Midrash su Levitico 4:36

(Lev. 12:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, SAYING: WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE. This text is related (to Job 29:2): O THAT I WERE AS IN THE MONTHS OF OLD, AS IN THE DAYS WHEN GOD WATCHED OVER ME! In regard to this verse, Job spoke it when the afflictions had come upon him.¹Tanh., Lev. 4:1. He said: O THAT I WERE [AS IN THE MONTHS OF OLD], and would that I had the days which I had when I was in my mother's belly! AS IN THE DAYS WHEN GOD WATCHED OVER ME! < These words > teach that the infant is watched over while it is in its mother's belly.

1) (Vayikra 4:11): "And the skin of the bullock and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs and its innards and its dung. (Vayikra 4:12): And he shall take the entire bullock (outside the camp)": We are hereby taught that he takes it out entirely intact.

1) (Vayikra 4:11): "And the skin of the bullock and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs and its innards and its dung. (Vayikra 4:12): And he shall take the entire bullock (outside the camp)": We are hereby taught that he takes it out entirely intact.

1) (Vayikra 4:13): "And if (the whole congregation of Israel err"): "And if" "adds" (i.e., is secondary) to what precedes, (the section of the high-priest), so that if the bullock of the high-priest and the bullock of the congregation are awaiting (sacrifice), the first takes precedence in all services.

1) (Vayikra 4:15): "And the elders of the congregation (shall place their hands upon the head of the bullock"): I might think old people from the marketplace; it is, therefore, written: "the elders of the congregation" (i.e., beth-din). If "the elders of the congregation," I might think all the elders in the congregation (i.e., even the beth-din of twenty-three); it is, therefore, written "the congregation," the distinctive of the congregation (i.e., the Great Sanhedrin).

1) (Vayikra 4:2): ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul, if he sin, etc.) "A soul" (is juxtaposed with) "the children of Israel" (indicating that) the congregation is like the individual, viz.: Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the congregation, (who acted upon a mistaken ruling of beth-din).

1) (Vayikra 4:2): "Speak to the children of Israel": The children of Israel bring a sin-offering, but gentiles do not. It goes without saying that (they do not bring a sin-offering) for (transgression of) a mitzvah not binding on the sons of Noach, but (they do not bring it) even for one that is binding upon them. "the children of Israael": This tells me only of the children of Israel. Whence do we derive that proselytes and bondsmen are included? From (Vayikra 4:2): "A soul if he sin."

1) Now that we have included things which are like idolatry and things which are not like idolatry, why is idolatry singled out (as the parameter? Viz.: (Bamidbar 15:29): "One Torah (similar to that for idolatry shall there be for you, etc.")? It must be to tell us: Just as idolatry is characterized by intentional transgression being liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, so, all acts liable to kareth for intentional transgression are liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression.

1) (Vayikra 4:22): "If (asher) a leader (nassi) sin ["asher," similar to "ashrei" ("fortunate")]: R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said: Fortunate is the generation whose nassi brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin. If he brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin, how much more so (is he contrite over) his deliberate sin. And if his nassi brings a sin-offering, how much more so is he (the common man) moved to bring a sin-offering (for his sin)! "a nassi": I might think the nassi of a tribe, like Nachshon; it is, therefore, written: "And he do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d," and, elsewhere, (in respect to a king) (Devarim 17:19): "so that he may learn to fear the L–rd his G d." Just as there, the nassi is one who has no one above him but the L–rd his G d, so, here. (Scripture speaks of) a nassi who has no one over him but the L–rd his G d (i.e., a king).

1) (Vayikra 4:23): "… then he shall bring (his offering a kid of goats, a male without blemish"): even after Yom Kippur, (the Yom Kippur goat not exempting him from this offering, for which he remains liable.) "his offering": He fulfills his obligation with his offering and not with that of his (deceased) father.

1) (Vayikra 4:23) ("If his sin becomes known to him wherein he has sinned in it"): "becomes known" — and not that others tell him. If not for this clause I would say (that he does not bring a sin-offering) only if his bondswoman, (who is "not fit to enter the congregation") informs him (that he has sinned). Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife informing him? I would exclude his wife (even without the clause), for a woman is not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for relatives informing him? I would exclude relatives, who are not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for a single witness? I would exclude a single witness, who can only make one liable for an oath. Whence would I exclude even two witnesses? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not exclude them otherwise): "becomes known to him" — and not that others tell him.

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

1) (Vayikra 4:25): ("And the Cohein shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger.") "with his finger .. and he shall take" (i.e., "with his finger" applies to "and he shall take") — that he take with his right ([index] finger [this being derived by identity from the instance of a leper]). "with his finger" and he shall place" ("it on the horns of the altar") — that he place with his right (finger, "with his finger" applying also to "and he shall place.") R. Shimon said: Is it written ("And he shall take with his) "hand"? (or "finger" [that we may derive "right" by identity from the instance of a leper? R. Shimon holds that a phrase, (in this instance "with his finger") is expounded proactively (as applying only to "and he shall place," and not retroactively (as applying to "and he shall take.")]. And since "hand" (more specifically, "finger") is not written (in respect to "and he shall take"), if he takes it with his left, it is kasher. "and he shall place it on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering" — and not on the horns of the inner altar. For (without the exclusion clause) would it not follow (that he should place it on the horns of the inner altar), viz.: The high-priest is distinct from the (lay) individual (in that he brings a bullock), and the nassi (is distinct from) the individual (in that he brings a he-goat). Just as with the high-priest, the blood of his sin-offering enters within (the heichal), so with the sin-offering of the nassi, the blood of his sin-offering should enter within. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "and he shall place it on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering" — and not on the horns of the inner altar.

1) (Vayikra 4:27): ("And if a single soul sin unwittingly of the people of the land in doing it …"): "soul," "single," "in doing it": These (expressions are redundant [in the Hebrew] and) signal (three) exclusions. (One exclusion:) One who acts on his own is liable (for a sin-offering), and not one who acts on the ruling of beth-din.

1 (Vayikra 4:28): "If his sin becomes known to him (wherein he sinned"): And not if others tell him. I might think even if he does not refute (them); it is, therefore, written (to negate this): "if it becomes known."

1 (Vayikra 4:28): "If his sin becomes known to him (wherein he sinned"): And not if others tell him. I might think even if he does not refute (them); it is, therefore, written (to negate this): "if it becomes known."

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

1) (Vayikra 4:3): ("If the anointed Cohein shall sin) to the guilt of the people.": The high-priest is being compared to the congregation. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) only where (beth-din) erred (in the ruling), and they sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling), so, the high-priest brings (a sin-offering) only where he erred (in ruling for himself) and he sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling)(Why the inclusion clause for the high-priest?) Does it not follow naturally? viz.: The congregation is distinct from the individual (in its offering), and the high-priest is distinct from the individual. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) upon error in ruling and deed-unwittingness, so, the high-priest.

1) (Vayikra 10:16): "And for the goat of the sin-offering Moses inquired, inquired, and, behold, it was burned": "the goat": This is the goat of Nachshon (Bamidbar 7:16, for the consecration of the altar); "the sin-offering": This is the sin-offering of the eighth day (of miluim, Vayikra 4:3);

1) (Vayikra 4:3): ("then he shall offer a) bullock." I might think (he could offer) even an old one; it is, therefore, written "ben" (connoting a young one.) If "ben" alone were written, I might think it meant a very young one (i.e., one or two years old); it is, therefore, written "bullock. What satisfies this? A three-year-old. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Four and five-year olds are also kasher, but old ones are not brought, out of deference (to the L–rd).

1) (Vayikra 4:32): ("And if a lamb he shall bring as his offering for a sin-offering, a female without blemish shall he bring it.") What is the intent of (the redundant) "he shall bring"? Whence is it derived that if one sets aside his sin-offering and it is lost, and he sets aside a different one in its stead, and then the first one is found, and both are standing before him — whence is it derived that he may offer whichever he likes? From: "he shall bring" - "he shall bring." I might think that he may bring both; it is, therefore, written: "he shall bring it" — he brings (only) one and not two.

1) (Vayikra 4:4): "And he shall bring (the bullock to the door of the tent of meeting."): even after Yom Kippur (i.e., Yom Kippur does not atone for those liable for categorical sin-offerings and guilt-offerings). "bullock": he brings a bullock and not an alternate (offering [i.e., a she-goat], as a [lay] individual may.)

1) (Vayikra 4:8): "And all the fat of the bullock (of the sin-offering he shall remove from it"): "the bullock": to include the fat of the Yom Kippur bullock for (sacrifice along with) the two kidneys and the lobe above the liver. "the sin-offering": to include the Yom Kippur goats for all of the particulars mentioned here. "he shall remove from it": he shall remove it while it is (still) attached (and not cut the meat before removing the devoted portions.)

Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED. This text is related (to Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE, < AND YOU HAVE LAID YOUR HAND UPON ME >. The text speaks of the first Adam.⁴Tanh., Lev. 4:1; cf. Gen. R. 8:1; 14:5; Lev. R. 14:1; M. Pss. 139:6. [R. Johanan] said: It is written about him that there were two creations. There is a double Y (i.e., a double yod in Gen. 2:7): THE LORD GOD FORMED (YYTsR) THE HUMAN. One formation is in this world, and one is for the world to come. But in the case of cattle, wild beasts, and birds, for them < only > one formation is written (without a double Y in Gen. 2:19): SO OUT OF THE EARTH THE LORD GOD FORMED (YTsR) ALL THE WILD BEASTS OF THE FIELD < AND ALL THE BIRDS OF THE HEAVENS >. It therefore says (in Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE. R. Simeon ben Laqish says: BEHIND (in the sense of what comes afterwards) < refers > to an event of the sixth day, and BEFORE < refers > to an event of the first day. What is the reason? {Resh Laqish said} [Thus has R. Simeon ben Laqish said] (in Gen. 1:2): AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS HOVERING OVER THE FACE OF THE WATERS. This SPIRIT was the soul of the first Adam. It therefore says (in Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE. BEHIND < refers > to an event of the sixth day, and BEFORE < refers > to an event of the first day. R. Eleazar ben Pedat says: BEHIND < refers > to an event of the sixth day, and BEFORE < refers > to an event of the sixth day. How so? Because the Holy One created six things on the sixth day. They were these: (1) The soul, (2) wild beasts, (3) cattle, (4) creeping things, (5) beasts of the earth, and (6) Adam and Eve. Now Adam's soul was created first, as stated (in Gen. 1:24): LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH A LIVING SOUL. LIVING SOUL can only be the soul of Adam, since it is stated (in Gen. 2:7): AND THE HUMAN (adam) BECAME A LIVING SOUL. Hence, BEFORE < refers > to the < first > event of the sixth day, and BEHIND < refers > to the sixth day, since < the Holy One > was occupied with him all of the sixth day. Ergo (in Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE. BEHIND < refers > to an event of the sixth day, and BEFORE < refers > to an event of the sixth day. R. Samuel bar Nahman said: What is the meaning of BEHIND AND BEFORE? Having two faces, male and female. Hence it says (in Ps. 139:5): YOU HAVE FORMED ME BEHIND AND BEFORE.⁵Ber. 61a; ‘Eruv. 18a. Adam said: After the Holy One had created all the cattle and wild beasts, he created me. So it is with the infant. Before it comes forth from its mother's belly, the Holy One commands it: Eat of this, do not eat of that, (in Lev. 11:29:) THIS SHALL BE UNCLEAN FOR YOU. Then after it takes upon itself in its mother's belly all the commandments which are in the Torah, < only > after that it is born. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE.

2) (Vayikra 4:10): "as it is removed from the ox of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings": What is explicit in "the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" which is not explicit here? But (the understanding is): Just as peace-offerings must be intended as such (lishmah), this, too, must be lishmo; just as peace-offerings (shelamim) bring peace (shalom) to the world, this, too, brings peace to the world.

2) I might think that he takes it out whole and burns it whole; it is, therefore, written: "its head and its legs." Just as head and legs mentioned elsewhere (in respect to a burnt-offering) have been severed (see Vayikra 1:6), so, here, they must be severed (before they are burned). — But (why not say): Just as head and legs there have been flayed, so, here, too, they must be flayed! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "and its innards and its dung" (Just as the dung is in its innards, so, the flesh must be "in its innards, i.e., attached to the skin, unflayed.)

2) "the congregation of Israel": I might think the entire congregation is being referred to; it is, therefore, written here "congregation" and elsewhere (Numbers 35:24 and Numbers 35:25) "congregation." Just as a "congregation" there refers to beth-din, so, "congregation" here refers to beth-din. If so, I might think that just as "congregation" there refers to (a beth-din of) twenty-three, so, "congregation" here. It is, therefore, written: "the congregation of Israel." — the congregation which is "distinctive" in Israel. Which one is that? The Great Sanhedrin (of seventy-one), which sits in the lishkath hagazith (the "chamber of hewn stone").

2) And how many (elders) are they? "And they shall place" — two; "elders" — two; beth-din cannot be equi-balanced (a condition which might result in a judicial stalemate) — (one is added), all together, five. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: "And the elders shall place" — two; beth-din cannot be equi-balanced — (one is added), all together, three.

2) "Moses inquired, inquired": This is the goat of Rosh Chodesh (Nissan). I might think that all three were burned; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "and, behold it was burned" — one was burned and not all three. What is the intent of "Moses inquired, inquired" — two inquiries: Why was this one burned and why were the others eaten (i.e., if you were concerned about aninuth for Nadav and Avihu, you should have burned all of them; and if not, you should have eaten all of them!) I would not know which was burned if it were not written (Vayikra 4:17): "and He has given it to you to forgive the sin of the congregation to make atonement for them." Which goat forgives the sin of the congregation? The Rosh Chodesh goat, as it is written (in that regard): "and one goat for a sin-offering to make atonement for you."

2) "unwittingly": He brings it only for unwitting (transgression), but not for intentional (transgression). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is the exclusion clause necessary?), viz.: If in respect to the grave sin of idolatry, (where one would expect that a sin-offering should be brought for intentional transgression to help expiate the sin), intentional sin was not likened to unwitting sin, (a sin-offering being brought for the latter [see Bamidbar 15:27] but not for the former), should it not follow that with lesser mitzvoth intentional sin should not be likened to unwitting sin, (and a sin-offering not be brought for the former? [Why, then, the exclusion clause?]) — But that is just the point! If (atonement) for the grave sin of intentional idolatry is delayed until Yom Kippur, (a sin-offering not being able to atone for it), would you put off (possible atonement for) intentional (transgression of) lesser mitzvoth until Yom Kippur? Let him bring a sin-offering and gain atonement immediately! It is, therefore, written (in respect to lesser mitzvoth): "if he sin unwittingly." He brings (a sin-offering) for unwitting sin but not for intentional sin.

2) — But why not say: Just as idolatry is characterized by being liable to judicial death penalty, so, all acts thus liable are included (in liability for a sin-offering)! And what will I include? One who curses his father and mother, an inciter (to idolatry), a necromancer, a false prophet, and scheming witnesses. — (These are not included for it is written (Vayikra 4:22): "And he do (… unwittingly"), to exclude those (transgressions) where there is no act.

2) (Why the inclusion clause for the congregation?) Does it not follow by kal vachomer? viz.: If the individual, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, i.e., unawareness that the deed is forbidden), brings it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth — the congregation, which does not bring it for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of a mistaken ruling of beth-din), how much more so should they bring it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth! — No, this may be so with the individual, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (i.e., for possibly having sinned unwittingly), as opposed to the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (e.g., the festival and Rosh Chodesh goats, which atone for possible unwitting defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects). — This is refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (the Yom Kippur bullock), and yet brings a sin-offering only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth.

2) — But why not say: Just as idolatry is characterized by being liable to judicial death penalty, so, all acts thus liable are included (in liability for a sin-offering)! And what will I include? One who curses his father and mother, an inciter (to idolatry), a necromancer, a false prophet, and scheming witnesses. — (These are not included for it is written (Vayikra 4:22): "And he do (… unwittingly"), to exclude those (transgressions) where there is no act.

2) Why "(If) a nassi shall sin" (instead of "sinned")? For otherwise I might think that he must bring (a he-goat) for (unwitting transgressions committed) prior to his appointment. But (why the exclusion clause?) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he should not bring a he-goat?), viz.: If the high-priest, who brings his sin-offering (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, does not bring (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) prior to his appointment — a nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) for (sins committed) after removal from office, how much more so should he not bring it for (sins committed) prior to his appointment! — No, this may be so with the high-priest, who does not bring (his sin-offering, a bullock,) for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of ruling mistakenly for himself), as opposed to a nassi, who does bring (his sin-offering, a he-goat,) for deed-unwittingness (alone). And since he does, I would think that he brings (a he-goat, too,) for prior sins; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): ("If a nassi) shall sin," after he is appointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.

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

2) I might think (that he does not bring a sin-offering) even if he does not refute (the witnesses, but remains silent). It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "if it becomes known." I would include (as making him liable for a sin-offering in such an instance, only) two witnesses, who can make him liable to the death penalty (where it applies). Whence would I derive (the same) even for one witness? I would include one witness (even without the clause), for he can make him liable for an oath (where it applies). Whence would I derive (the same) even for two relatives? I would include two relatives, who are kasher to testify for others. Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife? even for his bondswoman? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not include these otherwise): "if it becomes known" (in any instance of his remaining silent).

2) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with an offering separated by his father for a (relatively) lesser sin, for a greater sin (of his own), or for a greater sin (of the father), for a lesser sin (of his own), but that he can fulfill his obligation with an offering separated by his father for a lesser sin, for a lesser sin (of his own), or for a greater sin (of the father), for a lesser sin (of his own). It is, therefore, written: "his offering": He fulfills his obligation (only) with his offering and not with that of his father.

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

2) And its (remaining) blood he shall pour at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering" — Apply (the law of) "base" (i.e., that the remainder is to be poured at the base) to the altar of the burnt-offering. (i.e., that the remainder of the blood of the burnt-offering is to be poured at the base.) (But perhaps it is meant to teach that the blood of the burnt-offering itself is to be applied [on the horns that are] in alignment with the base [to exclude the southeast corner, where there is no base]!) R. Yishmael said: (The verse is not needed for that, for) if the remainder (of the blood) of the sin-offering, which does not effect atonement is poured at the base, then the "beginning" blood of the burnt-offering (i.e., that applied to the horns) which does effect atonement, how much more so should it be applied at (i.e., in alignment with) the base! R. Akiva said: If the remainder of the sin-offering, which does not effect atonement and is not fit for atonement is poured at the base, then the "beginning" blood of the burnt-offering, which does effect atonement, and which is fit for atonement — how much more so must it be applied at (i.e., in alignment with) the base! What, then, is the intent of "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering" — that the law of "base" (i.e., pouring the remainder at the base) apply to the altar of the burnt-offering." "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering" — the southern base.

2) How so? If beth-din (mistakenly) ruled (that it is permitted) to transgress one of all the mitzvoth mentioned in the Torah, and an individual went and acted on their ruling — whether they themselves acted (on their ruling) and he acted with them, whether they acted and he acted after them, whether they did not act and he acted — I might think he is liable; it is, therefore, written: "soul," "single," "in doing it" — these are exclusions, (one of which relates to such an instance.) One who acts on his own is liable, and not one who acts on the ruling of beth-din.

2) "then he shall bring as his offering a kid of goats, a female without blemish": Whence is it derived that it must be of the first year? It follows viz.: He brings a sin-offering, and a leper brings a sin-offering. Just as the sin-offering of the leper is of the first year, so, this. — No, this may be so with the sin-offering of a leper, which requires libations, as opposed to this, which does not. — This is refuted by the Nazirite's sin-offering, which does not require libations, yet must be of the first year. — No, this may be so with the Nazirite's sin-offering, which has other "bloods" (i.e., offerings) along with it, as opposed to this, which does not. — This is refuted by the idolatry sin-offering, which does not have other "bloods" along with it, yet must be of the first year. — No, this may be so with the idolatry sin-offering, which is fixed (i.e., it must be a she-goat), as opposed to this, which is not fixed (i.e., it may be a lamb); and since it is not fixed, I might say that it need not be of the first year; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 15:29): "One law shall there be for you for him who does unwittingly." All unwitting sin-offerings are being compared to (that for) idolatry. Just as the idolatry sin-offering must be of the first year, so, this. — But (why not say): Just as the idolatry sin-offering is a she-goat, so, this, (the first-year requirement,) applies to a she-goat (and not to he-goats). — "shall be" (is superfluous) — to include (in the first-year requirement) the festival he-goats; "for you" — to include the idolatry he-goats (of the congregation); "for him who does" — to include the he-goat of the nassi.

2) — But why not go in this direction? The nassi is distinct from the individual, and the high-priest is distinct from the individual. Just as the nassi brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, without an error in ruling), so, the high-priest!

2) R. Yossi Haglili says (in connection with Bamidbar 8:8: "And they [the Levites] shall take a young bullock" [for a burnt-offering], "… and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"): What is the intent of "a second young bullock, etc."? Is it not already written (Bamidbar 8:12): "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd"? Why, then, repeat "And a second, etc."? The intent of "second" is "of the second year."

2) I might think that he may not bring both for two sins, but that he may bring both for one sin; it is, therefore, written: "he shall bring it" — he brings (only) one and not two.

2) For does it not follow (without the exclusion clause that he may bring an alternate), viz.: If the (lay) individual, whose offering for (unwitting sin) in respect to all the mitzvoth [i.e., a she-lamb] is not the same as his offering on Yom Kippur (i.e., the "dispatched" he-goat), (yet) his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (that of idolatry, for which he brings a she-goat, [in that he may also bring for all mitzvoth a she-goat as an alternate for the she-lamb]) — the high-priest, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (i.e., a bullock) is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur — how much more should it follow that his offering for all the mitzvoth be the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (i.e., that he should be permitted to bring a she-goat as an alternate for the bullock)! — This is refuted by (the instance of) the nassi, whose offering for all mitzvoth (a he-goat) is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur, in spite of which his offering for all mitzvoth is not the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (i.e., he was not permitted to bring for all mitzvoth a she-goat as an alternate for the he-goat).

[(Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE.] This text is related (to I Sam. 2:2): THERE IS NO HOLY ONE LIKE THE LORD, FOR THERE IS NONE BESIDE YOU. What is the meaning of FOR THERE IS NONE BESIDE YOU (BLTK, traditionally voweled as biltekha).⁶Tanh., Lev. 4:2. Simply this: A king of flesh and blood builds a palace,⁷Gk.: palatinos; Lat.: palatium. and his building outlasts (rt.: BLH) him; but the Holy One is outlasting the world, as it were, FOR THERE IS NONE OUTLASTING YOU (reading BLTK, voweled as ballotekha).⁸Meg. 14a. (I Sam. 2:2, cont.:) AND THERE IS NO ROCK (TsWR) LIKE OUR GOD. How so? Flesh and blood fashions (rt.: TsWR) an image (rt.: TsWR) upon the wall, but is he able to fashion (TsWR) it upon the water? The Holy One fashions (rt.: TsWR) the embryo in its mother's belly in the middle of water. Ergo (in I Sam. 2:2): AND THERE IS NO ROCK (TsWR) LIKE OUR GOD.

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

(Exod. 21:1:) AND THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES…. This text is related (to Ps. 147:19–20): HE DECLARES HIS WORDS TO JACOB, <HIS STATUTES AND ORDINANCES TO ISRAEL>. HE HAS NOT DONE SO FOR ANY NATION; <AND, AS FOR HIS ORDINANCES, THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN THEM>.¹¹Tanh., Exod. 6:5. Aquila the son of Hadrian's sister wanted to convert to Judaism, but he was afraid of his uncle Hadrian.¹²See Exod. R. 30:12. He said to him: I want to engage in a business. He said to him: Do you perhaps lack silver or gold? Here, you have the treasury¹³Gk.: thesauros. before you. He said to him: I want to engage in a business in order to gain knowledge of humanity, and I want to consult you on how to do it. He said to him: Go and engage in any business¹⁴Gk.: pragmateia. that you see established on earth, since in the end it will increase (hit'allah) <in value >. Now he intended to convert to Judaism. He came to the land of Israel and studied the Torah. When R. Eliezer and R. Joshua came to him after some time, they found him and saw his face transformed. They said to each other: Aquila has been studying the Torah. When they came to him, he began to ask them questions, and they would answer him. He went up to Hadrian. He said to him: Why is your face transformed? Has your business failed, or is someone troubling you? He told him: No. Then why has your face been transformed? He said to him: Because I have been studying Torah. And not only that, but I have been circumcised. He said to him: And who told you <to do so>? He said to him: I consulted with you. He said to him: When? He said to him: When I told you I wanted to engage in a business, you told me: Engage in any business that you see established on earth, since in the end it will increase (hit'allah) <in value>. So I went back over all the peoples and did not find <any> people established on earth like Israel. Now in the end they will be exalted (hit'allah), just as Isaiah has said (in Is. 49:7): THUS SAYS THE LORD, THE REDEEMER OF ISRAEL, HIS HOLY ONE, TO {ONE WHO DESPISES ONE's} [A DESPICABLE] SOUL, TO AN ABHORRENT NATION, TO A SLAVE OF RULERS: < KINGS SHALL SEE, AND NOBLES SHALL RISE UP. AND THEY SHALL PROSTRATE THEMSELVES ON ACCOUNT OF THE LORD, WHO IS FAITHFUL, EVEN THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL, BECAUSE HE HAS CHOSEN YOU.> His associate regent¹⁵Gk.: sygkathedros. said to him: Are these whom you have been annihilating going to be those before whom kings will stand, as stated (in Is. 49:7): KINGS SHALL SEE AND RISE UP; NOBLES ALSO SHALL PROSTRATE THEMSELVES? Hadrian hit him on the jaw. He said to him: One only puts a bandage on a wound. Would [someone] put it on sound flesh? Would he not put it on a wound? Now if one sees some common soldier,¹⁶Lat.: galearius (“solder’s servant,” “batman”). he does not stand in his presence.¹⁷The exact intent of the passage is doubtful. Enoch Zundel in his commentary, ‘Anaf Yosef, on the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 4:5, suggests that, as a bandage on a wound restores the flesh to normal without improving on it, so Israel may be restored to normal but not beyond to a position outranking kings. Similarly, the lowliest soldier may win promotion but will never outrank the emperor. Therefore, Hadrian need never fear the Jews. What did his associate regent do? He went up on the roof, fell down, and died. Thus the Holy Spirit cries out (in Jud. 5:31): SO SHALL ALL YOUR ENEMIES PERISH, O LORD. Hadrian said to Aquila: Why did you do this? He said to him: Because I wanted to learn Torah. He said to him: You could have learned it without becoming circumcised. He said to him: Without circumcising, one could not learn it, as stated (in Ps. 147:19): HE DECLARES HIS WORDS TO JACOB, [HIS STATUTES AND ORDINANCES (mishpatim) TO ISRAEL. TO JACOB:] To whoever from Jacob practices circumcision. HIS STATUTES: This means Torah. AND ORDINANCES: These are the laws. [Thus it is stated] (in Exod. 15:25): THERE HE ESTABLISHED FOR THEM [A STATUTE AND AN ORDINANCE (mishpat)]. The Holy One said to Moses: I have given them the Torah; you give them the ordinances (mishpatim). The Holy One said to them: If you desire to survive in this world, observe the ordinances (mishpatim), for {one} [a world] cannot survive without justice (mishpat). The generation of the flood would not have perished from the world, had they not transgressed against justice (mishpat). R. Eleazar ben Pedat said: What is written about them (in Job 4:20)? FROM MORNING TO EVENING THEY ARE SHATTERED; THEY PERISH FOREVER WITHOUT ANYONE NOTICING (rt.: SYM). Ergo (in Exod. 21:1): AND THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES (mishpatim) <THAT YOU SHALL SET (rt.: SYM) BEFORE THEM>.¹⁸See Gen. R. 26:6; 31:5; Exod. R. 30:13.

(Fol. 10) Our Rabbis were taught concerning the passage (Lev. 4, 22) When a ruler sinneth. This excludes [from being a ruler] one who was sick with leprosy, as it is said (II Kings 15, 5) And the Lord smote the King so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and he dwelt in a house of freedom. Since the passage says in the house of freedom, we understand that until then (until stricken) he was a slave (a king); as it happened when Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua, who were on a boat; the former had taken bread for food, and the latter had taken bread and fine flour for food. When the bread of Rabban Gamaliel was consumed by him he relied upon the fine flour of R. Joshua. Upon R. Gamaliel's question: "Were you then aware that there will be a delay in the journey that you took along the fine flour in reserve?" R. Joshua replied: "There is a star which appears once in seventy years that makes the captains of the ships err, and I thought perhaps it would appear now and make us err [I therefore took along extra food]." "You possess so much wisdom!" exclaimed Rabban Gamaliel, "and yet you are compelled to go on a ship to make your living." To which R. Joshua rejoined: "You are wondering about myself; how would you be surprised if you knew about two disciples of yours who are on the land, viz., R. Jochanan b. Gudgada and R. Elazar b. Chasma, who can figure out how many drops of water there are in the sea and nevertheless have no bread to eat and no garments to wear." Rabban Gamaliel then made up his mind to appoint them as officers. Upon his return he sent for them, but they did not appear; he sent again for them, and when they came he said to them: "Do you think that the appointment to which I am selecting you is lordship. (Ib. b.) Nay, slavery I give to you, as it is said (I Kin. 12, 7) And they spoke unto him saying, If thou wilt this day be a servant unto this people, etc."

(Fol. 36b) Our Rabbis were taught: How did the High-priest confess? "I have committed iniquities, transgressed, and sinned;" and so says Scripture regarding the scapegoat (Lev. 16, 21) And confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins. And this arrangement is also used by Moses (Ex. 34, 7) Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; so says R. Meir. The sages, however, say. Iniquities (Avonoth) refers to intentional transgressions; and so says Scripture (Num. 15, 31) That person shall be cut off, his iniquity (Avono) is upon him; transgressions (P'sha'im) refers to rebellion, and so says Scripture (II Kings 3, 7) The King of Moab hath rebelled (Pasha) against me. There is also another passage (Ib. 8, 22) Then did Libnah revolt in that time; sin (Chata'oth) refers to unintentional wrong (done in ignorance), and so says Scripture (Lev. 4, 2) If any person sin through ignorance (Yekheta). But, according to the sages, how is it possible that after he has confessed the intentional and rebellious sins, he will confess the unintentional? Therefore we must say that he said them in this order: I have sinned, committed iniquities, and transgressed. And so says David (Ps. 106, 6) We have sinned together with our fathers, ive have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly. And so also says Solomon (I Kings 8, 47; II Chr. 6) We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have acted wickedly. So also says Daniel (Dan. 9, 5) We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly, and we have rebelled. If so, then, why did Moses say (Ex. 34, 6) Forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin. Moses said thus to the Holy One, praised be He! "Sovereign of the Universe, when the children of Israel will sin before thee, and then repent, consider their conscious sins as mere inadvertant acts."

3) — But, then, why not say: Just as shelamim require separation of the fat-tail (for sacrifice), this, too, requires separation of the fat-tail! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "from the ox of the sacrifice" — I have likened it to the peace-offerings of an ox, (where there is no sacrifice of a fat-tail); I have not likened it to the peace-offerings of a sheep (where there is). R. Yehudah b. Shimon says: Just as shelamim bring peace to the world, so this brings peace to the world.

3) "And he shall take the entire bullock outside the camp": Outside the three camps, or outside one camp? When it is written in respect to the congregation (Vayikra 1:21): "And he shall take the bullock outside the camp" — let this ("outside the camp") not be stated, for it is already written (Vayikra 1:21): "and he shall burn it as he burned the first bullock." Why, then, is "outside the camp" stated? To add a second camp.

3) "And he shall take the entire bullock outside the camp": Outside the three camps, or outside one camp? When it is written in respect to the congregation (Vayikra 1:21): "And he shall take the bullock outside the camp" — let this ("outside the camp") not be stated, for it is already written (Vayikra 1:21): "and he shall burn it as he burned the first bullock." Why, then, is "outside the camp" stated? To add a second camp.

3) I would think that if one of them (the beth-din) were a convert or a mamzer or a Nathin or an elder who never had children, they would be liable; it is, therefore, written here "congregation," and elsewhere (Numbers, Ibid.) "congregation." Just as "congregation" there refers to (a beth-din where) all are fit to judge, so, "congregation" here.

3) "their hands" — the (two) hands of each one. "upon the head of the bullock": The bullock requires semichah, but the idolatry goats do not require semichah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: The bullock requires semichah by the elders; the idolatry goats do not require semichah by the elders, (but by the Cohein). For R. Shimon says: Every communal sin-offering whose blood enters within (to be sprinkled on the golden altar) requires semichah.

3) — But, in that case, should it not follow by kal vachomer that (a sin-offering not be brought for intentional) idolatry? (Why the exclusion clause? [Bamidbar 15:27]), viz.: If (atonement for) intentional (transgression of) lesser mitzvoth is delayed until Yom Kippur, (not being susceptible of atonement with a sin-offering), should not (atonement for) intentional (transgression of) the grave sin of idolatry be delayed until Yom Kippur? — Not so — if we are lenient with the lesser mitzvoth, (no sin-offering being required before Yom Kippur), should we be lenient with the grave sin of idolatry? Rather, let a sin-offering be brought (for intentional violation), and "keep things in abeyance" for him until (the complete atonement of) Yom Kippur. Therefore "unwittingly" must be stated both in respect to (transgression of other) mitzvoth and in respect to idolatry.

3) I would then exclude only those where there is no act, but not one who strikes his father and mother, one who kidnaps a Jew, an elder who rebels (by act) against beth-din, a rebellious son, and a murderer! It is, therefore, written (to create the parameter for sin-offering liability) "One Torah shall there be for you … and that soul (who serves idolatry) shall be cut off from the midst of his people." — All unwitting sins are being likened to idolatry. Just as idolatry is characterized by intentional transgression being liable to kareth ("cutting-off"), and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, so, all acts liable to kareth for intentional transgression are liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression, (and the aforementioned acts, not being liable to kareth for intentional transgression [but to judicial death penalty where there had been forewarning] are not liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression.)

3) — No, this may be so with the high-priest, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, on the outer altar, as opposed to the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, on the outer altar. And since it does so, let it (also) bring a sin-offering both for something, intentional violation of which is or is not liable to kareth! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "A soul," "the children of Israel." The congregation is like the individual. Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the congregation.

3) "And he shall take the entire bullock outside the camp": Outside the three camps, or outside one camp? When it is written in respect to the congregation (Vayikra 1:21): "And he shall take the bullock outside the camp" — let this ("outside the camp") not be stated, for it is already written (Vayikra 1:21): "and he shall burn it as he burned the first bullock." Why, then, is "outside the camp" stated? To add a second camp.

3) R. Shimon says: If it became known to him (that he had sinned) before he was appointed, and then he was appointed, he is liable (for the sin-offering of a lay person). And if it became known to him after he was appointed, he is (completely) exempt. "… a nassi shall sin": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written "asher he shall sin," (the connotation being) "when" (i.e., if) he shall sin.

3) R. Meir said (in refutation of the above [i.e., that even if two witnesses inform him and he refutes them he is not liable for a sin-offering]): If two witnesses can bring him to death — the severe (liability), can they not bring him to an offering — the lesser! R. Yehudah said (in refutation of R. Meir): (This is no kal vachomer, for) How can they tell him: "Stand and confess," when he says: "I have not sinned!" (i.e., Atonement is a "personal" matter, and if he does not wish it, witnesses cannot force him to it.) R. Shimon said (Also, in refutation of R. Meir's kal vachomer): If he said (to the witnesses): "I did it intentionally," he would not be liable (for a sin-offering, so that, ab initio, witnesses cannot "bring him" to a sin-offering).

3) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering with a beast that his father separated, from the lesser (of the father) to the greater (of his own), or from the greater to the lesser, or from the greater to the greater, or from the lesser to the lesser — for a son may not shave (after his Naziritism) by offering the beasts separated for his father's Naziritism — but that he does fulfill his obligation with the monies separated by his father from the lesser to the greater, from the greater to the lesser, from the lesser to the lesser, and from the greater to the greater — for he may shave by offering (beasts bought with) his father's monies when they were undesignated (i.e., how much for which offering), but not when they were designated. It is, therefore, written: "his offering": He fulfills his obligation with his offering and not with that of his father.

3) "… the sin-offering be slaughtered" is meant to include the sin-offering for defiling the sanctuary, which is a sin-offering that atones, comes from the flock, and comes for a known sin — though it is not male and not fixed (but sliding-scale). Or, the sin-offering of a Nazirite, which is a sin-offering that is fixed, atones, and comes from the flock — though not male, and not for a known sin. Since they are equally weighted, let them both be included. "… the sin-offering be slaughtered" is meant to include the sin-offering of a metzora, which, though not a fixed offering (but sliding-scale), effects atonement (and, unlike the goat of the nassi, is not male and does not come for a known sin.)

3) I might think it is the western base, (as it is in the case of inner sin-offerings), but this is to be negated. For just as we find that when he leaves the heichal he pours the (remaining) blood on the first base he chances on, (the western), so, in descending from the altar (after the blood applications of the outer sin-offering), he pours the (remaining) blood on the first base he chances on, (the southern).

3) And R. Shimon adds: If beth-din erred (and most of the congregation sinned unwittingly on the basis of their ruling), and then they found that they had erred and they retracted their ruling — whether they had brought their atonement or had not yet brought it — and an individual (not having heard of their retraction) sinned on the basis of their ruling, he is not liable, (R. Shimon regarding him as "depending" upon beth-din). R. Meir says that he is liable, (regarding him [after beth-din's retraction] as "depending" upon himself.) R. Eliezer says that it is not clear (whether he is regarded as one or the other [so that he brings an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering.)] Sumachos says: He (himself) is "suspended" (i.e., he is regarded as having brought an asham talui and need not fear afflictions). If one "depends" upon himself he is liable (for a sin-offering); if he "depends" upon beth-din he is not liable. How so? If beth-din ruled, and one of them (one of the judges) knew that they had erred — or if a "seasoned" disciple were sitting before them, who was himself fit to judge, one like Shimon ben Azzai — and he went and acted on their ruling — I might think he is not liable, (being regarded as "depending" on beth-din); it is, therefore, written: "in doing it": if one depends on himself ([as in the above instance, assuming that it is permitted to act on a mistaken ruling of beth-din], he is reckoned as "doing it" and) he is liable.

3) (Vayikra 4:29): "And he shall place his hand on the head of the sin-offering: to include the idolatry sin-offering (of the individual) as requiring semichah. "and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering:" It must be slaughtered in the north. "in the place of the burnt-offering. And he shall take": (The juxtaposition) indicates that the blood must be received in the north — whence it was derived: If he slaughtered it in the north and received it in the south; in the south, and he received it in the north, it is pasul. It must be slaughtered in the north and (the blood must be) received in the north.

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

3) Rebbi says: What is the intent of: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"? If to teach that they are two, it is already written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd." But, because it is written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd," I might think that the sin-offering takes precedence to the burnt-offering in all of its particulars; it is, therefore, written: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering." If that alone were written, I would think that the burnt-offering takes precedence to the sin-offering in all of its particulars; it is, therefore, written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd." How is this to be reconciled. The (sprinkling of) the blood of the sin-offering takes precedence to that of the burnt-offering, because it effects conciliation. The (burning of the) limbs of the burnt-offering takes precedence to the (burning of the) devoted portions of the sin-offering because all of them are burnt.

3) (Vayikra 4:33): "And he shall place his hand on the head of the sin-offering" — to include for semichah: the sin-offering of the Nazirite, of the leper, and of the defiler of the sanctuary. "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering" — expressly as a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:34): "And the Cohein shall take from the blood of the sin-offering" — expressly for a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:35): "And the Cohein shall atone for him for his sin" — expressly for his sin. — whence they said: If (in sacrificing a sin-offering), he did not slaughter it, or receive (the blood), or bring it (on the altar), or sprinkle it — to that end — it is pasul.

3) (Vayikra 4:33): "And he shall place his hand on the head of the sin-offering" — to include for semichah: the sin-offering of the Nazirite, of the leper, and of the defiler of the sanctuary. "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering" — expressly as a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:34): "And the Cohein shall take from the blood of the sin-offering" — expressly for a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:35): "And the Cohein shall atone for him for his sin" — expressly for his sin. — whence they said: If (in sacrificing a sin-offering), he did not slaughter it, or receive (the blood), or bring it (on the altar), or sprinkle it — to that end — it is pasul.

3) (Vayikra 4:33): "And he shall place his hand on the head of the sin-offering" — to include for semichah: the sin-offering of the Nazirite, of the leper, and of the defiler of the sanctuary. "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering" — expressly as a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:34): "And the Cohein shall take from the blood of the sin-offering" — expressly for a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:35): "And the Cohein shall atone for him for his sin" — expressly for his sin. — whence they said: If (in sacrificing a sin-offering), he did not slaughter it, or receive (the blood), or bring it (on the altar), or sprinkle it — to that end — it is pasul.

3) Here, too, then, do not wonder that the high-priest, even though his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur, still, his offering for all mitzvoth is not the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (and no exclusion clause is needed to tell us that he may not bring an alternate.) But, I might think that "And he shall bring" implies that he may bring an alternate; it is, therefore, written "bullock" — he brings a bullock and not an alternate.

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.)

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

"When a person incurs guilt accidentally by [transgressing one among] all of the commandments of YHVH": This is that of which the Bible says: "And indeed I have witnessed under the sun the place of judgment..." (Ecclesiastes 3:16). Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua [in conversation]...

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

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

ZEBACHIM (Fol. 41b) In the academy of R. Ishmael it was taught: Why does the passage mention (Lev. 4, 9) the lobe with the two kidneys, in connection with the bullock of the anointed priest, while concerning the bullock, offered for the congregation for an unconscious sin it does not mention them [lobe and kidneys]? This may be compared unto a frail king who became enraged at his friend, and yet minimized his sin because of his love. In another Baraitha, it was taught at the academy of R. Ishmael: Why does the passage mention (Ib.) the veil of the sanctuary, in connection with the bullock of the anointed priest, but does not mention it in connection with the bullock offered for the congregation for an unconscious sin? This may be compared unto a frail king against whom his people rebel; if only a minority rebels then the parliament remains in its power, but if the majority rebels then the parliament cannot remain.

"Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'A person who has transgressed...'." Rabbi Ishmael taught a parable [or "made a comparison"] to a king who had an orchard and in it had lovely first fruits. The king placed upon it guards, one lame and one blind. He said to them: 'Take care of these lovely first fruits.' After some days, the lame one said to the blind one, 'I see lovely first fruits in the orchard.' The blind one said to him, 'Bring them, and we will eat!' The lame one said to the blind one, '[I would] were I able to walk!' The blind one said, '[I would] were I able to see!' The lame one rode upon the back of the blind one, and they ate the first fruits, and they went and returned each man in his own place. After some days, the king entered that orchard. He said to them, 'Where are the beautiful first fruits?' The blind one said to him, 'My lord king, [I would] were I able to see!' The lame one said to him, '[I would] were I able to walk!' That king understood what they had done. He placed the the lame one on the back of the blind one and they began to walk." Thus, in the future, the Holy Blessing One will say to the soul, "Why did you transgress before Me?" It will say to him, "Master of the Universe! I did not sin. The body is the one who sinned! From the moment I left it I have been like a pure bird bursting into the air. How have I transgressed before You?" God will say to the body, "Why have you transgressed before Me?" The body will say to him, Master of the Universe! I did not sin. The soul is the one who sinned! From the moment that she left me, I have been tossed like a rock is thrown onto the ground. How would I have transgressed before you?!" What does the Holy Blessing One do to them? God brings the soul and throws it into the body and judges them together, as it is said, "He will call to the heavens above..." (Psalms 50: 4). God will call to the heavens above to bring the soul and to the earth to bring the body, and judge them together. Rabbi Hiyya [told a parable] compared this to a priest who had two wives, one a daughter of a priest and the other a daughter of a Levi...

Hezkiya taught (Jeremiah 50:17): "Israel are scattered sheep" - why are Israel likened to a sheep? Just as a sheep, when hurt on its head or some other body part, all of its body parts feel it. So it is with Israel when one of them sins and everyone feels it. (Numbers 16:22): "When one man sins [will You be wrathful with the whole community]." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai taught a parable: Men were on a ship. One of them took a drill and started drilling underneath him. The others said to him: What are sitting and doing?! He replied: What do you care. Is this not underneath my area that I am drilling?! They said to him: But the water will rise and flood us all on this ship. This is as Iyob said (Job 19:4): "If indeed I have erred, my error remains with me." But his friends said to him (Job 34:37): "He adds transgression to his sin; he extends it among us." [The men on the ship said]: You extend your sins among us. Rabbi Elasa said: a gentile asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha: In your Torah, it is written (Exodus 23:2): "After the multitude will you side." We are more numerous than you, so why don't you become like us in practicing idolatry? He [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha] said to him: Do you have children? He replied: You reminded me of my troubles. He asked: Why? [The gentile] said: I have many children. When they sit at my table, this one blesses to this god and that one blesses to that god, and they don't get up from the table until they wrack each other's brains. He [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha] said: Do you settle [the arguments] with them? He said: No. He [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha] said: Before you make us agree with you, find agreement with your own children! [The gentile] was spurned and went away. After he left [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha's] students said to him: Rabbi! You pushed him away like a broken reed, but what would you answer for us? He said to them: Six souls are about written [in the Torah] about Esau, and "souls" [nefashot] is written in the plural, as stated (Genesis 36:6): "Esau took his wives, his sons and daughters, and all the souls of his household." For Yaakov, however, there were seventy souls, and soul [nefesh] is written [in the Torah] in the singular. As it is stated (Exodus 1:5): "And all of the people [nefesh] that were of Jacob's issue, etc." Because Esau worshipped many gods, it is written many "souls," but for Yaakov--who worshipped one God--it is written one soul, "And all of the people [nefesh], etc."

And what did David see in his soul to be praising to the Holy One, blessed be He? But [David] said: this soul fills the body, as the Holy One, blessed be He fills His world. As it is written: (Jeremiah 23:24): "Do I not fill both heaven and earth —declares the LORD." Come, the soul that fills the body, and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, who fills the whole world. This soul supports the body, as the Holy One, blessed be He, supports His world. As it is written: (Isaiah 46:4): "I was the Maker, and I will be the Bearer; And I will support [you]." Come, the soul that supports the body, and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, who supports His world.

Our Rabbis were taught: Four [depressive] cries did the Temple court utter: First, "Go forth from here ye sons of Eli who have defiled the Temple of God." The second cry the Temple court uttered, "Go forth from here Issachar, the man of the village Barkai, who honors himself but desecrated the holiness of God." What did he do? He used to wrap silk around his hands and perform the divine service. Again the Temple court cried: "Raise your heads, O ye gates and let Ishmael b. Piachi, disciple of Phineas, enter and serve as High-priest." Another cry the Temple court uttered: "Raise your heads, O ye gates, and let Jochanan, the son of Narbai, the disciple of Phinkai, enter and let him fill his stomach with the sacerdotal food of God." It is related of Jochanan, the son of Narbai, that he would consume three hundred calves in his meal, drink three hundred jars of wine, and devour forty Se'ahs of young pigeons as a dessert for his meal. It was related that never during the life of Jochanan, the son of Narbai, was any part [of the sacerdotal] meat left over. What was the end of Issachar, he of the village of Barkai? It is related that at one time the king and the queen had a dispute as to which meat was better; the king said that the meat of a kid is better and the queen said the meat of a sheep. So it was suggested that a decision should be given by the High-priest, who ought to know because of the sacrifices [of every kind] made every day. Thereupon he appeared before them. "If a kid were the best," said he, waving his hand, "it would be used for the daily sacrifices, [and not lambs which are to be used]." So the king said: "Because he showed no respect for the throne [in waving his hand so freely] his right hand shall be cut off." Isaachar, having bribed the executioner, had his left hand taken off, instead. When the king became aware of this, he ordered that the right hand be cut off also [thus Issachar lost both hands]. "Blessed be the Lord," remarked R. Joseph, "who caused Issachar, the man of the village Barkai, to receive his due recompense in this world." R. Ashi said: "Issachar, he of the village Barkai, never learned our Mishnah, for we are taught that R. Simon says: 'Lamb sacrifices are always preferable to other sacrifices of kids.' One might say so because lamb meat is better; therefore, after the kid offering is mentioned it is added (Lev. 4, 33) And if a lamb, etc. From this we infer that they are equal in taste." Rabina said: "He did not even read the Scripture, where it is written (Ib. 3, 2) If a sheep or a kid is his offering, i.e., if he wants to bring a lamb, he may do so; and if he wants to bring a kid he may do so."

4) — But why not say: Just as the sacrifice of communal peace-offerings overrides the Sabbath and tumah (ritual uncleanliness [i.e., they are sacrificed even where tumah obtains]), this, too, should override the Sabbath and tumah! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "from the ox of the sacrifice" — I have likened it to the peace-offerings of an ox; I have not likened it to the peace-offerings of a sheep.

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

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

4) (Vayikra 4:2): ("If he sin unwittingly … and he do" [(If it now followed)] "one (of these"), I might think that he is not liable (for forbidden Sabbath labor) until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve; it is, therefore, written (instead of "one of these") "of one of these." (i.e., even part of one). If (only) "of one" (were written) I might think (that he is liable) even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one strand, even if he made only one link of a sieve or a basket; it is, therefore, written (in the other instances of unwitting sin [Vayikra 4:13, Vayikra 4:22, Vayikra 4:27]): "… do one." How is this to be reconciled? (He is not liable) until he writes a small name "from" a big name, e.g., "Shem," from (the intended) "Shimon" or "Shmuel"; "Noach," from "Nachor"; "Dan," from "Daniel"; "Gad," from "Gadiel."

4) I might think that if the mufla (the "chief justice") of beth-din were absent, or that if one of them said: "I do not know," or "you are mistaken," they are liable; it is, therefore, written: "… the congregation of Israel err" — They are not liable (for a sin-offering) until the entire (beth-din) rules (in error).

4) "And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd" — in the north. It is written here (Vayikra 4:17): "before the parocheth," and elsewhere, (Vayikra 4:6): "before the parocheth." Just as "parocheth" there is "before the parocheth of the holiness" (i.e., in alignment with the staves of the ark), so, "parocheth" here is before the parocheth of the holiness.

4) "And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd" — in the north. It is written here (Vayikra 4:17): "before the parocheth," and elsewhere, (Vayikra 4:6): "before the parocheth." Just as "parocheth" there is "before the parocheth of the holiness" (i.e., in alignment with the staves of the ark), so, "parocheth" here is before the parocheth of the holiness.

4) (Vayikra 4:2): ("If he sin unwittingly … and he do" [(If it now followed)] "one (of these"), I might think that he is not liable (for forbidden Sabbath labor) until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve; it is, therefore, written (instead of "one of these") "of one of these." (i.e., even part of one). If (only) "of one" (were written) I might think (that he is liable) even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one strand, even if he made only one link of a sieve or a basket; it is, therefore, written (in the other instances of unwitting sin [Vayikra 4:13, Vayikra 4:22, Vayikra 4:27]): "… do one." How is this to be reconciled? (He is not liable) until he writes a small name "from" a big name, e.g., "Shem," from (the intended) "Shimon" or "Shmuel"; "Noach," from "Nachor"; "Dan," from "Daniel"; "Gad," from "Gadiel."

4) Why is "unwittingly" written both in respect to "se'ir" (the male kid brought by a nassi [a leader (Bamidbar 4:22)]), and "se'irah" (the female kid brought by an individual [Bamidbar 4:27])? (i.e., Why is one not deduced from the other [to exclude a sin-offering for intentional sin])? For there is that in se'ir which is not in se'irah, and that in se'irah which is not in se'ir. Se'ir is used extensively as a communal offering, as opposed to se'irah, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'irah, that would not exclude se'ir as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Se'irah is used exclusively (by the individual [whether nassi, commoner, or high-priest] for atonement of) idolatry, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'ir, that would not exclude se'irah as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Therefore, "unwittingly" must be written both in respect to "se'ir" and "se'irah."

4) The same applies to the high-priest, viz.: Does it not follow by kal vachomer, viz.: If the individual, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), brings it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable for kareth — the high-priest, who does not bring it for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of ruling mistakenly for himself), how much more so should he bring it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth! — No, this may be so with the individual, who does not bring a sin-offering for compete unawareness, as opposed to the high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness. — This is refuted by (the instance of) the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, and yet brings a sin-offering only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth.

4) (Vayikra 4:2): ("If he sin unwittingly … and he do" [(If it now followed)] "one (of these"), I might think that he is not liable (for forbidden Sabbath labor) until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve; it is, therefore, written (instead of "one of these") "of one of these." (i.e., even part of one). If (only) "of one" (were written) I might think (that he is liable) even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one strand, even if he made only one link of a sieve or a basket; it is, therefore, written (in the other instances of unwitting sin [Vayikra 4:13, Vayikra 4:22, Vayikra 4:27]): "… do one." How is this to be reconciled? (He is not liable) until he writes a small name "from" a big name, e.g., "Shem," from (the intended) "Shimon" or "Shmuel"; "Noach," from "Nachor"; "Dan," from "Daniel"; "Gad," from "Gadiel."

4) Why is "unwittingly" written both in respect to "se'ir" (the male kid brought by a nassi [a leader (Bamidbar 4:22)]), and "se'irah" (the female kid brought by an individual [Bamidbar 4:27])? (i.e., Why is one not deduced from the other [to exclude a sin-offering for intentional sin])? For there is that in se'ir which is not in se'irah, and that in se'irah which is not in se'ir. Se'ir is used extensively as a communal offering, as opposed to se'irah, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'irah, that would not exclude se'ir as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Se'irah is used exclusively (by the individual [whether nassi, commoner, or high-priest] for atonement of) idolatry, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'ir, that would not exclude se'irah as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Therefore, "unwittingly" must be written both in respect to "se'ir" and "se'irah."

4) "and he do one (of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d"): to make him liable for (a sin-offering) for each one. How so (If he unwittingly ate) two (olive-size pieces of) cheilev (forbidden fat): If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods [forgetfulness of its being forbidden], or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly ate) cheilev and blood, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed) two transgressions liable to burning:

4) R. Meir says (in answer to R. Shimon): If he says in the beginning (to the witnesses who testified that he sinned): "I sinned intentionally," he is believed (not to bring a sin-offering), but if he disputed with them the whole day (saying that he had not committed the sin at all), and at the end he said: "I sinned intentionally," he is not believed (and must bring a sin-offering as having sinned unwittingly).

4) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering, even with monies that his father separated, and even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — but that he does fulfill it with an offering that he separated for himself, even from the greater to the lesser or the lesser to the greater. It is, therefore, written: (Vayikra 4:28): "his offering … for his sin" — It must be (separated) for that sin.

4) Now that we have included (as requiring "north") things that are similar to it (the goat of the nassi) and things that are not similar to it, why is this (requirement) specified (in the instance of the nassi)? To make it a categorical requirement — that if it is not slaughtered in the north it is pasul.

4) "and all of its [remaining] blood he shall pour (at the base of the altar."). And above (Vayikra 4:25) it is written: "and its [remaining] blood he shall pour" — whence it is derived: a sin-offering whose blood was received in four vessels, from each of which he applied (blood at a different corner of the altar) — how do we know that they are all poured out at the foundation, (and not just the first, which effects atonement)? From: "and all of its blood he shall pour."

4) (Vayikra 4:26): "And all of its fat he shall smoke upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." What is removed in the sacrifice of the peace-offerings? The fat that is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled, and the two kidneys and the lobe. Here, too, (the same is removed).

4) Why is "unwittingly" written both in respect to "se'ir" (the male kid brought by a nassi [a leader (Bamidbar 4:22)]), and "se'irah" (the female kid brought by an individual [Bamidbar 4:27])? (i.e., Why is one not deduced from the other [to exclude a sin-offering for intentional sin])? For there is that in se'ir which is not in se'irah, and that in se'irah which is not in se'ir. Se'ir is used extensively as a communal offering, as opposed to se'irah, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'irah, that would not exclude se'ir as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Se'irah is used exclusively (by the individual [whether nassi, commoner, or high-priest] for atonement of) idolatry, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'ir, that would not exclude se'irah as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Therefore, "unwittingly" must be written both in respect to "se'ir" and "se'irah."

4) (Vayikra 4:2): ("If he sin unwittingly … and he do" [(If it now followed)] "one (of these"), I might think that he is not liable (for forbidden Sabbath labor) until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve; it is, therefore, written (instead of "one of these") "of one of these." (i.e., even part of one). If (only) "of one" (were written) I might think (that he is liable) even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one strand, even if he made only one link of a sieve or a basket; it is, therefore, written (in the other instances of unwitting sin [Vayikra 4:13, Vayikra 4:22, Vayikra 4:27]): "… do one." How is this to be reconciled? (He is not liable) until he writes a small name "from" a big name, e.g., "Shem," from (the intended) "Shimon" or "Shmuel"; "Noach," from "Nachor"; "Dan," from "Daniel"; "Gad," from "Gadiel."

4) You say that the exclusions — "soul," "single," "in doing it" — were stated for the above. But perhaps they were stated to affirm that only one individual who sinned unwittingly is liable, but two or three who did so are not liable. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "the people of the land" — even if they are many.

4) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering, even with monies that his father separated, and even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — but that he does fulfill it with an offering that he separated for himself, even from the greater to the lesser or the lesser to the greater. It is, therefore, written: (Vayikra 4:28): "his offering … for his sin" — It must be (separated) for that sin.

4) "and all of its [remaining] blood he shall pour (at the base of the altar."). And above (Vayikra 4:25) it is written: "and its [remaining] blood he shall pour" — whence it is derived: a sin-offering whose blood was received in four vessels, from each of which he applied (blood at a different corner of the altar) — how do we know that they are all poured out at the foundation, (and not just the first, which effects atonement)? From: "and all of its blood he shall pour."

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

4) R. Shimon says: What is the intent of: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"? If to teach that they are two, is it not already written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd"? — I might think that this sin-offering is to be eaten; it is, therefore, written: "and a second bullock" — second to the burnt-offering. Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so this sin-offering is not eaten."

4) "and all of its [remaining] blood he shall pour (at the base of the altar."). And above (Vayikra 4:25) it is written: "and its [remaining] blood he shall pour" — whence it is derived: a sin-offering whose blood was received in four vessels, from each of which he applied (blood at a different corner of the altar) — how do we know that they are all poured out at the foundation, (and not just the first, which effects atonement)? From: "and all of its blood he shall pour."

4) (Vayikra 4:35): "And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." What is removed in the sacrifice of the peace-offerings? The fat that is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled, and the two kidneys and the lobe. Here, too, (the same is removed).

4) (Vayikra 4:4): "And he shall place his hand on the head of the bullock" — to include the Yom Kippur bullock as requiring semichah. Now dos this not follow (without the inclusion clause), viz.: If this (offering), which does not require two confessions, and does not require "Ana" (I pray you, etc.", but only one confession, for his sin, at the time of semichah) — the Yom Kippur bullock, which does require two confessions (one for him alone, and one for him and his brother priests), and does require "Ana" — how much more so should it require semichah! — No, it may be so in this case, where the offering is for an ascertained sin, as opposed to the Yom Kippur bullock, where the offering is not for an ascertained sin (but for a possible one). And since this is the case, I might think that it does not require semichah; it is, therefore, written: "And he shall place his hand on the head of the bullock" — to include the Yom Kippur bullock as requiring semichah. "And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd" — in the north (as all other sin-offerings).

4) "And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd" — in the north. It is written here (Vayikra 4:17): "before the parocheth," and elsewhere, (Vayikra 4:6): "before the parocheth." Just as "parocheth" there is "before the parocheth of the holiness" (i.e., in alignment with the staves of the ark), so, "parocheth" here is before the parocheth of the holiness.

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

[Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED.] R. Judah [bar Simon] said: A woman's two haunches become like two haunches of stone, in order that she may have strength when she gives birth.¹⁷Tanh., Lev. 4:3; Exod. R. 1:14. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 1:16:) LOOK AT THE BIRTHSTOOL (literally: THE PAIR OF STONES).¹⁸In the context of Exodus, the midwives were to be looking for male children. Therefore they must have been looking for the child to emerge from the mother’s haunches and not at the birthstool. R. [Meir] said: The Holy One performs a miraculous act with the infant.¹⁹Lev. R. 14:3. How? Before the woman bears, she retains blood; after she gives birth, the blood departs to the breasts and becomes milk. Then the infant nurses on them. R. Abba bar Kahana said: The Holy One performs a miraculous act with the infant. How? When the funda {i.e., pouch}²⁰The Latin word means “moneybag”. is full with its mouth down, the coins are scattered; but the woman has her funda < with its opening > down, and the fetus is retained. Another interpretation: An animal walks about with the fetus in the midst of its belly; but a woman walks about erect with the fetus in the midst of her belly, and the Holy One preserves it.

“Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your loaf in the vinegar. She sat beside the reapers and he handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over” (Ruth 2:14).
“Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here.” Rabbi Yoḥanan interpreted this [verse] with six approaches. [According to one approach, this verse] is referring to David. “Come here [halom],” – draw near to kingship, as halom means nothing other than kingship, as it is written: “[King David came and he sat before the Lord and said: Who am I, my Lord God, and who is my household, that You have brought me to this point [halom]?” (II Samuel 7:18). “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Lord, do not rebuke me in Your wrath” (Psalms 6:2).¹⁸⁵This verse was stated by David. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rav Huna said: Those six months that David was fleeing from Avshalom are not included in the tally,¹⁸⁶Of the years of David’s reign. as he would gain atonement with a female goat like a commoner.¹⁸⁷A commoner brings a female goat as a sin-offering (Leviticus 4:27-28), whereas a king brings a male goat (Leviticus 4:22–23). Thus, Rav Huna is stating that during those six months David did not have the status of a king. “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “Now I know that the Lord has redeemed His anointed” (Psalms 20:7). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – [David] eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Solomon. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship, as it is stated: “Solomon's provision for one day was thirty kor of fine flour, and sixty kor of meal” (I Kings 5:2). “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are his sullied actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rabbi Yoḥai bar Ḥanina said: An angel in the image of Solomon descended and sat on his throne, and Solomon would circle among the entrances of Israel¹⁸⁸Seeking charity and say: “I am Kohelet , I was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12). What did one of them do? She gave him a bowl of grits and struck him on his head with a reed, and said to him: ‘Isn’t Solomon sitting on his throne, and [yet] you say: I am Solomon king of Israel?’ “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him. “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Hezekiah. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Isaiah said: Let them take a cake of figs [and spread it on the rash and he will live]” (Isaiah 38:21).¹⁸⁹The verse is stated regarding Hezekiah. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it says: “So said Hezekiah: A day of distress and chastisement” (Isaiah 37:3). “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He was exalted in the eyes of all nations thereafter” (II Chronicles 32:23). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Menashe. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – that he sullied his actions like vinegar due to his evil actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it is written: “The Lord spoke to Menashe and his people, but they would not pay heed. The Lord brought the officers of the army of the king of Assyria against them, and they took Menashe captive in manacles” (II Chronicles 33:10–11). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They were manacles of iron and bronze. Rabbi Levi bar Ḥayyata said: They made a bronze cauldron and kindled a fire beneath it. He was crying: ‘Idol so-and-so, idol so-and-so, rescue me!’ When he saw that they were of no avail to him at all, he said: ‘I remember that my father would read to me: “In your distress [all these things] will find you…For the Lord your God is a merciful God [He will not forsake you]” (Deuteronomy 4:30–31). I will cry to Him. If He answers, that is good; if He does not answer, everything is one, all the gods are the same.’ At that moment, the ministering angels arose and sealed all the supernal windows, and they said before Him: ‘Master of the Universe, a person who placed an idol in the Sanctuary, are You accepting him through repentance?’ He said to them: ‘If I do not accept him through repentance, I would thereby be locking the door before all penitents.’ What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He excavated an opening beneath His throne of glory, in a place that no angel has control. That is what is written: “He prayed to Him, He acceded to his entreaty [vaye’ater] and He heard his supplication” (II Chronicles 33:13). Rabbi Levi said: In Arabia, they call excavation atira. “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). With what did He return him? Rabbi Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Aḥa said: He returned him with the wind. This is what is said: He causes the wind to blow. “She ate, was sated, and left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, it is referring to the messianic king. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “He was pained by our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5). “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – his kingship is destined to be temporarily captured [litzod] from him, as it says: “I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for the war and the city will be captured” (Zechariah 14:2). “He handed her roasted grain” – it is destined to return to him, as it is stated: “He will smite the land with the rod of his mouth” (Isaiah 11:4). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Levi: Like the initial redeemer, so the ultimate redeemer. Just as the initial redeemer was revealed, and then was again concealed from them, and for how long was he concealed from them, for three months, as it is stated: “They encountered Moses and Aaron” (Exodus 5:20);¹⁹⁰The midrash interprets this as referring to the officers of the Israelites meeting Moses and Aaron after Moses returned from a three-month hiatus in Midyan. See Shemot Rabba 5:19, which similarly states that Moses departed to Midyan, but states that it was for six months. so too, the ultimate redeemer will be revealed to them and concealed from them. How long will he be concealed from them? Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of the Rabbis: Forty-five days; that is what is written: “From the time the daily offering is abolished…[one thousand two hundred and ninety days]” (Daniel 12:11), and it is written: “Happy is one who waits and it comes [to one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days]”(Daniel 12:12). These extra days, what are they? Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ketzarta in the name of Rabbi Yona: These are the forty-five days that Israel will gather and eat saltwort; that is what is written: “Who pick saltwort from the bushes.” (Job 30:4).
Where will he lead them?¹⁹¹Where will the messianic king lead the Jewish people? To the Judean Desert, as it is stated: “Behold, I will seduce her and I will lead her to the desert” (Hosea 2:16). [There is] one who says: To the wilderness of Siḥon and Og, as it is stated: “I will yet settle you in tents as in the days of the appointed times” (Hosea 12:10). Anyone who believes in him will live, and one who does not believe in him will go to the nations of the world and they will kill him. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: Ultimately, the Holy One blessed be He will appear to them and rain down manna for them, “and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Boaz, draw near and “eat of the bread,” this is the bread of the reapers. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar,” as it is the way of reapers to dip their loaves in vinegar. Rabbi Yonatan said: From here it is derived that one takes out sour foods to the threshing floors. “She sat beside the reapers,” she certainly sat alongside them.¹⁹²But not in their midst, for reasons of modesty. “He handed her roasted grain,” a light, small amount, with his two fingers. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: You derive from this one of two matters: Either a blessing rested on the fingers of that righteous man, or that a blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman. From where? It is from that which is written: “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over.”¹⁹³If he gave her just a pinch of roasted grain, how could she have been sated, with grain to spare? It stands to reason that the blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman.
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach you that if a person performs a mitzva he should perform it wholeheartedly, as had Reuben known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Reuben heard and he rescued him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21),¹⁹⁴This verse is stated regarding Reuben saving Joseph from his brothers, who wanted to kill him. he would have taken him to his father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is emerging to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), he would have emerged to meet [Moses] with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves. Rabbi Kohen and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi: In the past, a person would perform a mitzva and the prophet would write it. Now, when a person performs a mitzva, who writes it? Elijah writes it, and the messianic king, and the Holy One blessed be He affixes a seal for them. That is what is written: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another, [and the Lord heeded, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him]” (Malachi 3:16).

“Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your loaf in the vinegar. She sat beside the reapers and he handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over” (Ruth 2:14).
“Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here.” Rabbi Yoḥanan interpreted this [verse] with six approaches. [According to one approach, this verse] is referring to David. “Come here [halom],” – draw near to kingship, as halom means nothing other than kingship, as it is written: “[King David came and he sat before the Lord and said: Who am I, my Lord God, and who is my household, that You have brought me to this point [halom]?” (II Samuel 7:18). “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Lord, do not rebuke me in Your wrath” (Psalms 6:2).¹⁸⁵This verse was stated by David. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rav Huna said: Those six months that David was fleeing from Avshalom are not included in the tally,¹⁸⁶Of the years of David’s reign. as he would gain atonement with a female goat like a commoner.¹⁸⁷A commoner brings a female goat as a sin-offering (Leviticus 4:27-28), whereas a king brings a male goat (Leviticus 4:22–23). Thus, Rav Huna is stating that during those six months David did not have the status of a king. “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “Now I know that the Lord has redeemed His anointed” (Psalms 20:7). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – [David] eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Solomon. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship, as it is stated: “Solomon's provision for one day was thirty kor of fine flour, and sixty kor of meal” (I Kings 5:2). “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are his sullied actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rabbi Yoḥai bar Ḥanina said: An angel in the image of Solomon descended and sat on his throne, and Solomon would circle among the entrances of Israel¹⁸⁸Seeking charity and say: “I am Kohelet , I was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12). What did one of them do? She gave him a bowl of grits and struck him on his head with a reed, and said to him: ‘Isn’t Solomon sitting on his throne, and [yet] you say: I am Solomon king of Israel?’ “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him. “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Hezekiah. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Isaiah said: Let them take a cake of figs [and spread it on the rash and he will live]” (Isaiah 38:21).¹⁸⁹The verse is stated regarding Hezekiah. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it says: “So said Hezekiah: A day of distress and chastisement” (Isaiah 37:3). “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He was exalted in the eyes of all nations thereafter” (II Chronicles 32:23). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Menashe. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – that he sullied his actions like vinegar due to his evil actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it is written: “The Lord spoke to Menashe and his people, but they would not pay heed. The Lord brought the officers of the army of the king of Assyria against them, and they took Menashe captive in manacles” (II Chronicles 33:10–11). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They were manacles of iron and bronze. Rabbi Levi bar Ḥayyata said: They made a bronze cauldron and kindled a fire beneath it. He was crying: ‘Idol so-and-so, idol so-and-so, rescue me!’ When he saw that they were of no avail to him at all, he said: ‘I remember that my father would read to me: “In your distress [all these things] will find you…For the Lord your God is a merciful God [He will not forsake you]” (Deuteronomy 4:30–31). I will cry to Him. If He answers, that is good; if He does not answer, everything is one, all the gods are the same.’ At that moment, the ministering angels arose and sealed all the supernal windows, and they said before Him: ‘Master of the Universe, a person who placed an idol in the Sanctuary, are You accepting him through repentance?’ He said to them: ‘If I do not accept him through repentance, I would thereby be locking the door before all penitents.’ What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He excavated an opening beneath His throne of glory, in a place that no angel has control. That is what is written: “He prayed to Him, He acceded to his entreaty [vaye’ater] and He heard his supplication” (II Chronicles 33:13). Rabbi Levi said: In Arabia, they call excavation atira. “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). With what did He return him? Rabbi Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Aḥa said: He returned him with the wind. This is what is said: He causes the wind to blow. “She ate, was sated, and left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, it is referring to the messianic king. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “He was pained by our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5). “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – his kingship is destined to be temporarily captured [litzod] from him, as it says: “I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for the war and the city will be captured” (Zechariah 14:2). “He handed her roasted grain” – it is destined to return to him, as it is stated: “He will smite the land with the rod of his mouth” (Isaiah 11:4). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Levi: Like the initial redeemer, so the ultimate redeemer. Just as the initial redeemer was revealed, and then was again concealed from them, and for how long was he concealed from them, for three months, as it is stated: “They encountered Moses and Aaron” (Exodus 5:20);¹⁹⁰The midrash interprets this as referring to the officers of the Israelites meeting Moses and Aaron after Moses returned from a three-month hiatus in Midyan. See Shemot Rabba 5:19, which similarly states that Moses departed to Midyan, but states that it was for six months. so too, the ultimate redeemer will be revealed to them and concealed from them. How long will he be concealed from them? Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of the Rabbis: Forty-five days; that is what is written: “From the time the daily offering is abolished…[one thousand two hundred and ninety days]” (Daniel 12:11), and it is written: “Happy is one who waits and it comes [to one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days]”(Daniel 12:12). These extra days, what are they? Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ketzarta in the name of Rabbi Yona: These are the forty-five days that Israel will gather and eat saltwort; that is what is written: “Who pick saltwort from the bushes.” (Job 30:4).
Where will he lead them?¹⁹¹Where will the messianic king lead the Jewish people? To the Judean Desert, as it is stated: “Behold, I will seduce her and I will lead her to the desert” (Hosea 2:16). [There is] one who says: To the wilderness of Siḥon and Og, as it is stated: “I will yet settle you in tents as in the days of the appointed times” (Hosea 12:10). Anyone who believes in him will live, and one who does not believe in him will go to the nations of the world and they will kill him. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: Ultimately, the Holy One blessed be He will appear to them and rain down manna for them, “and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Boaz, draw near and “eat of the bread,” this is the bread of the reapers. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar,” as it is the way of reapers to dip their loaves in vinegar. Rabbi Yonatan said: From here it is derived that one takes out sour foods to the threshing floors. “She sat beside the reapers,” she certainly sat alongside them.¹⁹²But not in their midst, for reasons of modesty. “He handed her roasted grain,” a light, small amount, with his two fingers. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: You derive from this one of two matters: Either a blessing rested on the fingers of that righteous man, or that a blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman. From where? It is from that which is written: “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over.”¹⁹³If he gave her just a pinch of roasted grain, how could she have been sated, with grain to spare? It stands to reason that the blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman.
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach you that if a person performs a mitzva he should perform it wholeheartedly, as had Reuben known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Reuben heard and he rescued him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21),¹⁹⁴This verse is stated regarding Reuben saving Joseph from his brothers, who wanted to kill him. he would have taken him to his father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is emerging to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), he would have emerged to meet [Moses] with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves. Rabbi Kohen and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi: In the past, a person would perform a mitzva and the prophet would write it. Now, when a person performs a mitzva, who writes it? Elijah writes it, and the messianic king, and the Holy One blessed be He affixes a seal for them. That is what is written: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another, [and the Lord heeded, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him]” (Malachi 3:16).

5) (Vayikra 4:10): "And the Cohein shall smoke them on the altar of the burnt-offering": For (if not for the exclusion clause), does it not follow (that it should be sacrificed on the inner, golden altar?), viz.: The outer altar merited the application of blood, and the inner altar merited the application of blood. Just as with the outer altar — in the place of (the application of) the blood on its horns, there is (the place of) the smoking of its fats — so, with the inner altar — in the place of (the application of) the blood on its horns, there (should be the place of) the smoking of its fats!

5) (Vayikra 4:12): "to a … place" — that there be a place designated for it; "clean" — that the place be (ritually) clean. And if it is not clean, he must cleanse it so that the place be readied for them for this purpose (i.e., to be burned). "to the place where the ashes (from the altar) are spilled out.": that ashes be there, that ashes be brought there (if they are not there already), that it be the place for the ashes (of the burnt-offering). R. Eliezer b. Yaakov said: The place should lend itself to "pouring" (i.e., it should be on a slant).

5) ("And if the whole congregation of Israel [the Sanhedrin]) err": I might think that they are liable (for a sin-offering) for unwittingness (of deed) alone; it is, therefore, written: (If they) "err and a thing be hid (from the eyes of the assembly"). They are liable only for "a thing being hid" (i.e., an error in judgment) with (i.e., which leads to) an unwitting sin (on the part of the people).

5) (He must bring a sin-offering (Bamidbar 4:2): ["if he sin unwittingly of]) all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see Bamidbar 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see Bamidbar 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see Bamidbar 5:2) (for all of which he brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]).

5) R. Yehudah says: Even if he wrote two letters which constitute one name he is liable, e.g., "shesh," "tet," "rar," "gog," "chach." R. Yossi said: Would he then be liable for kothev ("writing")? Would he not be liable for roshem ("marking")? For the boards of the mishkan were marked to indicate matching (boards. And the labors of the mishkan are the criterion for those of the Sabbath). Therefore, if he made one scratch (each) on two planks or two scratches on one plank he is liable.

5) — No, this may be so with the congregation, which does not bring a mandatory guilt-offering (in an instance where beth-din erred in a me'ilah ruling and the congregation acted on that ruling), as opposed to a high-priest, who does bring a mandatory guilt-offering. — This is refuted by (the instance of) a nassi, who brings a mandatory gift-offering, and, nonetheless, brings (a sin-offering) only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth. — No, this may be so with a nassi, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, as opposed to a high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering both for something, intentional violation of which is or is not liable to kareth. It is, therefore, written "A soul" followed by "If the high-priest" (3). The high-priest is like the individual. Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the high-priest.

5) (Vayikra 4:20): ("And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering (of the high-priest); so shall he do with this. And the Cohein shall make atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them.") "And he shall do … as he did … and he shall make atonement." Why is this mentioned? To "double" the sprinklings. To teach that if one (sprinkling) were lacking, he did nothing. This tells me only of the seven sprinklings (on the parocheth), failing (even one of) which, nothing has been done. For seven sprinklings are always categorical requirements. But whence do we derive that the same is true for the four applications (of blood on the inner altar)? From "so shall he do."

5) If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods, or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed one sin liable to) stoning, and (another liable to) burning, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings.

5) Similarly, R. Meir said: If they (witnesses) said to him: "You are a Nazirite" (i.e., You made a Nazirite vow and [then] you defiled yourself and must now bring an offering for having done so) — If he said: "I made the vow on condition" (and the condition was not realized), he is believed. But if he tired them the whole day (saying that he had not made the vow), and, in the end, he said: "I made the vow on condition," he is not believed.

5) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his own offering, with a beast that he separated for himself, even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — for if he separated a beast for (a sin-offering for having eaten) cheilev and he offered it for having eaten blood, or (if he separated it) for blood and offered it for cheilev, he is not liable for me'ilah (abuse of sacred objects) and he does not receive atonement, (the first status of the offering not having been changed — so that in our instance, too, the status of the beast is not changed and it cannot serve as a sin-offering for the sin to which it has been transferred); but I might think that he does fulfill his obligation with (transference of) monies that he separated for himself, from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — for if he separated monies for himself for (an offering for) cheilev, and he brought (the offering) for blood, or for blood and he brought it for cheilev, he is liable for mei'lah and it does effect atonement (its first status having been changed — so that in our instance, too, transference of monies is permitted ab initio). It is, therefore, written: "his offering … for his sin" — His offering must be brought (ab initio) for his specific sin (and not transferred from one sin to another).

5) I might think that this (the goat of the nassi) alone is pasul if not slaughtered in the north, but (that with) all the other sin-offerings it is a mitzvah to slaughter them in the north, though if they are not slaughtered in the north they are (still) kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4:29): "and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering." This is a binyan av (a general rule) for all sin-offerings — that if they are not slaughtered in the north, they are pasul.

5) "and the Cohein shall make atonement for him": (This teaches us that) the atonement must be expressly for him (the owner of the offering), that he not atone for two at one time (by mixing the blood of the two offerings), and that the Cohein (performing the service) may atone for himself (i.e., It is not necessary that another Cohein perform the service for him.) "and it shall be forgiven him": his sin is not left "suspended" until Yom Kippur, (but he is forgiven completely). I might think that even if he (the Cohein) "sat" and did not offer it (the owner nevertheless receives atonement); it is, therefore, written ("and it shall be forgiven) him" (i.e., only him for whom the service has been performed.)

5) (Vayikra 4:35): "And he shall atone for him," (Vayikra 4:31): "And he shall atone for him," (Vayikra 4:26): "And he shall atone for him." What is the intent of this? (i.e., Why three times?) It is needed. For it might be reasoned: Blood is mentioned (as being applied) below (the red line on the altar [i.e., the blood of burnt-offerings, etc.]), and blood is mentioned (as being applied) above the red line (i.e., the blood of sin-offerings, applied on the four horns). Just as with the blood applied below, one application atones, so, with the blood applied above, one application (on one horn) atones.

5) But I would still say that (only) if a minority of the congregation sin unwittingly, then they are liable (for individual sin-offerings); for beth-din does not bring a bullock for them (in the instance of an erroneous ruling). But if most of the congregation sinned, I would say that they are not liable; for (in the instance of beth-din ruling erroneously and most of the congregation sinning), beth-din brings a bullock for them. It is, therefore, written: "the people of the land" — even (if) most of them (sin), even (if) all of them (sin, they are liable for individual sin-offerings).

5) I might think that this were so even if he made the four applications from one vessel; it is, therefore, written: "and its [remaining] blood he shall pour." How so? It is poured out at the base, and the others, into the amah (a sewage duct in the Temple)

5) But in that case I might think that just as when beth-din ruled (erroneously) and others acted upon their ruling, they (beth-din) are liable (for a sin-offering), so, if the high-priest ruled (erroneously) and others acted upon his ruling, he is liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: "which he has sinned" — he brings it for what he has sinned and not for what others have sinned.

5) Similarly, R. Yossi said (Ezra 8:35): "Those who came out of the captivity, the children of the exile, offered burnt-offerings to the G d of Israel: twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven sheep, twelve he-goats for a sin-offering, all as burnt-offerings to the L–rd." How can a sin-offering be a burnt-offering! But (the intent is): Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so the sin-offering was not eaten. R. Yehudah says: They were brought for (unwitting) idolatry.

5) (Vayikra 4:35): "And he shall atone for him," (Vayikra 4:31): "And he shall atone for him," (Vayikra 4:26): "And he shall atone for him." What is the intent of this? (i.e., Why three times?) It is needed. For it might be reasoned: Blood is mentioned (as being applied) below (the red line on the altar [i.e., the blood of burnt-offerings, etc.]), and blood is mentioned (as being applied) above the red line (i.e., the blood of sin-offerings, applied on the four horns). Just as with the blood applied below, one application atones, so, with the blood applied above, one application (on one horn) atones.

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

5) (Vayikra 4:35): "And he shall atone for him," (Vayikra 4:31): "And he shall atone for him," (Vayikra 4:26): "And he shall atone for him." What is the intent of this? (i.e., Why three times?) It is needed. For it might be reasoned: Blood is mentioned (as being applied) below (the red line on the altar [i.e., the blood of burnt-offerings, etc.]), and blood is mentioned (as being applied) above the red line (i.e., the blood of sin-offerings, applied on the four horns). Just as with the blood applied below, one application atones, so, with the blood applied above, one application (on one horn) atones.

5) (Vayikra 4:5): "And the anointed Cohein shall take (from the blood of the bullock"): "taking" is written here and elsewhere (Shemoth 24:6: "And Moses took half of the blood and put it into basins.") Just as the "taking" there refers to (receiving the blood) in a vessel, here, too, (the "taking" is) in a vessel.

(Lev. 4:1–2:) “And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, … ‘When a soul sins [by mistake]….’” Let our master instruct us: Is it right for one to enter the Temple Mount with his staff or his money girdle?²³Lat.: funda (“moneybag”). Thus have our masters taught (in Ber. 9:5): One may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, his money girdle, or with dust on his feet,²⁴Eccl. R. 4:17:1; cf. Mark 11:16; Josephus, Contra Apionem, 8:106; see Ber. 62a. lest he treat it with disrespect – even in its destruction. The Holy One, blessed be He, said (in Lev. 26:2), “You shall keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary.” And what was the reason for comparing keeping the Sabbath with the sanctuary? Thus did R. Hiyya the Great teach: Just as keeping the Sabbath is forever so is reverence for the sanctuary forever. Now Solomon cried out (in Eccl. 3:16), “To the place of justice, thither [came] wickedness.” Solomon was observing how the wicked subverted justice in the sanctuary. Solomon said, “The place where the Sanhedrin²⁵Gk.: Synedrion. sat to judge criminal law, civil law, decisions on scourgings, and decisions on clean and unclean, there they defiled it.”²⁶Cf. Lev. R. 4:1; Eccl. R. 3:16:1. See what is written (in Jer. 39:3), “Then all the officers of the king of Babylon came and sat in the middle gate: Negral-sarezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim the Rab-saris ….” (Lam. 5:18:) “Because of Mount Zion, which lies desolate, the jackals walk over it.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You name those entering, but you do not name those leaving, (in Eccl. 3:16) ‘to the place of justice, thither [came] wickedness.’” (Lam. 2:20:) “Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?” Here is the blood of Zechariah shed on the stones, as stated (in Ezek. 24:7), “For her blood was in her midst; she set it upon bare rock.” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 3:16), “to the place of justice, thither [came] wickedness”: This is the central gate in which the great Sanhedrin sat. “Thither [came] wickedness,” (in Lam. 2:9) “Her gates have sunk into the ground.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said (in Eccl. 3:16), “To the place of justice, thither [came] wickedness (rsh').” There was one place for the Righteous One of the world, the holy Temple, which was set apart for the Divine Presence. Then Manasseh wronged (rt.: rsh') it, and brought an image into its midst .Another interpretation (of Eccl. 3:16), “to the place of justice.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I created the soul, and it is delivered into My hand, as stated (in Job 12:10), ‘In Whose hand is every living soul.’ And justice also is delivered into My hand, as stated (in Deut. 32:41), “My hand lays hold on justice.’ But I only delivered the soul next to judgment [in My hand] so that it might see what is fitting for it and not sin; yet it does sin. (Eccl. 3:16:) “Thither [came] wickedness”; “When a soul sins,” for the soul is placed next to judgment (Lev. 4:2:) . That which Scripture stated (Prov. 19:2), “Also, a soul without knowledge is not good; and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner,” [is to say that] when someone sins, even by mistake, it is not a good sign²⁷Gk.: semeion. for him.²⁸Lev. R. 4:3; Eccl. R. 12:14:1. How so? There were two stores before him, one belonging to a stranger and one belonging to Israel. If he entered the one belonging to the stranger without knowing, it is not good. If he entered deliberately, he is called a sinner, as stated (in Prov. 19:2), “and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner.” Rav Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha said, “There were two ways before him, one long and one short. The short one was full of pebbles, but the long one did not have a pebble in it. He left the long one and went by the short one on the Sabbath. Concerning him it was stated (in Prov. 19:2), ‘and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner.’” Our masters have taught (in Avot. 4:2): One good deed/commandment (mitzvah) leads to another, and one transgression leads to another. A person should not worry about a sin which he commits by mistake, but rather that an opening has been made for him to sin [again], even deliberately. Moreover, one should not rejoice over a good deed which comes to him (for fulfillment), but rather that many good deeds are going to come to him [as a result].²⁹Cf. Avot. 4:2: THE RECOMPENSE FOR A GOOD DEED IS A GOOD DEED. Therefore, if one has sinned by mistake, this is not a good sign, as stated, “Also, a soul without knowledge is not good.” How much the more so if he sins deliberately! About him it has been stated, “and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner.” So also (in Prov. 6:16-19), “Six things the Lord hates…: Haughty eyes, …. A heart plotting thoughts of deceit, feet quick to run to evil, […]” This refers to Ahab ben Kolaiah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah (the false prophets of Jer. 29:21-23), who sinned in Jerusalem.³⁰Sanh. 93a; PRK 24:15. And that was not enough for them, but after they had gone into exile in Babylon, they added to their sin. And what had they done in Jerusalem? They were false prophets. Moreover, they did not forsake their trade in Babylon. Now they would pimp for each other. Ahab would go to visit [one of] the great ones in the kingdom and would say to him, “I am so-and-so, a prophet. The Holy One, blessed be He, has sent me to say something to your wife.” [So his interlocutor] would say to him, “Here she is before you. Go on in.” When he was alone with her, he would say to her, “The Holy One, blessed be He, wants to raise up prophets from you. Simply go, have intercourse with Zedekiah, and give birth to prophets from him.” So he would come and have intercourse with her. Then Zedekiah would similarly pimp for Ahab. And this was their trade for several years. Come and see how wicked they were: They gave themselves a reputation in Babylon for being great prophets. When some woman became pregnant and saw one of them, she would say to him, “If you are a prophet, what is in my womb? A male or a female?” He would say, “A male.” Then he would go to her neighbors and say, “So-and-so will bear a female.” If she bore a male, she would say, “So-and-so, the prophet, told me.” If it was a female, the neighbors would say, “Thus did so-and-so, the prophet, tell us; but he did not want to worry you.” Now they acted in this way until they came to Shemirah, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah said to her, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has sent me to you. Simply go, have intercourse with Ahab, and give birth to prophets from him.” She said to him, “I may not do [this] without the agreement of my husband. Rather, let him come and let him inform us that he wants this thing.” She went to her husband and told [the matter] to Nebuchadnezzar. [So] he called for them and they both came. And he said to them, “Is this what you said to my wife?” They said, “Yes, as the Holy One, blessed be He, wants to raise prophets from her.” He said to them, “But have I not heard about your God that He hates licentiousness; and that as a result of that which Zimri breached sexual mores, twenty-four thousand [men] fell? And you tell me this? Perhaps He recanted? I don’t know if you are false prophets or true prophets, but I have already tested Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah and I burned the fiery finance for them for seven days and threw them inside, and they came out alive and well. But for you, I will only burn it for one day and throw you inside. If you are saved from the furnace, I will know that you are certainly true prophets and we will do whatever you say, according to your testimony.” They said to him, “Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah were three and we are two; and the miracle is [only] done for three.” He said to them, “Is there a third [person] like you?” They said, Yehosuha the High Priest,” thinking in their hearts that they would be saved by his merit. They brought Yehoshua the High Priest and threw him into the furnace with them. The two of them were burnt [to death], and Yehoshua the High Priest was saved, as stated (Zech. 3:2), “Is this not a brand pulled out of the fire?” (Jer. 29:22:) “And from Ahav and Zedekiah, a curse was taken for all of the exile of Judah in Babylon, saying, ‘May God make you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon consigned to the flames!‘“3 Who caused these wicked ones to be burned? It was because they ran with their feet towards abominations and sins. It is therefore stated (in Prov. 19:2), “and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner.” Nevertheless (ibid.,) “Also, a soul without knowledge is not good.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “Say unto Israel (in Lev. 4:2), ‘When a soul sins by mistake’” – the soul sins. The verse (Eccl. 3:16) says, “[….] to the place of justice (tsedeq), thither [came] wickedness.” The place is [the source of] the soul, which has been given out of righteousness (tsedeq), [i.e.] out of a place where there is no iniquity or sin.³¹Exod. R. 4:1. [When] it does sins, the verse (Lev. 4:2) cries out in surprise, “When a soul sins by mistake?” (Eccl. 3:16:) “To the place of justice (tsedeq), thither [came] wickedness.” To what is the matter comparable? To two people who sinned against the king. One was a country bumpkin, and one a person from the palace.³²Lat.: palatium; Gk.: palation. [When] he saw that both of them had committed a single offense, he released the country bumpkin but rendered a [guilty] verdict³³Gk.: apophasis. against the person from the palace. His palace people said to him, “Both of them committed a single offense; [yet] you released the country bumpkin [and] gave a verdict against the person from the palace.” He said to them, “I released the country bumpkin because he did not know the laws³⁴Gk. nomos. of the kingdom, but the person from the palace is with me every day and knows what the laws of the kingdom are, and what verdict will be pronounced against one who sins towards me?” So also the body is a country bumpkin, (according to Gen. 2:7) “Then the Lord God formed the human out of dust from the ground.” But the soul is a palace person from above, (according to ibid., cont.) “and blew into his nostrils the breath of life.” Yet both of them sinned. Why? Because it impossible for the body to exist without the soul.³⁵Cf. Lev. R. 4:5. Thus, if there is no soul, there is no body, and if there is no body, there is no soul. So both of them sinned, as stated (in Ezek. 18:20), “the soul that sins shall die.” Therefore the verse (Lev. 4:2) wonders, “When a soul sins by mistake against any of the Lord's commandments?” What is the significance of “by mistake (rt.: shgg) [against any of the Lord's commandments]?” [It is] to teach you that when anyone sins by mistake, [it is as if] one transgresses [intentionally] against the Lord's commandments. And so it says (in Numb. 15:22), “And when you sin unintentionally (rt.: shgg) and do not fulfill all these commandments….”³⁶The next verses explain how atonement is made. So also David has said (in Ps. 19:13–14), “Who can discern mistakes? Cleanse me from hidden faults. Also restrain Your servant from willful sins…, and I shall be clean of great transgression,” [i.e.] from the great sin which I have committed. But if you do so act (according to Ps. 19:15), “Let the words of my mouth be acceptable.” From here you learn that everyone who sins, even by mistake, is called a sinner. Our masters have said, “A mistake in study is accounted as willful sin.” It is therefore written (in Lev. 4:2), “When a soul sins,” because it is from [man’s soul, which is from] above; and it is not written, "[when] a person (Adam)." In the world to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring in the soul and say to it, “Why have you transgressed against the commandments?” Then it will say, “The body transgressed against the commandments. From the day that I left it, have I ever sinned?” [Then] He will go back and say to the body, “For what reason did you transgress the commandments?” It will say to Him, “The soul sinned. Since the soul left me, have I ever sinned?” What will the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He will bring them both in and judge them as one. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who had an orchard in which were ripened grapes, figs and pomegranates.³⁷Sanh. 91ab; Lev. R. 4:5; Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon b. Johay, edited by J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1955), pp. 76–77 (on Exod. 15:1); Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata 2; The Apocryphon of Ezekiel, cited in Epiphanius, Panarion (Haereses), 64:70 (Origen), K. Holl edition in GCS31(1922), pp. 236–243 (not in the Migne edition), translated by J.R. Mueller and S.E. Robinson in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. I, edited by J.H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), p. 492; see Tertullian, De resurrectione carnis, 15–17. The king said (to himself), “If I post someone there who can see and walk, he will eat the ripening fruit for himself. He [therefore] posted two guards, one lame and one blind. They stayed and watched the orchard. They smelled the ripened fruit. The lame one said to the blind one, “I see lovely ripened fruit in the orchard. Come and give me a ride, so we can get them and eat them.” The lame one rode upon the back of the blind one, so that he got them, and they ate them. One day the king came. He sought the ripened fruit, but he did not find any. He said to the blind one, “Did you eat them?” He [answered], “Do I have any eyes?” He said to the lame one. “Have you eaten them?” He said, “Do I have any feet?” He [therefore] mounted the lame person on the blind person's back and judged them as one. So the Holy One, blessed be He, will take a soul and toss it into a body, as stated (in Ps. 50:4), “He summoned the heavens above,” i.e., the soul; “and the earth to judge His people,” i.e., the body.” David foresaw how the Holy One, blessed be He, would judge His creatures. [So] he began to seek mercy for his soul. He said, “Master of the world, when you judge Your creatures, do not judge me like them. [(Ps. 143:2), ‘And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for no one living shall be justified before You.’ Rather act charitably with me, as stated (in Ps. 17:15), ‘As for me, I will behold Your face in charity.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “In this world because the evil drive rules in you, you have sinned; but in the world to come I will root it out from you, as stated (in Ezek. 36:26), ‘I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.’”

(Lev. 4:1–2:) “And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, … ‘When a soul sins [by mistake]….’” Let our master instruct us: Is it right for one to enter the Temple Mount with his staff or his money girdle?²³Lat.: funda (“moneybag”). Thus have our masters taught (in Ber. 9:5): One may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, his money girdle, or with dust on his feet,²⁴Eccl. R. 4:17:1; cf. Mark 11:16; Josephus, Contra Apionem, 8:106; see Ber. 62a. lest he treat it with disrespect – even in its destruction. The Holy One, blessed be He, said (in Lev. 26:2), “You shall keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary.” And what was the reason for comparing keeping the Sabbath with the sanctuary? Thus did R. Hiyya the Great teach: Just as keeping the Sabbath is forever so is reverence for the sanctuary forever. Now Solomon cried out (in Eccl. 3:16), “To the place of justice, thither [came] wickedness.” Solomon was observing how the wicked subverted justice in the sanctuary. Solomon said, “The place where the Sanhedrin²⁵Gk.: Synedrion. sat to judge criminal law, civil law, decisions on scourgings, and decisions on clean and unclean, there they defiled it.”²⁶Cf. Lev. R. 4:1; Eccl. R. 3:16:1. See what is written (in Jer. 39:3), “Then all the officers of the king of Babylon came and sat in the middle gate: Negral-sarezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim the Rab-saris ….” (Lam. 5:18:) “Because of Mount Zion, which lies desolate, the jackals walk over it.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You name those entering, but you do not name those leaving, (in Eccl. 3:16) ‘to the place of justice, thither [came] wickedness.’” (Lam. 2:20:) “Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?” Here is the blood of Zechariah shed on the stones, as stated (in Ezek. 24:7), “For her blood was in her midst; she set it upon bare rock.” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 3:16), “to the place of justice, thither [came] wickedness”: This is the central gate in which the great Sanhedrin sat. “Thither [came] wickedness,” (in Lam. 2:9) “Her gates have sunk into the ground.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said (in Eccl. 3:16), “To the place of justice, thither [came] wickedness (rsh').” There was one place for the Righteous One of the world, the holy Temple, which was set apart for the Divine Presence. Then Manasseh wronged (rt.: rsh') it, and brought an image into its midst .Another interpretation (of Eccl. 3:16), “to the place of justice.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I created the soul, and it is delivered into My hand, as stated (in Job 12:10), ‘In Whose hand is every living soul.’ And justice also is delivered into My hand, as stated (in Deut. 32:41), “My hand lays hold on justice.’ But I only delivered the soul next to judgment [in My hand] so that it might see what is fitting for it and not sin; yet it does sin. (Eccl. 3:16:) “Thither [came] wickedness”; “When a soul sins,” for the soul is placed next to judgment (Lev. 4:2:) . That which Scripture stated (Prov. 19:2), “Also, a soul without knowledge is not good; and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner,” [is to say that] when someone sins, even by mistake, it is not a good sign²⁷Gk.: semeion. for him.²⁸Lev. R. 4:3; Eccl. R. 12:14:1. How so? There were two stores before him, one belonging to a stranger and one belonging to Israel. If he entered the one belonging to the stranger without knowing, it is not good. If he entered deliberately, he is called a sinner, as stated (in Prov. 19:2), “and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner.” Rav Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha said, “There were two ways before him, one long and one short. The short one was full of pebbles, but the long one did not have a pebble in it. He left the long one and went by the short one on the Sabbath. Concerning him it was stated (in Prov. 19:2), ‘and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner.’” Our masters have taught (in Avot. 4:2): One good deed/commandment (mitzvah) leads to another, and one transgression leads to another. A person should not worry about a sin which he commits by mistake, but rather that an opening has been made for him to sin [again], even deliberately. Moreover, one should not rejoice over a good deed which comes to him (for fulfillment), but rather that many good deeds are going to come to him [as a result].²⁹Cf. Avot. 4:2: THE RECOMPENSE FOR A GOOD DEED IS A GOOD DEED. Therefore, if one has sinned by mistake, this is not a good sign, as stated, “Also, a soul without knowledge is not good.” How much the more so if he sins deliberately! About him it has been stated, “and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner.” So also (in Prov. 6:16-19), “Six things the Lord hates…: Haughty eyes, …. A heart plotting thoughts of deceit, feet quick to run to evil, […]” This refers to Ahab ben Kolaiah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah (the false prophets of Jer. 29:21-23), who sinned in Jerusalem.³⁰Sanh. 93a; PRK 24:15. And that was not enough for them, but after they had gone into exile in Babylon, they added to their sin. And what had they done in Jerusalem? They were false prophets. Moreover, they did not forsake their trade in Babylon. Now they would pimp for each other. Ahab would go to visit [one of] the great ones in the kingdom and would say to him, “I am so-and-so, a prophet. The Holy One, blessed be He, has sent me to say something to your wife.” [So his interlocutor] would say to him, “Here she is before you. Go on in.” When he was alone with her, he would say to her, “The Holy One, blessed be He, wants to raise up prophets from you. Simply go, have intercourse with Zedekiah, and give birth to prophets from him.” So he would come and have intercourse with her. Then Zedekiah would similarly pimp for Ahab. And this was their trade for several years. Come and see how wicked they were: They gave themselves a reputation in Babylon for being great prophets. When some woman became pregnant and saw one of them, she would say to him, “If you are a prophet, what is in my womb? A male or a female?” He would say, “A male.” Then he would go to her neighbors and say, “So-and-so will bear a female.” If she bore a male, she would say, “So-and-so, the prophet, told me.” If it was a female, the neighbors would say, “Thus did so-and-so, the prophet, tell us; but he did not want to worry you.” Now they acted in this way until they came to Shemirah, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah said to her, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has sent me to you. Simply go, have intercourse with Ahab, and give birth to prophets from him.” She said to him, “I may not do [this] without the agreement of my husband. Rather, let him come and let him inform us that he wants this thing.” She went to her husband and told [the matter] to Nebuchadnezzar. [So] he called for them and they both came. And he said to them, “Is this what you said to my wife?” They said, “Yes, as the Holy One, blessed be He, wants to raise prophets from her.” He said to them, “But have I not heard about your God that He hates licentiousness; and that as a result of that which Zimri breached sexual mores, twenty-four thousand [men] fell? And you tell me this? Perhaps He recanted? I don’t know if you are false prophets or true prophets, but I have already tested Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah and I burned the fiery finance for them for seven days and threw them inside, and they came out alive and well. But for you, I will only burn it for one day and throw you inside. If you are saved from the furnace, I will know that you are certainly true prophets and we will do whatever you say, according to your testimony.” They said to him, “Hannaniah, Mishael and Azariah were three and we are two; and the miracle is [only] done for three.” He said to them, “Is there a third [person] like you?” They said, Yehosuha the High Priest,” thinking in their hearts that they would be saved by his merit. They brought Yehoshua the High Priest and threw him into the furnace with them. The two of them were burnt [to death], and Yehoshua the High Priest was saved, as stated (Zech. 3:2), “Is this not a brand pulled out of the fire?” (Jer. 29:22:) “And from Ahav and Zedekiah, a curse was taken for all of the exile of Judah in Babylon, saying, ‘May God make you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon consigned to the flames!‘“3 Who caused these wicked ones to be burned? It was because they ran with their feet towards abominations and sins. It is therefore stated (in Prov. 19:2), “and one who hastens with the feet is a sinner.” Nevertheless (ibid.,) “Also, a soul without knowledge is not good.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “Say unto Israel (in Lev. 4:2), ‘When a soul sins by mistake’” – the soul sins. The verse (Eccl. 3:16) says, “[….] to the place of justice (tsedeq), thither [came] wickedness.” The place is [the source of] the soul, which has been given out of righteousness (tsedeq), [i.e.] out of a place where there is no iniquity or sin.³¹Exod. R. 4:1. [When] it does sins, the verse (Lev. 4:2) cries out in surprise, “When a soul sins by mistake?” (Eccl. 3:16:) “To the place of justice (tsedeq), thither [came] wickedness.” To what is the matter comparable? To two people who sinned against the king. One was a country bumpkin, and one a person from the palace.³²Lat.: palatium; Gk.: palation. [When] he saw that both of them had committed a single offense, he released the country bumpkin but rendered a [guilty] verdict³³Gk.: apophasis. against the person from the palace. His palace people said to him, “Both of them committed a single offense; [yet] you released the country bumpkin [and] gave a verdict against the person from the palace.” He said to them, “I released the country bumpkin because he did not know the laws³⁴Gk. nomos. of the kingdom, but the person from the palace is with me every day and knows what the laws of the kingdom are, and what verdict will be pronounced against one who sins towards me?” So also the body is a country bumpkin, (according to Gen. 2:7) “Then the Lord God formed the human out of dust from the ground.” But the soul is a palace person from above, (according to ibid., cont.) “and blew into his nostrils the breath of life.” Yet both of them sinned. Why? Because it impossible for the body to exist without the soul.³⁵Cf. Lev. R. 4:5. Thus, if there is no soul, there is no body, and if there is no body, there is no soul. So both of them sinned, as stated (in Ezek. 18:20), “the soul that sins shall die.” Therefore the verse (Lev. 4:2) wonders, “When a soul sins by mistake against any of the Lord's commandments?” What is the significance of “by mistake (rt.: shgg) [against any of the Lord's commandments]?” [It is] to teach you that when anyone sins by mistake, [it is as if] one transgresses [intentionally] against the Lord's commandments. And so it says (in Numb. 15:22), “And when you sin unintentionally (rt.: shgg) and do not fulfill all these commandments….”³⁶The next verses explain how atonement is made. So also David has said (in Ps. 19:13–14), “Who can discern mistakes? Cleanse me from hidden faults. Also restrain Your servant from willful sins…, and I shall be clean of great transgression,” [i.e.] from the great sin which I have committed. But if you do so act (according to Ps. 19:15), “Let the words of my mouth be acceptable.” From here you learn that everyone who sins, even by mistake, is called a sinner. Our masters have said, “A mistake in study is accounted as willful sin.” It is therefore written (in Lev. 4:2), “When a soul sins,” because it is from [man’s soul, which is from] above; and it is not written, "[when] a person (Adam)." In the world to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring in the soul and say to it, “Why have you transgressed against the commandments?” Then it will say, “The body transgressed against the commandments. From the day that I left it, have I ever sinned?” [Then] He will go back and say to the body, “For what reason did you transgress the commandments?” It will say to Him, “The soul sinned. Since the soul left me, have I ever sinned?” What will the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He will bring them both in and judge them as one. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who had an orchard in which were ripened grapes, figs and pomegranates.³⁷Sanh. 91ab; Lev. R. 4:5; Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon b. Johay, edited by J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1955), pp. 76–77 (on Exod. 15:1); Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata 2; The Apocryphon of Ezekiel, cited in Epiphanius, Panarion (Haereses), 64:70 (Origen), K. Holl edition in GCS31(1922), pp. 236–243 (not in the Migne edition), translated by J.R. Mueller and S.E. Robinson in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. I, edited by J.H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), p. 492; see Tertullian, De resurrectione carnis, 15–17. The king said (to himself), “If I post someone there who can see and walk, he will eat the ripening fruit for himself. He [therefore] posted two guards, one lame and one blind. They stayed and watched the orchard. They smelled the ripened fruit. The lame one said to the blind one, “I see lovely ripened fruit in the orchard. Come and give me a ride, so we can get them and eat them.” The lame one rode upon the back of the blind one, so that he got them, and they ate them. One day the king came. He sought the ripened fruit, but he did not find any. He said to the blind one, “Did you eat them?” He [answered], “Do I have any eyes?” He said to the lame one. “Have you eaten them?” He said, “Do I have any feet?” He [therefore] mounted the lame person on the blind person's back and judged them as one. So the Holy One, blessed be He, will take a soul and toss it into a body, as stated (in Ps. 50:4), “He summoned the heavens above,” i.e., the soul; “and the earth to judge His people,” i.e., the body.” David foresaw how the Holy One, blessed be He, would judge His creatures. [So] he began to seek mercy for his soul. He said, “Master of the world, when you judge Your creatures, do not judge me like them. [(Ps. 143:2), ‘And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for no one living shall be justified before You.’ Rather act charitably with me, as stated (in Ps. 17:15), ‘As for me, I will behold Your face in charity.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “In this world because the evil drive rules in you, you have sinned; but in the world to come I will root it out from you, as stated (in Ezek. 36:26), ‘I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.’”

(Lev. 12:6): AND WHEN THE DAYS OF HER PURIFICATION ARE FULFILLED, FOR EITHER A SON OR FOR A DAUGHTER, SHE SHALL BRING A LAMB IN ITS FIRST YEAR FOR A BURNT OFFERING…. Why does she bring an offering?²¹Tanh., Lev. 4:4. Our masters have said: She screams a hundred times when she sits on the birthing chair, < since there are > ninety-nine < chances > for death and one for life.²²Exod. R. 46:2; Lev. R. 27:7; Tanh., Lev. 8:11; PRK 9:6. And when the pangs arrive for her, she vows that she will never favor her husband < with sexual intercourse > again. She therefore brings an offering,²³Because of the impetuous oath. So Nid. 31:b. as stated (ibid.): SHE SHALL BRING A LAMB IN ITS FIRST YEAR….

6) But then, how would I satisfy (Shemoth 30:9): "You shall not bring up upon it (the golden altar) strange incense nor burnt-offering"? — (I would understand it) as applying to offerings where it had not merited the application of their blood; but with offerings where it had merited the application of their blood, (I would say that) it should merit the smoking of their fats. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "on the altar of the burnt-offering" — not on the inner altar.

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) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.")

6) Since idolatry was singled out for an independent ruling (i.e., the bringing of a bullock for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering [for unwitting transgression, as opposed to unwitting transgression of the other mitzvoth, where a bullock is brought for a sin-offering]), I might think that they (the Sanhedrin and the majority of the people) are liable for unwittingness of deed (alone) in respect to it (idolatry, [without error in judgment]). It is, therefore, written here (in respect to idolatry) [Bamidbar 15:24]: ("If) from the eyes (of the congregation it were done in error"), and, elsewhere (in respect to other mitzvoth) (Vayikra, Ibid.): ("and a thing be hid) from the eyes (of the assembly"). Just as "from the eyes" elsewhere refers to beth-din, here, too, (in respect to idolatry) it refers to beth-din. And just as "from the eyes" elsewhere refers to hiddenness of thing (i.e., an error in judgment on the part of beth-din) with unwittingness of deed (on the part of the congregation), here, too, (in respect to idolatry) there must be hiddenness of thing and unwittingness of deed.

6) "And the anointed Cohein": This tells me only of the (Cohein) anointed with the oil of anointment (i.e., the high-priest). Whence is it derived that the "many-garmented priest" (may also receive the blood)? From "the Cohein." If in the end we are to include a different Cohein, why state: "And the anointed Cohein shall take"? It is a mitzvah for the anointed Cohein to receive (the blood), but if a different Cohein does so, it is kasher.

6) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.")

6) R. Shimon says: "And he do one": I might think: (He is not liable) until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve; it is, therefore, written "of one." If (only) "of one" were written, I might think (that he is liable) even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one strand, even if he made only one link of a sieve or a basket; it is, therefore, written: "and he do one." How is this to be reconciled? (He is not liable) until he makes something which is a (meaningful) entity in itself. R. Yossi says: It is written: "And he do one," "And he do … these.": Sometimes he is liable for only one (sin-offering) for all (Sabbath labors), and sometimes he is liable for each one.

6) "And he shall do with the bullock": to include the Yom Kippur bullock. "As he did with the bullock": to include the bullock of the high-priest. "the sin-offering": to include the idolatry goats. — But perhaps I should include the festival goats (for the inner service and for burning)! It is, therefore, written (to exclude the festival goats): "so shall he do with this." Why do you see fit to include the idolatry goats and to exclude the festival goats? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the idolatry goats, which are brought for transgression of a known mitzvah (as is the bullock in our verse), and I exclude the festival goats, which are not brought for the transgression of a known mitzvah, (but for possible defilement of sanctuary and sacred objects).

6) ("and he do one of all) the mitzvoth of the L–rd": not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The mitzvoth referred to in respect to the high-priest and in respect to the congregation (i.e., those liable to kareth for intentional transgression) are the mitzvoth referred to here. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd — to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2) (for all of which one brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). "which are not to be done, unwittingly": We are hereby taught that he brings (a sin-offering) for deed- unwittingness (alone [even without an error in the ruling]). "and he be guilty": We are hereby taught that he brings an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering, a ram [see 5:17 and 18]) Now (why is the inclusion clause needed?)

6) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.")

6) ("If his sin becomes known to him) wherein he has sinned in it": What is the intent of this? Whence do we derive (the halachah vis-à-vis liability for a sin-offering in a situation in which) his wife (who was) a niddah and his sister were with him in the house and he sinned unwittingly with one of them and did not know with which; Shabbath and Yom Kippur, (one following the other), and he performed a (forbidden) labor on one of them at twilight and did not know on which; cheilev (forbidden fats) and nothar (left-over consecrated flesh) before him, and he ate of one of them (cheilev or nothar) and did not know which (What is the halachah?) R. Eliezer makes him liable for a sin-offering and R. Yehoshua exempts him.

6) (Vayikra 4:23): "a he-goat" — and not a she-goat (even if he cannot find a he-goat). For (without the exclusion clause) is it not a kal vachomer (that a nassi should be able to bring a she-goat), viz.: If a commoner, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (a she-lamb or a she-goat) is not the same as his offering for Yom Kippur (the communal offering, a he-goat), still, his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry (a she-goat) — then a nassi, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (a he-goat) is the same as his offering for Yom Kippur — how much more so should his offering for all the mitzvoth be the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry (i.e., how much more so should he be able to bring a she-goat for all the mitzvoth if a he-goat could not be found! Therefore, the exclusion clause is necessary) — This is refuted by the (instance of the) high-priest, whose offering (for all the mitzvoth — a bullock) is the same as his offering for Yom Kippur, yet not the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry! (i.e., he cannot bring a she-goat as an alternate for the bullock for all mitzvoth — see Section 3:3)

6) (Vayikra 4:24): ("It is a) sin-offering": All of its services must be intended for a "sin-offering." "It (is a sin-offering"): to exclude (from kashruth) an animal that is not slaughtered as such.

6) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.")

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

6) "the people of the land": to exclude a nassi and to exclude a high-priest. If you would ask: But a high-priest has already been excluded (from bringing a she-lamb or a she-goat), for he brings a bullock; and a nassi has already been excluded, for he brings a he-goat — (the answer:) I might think (without the exclusion) that he brings a bullock (only) for error in ruling and unwittingness in act, but that for unwittingness in act alone he brings a she-lamb or a she-goat; it is, therefore, written: "the people of the land" — to exclude nassi and high-priest.

6) R. Eliezer b'R. Shimon says: Whence do we derive that even if he made all four applications from one vessel (of the four), that they are all poured out at the base? From: "and all of its blood he shall pour."

6) (Vayikra 4:3): ("If the anointed Cohein shall sin"): "anointed": I might think this is the king; it is, therefore, written "Cohein." If (only) "Cohein" (were written), I might think it referred to a "many-garmented priest," (who is not anointed); it is, therefore, written "anointed." If (only) "anointed Cohein" (were written), I might think that even the priest anointed for war (was included). It is, therefore, written: "the anointed Cohein," who has no one anointed over him (i.e., the high-priest). "shall sin": Why "shall sin" (instead of "sinned," as the verse continues)? For I might otherwise think that he must bring (a bullock) (for unwitting transgressions committed) prior to his appointment. But (why the exclusion clause?) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he should not bring a bullock?), viz.: If a nassi, who brings (a he-goat) for deed-unwittingness (alone), does not bring one for previous sins — the high-priest, who does not bring (a bullock) for deed-unwittingness alone — how much more so should he not bring one for previous sins! — No, this may be so with the nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) once removed (from office), as opposed to the high-priest, who continues to bring his sin-offering (a bullock) after removal (from office). And since he brings his sin-offering (for unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, let him bring it for sins committed prior (to his appointment); it is, therefore, written: "If the anointed Cohein shall sin," after he is anointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.

6) (Vayikra 4:3): "then he shall offer for his sin." We are hereby taught that he brings his (special) sin-offering (a bullock), even (for unwitting sins committed) after removal (from office) (For if not for this inclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If the nassi, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), does not bring his (special) sin-offering after removal — the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), how much more so should he not bring his (special) sin-offering after removal! It is, therefore, written: "then he shall offer for his sin," to teach that he brings his (special) sin-offering (even) after removal.

6) R. Shimon says: Wherever "egel" (calf) is written in the Torah, (a calf) of the first year (is intended), as it is written (Vayikra 9:3): "and a calf and a lamb of the first year." (Wherever) "ben bakar" (is written), (a calf of) the second year (is intended), as it is written (Vayikra 9:2): "Take for yourself egel ben bakar (a bull-calf) and a ram for a burnt-offering, without blemish." Just as a ram is of the second year, so, a bull-calf. "bullock," unqualified, is of the third year. Four and five year olds are also kasher, but old ones are not brought, out of deference (to the L–rd).

6) Or, go in this direction: Blood is mentioned (as being applied) within (i.e., the blood of inner sin-offerings), and blood is mentioned (as being applied) outside (i.e., the blood of outer sin-offerings). Just as with the blood applied within, if he omitted one of the applications, he does not atone, so with the blood applied outside — if he omits one of the applications he does not atone.

6) "And the anointed Cohein": This tells me only of the (Cohein) anointed with the oil of anointment (i.e., the high-priest). Whence is it derived that the "many-garmented priest" (may also receive the blood)? From "the Cohein." If in the end we are to include a different Cohein, why state: "And the anointed Cohein shall take"? It is a mitzvah for the anointed Cohein to receive (the blood), but if a different Cohein does so, it is kasher.

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

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

(Lev. 13:2) “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh.” Why does it not say, “Speak unto the Children of Israel,” just as it says in all the [other] sections²²In the Pentateuch the expression is found in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:15; Lev. 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:22; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 33:51; 35:10. [instead of, “When anyone has”]?²³The midrash points out that this commandment is universal and not only for the Children of Israel. In what follows the Holy One shows a concern for all creatures. Cf. Enoch Zundel in his commentary on Tanh., Lev. 4:7, according to whom the Holy One, not being one WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS, did not delight in citing the Children of Israel for evil. This text is related (to Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not abide with You.” Because the verse says (in Is. 46:10), “My plan shall come to pass, and I will accomplish all My desire.” Whoever hears this verse, says, “Perhaps there is tyranny on high.” R. Tanhuma said, “What is the meaning of “and I will accomplish all My desire?” That he does not desire to convict any creature, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11), “That I do not desire the death of the wicked.” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness.” What is the meaning of “evil may not abide with You?” R. Johanan said, “David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the world, if You desire to acquit, who will protest your authority?’” (Eccl. 8:4:)”For a king's word is supreme, and who may say to him, ‘what are you doing?’” It is customary, when a [local] ruler sits in judgement and wants to acquit or convict, for him to be afraid of one greater than himself, lest they put in an appeal²⁴Enqeliton, from the Gk.: ekkleton (“appeal”) or egkleton (“accusation”). to the imperial legate.²⁵Lat.: comes; Gk.: komes. An imperial legate is afraid of a governor;²⁶Gk.: eparchos (“governor”) or huparchus (“viceroy”). a governor is afraid of the king. But is the king afraid of anyone? And [so is it with] You; if You desire to acquit or convict, of whom are You afraid? (Ps. 5:5), “Evil may not abide (ygwr) with You”: This expression (ygwr) can only be an expression of fear. Compare what is said (in Deut. 9:19), “For I was afraid (from ygwr) of anger and rage.”

(Lev. 12:3): AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED. It is not written here that one lays out expenses < over circumcision >.²⁴The added words are from the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 4:5. See how much Israel loves the commandments, how many expenses they lay out in order to observe them! The Holy One said: You make the commandments joyful; I am increasing your joy, as stated (in Is. 29:19): THEN THE HUMBLE SHALL INCREASE THEIR JOY IN THE LORD. Tyrannus Rufus the Wicked asked R. Aqiva: Which works are the more beautiful? Those of the Holy One or those of flesh and blood? He said to him: Those of flesh and blood are the more beautiful. Tyrannus Rufus the Wicked said to him: Look at the heavens and the earth. Are you able to make anything like them? R. Aqiva said to him: Do not talk to me about something which is high above mortals, things over which they have no control, but about things which are usual among the children of Adam. He said to him: Why do you circumcise? He said to him: I also knew that you were going to say this to me. I therefore anticipated < your question > when I said to you: A work of flesh and blood is more beautiful than one of the Holy One? Bring me wheat spikes and white bread.²⁵Qeluska’ot, from the Gk.: kollikes (“long rolls of coarse bread”) or kollikia (the diminutive of kollikes). [He said to him: The former is the work of the Holy One, and the latter is the work of flesh and blood. Is not the latter more beautiful. Bring me] bundles of flax and garments of Beth-shean. He said to him: The former are the work of the Holy One, and the latter are the work of flesh and blood. Are not the latter more beautiful? Tyrannus Rufus said to him: Inasmuch as he finds pleasure in circumcision, why does no one emerge from his mother's belly circumcised? R. Aqiva said to him: And why does his umbilical cord come out on him? Does not his mother cut his umbilical cord? So why does he not come out circumcised? Because the Holy One only gave Israel the commandments in order to purify them. Therefore, David said (in II Sam. 22:31 = Ps. 18:31 [30]): {EVERY} WORD OF {GOD} [THE LORD] IS PURE….

(Lev. 13:2) “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh.” Why does it not say, “Speak unto the Children of Israel,” just as it says in all the [other] sections²²In the Pentateuch the expression is found in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:15; Lev. 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:22; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 33:51; 35:10. [instead of, “When anyone has”]?²³The midrash points out that this commandment is universal and not only for the Children of Israel. In what follows the Holy One shows a concern for all creatures. Cf. Enoch Zundel in his commentary on Tanh., Lev. 4:7, according to whom the Holy One, not being one WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS, did not delight in citing the Children of Israel for evil. This text is related (to Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not abide with You.” Because the verse says (in Is. 46:10), “My plan shall come to pass, and I will accomplish all My desire.” Whoever hears this verse, says, “Perhaps there is tyranny on high.” R. Tanhuma said, “What is the meaning of “and I will accomplish all My desire?” That he does not desire to convict any creature, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11), “That I do not desire the death of the wicked.” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness.” What is the meaning of “evil may not abide with You?” R. Johanan said, “David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the world, if You desire to acquit, who will protest your authority?’” (Eccl. 8:4:)”For a king's word is supreme, and who may say to him, ‘what are you doing?’” It is customary, when a [local] ruler sits in judgement and wants to acquit or convict, for him to be afraid of one greater than himself, lest they put in an appeal²⁴Enqeliton, from the Gk.: ekkleton (“appeal”) or egkleton (“accusation”). to the imperial legate.²⁵Lat.: comes; Gk.: komes. An imperial legate is afraid of a governor;²⁶Gk.: eparchos (“governor”) or huparchus (“viceroy”). a governor is afraid of the king. But is the king afraid of anyone? And [so is it with] You; if You desire to acquit or convict, of whom are You afraid? (Ps. 5:5), “Evil may not abide (ygwr) with You”: This expression (ygwr) can only be an expression of fear. Compare what is said (in Deut. 9:19), “For I was afraid (from ygwr) of anger and rage.”

7) "and they shall burn in fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung": "skin, flesh, and dung" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 4:11), re the anointed Cohein). Just as there, (the animal is first cut into pieces, here, too.

7) "and a thing be hid": Not that the entire mitzvah be hid. How so? If they ruled: There is no (law of) niddah in the Torah, there is no Shabbath in the Torah, there is no idolatry in the Torah — I might think they are liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: "and a thing be hid" (then there is liability) — not if the entire mitzvah is hidden.

7) "which may not be done": I might think (that one must bring a sin-offering) both for things intentional violation of which makes him liable to kareth, and for things intentional violation of which does not make him liable to kareth; it is, therefore, written (in respect to idolatry, Bamidbar 15:29): "One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly." All unwitting sins are being likened to idolatry. Just as idolatry is characterized by intentional transgression being liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, so, all acts liable to kareth for intentional transgression are liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression.

7) How so? If one did not know of the institution of the Sabbath, and he performed many labors on many Sabbaths — even if they were distinct proto-labors (avoth, and not derivative [toldoth]), he is liable for only one sin-offering all of his days. If he knew of the institution of the Sabbath, but thought: "Today is not Shabbath," "Today is not Shabbath," and performed many labors on many Sabbaths, he is liable for each Sabbath. If he knew that it were Sabbath, but thought: "This is not a (forbidden) labor," "This is not a labor," and he performed many labors on many Sabbaths — if they were distinct proto-labors, he is liable for each (distinct) labor; and if they were (acts falling under) one labor, he is liable for (labor performed in) each forgetfulness lapse.

7) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for them": even if they (the elders of beth-din) did not perform semichah. "and it shall be forgiven them": even if he did not pour the remnants of the blood (at the base of the outer altar.) Why do you see fit to make it kasher in (the absence of) semichah and (of pouring) the remnants of the blood, and pasul in (the absence of any of) the (seven) sprinklings? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I make it kasher in (the absence of) semichah and (of pouring) the remnants of the blood? Because they are not categorical requirements for atonement (in other instances). And I make it pasul in (the absence of) sprinklings because they are categorical requirements for atonement (in other instances).

7) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he brings it?), viz.: If the individual (i.e., a lay person), who does not bring a male for his (subsequently) known (unwitting) sin, (but a she-lamb or a she-goat), brings an asham talui (for a possible sin). — the nassi, who brings a male (a he-goat) for his known sin, how much more so should he bring an asham talui (a ram). — This is refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who brings a male (bullock) for his known sin, notwithstanding which he does not bring an asham talui.

7) R. Eliezer queried him: Whatever the case — If he lived with his wife, a niddah, he is liable; if he lived with his sister he is liable! If he desecrated the Sabbath he is liable; if he desecrated Yom Kippur he is liable! If he ate cheilev he is liable; if he ate nothar he is liable! R. Yehoshua replied: It is written: "wherein he has sinned" — He is not liable until his (specific) sin becomes known to him.

7) No, this (that a she-goat may not be brought as an alternate) may be so with a high-priest, who does not bring both this (his offering for all the mitzvoth) and that (his idolatry offering) from the flock, (so that a she-goat may not be an alternate for a bullock), as opposed to a nassi who brings both (a he-goat for all mitzvoth, and a she-goat for idolatry) from the flock, and since he brings both from the flock, I would say (without an exclusion clause) that his offering for all the mitzvoth should be the same as his offering for idolatry (i.e., that he should be able to bring a she-goat as an alternate for a he-goat). It is, therefore, written: "sair" (a he-goat), and not a she-goat. (Vayikra 4:23): "izim" (goats), and not exchanges (i.e., sheep); "a male," and not a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite; "whole," and not blemished.

7) "of the people of the land": to exclude a heretic (vis-à-vis the act in which [in this instance] he has sinned unwittingly, a sin-offering not being accepted from him.) R. Shimon b. Yossi said in the name of R. Shimon: What is the intent of ("And if a single soul sin unwittingly … in doing it, one of the mitzvoth of the L–rd) which may not be done" "unwittingly"? If he would abstain (from the act) if he knew (that it were sinful, and he sinned unwittingly), he is liable (for a sin-offering) for his unwitting sin — to exclude a heretic, who would not abstain (from the act) if he knew (that it were sinful).

7) "And all of its fat he shall remove, as the fat was removed from the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." What is removed in the sacrifice of the peace-offering? The fat that is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled, and the two kidneys and the lobe. Here, too, (the same is removed).

7) R. Shimon says: If it became known to him (that he had sinned) before he was appointed, and then he was appointed, he is liable (for the sin-offering of a lay person). And if it became known to him after he was appointed, he is (completely) exempt. "… an anointed Cohein shall sin": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written: "If he shall sin."

7) I might think that if he sinned with the congregation (i.e., if he ruled erroneously together with beth-din and then acted upon that ruling together with the congregation), he brings a bullock for himself. And this would follow, viz.: The nassi is distinct from the congregation (in his offering), and the high-priest is distinct from the congregation. Just as when the nassi sins by himself, he brings (a sin-offering) for himself, and when he sins with the congregation he receives atonement together with (the sin-offering of) the congregation, so, the high-priest — If he sins by himself, he brings for himself, and when he sins with the congregation, he receives atonement together with the congregation.

7) Let us see what it is most like. We derive outer blood (that of the sin-offering [from outer blood, that of the burnt-offering]), and this is not to be refuted by inner (blood). Or, go in this direction: We derive "blood of the (outer) sin-offering on the horns" from "blood of the (inner) sin-offering on the horns," and this is not to be refuted by the lower (blood), which is not "blood of the sin-offering on the horns." It is, therefore, written: "And he shall atone for him" — even if he made only three applications (instead of four); "and he shall atone for him" — even if he made only two applications; "and he shall atone for him" — even if he made only one application.

7) "from the blood of the bullock": of the blood of the life (i.e., the blood with which the life goes out), and not of the blood of the flesh, and not of the blood that is squeezed out. "from the bullock": shall he receive it (to exclude blood that spilled to the ground and was gathered up.) "and he shall bring it (to the tent of meeting"): a (Cohein that is) kasher, and not one who is pasul. "to the tent of meeting" — to exclude his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (i.e., the she-goat of Yom Kippur), that its blood not be sprinkled on the golden altar, (but on the outer altar.)

(Lev. 4:1–2:) AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: <SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, SAYING: WHEN A SOUL SINS <BY MISTAKE >…. Let our master instruct us:²⁹Tanh., Lev. 1:6. Is it right for one to enter the Temple mount with his staff or his money girdle?³⁰Lat.: funda (“moneybag”). Thus have our masters taught (in Ber. 9:5): ONE MAY NOT ENTER THE TEMPLE MOUNT WITH HIS STAFF, HIS MONEY GIRDLE, OR WITH DUST ON HIS FEET,³¹Eccl. R. 4:17:1; cf. Mark 11:16; Josephus, Contra Apionem, 8:106; see Ber. 62a. lest he treat it with disrespect, even in its destruction. The Holy One said (in Lev. 26:2): YOU SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS AND REVERENCE MY SANCTUARY: I AM THE LORD. And what was the reason for comparing keeping the Sabbath with the Sanctuary? Thus did R. Hiyya the Great teach: Just as keeping the Sabbath is forever so is reverence for the Sanctuary forever. Now Solomon cried out (in Eccl. 3:16): TO THE PLACE OF JUSTICE, THITHER <CAME> WICKEDNESS. Solomon was observing how the wicked subverted <justice>³²The bracketed word is found in the traditional Tanh., Lev. 1:6. in the Sanctuary. Solomon said: The place where the Sanhedrin³³Gk.: Synedrion. sat to judge criminal law, [civil law,] decisions on scourgings, and decisions on clean and unclean, there they defiled it.³⁴Cf. Lev. R. 4:1; Eccl. R. 3:16:1. See what is written (in Jer. 39:3): THEN ALL THE OFFICERS OF THE KING OF BABYLON CAME AND SAT IN THE MIDDLE GATE: NEGRAL-SAREZER, SAMGAR-NEBO, SARSECHIM THE RAB-SARIS, <NERGAL-SAREZER THERAB-MAG>…. (Lam. 5:18:) BECAUSE OF MOUNT ZION, WHICH LIES DESOLATE, THE JACKALS WALK OVER IT. The Holy One said to him: You name those entering, but you do not name those leaving. (Eccl. 3:16:) TO THE PLACE OF JUSTICE, THITHER <CAME> WICKEDNESS. (Lam. 2:20:) SHOULD PRIEST AND PROPHET BE SLAIN IN THE SANCTUARY OF THE LORD? Here is the blood of Zechariah shed on the stones,³⁵Cf. Matthew 23:35 // Luke 11:51. as stated (in Ezek. 24:7): FOR HER BLOOD WAS IN HER MIDST; SHE SET IT UPON BARE ROCK.

(Lev. 13:1–3:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON, SAYING: WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT, AND IT BECOMES ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY, HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO AARON THE PRIEST…. AND THE PRIEST SHALL INSPECT THE PLAGUE ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH >…. This text is related (to Job 38:25): WHO SPLIT OPEN A CHANNEL FOR THE FLOW (ShTP)? R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: In Arabia they call the hair (S'R) a flood (ShTP'). Thus²⁶I.e., interpreting Job 38:25 to mean, WHO SPLIT OPEN A CHANNEL FOR THE HAIR? for each and every hair that a person has the < Holy One > has created its own separate follicle (literally: well).²⁷Tanh., Lev. 4:6; cf. Lev. R. 15:3; BB 16a. Because Job uttered a complaint and said: (in Job 9:17): FOR HE CRUSHES ME WITH A TEMPEST (rt.: S'R)²⁸The Targum and Peshitta both read, FOR A HAIR. [AND MULTIPLIES MY WOUNDS FOR NO REASON], < i.e. > for no reason he has brought all these afflictions upon me; Elihu said to him (in Job 34:10): Heaven forbid! MAY WICKEDNESS BE FAR FROM GOD AND INJUSTICE, FROM THE ALMIGHTY. Rather (in vs. 11): FOR HE REPAYS A PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS ACTIONS, [AND PROVIDES FOR ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WAYS]. He brings everything < upon a person > according to measure. R. Abbin the Levite said in the name of R. Abba bar Kahana: The Holy One does not measure out reward and punishment {with a respite} [in a basket]. Rather everything is with justice, as stated (in Ps. 75:8 [7]): [FOR IT IS GOD WHO JUDGES]; ONE HE PUTS DOWN, AND ANOTHER HE LIFTS UP. The Holy One said to Job: Even with regard to the hair which is upon you, I have made a follicle for it and made a measure for it, as stated (in Job 38:25): WHO SPLIT OPEN A CHANNEL FOR THE FLOW (i.e., FOR THE HAIR). There is a story about a certain priest who examined leprosy spots. When he became poor, he wanted to go abroad. He called his wife < and > said to her: Because people used to come to me to show their leprosy spots, come and let me teach you, so that you may examine the leprosy spots. If you see a person's hair with its follicle dried up, you will know that < such a person > is stricken, because for each and every hair the Holy One has created its own separate follicle [from which it drinks]. < If > its follicle dries up, the hair dries up. His wife said to him: But surely if for each and every hair the Holy One has created its own separate follicle [from which it drinks], in your case, since you are a human being, with so many hairs on you and with your children being supported²⁹PRHS, perhaps related to the Gk. adj. pronoos (“prudent”). by you, is it not all the more certain that the Holy One will summon support for you?³⁰Cf. Matthew 10:29–31 // Luke 12:6–7. Therefore, she did not allow him to go abroad.

8) But (conversely), if they ruled: There is (a law of) niddah in the Torah, but it is permitted to live with "shomereth yom keneged yom" (a woman observing a day of purity after a day of sighting between her normal niddah times); there is (a law of) Shabbath in the Torah, but it is permitted to carry from one (private) domain to another or from a private domain to a public domain, ([in a particular manner which is actually forbidden]); there is a law (against) idolatry in the Torah, but it is permitted to bow down to it, ([in a particular manner which is actually forbidden]) — I might think that they are not liable (for a sin-offering, [beth-din not having erred in an entire "thing"]); it is, therefore, written (as a prerequisite for a sin-offering): "and a thing be hid" — not (that) the entire body (of the mitzvah must be hidden).

8) But something (i.e., the bringing of a sin-offering), which you derive in one "way" (i.e., from idolatry), you must derive in all the ways that obtain with it, viz.: Just as idolatry is characterized by not being permitted once it is forbidden, and by nothing in its class being permitted, and by being liable to judicial death penalty, and by being forbidden to the descendants of Noach as to Israel — so, include (in liability for a sin-offering) only those sins which are like it, e.g., (a man's) lying with a man or lying with a beast, which is not permitted once forbidden, where nothing in its class is permitted, where one is liable to judicial death penalty, and where there is liability for descendants of Noach as for Israel — though there be (a stringency factor) in (a man's) lying with a man, which does not obtain in lying with a beast, and in lying with a beast which does not obtain in lying with a man, viz.: It is forbidden for a man to lie with a man, whether with his own kind (a Jew with a Jew) or with another kind (a Jew with a gentile); but it is permitted (for a man to mate) a beast with its kind though forbidden (to mate it) with a different kind. In one man's lying with another, a minor (below the age of nine) is not equated with an adult (for liability). In his lying with a beast, a young animal (that is lain with) is equated with a grown one. (These differences, however, do not affect the bringing of a sin-offering, for "idolatry" remains the parameter.)

8) R. Akiva said: I asked R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua at the fair of Emmaus, where they went to buy an animal for a feast: If one's son lived with a (woman who was at the same time) his sister, his father's sister, and his mother's sister in one forgetfulness lapse, what is the halachah? Is he liable for one sin-offering for all of them (the three categories), or for one (sin-offering, respectively,) for each (category)? They answered: We did not hear (the halachah); but we did hear that if one lived with five niddoth in one forgetfulness lapse, he is liable for (a distinct sin-offering) for each woman; and it would seem to us that it would be a kal vachomer (that he is liable for distinct offerings in the "triple sister" instance, the number of categories being more crucial than the number of bodies.)

8) (Vayikra 4:21): "And he shall take the bullock outside the camp": outside the three camps (see Chapter 5:4); "and he shall burn it as he burned the first bullock": So that if the bullock of the high-priest and the bullock of the congregation are waiting (sacrifice), the first takes precedence in all services (see Section 4:1).

8) So, too, do not wonder if the nassi, who brings a male for his known sin, should not bring an asham talui. It is, therefore, written (to tell us that he does): "and he be guilty."

8) R. Yossi said: Both agree that if he performs a labor between the two twilights (i.e., beginning a labor on one day and completing it on the next) he is exempt, for I (then) say: He did part of it today and part on the next day. Where do they argue? Where he performs an (entire) labor on one day, but he does not know whether that day was Shabbath or Yom Kippur, or where he performs a (forbidden) labor, but he does not know which labor he performed. R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. R. Yehudah said: R. Yehoshua would exempt him even from an asham talui (see Ibid. 5:17 and 18).

8) "And he shall place his hand on the head of the goat": to include the goat of Nachshon (and the other nesi'im — see Bamidbar 7) for semichah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: to include the (communal) idolatry goats for semichah (by the elders). For R. Shimon said: Every communal offering whose blood enters within (the heichal) requires semichah.

8) (Vayikra 4:26): "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him."): "And he shall make atonement for him": (This teaches us that) the atonement must be expressly for him (the owner of the offering), that he not atone for two at one time (by mixing the blood of two offerings), and that the Cohein (performing the service) may atone for himself (i.e., It is not necessary that another Cohein perform the service for him.) "and it shall be forgiven him": his sin is not left "suspended" until Yom Kippur, (but he is forgiven completely). I might think that even if he (the Cohein) "sat" and did not offer it (the owner nevertheless receives atonement); it is, therefore, written ("and it shall be forgiven) him" (i.e., only him for whom the service has been performed.)

8) "in doing it," one (of the mitzvoth of the L–rd") — one who does all of it, and not one who does part of it. How so? If (on the Sabbath) two took hold of a pitchfork and stacked, of a shuttle and pressed (the weaving rod), of a pen and wrote, of a cane and took it out to the public domain — I might think they were liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: "in doing it, one …" — one who does all of it (the forbidden labor), and not one who does part.

8) No, this may be so with the nassi, who atones with the congregation on Yom Kippur, as opposed to the high-priest, who does not atone with the congregation on Yom Kippur, (but who brings different sacrifices for certain sins). And since he does not atone with the congregation on Yom Kippur, I would say (if not for the inclusion clause here) that he should bring a bullock for himself. It is, therefore, written: "which he has sinned." If he sinned by himself, he brings for himself; if he sinned with the congregation, he receives atonement together with the congregation.

8) R. Shimon says: Lambs precede goats in most places (in Scripture). I might think that this is because they are preferred; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 4:32) "And if a lamb he brings as his offering for a sin-offering" (after 4:28 "a kid of the goats"), to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves precede pigeons in most places. I might think that this is because they are preferred; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:6) "and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering," to teach that both are equal.

8) (Vayikra 4:6): "And the Cohein shall dip his finger into the blood.": He shall dip and not wipe, (against the wall of the vessel. It must contain enough blood for him to "dip" his finger into it.) "And he shall dip … and he shall sprinkle (seven times"): for every sprinkling, a dipping (and not one dipping for all the sprinklings.) "his finger": "his finger" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:16, in respect to a leper). Just as "his finger" there is the most dexterous (i.e., the index finger) of the right hand, so, "his finger" here.

8) "And he shall dip … and he shall sprinkle": For every sprinkling a (separate) dipping. It is written here "his finger," and elsewhere (Vayikra 4:6), "his finger." Just as "finger" here indicates the most adroit ("meyumeneth") finger on his right hand, (this being the thrust of ("finger hayemanith"), so "his finger" there indicates the most adroit finger on his right hand (i.e., the index finger).

(Lev. 13:1–2:) < THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON, SAYING: > WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT, AND IT BECOMES ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY, HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO AARON THE PRIEST >…. Why does it not say: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, just as it says in all the < other > sections,³²In the Pentateuch the expression is found in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:15; Lev. 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:22; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 33:51; 35:10. [instead of: WHEN ANYONE HAS]?³³Tanh., Lev. 4:7. The midrash points out that this commandment is universal and not only for the children of Israel. In what follows the Holy One shows a concern for all creatures. Cf. Enoch Zundel in his commentary on the parallel passage (Tanh., Lev. 4:7), according whom the Holy One, not being one WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS, did not did not delight in citing the children of Israel for evil. This text is related (to Ps. 5:5): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS; EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU. Because the verse says (in Is. 46:10) {THE ONE WHO SAYS} [SAYING]: MY PLAN SHALL COME TO PASS, AND I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY DESIRE; whoever hears this verse, says: perhaps there is tyranny on high. R. Tanhuma bar Abba said: What is the meaning of AND I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY DESIRE? That he does not desire to convict any creature, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11): [THAT I DO NOT DESIRE THE DEATH OF THE WICKED.] Ergo (in Ps. 5:5): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS. What is the meaning of EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU? R. Johanan said: David said to the Holy One: Sovereign of the World, if you desire to acquit, who will protest your authority? (Eccl. 8:4:) FOR A KING'S WORD IS SUPREME, AND WHO MAY SAY TO HIM: WHAT ARE YOU DOING? It is customary, when a < local > ruler sits in judgement and wants to acquit or convict, for him to be afraid of one greater than himself, lest they put in an appeal³⁴Enqeliton, from the Gk.: ekkleton (“appeal”) or egkleton (“accusation”). to the imperial legate.³⁵Lat.: comes; Gk.: komes. An imperial legate is afraid of a governor;³⁶Gk.: eparchos (“governor”) or huparchus (“viceroy”). a governor is afraid of the king; the king is afraid of you; but you, if you desire to acquit or convict, of whom are you afraid? (Ps. 5:5): EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE (YGWR) WITH YOU. This expression (YGWR) can only be an expression of fear. Compare what is said (in Deut. 9:19): FOR I WAS AFRAID (from YGWR) OF ANGER AND RAGE.

(Lev. 13:1–2:) < THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON, SAYING: > WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT, AND IT BECOMES ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY, HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO AARON THE PRIEST >…. Why does it not say: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, just as it says in all the < other > sections,³²In the Pentateuch the expression is found in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:15; Lev. 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:22; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 33:51; 35:10. [instead of: WHEN ANYONE HAS]?³³Tanh., Lev. 4:7. The midrash points out that this commandment is universal and not only for the children of Israel. In what follows the Holy One shows a concern for all creatures. Cf. Enoch Zundel in his commentary on the parallel passage (Tanh., Lev. 4:7), according whom the Holy One, not being one WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS, did not did not delight in citing the children of Israel for evil. This text is related (to Ps. 5:5): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS; EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU. Because the verse says (in Is. 46:10) {THE ONE WHO SAYS} [SAYING]: MY PLAN SHALL COME TO PASS, AND I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY DESIRE; whoever hears this verse, says: perhaps there is tyranny on high. R. Tanhuma bar Abba said: What is the meaning of AND I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY DESIRE? That he does not desire to convict any creature, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11): [THAT I DO NOT DESIRE THE DEATH OF THE WICKED.] Ergo (in Ps. 5:5): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS. What is the meaning of EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU? R. Johanan said: David said to the Holy One: Sovereign of the World, if you desire to acquit, who will protest your authority? (Eccl. 8:4:) FOR A KING'S WORD IS SUPREME, AND WHO MAY SAY TO HIM: WHAT ARE YOU DOING? It is customary, when a < local > ruler sits in judgement and wants to acquit or convict, for him to be afraid of one greater than himself, lest they put in an appeal³⁴Enqeliton, from the Gk.: ekkleton (“appeal”) or egkleton (“accusation”). to the imperial legate.³⁵Lat.: comes; Gk.: komes. An imperial legate is afraid of a governor;³⁶Gk.: eparchos (“governor”) or huparchus (“viceroy”). a governor is afraid of the king; the king is afraid of you; but you, if you desire to acquit or convict, of whom are you afraid? (Ps. 5:5): EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE (YGWR) WITH YOU. This expression (YGWR) can only be an expression of fear. Compare what is said (in Deut. 9:19): FOR I WAS AFRAID (from YGWR) OF ANGER AND RAGE.

9) Since idolatry was singled out for an independent ruling (see 6 above), I might think that (in the instance of idolatry) they are liable for (beth-din's) erring (even) in the entire mitzvah (i.e., ruling that idolatry itself is permitted). It is, therefore, written here (Vayikra) "from the eyes" and elsewhere (Bamidbar, in respect to idolatry), "from the eyes." Just as "from the eyes" here excludes (error in respect to) the entire body (of the mitzvah), so, "from the eyes" there.

9) ["of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": "mitzvoth" is mentioned in this context four times, and "of all," three times, a signal for seven inclusions for the bringing of a sin-offering, even if some of the aforementioned elements do not obtain. Those sins closest to the gravity of idolatry will be first included.] "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include (illicit relations with) one's mother, with his father's wife, and with his daughter-in-law, which, like idolatry, are liable to stoning; and, in addition, with his daughter, his daughter's daughter, and his son's daughter, (which are liable to death by burning.)

9) R. Akiva asked them further: If a limb is dangling from a (living) animal, what is the halachah? (Is it to be regarded as already detached, so that it causes carrion defilement?) They answered: We did not hear (the halachah); but we did hear that if a limb is dangling from a man it is clean (of such defilement). And thus would those Jerusalemites afflicted with boils do on the eve of Pesach. They would go to the doctor, who would sever the limb until it was hanging by a hair (in order not to defile himself in cutting it off completely), and the afflicted one would stick it in a bush and pull away from it (thus removing the limb without touching it), and both he and the doctor would eat his pesach (in cleanliness); and it would seem to us that it is a kal vachomer (that a limb dangling from an animal is likewise clean, viz.: If a dangling limb of a man, who can cause defilement when he is alive [e.g., zav or metzora], is clean, then how much more so that of an animal, which cannot cause defilement when alive!)

9) I might think that even the idolatry goats precede it (the bullock of the congregation). And it would, indeed, follow (that they should), viz.: If the bullock of an individual (the high-priest) precedes it, should not the idolatry goats of the congregation precede it! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): ("the first) bullock." The bullock is first, and not the idolatry goats.

9) (But why not) adduce it differently (without the inclusion clause?), viz.: The individual is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a "definite" ["unsuspended"] guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the individual brings an asham talui, so the nassi should bring an asham talui!

9) R. Shimon and R. Shimon Shazuri say: Both agree that (if he is in doubt about) an act which goes by the same name (i.e., If he knows that he "plucked figs from a tree," but he does not know from which tree he plucked them), he is liable. Where do they argue? Where (he is in doubt about an act where) two names are involved (e.g., if he is in doubt as to whether he "reaped" or "ground"), in which instance R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. And R. Yehudah says: R. Yehoshua would exempt him even in the instance of an act which goes by the same name.

9) "And he shall slaughter it": it, and not its exchange. And below, (Vayikra 4:33): "and he shall slaughter it": it, and not its offspring (that it bore after it had been set aside as a sin-offering). From here (i.e., using this as a point of departure) R. Shimon said: Five sin-offerings are consigned to death (i.e., incarcerated until they die): the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner died, the sin-offering of one who has already received atonement (with a different sin-offering), and a sin-offering that has passed its first year. You cannot say "the offspring of a sin-offering" in respect to a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring a female (as an offering); and there is no "exchange of a sin-offering" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring an exchange; and there is no "sin-offering whose owner died" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not die. I might think that a communal sin-offering whose owners received atonement and one which passed its first year are to be consigned to death, but this is not so; for the non-explicit are to be derived from the explicit. Just as the explicit — the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owner died — relate to an individual sin-offering and not a communal sin-offering, so a sin-offering "whose owner has received atonement" and one "which has passed its year" relate to an individual and not to a communal sin-offering.

9) (If two took hold) of a (large) cake of figs and took it out to the public domain, or of a (large) beam, and took it out to the public domain — R. Yehudah says: If one cannot take it out (by himself), and two took it out, they are liable, (each one being regarded as doing a "whole" labor). R. Shimon says: Even if one of them cannot take it out (by himself), and two took it out, they are not liable, it being written: "in doing it, one" — one who did (all of it) is liable; two or three who did it (together) are not liable.

9) (Vayikra 4:32): "And if a lamb he brings as his offering for a sin-offering": R. Shimon says: "Lambs" precede "goats" in all other places. I might think this is so because they are preferred to them. It is, therefore, written: "If a lamb he brings as an offering for his sin-offering" (after "goats" [Vayikra 4:28]), to teach that they are equivalent.

9) (Vayikra 4:32): "And if a lamb he brings as his offering for a sin-offering": R. Shimon says: "Lambs" precede "goats" in all other places. I might think this is so because they are preferred to them. It is, therefore, written: "If a lamb he brings as an offering for his sin-offering" (after "goats" [Vayikra 4:28]), to teach that they are equivalent.

9) "And he shall slaughter it": it, and not its exchange. And below, (Vayikra 4:33): "and he shall slaughter it": it, and not its offspring (that it bore after it had been set aside as a sin-offering). From here (i.e., using this as a point of departure) R. Shimon said: Five sin-offerings are consigned to death (i.e., incarcerated until they die): the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner died, the sin-offering of one who has already received atonement (with a different sin-offering), and a sin-offering that has passed its first year. You cannot say "the offspring of a sin-offering" in respect to a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring a female (as an offering); and there is no "exchange of a sin-offering" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring an exchange; and there is no "sin-offering whose owner died" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not die. I might think that a communal sin-offering whose owners received atonement and one which passed its first year are to be consigned to death, but this is not so; for the non-explicit are to be derived from the explicit. Just as the explicit — the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owner died — relate to an individual sin-offering and not a communal sin-offering, so a sin-offering "whose owner has received atonement" and one "which has passed its year" relate to an individual and not to a communal sin-offering.

9) "into the blood": The blood must contain the required amount for dipping (seven dippings, [and not that the needed amount be placed in it for each successive dipping]). "and he shall sprinkle": and not drip; "and he shall sprinkle": and not fling. "from the blood": from the blood previously referred to (i.e., the blood in the receptacle and not that left over on his finger.) "seven times": and not seven drops (i.e., the "sprinklings" must be complete); "seven times": he counts seven times, and not "one and seven" (as he counts on Yom Kippur).

(Lev. 4:2:) WHEN A SOUL SINS <BY MISTAKE>. This text is related (to Prov. 19:2): ALSO, A SOUL WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE IS NOT GOOD; [AND ONE WHO HASTENS WITH THE FEET IS A SINNER]. When someone sins, even by mistake, it is not a good sign³⁶Gk.: semeion. for him.³⁷Tanh., Lev. 1:6; Lev. R. 4:3; Eccl. R. 12:14:1. How so? There were two stores before him, one belonging to a star worshiper and one belonging to Israel. He entered the one belonging to the star worshiper. He entered deliberately. He is called a sinner, as stated (in Prov. 19:2): AND ONE WHO HASTENS WITH THE FEET IS A SINNER.³⁸The parallel accounts explain more fully that one who entered the wrong store by mistake was merely NOT GOOD, but entering it deliberately made one a SINNER.

(Lev. 13:2:) WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH…. This text is related (to Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL IS THAT ONE.³⁷In the biblical context THAT ONE is the nation of the Chaldeans. This verse is speaking about the first Adam, about Pharaoh, about Edom, [about Sennacherib, about Nebuchadnezzar,] and about the children of Adam < in general >.³⁸Tanh., Lev. 4:8; cf. Lev. R. 18:2. How does it concern the first Adam? When the Holy One created {the world with} the first Adam, R. Abba bar Kahana said: He created him in his likeness, as stated (in Gen. 1:27): AND GOD CREATED THE HUMAN (adam) IN HIS OWN IMAGE…. He created him < to extend > from the one end of world to the other, as stated (in Deut. 4:32): SO PLEASE ASK ABOUT THE FORMER DAYS WHICH CAME BEFORE YOU, EVER SINCE THE DAY THAT GOD CREATED ADAM UPON THE EARTH, EVEN FROM ONE END OF HEAVEN TO THE OTHER.³⁹Cf. Gen. R. 8:1. Now he ruled over the whole earth, as stated (in Gen. 1:28): < FILL THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT; > AND RULE OVER THE FISH OF THE SEA … It also says (in Gen. 9:2): MOREOVER, THE DREAD OF YOU AND THE FEAR OF YOU SHALL BE UPON EVERY BEAST OF THE EARTH. It is therefore stated (in Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL. This refers to the first Adam.⁴⁰The present translation ignores Buber punctuation. Following his punctuation, the translation would read: “It is therefore stated (in Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE (Ibid., cont.:) AND DREADFUL. This refers to the first Adam….“ (Ibid., cont.:) HIS JUSTICE AND HIS DIGNITY PROCEED FROM HIMSELF.⁴¹The midrash requires such a literal translation. In the biblical context a more normal translation would read with reference to the Chaldeans: THEIR JUSTICE AND THEIR DIGNITY PROCEED FROM THEMSELVES. This refers to Eve, since she came out of him and caused him to die, [as stated] (in Gen. 3:6): THEN SHE ALSO GAVE SOME TO HER HUSBAND, AND HE ATE. [And where is it shown that she came out of him? Where it is so written (in Gen. 2:23): BONE OUT OF MY BONE AND FLESH OUT OF MY FLESH, < THIS ONE SHALL BE CALLED WOMAN, BECAUSE SHE WAS TAKEN OUT OF MAN >.] Ergo (in Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL IS THAT ONE. [Another interpretation of] TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL IS THAT ONE. This refers to Pharaoh, when he was world ruler,⁴²Gk.: Kosmokraton. as stated (concerning him in Ps. 105:20): THE RULER OF PEOPLES RELEASED HIM (i.e., Joseph). (Hab. 1:7, cont.): HIS JUSTICE AND HIS DIGNITY PROCEED FROM HIMSELF. This refers to Moses, since he was reared within that one's house, so that he believed that he < actually > was a child of his house, as stated (in Exod. 2:10): WHEN THE BOY HAD GROWN UP, SHE BROUGHT HIM TO PHARAOH'S DAUGHTER; AND HE BECAME HER SON. Then he arose and brought ten plagues upon him, as stated (in Exod. 3:10): [SO COME NOW, I WILL SEND YOU UNTO PHARAOH.] (Exod. 4:17): AND YOU SHALL TAKE IN YOUR HAND THIS ROD, < WITH WHICH YOU SHALL PERFORM THE SIGNS. R. Judah said: The rod had a weight of forty seahs and was < made > of sapphire⁴³Gk.: sappheirinon, an adj. meaning “of sapphire,” or “of lapsis lazuli.” It also had ten plagues (makkot) inscribed upon it with the acronym⁴⁴notarikon. DTsK 'DSh B'HB.⁴⁵D = dam (“blood”), Ts = Tsefardia‘ (“frogs”), K= kinnim (“gnats”), ‘ = ‘arov (“flies”), D = dever (“cattle pestilence”), Sh = shehin (“boils”), B = barad (“hail”), ‘ = ‘arbeh (“locusts”), H = hoshekh (“darkness”), B = bekhorot (“first-born”). Then Moses, when he had looked at the rod and seen the punishment (makkah) which had been appointed to come, brought it upon Pharaoh. Ergo (in Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL < IS THAT ONE >.

Rav Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha said: There were two ways before him, one long and one short. The short one was full of pebbles, but the long one did not have a pebble in it. He left the long one and went by the short one on the Sabbath. Concerning him it was stated (in Prov. 19:2): AND ONE WHO HASTENS WITH THE FEET IS A SINNER. Our masters have taught (in Avot. 4:2): ONE GOOD LEADS TO ANOTHER, AND ONE TRANSGRESSION LEADS TO ANOTHER. A person should not worry about a sin which he commits by mistake, but rather that an opening has been made for him to sin, whether by mistake or deliberately. Moreover, one should not rejoice over a good deed which comes to him (for fulfillment), but rather that many good deeds are going to come to him.³⁹Cf. Avot. 4:2: THE RECOMPENSE FOR A GOOD DEED IS A GOOD DEED. Therefore, if one has sinned by mistake, this is not a good sign. How much the more so if he sins deliberately! About him it has been stated (in Prov. 19:2): AND ONE WHO HASTENS WITH THE FEET IS A SINNER. So also (in Prov. 6:16–19): SIX THINGS THE LORD HATES…: HAUGHTY EYES, A LYING TONGUE,… FEET QUICK TO RUN TO EVIL, <….> This refers to Ahab ben Kolaiah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah (the false prophets of Jer. 29:21–23), who sinned in Jerusalem.⁴⁰Sanh. 93a; PRK 24:15. And that was not enough for them, but after they had gone into exile in Babylon, they added to their sin. And what had they done in Jerusalem? They were false prophets. Moreover, they did not forsake their trade in Babylon. Now they would pimp for each other. Ahab would go to visit <one of> the great ones in the kingdom and would say to him: I am so-and-so, a prophet. The Holy One has sent me to say something to your wife. Then he would say to him: Here she is before you. Go on in. When he was alone with her, he would say to her: The Holy One wants to raise up prophets from you. Simply go, have intercourse with Zedekiah, and give birth to prophets from him. So he would come and have intercourse with her. Then Zedekiah would similarly pimp for Ahab. And this was their trade for several years. Come and see how wicked they were. They gave themselves a reputation in Babylon for being great prophets. When some woman became pregnant and saw one of them, she would say to him, O Prophet, what is in my womb? A male or a female? He would say: A male. Then he would go to her neighbors and say: So-and-so will bear a female. If she bore a male, she would say: So-and-so, the prophet, told me. If it was a female, the neighbors would say: Thus did so-and-so, the prophet, tell us; but he did not want to worry you. Now they acted in this way until they came to Shemirah, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah said to her. Thus says the Lord: Inform Ahab….⁴¹For the missing part of the story, see Tanh., Lev. 1:6; Sanh. 93a; PRK 24:15. What caused these wicked men to be burned? It was because they ran with their feet after transgressions. It is therefore stated (in Prov. 19:2): AND ONE WHO HASTENS WITH THE FEET IS A SINNER. Nevertheless (ibid.) ALSO, A SOUL WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE IS NOT GOOD. Therefore, the Holy One said to Moses: Say unto Israel (in Lev. 4:2) WHEN A SOUL SINS BY MISTAKE.

10) If beth-din ruled (erroneously), and they (beth-din themselves) committed (the sin), I might think they are liable. It is, therefore, written: ("and a thing be hid from the eyes of) the assembly, and they do" — the ruling relates to beth-din, and the act to the people.

10) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include his wife's daughter, the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, which, like idolatry, once forbidden, were not permitted; and, in addition, (illicit relations with) his mother-in-law, her mother, and his father-in-law's mother, (the last two being derived from "mother-in-law" and not explicitly stated.)

10) R. Akiva asked them further: If one slaughters five sacrifices outside (the azarah) in one forgetfulness lapse, what is the halachah? Is he liable for one (sin-offering for) all of them, or for one (distinct sin-offering) for each one? They answered: We did not hear (the halachah). R. Yehoshua said: I heard that if one ate of one offering from five trays in one forgetfulness lapse, he is liable for each one by reason of me'ilah (abuse of sacred objects), and it seems to me that it is a kal vachomer (that if five trays of the same offering are perceived as distinct entities, how much more so, individual animals!)

10) — But perhaps the meaning is: The bullock is to be burnt, but the idolatry goats are not to be burnt! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "It is the sin-offering of the assembly": It is a general rule (binyan av) that all communal sin-offerings are to be burnt.

10) — But why not go in this direction? The high-priest is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a "definite" guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the high-priest does not bring an asham talui, so the nassi should not bring an asham talui!

10) How so? His two wives, niddoth, and his two sisters with him in the house — he intended to live with one and he lived with the other; figs and grapes (on trees) before him — he intended to pluck figs and he plucked grapes, or grapes and he plucked figs; black ones and he plucked white ones, or white ones and he plucked black ones — R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. But why should R. Yehoshua exempt him? (Does he not, in any event, intend to commit a sin?) But if so, (if R. Yehoshua would rule him to be liable in such an instance), what is the intent of "wherein he has sinned in it"? (i.e., What is excluded from a sin-offering by "in it"?) Mithasek (intending to do) [a permitted thing] and doing [a forbidden one]) is excluded (e.g., intending to cut what is torn off [the tree] and cutting what is attached).

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

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

10) "the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The "mitzvoth" stated in respect to high-priest, congregation, and nassi are the "mitzvoth" referred to here (i.e., the criteria for "mitzvoth" are the same.) "of the mitzvoth of the L–rd," and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd: to exclude(the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see Ibid. 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2). "which are not to be done, and he be guilty": We are hereby taught that he brings a suspended guilt-offering (see 5:18).

10) "Turtle-doves" precede "young pigeons" in all other places. I might think this is so because they are preferred to them. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:6): "and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove as a sin-offering," to teach that they are equivalent. "father" precedes "mother" in all places. I might think this is so because the honor of one's father is above that of his mother; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:3): "A man, his mother and his father, you shall fear," to teach that they are equivalent (in this regard). But the sages have said: The father takes precedence to the mother in all instances, for both he and his mother are obliged to honor his father.

10) "before the L–rd": I might think (that he sprinkles) over the entire house; it is, therefore, written: "before the parocheth." I might then think (that he sprinkles before the entire parocheth; it is, therefore, written: "of the holiness." We are hereby taught that he directs (the sprinkling) in alignment (with the space) between the staves of the ark.

(Lev. 4:2:) WHEN A SOUL SINS BY MISTAKE. Is it the soul that sins? The Scripture verse (Eccl. 3:16) says: TO THE PLACE OF JUSTICE (tsedeq), THITHER <CAME> WICKEDNESS. THE PLACE is <the source of> the soul, which has been given out of righteousness (tsedeq), <i.e.> out of a place where there is no iniquity or sin.⁴²Tanh., Lev. 1:6; Exod. R. 4:1. <When> it does sins, the Scripture verse (Lev. 4:2) cries out in surprise: WHEN A SOUL SINS BY MISTAKE?! (Eccl. 3:16:) TO THE PLACE OF JUSTICE (tsedeq), THITHER <CAME> WICKEDNESS. To what is the matter comparable? To two children of Adam who sinned against the king. One was a country bumpkin, and one a person from the palace.⁴³Lat.: palatium; Gk.: palation. <When> he saw that both of them had committed a single offense, he released the country bumpkin but rendered a <guilty> verdict⁴⁴Gk.: apophasis. against the person from the palace. His palace people said to him: Both of them committed a single offense; <yet> you released the country bumpkin <and> gave a verdict against the person from the palace. He said to them: I released the country bumpkin because he did not know the laws⁴⁵Gk. nomos. of the kingdom, but the person from the palace is with me every day and knows what the laws of the kingdom are. Now for the one close to me who sinned, [what verdict] will be pronounced against him? So also the body is a country bumpkin. (Gen. 2:7:) THE LORD FORMED THE HUMAN [OUT OF DUST FROM THE GROUND]. But the soul is a palace person from above. (Ibid., cont.:) AND BLEW INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE. Yet both of them sinned. Why? Because it impossible for the body to exist without the soul.⁴⁶Cf. Lev. R. 4:5. Thus, if there is no soul, there is no body, and if there is no body, there is no soul. So both of them sinned. (Ezek. 18:20:) THE SOUL THAT SINS SHALL DIE. Therefore the scripture verse (Lev. 4:2) cries out in surprise: WHEN A SOUL SINS BY MISTAKE <AGAINST ANY OF THE LORD'S COMMANDMENTS >! What is the significance of BY MISTAKE (rt.: ShGG) AGAINST ANY OF THE LORD'S COMMANDMENTS? <It is> to teach you that, when anyone sins BY MISTAKE, [it is as if] one transgresses against THE LORD'S COMMANDMENTS. And so it says (in Numb. 15:22): AND WHEN YOU SIN UNINTENTIONALLY (rt.: ShGG) AND DO NOT FULFILL ALL THESE COMMANDMENTS….⁴⁷The next verses explain how atonement is made. [So also David has said (in Ps. 19:13–14 [12–13]): WHO CAN DISCERN MISTAKES? CLEANSE ME FROM HIDDEN FAULTS]. ALSO RESTRAIN YOUR SERVANT FROM WILLFUL SINS…, AND I SHALL BE CLEAN OF GREAT TRANSGRESSION, <i.e.> from the great sin which I have committed. But if you do so act (Ps. 19:15 [14]:), LET THE WORDS OF MY MOUTH <AND THE MEDITATIONS OF MY HEART> BE ACCEPTABLE <BEFORE YOU>. From here you learn that everyone who sins, even by mistake, is called a sinner. Our masters have said: A mistake in study is accounted as willful sin. It is therefore written (in Lev. 4:2:) WHEN A SOUL SINS. <It is> because it is from above that "a person (adam)" is not written here.

(Lev. 13:2:) WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH…. This text is related (to Ps. 5:5 [4]): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS. < This verse is able > to teach you that the Holy One does not delight in convicting a person,⁵²Tanh., Lev. 4:9. as stated (in Ezek. 18:32): FOR I DO NOT DELIGHT IN THE DEATH OF ONE WHO DIES. In what does he delight? In vindicating (rt.: TsDQ) his people. [Thus it is stated (in Is. 42:21): THE LORD WAS DELIGHTED BECAUSE OF HIS < SERVANT'S > VINDICATION (TsDQ)…,⁵³This is the interpretation of the midrash and of the new JPS translation. < i.e. > because of his people's vindication (TsDQ)] and not < their > conviction. So also you find that in the case of the first Adam, when he created him, he set him in the Garden of Eden. Then he gave him a command and said to him: Eat this, but do not eat from this, FOR (according to Gen. 2:17) ON THE DAY THAT YOU EAT FROM IT, YOU SHALL SURELY DIE. < When > he transgressed, he brought a sentence⁵⁴Gk.: apophasis. upon himself. < Then > the Sabbath came, and he acquitted him.⁵⁵Heb.: pinnahu. This word means “removed him” as well as “acquitted him.” In other words, Adam’s acquittal meant that his sentence was reduced from death to removal from the Garden. So M. Pss. 92:3. He began to talk with him < about > whether he would repent? It is so stated (in Gen. 3:9): THE LORD GOD CALLED UNTO THE HUMAN. THE LORD can only mean the quality of mercy, as stated (in Exod. 34:6): THE LORD: THE LORD IS A MERCIFUL AND GRACIOUS GOD. For him he had the quality of mercy precede the quality of strict justice. Ergo (in Ps. 5:5 [4]): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS, in that he does not delight in convicting a person. He began to talk (in Gen. 3:11–12): WHO TOLD YOU < THAT YOU WERE NAKED? DID YOU EAT FROM THE TREE >…? THEN THE MAN SAID: THE WOMAN…. He left Adam alone and began to talk with the woman, as stated (in vs. 13): THEN THE LORD GOD SAID TO THE WOMAN…. But when he came to the serpent he did not talk with him. Instead he immediately gave him a sentence, as stated (in vss. 14–15): 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 >…. I WILL PUT ENMITY < BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN >…. < Then > he returned to the woman and said to her (in vs. 16): I WILL GREATLY MULTIPLY YOUR PAIN IN PREGNANCY. And when he returned to the man, he did not convict him. Rather he intimated to him that he should repent. Where is it shown? R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Levi that he said to him (in vs. 19): BY THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW SHALL EAT BREAD, UNTIL YOU RETURN < … >. YOU RETURN can only be an expression for repentance, since it is stated (in Hos. 14:2 [1]): RETURN O ISRAEL, < TO THE LORD YOUR GOD >. When < Adam > did not repent, he expelled him from the Garden of Eden, as stated [(in Gen. 3:24): AND HE DROVE OUT THE MAN. Ergo] (in Ps. 5:5 [4]): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS. What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.): EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU. R. Tanhuma bar Hanila'i in the name of R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Johanan: Before the Holy One stand only angels of peace and angels of mercy, but the angels of wrath are far from him. It is so stated (in Is. 13:5): THEY COME FROM A FAR LAND FROM THE END OF THE HEAVENS, EVEN THE LORD AND THE WEAPONS OF HIS WRATH, TO RAVAGE THE WHOLE EARTH. [Another interpretation] (of Ps. 5:5 [4], cont.): EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU. R. Johanan said: If you do not pursue evil, evil will not pursue you, nor will it dwell with you.

11) ("and they do one of all) the mitzvoth of the L–rd": Not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The mitzvoth referred to in respect to the high-priest (i.e., those liable to kareth for intentional transgression) are the mitzvoth referred to here. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd — to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2) (for all of which one brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). "… which are not to be done, and they are guilty": Just as punishment is exacted of the individual (if he does not bring his sin-offering), so it is exacted of the congregation (even though they acted on the ruling of beth-din.)

11) (Vayikra 4:7): "And the Cohein shall put of the blood": of the blood previously referred to (i.e., that in the receptacle and not that left over on his finger.) "on the horns of the altar": two; and later (Vayikra 4:18) it is written "horns" — four all together. These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says (Vayikra 4:7): "which is in the tent of meeting" — to include all the corners of the tent of meeting. "the altar of the smoking (of the incense."): The (golden) altar is to be inaugurated with smoking (of the incense). "ketoreth (smoking)": It (the incense that is smoked) must come from the congregation (and not from an individual.) "samim" (incense): It must contain all of its (composite) spices, (failing which the inauguration is invalid.) "before the L–rd." What is the intent of this? R. Nechemiah said: Because we find with the Yom Kippur bullock that he stands in front of the altar (i.e., between the altar and the parocheth), and, in sprinkling, he sprinkles on the parocheth, we might think that here, too, it is so; it is, therefore, written: "the altar of the smoking of the incense before the L–rd" — (The altar is before the L–rd,) but the Cohein is not before the L–rd, (but before the altar, which is before the L–rd [i.e., before the (parocheth of the) holy of holies.])

11) ("and they do one of all) the mitzvoth of the L–rd": Not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The mitzvoth referred to in respect to the high-priest (i.e., those liable to kareth for intentional transgression) are the mitzvoth referred to here. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd — to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2) (for all of which one brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). "… which are not to be done, and they are guilty": Just as punishment is exacted of the individual (if he does not bring his sin-offering), so it is exacted of the congregation (even though they acted on the ruling of beth-din.)

11) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include (illicit relations with) a betrothed maiden and desecration of the Sabbath, (which though liable to stoning, like idolatry, have certain attenuations.) There is that (i.e., an attenuating factor) in a betrothed maiden which is not in the Sabbath, and that in the Sabbath which is not in a betrothed maiden. A betrothed maiden has a "permit" (divorce, or death of the betrothed), and Sabbath has no "permit." Something in the class of "Sabbath" (i.e., Sabbath Temple sacrifice) is permitted; nothing in the class of "a betrothed maiden" is permitted.

11) R. Shimon said: How can you reason from eating to slaughtering? (i.e., In the instance of eating he derives distinct enjoyment from each dish, an element lacking in the instance of slaughtering.) Rather, what he asked them was: If one eats nothar, (offerings outside of the authorized eating time), from five sacrifices in one forgetfulness lapse, what is the halachah? Is he liable for (one sin-offering for) all of them, or one for each of them? They answered: We did not hear. R. Yehoshua said: I heard that if one ate of one offering from five trays in one forgetfulness lapse, he is liable for each one by reason of me'ilah, and it seems to me that it is a kal vachomer (that if five trays of the same offering are perceived as distinct entities, how much more so, distinct offerings!)

11) But are not the festival goats communal sin-offerings? Shall I say they are to be burnt? It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "It" (is the sin-offering of the assembly.) Now why do you see fit to include the idolatry goats (for burning) and to exclude the festival goats? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the idolatry goats, which are brought for transgression of a known mitzvah, and I exclude the festival goats, which are not brought for transgression of a known mitzvah.

11) Let us see whom he (the nassi) is most like. We should derive (the rule) for him (the nassi), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness alone, [without an error in ruling], from him (the individual), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone); and this should not be refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone). — Or go in this direction: We should derive (the rule for) him (the nassi), who brings a male for his known sin from him (the high-priest), who brings a male for his known sin, and this should not be refuted by (the instance of the individual), who does not bring a male for his known sin. It must, therefore, be written: "and he (the nassi) be guilty," to teach us that he brings an asham talui.

11) You say that it was specified for this purpose. But perhaps it was specified to teach that only this (the goat of the nassi) requires north (but not other sin-offerings)! (This cannot be, for) it is written (Vayikra 4:29): "… and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering" — to include all sin-offerings as requiring slaughtering in the north.

11) You say that it was specified for this purpose. But perhaps it was specified to teach that only this (the goat of the nassi) requires north (but not other sin-offerings)! (This cannot be, for) it is written (Vayikra 4:29): "… and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering" — to include all sin-offerings as requiring slaughtering in the north.

11) (Vayikra 4:7): "And the Cohein shall put of the blood": of the blood previously referred to (i.e., that in the receptacle and not that left over on his finger.) "on the horns of the altar": two; and later (Vayikra 4:18) it is written "horns" — four all together. These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says (Vayikra 4:7): "which is in the tent of meeting" — to include all the corners of the tent of meeting. "the altar of the smoking (of the incense."): The (golden) altar is to be inaugurated with smoking (of the incense). "ketoreth (smoking)": It (the incense that is smoked) must come from the congregation (and not from an individual.) "samim" (incense): It must contain all of its (composite) spices, (failing which the inauguration is invalid.) "before the L–rd." What is the intent of this? R. Nechemiah said: Because we find with the Yom Kippur bullock that he stands in front of the altar (i.e., between the altar and the parocheth), and, in sprinkling, he sprinkles on the parocheth, we might think that here, too, it is so; it is, therefore, written: "the altar of the smoking of the incense before the L–rd" — (The altar is before the L–rd,) but the Cohein is not before the L–rd, (but before the altar, which is before the L–rd [i.e., before the (parocheth of the) holy of holies.])

12) (Vayikra 4:14): ("If the sin became known wherein they have sinned"): If it became known (to the people) that beth-din had ruled erroneously (in respect to one of two acts, both of which they later performed on their ruling); but they could not ascertain in which ruling they had erred — I might think that they would (nevertheless) be liable (for a sin-offering, knowing, at least, that they had acted on an erroneous ruling of beth-din); it is, therefore, written: "If the (specific) sin became known," and not: "If the sinners became known."

12) "Of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include (illicit relations with) a married woman and with a niddah, (where there is no liability to stoning and where there are attenuating factors). There is that (i.e., a stringency factor) in a married woman which is not in a niddah, and that in a niddah which is not in a married woman. One who has illicit relations with a married woman is liable to judicial death penalties; one who has illicit relations with a niddah is not. A married woman is permitted to her husband; a niddah is forbidden to all men.

12) R. Akiva said: If this is a halachah, we shall accept it, but if it is a reason, it is subject to refutation. He answered: Say on. R. Akiva: This may be so with me'ilah, where the feeder was equated with the eater, and the benefactor with the enjoyer, and where the me'ilah is incremental for an extended time period (i.e., a half-p'rutah of me'ilah today is added to a half-p'rutah later to produce the p'rutah liability for me'ilah), as opposed to nothar, where none of these obtains.

12) — But the Yom Kippur bullock is not brought for transgression of a known mitzvah, in spite of which it requires burning! — That (the Yom Kippur bullock) is distinctive in that its blood enters within (the heichal). So, all (offerings) whose blood enters within (are to be burnt). — to exclude these (the festival goats), whose blood does not enter within.

12) "And all the (remaining) blood of the bullock he shall pour (at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting.": to include the blood of the Yom Kippur bullock for pouring. "he shall pour" — and not drip; "he shall pour" — and not sprinkle; "he shall pour" — and not fling. "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering": not at the base of the inner (golden) altar. For (without this qualification) I would reason: Does it not follow (that the blood should be poured at the base of the inner altar, viz.): The outer altar "merits" the application of blood, and the inner altar "merits" the application of blood. Just as with the outer altar — in the place of the application of the blood on its horns (i.e., in the azarah), there is the place for the application of the blood on its base — so, with the inner altar — in the place of the application of the blood on its horns (i.e., in the heichal), there is the place for the blood on its base. (It is, therefore, written [to negate this]: "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering.")

13) "… wherein they have sinned, then the assembly shall offer, etc.": If two tribes sinned, they bring two bullocks; if three tribes sinned, they bring three bullocks. — But perhaps the meaning is that two sinners (in an assembly of sinners) bring two bullocks; three sinners bring three bullocks (i.e., each one in the assembly brings a bullock). It is, therefore, written: "the assembly (shall offer"). The assembly (and not each individual) is liable, (one bullock for the entire assembly), and each assembly (i.e., tribe) is liable (for itself).

13) Why mention again in respect to (the offering of) the congregation (Ibid. 18): "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? To teach that there was no base to the inner altar itself. Why mention again in respect to the nassi (Ibid. 25): "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? If the inner altar does not receive its own remnants (i.e., the blood remaining from the bullock of the high-priest, which was sprinkled on the inner altar), should it receive those of the outer altar (i.e., the remnants of the blood of the he-goat of the nassi, which was sprinkled on the outer altar)? Furthermore, is there a base to the inner altar itself? Why, then, state: "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? (To teach) that (the law of pouring the remaining blood) at the base of the altar should apply to (whatever blood remains in the vessel from the offerings of) the altar of the burnt-offering. "At the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting": the western base, (which is opposite the entrance of the heichal).

13) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include (relations with) his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, (which are of lesser gravity than relations with a married woman and a niddah, being permitted to all men other than the relatives in question). There is that (an attenuating factor) in his brother's wife which is not in his father's brother's wife, and there is that in his father's brother's wife which is not in his brother's wife. His (deceased) brother's wife, if she has children (from him), she is forbidden (to the brother); if she has no children, she is permitted; his father's brother's wife — Whether or not she has children (from her [deceased] husband), she is forbidden (to her nephew). His brother's wife — a brother by his mother is considered (interdicted) like a brother by his father; his father's brother's wife — a brother by his mother is not considered like a brother by his father.

13) R. Akiva said: I asked R. Eliezer: If one performs many labors (toldoth) (all deriving) from one proto-labor (av), in one forgetfulness lapse, what is the halachah? Is he liable for one (sin-offering for) all (labors and Sabbaths), or one for each one? He answered: He is liable for each one by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if in the instance of niddah, (where one lived with five niddoth), where there are not many ramifications ([as there are in the instance of Shabbath] — where there are not avoth and toldoth, but only the basic interdict against living with a niddah), and where there are not many different varieties of sin (stemming from the av-toldah structure), he is liable for each one — Shabbath, where there are many ramifications and different varieties of sin, how much more so should he be liable for each one! I answered: No, this may be so with niddah, where there are two exhortations, the man being exhorted against (living with) the niddah, and she against (living with him), as opposed to Shabbath, where there is only one exhortation. He: This is refuted by one's living with (niddoth who are) minors, where there is only one exhortation, but where he is nevertheless liable for each one. I answered: No, this may be so in the instance of one's living with minors, who though not (bound by the exhortation) now will be so later, as opposed to Shabbath, where (a second exhortation obtains) neither now nor later. He: It is refuted by one's living with a beast, (where he is liable for each one, though the beast is under no exhortation). I: The beast is like Shabbath (i.e., The instance of the beast is as much of a query to me as that of Shabbath!)

13) "sin-offering": All of its services must be intended for a sin-offering. "It": to exclude its being slaughtered without intent (for a sin-offering).

13) "sin-offering": All of its services must be intended for a sin-offering. "It": to exclude its being slaughtered without intent (for a sin-offering).

13) Why mention again in respect to (the offering of) the congregation (Ibid. 18): "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? To teach that there was no base to the inner altar itself. Why mention again in respect to the nassi (Ibid. 25): "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? If the inner altar does not receive its own remnants (i.e., the blood remaining from the bullock of the high-priest, which was sprinkled on the inner altar), should it receive those of the outer altar (i.e., the remnants of the blood of the he-goat of the nassi, which was sprinkled on the outer altar)? Furthermore, is there a base to the inner altar itself? Why, then, state: "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? (To teach) that (the law of pouring the remaining blood) at the base of the altar should apply to (whatever blood remains in the vessel from the offerings of) the altar of the burnt-offering. "At the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting": the western base, (which is opposite the entrance of the heichal).

13) Why mention again in respect to (the offering of) the congregation (Ibid. 18): "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? To teach that there was no base to the inner altar itself. Why mention again in respect to the nassi (Ibid. 25): "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? If the inner altar does not receive its own remnants (i.e., the blood remaining from the bullock of the high-priest, which was sprinkled on the inner altar), should it receive those of the outer altar (i.e., the remnants of the blood of the he-goat of the nassi, which was sprinkled on the outer altar)? Furthermore, is there a base to the inner altar itself? Why, then, state: "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? (To teach) that (the law of pouring the remaining blood) at the base of the altar should apply to (whatever blood remains in the vessel from the offerings of) the altar of the burnt-offering. "At the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting": the western base, (which is opposite the entrance of the heichal).

(Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. It is difficult for the Holy One to reach out his hand against a human being.⁶⁶Tanh., Lev. 4:10; cf. Lev. R. 17:4. Rather he forewarns a person and afflicts his house, as stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. < If > he repents, fine; but if not, it afflicted his clothes, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. < If > he repents, fine; but if not, < comes > upon his body, as stated (in Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >.

14) How so? If two tribes sinned, they bring two bullocks. If three tribes sinned, they bring three. And the other tribes, which did not sin, bring a bullock (each) because of them. For even those who did not sin bring because of the sinners. These are the words of R. Yehudah.

14) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include his sister, and his father's sister, and his mother's sister, which, like idolatry, were at no time permitted to him, (but which are of lesser gravity than his brother's wife and his father's brother's wife, which were forbidden to all men while they were married.) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include his wife's sister, (though she is permitted to him upon his wife's death.)

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. Why do the plagues come?⁶⁷Tanh., Lev. 4:11; cf. Lev. R. 17:3. Because of harlotry. And so you find in Jerusalem, that because they were absorbed in harlotry, they were afflicted with leprosy. What is written there (in Is. 3:16)? MOREOVER, THE LORD SAID: BECAUSE < THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION > ARE HAUGHTY, < AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES >…. Then it says (in vs. 17): THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION. [SMITE WITH SORES (SPH)⁶⁸The Buber text has misspelled SPH by rendering the S sound with a samekh in place of the biblical sin. must mean "with leprosy," since it is stated (with reference to leprosy in Lev. 13:2): A SWELLING OR A SORE (rt.: SPH).]⁶⁹Here the S represents a samekh. It also says (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE.

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

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

24 (Numb. 11:16) “Gather Me [seventy men from the elders of Israel]”: But did you not have elders before? Here now it is written concerning Mount Sinai (in Exod. 24:9), “Then there went up Moses […] and the seventy elders of Israel”; and this parashah (with Numb. 11:16) comes after that. So where were the[se earlier] elders? It is simply that, when Israel did those things which are stated (in Numb. 11:1), “Now the people were as murmurers […] then the fire of the Lord burned against them,” they were all destroyed by fire at that time. It is simply that their burning was like the burning of Nadab and Abihu, for they also had acted with disrespect on ascending Sinai, when they saw the Divine Presence. It is so stated (in Exod. 24:11), “they beheld God, and they ate and drank.” Was there eating and drinking there? To what is the matter comparable? To a servant who attended his master while [holding] a slice of bread in his hand and taking bites from it. Similarly had they acted with disrespect as though eating and drinking. So the elders along with Nadab and Abihu deserved to be destroyed by fire on that day; but because the giving of Torah was dear to the Holy One, blessed be He, He therefore did not want to harm them and bring calamity to them on that day. This is what is written (ibid.), “But He (the Holy One, blessed be He,) did not raise His hand against the nobles of the Children of Israel.” From this you may infer that they deserved to have a hand raised [against them]. After a time, however, He collected their debt: Nadab and Abihu were also destroyed by fire as they entered the tent of meeting, while the elders were destroyed by fire when they were filled with lusting, as stated (in Numb. 11:4), “Then the rabble (ha'safsuf) which was in their midst became filled with lust.” Who were the rabble (ha'safsuf)? R. Simeon ben Menasya and R. Simeon bar Abba [differed on the matter]. One said, “These were the proselytes who came up with them from Egypt and who were gathered (ne'esafim) together with them as stated (in Exod. 12:38), ‘And a mixed multitude went up with them.’” But the other said, “Rabble can only be a Sanhedrin, since it is stated (in Numb. 11:16), ‘Gather (esfah) Me seventy men.’” What [else] is written there (in Numb. 11:1)? “Then the fire of the Lord burned against them and consumed them in the outskirts (qetseh) of the camp,” [i.e.,] among the selected (muqetsim) in the camp. And where is it shown that those elders who went up onto the mountain were destroyed by fire? Where it is stated (in Ps. 106:18), “And fire broke out in their company ('edah),” since company ('edah) can only be a Sanhedrin as stated (in Numb. 15:24), “And it shall come to pass that if it was done [by mistake] away from the eyes of the congregation ('edah).”⁵¹I.e. the leaders of the congregation. So Rashi on Numb. 15:24. It is also written (in Lev. 4:13), “And if the whole congregation ('edah) of Israel⁵²This expression was often interpreted as denoting the Sanhedrin. So Sifra to Lev. 4:13 (42: Wayyiqra parashah 4); R. Meir in Hor. 5a; Rashi on Lev. 4:13. should err.” And likewise it says (in Ps. 78:31), “When God’s anger flared up at them, He slew their sturdiest,” these were the Sanhedrin; “struck down the chosen of Israel,” these were the chosen ones that were called elders, about whom it is written (in II Sam. 6:1), “And David still added to the chosen among Israel.” Then they wept again and demanded meat. Now you might say, “What they wanted was animal flesh? Did it not come about that the manna became whatever they wanted inside of their mouths, as stated (in Ps. 106:15), ‘So He gave them what they asked for...’?” And in case you should say that they did not have oxen and cattle in the desert, has it not already stated (in Exod. 12:38), “And a mixed multitude went up with them and flocks and herds.” And in case you should say they ate them in the desert, is it not written (in Numb. 32:1), “Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had much livestock?” From here R. Simeon said, “It was not meat for which they lusted, since it says so (in Ps. 78:27) – ‘And He rained down flesh (she'er) upon them like dust.’ Now she'er must denote illicit intercourse since it is stated (in Lev. 18:6), ‘None of you shall approach any close (she'er) relation to him.’ Ergo, it [really] says that they desired to permit illicit intercourse for themselves; and so it says (in Numb. 11:10), ‘Now Moses heard the people weeping for their families.’”⁵³See Yoma 75a according to which they were weeping here because of the family relations with whom they were forbidden to have intercourse. Thus when they desired such [relations] (ibid. cont.), “the Lord was very angry and it was bad in the eyes of Moses.” At that time Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He, (in vs. 11), “’Why have you mistreated Your servant […]?’ In the past there was one with me who would bear the burden of Israel, but now I am alone.” Thus it is written (in vs. 14-15), “I am not able to bear [all] this people alone…. So if You are dealing like this with me, please truly kill me.” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Appoint other elders instead of those elders.” It is so stated] (in vs. 16), “Gather Me seventy men.”

15) R. Shimon says: If seven tribes sinned, they bring seven bullocks; and beth-din brings a bullock for them (for their erroneous ruling on which they acted), it being written here "assembly" ("the assembly shall offer"), and, elsewhere (Ibid. 4:13): "assembly" ("and a thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly"). Just as "assembly" there is beth-din, so, here, it is beth-din.

(Numb. 11:16:) “Gather Me seventy man (sic)⁶³The midrash is ignoring the fact that Hebrew uses singular nouns with large numbers in order to build an interpretation on this singular usage. from the elders of Israel.”⁶⁴Numb. R. 5:23. This text is related (to Prov. 22:11), “The one who loves purity of heart has grace on his lips, has a king as his friend.” Why did He not say to him (in Numb. 11:16), “seventy men" (with "men" in the plural), instead of “seventy man.” It is simply that He said to him, “seventy man (ish) [with the singular ish indicating] singular individuals,⁶⁵I.e. singular individuals like the one described in Prov. 22:11. because they were to be like Me and you, as stated (Exod. 15:3:) “The Lord is a Man (ish) of war,” [and it is likewise] stated (Numb. 12:3), “Now the man (ish) Moses was very humble.” (Numb. 11:16:) “Gather Me [seventy men from the elders of Israel].” But did you not have elders before?⁶⁶Numb. R. 15:24. Here now it is written concerning Mount Sinai (in Exod. 24:9), “Then there went up Moses […] and the seventy elders of Israel”; and this parashah (with Numb. 11:16) comes after that. So where were the[se earlier] elders? It is simply that, when Israel did those things which are stated (in Numb. 11:1), “Now the people were as murmurers […] then the fire of the Lord burned against them,” they were all destroyed by fire at that time. It is simply that their burning was like the burning of Nadab and Abihu, for they also had acted with disrespect on ascending Sinai, when they saw the Divine Presence. It is so stated (in Exod. 24:11), “they beheld God, and they ate and drank.” Was there eating and drinking there? To what is the matter comparable? To a servant who attended his master while [holding] a slice of bread in his hand and taking bites from it. Similarly had they acted with disrespect as though eating and drinking. So the elders along with Nadab and Abihu deserved to be destroyed by fire on that day; but because the giving of Torah was dear to the Holy One, blessed be He, He therefore did not want to harm them and bring calamity to them on that day. This is what is written (ibid.), “But He (the Holy One, blessed be He,) did not raise His hand against the nobles of the Children of Israel.” From this you may infer that they deserved to have a hand raised [against them]. After a time, however, they were destroyed by fire. Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire as they entered the tent of meeting, while the elders were destroyed by fire when they were filled with lusting, as stated (in Numb. 11:4), “Then the rabble (ha'safsuf) which was in their midst became filled with lust.” Who were the rabble (ha'safsuf)? R. Simeon ben Menasya and R. Simeon bar Abba [differed on the matter]. One said, “These were the proselytes who came up with them from Egypt and who were gathered (ne'esafim) together with them as stated (in Exod. 12:38), ‘And a mixed multitude went up with them.’” But the other said, “Rabble can only be a Sanhedrin, since it is stated (in Numb. 11:16), ‘Gather (esfah) Me seventy men.’” What [else] is written there (in Numb. 11:1)? “Then the fire of the Lord burned against them and consumed them in the outskirts (qetseh) of the camp,” [i.e.,] among the selected (muqetsim) in the camp. And where is it shown that those elders who went up onto the mountain were destroyed by fire? Where it is stated (in Ps. 106:18), “And fire broke out in their company ('edah),” since company ('edah) can only be a Sanhedrin as stated (in Numb. 15:24), “And it shall come to pass that if it was done [by mistake] away from the eyes of the congregation ('edah).”⁶⁷I.e. the leaders of the congregation. So Rashi on Numb. 15:24. It is also written (in Lev. 4:13), “And if the whole congregation ('edah) of Israel⁶⁸This expression was often interpreted as denoting the Sanhedrin. So Sifra to Lev. 4:13 (42: Wayyiqra parashah 4); R. Meir in Hor. 5a; Rashi on Lev. 4:13. should err.” And so did David say (in Ps. 78:31), “When God’s anger flared up at them, He slew their sturdiest,” these were the Sanhedrin; “struck down the chosen of Israel,” these were the chosen ones that were called elders, about whom it is written (in II Sam. 6:1), “And David still added to the chosen among Israel.” Then they wept again and demanded meat. Now you might say, “What they wanted was flesh? Did it not come about that the manna became whatever they wanted inside of their mouths, as stated (in Ps. 106:15), ‘So He gave them what they asked for...’?” And in case you should say that they did not have oxen and cattle in the desert, has it not already stated (in Exod. 12:38), “And a mixed multitude went up with them and flocks and herds.” And in case you should say they ate them in the desert, is it not written (in Numb. 32:1), “Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had much livestock?” From here R. Simeon said, “It was not meat for which they lusted, since it says so (in Ps. 78:27), ‘And He rained down flesh (she'er) upon them like dust.’ Now she'er must denote illicit intercourse since it is stated (in Lev. 18:6), ‘None of you shall approach any close (she'er) relation to him.’ Ergo, it [really] says that they desired to permit illicit intercourse for themselves; and so it says (in Numb. 11:10), ‘Now Moses heard the people weeping for their families.’”⁶⁹See Yoma 75a according to which they were weeping here because of the family relations with whom they were forbidden to have intercourse. Thus when they desired such [relations] (ibid. cont.), “the Lord was very angry and it was bad in the eyes of Moses.” At that time Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He, (in vs. 11), “’Why have you mistreated Your servant […]?’ In the past there was one with me who would bear the burden of Israel, but now I am alone.” Thus it is written (in vs. 14-15), “I am not able to bear [all] this people alone…. So if You are dealing like this with me, please truly kill me.” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Appoint other elders instead of those elders.” It is so stated] (in vs. 16), “Gather Me seventy men.” (Numb. 11:17:) “Then I will come down and speak with you there.” [This verse is] to inform you that the day for appointing elders was as dear to the Holy One, blessed be He, as the day for the giving of Torah.⁷⁰Numb. R. 15:25. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 19:11), “for on the third day the Lord will come down”; and also (in Numb. 11:17) with reference to appointing the elders, “I will come down,” is written. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who had an orchard and hired a guard for it. Then he gave him the payment of a guard for him to guard the orchard. After a time the guard said to him, “I cannot guard all of it myself. Rather give me others to guard it with me.” The king said to him, “I have given the entire orchard into your keeping, and I have given you all the payment for guarding it; but now you would say to me, ‘Go and bring others to guard it with me.’ See I am bringing others to guard with you, but observe that I am not giving them their payment from what belongs to me. Rather it is from your payment which I have given you that they are receiving their payment.” Similarly did the Holy One, blessed be He, speak to Moses. When [Moses] said to Him, “I cannot [do everything] alone,” the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I have given you understanding and knowledge to sustain⁷¹PRNS. Cf. Gk.: pronoos (“prudent”). My children. Moreover, I did not want others, simply so that you would have strength and knowledge and so that you would stand alone in that greatness. But now you are the one who wants others. Be aware that they will receive [payment], not from what is Mine, but from what is yours.” It is so stated (in Numb. 11:17.), “and I will set aside some of the spirit which is upon you and put it on them [...].” Nevertheless Moses did not lack anything. You should know that after forty years He said to Moses (in Numb. 27:18, 20), “Take Joshua ben Nun …. And put some of your glory upon him.” Then what is written about Joshua (in Deut. 34:9)? “Now Joshua ben Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom.” Why? (Ibid. cont.:) “Because Moses had laid his hands upon him.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “In this world [only] individuals have prophesied, but in the world to come all Israel shall become prophets.” It is so stated (in Joel 3:1), “And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh so that your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.”⁷²See also above Gen. 10:4; cf. Deut. R. 6:14. So did R. Tanchuma bar Abba expound.

“Moreover, I have seen, under the sun, in the place of judgment there is wickedness, and in the place of justice there is wickedness” (Ecclesiastes 3:16).
“Moreover, I have seen, under the sun, in the place of judgment…” – Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: “In the place of judgment there is wickedness” – in the place where the Great Sanhedrin convenes and determine rulings for Israel, “there is wickedness,” as it is stated: “All the princes of the king of Babylon came and sat at the Middle Gate” (Jeremiah 39:3) – the place where the halakhot are determined.⁷⁰The word for Middle Gate [hatavekh] is similar to the term for determine [ḥotekh]. “There is wickedness,” there sat “Nergal Saretzer, Samgar Nevo, Sarsekhim the chief official; Nergal Saretzer the chief magician, and all the rest of the princes of the king of Babylon” (Jeremiah 39:3). The parable says: Where the master hung his weapon, the insolent shepherd hangs his jug.⁷¹The place formerly used for a glorious purpose has now been appropriated for an inglorious one. The Divine Spirit is screaming: “And in the place of justice, there is wickedness” – the place in whose regard it is stated: “Justice would lodge in it, but now murderers” (Isaiah 1:21), they commit murders. There they killed Zekharya and Uriya.⁷²Because Israel committed atrocities in the place that should have been set aside for justice, the members of the Great Sanhedrin were replaced in that location by conquering Babylonian officers.
Rabbi Yonatan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Aḥa: In which place did they kill Zekharya, in the Israelite courtyard or in the women’s courtyard? He said to him: Neither in the women’s courtyard nor in the Israelite courtyard, but rather in the priests’ courtyard. They did not treat his blood like the blood of a gazelle or like the blood of a deer. Regarding the blood of a deer and a gazelle it is written in the Torah: “He shall spill its blood and cover it with dirt” (Leviticus 17:13). But the righteous Zekharya, they did not treat his blood like the blood of a deer and a gazelle; rather they spilled it on the stones, as it is written: “For its blood was in its midst; it placed it upon a bare rock. [It did not pour it on the ground to cover it with dirt]” (Ezekiel 24:7). To what purpose? It was “to arouse fury to take vengeance, [I placed its blood upon the bare rock so it would not be covered]” (Ezekiel 24:8),⁷³God brought it about that Zekharya’s blood would not be covered in order to motivate the Babylonians to take vengeance upon the Israelites. and in that regard it is written: “Remember your Creator in the days of your youth” (Ecclesiastes 12:1).
You find that when Nevuzaradan ascended to destroy Jerusalem, the Holy One blessed be He had indicated to that blood that it should seethe and rise for two hundred and fifty-two years, from [the time of] Yoash to [the time of] Zedekiah. What did they do? They swept all possible dirt and formed every possible pile [upon it], but it would not rest; the blood was seething and boiling. The Holy One blessed be He said to the blood: ‘This is the time that you will collect your debt.’ When Nevuzaradan ascended and saw it, he said to them: ‘What is the nature of this blood that seethes in this way?’ They said to him: ‘It is the blood of bulls, rams, and sheep that they were slaughtering and sacrificing.’ He brought bulls, rams, and sheep and slaughtered them onto it, but it did not quiet, did not rest, and did not stop. He immediately took them and hanged them on a pole. He said to them: ‘Tell me what is the nature of this blood, and if not, I will comb you with a comb of iron.’ They said to him: ‘Since the Holy One blessed be He wishes to demand [vengeance for] His blood from us, we will reveal it to you.’ They said to him: ‘He was a priest, a prophet, and a judge, who would prophesy about us all these actions that you are performing against us. But we did not believe him and we rose against him and killed him for rebuking us.’
Immediately [Nevuzaradan] brought eighty thousand young priests and slaughtered them onto [the blood], but it did not rest. The blood emerged until it reached Zekharya’s grave. [Nevuzaradan] then brought the Great Sanhedrin and the lesser Sanhedrin and slaughtered them onto it, but it did not rest. At that moment, that wicked one [Nevuzaradan] came and shouted at the blood, and said to it: ‘What good are you, and in what way is your blood superior to the blood of these? Do you wish to eliminate your entire nation because of you?’ At that moment, the Holy One blessed be He became filled with mercy for them, and He said: ‘If this cruel wicked one, son of a wicked one, who ascended to destroy My house, became filled with mercy for them, I, of whom it is written: “The Lord, the Lord, God, merciful and gracious” (Exodus 34:6), and it is written in My regard: “The Lord is good to all, and His mercy is upon all His creations” (Psalms 145:9), all the more so.’ At that moment, the Holy One blessed be He intimated to that blood, and it was absorbed in its place.
Rabbi Yudan said: The Israelites performed seven transgressions at that moment:⁷⁴When they killed Zekharya. They killed a priest, a prophet, and a judge, they spilled innocent blood, they [brought] impurity to the [Temple] courtyard, and it was Shabbat and Yom Kippur.
Rabbi Yehoshua interpreted the verse regarding the sin of the Golden Calf. “In the place of judgment there is wickedness” – in the place where Moses implemented the attribute of justice, as it is stated: “Go to and fro from gate to gate in the camp [and each man kill his brother]” (Exodus 32:27). “There is wickedness,” as it is stated: “The Lord afflicted the people…” (Exodus 32:35). The Divine Spirit was shouting: “In the place of justice there is wickedness” – in the place where I treated them as righteous ones and called them divine, as it is stated: “I said: You are divine and all of you are sons of the celestial” (Psalms 82:6). “There is wickedness” – there they were corrupted and crafted the [Golden] Calf. As it is stated: “They prostrated themselves to it” (Exodus 32:8).
Rabbi Yuda interpreted the verse regarding Shitim. “In the place of judgment there is wickedness” – in the place where the attribute of justice acted in Shitim, as it is stated: “Take all the leaders of the people and hang them before the Lord against the sun” (Numbers 25:4). “There is wickedness,” as it stated: “The dead in the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Numbers 25:9). The Divine Spirit was shouting and saying: “And in the place of justice there is wickedness” – in the place where I treated them as righteous regarding the curses of Bilam, and I transformed them into blessings, as it is stated: “The Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you” (Deuteronomy 23:6), “there is wickedness,” there they corrupted and sinned, as it is stated: “Israel resided in Shitim [and the people began to engage in licentiousness]” (Numbers 25:1).
Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Yitzḥak, Rabbi Levi said two matters [are stated in verses] regarding the hand [of God], and two matters regarding the right hand [of God]. Two matters regarding the hand [of God], as it is written: “In whose hand is the life of every living being…” (Job 12:10), and it is written: “And My hand grasps judgment” (Deuteronomy 32:41). And two matters regarding the right hand [of God], as it is stated: “From His right hand, a fiery law to them” (Deuteronomy 33:2), and it is written: “Your right hand is filled with righteousness” (Psalms 48:11). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Holy One blessed be He said to the soul: Soul, I strengthened you very much and commanded you, and said: “Just be strong not to eat the blood [because the blood is the soul]” (Deuteronomy 12:23), and [nonetheless the soul] goes out, violently robs, sins, and subjects itself to the attribute of justice, and emerges from the attribute of justice and sins,⁷⁵It sins again after receiving punishment for its previous sins. as it is stated: “Speak to the children of Israel saying: ‘If a soul sins unwittingly…’” (Leviticus 4:2).⁷⁶The verse assigns responsibility for even unwitting sins to the soul (Midrash HaMevo’ar). Alternatively, the verse may also be understood as a rhetorical question, as though to say: After all this, can a soul yet sin, even unwittingly? (Etz Yosef).

16) R. Meir says: If seven tribes sinned, or most of them, (i.e., the majority of each), and beth-din brings a bullock for them, they are all exempt (from the sin-offering), it being written here "assembly," and elsewhere, "assembly." Just as "assembly" there is beth-din, so, here, it is beth-din.

17) R. Shimon b. Elazar said in his name: If six (of the tribes) sinned, and they comprise the majority (of the men) of the populace, or seven, even if they do not comprise the majority, they (beth-din, and not the populace) are liable (for the sin-offering).

(Gen. 34:1:) NOW LEAH'S DAUGHTER DINAH… WENT OUT. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: The male is always attributed to the wife, and the female, to the husband.⁵⁷See Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 4:4; Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Then why is this < daughter > attributed to her mother? Because her pregnancy was originally male. However, when Leah had borne six < sons >, Billah, two, and Zilpah, two, for a total of ten; then she prayed on behalf of < the barren > Rachel, and < the child > in her womb became female.⁵⁸See above, 7:19; Ber. 60a; Gen. R. 72:6. Ber. 60a explains that Jacob could have no more than twelve sons and that, therefore, if Leah’s seventh child were a son, there would only be one son left for Rachel to have. Then Rachel would not even be equal to one of the handmaidens. For that reason, she was attributed to her mother. (Gen. 34:1:) NOW LEAH'S DAUGHTER DINAH … WENT OUT.

(Gen. 34:1:) NOW LEAH'S DAUGHTER DINAH… WENT OUT. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: The male is always attributed to the wife, and the female, to the husband.⁵⁷See Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 4:4; Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Then why is this < daughter > attributed to her mother? Because her pregnancy was originally male. However, when Leah had borne six < sons >, Billah, two, and Zilpah, two, for a total of ten; then she prayed on behalf of < the barren > Rachel, and < the child > in her womb became female.⁵⁸See above, 7:19; Ber. 60a; Gen. R. 72:6. Ber. 60a explains that Jacob could have no more than twelve sons and that, therefore, if Leah’s seventh child were a son, there would only be one son left for Rachel to have. Then Rachel would not even be equal to one of the handmaidens. For that reason, she was attributed to her mother. (Gen. 34:1:) NOW LEAH'S DAUGHTER DINAH … WENT OUT.

The Holy One exacted punishment from them in Egypt and afterwards he exacted punishment from them at the sea. What is written concerning Egypt (in Exod. 12:29)? AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT <THAT THE LORD SMOTE ALL THE FIRST-BORN, FROM THE FIRST-BORN OF PHARAOH, WHO WAS SITTING UPON HIS THRONE, TO THE FIRST-BORN OF THE CAPTIVE WHO WAS IN THE DUNGEON, AND ALL THE FIRST-BORN OF THE CATTLE>. When he had killed their prince, he afterwards killed them; and so it says (in Exod. 12:12): AND ON ALL THE GODS OF EGYPT <I WILL EXECUTE JUDGMENTS>…. <Gods > of stone have rotted; <those> of silver and gold have been melted. When he had exacted punishment from their gods, he afterwards exacted punishment from them. (Exod. 15:1, cf. 21:) THE HORSE AND HIS RIDER HE HAS THROWN INTO THE SEA. This is the prince. And after that (in vs. 4): PHARAOH'S CHARIOTS AND HIS ARMY <HE HAS CAST INTO THE SEA>. Also in the case of this evil Roman Empire, when the Holy One has exacted punishment from their prince, he will afterwards exact punishment from them, just as he did to the Babylonian Empire. When he had exacted punishment from their prince, he afterwards exacted punishment from Nebuchadnezzar. It is so stated (in Jer. 51:44): I WILL ATTEND TO BEL (the prince of Babylon) IN BABYLON.⁸⁰Cf. vs. 47: I WILL DEAL WITH THE IMAGES OF BABYLON…; AND ALL ITS SLAIN SHALL FALL IN THE MIDST OF IT. And so also he does to Edom (i.e., to Rome), as stated (in Jer. 46:15): WHY HAS ABBIREKHA BEEN WASHED AWAY?⁸¹The midrash understands ABBIREKHA as a singular subject, because the Hebrew verb translated, HAS BEEN WASHED AWAY, is singular; however, it is common to follow such a singular verb with a plural subject. Thus the new JPS translation reads: WHY ARE YOUR STALWARTS SWEPT AWAY? This is their prince since he is afflicting that Abbirekha with leprosy.⁸²See below, Lev. 4:16; cf. Gen. 41:43, where “Abrech” (‘BRK) can be taken as a princely title, which according to Gen. R. 90:3 has the homiletic meaning, “Father (‘B) in wisdom and tender (RK) in years.” In the biblical context Jer. 46:15 refers to Egypt, but the midrash regards Abbirekha as intimating the prince of Edom, since according to sec. 6, above, “All the plagues which the Holy One brought upon the Egyptians he is going to bring upon Edom.” Now WASHED AWAY (rt.: SHP) can only mean leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:2): <WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH > A SWELLING OR A SORE (rt.: SPH) <OR A BRIGHT SPOT, AND IT BECOMES ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY >…. Then afterwards he exacts punishment from it (i.e., the whole Kingdom of Edom, rt.: 'DM). It is so stated (in Jer. 46:15, cont.): BECAUSE THE LORD THRUST IT DOWN. And so it also says (in Is. 24:21): THE LORD SHALL PUNISH THE HOST OF HEAVEN IN HEAVEN; then afterwards (ibid.): AND THE KINGS OF THE EARTH (rt.: 'DM) {IN} [ON] THE EARTH (rt.: 'DM). But in the case of Israel, just as their God lives and abides forever and forevermore, so do they live and abide forever and forevermore. Thus it is stated (in Jer. 10:10): BUT THE LORD IS A TRUE GOD: HE IS A LIVING GOD AND AN EVERLASTING KING; while concerning Israel it is written (in Deut. 4:4): BUT YOU WHO CLUNG TO THE LORD YOUR GOD ARE ALL ALIVE TODAY.

(Exodus 20:21) "And you shall slaughter thereon": alongside it (i.e., alongside the top). You say "alongside it, but perhaps it is to be understood literally, i.e., "upon it"? And this would follow, viz.: If the north of the altar, which is not kasher for atonement (i.e., for the sprinkling of the blood [viz. Leviticus 1:5]), is kasher for slaughtering, then the top of the altar, which is kasher for atonement, how much more so should it be kasher for slaughtering! This (a fortiori argument) is refuted by the inner altar, which, though it is kasher for atonement, (the blood of the bullocks for burning being sprinkling upon it) is not kasher for slaughtering, (which is to be performed at the entrance of the tent of meeting.) And this would indicate of the outer altar that though it is kasher for atonement, is not kasher for slaughtering. __ No, this may be true of the inner altar, which does not render (a leper) kasher (to eat of the offerings) and does not render (an offering) permitted (to be eaten), and does not consummate the atonement, (for after the blood was sprinkled on the inner altar, the remnant had to be spilled on the outer altar) — wherefore it is not kasher for slaughtering. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 12;27) "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings — the flesh and the blood — upon the altar': "the flesh and the blood upon (i.e., on top of) the altar," and not slaughtering on top of the altar, (but alongside it). R. Assi says: Slaughtering also is on top of the altar. And Scripture supports him, viz. "An altar of earth shall you make for Me and you shall slaughter therein, etc." One verse states "your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings," and, another "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings — the flesh and the blood, etc." How are these two verses to be reconciled? R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: From half the altar northwards is regarded as north, and from half the altar southwards is regarded as south. And this tells me only that the north of the altar is kasher for slaughtering. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the north of the azarah (the Temple court)? From (Leviticus 14:13) "And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he shall slaughter the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the holy place." Let this not be written. (Why is it written?) To render kasher the entire northern side (of the azarah)? "And you shall slaughter therein your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This tells me only of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) all offerings/ This tells me (that it is permitted to slaughter on the altar only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) all offerings? From (Ibid. 20:21) "your sheep and your cattle." __ But this would imply that he could slaughter there both offerings and non-offerings! Would you say that? What is the context? That of offerings (and not of non-offerings).

(Numb. 11:16:) GATHER ME <SEVENTY PEOPLE FROM THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL>. But did you not have elders before?¹⁰¹Tanh. Numb. 3:16 cont.; Numb. R. 15:24. Here now it is written concerning Mount Sinai (in Exod. 24:9): THEN THERE WENT UP MOSES … AND THE SEVENTY ELDERS OF ISRAEL; and this parashah (with Numb. 11:16) comes after that. So where were the<se earlier> elders? It is simply that, when Israel did those things which are stated (in Numb. 11:1): NOW THE PEOPLE WERE AS MURMURERS […. THEN THE FIRE OF THE LORD BURNED AGAINST THEM], they were all destroyed by fire at that time. It is simply that their burning was like the burning of Nadab and Abihu, for they also had acted with disrespect on ascending Sinai, when they saw the Divine Presence. It is so stated (in Exod. 24:11): THEY BEHELD GOD, AND THEY ATE AND DRANK. Was there eating and drinking there? To what is the matter comparable? To a servant who attended his master while <holding> a slice of bread in his hand and taking bites from it. Similarly had they acted with disrespect as though eating and drinking. So the elders along with Nadab and Abihu deserved to be destroyed by fire on that day; but because the giving of Torah was dear to the Holy One, he therefore did not want to harm them and bring calamity to them on that day. This is what is written (ibid.): BUT HE (the Holy One) STILL DID NOT RAISE HIS HAND AGAINST THE NOBLES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. From this you may infer that they deserved to have a hand raised <against them>. After a time, however, they were destroyed by fire. Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire as they entered the tent of meeting, while the elders were destroyed by fire when they were filled with lusting, as stated (in Numb. 11:4): THEN THE RABBLE WHICH WAS IN THEIR MIDST <BECAME FILLED WITH LUST>. Who were THE RABBLE (ha'safsuf)? R. Simeon ben Menasya and R. Simeon bar Abba <differed>. One said: These were the proselytes who came up with them from Egypt and who were gathered (ne'esafim) together with them as stated (in Exod. 12:38): AND A MIXED MULTITUDE <WENT UP WITH THEM>…. But the other said: RABBLE can only be a sanhedrin, since it is stated (in Numb. 11:16:) GATHER ME [SEVENTY PEOPLE] <FROM THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL>. What <else> is written there (in vs. 1)? THEN THE FIRE OF THE LORD BURNED AGAINST THEM AND CONSUMED THEM IN THE OUTSKIRTS (qetseh) OF THE CAMP, <i.e.,> among the officers (qetsinim) in the camp. And where is it shown that those elders who went up onto the mountain were destroyed by fire? Where it is stated (in Ps. 106:18): AND FIRE BROKE OUT IN THEIR COMPANY ('edah), since COMPANY ('edah) can only be a sanhedrin as stated (in Numb. 15:24): AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT IF IT WAS DONE <BY MISTAKE> AWAY FROM THE EYES OF THE CONGREGATION ('edah)….¹⁰²I.e. the leaders of the congregation. So Rashi on Numb. 15:24. It is also written (in Lev. 4:13): AND IF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION ('edah) OF ISRAEL¹⁰³This expression was often interpreted as denoting the Sanhedrin. So Sifra to Lev. 4:13 (42: Wayyiqra parashah 4); R. Meir in Hor. 5a; Rashi on Lev. 4:13. SHOULD ERR? Then they wept again and demanded meat. Now if you should say: What they wanted was flesh (not manna), did it not come about that the manna became whatever they wanted inside of their mouths. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 106:15): SO HE GAVE THEM WHAT THEY ASKED FOR. Again in case you should say that they did not have oxen and cattle in the desert, he caused to be written (in Exod. 12:38): AND A MIXED MULTITUDE WENT UP WITH THEM WITH FLOCKS AND HERDS. And in case you should say they ate them in the desert, is it not written (in Numb. 32:1): NOW THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN AND THE CHILDREN OF GAD HAD MUCH LIVESTOCK? From here R. Simeon said: It was not flesh for which they lusted, since it says so (in Ps. 78:27): AND HE RAINED DOWN MEAT (she'er) UPON THEM LIKE DUST. Now she'er must denote illicit intercourse since it is stated (in Lev. 18:6): NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH ANY CLOSE (she'er) RELATION TO HIM. Ergo, it <really> says that they desired to permit illicit intercourse for themselves; and so it says (in Numb. 11:10): NOW MOSES HEARD THE PEOPLE WEEPING FOR THEIR FAMILIES.¹⁰⁴See Yoma 75a according to which they were weeping here because of the family relations with whom they were forbidden to have intercourse. Thus when they desired such <relations> (ibid. cont.:) THE LORD WAS VERY ANGRY…. At that time Moses said to the Holy One (in vs. 11): WHY HAVE YOU MISTREATED YOUR SERVANT …? In the past there was one with me who would bear the burden of Israel, but now I am alone. Thus it is written (in vs. 14—15): I AM NOT ABLE TO BEAR <ALL THIS PEOPLE ALONE … SO IF YOU ARE DEALING LIKE THIS WITH ME…. At that time the Holy One said to him: Appoint other elders instead of those elders. [It is so stated] (in vs. 16): GATHER ME SEVENTY PEOPLE <FROM THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL>.

Rabban Gamaliel said: Abraham sent and called for Shem, the son of Noah, and he circumcised the flesh of the foreskin of our father Abraham, and the flesh of the foreskin of Ishmael his son, as it is said, "In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son" (Gen. 17:26). "In the selfsame day" (means) in the might of the sun at midday. Not only that, but (it indicates) the tenth day of the month, the Day of Atonement. It is written in connection with the Day of Atonement, "Ye shall do no manner of work on that selfsame day, for it is a day of atonement" (Lev. 23:28); and in the present instance the text says, "In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised" (Gen. 17:26). Know then that on the Day of Atonement Abraham our father was circumcised. Every year the Holy One, blessed be He, sees the blood of our father Abraham's circumcision, and He forgives all the sins of Israel, as it is said, "For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you" (Lev. 16:30). In that place where Abraham was circumcised and his blood remained, there the altar was built, and therefore, "And all the blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar" (Lev. 4:30). (It says also), "I said unto thee, In thy blood, live; yea, I said unto thee, In thy blood, live" (Ezek. 16:6).

Rabban Gamaliel said: Abraham sent and called for Shem, the son of Noah, and he circumcised the flesh of the foreskin of our father Abraham, and the flesh of the foreskin of Ishmael his son, as it is said, "In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son" (Gen. 17:26). "In the selfsame day" (means) in the might of the sun at midday. Not only that, but (it indicates) the tenth day of the month, the Day of Atonement. It is written in connection with the Day of Atonement, "Ye shall do no manner of work on that selfsame day, for it is a day of atonement" (Lev. 23:28); and in the present instance the text says, "In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised" (Gen. 17:26). Know then that on the Day of Atonement Abraham our father was circumcised. Every year the Holy One, blessed be He, sees the blood of our father Abraham's circumcision, and He forgives all the sins of Israel, as it is said, "For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you" (Lev. 16:30). In that place where Abraham was circumcised and his blood remained, there the altar was built, and therefore, "And all the blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar" (Lev. 4:30). (It says also), "I said unto thee, In thy blood, live; yea, I said unto thee, In thy blood, live" (Ezek. 16:6).

Another explanation for zeh hadavar: “Take with you words. . .”(d’varim, Ho 14:3). This is what is meant by what is written: “I wash my palms with cleanliness and circle your altar, Yahh, to voice thanks aloud and to tell of all your miracles.” (Ps 26:6f) One might also offer bulls and rams, but exegesis says to voice thanks aloud. Accordingly, Jews say, “Ribon HaOlam (“master of the universe”), leaders sin and bring and bring a korban (“offering”) and it atones for them. The mashiach sins and brings a korban and it atones for him. We, we have no korban.” He said to them: “And if all the congregation of Yisrael stray–and the matter is hidden from the eyes of the community–and they are guilty of doing one of the negative commandments of Yahh, then, if the sin guilt for which they sinned becomes known, the community shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering.”(Lev 4:13f) They say to him, “We are poor and we have not what to bring for korbanot.” He says to them, “Words, I request, as it is said, ‘Take with you words and return to Yahh’ and I annul all your misdeeds.” These words are none other than divrey Torah, as it is said, “These are the d’varim that Moshe spoke to all Yisrael.(Dt 1:1) They said to him, “We do not know.” He said to them, “Weep and pray before me and I accept it. Your ancestors, when they were enslaved in Mitsrayim, it wasn’t for prayer that I redeemed them, as it is said, ‘The B’neiYisrael groaned from the work and cried out.’(Ex 2:23)In the days of Y’hoshua it wasn’t for prayer that I made miracles for them, as it is said, ‘Y’hoshua tore his garment and fell on his face before the ark of Yahh till evening.’(Jos 7:6) So what did I say to him? ‘Hold out the spear which is in your hand towards The Ai, for I give it into your hand.’(Jos 8:18) In the days of the Judges, with weeping I heard their outcry, as it is said, ‘It happened, when the B’neiYisrael cried out to Yahh on account of Midyan.’(Ju 6:7) In the days of Sh’muel it was not in prayer that I heard them, as it is said, ‘Sh’muel cried out to Yahh on behalf of Yisrael and Yahh responded to him.’(Sam 7:9) And similarly the men of Y’rushalayim, even though they had angered me, because they wept before me I had mercy on them, as it is said, ‘For thus said Yahh, “Sing out joy to Ya’akov. . .”(Jer 31:7) Oh, I request from you not sacrifices and not korbanot but words, as it is said, ‘Take with you words. . .’ This is why David said, ‘I wash my hands with cleanliness’ not intending to make an offering but to voice thanks aloud, for I am thankful to you for divrey Torah.

(Bamidbar 8:3) "And Aaron did so": This is in praise of Aaron. As Moses told him, thus did he do, without any change. He made "mul" and "panim" (see above). "He'elah" (lit., "he raised") its lamps" — whence they said: There was an ascent before the menorah of three steps on which the Cohein stood and tended to the lamps, (after which) he placed the oil jug on the second step and left. "as the L-rd had commanded Moses" (i.e., half a log for each lamp, etc.) This tells me only of Aaron (the high-priest). Whence do I derive the same for his sons (i.e., ordinary Cohanim)? From (Vayikra 24:3) "Aaron and his sons shall arrange it." This tells me only of the menorah, that the sons were equated with the father. Whence do I derive the same for the (offering of the) incense? (viz. Shemot 34:7) "It follows, viz.: "Service in the tent of meeting" is written in respect to the menorah, and it is also written in respect to the incense. If I have learned of the first that sons are equated with the father, so, do I learn with the second. — (No,) this is refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, in which instance, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written in respect to it, the sons are not equated with the father. And this refutes (the argument for) incense, which, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. — Would you say that? There is a (strategic) difference! "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written both in respect to the menorah and in respect to the incense, and this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, which, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, is not in golden (but in linen vestments). — This (argument) is refuted by the instance of the bullock of "forgetfulness" of the anointed (high-priest [viz. Vayikra 4:3]) whereof "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written, and in respect to which sons were not equated with the father. And this will refute (the argument for) incense, which even though "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. Would you say that? There is a difference! I would derive it from three terms together. In respect to the menorah it is written "service in the tent of meeting," and "golden vestments," and also "continuously" (tamid), and thus is it written of incense. And this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, where, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, it is not in golden vestments. Nor (is it to be refuted) by the bullock of forgetfulness of the anointed (high-priest), where, even though "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written thereof, "continuously" is not written thereof. I will learn a thing from a (similar) thing, and I will derive a thing from a (similar) thing. I will learn a thing from another thing which is similar to it in three ways, but not from a thing that is not similar to it in three things, but only in one or two. Therefore, if I have learned in respect to the menorah that sons are equated with the father, so, I will learn in respect to the incense that the sons are equated with the father.

(Bamidbar 15:22) "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth for (unwitting transgression of) which the congregation (i.e., beth-din) brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 4:14), and Scripture here removed it from its category (for special mention), that the congregation bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, for which reason this section was stated. "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": Scripture here speaks of idolatry. You say idolatry, but perhaps (it speaks of his transgressing) all of the mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 24) "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error" — Scripture hereby singles out one mitzvah. And which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. You say it is idolatry, but perhaps it is (any) one of all the mitzvoth stated in the Torah. It is, therefore, written "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": This comes to define "the one mitzvah." Just as one who transgresses all of the mitzvoth divests himself of the Yoke, and breaks the covenant, and perverts the Torah, so, he who transgresses one mitzvah does the same, as it is written (Devarim 17:2-3) "to destroy His covenant (— turning to the worship of other gods.") And "the covenant" is nothing other than Torah, as it is written (Ibid. 28:69) "These are the words of the covenant, etc." Rebbi says "all" is written here (Bamidbar 15:22), and "all" is written elsewhere, (Devarim 5:8) "all likenesses." Just as "all" there speaks of idolatry, so, "all" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "which the L-rd spoke to Moses": Whence is it derived that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments? It is written (here, in respect to idolatry) "which the L-rd spoke to Moses," and there, (in respect to the ten commandments, Shemot 20:1) "And G-d spoke all these words, saying." (Psalms 62:12) "One thing has G-d spoken; (two things ['I am the L-rd your G-d, etc.' and 'There shall not be unto you other gods, etc.'] have I heard.") (Jeremiah 23:29) "Is My word not like fire, says the L-rd (and like a hammer shattering rock?") Whence do I derive (the same, i.e., that one who acknowledges idolatry denies [not only what we heard from G-d,]) but also what Moses was commanded (and relayed to us)? From (Ibid. 23) "All that the L-rd commanded you by the hand of Moses." And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the forefathers? From (Ibid.) "from the day that the L-rd commanded." And from when did the L-rd begin to command? From Adam, viz. (Bereshit 2:15) "And the L-rd G-d commanded the man, etc." And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the prophets? From (Ibid.) "and onwards throughout your generations." We are hereby apprised that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments, and what was commanded to Moses, and what was commanded to the forefathers, and what was commanded to the prophets. And one who denies idolatry acknowledges the entire Torah.

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error": This mitzvah was allotted a special section in itself. Which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. "then all the congregation shall offer one young bullock as a burnt-offering." Why mention "one"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering it brings a bullock for a sin-offering, (viz. Vayikra 4:14), then here, where the congregation does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring a bullock for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written "then all the congregation shall offer (only) one young bullock." "with its meal-offering and its libation": that of the burnt-offering. — But perhaps also that of the sin-offering (is intended). It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "as ordained" (and no libation is ordained for a sin-offering). "and one kid of goats as a sin-offering": Why mention "one"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (on Yom Kippur), where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, it brings two he-goats for a sin-offering, then here, where it does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring two he-goats for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written "and one kid of goats as a sin-offering."

(Ibid. 25) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the entire congregation of the children of Israel": Whence is it derived that if one of the tribes did not bring (its offering) atonement is withheld? From "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the entire congregation of the children of Israel." (Ibid.) "and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unwitting": I might understand (that they are forgiven) whether unwitting or witting; it is, therefore, written "for it was unwitting." From (24) "by the eyes of the congregation (i.e., beth-din) it were done in error," I would understand that the ruling of beth-din was in error and not willful; but as to the doing (i.e., the transgression) of the congregation, willful was equated with unwitting; it is, therefore, written "the children of Israel … for it was unwitting." If some were willful, I might think that it were considered (collectively) unwitting; it is, therefore, written "for the entire congregation of the children of Israel … for it was unwitting." (Ibid.) "and they have brought their offering": R. Meir says: If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of its beth-din, I might think they bring (the offerings); it is, therefore, written "and they (i.e., all of the tribes) have brought their offering." R. Yoshiyah says: If one tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din, whence is it derived that the other tribes bring (the offerings) because of it? From "and they (connoting all of the tribes) have brought their offering, a fire-offering to the L-rd." For R. Yoshiyah says: A tribe that transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din is liable, and the other tribes are exempt. If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of the great beth-din (i.e., the Sanhedrin), then that tribe brings a bullock, and the other tribes bring because of it. And what do they bring because of it? Twelve bullocks. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din, it is exempt. If it transgressed according to the ruling of the great beth-din, they bring two bullocks: one for the tribe and one for the beth-din. When is this so? With other mitzvoth; but with idolatry, they bring two bullocks and two he-goats: one bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering for that tribe, and the same for the beth-din. The majority of the congregation is reckoned as all of the congregation. "and they have brought their offering: a fire-offering to the L-rd": this is the burnt-offering; "and their sin-offering": this is the sin-offering for idolatry; "their error": this is the bullock of "concealment" of the congregation (viz. Vayikra 4:13-14). "their sin-offering … for their error": their sin-offering (i.e., the he-goats [offered] for idolatry) is like their error" the bullock of "concealment" of the congregation, in all of the procedures (of the offering). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 26) "And it shall be forgiven to the entire congregation of the sons of Israel": This tells me only of the men. Whence do I derive (the same for) the women? From "the entire congregation of the children of Israel." "and to the stranger who sojourns in their midst": Because this section is addressed to the Israelites (viz. 15:12), proselytes had to be (specifically) included. (Ibid.) "for to all the people it was in error": to exclude the high-priest, (who offers a she-goat, as an individual (viz. Ibid. 27). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (transgression of) all the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for all the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring it for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) just as he brings a bullock for all the mitzvoth should bring a bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service) where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 16:3), here, (in respect to idolatry) where the congregation brings a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written "for to all the people it was in error" — to exclude the high-priest.

(Bamidbar 19:3) "And you shall give it (the red heifer) to Elazar the Cohein": Scripture comes to teach us about the red heifer that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest. Know this to be so, (that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest), for Aaron was alive and Elazar burned the heifer. "and you shall give it": This one was processed by Elazar, and others (after this) were processed by the high-priest. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi, R. Yehudah, R. Shimon, and R. Elazer b. Yaakov say: This one was processed by Elazar, and others, either by the high-priest or by a regular Cohein. "and he shall take it (outside the encampment"): And another (heifer) should not be taken out with it — whence they ruled: If it balked at being taken out, a black one (i.e., one with black hairs) should not be taken out with it (as an incentive for it to leave), so that they not say it was the black one that they slaughtered and not the red one, (or) that both of them were slaughtered. R. Yossi says: This is not the reason, but (it is) because it is written "and he shall take it out" — alone. "outside the encampment": to the mount of anointment (i.e., the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, so that its blood be sprinkled opposite the door of the tent of the sanctuary.) "and he shall slaughter it": We are hereby apprised that if it became carrion in being slaughtered, it is unfit (to serve as a red heifer). "and he shall slaughter it": — whence they ruled: Two heifers are not to be slaughtered together (with a long knife). "and he shall slaughter it before him": that another slaughters and Elazar looks on. (And) Scripture apprises us about the heifer that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its slaughtering. "and Elazar the Cohein shall take": Why is this written? Is it not already written "And you shall give it to Elazar the Cohein"? Why repeat it? (To stress) the Cohein in his priesthood (i.e., in his priestly vestments.) "shall take of its blood with his finger": Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand (i.e., he takes its blood in his hand and he sprinkles with his finger), and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. And this would follow, viz.: Since the log of the oil effects kashruth (for the leper to be cleansed for the eating of sanctified food), and the blood of the red heifer effects kashruth (for the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse), then if I have learned that the log of oil effects kashruth only via the hand, (viz. Vayikra 14:15), only via the hand (and not via a sprinkling vessel), then it follows that the blood of the red heifer, too, should effect kashruth only via the hand. You derive it from the log of oil, and I derive it from the blood of the burnt-offering (of the leper). — Would you say that? There is a difference (between your derivation and mine.) The log of oil requires seven sprinklings and the red heifer requires seven sprinklings. If you learn about the log of oil that it is kasher only with the hand, then the blood of the red heifer should be kasher only with the hand. But, where you are coming from, if there (vis-à-vis the guilt-offering) it is kasher only (by spilling the blood) from a vessel to the hand, then here, too, (it should be kasher only) from a vessel to the hand. It is, therefore, written "from its blood with his finger." Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand, and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. "with his finger": the right finger (i.e., the index finger) of his right hand. You say the index finger of his right hand, but perhaps all of the fingers are valid. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:16) "Then the Cohein shall dip his right finger, etc." Since "fingers" are written in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance Scripture specifies that it is only the "yemanith" of the "yemanith," so, all "fingers" of the Torah are "yemanith" — the most skillful ("meyumeneth") of the right hand (i.e., the index finger), which is more adapted for sprinkling than all of the other fingers. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": that he direct his gaze to the door of the sanctuary when he sprinkles the blood. "and he shall sprinkle … opposite the tent of meeting": If the sanctuary were not set up or if the wind had furled the curtains the red heifer was not processed. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": Why is this repeated? Is it not already written (Ibid.) "of its blood with his finger"? From (Ibid.) "seven times," I might understand seven sprinklings from one dipping. It is, therefore, written "of its blood seven times" — he returns to the blood seven times. "seven times": They (the sprinklings) are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one, the others are invalid.) For it would follow: Since "sprinklings" are written within (the sanctuary, on Yom Kippur), and "sprinklings" are written (re the red heifer), then just as I have learned of the inner sprinklings that they are mutually inclusive, so, the outer sprinklings should be mutually inclusive. — No, this may be true of the inner sprinklings, which effect atonement, wherefore they are mutually inclusive, as opposed to the outer sprinklings, which do not effect atonement, wherefore they should not be mutually inclusive. It is, therefore, written (here) "seven times," and there (of the inner sprinklings) "seven times before the L-rd." Just as there, they are mutually inclusive, here, too, they are mutually inclusive.