then third-degree tumah, which does invalidate terumah, does it not follow that it should invalidate offerings (in rendering it fourth-degree tumah)? We derive, then, (the invalidation of) third-degree tumah from the verse ("and the flesh that shall touch, etc."), and of fourth-degree tumah from the argument a fortiori.

2) R. Eliezer says: If zavim and lepers, (who had been sent out of the camp) pushed their way in and entered the azarah, I might think they were liable (for kareth in the above instance, as they are at other times); it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 5:2): "And they shall send out of the camp every leper and every zav, and everyone who has become tamei by a dead body" — When those who are tamei by a dead body are liable, zavim and lepers are liable; when those who are tamei by a dead body are not liable, (as in an instance of congregational tumah), zavim and lepers are not liable.

2) Now where is it excluded (from such application, that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (in respect to the guilt-offering of a leper (Vayikra 14:13): "For, as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering to the Cohein," (I would think that just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (with the Cohein's finger on the corners of the altar), so, the blood of this (guilt-offering); it is, therefore, written, (to negate this,) "the law of the guilt-offering" (including the guilt-offering of the leper). (Vayikra 7:2) ("In the place where they slaughtered the burnt-offering shall they slaughter the guilt-offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar roundabout.") "and its blood shall he sprinkle": All guilt-offerings, including that of a leper, are herein subsumed, for the application of their blood below (the red line). Whence do we derive that if the blood of a guilt-offering became intermixed with that of peace-offerings (both being applied below the red line) it is (still) to be sprinkled (for whichever he desires)? From "holy of holies … and its blood shall he sprinkle." I might think that the same applied if they became interchanged when alive; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "it (is holy of holies," i.e., it must be specially designated by type). What, then, can he do? He lets them graze until they sustain a blemish, after which he sells them and offers a higher priced animal as one type, (guilt-offering or peace-offering, as he chooses), and a higher priced animal as the other type, making up the difference (between higher priced and lower priced) from his pocket, (for either guilt-offering or peace-offering could have been higher priced originally). R. Shimon says: If a guilt-offering became interchanged with a peace-offering, both are to be slaughtered in the north (of the altar, as per the stringency of a guilt-offering); one, as a guilt-offering; the other, as a peace-offering; and each is to be eaten according to the more stringent of them (the guilt-offering, which is eaten for a day and a night). They said to him: But do not peace-offerings require waving (viz. Shemoth 29:26), and guilt-offerings not require waving? He said to them: What of it? Let him wave the guilt-offering! They answered: Offerings, (in this case, peace-offerings,) are not brought to "the house of unfitness" (i.e., By doing this you are opening the door to the invalidation of peace-offerings).

2) "any thing that is tamei": even one who is tamei through (having touched) a dead body (and not by reason of tumah issuing from his own body). "the tumah of a man, or a beast that is tamei, or any abomination that is tamei": If the lesser forms (zav, neveilah, and sheretz) are mentioned (as liable to kareth), why mention the graver form (dead-body tumah)? For if the lesser forms were mentioned and not the graver form, I would say that with the lesser forms he is liable (only) for the tumah of the body (that imparts the tumah) and not for the tumah of the flesh (of the offering), and with the graver form he is liable for both. And if the graver form were mentioned and not the lesser forms, I would say that for the graver form he is liable, but not for the lesser forms. Therefore, both the lesser and the graver must be mentioned.

2) (Vayikra 3:9): "its fat, the fat-tail": to include the fat near the fat-tail, the fat between the loin-sinews. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah says: "its fat, the fat-tail": Just as (eating) fat comes under two interdicts ([Vayikra 3:17] "All fat and all blood you shall not eat," and [Vayikra 7:23] "All fat of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat"), so, (eating the) fat of a (consecrated) fat-tail comes under two interdicts.

2) This tells me only of the (native) children of Israel. Whence do I derive for inclusion (in the prohibition against cheilev) proselytes and freed slaves? From (Vayikra 7:25) "For all who eat cheilev." "All cheilev of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat": This excludes (from the cheilev prohibition) unclean beasts, animals, and birds.

2) This tells me only of the (native) children of Israel. Whence do I derive for inclusion (in the prohibition against cheilev) proselytes and freed slaves? From (Vayikra 7:25) "For all who eat cheilev." "All cheilev of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat": This excludes (from the cheilev prohibition) unclean beasts, animals, and birds.

2) ("the children (lit., the sons) of Israel") The sons of Israel wave; the daughters of Israel do not wave. R. Yossi said: If we find that Scripture did not distinguish between the offerings of gentiles and the offerings of women for semichah (that they do not obtain with both), let us not distinguish between the offerings of gentiles and the offerings of women for tenufah (that they do not obtain with both) (i.e., Why do we need a verse to exclude women from tenufah?) (This is countered:) Why is it that Scripture did not distinguish between the offerings of gentiles and the offerings of women for semichah? Because semichah obtains only with the owners (of the offerings, and both cannot enter the azarah.) (Should we, therefore, not distinguish between the offerings of gentiles and those of women, when tenufah is performed by the Cohein (and say that the Cohein should not perform tenufah for gentiles, but he should perform it for women!) (Therefore, to negate this,) it must be written "the sons of Israel" — the sons of Israel wave, but the daughters of Israel do not wave.

2) If all (the pieces that require tenufah) became tamei and (only) one of them were left, whence is it derived that it requires tenufah? From (the redundant) "the breast" (Shemoth 29:30). "to wave it" — even one kidney. I might think that he can wave (one piece) and then another; it is, therefore, written "a waving" (of all the pieces together) and not "wavings."

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) (Vayikra 7:36) ("which the L–rd commanded to give to them on the day He anointed them, from the children of Israel, a statute forever, throughout their generations.") "which the L–rd commanded to give to them": R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that Israel separated the gifts of the priesthood (the breast and the shok of their peace-offerings [and gave them to the first-born]) from Mount Sinai (viz. Shemoth 24:5) and that they did not revert to Aaron and his sons until they were anointed with the oil of anointment? From "which the L–rd commanded to give to them on the day He anointed them." "from the children of Israel": (only) by the consent of (all of) Israel. "a statute forever": for the eternal house (the Temple). "throughout their generations": (The original oil of anointment "holds") for all the generations (even in the absence of the oil of anointment).

2) The limitations: (Bamidbar 7:89): "And when Moses came to the ohel moed (for the L–rd) to speak to 1 him, that he heard the voice speaking to 2 him … and He spoke to him." (Shemoth 25:22): "And I will be appointed for you there, and I will speak to you … all that I will charge you with to the children of Israel." (Shemoth 29:42): "… where I shall appoint a time for you (plural) to speak to you (singular) there." (Shemoth 30:6):

2) Now where is it excluded (from such application, that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (in respect to the guilt-offering of a leper (Vayikra 14:13): "For, as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering to the Cohein," (I would think that just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (with the Cohein's finger on the corners of the altar), so, the blood of this (guilt-offering); it is, therefore, written, (to negate this,) "the law of the guilt-offering" (including the guilt-offering of the leper). (Vayikra 7:2) ("In the place where they slaughtered the burnt-offering shall they slaughter the guilt-offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar roundabout.") "and its blood shall he sprinkle": All guilt-offerings, including that of a leper, are herein subsumed, for the application of their blood below (the red line). Whence do we derive that if the blood of a guilt-offering became intermixed with that of peace-offerings (both being applied below the red line) it is (still) to be sprinkled (for whichever he desires)? From "holy of holies … and its blood shall he sprinkle." I might think that the same applied if they became interchanged when alive; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "it (is holy of holies," i.e., it must be specially designated by type). What, then, can he do? He lets them graze until they sustain a blemish, after which he sells them and offers a higher priced animal as one type, (guilt-offering or peace-offering, as he chooses), and a higher priced animal as the other type, making up the difference (between higher priced and lower priced) from his pocket, (for either guilt-offering or peace-offering could have been higher priced originally). R. Shimon says: If a guilt-offering became interchanged with a peace-offering, both are to be slaughtered in the north (of the altar, as per the stringency of a guilt-offering); one, as a guilt-offering; the other, as a peace-offering; and each is to be eaten according to the more stringent of them (the guilt-offering, which is eaten for a day and a night). They said to him: But do not peace-offerings require waving (viz. Shemoth 29:26), and guilt-offerings not require waving? He said to them: What of it? Let him wave the guilt-offering! They answered: Offerings, (in this case, peace-offerings,) are not brought to "the house of unfitness" (i.e., By doing this you are opening the door to the invalidation of peace-offerings).

2) I might think to include also one that was not slaughtered as a burnt-offering, viz.: Since it is not accounted to the owner to satisfy his obligation, its hide should not revert to the Cohanim (but to Temple maintenance). It is, therefore, written "the hide of the burnt-offering," to include (the Cohanim for this reversion). This tells me only of the hide of the burnt-offering. Whence do I derive (the same for) the hides of (all) higher order offerings? From "which he offered up." I might think to include also the hides of lower order offerings. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the burnt-offering" — Just as a burnt-offering is a higher order offering, (so all that are so classified are included), excluding lower order offerings.

2) "to the Cohein who offers it up, to him shall it be.": I might think, to him alone; it is, therefore, written "to all the sons of Aaron shall it be." I might think, to all of them; it is, therefore, written "to the Cohein who offers it up." How is this to be reconciled? It is (divided among) the (particular) priestly household that offers it up.

2) But does it not follow a fortiori (that lan obtains in a bamah), viz.: If a bird, which is not rendered unfit (as an offering) by a blemish, is rendered unfit by lan, bamah offerings, which are rendered unfit by a blemish — how much more so should they be rendered unfit by lan! — No, why is it that a bird, even though it is not rendered unfit by a blemish is rendered unfit by lan? Because (sacrifice by) a zar (a non-Cohein) renders it unfit. But would you, therefore, say of bamah offerings that because a blemish renders them unfit, lan should render them unfit? (This is not so,) because a zar does not render them unfit. And because a zar does not render them unfit, lan should not render them unfit! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:11): "And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, etc." (i.e., there is one law for all offerings, whether in the tent of meeting or in a bamah) — equating the time (and the lan) factor in a bamah with that in the tent of meeting.

(Lev. 7:11:) “This is the law of the sacrifice for peace offerings.” This text is related (to Prov. 3:17), “The ways [of wisdom] are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.” Whatever is written in the Torah is written to [establish] peace. Although wars are written about in the Torah, they are written about for the sake of peace. You find that the Holy One, blessed be He, cancelled the decree [of utter destruction (herem)] for the sake of peace. When? When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses (in Deut. 20:19), “When you besiege a city a long time.” Now concerning that whole matter, the Holy One, blessed be He, had said that he should destroy them, as stated (above in vs. 17), “No, you shall utterly destroy them.” However, Moses did not do so. Rather he said, “Am I to go and smite who has sinned and who has not sinned? Instead, let me come against them in peace, as stated (in Deut. 2:26-27), “Then I sent messengers from the Desert of Kedemoth [unto King Sihon of Heshbon] with words of peace […]. I will traverse your land.” When he saw that he did not come in peace, he smote him, as stated (in Numb. 21:35), “So they smote him, his children, and all his people.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I Myself told you (in Deut. 20:17), ‘No, you shall utterly destroy them,’ but you did not do this. By your life, just as you have said, so will I do.” Thus it is stated (in Deut. 20:10), “When you draw near unto a city to fight against it, you shall offer terms of peace unto it.” Therefore, it is so stated (in Prov. 3:17), “The ways [of wisdom] are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”

(Lev. 19:2:) SPEAK UNTO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. What reason did he have to speak this parashah in an assembly?⁹Tanh., Lev. 7:3; Lev. R. 24:5. Why did he not say: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, as in the rest of the parashiot,¹⁰I.e., in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:13 Lev. 1:2; 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 15:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:6, 12; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 17:17 (2); 19:2; 33:51; 35:10. rather than < SPEAK > UNTO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION < OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL >? Because all of the < Ten > Commandments are included within it. How?

(Lev. 19:2:) “Speak unto the whole congregation of the Children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘You shall be holy.’” What reason did He have to speak this parashah in an assembly?⁵ Lev. 7:3; Lev. R. 24:5. Why did He not say, “Speak unto the Children of Israel,” as in the rest of the parashiot,⁶I.e., in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:13 Lev. 1:2; 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 15:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:6, 12; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 17:17; 19:2; 33:51; 35:10. rather than “[Speak] unto the whole congregation of the Children of Israel?” Because all of the [ten] commandments are included within it. How? In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:2 = Deut. 5:6), “I [am] the Lord your God”; and here (in Lev. 19:2), “I [am] the Lord your God.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:3 = Deut. 5:7), “You shall have no [other gods beside Me]”; and here (in Lev. 19:4), “Do not turn unto idols.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:7 = Deut. 5:11), “You shall not take [the name of the Lord your God in vain]”; and here (in Lev. 19:12), “You shall not swear falsely by My name.” In the commandments it is written (Deut. 5:12), “Guard the Sabbath day”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:3), “You shall keep My Sabbaths.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:12 = Deut. 5:16), “Honor your father and your mother”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:3, cont.), “you each shall fear his mother and his father.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), “You shall not murder”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:16), “you shall not stand over the blood of your neighbor.” in the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), “you shall not commit adultery”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:2), “You shall be holy.“ In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), “you shall not stea”l; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:11), “You shall not steal.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), “you shall not bear [false witness against your neighbor]”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:16), “You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:14 = Deut. 5:18), “You shall not covet”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:13), “You shall not oppress your neighbor, and you shall not rob him.” Here all of the [ten] commandments are included within [it]. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 19:2), “Speak unto the whole congregation [of the Children of Israel].”

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) "then he shall offer with the sacrifice": Loaves are hereby prescribed for each offering (when he brings several thank-offerings). (And the inclusion clause is needed. For otherwise I would reason thus:) Does it not follow (that loaves are not needed for each offering, for) if an instance (the atzereth offering), where loaves are few (only two), sheep are (relatively) many (two) — here, where loaves are many, should it not follow that they suffice for the number of sheep? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: "then he shall offer (loaves) with the sacrifice" — for each sacrifice individually.

3) The tvul yom: And if not, give me to eat of the breast and shok of the peace-offerings. The Cohein: Now if in a place where you are "strong," in holy of holies (offerings), where all (that is eaten of them) is yours, I have pushed you away, then in a place where you are "weak," in lower order offerings, where you have only the breast and the shok, does it not follow that I should push you away! The tvul yom: Now if you have pushed me away from holy of holies, where I am "weak," not being permitted to feed my wives and servants of them, would you then push me away from lower order offerings, where I am "strong," being permitted to feed my wives and slaves of them? The Cohein (Vayikra 7:14): "To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be." Come and sprinkle (when you are clean) and eat!

3) Let us see to what it ("terumah" in our verse) is similar. We deduce "terumah" (in our verse), following which (terumah) there is no (other) terumah, from terumah (terumath ma'aser), following which there is no (other) terumah; and this (deduction) is not to be refuted by terumath bikkurim, following which there are (other) terumoth (i.e., After taking terumath bikkurim, he must still take all of his other terumoth.) Or, go in this direction: We deduce (our) terumah, which is eaten in a distinct place (Jerusalem) from terumah (terumath bikkurim), which is eaten in a distinct place (Jerusalem), and this is not to be refuted by terumath ma'aser, which is not eaten in a distinct place. It is, therefore, (to resolve this) written (in respect to terumath ma'aser): "of it as a gift-offering," for a gezeirah shavah (an identity). Just as "terumah" written there is one of ten, so "of it as a gift-offering" written here is one of ten.

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

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

3) I might think that one is in violation of "It shall not be accepted" only (for an offering) that was slaughtered outside of its time and place. Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such (— Whence is it derived for all of these that if one transgressed and sacrificed them he receives stripes by reason of "It shall not be accepted")? From (the redundant) "it shall not be accepted" and "it shall not be reckoned." I might think that these entail kareth liability. It is, therefore, written ("He that offers) it." He (one who thinks to eat it outside of its time) and its eaters are subject to kareth, and not the others.

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

3) Ben Azzai says: What is the intent of "it" (above)? Because it is written (Devarim 23:22): "If you make a vow to the L–rd your G d, you shall not delay to pay it," I might think that if he does delay his vow he is in transgression of "It shall not be accepted"; it is, therefore, written: "It (the offering in our instance) shall not be accepted, but one who delays his vow is not in transgression of "It shall not be accepted." Others say: (It is written (here): "He shall not bethink himself." It (the offering) becomes unfit by thinking (to eat it on the third day), but it does not become unfit by delaying (its sacrifice) beyond three festivals.

3) "it shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire": We know (from Scripture) as requiring burning only what is tamei and nothar (flesh left over from the offering) and a sin-offering whose blood entered within (the sanctuary). Whence do we derive the same for the other offerings? From (Shemoth 29:34): "And if anything is left over from the flesh of the miluim … until morning, you shall burn what is left over in fire." Let it not be written "what is left over in fire" (i.e., it is redundant). But (we must say, then, that) it is a binyan av (see Hermeneutical Principle 3) (the intent of which is that) all that is nothar (in all offerings) requires burning.

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

3) (Vayikra 7:20) ("And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his tumah is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people.") "and tumatho is upon him": the tumah of the body (i.e., his tumah.) — But perhaps the tumah of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to [i.e., its tumah]); it is, therefore, written "and tumatho is upon him: "tumatho-tumatho for a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: Just as the tumah there (Bamidbar 19:13, "tumatho is yet upon him," clearly) refers to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of flesh, so tumatho here refers to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of flesh.

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

3) ("And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): ("And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards (the entrails)." I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): "the fat that covers the innards" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)

3) For would it not follow a fortiori (that they are thus prohibited), viz.: Now if (the prohibition against eating) blood, which is not liable for piggul (thought), nothar and tumah (— if that prohibition) obtains with unclean beasts, animals, and birds — then cheilev, which is liable for piggul (thought), nothar, and tumah, how much more so should it obtain with unclean beasts, animals, and birds! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: "All cheilev of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat" — to exclude the cheilev of unclean beasts, animals, and birds.

3) ("And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): ("And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards (the entrails)." I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): "the fat that covers the innards" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)

3) This tells me only of the sons of Israel. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in tenufah) proselytes and freed slaves? From (Vayikra 1:19) "He who presents" (connoting in context all who are bound by all the mitzvoth of Israel). Variantly, "he who presents" is the Cohein. "His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of the L–rd" (Vayikra 1:30); this includes the hands of the owner. How is this to be effected? The Cohein places (his hands) under the owner's hands (and waves).

3) ("And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): ("And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: "the fat that covers the innards (the entrails)." I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): "the fat that covers the innards." I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): "the fat that covers the innards" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)

3) This tells me only of the sons of Israel. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in tenufah) proselytes and freed slaves? From (Vayikra 1:19) "He who presents" (connoting in context all who are bound by all the mitzvoth of Israel). Variantly, "he who presents" is the Cohein. "His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of the L–rd" (Vayikra 1:30); this includes the hands of the owner. How is this to be effected? The Cohein places (his hands) under the owner's hands (and waves).

3) How does he execute (tenufah)? He (a Cohein) brings the fats (from the slaughtering site) to the hand of the owner, the two kidneys and the lobe of the liver above them, and the breast and shok above them. and if there were bread (as in the terumah of the thanksgiving loaves and the ram of the Nazirite and of the miluim), he places the bread above them.) And he (a second Cohein, places his hand under the hand of the owner and) brings it forward and back, and up and down, as it is written (Shemoth 24:27): "which was waved and which was lifted." Tenufah was in the east (of the altar), and hagashah (presentation at the corner of the altar, in the instance of the meal-offering of the omer and the meal-offering of rancor) in the west. Tenufah preceded hagashah (viz. Bamidbar 5:25). "before the L–rd" — in the east.

3) The tvul yom: And if not, give me to eat of the breast and shok of the peace-offerings. The Cohein: Now if in a place where you are "strong," in holy of holies (offerings), where all (that is eaten of them) is yours, I have pushed you away, then in a place where you are "weak," in lower order offerings, where you have only the breast and the shok, does it not follow that I should push you away! The tvul yom: Now if you have pushed me away from holy of holies, where I am "weak," not being permitted to feed my wives and servants of them, would you then push me away from lower order offerings, where I am "strong," being permitted to feed my wives and slaves of them? The Cohein (Vayikra 7:14): "To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be." Come and sprinkle (when you are clean) and eat!

3) (Vayikra 7:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the miluim (the offering of investiture of the priesthood), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.": Just as the general rule and the particulars of the miluim were given at Sinai (before the tabernacle was set up, viz. Shemoth, Tetzaveh,), so, the general rules and particulars of all of them (those mentioned in the verse) were given at Sinai.

3) "… where I shall be appointed for you." (Vayikra 7:38): "… which the L–rd commanded Moses on the day that He charged him unto the children of Israel…" (Shemoth 34:35): "… until he came, [for the L–rd] to speak to 10 him." [(Shemoth 6:28): "… It was Moses and Aaron," immediately followed by] (Shemoth 6:29): "And it was on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt." (Bamidbar 3:1): "And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai." (Vayikra 1:1): "And He called to Moses, and the L–rd spoke to him." — Aaron is excluded from all.

3) R. Yishmael says: "the hide of the burnt-offering": This tells me only of the hide of the burnt-offering. Whence do I derive (the same for) the hides of (all) higher order offerings (that they revert to the Cohanim)? By a fortiori deduction, viz.: If in a place (the burnt-offering), where the Cohanim did not acquire the flesh, they acquired the hides, here (the other higher order offerings), where they acquired the flesh, does it not follow that they should acquire the hides? — This is refuted by the altar, which acquired flesh but did not acquire hides.

3) (Vayikra 1:16): "baked in an oven": and not baked in a brazier, or on hot tiles, or in the improvised fire places of the Arabs. R. Yehudah says: Why "oven," "oven," twice? (here and Vayikra 7:9). To validate a brazier. R. Shimon says: Why "oven," "oven," twice? (One,) that he consecrate it (to be baked in) an oven, and (the other,) that all of its processing be in an oven.

3) Whence is it derived that meal-offerings are not apportioned against flesh offerings (i.e., that one Cohein should not say to another: You take the flesh offerings and I will take the meal-offerings)? From "Every meal-offering that is baked in the oven … to all the sons of Aaron shall it be" (i.e., the meal-offerings shall be shared by all of the Cohanim.)

3) "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving he shall offer it": We are hereby taught that a thank-offering may be slaughtered as a thank-offering or as a peace-offering. I might think that a peace-offering, too, may be slaughtered as a peace-offering or as a thank-offering; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "This (is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.")

Another interpretation (of Lev. 7:11), “This is the law of the sacrifice for peace offerings.” This text is related (to Ps. 85:9), “Let me hear what God, the Lord, will speak; for He will speak peace unto his people and unto his saints.” The peoples of the world said to Balaam, “Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, tell Israel to bring Him sacrifices without telling us anything?” Balaam said to them, “The sacrifices are only peace (i.e., the peace offering). Whoever has accepted the Torah in which they are written must offer sacrifice. You rejected [Torah] from the start, and now you wish to offer sacrifices?” Whoever accepted it is the one who offers [sacrifices], as stated (in Ps. 29:11), “The Lord will grant strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace (i.e., with peace offerings).” It is therefore stated (in Ps. 85:9), “Let me hear what God, the Lord, will speak; for He will speak peace unto His people and unto His saints.” What did He speak? (Lev. 7:11:) “This is the law of the sacrifice for peace offerings.” Why was [it worded], “the sacrifice for peace offerings?” Because it makes peace among the altar, the priests, and Israel. Come and see. The whole burnt offering belonged wholly to the flames. Also, in the case of the sin offering, its best parts and its devoted portions¹⁸Emurim. Perhaps from the Greek, meria, i.e., “thigh bones.” belonged to the altar, its skin and its flesh belonged to the priests, but there was no enjoyment from it for Israel. So also in the case of the guilt offering. However, in the case of the thank offering, its blood and its devoted parts belonged to the altar, the breast and the shoulder belonged to the priests, but the skin and flesh belonged to Israel. It resulted in making peace among the altar, the priests, and Israel. It is therefore called (in Lev. 7:11), “the sacrifice for peace offerings,” because it made peace for all.

[Another interpretation (of Lev. 19:2:) 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. The Holy One said to them: Be holy just as I am holy in every respect.¹¹Tanh., Gen. 1:7; Lev. 7:4; above, Gen. 1:7. See what is written (in Josh. 24:19): FOR HE IS A HOLY GOD (in the plural).¹²The words, HOLY and GOD, are both plural in the Hebrew. What is the meaning of FOR HE IS A HOLY GOD (in the plural)? This verse < provides > an opening for the heretics (minim), in that he seems like two powers.¹³Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (“Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity,” 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977), p. 121. The heretics asked R. Simlay: What is the meaning of FOR HE IS HOLY GOD?¹⁴See above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:7; and the parallels listed there. Do you not say that he is one power? See, here are < at least > two powers. He said to them: You idiots! [See what is written: FOR HE IS A HOLY GOD (in the plural). You would say: They are < at least > two powers, [for why are GOD and HOLY plural?] R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Abba: What is the meaning of HE IS A HOLY < GOD > (with HOLY in the plural)? That he is holy in all categories of holiness. How? R. Aha bar Hanina said: His speech is in holiness, as stated (in Ps. 60:8 [6]): GOD SPOKE IN HIS HOLINESS (i.e., in the Holy Place, the Temple). His way is in holiness, as stated (in Ps. 77:14 [13]): YOUR WAY, O GOD, IS IN HOLINESS (i.e., in the Holy Place). He is seen in holiness, as stated (in Ps. 63:3 [2]): SO I HAVE BEHELD YOU IN HOLINESS, (i.e., in the Holy Place). His praise¹⁵Gk.: kalos (“beautifully”). is in holiness, as stated (in Exod. 15:11): WHO IS LIKE YOU, GLORIOUS IN HOLINESS? The uncovering of his arm is in holiness, as stated (in Is. 52:10): THE LORD HAS UNCOVERED < HIS ARM OF HOLINESS >. Ergo (in Josh. 24:19) HE IS A HOLY GOD (with HOLY in the plural), because he is holy in all categories of holiness.

4) "then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened cakes spread with oil": Why is "with oil" written twice? R. Akiva said: If "with oil" were written only once, I would say that it (i.e., the amount) was as that for all the meal-offerings — a log. The additional "with oil" increases (the amount), and (the hermeneutical rule is) "increase after increase denotes decrease").

4) We have learned of terumah that it is one of ten, but I still do not know from how much (flour) he takes each loaf. We derive it by deduction. It is written here (Vayikra 7:13) ("With cakes of) leavened bread," and, elsewhere, in respect to the two loaves, (Vayikra 23:17) "leavened." Just as there, an issaron (of flour) for one loaf; here, too, an issaron for one loaf.

4) We have learned of terumah that it is one of ten, but I still do not know from how much (flour) he takes each loaf. We derive it by deduction. It is written here (Vayikra 7:13) ("With cakes of) leavened bread," and, elsewhere, in respect to the two loaves, (Vayikra 23:17) "leavened." Just as there, an issaron (of flour) for one loaf; here, too, an issaron for one loaf.

4) This tells me only of the thank-offering. Whence do I derive the same for all (offerings) that are eaten for one day? From (the redundant) "And when you slaughter a sacrifice."

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

4) I might think that "bethinking" (above) renders it unfit only if he has such a thought at the sprinkling of the blood. Whence do I derive (that it is similarly invalidated by such thought at the time of) slaughtering or receiving of the blood? From (the redundant) "eaten, eaten" — to include (all the preliminaries to "eating," such as) slaughtering and receiving the blood. I might think to include (as invalidating the offering, such thought at the time of disposing of) the left-over blood and the burning of the fats. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "he that offers it," (i.e., he that sprinkles the blood). Sprinkling was in the class (of all the sacrificial services). Why was it singled out for special mention? To make it the basis of a comparison, viz.: Just as sprinkling is characterized by its being a sacrificial service upon which atonement is contingent, so I include ([for piggul rejection] such thought at the time of) slaughtering and receiving the blood, upon which atonement is contingent — and I exclude (from piggul rejection such thought at the time of disposing of) the left-over blood and the burning of the fats, upon which atonement is not contingent.

4) This tells me (as requiring burning) only of nothar. Whence do I derive the same for an offering that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one that was slaughtered outside of its time or outside of its place, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was) to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such, and a bird sin-offering brought for a possibility (of its being required), and a suspended guilt-offering (in an instance where it became known to him that he had not sinned, before its blood was sprinkled, in which case it is like a sacrifice that has become unfit) — (Whence is it derived that all of the above require burning?) From (Shemoth 29:33) "… he shall not eat, for they are holy" — everything that is holy (and that has become unfit) requires burning (see Shemoth 29 verse 34).

4) Rebbi says: (The gezeirah shavah is not necessary, for) "and he shall eat" (in the next verse) clearly indicates that "and tumatho is upon him" (in our verse) refers to the tumah of his body (viz. "nefesh" in both verses).

4) Rebbi says: (The gezeirah shavah is not necessary, for) "and he shall eat" (in the next verse) clearly indicates that "and tumatho is upon him" (in our verse) refers to the tumah of his body (viz. "nefesh" in both verses).

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

4) I might think that the entire beast is permitted; it is, therefore, written (Bereshith 9:4): "Only the flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat" — ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal) is forbidden. (Bereshith 32:33): "Therefore, the children of Israel may not eat the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh)" — the gid hanasheh is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:3): "All fats (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat" — cheilev is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:26): "And all blood you shall not eat" — blood is forbidden. I might think that they are permitted whether slaughtered (by shechitah) or not slaughtered, (but killed in some other way); it is, therefore, written (Devarim 27:7): "And you shall slaughter (by shechitah) … and you shall eat."

4) This tells me only of (the prohibition of the) cheilev of full-breed oxen, sheep, or goats. Whence do I derive that of kilaim (hybrids) (of sheep and goats for inclusion in the prohibition)? From "of ox or sheep or goat." These are the words of R. Akiva. And if you wish, you can say that it is derived from (Vayikra 7:25) ("For all who eat cheilev) of the beast," including a hybrid. What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:23) "all cheilev"? I might think that only what is included in the punishment (kareth) is included in the exhortation (against eating cheilev), (but the cheilev of) a koi (an animal whose status is in doubt, i.e., is it "domesticated" [whose cheilev is forbidden] or "non-domesticated" [whose cheilev is permitted]?) or less than an olive-size (the minimum for kareth), (I might think that since they are not included in the punishment (kareth) they are not included in the exhortation (not to eat). It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "all cheilev."

4) This tells me only of (the prohibition of the) cheilev of full-breed oxen, sheep, or goats. Whence do I derive that of kilaim (hybrids) (of sheep and goats for inclusion in the prohibition)? From "of ox or sheep or goat." These are the words of R. Akiva. And if you wish, you can say that it is derived from (Vayikra 7:25) ("For all who eat cheilev) of the beast," including a hybrid. What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:23) "all cheilev"? I might think that only what is included in the punishment (kareth) is included in the exhortation (against eating cheilev), (but the cheilev of) a koi (an animal whose status is in doubt, i.e., is it "domesticated" [whose cheilev is forbidden] or "non-domesticated" [whose cheilev is permitted]?) or less than an olive-size (the minimum for kareth), (I might think that since they are not included in the punishment (kareth) they are not included in the exhortation (not to eat). It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "all cheilev."

4) I might think that the entire beast is permitted; it is, therefore, written (Bereshith 9:4): "Only the flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat" — ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal) is forbidden. (Bereshith 32:33): "Therefore, the children of Israel may not eat the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh)" — the gid hanasheh is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:3): "All fats (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat" — cheilev is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:26): "And all blood you shall not eat" — blood is forbidden. I might think that they are permitted whether slaughtered (by shechitah) or not slaughtered, (but killed in some other way); it is, therefore, written (Devarim 27:7): "And you shall slaughter (by shechitah) … and you shall eat."

4) I might think that all of the offerings require lifting; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:29) "sacrifice" (zevach, denoting something slaughtered by shechitah), excluding birds, (which are slaughtered by "pinching" [melikah]) and meal-offerings, which are not sacrifices.

4) I might think that the entire beast is permitted; it is, therefore, written (Bereshith 9:4): "Only the flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat" — ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal) is forbidden. (Bereshith 32:33): "Therefore, the children of Israel may not eat the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh)" — the gid hanasheh is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:3): "All fats (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat" — cheilev is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:26): "And all blood you shall not eat" — blood is forbidden. I might think that they are permitted whether slaughtered (by shechitah) or not slaughtered, (but killed in some other way); it is, therefore, written (Devarim 27:7): "And you shall slaughter (by shechitah) … and you shall eat."

4) Whence is it derived that the breast and the shok do not revert to Aaron and his sons until after the smoking of the fats? From (Bamidbar 5:31) "And he shall smoke the cheilev upon the altar" followed by "and the breast shall be for Aaron and for his sons."

4) The tvul yom left with his (unavailing) "weaknesses and strengths," an onein (a mourner) on his right hand, and a mechussar kippurim ("one lacking atonement") on his left, (these, too, being "pushed away" by these verses.)

4) But perhaps, just as the miluim is a communal offering (peace-offerings), so we should derive that only (the general rules and particulars of) communal offerings (were given at Sinai). Whence do I derive the same for an individual offering? From "and of the guilt-offering." But perhaps just as the guilt-offering is an individual offering, so I can derive from it only an individual offering. Whence would I derive the same for communal offerings? From "and of the miluim" (itself)! When you reflect upon this, you can say: "of the burnt-offering": both individual and communal; "of the meal-offering": both individual and communal; "and of the sin-offering": both individual and communal; "and of the sacrifices of the peace-offerings": both individual and communal.

4) I would exclude all of the above but not the innards-fat of a sh'lil (a live embryo found in the mother's body [i.e., I would say that that fat, being innards-fat, is interdicted]); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:4): "and the two kidneys and the fat (which is upon them") in respect to a guilt-offering. Let this not be written, for it may be deduced by kal vachomer (that these must be sacrificed), viz.:

4) (Vayikra 7:5) ("And the Cohein shall smoke them upon the altar, a fire-offering to the L–rd; it is a guilt-offering.")

4) No (i.e., this is no refutation. This may be so of the altar, which did not acquire any of them (the hides), whereas the Cohanim did acquire some of them (those of a burnt-offering), and since they acquired some of them, they should acquire all of them (i.e., the hides of all the higher order offerings!) Rebbi says: The truth is that we need to be apprised of (the status of) the hide of the burnt-offering alone (and we need no a fortiori arguments for the status of the hides of other higher order offerings). For in all instances, the hide "follows" the flesh: In the instance of the burnt-bullocks and the burnt he-goats, their hides are burnt with them, viz. (Vayikra 16:27): ("… he shall take outside the camp) and they shall burn in fire their hides and their flesh and their dung."

4) I might think that meal-offerings baked in the oven are not apportioned against flesh offerings, but that other meal-offerings are apportioned against flesh offerings; it is, therefore, written "All that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle, etc. … to all the sons of Aaron shall it be."

4) "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving": Just as a peace-offering requires placing of the hands (semichah), and libations, and waving of breast and thigh, so, a thank-offering.

(Lev. 7:11) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS. This text is related (to Prov. 3:17): < WISDOM'S > WAYS ARE WAYS OF PLEASANTNESS, AND ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE. Whatever is written in the Torah is written {as an expression of} [to establish] peace.²⁵Tanh., Lev. 2:3. Although wars are written about in the Torah, they are written about for the sake of peace. You find that the Holy One cancelled the decree < of utter destruction (herem) > for the sake of peace. When? When the Holy One said to Moses (in Deut. 20:19): WHEN YOU BESIEGE A CITY A LONG TIME…., < YOU SHALL NOT DESTROY ITS TREES…. > Now concerning that whole matter, the Holy One had said that he would destroy them, as stated (above in vs. 17): NO, YOU SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY THEM. However, Moses did not do so. Rather he said: Am I to go and smite them now? I do not know who has sinned and who has not sinned. Instead, let me come against them in peace, as stated (in Deut. 2:26): THEN I SENT MESSENGERS FROM THE DESERT OF KEDEMOTH < UNTO KING SIHON OF HESHBON > WITH WORDS OF PEACE, SAYING: < …. > When he saw that he did not come in peace, he smote him, as stated (in Numb. 21:35): SO THEY SMOTE HIM, HIS CHILDREN, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. The Holy One said to him: I myself told you (in Deut. 20:17): NO, YOU SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY THEM…. Now you have come to them in Peace. By your life, just as you have said, so will I do. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 20:10): WHEN YOU DRAW NEAR UNTO A CITY TO FIGHT AGAINST IT, YOU SHALL OFFER TERMS OF PEACE UNTO IT. Therefore, it is so stated (in Prov. 3:17): < WISDOM'S > WAYS ARE WAYS OF PLEASANTNESS, AND ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE.

(Lev. 7:11:) “This is the law of the sacrifice for peace offerings." When they offered the sacrifice of the peace offerings, the Holy One, blessed be He, would lift up His face to (favor) them, as stated (in Numb. 6:26), “The Lord lift up His face unto you and grant you peace.” Is it possible for the Holy One, blessed be He, to [favor] mortals? Two verses contradict each other. One text says (in Ezek. 33:11), “Do I desire the death of the wicked?” The other text says (in I Sam. 2:25), “for the Lord took pleasure in slaying them.” How has He not taken pleasure in the death of the wicked? It is simply that before their verdict was sealed, He did not take pleasure; after a verdict was sealed, the Lord took pleasure in slaying them. And so Daniel said (in Dan. 10:21), “However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the record of truth.” Our masters have said, “There was a story about our Holy Rabbi (i.e., about R. Judah the Prince) that when he was passing through Simonia (where he lived), all the people of the city came out to meet him.¹⁹yYev. 12:6 (13a); Gen. R. 81:2; cf. Yev. 105:1. They wanted an elder from him to teach Torah. He gave them R. Levi ben Sisi. They said to him, ‘Our teacher, what is the meaning of what is written in Daniel (10:21), “However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the record of truth?” Is there something false in the Torah that it [must specifically] say truth [here]?’ [When] he did not find an answer to give them, he immediately went away [from there and came] to Rabbi. He said to him, ‘I could not stand up before them. They asked me one thing, and I could not find out what to answer them.’ He said to him, ‘What was the [one] thing?’ He said to him, ‘”However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the record of truth.” Is there something false in the Torah?’ He said to him, ‘There was a great answer for you to give them.’ He said to him, ‘You had something to tell them: When someone sins, the Holy One, blessed be He, inscribes death for him. [And if] he repents, the record is canceled. [But if] he does not repent, it is inscribed in the record of truth.’” Here also one text says (in Numb. 6:26), “The Lord lift up His face unto you”; while another text says (in Deut. 10:17), “who does not lift up His face.” If He lifts it up, why does He not lift it up? It is simply that for the idolaters, [He is one] “who does not lift up His face,” but for Israel, “The Lord lift up His face unto you.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Just as Israel [favors] me, so do I [favor] them. And how do they [favor] Me? [When] someone poor from Israel has four children, he takes one loaf. They sit down and eat all that loaf, but they are not satisfied from what there is in it, [yet] they recite a blessing. Yet the verse [only] says (Deut. 8:10), ‘When you shall eat and be full, you shall bless.’ I shall also favor them, [as stated] (in Numb. 6:26), ‘The Lord lift up His face unto you.’” It is therefore stated (in Lev. 7:11), “This is the law of the sacrifice for peace offerings.”

(Numb. 16:1:) NOW KORAH < … > TOOK. NOW … TOOK (rt.: LQH) can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: LQH). Thus is <the word> used (in Job 15:12): HOW YOUR HEART HAS CARRIED YOU AWAY (rt.: LQH). This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9): IS IT TOO SMALL A THING FOR YOU THAT THE GOD OF ISRAEL HAS SEPARATED YOU <FROM THE CONGREGATION TO DRAW YOU NEAR UNTO HIMSELF, TO PERFORM THE SERVICE OF THE LORD's TABERNACLE> …? <plus> that whole passage up to (vs. 29:) <IF THESE PEOPLE DIE> THE COMMON DEATH OF EVERY PERSON <….> The sages have said: Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the Ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9): BUT TO THE CHILDREN OF KOHATH HE GAVE NO <WAGONS>, BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SERVICE OF THE HOLY OBJECTS, WHICH THEY CARRIED ON THEIR SHOULDERS. Now Korah was the son of Izhar, <who was> the son of Kohath. When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38): AND PUT ON THE TASSEL OF EACH CORNER A THREAD OF BLUE, what did he do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of sanhedria who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2): AND THEY ROSE UP AGAINST MOSES, [TOGETHER WITH MEN FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY <PRINCES OF THE CONGREGATION>….] Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves themselves in blue prayer shawls. <When> Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, <namely> breast and right thigh,⁷I.e., the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32. they arose against them and said to them: Who commanded you to receive such? <The priests> said: Moses. <Korah's group> replied and said: We shall not give you anything, because the Holy One has not commanded it. They came and informed Moses. He went to placate⁸Rt.: PYS. See the Gk.: peithein, peisai in the aroist. them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.): AND THEY ROSE UP AGAINST MOSES. And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions, the men (according to Numb. 1:17) WHO WERE MENTIONED BY NAME. Although the text has not publicized⁹From PRSM. Cf. Gk: parresiazesthai. their <names>, it has given clues¹⁰Gk.: semeia. to their < identity>, so that you <can> identify them from the scriptural context. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his <name>, <but> he began to give clues to his <identity>. When they said to him: Who stole your articles? He said: A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and beautiful hair. After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their <identity>. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16): THESE WERE ELECTED BY THE CONGREGATION, PRINCES OF THEIR ANCESTRAL TRIBES, HEADS OF THOUSANDS WITHIN ISRAEL. Then it is written (in vs. 17): SO MOSES AND AARON TOOK THESE MEN WHO WERE MENTIONED BY NAME. Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2): PRINCES OF THE CONGREGATION, ELECTED BY THE ASSEMBLY, MEN OF RENOWN.

(Lev. 19:2:) YOU SHALL BE HOLY. Why? (Ibid., cont.:) BECAUSE I< , THE LORD YOUR GOD, > AM HOLY; for I have made you cling to my loins, as stated (in Jer. 13:11): FOR, AS THE GIRDLE CLINGS UNTO ONE'S LOINS, < SO I HAVE MADE ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND ALL THE HOUSE OF JUDAH CLING TO ME, SAYS THE LORD >.¹⁶Tanh., Lev. 7:5. The Holy One said to them, < i.e., > to Israel, I am not like flesh and blood. With a king of flesh and blood, mortals have no right to be called by his name. You yourself know that, when someone wants to accuse¹⁷Gk.: kategorein. his fellow, he calls him Augustus¹⁸Lat.: Augusta. The text should read Augustus. See Jastrow, s.v., Agusta (‘GWST’). so-and-so; and there is no life for him. But Israel is called by the name of the Holy One. He is called God; and he has called Israel gods, as stated (in Ps. 82:6): I SAID: YOU ARE GODS. He is called wise, as stated (in Job 9:4): ONE WISE OF HEART AND MIGHTY IN STRENGTH; and he has called Israel wise, as stated (in Deut. 4:6): SURELY THIS GREAT NATION IS A WISE AND UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE. God is called beloved, as stated (in Cant. 5:10): MY BELOVED IS BRIGHT AND RUDDY; and he has called them beloved, as stated (Cant. 5:1): EAT, FRIENDS, AND DRINK TO EXCESS, BELOVED ONES. He is called chosen, as stated (in Cant. 5:15): STATELY (literally: CHOSEN) AS THE CEDARS; and he has called them chosen, as stated (in Deut. 7:6): [THE LORD YOUR GOD] HAS CHOSEN YOU. He is called pious, as stated (in Jer. 3:12): FOR [I] AM PIOUS, SAYS THE LORD; and he has called them pious, as stated (in Ps. 50:5): GATHER TO ME, MY PIOUS ONES. He is called holy, as stated (in Is. 6:3): HOLY, HOLY, HOLY IS THE LORD OF HOSTS; and he has called Israel holy, [as stated (in Lev. 19:2): YOU SHALL BE HOLY.] The Holy One said: In this world you have been called holy, but in the world to come (according to Is. 4:3): AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT THE ONE WHO IS LEFT IN ZION AND WHO REMAINS IN JERUSALEM SHALL BE CALLED HOLY.

5) They, therefore, decreased it to half a log. I would think that the half log were divided among the three kinds: cakes, wafers, and soaked flour; it is, therefore, written: "cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil" (a third mention) — and increase after decrease denotes increase!

5) (Vayikra 7:34) ("For the breast of the tenufah and the shok of the terumah have I taken from the children of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace-offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the Cohein and to his sons as an everlasting statute from the children of Israel.") "the breast": This is the breast (itself); "hatenufah": This is (to include as reverting to the Cohein what is added in the offering of the ram of the Nazirite in) the tenufah of the basket (viz. Numbers 6:19). "shok": This is the shok itself. "haterumah": This is (to include as reverting to the Cohein the terumah of the four challoth of the thanksgiving offering (viz. Vayikra 7:14). "have I taken from the children of Israel": They should have reverted to the (first-born of the) Israelites, (who were originally slated to be the priests), but when they sinned (with the golden calf), they were taken from them and given to the Cohanim. I might think that just as they were taken from them because they sinned, so they will be restored to them (in the future, when their sin is atoned). It is, therefore, written "and I have given them to Aaron the Cohein and to his sons as an everlasting statute" — They are given to the Cohein as an everlasting gift.

5) Or, go in this direction. It is written here (Vayikra 23:13) "challoth," and, in respect to the show-bread, (Vayikra 24:5) "challoth." Just as there, two esronim for one challah, here, too, two esronim for one challah!

5) (Vayikra 7:15): "He shall not leave over of it until morning." But he may eat it the entire night. Why, then, did the sages say (that he may eat it only) until midnight? To keep one far from transgression. But (adverse) thought (at the sacrifice) does not render them unfit and they are not rendered nothar (abiding beyond the prescribed time) until the morning star rises.

5) R. Meir says: It (piggul thought) at the time of hiluch ("leading" the blood from the azarah to the altar) invalidates (the offering), the sacrificial service being impossible without hiluch. And R. Shimon says: There is no (invalidating piggul) thought in hiluch. For the priestly service is impossible without slaughtering, receiving (of the blood), or sprinkling, but it is possible without hiluch — he can slaughter on the side of the altar and fling (the blood upon it). R. Elazar says: If one "leads" (the blood) in a place where he must lead, (piggul) thought invalidates; in a place where he need not lead, (piggul) thought does not invalidate. (Piggul) thought invalidates only something which may serve as an offering per se (and not something which serves some other function), and (obtains only) with one who is fit for the priestly service (and not with a Cohein who is blemished), and only in a place which is fit for the priestly service, (as when the altar is intact, and not when it is defective).

5) Now that we have included things that are like peace-offerings and things that are not like peace-offerings, why is "peace-offerings" (specifically) mentioned? Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in having "permitters" (the sprinkling of the blood, which permits eating) to the man and (burning of the devoted portions) to the altar, so, I include only those offerings which have permitters to the man or to the altar — like the bird sin-offering, which has permitters (blood) to the man, and not to the altar, and like the bird burnt-offering, which has permitters to the altar, and not to the man, and like the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which have permitters to the altar and not to the man. What do I exclude (from piggul invalidation)? The fistful, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal-offering of Cohanim, (which are completely burnt and no fistful taken therefrom), the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest, the libation meal-offering, and the blood — all of which have no permitters, neither to the man nor to the altar. R. Shimon says: Peace-offerings are distinctive in being offered on the outer altar — I (therefore) exclude the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which are not offered on the outer altar.

5) I might think that they were to be burned even if they had died (after they were separated as an offering) or had miscarried, (in which case the fetus was to be burned), or had become tamei outside (the azarah); it is, therefore, written (to counterindicate this) (Shemoth 29:34): "for it is holy" (excluding the latter, whose unfitness did not take place in "holiness.") R. Yehudah says: I might think that a bird sin-offering brought for a possibility (of its being required), and a suspended guilt-offering (in an instance where it became known to him that he had not sinned), and chullin (a non-consecrated animal that had been slaughtered in the azarah — (I might think) that they must be burned; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemoth 29:34): "for it is holy" (excluding the above).

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

5) R. Chiyya says: (The gezeirah shavah is not necessary, for) the offerings are in the plural ("peace-offerings"), and "tumatho," in the singular. How, then, must "tumatho" be understood? As referring to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of the flesh (their tumah).

5) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4): "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah-kareth) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters," (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar).

5) (Vayikra 7:24) ("And the cheilev of a [beast that is] neveilah (carrion) or the cheilev of a treifah ("torn" animal) may be used for all service, but you shall not eat it.") Scripture here speaks of the neveilah of a clean (kosher) animal. (i.e., The cheilev of a kosher animal may be used for all service for it is distinct from its flesh and is not subject to neveilah-tumah, as opposed to the cheilev of an unkosher animal, which is not distinct from its flesh, and both are subject to neveilah-tumah). I might think that the neveilah of an unclean animal is intended, and that this follows by induction, viz.: There is absence of (the kareth of) cheilev and there is absence of (the tumah of) neveilah. It stands to reason that the absence of neveilah-tumah obtains with an unclean animal just as the absence of cheilev-kareth obtains only with an unclean animal. Or go in this direction: There is absence (of neveilah-tumah) where there is cheilev (our instance), and there is absence (of neveilah-tumah) where there is shechitah, (i.e., Just as we find that the latter obtains only with a clean (kosher) animal, (i.e., If an unclean animal is slaughtered through shechitah, neveilah-tumah still obtains), so, the former, (our instance), obtains only with a clean animal. (We now find ourselves in a predicament:) When you go in one direction, only a clean beast is being spoken of. When you go in the other direction, only an unclean beast is spoken of. It is, therefore, written (in the same context as "neveilah"), "treifah" — This excludes an unclean beast, where treifah does not obtain.

5) I exclude (from tenufah) birds and meal-offerings, which are not zevachim; but I would not exclude a bechor (a first-born), a tithe, and a Pesach offering, which are zevachim. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:29) "of the zevach," and not all of the zevachim (to exclude the above).

5) If the devoted portions became tamei or were lost, I might think that the shok would not revert to Aaron and to his sons; it is, therefore, written "it shall be" (in any event). And thus is it written in respect to the sons of Eli (I Samuel 2:15): "Even before they would smoke the fats, the Cohein's youth would come and say to the slaughterer: Give flesh for roasting to the Cohein. He will not take from you cooked meat but only raw." What is written of them? (I Samuel 2:17) "And the sin of the youths was very great before the L–rd, for the men cheapened the offering of the L–rd."

5) (Vayikra 7:34) ("For the breast of the tenufah and the shok of the terumah have I taken from the children of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace-offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the Cohein and to his sons as an everlasting statute from the children of Israel.") "the breast": This is the breast (itself); "hatenufah": This is (to include as reverting to the Cohein what is added in the offering of the ram of the Nazirite in) the tenufah of the basket (viz. Numbers 6:19). "shok": This is the shok itself. "haterumah": This is (to include as reverting to the Cohein the terumah of the four challoth of the thanksgiving offering (viz. Vayikra 7:14). "have I taken from the children of Israel": They should have reverted to the (first-born of the) Israelites, (who were originally slated to be the priests), but when they sinned (with the golden calf), they were taken from them and given to the Cohanim. I might think that just as they were taken from them because they sinned, so they will be restored to them (in the future, when their sin is atoned). It is, therefore, written "and I have given them to Aaron the Cohein and to his sons as an everlasting statute" — They are given to the Cohein as an everlasting gift.

5) (Vayikra 7:38) ("which the L–rd commanded Moses on Mount Sinai on the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings to the L–rd in the desert of Sinai.") "to present their offerings to the L–rd": (This is redundant) to include a bechor (a first-born), the tithe, and the Pesach offering (in the comparison to miluim), to include the general rules and particulars of all of these as having been given at Sinai.

5) R. Eliezer says: "a fire-offering" — consigned to the fire; "a guilt-offering": even though he did not place his hands upon it. ("it is) a guilt-offering": I might think (that it is valid) even if he did not slaughter it to that end. It is, therefore, written "it" (— only if it were intended as such.)

5) The sin-offering and the guilt-offering and the communal peace-offerings are given as gifts to the Cohanim. If they wish to flay them, they flay them. If they wish to eat them together with their skins, they do so. But in the instance of the burnt-offerings, because it is written (Vayikra 1:6): "And he shall flay the burnt-offerings," Scripture is constrained to state: "The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered up … to him shall it be." "to him shall it be": to exclude one who has immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening), one who lacks atonement (until he brings a sacrifice), and a mourner (before the burial of his kin). For I might think they should not share in the flesh, which is for eating, but they could share in the hides, which are not for eating. I must, therefore, be apprised: "The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered up is the Cohein's (i.e., It reverts to the Cohein who was fit to offer it up); to him shall it be": excluding one who immersed in the daytime, one who lacks atonement, and a mourner.

5) I might think that meal-offerings are not to be apportioned against flesh offerings, (because nothing is substituted for meal-offerings in a state of poverty) but that bird-offerings are apportioned against meal-offerings, (for meal-offerings are substituted for bird-offerings in a state of poverty; it is, therefore, written "and on the griddle, etc. to all the sons of Aaron shall it be."

5) They said in the name of R. Yishmael: Because the thank-offering departed (from the general category of peace-offerings) for a new learning (that it required loaves, unlike peace-offerings), I might think that it retains only its new learning (see Hermeneutical Principle 11); it is, therefore, written, (to restore it to its category): "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving" — Just as a peace-offering requires placing of the hands, and libations, and waving of breast and thigh, so, a thank-offering.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 7:11): THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS…. This text is related (to Ps. 85:9 [8]): LET ME HEAR WHAT GOD, THE LORD, WILL SPEAK; FOR HE WILL SPEAK PEACE UNTO HIS PEOPLE AND UNTO HIS SAINTS. The peoples of the world said²⁶Reading ‘MRW with the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 2:4, instead of ‘MRY from the Buber text. to Balaam: Why did the Holy One tell Israel to bring him sacrifices without telling us anything? Balaam said to them: The sacrifices are only peace (i.e., the peace offering). Whoever has accepted the Torah in which they are written must offer sacrifice. You rejected < Torah > from the start, and now you wish to offer sacrifices. Whoever accepted it is the one who offers < sacrifices >, as stated (in Ps. 29:11): THE LORD WILL GRANT STRENGTH TO HIS PEOPLE; THE LORD WILL BLESS HIS PEOPLE WITH PEACE (i.e., with peace offerings). It is therefore stated (in Ps. 85:9 [8]): LET ME HEAR WHAT GOD, THE LORD, WILL SPEAK; FOR HE WILL SPEAK PEACE UNTO HIS PEOPLE AND UNTO HIS SAINTS. What did he speak? (Lev. 7:11): THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS…. Why was it worded, THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS? Because it makes peace among the altar, the priests, and Israel. Come and see. The whole burnt offering belonged wholly to the flames. Also, in the case of the sin offering, its best parts and its devoted portions²⁷Emurim. Perhaps from the Greek, meria, i.e., “thigh bones.” belonged to the altar, its skin and its flesh belonged to the priests, but there was no enjoyment from it for Israel. So also in the case of the guilt offering. However, in the case of the thank offering, its blood and its devoted parts belonged to the altar, the breast and the shoulder belonged to the priests, but the skin and flesh belonged to Israel. It resulted in making peace among the altar, the priests, and Israel. It is therefore called (in Lev. 7:11), THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS, because it made peace for all.

(Lev. 7:12:) “If he offers it for a thanksgiving, and he shall sacrifice.” See how the Holy One, blessed be He, forgives the sins of Israel. See what did they offer to the Holy One, blessed be He? It is simply that the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Whoever has a bull, let him bring a bull; and whoever has a calf let him bring a calf. Whoever has a lamb, let him bring a lamb. Whoever has a dove, let him bring a dove. Whoever has not one of all these, let him bring fine flour; and whoever has neither flour nor anything at all, let him bring words.” Thus it is stated (in Hos. 14:3), “Take your words with you and return unto the Lord.” And do you say that it is accepted? Said the Holy One, blessed be He, (as in Hos. 12:3, cont.), “and we shall pay with our lips for the bulls.” Why? As there is no greater repentance in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, than confession. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 7:12), “If he offers it for a thanksgiving” (as the word for thanksgiving can also be understood as confession).

(Lev. 19:2:) YOU SHALL BE HOLY. R. Pinhas bar Hama the Priest said: R. Reuben said: What is the meaning of that which is written (in Ezek. 3:12): AND AFTER ME¹⁹This translation follows the interpretation of the midrash. A more traditional translation would be BEHIND ME. I HEARD A GREAT ROARING SOUND. What is the meaning of AFTER ME ('HRY)?²⁰Tanh., Lev. 7:6; also above, Exod. 4:13. After ('HRY) I and my friends praised him, I heard the ministering angels, as they praised him and said (ibid., cont.): BLESSED BE THE GLORY OF THE LORD FROM HIS PLACE. It also says (in Job 38:7): WHEN THE MORNING STARS (i.e., the seed of Jacob)²¹This interpretation of THE MORNING STARS is explicit in the parallel passage of Gen. R. 65:21, which explains that Jacob’s offspring are likened to stars in Dan. 12:3. See also the much fuller parallel in Tanh., Lev. 7:6. SANG TOGETHER, then (ibid., cont.:) ALL THE CHILDREN OF GOD (i.e., all the angels) SHOUTED FOR JOY. R. Mani said: Let not the recitation of the Shema be trivial in your eyes because there are two hundred forty-eight words in it,²²The number includes the response after the first line of the Shema (cited below) plus the three preliminary words with which one precedes the Shema when praying in private, i.e., El melekh ne’eman (“God is a faithful king”). corresponding to < the number of > parts that are in a human being; and out of them < comes > BLESSED BE THE NAME OF HIS GLORIOUS MAJESTY FOREVER AND EVER.²³This blessing is the liturgical response to the first line of the Shema. The Holy One said: If you have kept what is mine in reciting it properly, I will also keep what is yours. Therefore, David offered praise²⁴Rt.: QLS; cf. Gk.: kalos (“beautifully”). (in Ps. 17:8): KEEP ME AS THE PUPIL OF AN EYE. The Holy One said to him (in Prov. 4:4): KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS AND LIVE. R. Simeon ben Halafta said: To what is the matter comparable?²⁵Deut. R. 4:4. To someone who < lives > in Galilee and has a vineyard in Judea, while someone in Judea has a vineyard in Galilee. The one who < lives > in Galilee goes to Judea to cultivate his vineyard. The one in Judea goes to Galilee to cultivate his vineyard. < One day > they meet with each another, and one said to the other: Instead of you coming to my place, keep watch over what is mine in your neighborhood; and I will keep watch over what is yours in my neighborhood. So did David say (in Ps. 17:4): KEEP ME AS THE PUPIL OF AN EYE? The Holy One said to him (in Prov. 4:4): KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS AND LIVE. Similarly the Holy One said to Israel: Keep my commandment, the commandment to recite the Shema morning and evening, and I will keep you, as stated (in Ps. 121:7): THE LORD SHALL KEEP YOU FROM ALL EVIL; HE SHALL KEEP YOUR SOUL.

6) How, then, does he apportion (the half log)? He gives a quarter of it to the soaked fine flour (this, being the "increase") and a quarter to the two (other) kinds, half to the cakes and half to the wafers. R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: He anoints the wafers in the form of (the Greek letter) chi, and returns what is left to the cakes. R. Elazar b. Azaryah said to R. Akiva: Even if you say the whole day: "with oil" — to decrease; "with oil" — to increase, I shall not heed you. But: a half log of oil for the thank-offering (half for the soaked fine flour and half for the cakes and the wafers), a quarter log of oil for the Nazirite (for his cakes and wafers), and the eleven-day interval between one niddah period and another — (these are) "a halachah to Moses on Sinai.

6) "soleth: unleavened cakes mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil": Why "oil," "oil," twice? (One,) to validate "second oil," and (the other,) to validate "third oil." R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: He spreads the wafers (with oil) in the shape of (the Greek letter) chi; for there is inclusion after inclusion ("oil," "oil") only for limitation (i.e., that he spread it only thinly [the rest to be eaten by the Cohanim]). R. Yehudah says (in reference to 4) and Vayikra 1:5) above): "matzoth" (unleavened), "matzoth" (twice): They (challoth and wafers) are similar in respect to matzoth, and not in respect to spreading and mixing.

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) Let us see to what it (our verse) is similar. We deduce a meal-offering which comes from leavened bread and which comes with a sacrifice (our verse) from a meal-offering (the two loaves) which comes from leavened bread and which comes with a sacrifice, and this is not to be refuted by the show-bread, which does not come leavened and does not come with a sacrifice.

6) (Vayikra 7:16) ("And if a vow or a gift is the sacrifice of his offering, on the day that he offers his sacrifice shall it be eaten, and on the next day, that which remains of it may be eaten.") This comes to teach about those offerings that are eaten for two days that they are eaten for two days. This tells me only of peace-offerings (viz. Vayikra 7:18). Whence do I derive (the same for) the festive offering (chagigah)? I would derive a festive offering that comes in its time (the first day of the festival). Whence would I derive a chagigah that comes (all seven days) as indemnity (for the first day), peace-offerings (of joy) that come in the midst of the festival (in addition to those of the chagigah and (left-over) peace-offerings (of joy) that come after the festival? From (the redundant) "And if a vow or a gift" (Vayikra 7:16).

6) (Vayikra 7:16) ("And if a vow or a gift is the sacrifice of his offering, on the day that he offers his sacrifice shall it be eaten, and on the next day, that which remains of it may be eaten.") This comes to teach about those offerings that are eaten for two days that they are eaten for two days. This tells me only of peace-offerings (viz. Vayikra 7:18). Whence do I derive (the same for) the festive offering (chagigah)? I would derive a festive offering that comes in its time (the first day of the festival). Whence would I derive a chagigah that comes (all seven days) as indemnity (for the first day), peace-offerings (of joy) that come in the midst of the festival (in addition to those of the chagigah and (left-over) peace-offerings (of joy) that come after the festival? From (the redundant) "And if a vow or a gift" (Vayikra 7:16).

6) I would think that (piggul) thought invalidates only in respect to the eating of flesh (out of its time). Whence do I derive the same for sprinkling, burning of fats, and (disposal of) left-over (blood out of its time)? From (the redundant) "eaten, eaten" — There is "eating" for a man (the eating of flesh) and "eating" for the altar.

6) R. Elazar says in the name of R. Yossi: If one had a piggul thought concerning something done outside (in the azarah), it is piggul; concerning something done inside (in the sanctuary), it is not piggul. How so? If he slaughtered (outside) with the intent of sprinkling the blood (inside) on the next day, it is not piggul; for the thought was outside concerning something (sprinkling) which is done inside.

6) ("And the flesh — everyone that is clean may eat flesh.") "And the flesh": (This is redundant) to include as permitted the inner flesh (of a limb that has projected beyond the permitted bounds). For I might reason: Since what is tamei is unfit and what leaves the permitted bounds (yotzei) is unfit, then just as with tamei, if part has become tamei, the whole is tamei, so with yotzei, if part has left (the permitted bounds), then all of it should be unfit; it is, therefore, written "And the flesh," to include the inner flesh as permitted.

6) Others say: (The gezeirah shavah is not necessary, for) Scripture ("— tumah is yet upon him") speaks of that from which tumah can depart (i.e., the man), as opposed to the flesh, from which tumah cannot depart.

6) Now that we have included (for tumah-kareth liability) things that are like peace-offerings and things that are not like peace-offerings, why are "peace-offerings" mentioned (Vayikra 7:21, "and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings")? — To exclude (the eating of) blood (from tumah-kareth liability. That is, this liability obtains only with what is like peace-offerings, which are not forbidden in themselves — as opposed to blood, which is forbidden in itself.) R. Shimon says: As peace-offerings are characterized by being fit for eating, so, all that are fit for eating (are subject to tumah-kareth liability). To exclude (the eating of) wood, frankincense, and incense, which are not fit for eating.

6) (Vayikra 3:17): "an eternal statute": for the eternal house (i.e., the Temple). "for your generations": the thing (i.e., the interdict) obtains for all generations." "in all of your dwellings": both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it — "all fat and all blood you shall not eat." R. Yehudah says: Blood is being likened to fat. Just as fat comes under two interdicts (here and Vayikra 7:23: "All fat of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat"), so, blood. And the sages say it falls only under one exhortation.

6) "and he shall burn it": one (i.e., an offering) that is kasher, and not one that is pasul. "on wood with fire": Why state this? I might think that since "burning" is mentioned within, (in respect to invalidated offerings [see Vayikra 7:23]), and "burning" is mentioned outside, (here) — Just as the first ("burning") is with wood kasher for the woodpile (on the altar), so, the second; it is, therefore, written (here): "wood" (lit., "woods"), to permit all wood. "wood" — even stubble, straw, and rakings. "with fire" — not lime or embers. ("Where the ashes are poured out) shall it be burnt" — even if there are no ashes there; "shall it be burnt" — until the fire takes hold of (all of) it (i.e., it must be entirely consumed).

6) The implication (of "treifah") is that I exclude (from permission to use the cheilev of a neveilah) an unclean beast, where treifah does not obtain, and that I include (for such permission) a clean animal (as opposed to "beast") where treifah does obtain. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "cheilev … you shall not eat" — The cheilev that was forbidden to be eaten, (that of a clean beast,) is permitted (for use). The cheilev of a clean animal, that was permitted to be eaten, is excluded (from use).

6) I would exclude (from tenufah) bechor, Pesach, and tithe, which do not require semichah, but I would not exclude a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which do require semichah; it is, therefore, written "his peace-offerings" (to exclude the above). I would exclude a sin-offering, in whose class there is no tenufah, but I would not exclude a guilt-offering, in whose class there is tenufah (the guilt-offering of a leper, which requires the tenufah of a living animal (viz. Vayikra 14:25), so that other guilt-offerings are also not to be excluded from the tenufah of their fats). I might exclude all guilt-offerings, but I would not exclude the guilt-offering of a leper as requiring tenufah after shechitah. It is, therefore, written (a second time, Vayikra 14:25) "his peace-offerings," and not the guilt-offering of a leper.

6) (Vayikra 7:32): "the right shok": This tells me only of the shok, that it must be the right shok. Whence do I derive the same (that it must be the right) for the shoulder of chullin (non-consecrated food, [Devarim 18:3])? From "shall you give." Whence do I derive the same for (the shoulder of) consecrated food (the ram of the Nazirite)? From "terumah." "from the sacrifices of your peace-offerings": This is as we have said (Chapter 15:9): To include communal peace-offerings as requiring tenufah after shechitah.

6) I might think that the offerings, too, should be subject to the (priestly) gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw, viz. Devarim 18:3), and that it follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if chullin (non-consecrated food), which is not subject to the giving of breast and shok (to the Cohein), is subject to the (priestly) gifts (above), then the offerings, which are subject to the giving of breast and shok, how much more so should they be subject to the (priestly gifts! It is, therefore, written "and I have given them (breast and shok) to Aaron the Cohein and to his sons" — only those that are referred to in that context. "from the children of Israel": (only) by the consent of all of Israel (to give them to the Cohanim from their peace-offerings, i.e., the Cohanim may not seize them by force).

6) "which the L–rd commanded Moses on Mount Sinai on the day that He commanded": From here we derive that all of the offerings are to be sacrificed only in the daytime.

6) R. Eliezer says: A sin-offering comes for a sin, and a guilt-offering comes for a sin. Just as a sin-offering not intended as such is unfit, so a guilt-offering not intended as such is unfit.

6) I might think that bird-offerings are not to be apportioned against meal-offerings, but that meal-offerings are to be apportioned against (other) meal-offerings; it is, therefore, written "and every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall it be."

6) "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving": Just as peace-offerings may be brought from the tithe [ma'aser], (if he vowed to bring a peace-offering from second-tithe monies), so a thank-offering may be brought from the tithe.

[(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….

[(Lev. 7:11): THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS.] When they offered the sacrifice of the peace offerings, the Holy One would lift up his face to them, as stated (in Numb. 6:26): THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE UNTO YOU AND GRANT YOU PEACE.²⁸Tanh., Lev. 2:5. Is it possible for the Holy One to lift up a face to mortals? Two verses contradict each other. One text says (in Ezek. 33:11): {FOR} I DO NOT DESIRE THE DEATH OF THE WICKED BUT THAT THE WICKED TURN FROM HIS WAY AND LIVE. The other text says (in I Sam. 2:25): FOR THE LORD TOOK PLEASURE IN SLAYING THEM. How has he not taken pleasure in the death of the wicked? It is simply that before their verdict was sealed, he did not take pleasure; after a verdict was sealed, THE LORD TOOK PLEASURE IN SLAYING THEM. And so Daniel said (in Dan. 10:21): HOWEVER, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IS INSCRIBED IN THE RECORD OF TRUTH. Our masters have said: There was a story about Our Holy Rabbi (i.e., about R. Judah the Prince) that, when he was passing through Simonia (where he lived), all the people of the city came out to meet him.²⁹yYev. 12:6 (13a); Gen. R. 81:2; cf. Yev. 105:1. They wanted one elder from him to teach Torah. He gave them R. Levi bar Simon. They said to him: Rabbenu, what is the meaning of what is written in Daniel (10:21): HOWEVER, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IS INSCRIBED IN THE RECORD OF TRUTH? Is there something false in the Torah that it < must specifically > say TRUTH < here >? < When > he did not find an answer to give them, he immediately went away [from there and came] to Rabbi. He said to him: I could not stand up before them. They asked me one thing, and I could not find out what to answer them. He said to him: What was the < one > thing. He said to him: HOWEVER, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IS INSCRIBED IN THE RECORD OF TRUTH. Is there something false in the Torah? He said to him: There was a great answer for you to give them. He said to him: You had something to tell them: When someone sins, the Holy One inscribes death for him. < If > he repents, the record is canceled. < If > he does not repent, IT IS INSCRIBED IN THE RECORD OF TRUTH. [Here] also one text says (in Numb. 6:26): THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE UNTO YOU…, while another text says (in Deut. 10:17): WHO DOES NOT LIFT UP HIS FACE. If he lifts it up, why does he not lift it up? It is simply that for the nations of the world, < he is one > WHO DOES NOT LIFT UP HIS FACE, but for Israel, THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE UNTO YOU. The Holy One said: Just as Israel lifts up a face to me, so I lift up a face to them. And how do they lift up a face to me? < When > someone poor from Israel has four children, he takes one loaf. They sit down and eat all that loaf, but they are not satisfied from what there is in it. So they give a blessing and say (from Deut. 8:10): THEN YOU SHALL EAT, BE FULL, [AND BLESS]. I shall also lift up a face to them, as stated (in Numb. 6:26): THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE UNTO YOU. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 7:11): THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS.

[(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….

(Lev. 7:11:) “This is the law of the sacrifice for peace offerings.” You find that all of the [other] sacrifices that they would bring, they would bring for sins. In the case of the guilt offerings, they would sacrifice them for sins, as stated (in Ezra 10:19), “And they gave their word (literally, their hand) that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, [they gave] a ram of the flock for their guilt.” Now the sin offering [took place] for the unintentional sin, as stated (in Numb. 15:25), “and their sin offering before the Lord for their unintentional sin.” A burnt offering took place for a thought of the heart. Thus it is stated (in Job 1:5), “and rising early in the morning, he would offer burnt offerings, one for each of them, for Job said, ‘Perhaps my children have sinned and blasphemed God in their hearts.’” But when the thank offering took place, it took place on account of their gratitude. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “This is the dearest to Me of all the offerings.” David said (in Ps. 50:23), “Whoever sacrifices a thank offering honors Me (ykbdnni).” It does not say ykbdni but ykbdnni, [spelled with n] two times, [once] for this world and [once] for the world to come.²⁰Lev. R. 9:2; Rashi on Sanh. 43b. R. Judah said, “Whoever answers amen in this world merits answering amen in the world to come. Where is it shown? (In Ps. 41:14), ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting (literally: from the world and unto the world); amen and amen.’ What is the meaning of ‘amen and amen?’ Amen in this world and amen in the world to come.” Ergo (in Ps. 50:23), “Whoever sacrifices a thank offering honors Me.” R. Aqiva said, “Whoever speaks songs [of praise] in this world merits speaking songs [of praise] in the world to come, as stated (Exodus 15:1), ‘Then Moshe sang (literally, will sing).’ It does not say, ‘Then he sang,’ but rather, ‘Then he will sing.’ Ergo, whoever speaks songs [of praise] in this world merits speaking songs [of praise] in the world to come.” Therefore, it is stated, (in Ps. 50:23), “Whoever sacrifices a thank offering honors Me.” (Lev. 7:11:) “This is the law of the sacrifice for peace offerings.” Peace offerings are great because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven. Eleazar Haqappar says, “Peace is great, because even though Israel worships idols but [still] forms one fellowship (havurah), strict justice does not harm them.²¹Numb. R. 11:17; cf. Gen. R. 38:6 It is so stated (in Hos. 4:17), ‘Ephraim is associated (havur) with idols. Let him be.’” R. Levi says, “Peace is great, because there is no conclusion to the priestly blessing other than peace, as stated (in Numb. 6:26), ‘and grant you peace.’” R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “Peace is great, because the Holy One, blessed be He, has written things in the Torah that did not happen, which are there only because of peace.²²yPe’ah 1:1 (16a); see Gen. R. 48:18; 100:8; Lev. R. 9:9; Deut. R. 5:5; Yev. 65b. They are the following: When Jacob had died (Gen. 50:15), ‘And Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, and they said, “Perhaps Joseph begrudges us.”’ What did they do?²³Above, Exod. 1:2. They went to Bilhah and said to her, ‘Go in unto Joseph and say to him (in Gen. 50:16), “Before he died, your father gave a command saying, ‘So shall you say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers.”’”’ Now Jacob never commanded any of these things at all; yet they said this thing on their own.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “See how much ink was spilled, how many pens²⁴Gk.: kalamoi. were broken, how many skins were prepared, and how many children were whipped in order to learn something which did not happen which is in the Torah. See how great is the power of peace!” And so you find in the case of Sarah, when the ministering angels came to Abraham and said to him (in Gen. 18:14), ‘At the set time I will return unto you, at the time that life is due.’ At that time (according to Gen. 18:12), ‘Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “… and my husband is an old man.”’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham (in vs. 13), ‘[But] why did Sarah laugh, saying, “Is it true that I also shall bear [a child] when I am old?”’²⁵Thus for the sake of peace the Holy One hid from Abraham the fact that Sarah had called him an old man. Now why all this? For the sake of peace.” Also in the world to come, when the Holy One, blessed be He, returns the diaspora to Jerusalem, He shall return them in peace. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 122:6), “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, may those who love you have serenity.” And so it says (in Is. 66:12), “Behold, I will extend peace unto her like a river.”

The minim questioned {R. Ishmael} [R. Simlay].¹⁸yBer. 9:1 (12d); Gen. R. 8:9; Deut. R. 2:13; Tanh., Lev. 7:4. They said to him: How many deities created the world? He said to them: Let us, me and you, inquire of the Torah. They said to him: See, it written (in Josh. 24:19): FOR … HOLY GODS.¹⁹While “God” in the Bible is commonly plural, here the adjective “holy” is plural as well. He said to them: Read the rest of the verse, < where > "they" is not used but HE.²⁰Thus the text reads literally: FOR HE IS HOLY GODS. R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Abba the Edomite: Why is HOLY plural (in Josh. 24:19)? Because he is holy in all categories of holiness. R. Aha bar Hanina said: In regard to the Holy One, his way is in holiness; he processes in holiness; he is seen in holiness; his speech is in holiness; the uncovering of his arm is in holiness; [he is beautiful and glorious in holiness]. His way is in holiness. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Ps. 77:14): YOUR WAY, O GOD, IS IN HOLINESS (i.e., in the Holy Place, the Temple). He processes is in holiness. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Ps. 68:25): THE PROCESSIONS OF MY GOD, MY KING, ARE IN HOLINESS. He is seen in holiness, as stated (in Ps. 63:3): SO I HAVE BEHELD YOU IN HOLINESS (i.e., in the Holy Place). His speech is in holiness, as stated (in Ps. 60:8): GOD SPOKE IN HIS HOLINESS (Holy Place). The uncovering of his arm is in holiness. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Is. 52:10: THE LORD HAS UNCOVERED HIS ARM OF HOLINESS. He is beautiful and glorious in holiness. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Exod. 15:11): WHO IS LIKE YOU AMONG THE GODS, O LORD, < GLORIOUS IN HOLINESS >? Hence < the plurals > (in Josh. 24:19): FOR HE IS HOLY GODS, in < the sense > that he is holy in all types of holinesses. < The minim > said to him: But he caused to be written (in Gen. 1:1): IN THE BEGINNING GOD (in the plural) CREATED. He said to them: < The plural form of > "created" is not written here, but CREATED < in the singular to agree with the singular subject >.

7) "soaked (revuchah) fine flour (soleth)": This teaches us that the revuchah is soleth. Whence is it derived that they are all (cakes [challoth], wafers, and leavened bread) of soleth? From "challoth - challoth." Just as "challoth" in respect to revuchah are soleth, so are "challoth" (written) in respect to all are soleth.

7) Or, go in this direction. We deduce a meal-offering (our verse), which comes (both) from the land (Eretz Yisrael) and from outside the land, from the new grain and from the old grain, from a meal-offering (the show-bread), which comes (similarly) from all of the aforementioned. And this is not to be refuted by the two loaves, which come only from the land and only from the new grain! It is, therefore, written (of the two breads, Vayikra 23:17): "From your habitations shall you bring the wave-bread." Let Scripture not state "shall you bring." (It is seemingly redundant.) — The intent is: What you bring from a different place (our instance), (which is similar to this), is like this, viz.: Just as this is one issaron for a loaf; so, what you bring from a different place (our instance), one issaron for a loaf.

7) Whence do we derive (the same for) the chagigah that comes with the Pesach (on the fourteenth of Nissan)? Because it is written (Devarim 16:4) "And there shall not remain of the flesh that you sacrifice towards evening on the first day until the morning," which teaches us about the chagigah of the fourteenth that it is eaten for two days and one night. I might think (that it is eaten) for one day and one night. It is, therefore, written "until the morning" — the morning of the second day. And how would I satisfy "a chagigah is eaten for two days"? (A different chagigah,) aside from this one. It is, therefore, written (to negate this, the redundant) "And if a vow or a gift."

7) We learned of sacrifices that may be eaten for two days that a thought (to eat of them) on the third day invalidates them. Whence do we derive the same for sacrifices that may be eaten for one day? It follows by induction, viz.: Sacrifices are eaten for two days and sacrifices are eaten for one day. Just as with sacrifices eaten for two days, a (piggul) thought invalidates them, so with sacrifices eaten for one day, a (piggul) thought (to eat them) on the second day invalidates them. — But "it suffices that what is derived by induction be as that which it is derived from" — Just as the former (invalidates only) on the third day, so the latter should invalidate only on the third day, (and not on the second)!

7) If he sprinkled the blood (inside) with the intent of burning its devoted portions (outside) on the next day, it is not piggul; for the thought was inside concerning something which is done outside.

7) From this it was ruled: If the limb of a Paschal offering projected beyond the wall (the permitted bound), he cuts until he reaches the bone and strips (the flesh) until he reaches the joint, wherefrom he frees it and cuts it off, (it being forbidden to break the bone of a Paschal offering). And with (other) offerings, he chops it off at any place (including the bone), breaking the bone not being interdicted in the others.

7) "and that soul shall be cut off": ("that soul") and not the congregation. "that soul": and not one who was forced, or unwitting, or mistaken. "from its people" — and the people remain at peace (without punishment [if they were not in a position to protest]).

7) Rebbi says: "What the sages say is no refutation of R. Yossi, for) if he slaughters within and offers outside he is liable (for the offering) because he had a time of validity (for offering it within after he slaughtered it, as opposed to slaughtering outside and offering outside, where he had no time of validity. R. Elazar b. Shimon says (in the same vein): If he slaughters within and offers outside he is liable, for the altar would accept it, (if it were returned within), as opposed to slaughtering outside and offering outside, where the altar would not accept it. (A similar instance, viz. Vayikra 7:20:) One who is tamei, if he ate consecrated food, whether it is tamei or tahor, he is liable. R. Yossi Haglili says: If he ate (consecrated food that was) tahor, he is liable; if he ate tamei, he is not liable, for he only ate something that was tamei (and not "consecrated.") He said to him: (But, according to your reasoning, also one who is) tamei who ate tahor — once he touched it, he renders it tamei, (and he should not be liable), and a tahor who eats tamei should not be liable, for there is liability only for tumah of one's body (and not for that of the animal)! (See Zevachim 43b)

7) You (the first tanna and R. Shimon) come to say that the intent of the verse ("and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings") is to distinguish between different types of tumah ("blood" and "wood, etc.", respectively). But perhaps its intent is to distinguish between offerings and offerings — to say that lower order offerings (like "peace-offerings") are subject to (tumah-kareth) liability (only) after the sprinkling of the blood, and higher order offerings, both before and after the sprinkling of the blood. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "and he eat the flesh," "and he eat the sacrifice," and (not) "and he eat peace-offerings" (to indicate that not only peace-offerings, but all other offerings are subject to tumah-kareth liability only after the sprinkling of the blood.) (Vayikra 7:21) "and that soul shall be cut off": (see Chapter 14:7).

7) (Vayikra 7:24) "lo tochluhu": I might think this means that he shall not feed it to others (non-Jews). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:24) "ve'achol" — You may feed it to others. But perhaps "ve'achol" signifies that cheilev from which benefit may be derived is clean (of neveilah-tumah and may be used for all service), but the cheilev of an ox that was stoned, and that of an eglah arufah (the heifer of the broken neck, Devarim 21:1-9, [if it died before its mitzvah was performed]), from which benefit may not be derived, is not clean (of neveilah-tumah). It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:9) (the redundant) "and the cheilev … and the cheilev" (to include the cheilev of the foregoing as permitted for all use).

7) (Vayikra 7:32) ("And the right shok shall you give as an offering to the Cohein) from the sacrifices of your (plural) peace-offerings" — to include the sacrifices of communal peace-offerings (the two Atzereth lambs) as requiring tenufah after shechitah.

7) Whence is it derived that if he (the Cohein) is tamei at the time of sprinkling (of the blood) and clean at the time of the burning of the fats, he does not share (in the flesh)? From "He who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev of the sons of Aaron (to him shall be the right shok as a portion.")

7) R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Beroka says (Shemoth 24:6): "And Moses took half of the blood and he placed it in basins": From here we learn that the burnt-offering of Sinai required a vessel.

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

7) They said to him (in refutation): No, this may be so with a sin-offering, whose blood is placed above, but not with a guilt-offering, whose blood is placed below. He countered: This is refuted by the Pesach offering, whose blood is placed below, (and even so,) if he did not slaughter it as such, it is unfit.

7) I might think that machavath is not to be apportioned against marchesheth and marchesheth against machavath, but that (one type of) machavath is apportioned against (a second type) of machavath, and marchesheth against marchesheth; it is, therefore, written "… or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall it be."

7) If one vowed to bring (a thank-offering) without qualifying (from which monies), I might think that he could bring it from the tithe; it is, therefore, written "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings" — Just as with peace-offerings if he specified "from the tithe," he brings from the tithe, and if he does not specify "from the tithe," he brings only from chullin (non-consecrated) monies, so, with the thank-offering.

(Lev. 7:12:) IF HE OFFERS IT FORA THANKSGIVING…. See how the Holy One forgives the sins of Israel.³⁰Tanh., Lev. 2:6. So what did they offer to the Holy One? It is simply that the Holy One said: Whoever has a bull, let him bring a bull; and whoever has a calf let him bring a calf. Whoever has a lamb, let him bring a lamb. Whoever has a dove, let him bring a dove. Whoever has only one of all these, let him bring fine flour; and whoever has neither flour nor anything at all, let him bring words. Thus it is stated (in Hos. 14:3 [2]): TAKE YOUR WORDS WITH YOU [AND RETURN UNTO THE LORD]. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 7:12:) IF HE OFFERS IT FOR A THANKSGIVING….

(Lev. 19:23:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND AND PLANT. The Holy One said to Israel: Even though you find it (i.e., the land) full of all bounty, you shall not say: Let us settle down and not plant.²⁸Tanh., Lev. 7:8. Rather, be careful in planting, as stated (ibid., cont.): AND PLANT ANY TREE FOR FOOD. Just as you came in and found plantings which others had planted, so you shall plant for your children, lest someone say: Since I am old and tomorrow I shall die, why should I toil for others. Solomon said (in Eccl. 3:11): HE HAS MADE EVERYTHING BEAUTIFUL IN ITS TIME. HE ALSO HAS PUT ETERNITY INTO THEIR HEART. ETERNITY ('LM) is what is written (without the W of the normal spelling, i.e., 'WLM.) Why? If the Holy One had not hidden (rt.: 'LM) the day of < one's > death from the children of Adam, a person would neither build nor plant; for he would have said: Tomorrow I shall die. Why should I persist in toiling for the sake of others? The Holy One, therefore, shut off (rt.: 'LM) human hearts from death, so that one would build and plant. < If > he is worthy, [it will be] for himself; < if > unworthy, < it will be > for others. There is a story about the emperor Hadrian, that he was going to war and traveling with his troops to fight with a certain country for having rebelled against him.²⁹Cf. Lev. R. 25:5; Eccl. R. 2:20:1. Now he found a certain old man who was planting fig saplings. Hadrian said to him: You are an old man. < Why are you > persisting in taking the trouble to toil for others? He said to Hadrian: My Lord Emperor, here I am planting. If I am worthy, I shall eat of the fruit of my saplings; but if not, my children will eat. < The emperor > spent three years at war, and after three years he returned. What did that old man do? He took a fruit basket, filled it with the firstfruits of beautiful figs, and drew near to Hadrian. He said to him: My Lord Emperor: Take these figs, for I am the same old man whom you found when you were on your way < to the war >, when you said: You are an old man. Why are you taking the trouble to toil for others? See, the Holy One has already found me worthy to eat some fruit from my saplings. Now this < fruit > in my fruit basket is from those < saplings >. Hadrian said to his servants: Take it from him and fill it with gold coins. And so they did. The old man took the fruit basket full of gold coins and began to go about his house boasting to his wife and children. So he told them the story. Now a woman neighbor of his was there. She heard what the old man had said. She said to her husband: When all the children of Adam go < through life >, the Holy One gives to them and prepares bounty for them. But you dwell in your dark house in dark misfortune. See, our [neighbor] honored the emperor with a fruit basket of figs; and he filled it with gold coins for him. Now you get up, take a large basket, and fill it with varieties of choice fruit, with apples, figs, and the other varieties of beautiful fruit, since he loves them a lot. Go and honor him with them. Perhaps he will fill it with gold for you, as he did for our old neighbor. He went and heeded his wife. So he took a large basket, filled it with apples and figs, and loaded it on his shoulder. Then he approached the emperor on a side road³⁰Lat.: compendairia. and said to him: My Lord Emperor, I heard that you love fruit, I have come to honor you with figs and apples. The Emperor said to his officers:³¹Gk.: stratiotai (“soldiers”). Take the basket and hit³²rt.: TPH. This root is similar to the root for “apples,” and both are transliterated identically. The only difference is that the root for “apples” is spelled with a tav, while the root for “hit” is spelled with a tet. him on his face. And so they did. They hit him on his face, until his face swelled up; smashed his eyes; and made an example³³Gk.: deigma. of him. So he went home as one of whom an example had been made and crying. Now she (i.e., his wife) thought that he was coming with a basket full of gold coins. So when she saw him with his face swollen and with his body shattered and beaten, she said to him: What is the matter with you? He said to her: When I heeded you and went to honor him with this gift,³⁴Gk.: doron. they hit me on my face. If I had listened to you and put varieties of hard fruit in the basket, they would already have pelted my face and my whole body with them. And why all this? In order to teach you that evil women destroy their husbands. Therefore one should not cease from planting. Rather, just as he found, one should still continue to plant even though he is old. The Holy One said to Israel: Learn from me. He spoke < by example >, as it were. (Gen. 2:8): AND THE LORD GOD PLANTED A GARDEN IN EDEN, IN THE EAST.

8) Whence is it derived that the loaves of the thank-offering (Vayikra 7:13) may be brought from the tithe? From (the redundant) "which he shall offer (to the L–rd" [Vayikra 7:11]). Just as the peace-offerings may be brought from the tithe, so the loaves may be brought from the tithe.

8) But "challoth" are not written in respect to wafers. Whence is it derived, then, that they must be of soleth? From "matzoth - matzoth." Just as "matzoth" in respect to challoth are soleth, so "matzoth" in respect to wafers are soleth.

8) Whence is it derived that the loaves of the thank-offering (Vayikra 7:13) may be brought from the tithe? From (the redundant) "which he shall offer (to the L–rd" [Vayikra 7:11]). Just as the peace-offerings may be brought from the tithe, so the loaves may be brought from the tithe.

8) Why, then, do I not say that just as these (the two loaves) total two esronim; so these, (our instance) total two esronim (instead of ten); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:17) "shall they be" ("tihyenah," an extra yod (numerical equivalent 10) in the word, signaling ten loaves for our instance).

8) And whence do I derive (for the same learning) the substitutes and the offspring (of those eaten for two days)? From (the redundant) "And if a vow or a gift." Whence do I derive (the same learning) for a first-born and a tithe? From (the redundant) "the sacrifice."

8) I will derive it otherwise, viz.: Some sacrifices are eaten on one day and some sacrifices are eaten on two days. Just as sacrifices which are eaten on two days are invalidated by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the third day after their eating time, so sacrifices which are eaten on one day are invalidated by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the second day after their eating time.

8) But if he slaughtered and received the blood (on the outside) with the intent of spilling the remaining blood and burning the devoted portions (on the outside) on the next day, it is piggul, for the thought was outside concerning something which is done outside.

8) (Vayikra 7:19) "Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh": What are we taught hereby? Because it is written (Devarim 12:27): "And the blood of your sacrifices (peace-offerings) shall be spilled on the altar of the L–rd your G d, and the flesh shall you eat," I might think that only the owner can eat it, a fortiori from the Pesach offering (where only the owner and his appointees eat it), it is, therefore, written "Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh." I might think that there is tumah liability (for eating consecrated flesh even) before the sprinkling of the blood; it is, therefore, written "Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh," followed by (Devarim 12:20) "And the soul that eats flesh, etc." — There is tumah liability only for flesh that is permitted to (be eaten by) the clean. But, before the sprinkling of the blood, when the flesh is not permitted to the clean, it does not entail tumah liability. You say that this is the intent of the verse; but perhaps the intent is: For what may be eaten by the clean, there is tumah liability; but if it left (its permitted bounds) after the sprinkling of the blood, since it may not be eaten by the clean, there is no tumah liability. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written (Devarim 12:20): ("the sacrifice of the peace-offerings) which is the L–rd's" — to include (in the kareth interdict for tumah) one that left (its permitted bounds) or abided beyond its prescribed time (for eating, i.e., nothar).

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

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

8) "may be used for all service": What is the intent of this? R. Yossi Haglili says: I might think that it may be used for the service of what is kodesh (consecrated, e.g., to anoint the hides of offerings), but not for that of what is chullin (mundane). It is, therefore, written "for all service" R. Akiva says: I might think that it may be used for the service of what is chullin, but not for that of what is kodesh. It is, therefore, written "for all service."

8) But (why do I need a verse for this?) Can I not derive it a fortiori, viz.: If individual peace-offerings, which do not require tenufah living, require it after shechitah, then communal peace-offerings, which require tenufah living, how much more so do they require it after shechitah!

8) Abba Shaul says: whence is it derived that if he is clean at the time of sprinkling (of the blood) and tamei at the time of the burning of the fats, he does not share in the flesh? From "He who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev of the sons of Aaron."

8) Abba Shaul says: whence is it derived that if he is clean at the time of sprinkling (of the blood) and tamei at the time of the burning of the fats, he does not share in the flesh? From "He who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev of the sons of Aaron."

8) And whence do we derive the same for the burnt-offering of (future) generations? From (Bamidbar 28:6): "a perpetual burnt-offering (like those) offered up (in the days of the investiture) at Mount Sinai." The burnt-offering of (future) generations (i.e., the tamid) is hereby likened to the burnt-offering of Mount Sinai. Just as the burnt-offering of Mount Sinai required a vessel, so the burnt-offering of the generations requires a vessel.

They countered: This may be so because it has a set time. He countered: Non-intention invalidates a sin-offering because it is written of it "It," and non-intention invalidates a Pesach because it is written of it "It" — and of a guilt-offering, too, it is written "It"! They countered: Of a Pesach and a sin-offering it is written "It" in respect to slaughtering, but in respect to a guilt-offering it is written "It" after the smoking of the devoted portions, and even if they were not smoked, it is kasher! Why, then, is it written "It"? It is sacrificed, but its exchange is not sacrificed.

8) I might think they do not make apportionment with higher order offerings, but they do make apportionment with lower order offerings; it is, therefore, written (after (Vayikra 2:11) "And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings [lower order offerings]"), (Vayikra 2:12) "If for thanksgiving (a lower order offering) he shall offer it" — Just as apportionment is not made with higher order offerings, they are not made with lower order offerings.

8) Whence is it derived that the loaves of the thank-offering (Vayikra 7:13) may be brought from the tithe? From (the redundant) "which he shall offer (to the L–rd" [Vayikra 7:11]). Just as the peace-offerings may be brought from the tithe, so the loaves may be brought from the tithe.

...

(Lev. 7:11:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS…. You find (in Ezra 10:19): AND THEY GAVE THEIR WORD (literally, THEIR HAND) THAT THEY WOULD PUT AWAY THEIR WIVES; AND BEING GUILTY, < THEY GAVE > A RAM FROM {THE} [A] FLOCK FOR THEIR GUILT.³¹Tanh., Lev.2:7. Now the sin offering {was} [took place] for the unintentional sin, as stated (in Numb. 15:25): AND THEIR SIN OFFERING BEFORE THE LORD FOR THEIR UNINTENTIONAL SIN. A burnt offering took place for a thought of the heart. Thus it is stated (in Job 1:5): AND RISING EARLY IN THE MORNING, HE WOULD OFFER BURNT OFFERINGS, ONE FOR EACH OF THEM, FOR JOB SAID: PERHAPS MY CHILDREN HAVE SINNED AND BLASPHEMED GOD IN THEIR HEARTS. But when the thank offering took place, it took place on account of their gratitude. The Holy One said: This is the dearest to me of all the offerings. David said (in Ps. 50:23): WHOEVER SACRIFICES A THANK OFFERING HONORS ME (YKBDNNI). It does not say YKBDNI but YKBDNNI, < spelled with N > two times, < once > for this world and < once > for the world to come.³²Lev. R. 9:2; Rashi on Sanh. 43b.

...

(Lev. 19:2:) YOU SHALL BE HOLY. This text is related (to Ps. 20:3 [2]): MAY HE SEND YOU HELP FROM THE SANCTUARY AND SUSTAIN YOU FROM ZION. FROM THE SANCTUARY (QDSh) < means > from the holiness (rt.: QDSh) of the works that are in you; AND [SUSTAIN YOU] FROM ZION (MTsYWN) < means > [from the marker (TsYWN)] of the works that are in you.³⁵Tanh., Lev. 7:9; M. Pss. 20:5. R. Berekhyah said: There was a story in our village about a certain spirit who dwelt by the spring.³⁶Lev. R. 24:3. Another spirit came to attack³⁷Lahizdawweg, from the root Zug. The word also has implications of mating. Cf. the Gk.: zeugos, i.e., “a team of beasts,” and then “a married couple.” Cf. also the Latin: conjugium, from jugum. it and sought to get it away from there. There was also there a certain saint whose name was Jose the man of Zaythor. The first spirit appeared to him. It said to him: Rabbi, look at how many years I have been situated here; yet neither at noon nor at night have I harmed < any > mortal. {Also not during the day.} But now this spirit has come upon me from another place and wants to get me away from here in order to harm mortals. He said to it: What shall we do? It said to him: Take your staves and your scythes, and go out against it at the noon hour. Then say: Ours is winning! Ours is winning! And it will run away. They did so and drove it away from there. They used to say: They did not move from here until they saw, as it were, a clot of blood floating on the water. When the sages heard about the matter, they said: If something which was not created with a need for assistance needs assistance, how much the more so in the case of the children of Adam. David, therefore, said (in Ps. 20:3 [2]): MAY HE SEND YOU HELP FROM THE SANCTUARY.

Another opinion regarding the verse (Ps. 50:23) “And there is a path, I will show him the salvation of God”- Rabbi Yanai said: the it is written the one who puts a path[with a sin and not a shin], meaning that two ways are similar [in bringing one to salvation] Rabbi Yannai was once walking along the road, and saw a man who was extremely well dressed. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Would you like to come over to my house? The man replied: Yes. Rabbi Yannai brought him into his home, and gave him food and drink. As they were eating and drinking together, he examined him in his knowledge of Bible, and found out that he had none; examined his knowledge of Mishnah, and realized that he had none; his knowledge of legends, and saw that he had none; his knowledge of Talmud and saw he had none. Rabbi Yannai then told him: Wash and recite grace. Said the guest: Let Yannai recite grace in his own home. Seeing that he could not even recite a blessing, Yannai told him: Can you at least repeat what I say? Said he: Yes. Said Rabbi Yannai: repeat the following: 'A dog has eaten Yannai's bread.' Offended, the man stood up, and grabbed Rabbi Yannai by the coat! He then said: My inheritance is with you, and you are withholding it from me! Said Rabbi Yannai with puzzlement: What legacy of yours is there with me? He replied: Once I passed by a school, and I heard the voices of the little children saying: 'Moses gave us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.' They did not say 'the inheritance of the congregation of Yannai,' but the 'congregation of Jacob.' Rabbi Yannai asked, “How then are you worthy to eat at my table?” The guest replied, “Never have I heard an evil word spoken against me and returned to argue with the person who spoke it. Never have I seen two people arguing without making peace between them.” Rabbi Yannai then said, “you have so much Derech Eretz and I called you a dog.” On him rabbi Yanai said the verse “And there is a path” – meaning not one, but two paths take you to salvation – since rabbi Ishmael son of rav Nachman said: Derech eretz precedes Torah by 26 generations, since it is written “and to guard the way to the Tree of Life” (Genesis 3). “Way” is the derech eretz, and only after that comes “Tree of Life” which is Torah. [Back to the verse in question, Ps 50:23] I will show him the salvation of God, said rabbi Abahu: this is one of the sources for the idea that God’s salvation is Israel’s salvation (Ps. 80:3) “and come and save us”

Rabbi Pinchas, Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Yochanan [said] in the name of Rabbi Menachem from Gallia: In the time to come, all sacrifices will be annulled - but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not be annulled. All prayers will be annulled, but the prayer of gratitude will not be annulled. This accords with what is written [Jeremiah 33:11]: "The voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride, the voice of those who say 'Give thanks to the LORD of hosts' etc." - this is the prayer of gratitude. "Those who bring [the sacrifice of] thanksgiving to the House of the LORD": this is the sacrifice of thanksgiving. Thus David said: "I owe You vows and will offer you thanksgivings" [Psalms 56:13] - not "thanksgiving," but "thanksgivings," [indicating both] the thanksgiving prayer and the prayer of gratitude.

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) Or, if you will, "and soleth murvecheth" adds (all that precede, including "wafers") to revuchah. Just as revuchah is soleth, so all are soleth.

9) We learn for "chametz" that it is ten esronoth. Whence do we learn the same for "matzah"? From (Vayikra 7:13) "With cakes of leavened (chametz) bread" — Against chametz bring matzah. Just as chametz, ten esronim; so matzah, ten esronim. I might think that the ten esronim should be only of one kind (i.e., either challoth or wafers or revuchah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:12): "Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil," and (Vayikra 7:14): "And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering to the L–rd," so that we are left with three and a third esronim for each kind, and three challoth for an issaron, so that the thanksgiving challoth are found to be forty. He takes one of each kind — four challoth — and gives it to the Cohein. (Vayikra 7:14): "To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be," and the rest is eaten by the owners.

9) We learn for "chametz" that it is ten esronoth. Whence do we learn the same for "matzah"? From (Vayikra 7:13) "With cakes of leavened (chametz) bread" — Against chametz bring matzah. Just as chametz, ten esronim; so matzah, ten esronim. I might think that the ten esronim should be only of one kind (i.e., either challoth or wafers or revuchah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:12): "Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil," and (Vayikra 7:14): "And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering to the L–rd," so that we are left with three and a third esronim for each kind, and three challoth for an issaron, so that the thanksgiving challoth are found to be forty. He takes one of each kind — four challoth — and gives it to the Cohein. (Vayikra 7:14): "To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be," and the rest is eaten by the owners.

9) We learn for "chametz" that it is ten esronoth. Whence do we learn the same for "matzah"? From (Vayikra 7:13) "With cakes of leavened (chametz) bread" — Against chametz bring matzah. Just as chametz, ten esronim; so matzah, ten esronim. I might think that the ten esronim should be only of one kind (i.e., either challoth or wafers or revuchah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:12): "Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil," and (Vayikra 7:14): "And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering to the L–rd," so that we are left with three and a third esronim for each kind, and three challoth for an issaron, so that the thanksgiving challoth are found to be forty. He takes one of each kind — four challoth — and gives it to the Cohein. (Vayikra 7:14): "To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be," and the rest is eaten by the owners.

9) "on the day that he offers his sacrifice shall it be eaten, and on the next day": This tells me only of their eating (the offering) for two days. Whence do I derive that even at the outset their sacrifice must be with the thought of eating them for two days; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:5): "And when you slaughter a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L–rd … (Vayikra 19:6) on the day that you slaughter it shall it be eaten, and on the next day." Let this not be written, (for we already know about their eating from here.) If it is not needed for eating, learn it as applying to slaughtering — that even at the outset their slaughtering must be with the intent of eating them for two days.

9) (Vayikra 7:18) ("And the soul that eats of it shall bear its sin") "the soul": and not the congregation. "that eats": and not that makes (someone else) eat, (in which instance the "maker" is not subject to kareth, but does transgress placing a stumbling block before the blind). "that eats": an olive-size. "shall bear (tissa) its sin": There is an identity (gezeirah shavah) between "shall bear (tissa) its sin" here and "shall bear (yissa) his sin" elsewhere (Vayikra 19:8). Just as there, (in respect to nothar), the punishment is kareth; so, here, (in respect to piggul), the punishment is kareth.

9) "and it shall be acceptable for him to make atonement for him" — with that which effects atonement. And what is it that effects atonement? The blood, as it is written (Vayikra 17:11): "For it is the blood which atones for the soul." This tells me only (of atonement being effected by) the blood of a clean (i.e., undefiled) animal. Whence is it derived (that atonement is likewise effected by) the blood of an unclean animal? When it is written (Shemoth 28:38): "And Aaron shall atone (by means of the headplate [the tzitz] for the sin of the holy things," which sin does he atone for? If that of piggul (abuse of offerings), it is stated in that regard (Shemoth 7:18): "It (the offering) shall not be credited to him." If that of nothar (left-over offerings), it is stated in that regard (Shemoth 7:18): "It shall not be accepted." Which sin does he atone for? That of tumah (defilement), whose like (i.e., tumah) was permitted in a communal offering.

9) Now, if you have invalidated (a sacrifice) by a (piggul) thought (to eat it) on the third day, which is not kasher for the eating of any sacrifice, would you thereby invalidate (a sacrifice) by a (piggul) thought (to eat it) on the second day, which is kasher for the eating of holy of holies! It is, therefore, written (in negation of this argument): "if eaten eaten" — to include sacrifices eaten for one day for invalidation by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the second day.

9) Or, I might think to include (in "which is the L–rd's") piggul (thought) as well as nothar; it is, therefore, written "of (and not all of) the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" — an exclusion. Why do you see fit to include yotzei and lan (i.e., nothar) and to exclude piggul (thought)? After Scripture included, it excluded. I include yotzei and lan, where they (the offerings) had a time of fitness (before the sprinkling of the blood), and I exclude piggul, where they did not have a time of fitness.

9) (Vayikra 7:25) ("For all who eat cheilev of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people.") "For all who eat cheilev of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd": This tells me only of the cheilev of non-blemished animals, which are fit for offering. Whence do I derive the same for blemished animals? From "of the beast" (connoting any manner of beast). Whence do I derive the same for (an animal of) chullin? From "For all who eat cheilev." If so, why is it written "of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd"? (The verse speaks of) the type of cheilev which stands to be sacrificed, to exclude (from use) the cheilev of the (chest) walls, which does not stand to be sacrificed, viz. Shemoth 29:13).

9) (The verse is needed, for) this could be countered by the guilt-offering of the leper, which, though requiring tenufah living, does not require it after shechitah, so that it would be no cause for wonder if communal peace-offerings, which though they require tenufah living would not require tenufah after shechitah. So that "from the sacrifice of your (plural) peace-offerings is needed to include communal peace-offerings as requiring tenufah after shechitah.

9) R. Shimon says: "He who offers (midrashically: he who acknowledges the offering, etc.) of the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev": Whoever i.e., any Cohein) who does not acknowledge the priestly service (as having been commanded by G d) has no share in the (gifts of the) priesthood. This tells me only of (not acknowledging) these alone. Whence do I derive the same for (not acknowledging) pourings and mixings (of oil), breaking into pieces (of meal-offerings), saltings, tenufoth, hagashoth, taking of fistfuls (of meal-offerings), "pinchings" (of birds), receivings (of blood), sprinklings, administrations of the sotah's draught, the breaking of the heifer's neck, the cleansing of the leper, and the lifting of the hands (in the priestly blessing) within (the sanctuary) and outside it? (Whence is it derived that he has no share in the gifts of the priesthood?) From "of the sons of Aaron" — (to include) every service that is relegated to the sons of Aaron.

9) This tells me only of the burnt-offering. Whence do we derive the same for all of the offerings? From (Vayikra 2:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the miluim, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" — to include all of them as requiring a vessel.

9) (Vayikra 7:6) ("Every male among the Cohanim may eat it. In a holy place shall it be eaten; it is holy of holies.") "Every male": to include those with blemishes. Why (is this mentioned)? If for eating, this has already been mentioned (as permitted). If for apportionment, this has already been mentioned. If for those with permanent blemishes, this has already been mentioned. If for those with passing blemishes, this has already been mentioned. Why, then, is it mentioned! For I might think (were it not mentioned) that it were permitted only if he was born unblemished and became blemished; but how would I know that it were so (even) if he was born blemished? It is, therefore, written "Every male among the Cohanim."

9) "one man as well as another" shares, even if he is blemished; but a minor does not share, even if he is unblemished.

9) If one vowed to bring a thank-offering from the tithe, but did not specify that its loaves were to be brought from the tithe, I might think that he could bring it and its loaves from the tithe; it is, therefore, written "the peace-offerings which he shall offer": Just as with peace-offerings, if he specified "from the tithe" he brings from the tithe; but if he did not specify "from the tithe," he brings only from chullin, so, with the loaves. If he vowed to bring a thank-offering from chullin and its loaves from the tithe, I might think that since he specified, he could do so; it is, therefore, written "the peace-offerings which he shall offer" — When he says "I vow to bring a thank-offering, it and its loaves from the tithe," he may do so, but when he says "I vow to bring a thank-offering from chullin," even if he specifies "its loaves from the tithe," he brings them only from chullin.

“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.

“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. 7:11:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS. [Peace offerings rank high] because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven. Eleazar haQappar says: Peace is great, because even though Israel worships idols but < still > forms one fellowship (havurah), strict justice does not harm them.³³Tanh., Lev. 2:7; Numb. R. 11:17; cf. Gen. R. 38:6. It is so stated (in Hos. 4:17): EPHRAIM IS ASSOCIATED (havur) WITH IDOLS. LET HIM BE. R. Levi says: Peace is great, because there is no conclusion to the Priestly Blessing except peace, as stated (in Numb. 6:26): AND GRANT YOU PEACE. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: Peace is great, because the Holy One has written things in the Torah which are there only because of Peace.³⁴yPe’ah 1:1 (16a); see Gen. R. 48:18; 100:8; Lev. R. 9:9; Deut. R. 5:5; Yev. 65b. They are the following:

(Exod. 23:20:) BEHOLD, I AM SENDING AN ANGEL <BEFORE YOU TO GUARD YOU ON THE WAY>…. This text is related (to Jer. 3:19): THEN I SAID: HOW WOULD I⁴¹This translation fits the context of the midrash. PUT (rt.: ShYT) YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN,… !⁴²Tanh., Exod. 6:17; see below, Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 4a:15. R. Eleazar ben Pedat says: What is this <expression>: WOULD I PUT (rt.: ShYT) YOU? It had occurred to me that we, I and you, would be < alone > in the world.⁴³Tanh., Exod. 6:17, adds, “I as father and you as children.” How did you manage for me to bring the peoples of the world in among you?⁴⁴Cf. Tanh., Exod. 6:17: “How did you manage to bring the peoples of the world in between me and you?” This expression is nothing but an expression of setting apart (as in Gen. 30:40): AND HE PUT (rt.: ShYT) HIS OWN FLOCKS <APART>…. R. Hama bar Hanina said: What is the meaning of WOULD I PUT (rt.: ShYT) YOU?⁴⁵Cf. Exod. R. 32:2. There was a great love between me and you.⁴⁶Below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 7:12; Numb. 4a: 15; Exod. R. 32:2. How did you manage that I should hate you? (Jer. 3:19:) HOW WOULD I PUT (rt.: ShYT) YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN! This expression is nothing but an expression of hatred, as used (in Gen. 3:15): I WILL PUT (rt.: ShYT) ENMITY <BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN>. Another interpretation (of Jer. 3:19:) HOW WOULD I PUT (ShYT) YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN ! R. Joshua ben Levi said: I spoke in <your> defense.⁴⁷Gk.: synegoria. You behaved toward me so that I denounced you and pronounced you guilty (rt.: HYB). The expression (rt.: ShYT) is nothing but an expression of guilt (rt.: HYB), as used (concerning one guilty of negligence in Exod. 21:30): IF A RANSOM IS PUT (rt.: ShYT) UPON HIM, <HE SHALL GIVE WHATEVER IS PUT (rt.: ShYT) UPON HIM TO REDEEM HIS LIFE>. Another interpretation (of Jer. 3:19:) HOW WOULD I PUT (ashit; rt.: ShYT) YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN! R. Berekhyah the Priest said: You were as dear to me as someone who has a single field, which he fertilizes, cultivates, and weeds. So dear were you to me. Your behavior toward me was for you to commit lawlessness. Now this word (ashit) is nothing but an expression for lawlessness, as used (in Is. 5:6): AND I WILL MAKE (ashit) IT (i.e., the Holy One's vineyard) A DESOLATION. (Jer. 3:19, cont.:) AND GIVE YOU A DESIRABLE LAND, a land that the great ones of the world (i.e., the patriarchs) desired.⁴⁸Below, Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 4a: 16. Abraham said to the Hittites (in Gen. 23:4): GIVE ME A BURIAL SITE. The Holy One also endeared it to {the children of} Isaac, as stated (in Gen. 26:3): RESIDE IN THIS LAND, <AND I WILL BE WITH YOU AND BLESS YOU>…. Jacob said (according to Gen. 50:5): IN MY GRAVE WHICH I DUG FOR MYSELF <IN THE LAND OF CANAAN, THERE YOU SHALL BURY ME>. Ergo (in Jer. 3:19): A DESIRABLE LAND. (Ibid., cont.:) <THE MOST> [BEAUTIFUL HERITAGE] <OF ALL THE NATIONS>. What is the meaning of <THE MOST> BEAUTIFUL (tsevi) HERITAGE? Just as in the case of a deer (tsevi), when one slaughters it, strips off its hide, and tries to return the flesh into the hide, it does not contain it, so the land of Israel does not contain its produce. What is written (in Is. 30:24)? AS FOR THE OXEN AND ASSES THAT WORK THE GROUND, THEY SHALL EAT FERMENTED FODDER, WHICH HAS BEEN WINNOWED WITH SHOVEL AND PITCH FORK. First they winnow with the SHOVEL and after that with the PITCH FORK. Why? Because there was more grain than straw. Even so there was produce in <further> winnowing the straw. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (ibid.): FERMENTED MASH, WHICH HAS BEEN WINNOWED WITH SHOVEL AND PITCH FORK. Mashes are from produce. Ergo (in Jer. 3:19): [A DESIRABLE LAND,] <THE MOST> BEAUTIFUL (tsevi) HERITAGE (understood in the sense of THE MOST DEERLIKE HERITAGE), a land which does not contain its produce, a land which was so good that all the kings of the world desired it. It is written (in Josh. 12:9): THE KING OF JERICHO, ONE; THE KING {FOR AI} [OF AI WHICH IS BESIDE BETHEL], ONE. Now there are only three miles⁴⁹Lat.: mille. between Jericho and Ai; yet it says: THE KING OF JERICHO. It is simply that whoever has a possession outside of the land without having a possession in the land of Israel was not called a king.⁵⁰Sifre, to Deut. 7:12 (37); Gen. R. 85:14. Why? Because they longed for the land of Israel. R. {Isaac} [Johanan] said: What is written (in Josh. 7:21): I SAW AMONG THE SPOILS A <FINE> SHINAR MANTLE, <i.e.> a Babylonian⁵¹Gk.: Babylonikon; Lat.: Babylonicum. robe of royal purple,⁵²Gk.: porphura; Lat.: purpura. which the king of Babylon wore to rule in Jericho. Ergo (in Jer. 3:19): THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HERITAGE OF THE NATIONS.⁵³According to this reasoning, the various kingships were so close to each other in Israel because every king needed a seat in Israel in order to be regarded as a king. (Ibid., cont.:) AND I SAID YOU SHALL CALL ME FATHER. Just as a father is obliged <to provide > for his daughter's enjoyments, so did I bring down rain for you. (Exod. 16:14:) WHEN THE LAYER OF DEW HAD GONE UP, <THERE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH LAY SOMETHING FINE AND FLAKY>…. (Jer. 3:20:) SURELY AS A WOMAN BREAKS FAITH WITH HER LOVER <SO YOU HAVE BROKEN FAITH WITH ME, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL>. R. Judah bar Simon said: Oh that <you were> like an unfaithful wife. This <kind of> a woman, who has a lover, gives him food, drink, and love. When his power is diminished, she leaves him and goes away. SURELY AS A WOMAN BREAKS FAITH WITH HER LOVER. I have not done so to you. The manna came down for you, and the well rose up. I did not deprive you of anything when you were unfaithful with me. See, I gave you an angel who watched over you. (Exod. 23:20:) SEE, I AM SENDING YOU AN ANGEL <TO WATCH OVER YOU>. When you became worthy and received the Torah, I went before you in person. But now, when you have been found guilty, here I am <merely> (ibid.:) SENDING AN ANGEL BEFORE YOU. [Another interpretation:]⁵⁴Tanh., Exod. 6:18. The Holy One said to Moses: I am sending <an angel> before you but not before them. He said: If you send <him> out before me, I do not want <him>; but Joshua saw the angel and fell down before him. What did he say to him (in Josh. 5:13)? ARE YOU FOR US OR FOR OUR ADVERSARIES? When he said to him: ARE YOU FOR US? he began to cry in great anguish.⁵⁵Literally: “From under the nails of his feet.” (Ibid., vs. 14:) Then he said: NO, BUT [I] AM THE CAPTAIN OF THE LORD'S HOST. NOW I HAVE COME.⁵⁶Gen. R. 97:3 (traditional text only). Here are two times that I have come to give Israel an inheritance. I am the one who came in the days of your master, Moses; but he rejected me. (Ibid., cont.:) NOW I HAVE COME. THEN JOSHUA FELL ON HIS FACE. He saw him and fell on his face, but when Moses saw <him>, he rejected him. The Holy One said (in Exod. 23:20): SEE, I AM SENDING AN ANGEL BEFORE YOU, to you and to whomever observes the Torah [as you <do>. Resh Laqish said: It is written (in Ps. 91:4): HE WILL COVER YOU WITH HIS PINIONS AND YOU WILL FIND REFUGE UNDER HIS WINGS, <i.e.> all who observe the Torah.] (Ibid., cont.:) HIS FIDELITY IS A SHIELD AND BUCKLER. Therefore (in Exod. 23:20): < I AM SENDING MY ANGEL BEFORE YOU > TO GUARD YOU ON THE WAY….

(Exod. 29:1:) AND THIS IS THE THING WHICH YOU SHALL DO TO THEM…: TAKE A YOUNG BULL OF THE HERD, <acquired> through purchase and not from plunder.⁴⁵Cf. PRK 27:6, which applies the same caution to procuring a lulav. (Ibid., cont.:) AND TWO RAMS <WITHOUT BLEMISH>, a ram on either side and the bull in the middle. Why three < animals >? To correspond to the three glories of the world (i.e., the patriarchs). The bull corresponds to Abraham (in Gen. 18:7): THEN ABRAHAM RAN UNTO THE HERD. (Exod. 29:1): AND TWO RAMS [WITHOUT BLEMISH]. <These> [correspond to] Isaac and Jacob. (Ibid., cont.:) ALSO UNLEAVENED BREAD. By their merit I will bless their bread. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: When the offerings used to be brought, an Arbelian se'ah <of wheat> produced a se'ah of fine flour, a se'ah of regular flour, a se'ah of coarser meal,⁴⁶Lat.: cibarium. a se'ah of coarse bran, <and> a se'ah of variegated flour; but now one brings a se'ah of wheat to grind and only takes away as much as he brought plus a little extra.⁴⁷yPe’ah 7:4 (20a); ySot. 1:8 (17b); 9:14 (24b). Why? Because the shewbread has ceased. See how the offerings which were offered upon the altar were beneficial for them! For whatever was offered from a species blessed that species. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: Even the establishment of an altar was done only for the atonement of Israel. Why was it named an altar (MZBH)? M, because it pardons (mohel) the sins of Israel; Z, because it is a good memorial (zikkaron) for Israel; B, because it is a blessing (berekhah) for Israel; <and> H, because it is life (hayyim) for Israel. The unleavened bread and the shewbread blessed the bread, and the first fruits blessed the fruit of the tree. <There is> a story about R. Johanan ben Eleazar, who dwelt under a fig tree; and the fig tree was full of beautiful figs. A dew came down and the figs absorbed honey. The wind kneaded them with the dust. A certain goat came and dripped milk in the honey. Then he called his students and said to them: Come and see an example⁴⁸Gk.: deigma. resembling the world to come. And why all this? Because the offerings were brought <to the altar>. <There is> a story about a certain scribe, who went up to Jerusalem each and every year. Now the people of Jerusalem knew him to be mighty in the Torah. They said to him: Take fifty gold coins each and every year and dwell with us. He said to them: I have one vine which is for me the most beautiful of them all, and it bears me three crops⁴⁹Gk: diphoros (“bearing fruit twice in the year”). in each year. So it bears six hundred barrels in each year. The first bears three hundred; the second, two hundred; and the third, one hundred. So I sell them at a very dear price, but all this gain is <attributable> to Jerusalem, on account of the libation of wine which they offer. When they abrogated it, all these good things were withheld. So you find that, when Israel was exiled to Babylon, Ezra said to them: Go up to the land of Israel. But they were unwilling. The Holy One said: When you offered the shewbread, you sowed little and brought in much. Now, however, (as in Hag. 1:6) YOU HAVE SOWN MUCH AND BROUGHT IN LITTLE; YOU EAT WITHOUT HAVING ENOUGH.⁵⁰Below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 7:7. (Ibid., cont.:) YOU DRINK WITHOUT HAVING ENOUGH, ever since the libation of wine has ceased,⁵¹So Tanh., Exod.8:13. The Buber text writes the verb with an added Y and would be translated: “Ever since he has abrogated libation of wine.” (Ibid., cont.:) YOU HAVE PUT ON CLOTHES, WITHOUT BEING WARM, ever since they abrogated the vestments of priesthood. The prophet has said (in Hab. 3:17): FOR THE FIG TREE SHALL NOT BLOSSOM, ever since they abrogated the first fruits. (Ibid., cont.:) THERE IS NO YIELD ON THE VINES, ever since they abrogated the drink offerings. (Ibid., cont.:) THE WORK OF THE OLIVE HAS FAILED, ever since they abrogated the oil of olives for the light. (Ibid., cont.:) AND FIELDS OF GRAIN PRODUCE NO FOOD. What is the meaning of AND FIELDS OF GRAIN (WShDMWT)? AND FIELDS OF CATTLE (WShDY BHMWT). <Therefore, THE FIELDS PRODUCE NO CATTLE >, ever since they abrogated the < commandments pertaining to> firstlings. (Ibid., cont.:) THE FLOCK HAS BEEN CUT OFF FROM THE FOLD, ever since they have abrogated the daily sacrifices. (Ibid., cont.:) THERE IS NO HERD IN THE STALLS, ever since they abrogated the bulls <which they offered>.⁵²The bracketed words are from Tanh., Exod. 8:13. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said (in Sot. 9:12): SINCE THE DAY THAT THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED THERE HAS BEEN NO DAY IN WHICH THERE WAS NO CURSE. It is so stated (in Ps. 7:12 [11]): AND GOD IS ANGRY EVERY DAY. In the world to come, however, the Holy One will restore the blessings which <the land> had acquired, as stated (in Ezek. 36:8): BUT YOU, O MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL, SHALL BRING FORTH YOUR BRANCHES AND RAISE UP YOUR FRUIT FOR MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, BECAUSE THEY ARE SOON TO COME.

10) (Vayikra 7:13) ("With cakes of leavened bread shall he offer his offering, with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings.") "With cakes of leavened bread": With the same measure (of soleth) as that for leavened bread (chametz) he brings matzah (unleavened cakes). Just as that for chametz is ten esronoth, so, that for matzah. "with cakes of leavened bread": We are hereby taught that the bread is not consecrated until its surface becomes crusted in the oven. "with the sacrifice (zevach) of his thanksgiving": We are hereby taught that the bread becomes consecrated only with slaughtering, (zevach connoting slaughtering). "with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving": We are hereby taught that the bread is not consecrated unless the animal is slaughtered as a thank-offering. From here they said: If he slaughtered them as thank-offerings, but did not sprinkle their blood as such, the bread is (still) consecrated. If he did not slaughter them as such and did not sprinkle their blood as such, the bread is not consecrated. If he slaughtered them as such and did not sprinkle their blood as such, it is "consecrated and not consecrated." These are the words of Rebbi. R. Eliezer b. R. Shimon says: It is not consecrated until he slaughters it and sprinkles its blood as such.

10) This tells me only of peace-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for all (offerings) that are eaten for two days? From (the redundant) "And when you slaughter a slaughtering of peace-offerings."

10) If you say that he became tamei before the blood was sprinkled (and he ate it in a state of tumah after it was sprinkled), why is he liable for tumah-kareth violation) after it was sprinkled? (i.e., the offering never had "a time of fitness" for him!) Because the tzitz (the high-priest's head-plate) "atoned" for him (and the offering is accounted as having been "permitted to the clean" by the sprinkling.)

10) "And there shall be cut off the soul": the soul, and not the congregation (for the sin of the single soul). "the soul": to include the drinker (i.e., one who dissolves the cheilev and drinks it). ("the soul) that eats": and not the soul that forces another to eat. (i.e., the forcer is not subject to kareth.) "that eats": the size that constitutes "eating," an olive-size. "from its people": But its people remain at peace, (i.e., unpunished).

10) I might think (if it were not specified otherwise) that the entire sacrifice required tenufah. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:30) "cheilev." This tells me only of cheilev. Whence do I include the breast? From (Vayikra 7:30) "breast." "he shall bring" includes the fat-tail." "the fire-offerings of the L–rd" — to include the two kidneys. "shall he bring it": to include the lobe of the liver.

10) I might think (if it were not specified otherwise) that the entire sacrifice required tenufah. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:30) "cheilev." This tells me only of cheilev. Whence do I include the breast? From (Vayikra 7:30) "breast." "he shall bring" includes the fat-tail." "the fire-offerings of the L–rd" — to include the two kidneys. "shall he bring it": to include the lobe of the liver.

10) I might think (if it were not specified otherwise) that the entire sacrifice required tenufah. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:30) "cheilev." This tells me only of cheilev. Whence do I include the breast? From (Vayikra 7:30) "breast." "he shall bring" includes the fat-tail." "the fire-offerings of the L–rd" — to include the two kidneys. "shall he bring it": to include the lobe of the liver.

10) And R. Shimon was wont to say (Malachi 1:16) "Who among you, too, would (not) close doors (the doors of the Temple) and not kindle My altar for nothing, says the L–rd of hosts. And I desired no gift from your hand." There are two things which serve the body and which people do not desist from doing and for which they do not take payment. The two things which a man asks of his neighbor — Light this candle for me and close the door after me — which people do not desist from doing and for which they do not take payment, you did not do them for Me for nothing (i.e., I rewarded you for them). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If things for which people do not take payment, you did not do for Me for nothing, things for which they do take payment, how much more so (will you be richly reworded for them)!

10) "which the L–rd commanded Moses in Mount Sinai (on the day, etc."): From here we derive that the commands in the desert of Sinai were stated only in the daytime. And whence do we derive that the commands in Egypt were stated only in the daytime? From (Shemoth 6:28): "And it was on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses in the Land of Egypt." And whence is it derived that the commands in the tent of meeting were stated only in the daytime? From (Bamidbar 1:1): ("And the L–rd said to Moses) in the desert of Sinai in the tent of meeting." The commands in the tent of meeting are hereby likened to the commands in the desert of Sinai. Just as the commands in the desert of Sinai were stated only in the daytime, so, the commands in the tent of meeting.

"may eat it": if it were kasher and not unfit (as an offering). "holy of holies": to include communal peace-offerings as being eaten only by the males of the Cohanim. "It (is holy of holies") — excluding the thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite.

10) I might think that he can bring them from the wheat of the tithe itself; it is, therefore, written "the peace-offerings which he shall offer. Just as peace-offerings are brought (from what is bought with the monies of the tithe, so, the (thanksgiving) loaves.

(Numb. 22:39:) “Then Balaam went unto³⁸The Masoretic text reads both this and the following UNTO as WITH. Balak, and they came unto Kiriath-Huzoth (literally: city of markets),” where he had made market places for buying and selling.³⁹Numb. R. 20:17. He had [also] made a bazaar.⁴⁰’TLS. Cf. Gk.: katalusis (“settlement,” “resting place”). [His purpose was] to show him crowds⁴¹Gk.: ochloi. and say, “See what those [people] are coming to kill, people and infants who have done them no wrong.” (Numb. 22:40:) “Then Balak sacrificed an ox and a sheep.”⁴²Bible translations usually render “OX” and “SHEEP” as plurals, but the midrash is interpreting them as singular. The righteous say little and do much.⁴³BM 87a; ARN, A, 13; ARN, B, 23; see Ned. 21b. It is written of Abraham (in Gen. 18:5), “Let me bring a piece of bread that you may refresh your souls.” But after that (in vs. 6-7), “’Hurry up with three se'ah [of fine meal]….’ Then Abraham ran unto the herd.” But the wicked say a lot and do not even do a little. Balak said (in Numb. 22:17), “For I will surely honor you greatly….” When [Balaam] came, he only sent him an ox and a sheep. Balaam began gnashing his teeth at him, for he was greedy. He said [to himself], “Is this what he sent me? Tomorrow I will deliver a curse through his [own] property,” as stated (in Numb. 23:1), “Then Balaam said [unto Balak], ‘Build [seven altars] for me here, [and make ready for me here seven bulls and seven rams]….’” (Numb. 22:41:) “So it came to pass in the morning that Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal, [and from there he saw the edge of the people].” Balak was a more of a master of divinations and auguries than Balaam, for Balaam was being dragged along after him like a blind man.⁴⁴Numb. R. 20:18. What did the two of them resemble? Someone who had a knife in his hand but did not know [where to find] the [animal] joints, while his companion knew the joints but did not have a knife in his hand. Balak saw the places in which Israel would fall and (ibid.) “brought him up into the high places of Baal.” This was Baal Peor, where he saw that Israel would fall. (Numb. 23:1:) “Then Balaam said unto Balak, ‘Build seven altars for me here.’” Why seven altars? [They] corresponded to seven righteous ones from Adam to Moses, who built seven altars and had been accepted: Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Then [Balaam] said, “Why did you accept these? Was it not because of the service (the sacrifices) which they performed before you that you accepted them? Is it not [more] suitable for you to be served by seventy nations and not by [merely] one nation?” As it were, the holy spirit [answered him] (in Prov. 17:1), “Better a dry morsel with tranquility than a house full of quarrelsome feasting.” Better (in the words of Lev. 7:10) “a grain offering mixed with oil or dry” than (in Prov. 17:1) “a house full of quarrelsome feasting”;⁴⁵The words HOUSE and FEASTING can also mean “temple” and “sacrifice” respectively. for you want to introduce strife between Me and Israel. (Numb. 23:2-3:) “Then Balak did as Balaam had [spoken…]. And he said to Balak, ‘Stand beside your burnt offerings [...]’; so he went alone (rt.: shph).” [Balaam] had been at ease (rt.: shph) to curse. Thus he had been at ease until that moment, but from that moment on he was troubled.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 19:23): WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND. This text is related (to Ps. 105:44–45): HE GAVE THEM THE LANDS OF NATIONS…, IN ORDER THAT THEY MIGHT KEEP HIS STATUTES…. HE GAVE THEM THE LANDS OF NATIONS. Whatever the Holy One took from the peoples of the world he gave to Israel: lands of silver and gold, fields, vineyards, and cities.⁴²Tanh., Lev.7:11. But he gave < these > to them only so that they would occupy themselves with the Torah, as stated (vs. 45): IN ORDER THAT THEY MIGHT KEEP HIS STATUTES…. But they did not do so. Instead (according to Ezek. 36:17): AND THEY DEFILED {THEM ACCORDING TO THEIR WAY} [IT (i.e., the land) BY THEIR WAY AND BY THEIR DEEDS]. They defiled them (according to Josh. 7) in the destruction of Achan, as stated (in Jer. 2:7): BUT YOU CAME AND DEFILED MY LAND [by the destruction of Achan]. (Ibid. cont.): AND YOU MADE MY HERITAGE AN ABOMINATION, by the image of Micah (in Jud. 17–18). So what did the Holy One do to them? He exiled them from it, as stated (in Deut. 29:27): SO THE LORD UPROOTED THEM FROM THEIR LAND. What is the meaning of AND… UPROOTED (rt.: NTSh) THEM? He weakened (rt.: TShSh)⁴³TShSh and NTSh seem like the same root, because the form translated UPROOTED lacks the N, while the form translated “weakened” lacks the second Sh. their army. They planted and toiled, but the peoples of the world came and took. It is so stated (in Jud. 6:3): AND SO IT HAPPENED THAT, IF ISRAEL PLANTED, < MIDIAN, AMALEK, AND THE CHILDREN OF KEDEM WOULD ARISE >…. Then it is written (in vs. 4): THEY WOULD ENCAMP AGAINST THEM AND DESTROY THE PRODUCE OF THE EARTH. When they repent, (according to Is. 65:22): THEY SHALL NOT BUILD FOR ANOTHER TO DWELL IN; THEY SHALL NOT PLANT FOR ANOTHER TO EAT. Why? Because when they plant no one uproots, as stated (in Amos 9:15): AND WHEN I PLANT THEM ON THEIR LAND, THEY SHALL NEVER AGAIN BE UPROOTED (rt.: NTSh) FROM THE LAND WHICH I HAVE GIVEN THEM, SAYS THE LORD YOUR GOD.

11) ("his thanksgiving) peace-offerings": to include the peace-offerings of a Nazirite. I might think, for all that is stated herein, (including the revuchah requirement); it is, therefore, written (in connection with the Nazirite ram, Bamidbar 6:15): "matzoth" — It comes (with matzoth and not (with) revuchah, (where "matzoth" is not mentioned). How, then, do I satisfy (the redundant) "his peace-offerings"? To include the Nazirite peace-offerings for ten Jerusalem kavim (of flour) and a quarter (log) of oil.

11) (Vayikra 7:16) "on the day that he offers his sacrifice shall it be eaten": on the first day. I might think, for two days. It is, therefore, written "and on the next day." If "on the next day," I might think it is a mitzvah to eat it for two days. It is, therefore, written "and what remains" — If he left something over, he left it over.

8) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart): (Vayikra 7:20): "And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people." Now were peace-offerings not in the category of all sacrifices? viz. (Vayikra 7:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the offering of investiture (miluim), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings," and (Vayikra 22:3): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things that the children of Israel make holy unto the L–rd, with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off from before Me." (Why, then, do peace-offerings "depart" from the category for special, additional, mention?) When they depart from the category to teach, it is not to teach about themselves, but about the entire category, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that their sanctity is altar sanctity (i.e., bodily sanctity), so, all whose sanctity is altar sanctity (are included in the interdict) — to exclude those things dedicated to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance, where the sanctity is not body-related but value-related).

11) (Vayikra 7:26) ("And all blood you shall not eat, in all of your habitations, of bird and of beast.") "All blood you shall not eat": I might think that also included is the blood of bipeds (men), the blood of reptiles, the blood of eggs, the blood of grasshoppers, and the blood of fish. It is, therefore, written "of bird and of beast." Just as bird and beast are characterized by being subject to minor uncleanliness (that of food) and to major uncleanliness (that of neveilah, which confers tumah through carrying), and by (states of) prohibition (before shechitah) and by (states of) permission (after shechitah), and by being of the class of meat, (so all thus characterized are included in the stricture against eating blood.) This excludes the blood of bipeds (men), which are not subject to minor uncleanliness (If one touches a dead body, the clothes upon him become tamei), the blood of reptiles, which are not subject to major uncleanliness, (not causing tumah through carrying), the blood of eggs, which are not of the class of meat, and the blood of grasshoppers and of fish, which are always in a state of permission. "of bird and of beast": (If only "bird" were stated, I would say:) Just as a bird, which is not subject to kilaim (the law against admixture of materials), so, a beast which is not subject to kilaim (comes under the stricture of forbidden blood, [to exclude sheep, which are subject to kilaim by way of their wool]. It is, therefore, written "and of beast" (to include all beasts). Or (if only "beast" were stated, I would say:) Just as a beast, which is not subject to the law against taking the mother with the young (Devarim 22:6), so a bird which is not subject to that law (comes under the stricture of forbidden blood, but not a clean bird). It is, therefore, written "and of bird."

11) We have (thus) learned that they all require tenufah. Whence do we derive the same for terumah (lifting up and down)? From "the shok (from knee to thigh) of terumah." This tells me only of the shok for lifting and all for tenufah. Whence do I derive that what applies to the one applies to the others? From (Shemoth 29:27): "And you shall consecrate the breast of waving and the shok of lifting, which was waved and which was lifted." Let it not be written "which was waved and it was lifted." (i.e., it sounds redundant). But it is (written as) a binyan av (see Hermeneutical Principle 13) — whatever requires tenufah (waving) requires haramah (lifting) and whatever requires haramah requires tenufah.

8) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart): (Vayikra 7:20): "And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people." Now were peace-offerings not in the category of all sacrifices? viz. (Vayikra 7:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the offering of investiture (miluim), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings," and (Vayikra 22:3): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things that the children of Israel make holy unto the L–rd, with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off from before Me." (Why, then, do peace-offerings "depart" from the category for special, additional, mention?) When they depart from the category to teach, it is not to teach about themselves, but about the entire category, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that their sanctity is altar sanctity (i.e., bodily sanctity), so, all whose sanctity is altar sanctity (are included in the interdict) — to exclude those things dedicated to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance, where the sanctity is not body-related but value-related).

11) And whence is it derived that if one vowed to bring peace-offerings, he may do so only with chullin? From (Devarim 16:2): "And you shall offer a Pesach-offering to the L–rd your G d, sheep and cattle." Now does the Pesach offering not come only from lambs and kids? Why, then, is it written "sheep and cattle"? To liken everything that comes from sheep and cattle to the Pesach offering, viz.: Just as the Pesach offering is mandatory and comes only from chullin, (there having been no consecrations and no tithe at the time of the exodus from Egypt,) so, everything that is mandatory comes only from chullin — so that if one vowed to bring a thank-offering or a peace-offering, since they are mandatory, (having been vowed), they are to be brought only from chullin; and libations, in all instances, (even if he specified "from the tithe") are to be brought only from chullin, (their not having been likened to peace-offerings, as the thanksgiving loaves were).

(Lev. 19:23:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND. This text is related (to Jer. 3:19): BUT I SAID: HOW I WOULD PUT YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN AND GIVE YOU A DESIRABLE LAND! < The situation > is comparable to a king who had concubines and had a lot of children.⁴⁴Tanh., Lev.7:12. But he had one child by a certain matron,⁴⁵Lat.: matrona. and he loved him to excess. The king gave fields and vineyards to all the children of the concubines, and after that he gave his < beloved > son one garden⁴⁶Pardes, which can also denote paradise. from which all his food⁴⁷This Latin words mean “food provisions.” “food receptacle,” or “larder.” The passage uses the word in more than one of these senses. came. The son sent and said to his father: To the children of the concubines you have given fields and vineyards, but to me you have given one garden. The king said to him: By your life, all my food (cellaria) comes to me from this garden; and because I love you more than your brothers, I have given it to you. Similarly the Holy One created the peoples of the world, just as it is stated (in Cant. 6:8): THERE ARE SIXTY QUEENS: These are the peoples. (Vs. 9): < ONLY > ONE IS MY DOVE, < MY PERFECT ONE >: This is the congregation of Israel. Now the Holy One has distributed [fields and vineyards] to the peoples of the world, as stated (in Deut. 32:8): WHEN THE MOST HIGH GAVE THE GENTILES AN INHERITANCE; but to Israel he has given the land of Israel, the larder (cellaria) of the Holy One. The offerings come from it; the shewbread comes from it; the first fruits come from it; the omer comes from it; all the good things in the world [come from it]. Why all this? In order to made a distinction between the son of the matron and the children of the concubines, as stated (in Jer. 3:19): BUT I SAID: HOW I WOULD PUT YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN < AND GIVE YOU A DESIRABLE LAND >… ! There was great love between the Holy One and Israel; so how did they bring in the enmity.⁴⁸Above, Exod. 6:10; below, Numb. 4a: 15. The Holy One said (ibid.): HOW I WOULD PUT (ashit) YOU, and this language can only be the language of enmity. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:15): I WILL PUT (ashit) ENMITY BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN.

(Numb. 20:14:) “Then Moses sent messengers [from Kadesh unto the king of Edom], ‘Thus says your brother Israel….’” This text is related (to Ps. 15:3), “nor takes up a reproach against his relative.” By universal custom, when a person is engaged in business¹⁰⁴Gk.: pragmateia. with his friend who causes a loss, he separates himself from him and does not want to see him.¹⁰⁵Numb. R. 19:15. But although Moses was punished because of Israel, as stated (in Ps. 106:32), “And they provoked wrath at the Waters of Meribah and it went ill with Moses on their account,” he did not unload their burden from himself. Instead (according to Numb. 20:14), “Then Moses sent messengers.”
(Numb. 20:14, cont.:) “You know all the trouble that has befallen us.” They said to him, “You know when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham (in Gen. 15:13), ‘know full well that your seed shall be alien [in a land not theirs where they shall serve them and be oppressed by them],’ it was us who have been enslaved, while you are free.” (Numb. 20:15:) “How our forefathers went down to Egypt [...].” This whole subject is comparable to two brothers against whose grandfather a promissory note appeared. One of them arose and paid it. One day he started to ask a favor from his brother, and he said to him, “You know that debt was incumbent on both of us, but it was I who paid it. Do not refuse any of my favor that I am asking.” (Numb. 20:15:) “How our forefathers went down to Egypt.” What is the relevance of [mentioning] the forefathers here, as stated (in Numb 20:15, cont.), “the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our forefathers.” [It is] to teach you that all the time that Israel is in distress, [the forefathers] are also in distress. (Numb. 20:17:) “Please let us pass through your land; [we will not pass through field or vineyard,] nor shall we drink water from a well.” Should it not have said, "water from cisterns?" [By this use of the singular, “a well”], the Torah has taught you proper conduct, [i.e.,] that though one has at hand his necessities, when he who goes to a land which is not his own, he should not eat from what he has on hand. Rather he should put aside what he has, and buy from the shopkeeper in order to benefit him. So also Moses said to [Edom], “[We have] a well with us,¹⁰⁶On the tradition of Israel’s portable well for supplying them with water during their desert wanderings, see Numb. R. 1:2; TSuk. 3:11; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Numb. 21:16-18; Frag. Jerusalem Targum, Numb. 21:17-18; Tanh., Lev. 7:7; Lev. R. 25:5; 27:6; see also Avot 5:6; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Wayassa‘ 6, on Exod. 16:32; Shab. 35a; Pes. 54a; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Numb. 22:28; in addition, see TSot. 11:8 (10); Ta‘an. 9a; BM 86b; Cant. R. 4:14:1; Seder ‘Olam Rabbah, 10; cf. I Corinthians 10:4. and we eat our own manna; [but] do not say that we are a bother to you. You will make a profit for yourselves.” So also did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Moses (in Deut. 2:6), “Food shall you procure from them with money, and you shall eat.” And Moses said to Israel, “Open your money to them. So that they do not say, ‘They were slaves and indigents,’ show them your wealth.” They will [then] know, so that they would not say, “You lost by your subjugation.” As the Holy One, blessed be He, already said (in Gen. 15:14), “and in the end they shall go free with great wealth.” And they shall know that you are not lacking anything and that it is not from [that which is] yours that you are [spending], as stated (in Deut. 2:7), “For the Lord has blessed you in all the efforts of your hand....” (Numb. 20:17, cont.:) “We shall go along the king's highway,” since we restrain¹⁰⁷Hosemin. The word also means “muzzle.” our cattle. (Numb. 20:17, cont.:) “Without turning right or left.” This was the most difficult [stipulation] of them all, for they said, “In all [the lands] around us we have permission to plunder and kill, but within your border [we shall walk the king's highway] without turning right or left [until we have passed through your territory].”

12) Or, "and what remains": I might think that if he left all of it over (on the first day) it becomes unfit. It is, therefore, written "it shall be eaten" — even all of it.

(Lev. 19:23:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND. Solomon said (in Prov. 31:16): SHE SETS HER MIND ON A FIELD AND ACQUIRES IT. Come and see.⁵²Tanh., Lev. 7:13. Whatever Abraham thought about in his heart the Holy One gave him. He thought [about] the land of [Israel], and he gave it to him, as stated (in Gen. 15:7): I AM THE LORD WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT FROM UR OF THE CHALDEES [TO GIVE YOU THIS LAND AS A POSSESSION]. Abraham said to the Holy One, Sovereign of the World, you have given me permission to say to you (in vs. 8): HOW SHALL I KNOW < THAT I SHALL POSSESS IT >? He replied and said to him (in vs. 13): KNOW FULL WELL < THAT YOUR SEED SHALL BE ALIEN IN A LAND NOT THEIRS WHERE THEY SHALL SERVE THEM AND BE OPPRESSED BY THEM >. Woe to that person who brings something out of his mouth without knowing how he brought it out. Because < Abraham > said (in vs. 8): HOW SHALL I KNOW? his children were condemned to be enslaved in Egypt for four hundred years. So Solomon said (in Eccl. 6:7): IS ALL HUMAN TOIL FOR ONE'S MOUTH…? What is the meaning of IS ALL HUMAN TOIL FOR ONE'S MOUTH…? All the commandments and righteous deeds that one does. It is enough for the time that one's soul goes out of him. It is therefore stated (in Eccl. 6:7): IS ALL HUMAN TOIL FOR ONE'S MOUTH? When Abraham heard < from the Holy One > (in Gen. 15:13): KNOW FULL WELL, he thought about it in his heart and said: < Is it possible >⁵³Both sets of bracketed words in the sentence occur in Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34 and in the traditional Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), Lev. 7:23. that every people which enslaves my children goes away in peace and is not condemned? The Holy One said to him (in Gen. 15:14): BUT < I AM > ALSO < JUDGING > THE NATION < WHICH THEY SHALL SERVE >…. It is therefore stated (in Prov. 31:16): SHE SETS HER MIND ON A FIELD AND ACQUIRES IT.

(Lev. 19:23:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND. Solomon said (in Prov. 31:16): SHE SETS HER MIND ON A FIELD AND ACQUIRES IT. Come and see.⁵²Tanh., Lev. 7:13. Whatever Abraham thought about in his heart the Holy One gave him. He thought [about] the land of [Israel], and he gave it to him, as stated (in Gen. 15:7): I AM THE LORD WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT FROM UR OF THE CHALDEES [TO GIVE YOU THIS LAND AS A POSSESSION]. Abraham said to the Holy One, Sovereign of the World, you have given me permission to say to you (in vs. 8): HOW SHALL I KNOW < THAT I SHALL POSSESS IT >? He replied and said to him (in vs. 13): KNOW FULL WELL < THAT YOUR SEED SHALL BE ALIEN IN A LAND NOT THEIRS WHERE THEY SHALL SERVE THEM AND BE OPPRESSED BY THEM >. Woe to that person who brings something out of his mouth without knowing how he brought it out. Because < Abraham > said (in vs. 8): HOW SHALL I KNOW? his children were condemned to be enslaved in Egypt for four hundred years. So Solomon said (in Eccl. 6:7): IS ALL HUMAN TOIL FOR ONE'S MOUTH…? What is the meaning of IS ALL HUMAN TOIL FOR ONE'S MOUTH…? All the commandments and righteous deeds that one does. It is enough for the time that one's soul goes out of him. It is therefore stated (in Eccl. 6:7): IS ALL HUMAN TOIL FOR ONE'S MOUTH? When Abraham heard < from the Holy One > (in Gen. 15:13): KNOW FULL WELL, he thought about it in his heart and said: < Is it possible >⁵³Both sets of bracketed words in the sentence occur in Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34 and in the traditional Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), Lev. 7:23. that every people which enslaves my children goes away in peace and is not condemned? The Holy One said to him (in Gen. 15:14): BUT < I AM > ALSO < JUDGING > THE NATION < WHICH THEY SHALL SERVE >…. It is therefore stated (in Prov. 31:16): SHE SETS HER MIND ON A FIELD AND ACQUIRES IT.

(Fol. 110b) (Ps, 134, 1) A song of ascents, etc., that stand in the house of the Lord in the nights. What does in the nights mean? Said R. Jochanan: "This refers to the scholars who study the Torah at night; Scripture considers them as if they were occupied in the work of sacrifices." (II Chr. 2, 3) This is an ordinance forever to Israel, etc. Said R. Gidel in the name of Rab: "This refers to an altar [built in heaven] where [the angel] Michael stands, and brings sacrifices." R. Jochanan, however, says that it refers to scholars who occupy themselves with the study of the sacrificial matters; Scripture considers it as if the Temple were built in their days. Resh Lakish said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Lev. 7, 37) This is the Torah of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, etc? This means that if one occupies himself in the study of the Torah, Scripture considers it as if he were bringing a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, a sin-offering, and a guiltoffering." Said Raba: "If so, then why does the passage use the preposition of; it should have been said, a burnt-offering alone?" Raba therefore said: "This means that whoever studies the Torah is in need neither of a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, a sin offering, nor of a guilt-offering." R. Isaac said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Ib. 6, 17) This is the law concerning a sin-offering; and again (Ib. 7) This is the law concerning a guilt-offering? Whoever studies the laws concerning a sin-offering is considered as if he brought a sin-offering; and whoever studies the laws concerning a guiltoffering is considered as if he brought a guilt-offering."

Another interpretation (of Exod. 15:1): THEN SANG. When Israel was camping by the sea, the ministering angels came to praise the Holy One, but the Holy One did not give them permission, as stated (in Exod. 14:20): AND THE ONE DID NOT COME NEAR THE OTHER….³⁵Cf. Exod. R. 23:7. It also says (in Is. 6:3): AND ONE CRIED UNTO THE OTHER. To whom are they comparable? To a king whose son was taken prisoner.³⁶Cf. above, 4:4. He clothed himself in vindictiveness against his enemies. When he went to bring him <back>, the people came to utter a hymn³⁷Gk.: hymnos. for him. He said to them: When I have redeemed my son, <then> you will praise me. Similarly Israel was put in distress by the sea. The ministering angels came to praise him. He rebuked them. The Holy One said to them: When my children are put in distress, would you offer me praise? When they came up from the sea, Israel and the ministering angels wanted to utter a song. R. Abbin the Levite said: To what is the matter comparable? To a king who went down to battle and won. His son and his servant came to him, and in their hands was a crown to put on the king's head. They came to the king and said to him: Your son and your servant are standing by with a crown in their hands. Who will enter first? He said to them: <You are> the world's greatest fools! Shall my servant precede my son? Let my son enter first. Similarly, when Israel came up from the sea, Israel and the ministering angels came to utter a song. The Holy One said to the ministering angels: Let Israel be first. (Exod. 15:1:) THEN SANG MOSES [AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL]. The women and the ministering angels were found to be standing by. Who would offer praise first? R. Hiyya bar Abba bar Shallum said: He made peace between them, as stated (in Ps. 68:26 [25]): SINGERS COME FIRST; THEN FOLLOW MUSICIANS IN THE MIDST OF TIMBREL-PLAYING MAIDENS. (Ibid.:) THE SINGERS COME FIRST {THEN FOLLOW MUSICIANS}. These are Israel. {AND AFTERWARDS} [THEN FOLLOW] MUSICIANS. These are the angels. {And afterwards} IN THE MIDST OF TIMBREL-PLAYING MAIDENS. [These are the women.] R. Levi said: By the heavens, I do not accept this interpretation. Rather the women first offered praise, simply because <it says:> THEN FOLLOW THE MUSICIANS. These are Israel. IN THE MIDST OF TIMBREL-PLAYING MAIDENS. These are the women. The ministering angels began to complain to the Holy One. They said: Is it not enough for the men to precede us? But are the women to do so as well? The Holy One said to them: As you live, yes. R. Helbo said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman: See what is written (in Ezek. 3:12): THEN THE SPIRIT RAISED ME UP, AND AFTER ME³⁸On this translation, see below, Lev. 7:6, and the note there. I HEARD A <GREAT ROARING> SOUND. What is the meaning of AFTER ME ('HRY)? After ('HRY) I and my friends have offered praise.³⁹Gen. R. 65:21. Then afterwards the ministering angels went and said (ibid., cont.): BLESSED IS THE GLORY OF THE LORD FROM HIS PLACE. R. Pinhas ben Hama the Priest said: What is written (in Ezek. 1:24)? WHEN THEY STOOD, THEY WOULD LET THEIR WINGS DROOP. What is the meaning of [WHEN THEY STOOD]? Whoever hears WHEN THEY STOOD is thinking: Perhaps there is sitting above. [Heaven forbid. There is no sitting above.]⁴⁰Gen. R. 65:21; Exod. 43:4. Rather they all stand, as stated (in Is. 6:2): THE SERAPHIM STOOD…. And so it says (in Dan. 7:16): I DREW NEAR TO ONE OF THOSE STANDING THERE. What is the meaning of WHEN THEY STOOD? Simply that when Israel stands and praises the Holy One, at that time THEY LET THEIR WINGS DROOP.

13) I might think it could be eaten on the eve of the third day. And this would follow, viz.: There are sacrifices that are eaten for one day and there are sacrifices that are eaten for two days. Just as with the former, its night follows it (for eating), so, with the latter, its night follows it. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:6): ("And what remains) until the third day (shall be burned with fire") — until the (end of the second) day it is eaten, and it is not eaten on the eve of the third.

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. 19:23:) < WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND > AND PLANT ANY TREE FOR FOOD, YOU SHALL COUNT (rt.: 'RL) ITS FRUIT AS FORBIDDEN (literally: AS FORESKIN, rt.: 'RL)…. < This verse > is teaching about an infant.⁵⁴Tanh., Lev. 7:14. (Ibid., cont.:) THREE YEARS IT SHALL BE FORBIDDEN (rt.: 'RL) FOR YOU, when < an infant > can neither talk nor speak. (vs. 24:) IN THE FOURTH YEAR ALL ITS FRUIT SHALL BE [SET ASIDE (rt.: QDSh)], when his father dedicates (rt.: QDSh) him to the Torah. (Ibid., cont.:) FOR PRAISES TO THE LORD. [What is the meaning of PRAISES (with reference to an infant)?] < Those offered > from the time that he praises the Holy One. (Vs. 25:) BUT IN THE FIFTH YEAR YOU MAY EAT ITS FRUIT, < i.e. > from the time that he begins to read in the Torah. (Ibid., cont.:) TO INCREASE ITS YIELD FOR YOU. Hence our masters have taught (in Avot 5:21): AT FIVE YEARS OF AGE < HE IS READY > FOR < THE STUDY OF > SCRIPTURE; AT TEN, FOR MISHNAH. While in this world, one begets a son for himself, brings him to the elementary school, labors with him, and teaches him Torah. Then in the midst of troubles he dies. So he derives no happiness from him. The Holy One said to Israel: In this world, because the evil drive is found in you, you sin and your children die; but in the world to come I will remove the [evil] drive from among you.⁵⁵Below, 7:1. Then you shall beget and be happy, as stated (in Is. 65:23): THEY SHALL NOT LABOR IN VAIN, NOR BEAR CHILDREN IN TERROR, BECAUSE THEY ARE A SEED BLESSED OF THE LORD, AND THEIR OFFSPRING ALONG WITH THEM.

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."

11) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lidon badavar hechadash, ē ata yachol lehachziro lichllalo ad sheyachzirenu hakathuv lichlallo befeirush. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a new learning, cannot be restored to that category unless Scripture restores it explicitly.): (Vayikra 14:13): "And he shall slaughter the lamb (the guilt-offering) in the place where the sin-offering is slaughtered, and the burnt-offering, in the holy place. For as the sin-offering, is the guilt-offering to the Cohein." Let this ("For as, etc.") not be stated, (for this guilt-offering is subsumed in the general category of guilt-offerings [Vayikra 7:11]). But because it (this guilt-offering of the metzora) departed (from the category) for a new learning — (the placing of the blood on) the thumb of his (the offerer's) right hand and of his right foot and on his right ear, I might think that it did not require the placing of blood and imurim (devoted portions) on the altar; it is, therefore, written: "For as the sin-offering (i.e., as all sin-offerings) is the (i.e., this) guilt-offering to the Cohein" (i.e., it is subject to all of the Cohein's services for a sin-offering.) Scripture explicitly restored it to its category to tell us that just as a sin-offering requires the placing of blood and imurim on the altar, so does this guilt-offering require it.

14) I might think that it must be burned immediately (at nightfall after the second day), and this would follow, viz., There are sacrifices that are eaten for one day and there are sacrifices that are eaten for two days. Just as (what remains of) the sacrifices eaten for one day are burned immediately after eating, so (what remains of) the sacrifices eaten for two days are to be burned immediately after eating. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:17) ("And what remains from the flesh of the sacrifice) on the (third) day, (with fire shall it be burned.") It is burned in the daytime and not at night. Or, perhaps the meaning is that on the third day it is to be burned; but if the third day passed it is not to be burned (but buried). It is, therefore, written "it shall be burned" — even forever.

14) I might think that it must be burned immediately (at nightfall after the second day), and this would follow, viz., There are sacrifices that are eaten for one day and there are sacrifices that are eaten for two days. Just as (what remains of) the sacrifices eaten for one day are burned immediately after eating, so (what remains of) the sacrifices eaten for two days are to be burned immediately after eating. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:17) ("And what remains from the flesh of the sacrifice) on the (third) day, (with fire shall it be burned.") It is burned in the daytime and not at night. Or, perhaps the meaning is that on the third day it is to be burned; but if the third day passed it is not to be burned (but buried). It is, therefore, written "it shall be burned" — even forever.

(Numb. 15:1–3:) NOW THE LORD SPOKE <UNTO MOSES, SAYING>: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN YOU COME UNTO THE LAND OF YOUR HABITATIONS WHICH I AM GIVING YOU AND WOULD MAKE AN OFFERING TO THE LORD, A BURNT OFFERING OR A SACRIFICE TO FULFILL A VOW…. This text is related (to Jer. 3:19): <THEN I SAID:> HOW I WOULD PUT YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN AND GIVE YOU A DESIRABLE LAND, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HERITAGE OF ALL THE NATIONS! AND I SAID: YOU SHALL CALL ME FATHER AND NOT TURN FROM FOLLOWING ME. What is the meaning of HOW I WOULD PUT YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN? How should I compare you with love of children? R. Jose bar Hanina said: What is the meaning of HOW I WOULD PUT YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN? There was great love between me and you. How did you introduce enmity between me and you?²⁹Above, Exod. 6:10; Lev. 7:12; Tanh., Exod. 6:17; Lev. 7:12; Exod. R. 32:2. HOW I WOULD PUT (ashit) YOU AMONG THE CHILDREN! Now this language can only be the language of enmity, since it is stated (in Gen. 3:15): AND I WILL PUT (ashit) ENMITY BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN.

(Lev. 20:9:) FOR ANYONE WHATEVER WHO CURSES HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. Solomon said (in Prov. 20:20): < IF SOMEONE > CURSES HIS FATHER OR MOTHER, HIS LIGHT WILL GO OUT AT THE APPROACH OF DARKNESS. Our Masters have said: Because Ham saw his father's nakedness, yet did not utter a curse at him, he and his descendants have < only > been alienated until the end of the whole world.⁵⁶Tanh., Lev. 7:15. How much worse it is for one who does curse his father! The Scripture says (in Prov. 24:20): FOR THERE WILL BE NO FUTURE FOR THE EVIL ONE, < THE LAMP OF THE WICKED GOES OUT >. Come and see the honoring of father and mother, how dear it is before the Holy One; for the Holy One does not withhold his reward, either from the righteous or from the wicked. Where is it shown? From Esau the Wicked. Because he honored his father, the Holy One gave him all this honor. R. Eleazar says: Esau the Wicked shed three tears, [one] from his right eye, one from his left eye, and the third was attached in his eye and did not run down. When? When Isaac blessed Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 27:38): AND ESAU LIFTED UP HIS VOICE AND WEPT.⁵⁷Cf. Tanh., Lev. 7:15, which adds here: “Come and see how much prosperity the Holy One gave him. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 80:6 [5]): YOU HAVE FED THEM THE BREAD OF TEARS AND HAVE HAD THEM DRINK A SHALISH OF TEARS. Shalosh is not written but shalish, because there were not three (shalosh) whole ones.” So if the Holy One recompensed this wicked one, because he honored his father, how much the more < will he do so > in the case of one who honors his fathers. < The Holy One > said (in Job 41:3 [11]): WHO HAS WELCOMED (hiqdim) ME THAT I SHOULD REPAY HIM? [EVERYTHING UNDER THE HEAVENS IS MINE.] The Holy One said: Who is this one who has advanced (hiqdim) honor to his father, and I have not given him children? And so it says in Job (11:5–7): O THAT GOD WOULD SPEAK…; AND THAT HE WOULD TELL YOU THE SECRETS OF WISDOM… ! WOULD YOU DISCOVER THE MYSTERY OF GOD…? To what is Job comparable? To whoever is put in a collare,⁵⁸The Latin word denotes a band or chain, in particular one put around the neck of a prisoner. and said: I know what is within the palace⁵⁹Lat.: palatium. of the king. They said to him: Free your self from the collare, and we shall know that you are speaking the truth.⁶⁰Cf. Mark 15:30 = Matthew 27:40. So also Job was clothed in seven kinds of boils, and in need of alms, as stated (in Job 19:21): HAVE PITY ON ME, HAVE PITY ON ME, O YOU MY FRIENDS, FOR THE HAND OF GOD HAS AFFLICTED ME. He also says: I have reached the end of the works of the Holy One. Thus it is stated (in Job 23:5): I WOULD KNOW {WHAT} WORDS HE WOULD ANSWER ME [AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WOULD SAY TO ME]. His companions said to him (in Job 11:7): WOULD YOU DISCOVER THE MYSTERY OF GOD…? (Job 12:14:) BEHOLD, WHATEVER HE {CONDEMNS TO DESTRUCTION} [DESTROYS] WILL NOT BE REBUILT…. Who, after he had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and had overthrown them, who has rebuilt them? No creature can stand on his own works, as stated (in Eccl. 7:13): SEE THE WORK OF GOD; FOR WHO CAN MAKE STRAIGHT WHAT HE HAS MADE CROOKED? The Holy One said: In this world the children of Adam are afflicted because of the evil drive, but in the world to come I will remove the evil drive from them.⁶¹Above, 7:14. It is so stated (in Ezek. 36:26–27): THEN I WILL REMOVE THE HEART OF STONE FROM YOUR FLESH AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH, AND I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU….

15) "from the flesh": and not from the bones, and not from the sinews, and not from the horns, and not from the hooves. ("from the flesh of) the sacrifice" — to exclude the fetus and the placenta. "on the third day, with fire shall it be burned": This is the prototype for all (consecrated food) that is burned, that it is to be burned only in the daytime.

(Numb. 23:1:) THEN BALAAM SAID [UNTO BALAK]: BUILD <SEVEN ALTARS> FOR ME HERE, <AND MAKE SEVEN BULLS AND SEVEN RAMS READY FOR ME HERE>…. Why seven altars? <They> corresponded to seven righteous ones from Adam to Moses, who built seven altars and had been accepted: Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Then <Balaam> said: Why did you accept these? Was it not because of a liturgy which they performed before you that you accepted them? Is it not <more> suitable for you to be served by seventy nations and not by <merely> one nation? The Holy Spirit answered him (in Prov. 17:1): BETTER A DRY MORSEL WITH TRANQUILITY THAN A HOUSE FULL OF QUARRELSOME FEASTING. Better (in the words of Lev. 7:10) A GRAIN OFFERING MIXED WITH OIL OR DRY than (in Prov. 17:1) A HOUSE FULL OF QUARRELSOME FEASTING;⁵³The words HOUSE and FEASTING can also mean “temple” and “sacrifice” respectively. for you want to introduce strife between me and Israel.

“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.

3 (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: What is written above the matter (in Numb. 15:38)? “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels (zizit) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, “In the case of a prayer shawl (tallit) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassel?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five parashiot in it³Cf. yShab. 16:1 (15c); Soferim 16:10; M. Pss. 22:19, according to which there are 175 parashiot in the Torah where an expression of speaking, saying, or commanding occurs. See also Alfa Beta deRabbi ‘Aqiva, longer recension, Tsade (Eisenstein, p. 421). and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the one parasha which is in the mezuzah exempt the house?” [He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.” Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: lqh). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: lqh) […].” This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9), “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated [you from the congregation to draw you near unto Himself, to perform the service of the Lord's tabernacle …]?” The sages have said, “Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the children of Kohath He gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy objects, which they carried on their shoulders.’” Now Korah was the son of Izhar, [who was] the son of Kohath. When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38), “And put on the tassel of each corner a thread of blue,” what did Korah do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of sanhedraot who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2), “And they rose up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, princes of the congregation, chosen in the assembly.” Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves in blue prayer shawls. [When] Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, [namely the] breast and right thigh,⁴I.e., the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32. they arose against them and said to them, “Who commanded you to receive such? Was it not Moses? [If so,] we shall not give you anything, as the Holy One, blessed be He, has not commanded it.” They came and informed Moses. He went to placate⁵Rt.: PYS. See the Gk.: peithein, peisai in the aroist. them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.), “And they rose up against Moses.” And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions (the princes), the men (according to Numb. 1:17) “who were mentioned by name.” Although the text has not publicized⁶From PRSM. Cf. Gk: parresiazesthai. their [names], it has given clues⁷Gk.: semeia. to their [identity], so that you [can] identify them from the [various] verses. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his [name. Rather,] he began to give clues about his [identity]. When they said to him, “Who stole your articles,” he said, “A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and black hair.” After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their [identity]. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16-17), “These were elected by the congregation, princes of their ancestral tribes, heads of thousands within Israel. So Moses and Aaron took these men who were mentioned by name.” Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2-3), “princes of the congregation, elected by the assembly, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron.”

One verse states (Bamidbar 7:89): "And when Moses came to the tent of meeting to speak with him, etc." and another, (Shemoth 40:35): "And Moses could not come to the tent of meeting!" This is resolved by (Shemoth 40:35): "for the cloud rested upon it." Say: Whenever the cloud was there, Moses did not enter. When the cloud departed, he entered and spoke with Him. R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written (I Kings 8:11): "And the Cohanim were not able to stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the L–rd filled the house of the L–rd" — whence it is seen that the angels were given license to destroy (all who would approach). And, similarly, (Shemoth 33:22): "And I shall cover you with My 'palm' until I have passed" — whence it is seen that the angels were given license to destroy. And, similarly, (Psalms 95:11): "So I swore in My wrath that they would not enter My rest" — When My wrath abates, they will enter My rest."

15 (Numb. 20:14) “Then Moses sent messengers [from Kadesh unto the king of Edom], ‘Thus says your brother Israel….’” This text is related (to Ps. 15:3), “[…] nor takes up a reproach against his relative.” By universal custom, when a person is engaged in business⁶²Gk.: pragmateia. with his friend who causes a loss, he separates himself from him and does not want to see him. But although Moses was punished because of Israel, as stated (in Ps. 106:32), “And they provoked wrath at the Waters of Meribah and it went ill with Moses on their account,” he did not unload their burden from himself. Instead (according to Numb. 20:14), “Then Moses sent messengers.” (Numb. 20:14, cont.) “You know all the trouble that has befallen us”: They said to him, “You know when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham (in Gen. 15:13), ‘know full well that your seed shall be alien in a land not theirs where they shall serve them and be oppressed by them […],’ it was us who have been enslaved, while you are free.” (Numb. 20:15) “How our forefathers went down to Egypt [...]”: This whole subject is comparable to two brothers against whose grandfather a promissory note appeared. One of them arose and paid it. One day he started to ask a favor from his brother, and he said to him, “You know that debt was incumbent on both of us, but it was I who paid it. Do not refuse any of my favor that I am asking.” (Numb. 20:15) “How our forefathers went down [to Egypt]”: What is the relevance of [mentioning] the forefathers here, as stated (in Numb 20:15, cont.), “the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our forefathers.” [It is to teach you] that all the time that Israel is in distress, [the forefathers] are also in distress. (Numb. 20:17) “Please let us pass through your land; [we will not pass through field or vineyard,] nor shall we drink water from a well”: Should it not have said, "water from cisterns?" [By this use of the singular, “a well”], the Torah has taught you proper conduct, [i.e.,] that though one has at hand his necessities, when he who goes to a land which is not his own, he should not eat from what he has on hand. Rather he should put aside what he has, and buy from the shopkeeper in order to benefit him. So also Moses said to [Edom], “[We have] a well with us,⁶³On the tradition of Israel’s portable well for supplying them with water during their desert wanderings, see Numb. R. 1:2; TSuk. 3:11; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Numb. 21:16-18; Frag. Jerusalem Targum, Numb. 21:17-18; Tanh., Lev. 7:7; Lev. R. 25:5; 27:6; see also Avot 5:6; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Wayassa‘ 6, on Exod. 16:32; Shab. 35a; Pes. 54a; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Numb. 22:28; in addition, see TSot. 11:8 (10); Ta‘an. 9a; BM 86b; Cant. R. 4:14:1; Seder ‘Olam Rabbah, 10; cf. I Corinthians 10:4. and we eat our own manna; [but] do not say that we are a bother to you. You will make a profit for yourselves.” So also did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Moses (in Deut. 2:6), “Food shall you procure from them with money, and you shall eat.” And Moses said to Israel, “Open your purses to them. So that they do not say, ‘They were slaves and indigents,’ show them your wealth.” They will [then] know, so that they would not say, “You lost by your subjugation.” [As stated] (in Gen. 15:14.) “and in the end they shall go free with great wealth.” And they shall know that you are not lacking anything and that it is not from [that which is] yours that you are [spending], as stated (in Deut. 2:7), “For the Lord has blessed you in all the efforts of your hand [...].” (Numb. 20:17, cont.) “We shall go along the king's highway,” since we restrain⁶⁴Hosemin. The word also means “muzzle.” our cattle. (Numb. 20:17, cont.) “Without turning right or left”: This was the most difficult [stipulation] of them all, for they said, “In all [the lands] around us we have permission to plunder and kill, but within your border [we shall walk the king's highway] without turning right or left [until we have passed through your territory].” (Numb. 20:18) “But Edom said unto him, “You shall not pass through me’”: This text is related to Ps. 120:7), “I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.” Where is it shown that the Holy One, blessed be He, also told them that they would not permit you to pass, [that] everything is not due to them, but [that] it is I who wills it? Where it is stated (in Deut. 2:5), “Do not engage them in battle, for I will not give you of their land.” And it is written (in Numb 20:21), “So Edom would not let [Israel cross their territory].” And afterwards, they sent [a request] to the king of Moab, and he would not let [Israel cross his territory either]. And even though it is not explained here, behold it is explained in Judges. [This] teaches that it was all [said] with the holy spirit. As there was no one lighter in all [the speakers] then Jephthah, and [yet] he explained [it]. It is so stated (in Jud. 11:17), “Israel then sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, ‘Allow us to cross your country’; but the king of Edom would not consent; they also sent a mission to the king of Moab, and he refused.” And Moses also indicated [this], as stated (in Deut. 2:29), “As the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir did for me, [and the Moabites who dwell in Ar].”

(Numb. 21:17:) “Then Israel sang this song.” This song (of the well) was uttered at the end of forty [years], while the well was given to them at the beginning of the forty [years]?¹³⁰Numb. R. 19:25; see also above, Lev. 7:7; Numb. 1:2; 6:35, and the notes there. So what was the purpose of writing [it down] here? This matter has been explained from what is above (in vs. 14), “It is therefore said in the book of the wars of the Lord, ‘'t¹³¹This untranslated word is used here to indicate a direct object, but it also means “sign.” Waheb in Suphah (Sufah) [and 't the Wadis of the Arnon].’” What is this? That the Holy One blessed be He did for them signs ('twt, singular: 't) and miracles in the Arnon Wadis like the miracles which He did for them in the Reed (suf) Sea. And what were the miracles in the Arnon Wadis? One would stand on one mountain and speak with his companion on the other mountain; yet he was seven mil¹³²Milim. Lat.: milia. away from him. Now the road descended into the middle of the wadi and then ascended, and Israel's course was to cross through the midst of the mountains. All the nations assembled endless troops there.¹³³Gk.: ochloi. Some of them took up positions in the middle of the wadi. Moreover, [the slope of] the mountain above them was riddled with caves, and facing them was a mountain which was correspondingly riddled with crags in the form of breasts (shdym), as stated (in Numb. 21:15), “And the slope ('shd) of the wadies.” The troops entered into the caves; for they said, “As soon as Israel comes down into the wadi, those ahead of them who are in the wadi and those in the caves will arise and kill all of them. When Israel did arrive at that place, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not make it necessary for them to go down into the wadi. Instead, He gave a signal to the mountains, and the [craggy] breasts of the latter mountain entered the caves, so that they all died. Moreover, the mountains brought their summits so close to each other that they became a highway, for there was no knowing [where] each [mountain] joined its neighbor. Furthermore, that wadi separates the borders between the Land of Israel and the Land of Moab, as stated (in Numb. 21:13 = Jud. 11:18), “For the Arnon is the border of Moab […].” The mountain in the Land of Moab, the one with the caves, was [not] shaken; but the mountain in the Land of Israel, the one with the crags in the form of breasts, was shaken and joined to the mountain opposite. Why was the one in the Land of Israel shaken? The matter is comparable to a female slave who saw her master's son coming to her.¹³⁴In this illustration the female slave is the mountain, the master is God, and the son is Israel. She jumped up to greet him and welcome him. The crags entered into the caves and all those warriors were crushed. Then the well descended to the wadi, where it became a mighty [torrent] and destroyed the troops, just as the [Reed] Sea had destroyed those [Egyptians]. Scripture therefore compared (in Numb. 21:14), “Waheb in Suphah (Sufah) and the Wadies of the Arnon.”¹³⁵The fact that WAHEB IN SUPHAH (understood as Yam Suf, or Reed Sea) is mentioned next to the Wadi Arnon shows that the two deliverances are comparable. When Israel crossed upon those mountains without knowing about all these miracles the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Behold, I will let My Children know how many troops I destroyed because of them.” [So] the well descended into the caves and brought out innumerable skulls, arms, and legs. Thus when Israel returned to seek the well, they saw it shining like the moon in the midst of the wadi, as it discharged the limbs of the troops. And where is it shown that the well informed [Israel] about them? Where it is stated (in Numb. 21:15-16), “And the slope of the wadies…. And from there they continued to Beer (the well).” But was [the well] with them from there; was it not with them from the beginning of the forty years? It is simply that it had gone down to inform about the miracles, while Israel remained at the wadies and said to it (in Numb. 21:17, cont:) “Rise up, O well, sing to it.”

18 (Numb. 22:41) “So it came to pass in the morning that Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal, [and from there he saw the edge of the people]”: Balak was a more of a master of divinations and auguries than Balaam, for [Balaam] was being dragged along after him like a blind man. What did the two of them resemble? Someone who had a knife in his hand but did not know [where to find] the [animal] joints, while his companion knew the joints but did not have a knife in his hand. Balak saw the places in which Israel would fall and (ibid.) “brought him up into the high places of Baal.” [This was Baal] Peor, where he saw that Israel would fall. (Numb. 23:1) “Then Balaam said unto Balak, ‘Build seven altars for me here’”: Why seven altars? [They] corresponded to seven righteous ones from Adam to Moses, who built seven altars and had been accepted: Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Then [Balaam] said, “Why did you accept these? Was it not because of the service (the sacrifices) which they performed before you that you accepted them? Is it not [more] suitable for you to be served by seventy nations and not by [merely] one nation?” The holy spirit answered him (in Prov. 17:1), “Better a dry morsel with tranquility.” Better (in the words of Lev. 7:10) “a grain offering mixed with oil or dry” than (in Prov. 17:1) “a house full of quarrelsome feasting”;²⁸The words HOUSE and FEASTING can also mean “temple” and “sacrifice” respectively. for you want to introduce strife between Me and Israel. (Numb. 23:2-3) “Then Balak did […] and he offered. [...]; so he went alone (rt.: shph)”: [Balaam’s] intent was to curse; for he had been at ease rt.: shph) until that moment, but from that moment on he was troubled. (Numb. 23:4) “Then God encountered Balaam”: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You evil man! What are you doing?” (Ibid., cont.) “And [Balaam] said unto him, ‘I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar]’:” [The matter] is comparable to a money-changer who lies about the weights. When the head of the marketplace came, he noticed him. He said to him, “What are you doing inflating and lying about the weights?” [The money changer then] said to him, “I have already sent a gift²⁹Gk.: doron. to your house.” So also it was in the case of Balaam. The holy spirit cried out to him. It said to him, “You evil man! What are you doing.” He said to it (in Numb. 23:4), “I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].” It said to him (in Prov. 15:17), “’Better a meal of vegetable greens [where there is love than a fattened ox with hatred in it].’ Better the dinner of unleavened bread and bitter herbs which Israel ate in Egypt, than bulls which you offer with hands of [hatred].” (Numb. 23:5) “So the Lord put a word (davar) in Balaam's mouth,” which twisted his mouth and pierced it,³⁰Both “twisted” and “pierced” connote the use of a bit on a horse. as one would drive a nail into a board. R. Eliezer (understanding davar as word) says, “An angel was speaking,” [as stated] (in Numb. 23:5), “Return unto Balak and speak thus.” (Numb. 23:6) “So he returned unto him, and there he was standing beside his burnt offerings with all the ministers of Moab,” who stood anxiously awaiting [the time] when he would come.

(Numb. 21:17:) “Then Israel sang.” For what reason is Moses not mentioned there?¹³⁶Numb. R. 19:26. For the reason that he was being punished because of the waters; and no person praises¹³⁷Rt.: QLS. Cf.: Gk.: kalos. his executioner.¹³⁸Lat.: speculator (“examiner” or “overseer”). And why is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, not mentioned there? The matter is comparable to a governor who made a banquet for the king. The king said, “Will my friend so-and-so be there?” They told him, “No.” He said, “[Then] I also am not going there.” Also here the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Inasmuch as Moses is not mentioned, I also will not be mentioned there.” (Numb. 21:18:) “The well that the princes dug.” Was it dug there? It is simply that it was given through the merit of the ancestors who were called princes. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 105:41-42), “He opened a rock, and water gushed out […]. For he remembered His holy promise and His servant Abraham.” (Numb. 21:18, cont.:) “That the nobles of the people dug with the scepter, even with their own staffs.” The princes were standing by it, and each and every one drew [the water] with his own staff for his own tribe and for his own family. And the space between the [four] standards was filled with a [flow of] water that was gathering strength. A woman who had to go to her companion from one standard to [another] standard went by ship, as stated (in Ps. 105:41), “they traveled the river by tsiyyot.”¹³⁹A more traditional translation would be: IT FLOWED THROUGH THE WILDERNESS LIKE A RIVER. Now tsiyyot (here understood as the plural of tsi) can only denote a ship, since it is stated (in Is. 33:21), “nor shall a stately ship (tsi) pass by.” Now the waters flowed outside the camp and embraced a great strip of land. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 23:3) “He leads me in paths (literally, circles) of righteousness.” In addition, [the encircling waters] would cause endless varieties of green herbage and trees to grow, as stated (in Ps. 23:2), “[He makes me lie down] in green pastures; [He leads me beside still waters].” All those the days that Israel was in the desert they used it (i.e., the well). Therefore, they rendered praise for it [with the song ending] (in Numb. 21:18), “the well that the princes dug.” (Numb. 21:18, cont.:) “From Midbar (literally, desert) to Mattanah,” [so stated] because in the desert [the well] was given (nittenah) them to use as a gift (mattanah). Another interpretation: Why was [the well] given in the desert? Because if it had been given to them in the land, the tribe in whose border it was given would have argued and said, “I have a prior claim to it.” For that reason it was given in the desert where all would have an equal claim to it. And for what other reason was it given in the desert? Just as a desert is neither sown nor cultivated, so is the one who receives the words of Torah. They remove from him the yoke of the government and the yoke of earning a living. Just as a desert does not grow arnona;¹⁴⁰The Latin word generally denotes, as it probably does here, a tax on farm goods paid in kind; but the word also occurs in a broader sense denoting agricultural products generally. so are children of Torah (i.e., Torah scholars) free [from it] in this world.¹⁴¹I.e., by accepting the yoke of Torah, such scholars are exempt from government taxes and the need to earn a living. See Numb. R. 19:26. Another interpretation [of why it was given] in the desert: Who is the one who fulfills the Torah? One who uses himself like the desert, [i.e.,] whoever makes himself like a desert and removes himself from everything [that might distract him]. (Numb. 21:19:) “From Mattanah to Nahaliel, and from Nahaliel to Bamoth.” These three places correspond to the three courts in Jerusalem that would explicate the Torah to all of Israel: (Ibid.) “From Mattanah to Nahaliel,” these refer to the Sanhedrin on the Temple Mount; (ibid., cont.) “from Nahaliel to Bamoth,” these refer to the Sanhedrin¹⁴²Gk.: synhedrion. in the [Temple] court beside the altar; (Numb. 21:20) “From Bamoth to the valley that is in the Plain of Moab.” These refer to the Sanhedrin, when it was in the chamber of hewn stones, which was in the region of that woman who came from the Plain of Moab (i.e., Ruth), of whom it is stated (in Ruth 2:6), “She is the young Moabite woman who came back with Naomi from the Plains of Moab.” (Numb. 21:20, cont.:) “[At the Summit of Pisgah,] which is visible on the surface of wilderness (yeshimon);”¹⁴³Yeshimon may be a place name, Jeshimon. for from there (she’misham) Torah goes forth into the world. Another interpretation (of these verses, centering on Numb. 21:19) “From Mattanah to Nahaliel”: Moses said, “Master of the world, after all of the miracles that You did for them, I am to die from them? He gave them the Torah from the desert (midbar), [as stated] (in Numb. 21:18), ‘From Midbar to Mattanah (literally, gift).’ And through me, they inherited (nahalu) it, as stated (in Numb. 21:19) ‘From Mattanah to Nahaliel.’ And from when they inherited it, You decreed death upon me [since] (Numb. 21:19, cont.), ‘from Nahaliel to Bamoth,’ [meaning] death came (ba mavet).” (Numb. 21:20) “From Bamoth to the valley that is in the Plain of Moab…,” that is burial, as stated (in Deut. 34:6), “He buried him in the valley in the Land of Moab.” This is related to what Job said (to Job 34:19), “He is not partial to princes; the noble are not preferred to the wretched; for all of them are the work of His hands.”(Numb. 21:20, cont.:) “[At the Summit of Pisgah,] which is visible on the surface of wilderness (yeshimon).” This is in reference to the well which accompanied them until it was hidden in the Sea of Tiberias.¹⁴⁴See above, Lev. 7:7; Numb. 1:2; 6:35, 47-49; and the notes there; also yKil. 2:4 or 3 (32cd); yKet. 12:3 (35b); Lev. R. 22:4; Eccl. R. 5:8-9:5; cf. Shab. 35b, according to which the well is visible from Mount Carmel; similarly M. Ps. 24:6, according to which the well is visible from Mount Nebo. And one standing on the surface of the wilderness sees something in the midst of the sea about the size of the mouth of an oven; and that is the well, which is visible on the surface of the wilderness.

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

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

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)

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)

(Numb. 20:17:) PLEASE LET US PASS THROUGH YOUR LAND. <WE WILL NOT PASS THROUGH FIELD OR VINEYARD, > NOR SHALL WE DRINK WATER FROM A WELL. Should it have said: "Water from cisterns?" <By this use of the singular, A WELL>, Torah has taught you proper conduct, <i.e.,> that when one who goes to a land which is not one's own, [though he has at hand his necessities,] he should not drink from what he has on hand. Rather he should put aside what he has, and buy from the shopkeeper in order to benefit him. So also Moses said to <the king of Edom>: <We have> a well with us,¹⁵²On the tradition of Israel’s portable well for supplying them with water during their desert wanderings, see above, Lev. 7:7; Numb. 1:2; below, Numb. 6:47-50; Tanh., Numb. 1:2; Numb. R. 1:2; TSuk. 3:11; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Numb. 21:16-18; Frag. Jerusalem Targum, Numb. 21:17-18; Tanh., Lev. 7:7; Lev. R. 25:5; 27:6; see also Avot 5:6; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Wayassa‘ 6, on Exod. 16:32; Shab. 35a; Pes. 54a; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Numb. 22:28; in addition, see TSot. 11:8 (10); Ta‘an. 9a; BM 86b; Cant. R. 4:14:1; Seder ‘Olam Rabbah, 10; cf. I Corinthians 10:4. and we eat our own manna; <but> do not say that we are a bother to you. You will make a profit for yourselves. So also did Moses say (to king Sihon of Heshbon in Deut. 2:28): YOU SHALL SELL ME FOOD FOR MONEY.

(Bamidbar 6:20) "And the Cohein shall lift them, a lifting before the L-rd": back and forth and up and down, as it is written (Shemot 29:27) "which was waved and which was lifted." Lifting is being compared to waving. Just as waving is back and forth, so, lifting; and just as lifting is up and down, so, waving — whence they ruled: the mitzvah of waving — back and forth, up and down. (Ibid.) "before the L-rd": in the east. For wherever "before the L-rd" is written, in the east is understood unless it is specified otherwise. "It is holy to the Cohein, in addition to the breast of waving and the thigh of lifting": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 7:34]) "For the breast of waving, etc.") For in "For the breast of waving and the thigh of the lifting have I taken from the children of Israel from their peace-offerings," the peace-offerings of the Nazirite are also subsumed, and Scripture (here) removed them from their context for the ram's shoulder requirement. This tells me only of the latter. Whence do I derive (the same for) the breast and the thigh? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If individual peace-offerings, which do not require the giving (to the Cohein) of the shoulder, do require the (giving of) breast and thigh, then the Nazirite peace-offerings, which do require the giving of the shoulder, how much more so do they require the giving of breast and thigh! Now if I can derive this a fortiori, why need it be written (Ibid.) "It (the shoulder) is holy to the Cohein, in addition to the breast of waving and the thigh of lifting"? We are hereby apprised that every thing (in this instance, Nazirite peace-offerings) which was included in a general formulation and departed from that formulation for the sake of a new learning (in this instance, the giving of the shoulder) may not be returned to its general formulation until Scripture explicitly does so.

(Numb. 21:17:) THEN ISRAEL SANG THIS SONG. This song (of the well) was uttered at the end of forty <years>, while the well was given to them at the beginning of the forty <years>.¹⁸²Tanh., Numb. 6:20; Numb. R. 19:25; see also above, Lev. 7:7; Numb. 1:2; 6:35, and the notes there. So what was the purpose of writing <it down> here?. This matter has been explained from what is above (in vs. 14): IT IS THEREFORE SAID IN THE BOOK OF THE WARS OF THE LORD: 'T¹⁸³This untranslated word is used here to indicate a direct object, but it also means “sign.” WAHEB IN SUPHAH (Sufah) <AND 'T THE WADIES OF THE ARNON,> <i.e.,> the signs ('TWT, singular: 'T) and miracles [which were done for them] in the Arnon Wadies were like the miracles which were done for them in the Reed (Suf) Sea. What were the Miracles in the Arnon Wadies? One would stand on one mountain and speak with his companion on the other mountain; yet he was seven miles¹⁸⁴Milim. Lat.: milia. away from him. Now the road decended into the middle of the wadi and then ascended, and Israel's course was to cross through the midst of the wadies. All the nations assembled endless troops.¹⁸⁵Gk.: ochloi. Some of them took up positions in the middle of the wadi. Moreover, <the slope of> the wadi¹⁸⁶The parallel accounts here read “mountains.” above them became riddled with caves, and facing them was a mountain which correspondingly became riddled with crags in the form of breasts (ShDYM), as stated (in Numb. 21:15): AND THE SLOPE ('ShD) OF THE WADIES. The troops entered into the caves; for they said: As soon as Israel comes down into the wadi, those ahead of them who are in the wadi and those above from out of the caves will arise and kill all of them. When Israel did arrive at that place, the Holy One did not make it necessary for them to go down into the wadi. Instead, he gave a signal to the mountains, and the <craggy> breasts of the latter mountain entered the caves, so that they all died. Moreover, the mountains brought their summits so close to each other, that they became a highway, for there was no knowing <where> each one joined its neighbor. Furthermore, that wadi separates the borders between the land of Israel and the land of Moab, as stated (in Numb. 21:13 = Jud. 11:18): FOR THE ARNON IS THE BORDER OF MOAB. The mountain in the land of Moab, the one with the caves, was [not] shaken; but the mountain in the land of Israel, the one with the crags in the form of breasts, was shaken and joined to the mountain opposite. Why was it shaken? Because it belonged to the land of Israel. <The matter> is comparable to a female slave who saw her master's son coming to her.¹⁸⁷In this illustration the female slave is the mountain, the master is God, and the son is Israel. She jumped up to greet him and welcome him. The crags entered into the caves and all those warriors were crushed. Then the well descended to the wadi, where it became became a mighty <torrent> and destroyed the troops, just as the <Reed> Sea had destroyed those <Egyptians>. It is therefore written (in Numb. 21:14): WAHEB IN SUPHAH (Sufah) AND THE WADIES OF THE ARNON.¹⁸⁸The fact that WAHEB IN SUPHAH (understood as Yam Suf, or Reed Sea) is mentioned next to the Wadi Arnon shows that the two deliverances are comparable. When Israel crossed upon those mountains without knowing about all these miracles the Holy One said: Behold, I will let the children of Israel know how many troops I destroyed because of them. The well descended into the cave and brought out innumerable skulls, arms, and legs. Thus when Israel returned to seek the well, they saw it shining like the moon in the midst of the wadi, as it discharged the limbs of the troops. And where is it shown that the well informed <Israel> about them? Where it is stated (in Numb. 21:15–16): AND THE SLOPE OF THE WADIES…. <AND FROM THERE THEY CONTINUED TO BEER, I.E., THE WELL (beer.) WHERE THE LORD SAID TO MOSES….>

Another interpretation (of ibid.:) WHICH IS VISIBLE. This is in reference to the well which accompanied them until it entered the sea of Tiberias.¹⁹⁹See above, Lev. 7:7; Numb. 1:2; 6:35, 47-49; and the notes there; also yKil. 2:4 or 3 (32cd); yKet. 12:3 (35b); Lev. R. 22:4; Eccl. R. 5:8-9:5; cf. Shab. 35b, according to which the well is visible from Mount Carmel; similarly M. Ps. 24:6, according to which the well is visible from Mount Nebo. Then one standing ON THE SURFACE OF THE WILDERNESS sees something in the midst of the sea about the size of the mouth of an oven; and that is the well, which is VISIBLE ON THE SURFACE OF THE WILDERNESS.

(Bamidbar 7:84) This is the (accounting of the) inauguration of the altar on the day that it was anointed": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 88) "This is the (accounting of the) inauguration of the altar after it was anointed," I might think after (a relatively long period of) time; it is, therefore, written "on the day that it was anointed." If on the day that it was anointed, I might think that before it was anointed the offering was brought; it is, therefore, written "after it was anointed" — On the day that it was anointed, on the very same day he brought the offering — after it was anointed. Similarly, (Vayikra 7:35-36) "This is the (portion of the) anointment of Aaron and of the anointment of his sons … which the L-rd commanded to give to them on the day that he anointed them" — On the day that they were anointed they merited receiving the (priestly) gifts. — But perhaps the meaning is that on that day they were commanded (to give the gifts), but they did not actually receive them until a later time. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 35) "… of the fire-offerings of the L-rd on the day that he presented them to minister to the L-rd" — On the day that they were anointed, they merited receiving the gifts. If so, what is the intent of "which the L-rd commanded to give to them on the day that he anointed them"? We are hereby taught that they (Israel) were commanded (to give them) on Mount Sinai, but they (the Cohanim) did not acquire them until they had been anointed with the oil of anointment. (Bamidbar 7:84) "by the chiefs of Israel": We are hereby taught that just as they were all united in counsel (to bring the offerings), so, they were all "united" in merit. "silver dishes, twelve": the very ones that they donated, their not having become unfit (for service).

(Bamidbar 7:89) "And when Moses came to the tent of meeting": (Why is this mentioned? We already know that the L-rd spoke to him from the tent of meeting.) From (Vayikra 1:1) "and the L-rd spoke to him from the tent of meeting," I understand directly from the tent of meeting. It is, therefore, written (Shemot 25:22) "And I will be appointed for you (to speak to you) there, and I will speak to you from above the kaporeth (the ark cover)." It is impossible to say from the tent of meeting, for it is already written "from above the kaporeth," and it is impossible to say "from above the kaporeth," for it is already written "from the tent of meeting." How, then, are these two verses to be reconciled? This is a rule in the Torah: Two verses which contradict each other are to "remain in their place" until a third verse comes and reconciles them, (the third verse, in this instance, being) "And when Moses came to the tent of meeting." Scripture hereby tells us that Moses would enter and stand in the tent of meeting, and the Voice would descend from the heaven of heavens to between the two cherubs (on the ark cover) and he would hear the Voice speaking to him from within. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Thirteen utterances were addressed to (both) Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to these, thirteen "exclusions" (i.e., Aaron being excluded), to teach that they were not addressed to Aaron, but only to Moses to tell to Aaron. They are; (Shemot 25:22) "And I will be appointed for you there, and I will speak with you, all that I shall command you," (Shemot 30:6) "where I will be appointed for you," (Ibid.) "to speak to you there," (Shemot 31:18) "to speak with him," (Vayikra 7:38) "on the day that he commanded," (Bamidbar 7:89) "And when Moses came to the tent of meeting to speak with Him," (Ibid.) "speaking with him," (Vayikra 1:1) "And the L-rd spoke to him," and one in Egypt (Shemot 6:28) "And it was on the day that the L-rd spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt," and one in Sinai (Bamidbar 3:1) "on the day the L-rd spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai," and one in the tent of meeting (Bamidbar 7:89) "And He spoke to him." — Thirteen exclusions, Aaron being excluded in all instances.

(Bamidbar 18:1) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.": R. Yishmael says: Because the thing (i.e., what follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: Whence is it derived that if he (a Cohein) sprinkled the blood without knowing in whose name he is doing so or smoked the fat without knowing in whose name he is doing so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From "You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary." R. Yonathan says: Whence is it derived that if he took the flesh (of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering) before the blood was sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the breast and the shoulder before the smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31), that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood." And thus do we find that the decree of Eli was sealed only because they (the Cohanim) abused the offerings, as it is written (I Samuel 2:15) "Even before they would burn the fat … (16) And the man would say: Let them first burn the fat today (upon the altar) … (17) And the sin of the youths (the attendants of the Cohanim was very great, etc." And similarly we find that the decree of the men of Jerusalem was decreed only because they abused the offerings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) "You abused My offerings." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.": This refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-priests] from entering the sanctuary). You say this, but perhaps it refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to beth-din, (it being their duty to exhort the Cohanim in this regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7]) "You and your sons, with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar" already speaks of what is relegated to beth-din. How, then, am I to understand "you shall bear the sin of your priesthood"? As referring to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid. 1) "And you and your sons with you": and not Israelites (i.e., they are not to guard the sanctuary.) You say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who also guard the sanctuary) do bear the sin of the Cohanim, (who are remiss in this regard.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And they (the Levites) shall bear their (own) sin" (of remissness), but not the sin of the Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) "And also your brothers": I might think that this also includes Israelites. It is, therefore, written "the tribe of Levi." I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "your brothers" — to exclude the women. "draw near with you": R. Akiva says: It is written here "with you," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) "with you." Just as here, the Levites are being referred to, so, there, the Levites are being referred to — to exhort the Levites (against defect) in the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) "and they shall be joined to you and they shall serve you": through their service. Treasurers and trustees are to be appointed from among them. You say this, but perhaps the intent is that they shall serve you (the Cohanim) in your (priestly) service. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent." — But perhaps (both are intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you in your (priestly) service and they shall serve you through their service. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd." To the L-rd are they given, and not to the Cohanim — whereby we derive that it is not to be construed in the second way (i.e., "for your [priestly] service"), but in the first way, i.e., their being appointed as treasurers and trustees. "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony": the Cohanim within, (in the court of the sanctuary,) and the Levites outside (the court). You say this, but perhaps the intent is both, within. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And they (the Levites) will join you, and they will keep (the watch of) the watch (by the Cohanim within) of the tent of meeting." How, then, am I to understand "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony"? The Cohanim within, and the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent": As stated above: They will serve you through their service, and appoint from among them treasurers and trustees. "But to the vessels of the kodesh they shall not come near." This "hakodesh" ("the holy") refers to the ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "And they (the Levites) shall not come to see (the vessels) when the kodesh is being covered and they (the Levites) die." "and to the altar": This refers to the (sacrificial) service of the altar. "they shall not come near": the exhortation. "and they shall not die": the punishment. This tells me only of the Levites, that they are punished and exhorted for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) Cohanim (appropriating) the service (i.e., singing) of the Levites? From ("so that they not die,) both they (the Levites) and you" (the Cohanim.) And it once happened that R. Yehoshua b. Chanania sought to assist R. Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for you are close to forfeiting your life! For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers. Rebbi says that this ("both they and you") is not needed (for the above learning). For it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-19) "Do not cut off the tribe of the families of the Kehathi … but do this for them and they will live," (the implication being that otherwise they will die.) This tells me only of the sons of Kehath. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid. 19) "Aaron and his sons shall come and set them (the sons of Levi), each man to his service and to his burden." This tells me only that the Levites are punished for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Cohanim (appropriating) the service of the Levites? From (Bamidbar 1:51) "And when the mishkan travels, the Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall dismantle it. And the stranger (a non-Levite) that draws near (to this service) shall be put to death." Whence do I derive (the same for) one who goes from his (assigned) service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38) "And those who encamped before the mishkan, in front, before the tent of meeting on the east" (i.e., only these being assigned to the aforementioned service) … and the stranger (to that service, [even a Levite]) that draws near shall be put to death." What, then, is the need for "so that they not die both they and you"? Because Korach came and contested Aaron's prerogative, Scripture reiterated the entire exhortation (on demarcation of bounds). Variantly: "both they and you": Just as you (the Cohanim, are thus forewarned) vis-à-vis the altar service, so, they (the Levites, are thus forewarned). R. Nathan says: Levitical singing is hereby intimated in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature) was explicated by Ezra. Chanania, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: This (intimation) is not needed, for it is already written (Shemot 19:19) "and G-d answered him (Moses, the Levite) by voice" — relative to the mitzvah of the voice, whence (the mitzvah of Levitical) singing is intimated in the Torah. (Bamidbar 18:4) "And they shall join you": As we have stated, the Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside, and the Levites, on the outside. (Ibid.) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you": Why is this written? (i.e., it has already been mentioned.) — "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death" tells us (only of) the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From "and a stranger shall not draw near to you." (Ibid. 5) "And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar.": This is an exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites to exhort the Cohanim towards the proper performance of the (sacrificial) service, which (service), when properly performed, fends off calamity from the world. (Ibid.) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He has already vented His wrath (viz. 17:11). Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) "and no more shall there be a flood." Why "no more"? For it has already happened. Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the goat-demons." Why "no more"? Because it already happened (in Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7). Similarly, (Bamidbar 18:22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near to the tent of meeting." Why "no more"? Because they had already done so (in the time of Korach, viz. Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He had already vented His wrath, as it is written (Ibid. 17:11) "for the wrath has gone forth, etc."

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

(Bamidbar 18:20) "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.

I might think that even all offerings (i.e., individual peace-offerings) were subject to priestly gifts, and that this followed a fortiori, viz.: If chullin (non-consecrated animals), which are not subject to (the giving to the Cohein of) breast and thigh, are subject to priestly gifts (of chullin), then consecrated animals, which are subject to breast and thigh, how much more so should they be subject to priestly gifts! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:34) "and I have given them (breast and thigh) to Aaron the Cohein." Nothing in addition to what is stated herein. I might think that chullin, too, are subject to (the giving to the Cohein of) breast and thigh, and that it follows a fortiori, viz.: If consecrated animals, which are not subject to priestly gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw), are subject to breast and thigh, then chullin, which are subject to priestly gifts, how much more so should they be subject to breast and thigh! It is, therefore, written "And this (shoulder, cheeks, and maw) shall be the judgment of the Cohanim."

(Devarim 23:22) "If you make a vow to the L-rd, you shall not delay to pay it": It is written here "a vow," and elsewhere (Vayikra 7:16) "a vow." Just as there, "a vow or a pledge (nedavah)," so, here, a vow or a pledge. And just as with the vow here, "you shall not delay to pay it," so, with the vow there, you shall not delay to pay it.

"from your hand": We are hereby apprised that the bikkurim require "lifting." (viz. Vayikra 7:30). These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov. "and he shall place it before the altar of the L-rd your G-d": So long as there is an altar (i.e., a Temple), there are bikkurim; where there is no altar, there are no bikkurim.