Midrash su Numeri 6:28

“Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, and we will gaze upon you. Why will you gaze at the Shulamite like at a dance of two companies?” (Song of Songs 7:1)
“Return, return, O Shulamite,” Rabbi Shmuel bar Ḥiyya bar Yudan [said] in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Four times “return,” is written here, corresponding to the four kingdoms that rule over Israel. Israel comes under their control unscathed and emerges unscathed. “The Shulamite,” a nation in whose midst the eternal One who lives in peace [shalom] moves about; that is what is written: “I have moved about in a tent and a Tabernacle” (II Samuel 7:6).¹God rested His presence in the Tabernacle in the midst of Israel. The Tabernacle resided in four places in the Land of Israel: Gilgal, Shilo, Nov, and Givon, corresponding to the four times “return” is written here, as though the word Shulamite is written with each one (Maharzu, Bereshit Rabba 66:2).
Another matter, “the Shulamite,” a nation to whom [a blessing] concluding with peace is [recited] each day, just as it says: “And grant you peace [shalom]” (Numbers 6:26). Alternatively, “the Shulamite,” the nation that I am destined to settle in an abode of peace; that is what is written: “My people will live in a peaceful abode…” (Isaiah 32:18). Another matter, “the Shulamite,” the nation to whom I extend peace; that is what is written: “Behold, I will extend peace toward it” (Isaiah 66:12).
Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Maron said: A nation that completes [mashlemet] the stability of the world, both in this world and in the World to Come. Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: A nation that all the good of the word comes only due to its merit. That is what is written: “God will give you from the dew of the heavens, and from the fat of the earth” (Genesis 27:28); “you,” the matter is dependent upon you and your merit, as it is written: “The Lord will open for you His good storehouse” (Deuteronomy 28:12), the matter is dependent upon you and your merit.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Tanḥum and Rabbi Ḥanan, the son of Rabbi Berekhya from Botzra, [said] in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: The nation that made peace between Me and My world, as had they not accepted My Torah, I would have returned My world to emptiness and disorder, as Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: It is written: “The earth and all its inhabitants melt away” (Psalms 75:4). Had Israel not stood before Mount Sinai and said: “Everything that the Lord has said, we will perform and we will heed” (Exodus 24:7), the world would have begun to disintegrate. Who buttressed the world? It is I [anokhi], as it is stated: “I [anokhi] set its pillars firm, Selah” (Psalms 75:4); by the merit of: “I [anokhi] am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2), I set its pillars firm.²God caused the pillars of the world to be firm in the merit of the people of Israel accepting the Ten Commandments, the first of which was “I am the Lord your God” (Etz Yosef).

(Fol. 9b) We are taught in a Baraitha that Simon the just said: "I never ate a trespass-ofering of a Nazarite except one. It once happened that a Nazarite came to me from the South, and I observed that his eyes were beautiful, with a becoming appearance, and his locks arranged in curls. I then said to him: 'What made you consider destroying this, your beautiful hair?' Whereupon he answered me: 'I was a shepherd for my father, where I lived, and I once went to fill water from the well. [I was looking at my image in the water, causing my evil inclination to arise within me in pride of my beauty;] he wanted to drive me out of the [moral] world. I then said to him: Thou wicked one, why art thou exulting in a world which is not thine, with something that is destined to become worms. I swear that I shall shave you off for the sake of Heaven.' I immediately got up and kissed him on his head, saying to him: 'My son, I wish many Nazarites like you would multiply in Israel. Concerning your action the passage reads (Num. 6, 2) When a man pronounces an especial vow, the row of a Nazarite, to be abstained in honor of the Lord.' " R. Mani raised the following objection: "Why did not Simon the Just eat the offering of a Nazarite? Is it not because it was brought as a consequence of a sin? If so, then all the sacrifices of a Nazarite ought not to be eaten, for they also come for a sin?" Whereupon R. Jona said to him: "It is because of this that he did not eat: Whenever persons lament their evil deeds they become Nazarites, and when they become unclean the Nazariteship increases to such an extent that they regret the entire thing, and the consequence is that they bring profane sacrifices m the Temple-court."

R. Jochanan said: "Repentance, is a great thing, for it tears (cancels) the [evil] decree against man; as it is said (Isa. 6, 10) Obdurate will remain the heart of this people, … nor hear with their ears, nor understand with their hearts, so that they repent and be healed." R. Papa asked Abayi: "Perhaps these last words have reference only to the time before the [evil] decree has been pronounced?" "It is written," replied the latter, "so that they repented and be healed. Which [is the state of a] thing [that] requires healing? I can only say that such on which judgment had already been pronounced." An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: He who repents during the interval [between New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement] is forgiven, but if he does not repent, even though he offered all the rams of Nebayoth (the best), he will not be forgiven. [Hence no judgment is canceled after it had been decreed.] This is not difficult to explain; the latter case refers to [the sins] of an individual, and the former refers to [those of] a community. An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: (Deut. 11, 12) The eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning, etc. In some instances the purpose is good, and sometimes it is harmful. How can this be explained? For instance, if Israel on the New Year [when judgment is passed] were found to be grossly wicked, it was decreed as punishment that very little rain fall for them; nevertheless, they later repented. What could be done in such case? The quantity of rain cannot be increased since the decree had already been issued by the Holy One, praised be He! therefore, He causeth the rain to come down at the proper time, whenever it is necessary for the sole benefit of the earth. As for the purpose to do harm. Suppose Israel was found to be perfectly righteous on the New Year; then sufficient rain was decreed them; but if in the end, they sinned, what could be done in such instance? The rain cannot be diminished, since plentiful rain had bean decreed previously. The Holy One, praised be He! however, causeth the rain to come not in the proper season, or on land where rain is not necessary. Now, [according to your opinion that for a community a decree might be changed], then why not annul the former decree, and have the amount of rain increased to its necessary amount? This here case is different, because it is possible to get along with a little amount of rain. Come, listen, from the following (Ps. 107, 23-28) They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these saw the works of the Lord … for He commanded, and raised the stormy wind, … they reeled to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, … then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and He brought them out of their distresses; oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, etc. The Holy One, praised be He! here inserted words [to intimate limitations] like Achin or Rakin to indicate that if they cried [for mercy] before the decree was pronounced only then would they be answered; but if after [the decree], they are not answered. [Hence this statement contradicts the former?] Nay, for those on a ship are also considered as individuals. Come, listen. The proselyte Beluria asked Rabban Gamaliel: "It is written in your Torah (Deut. 17) The Lord who forgiveth no persons and taketh no bribe; and it is also written (Num. 6, 26) May the Lord forgive thee." R. Jose, the priest, attended her (Beluria) and said: "I will tell thee a parable. To what may this [your question] be likened? Unto one [a borrower] who lent money from his neighbor, set a time for its repayment in the presence of the king, and swore by the king's life [to repay it on time]. The time arrived, but he did not pay; and he came to appease the king. Said the king to him: 'I can forgive you only the offence against me, but I cannot forgive you the offence against your neighbor; go and ask him to forgive you.' So also here; in the one place it refers to sins committed by a man against his associate, but in the other it refers to sins committed by a man against the Lord." But when R. Akiba came he explained (Fol. 18) that one passage refers to the time before judgment is rendered, and the other to the time after. [Hence after judgment is rendered no chance is left for reversal of sentence]. Here also refers to an individual judgment. However, as to the sentence pronounced against an individual, the Tanaim differ; for we are taught in a Baraitha: "R. Meir used to say, of two men who fall sick of the same illness, or two who enter a tribunal [for judgment] on similar charges, one may recover, the other may not; one may be acquitted, the other may be condemned. Why should one recover and the other not; and why should one be acquitted but the other condemned? Because the one prayed and was answered, and the other prayed but was not answered. Why should one be answered while the other is not? The one prayed devoutly and was answered, the other did not pray devoutly and therefore was not answered." But R. Eliezer said: "Because one prayed before the decree was pronounced and the other after the decree was pronounced." R. Isaac said: "Prayer is helpful to man after, as well as before, the decree has been pronounced." And an evil decree pronounced against a congregation you say, is subject to canceling [through prayer]? Behold, it is written (Jer. 4, 14) O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, etc.; and it is also written (Ib 2, 22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet would the stain of thine iniquity remain before Me. Shall we not say in the one case it means before, and in the other after the sentence has been pronounced? Nay, both refer [to the time] after the decree has been pronounced. There is no contradiction, for in the latter case it refers to a sentence pronounced with an oath, and in the former case it refers to a sentence pronounced without an oath. As R. Samuel b. Ami, and according to others R. Samuel b. Nachmen, said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whence do we know that a sentence, pronounced with an oath, cannot be annulled? From the following (I Sam. 3, 14) Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not he expiated with sacrifice nor offering for ever." Raba, however, said: "This means that through sacrifices merely their sin cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law it may be"; and Abayi said: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law, and by deeds of loving kindness, it can"; for he and Rabba [his teacher] were both descendants of the house of Eli [who were sentenced, as above; yet] Rabba, who only studied the Law, lived forty years, but Abayi, who both studied the Torah and performed acts of benevolence, lived sixty years. Our Rabbis were taught that there was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members died at eighteen years of age. They came and informed R. Jochanan b. Zakkai of their trouble. "Perhaps," said he, "you are descendants of Eli, of whom it is said (I Sam. 2, 33) All the increase of thy house shall die in the flower of their age? Go, then, study the Law, and live." They went and studied, and they did live; and they were called after his name, the family if Jochanan.

Come, listen. The proselyte Beluria asked Rabban Gamaliel: "It is written in your Torah (Deut. 17) The Lord who forgiveth no persons and taketh no bribe; and it is also written (Num. 6, 26) May the Lord forgive thee." R. Jose, the priest, attended her (Beluria) and said: "I will tell thee a parable. To what may this [your question] be likened? Unto one [a borrower] who lent money from his neighbor, set a time for its repayment in the presence of the king, and swore by the king's life [to repay it on time]. The time arrived, but he did not pay; and he came to appease the king. Said the king to him: 'I can forgive you only the offence against me, but I cannot forgive you the offence against your neighbor; go and ask him to forgive you.' So also here; in the one place it refers to sins committed by a man against his associate, but in the other it refers to sins committed by a man against the Lord." But when R. Akiba came he explained (Fol. 18) that one passage refers to the time before judgment is rendered, and the other to the time after. [Hence after judgment is rendered no chance is left for reversal of sentence]. Here also refers to an individual judgment. However, as to the sentence pronounced against an individual, the Tanaim differ; for we are taught in a Baraitha: "R. Meir used to say, of two men who fall sick of the same illness, or two who enter a tribunal [for judgment] on similar charges, one may recover, the other may not; one may be acquitted, the other may be condemned. Why should one recover and the other not; and why should one be acquitted but the other condemned? Because the one prayed and was answered, and the other prayed but was not answered. Why should one be answered while the other is not? The one prayed devoutly and was answered, the other did not pray devoutly and therefore was not answered." But R. Eliezer said: "Because one prayed before the decree was pronounced and the other after the decree was pronounced." R. Isaac said: "Prayer is helpful to man after, as well as before, the decree has been pronounced." And an evil decree pronounced against a congregation you say, is subject to canceling [through prayer]? Behold, it is written (Jer. 4, 14) O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, etc.; and it is also written (Ib 2, 22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet would the stain of thine iniquity remain before Me. Shall we not say in the one case it means before, and in the other after the sentence has been pronounced? Nay, both refer [to the time] after the decree has been pronounced. There is no contradiction, for in the latter case it refers to a sentence pronounced with an oath, and in the former case it refers to a sentence pronounced without an oath. As R. Samuel b. Ami, and according to others R. Samuel b. Nachmen, said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whence do we know that a sentence, pronounced with an oath, cannot be annulled? From the following (I Sam. 3, 14) Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not he expiated with sacrifice nor offering for ever." Raba, however, said: "This means that through sacrifices merely their sin cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law it may be"; and Abayi said: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law, and by deeds of loving kindness, it can"; for he and Rabba [his teacher] were both descendants of the house of Eli [who were sentenced, as above; yet] Rabba, who only studied the Law, lived forty years, but Abayi, who both studied the Torah and performed acts of benevolence, lived sixty years. Our Rabbis were taught that there was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members died at eighteen years of age. They came and informed R. Jochanan b. Zakkai of their trouble. "Perhaps," said he, "you are descendants of Eli, of whom it is said (I Sam. 2, 33) All the increase of thy house shall die in the flower of their age? Go, then, study the Law, and live." They went and studied, and they did live; and they were called after his name, the family if Jochanan.

Samuel said: "A man who fasteth is called a sinner"; for it is said (Num. 6, 11) And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned with his soul. Wherein did he sin with his soul? We must say that it refers to the sin of having abstained from wine. He holds the same opinion as we are taught in a Baraitha of the Tana, R. Elazar Hakapar the Great, who says: "Is this not an a fortiori reasoning? If one abstains from drinking wine he is called a sinner; how much more should one be called a sinner if he abstains from everything (i.e., fasts)." R. Elazar, however, says: "On the contrary, he is called holy; as it is said (Ib. 5) He shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long. Is this not proved a fortiori? If one who simply obstains from wine is termed holy, how much more so should one who abstains from everything (i.e., fasts) be termed holy?" But how will Samuel explain the passage that calls such a man holy? This refers only to one who lets his hair grow. But how will R. Elazar explain the passage that calls such a man a sinner? This applies only to one who defiles himself. Did R. Elazar indeed say that fasting is a sin? Behold, R. Elazar said: "A man shall always think of himself (Ib. b.) as if sanctity rests within his entrails; for it is said (Hos. 11, 9) The Holy One is within thee." This is not difficult to explain. The latter refers to a case where one can endure the pains of abstinence, but the former refers to a case where he could not endure suffering. Resh Lakish said: "Such a man [who does not fast] is to be termed Chasid (pious); as it is said (Pr. 11, 17) He who takes care of his soul is a pious man." R. Jeremiah b. Abba said in the name of Resh Lakish: "It is not lawful for a scholar to fast, because through [wickedness of] fasting he diminishes Heavenly work." R. Shesheth said: "If a young scholar sitteth and fasteth, a dog may even eat his meal." [for he remains without health to study the Torah]

... Teach us, our master, from when does the mitzvah of the Channukah lamp begin? Our rabbis taught – from when the sun sets until the majority of people are gone from the marketplace. And where are they to be lit? If one lives on an upper floor with a window facing the public domain, light there. If it is a time of danger, light within your house [and it is forbidden to do work by its light. R’ Asi said] it is forbidden to see by its light. Why do we light Channukah lamps? When the Hasmonean High Priest defeated the Greeks, as it says “For I bend Judah for Me like a bow; I filled [the hand of] Ephraim, and I will arouse your children, O Zion, upon your children, O Javan; and I will make you as the sword of a mighty man,” (Zechariah 9:13) they entered the Holy Temple. They found there eight iron stakes, fixed them in the ground and lit lamps upon them. Why do we read the Hallel psalms of praise? Because it is written “The Lord is God, and He gave us light.” (Tehillim 118:27) Why don’t we read it on Purim? It is written “…to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish the entire host of every people and province that oppress them…” (Esther 8:11) and we don’t read it except to mark the fall of a kingdom and the kingdom of Ahasuerus still stood. But when the Holy One destroyed the kingdom of Greece they began to sing hymns and praises and to say that in the past we were servants to Pharoah, servants to Greece and now we are servants to the Holy One “Praise, you servants of the Lord…” (Tehillim 113:1) How many channukot (dedications) were there? There were seven. The dedication of heaven and earth, as it says “Now the heavens and the earth were completed…” (Bereshit 2:1) What dedication was there then? “And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the earth.” (Bereshit 1:17) The dedication of the wall, as it says “And in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem…” (Nechemiah 12:27) The dedication of those who came up from the exile, as it says “And they offered up for the dedication of this House of God…” (Ezra 6:17) The dedication of the priests, which we light for. The dedication of the world to come, as it says “And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will search Jerusalem with candles…” (Tzephaniah 1:12) The dedication of the princes “This was the dedication offering of the altar…” (Bamidbar 7:84) The dedication of the Sanctuary, which this is speaking of “A psalm; a song of dedication of the House, of David.” (Tehillim 30:1) Another explanation. There are seven channukot. The dedication of the creation of the world, as it is written “Now the heavens and the earth were completed…” (Bereshit 2:1) Completion is the language of dedication, as is written “All the work of the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting was completed…” (Shemot 39:32) The dedication of Moshe, as it is written “And it was that on the day that Moses finished erecting the Mishkan…” (Bamidbar 7:1) The dedication of the House, as it is written “A psalm; a song of dedication of the House, of David.” (Tehillim 30:1) The dedication of the Second Temple [as it says “And they offered up for the dedication of this House of God…” (Ezra 6:17) and the dedication of the wall] as it says “And in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem…” (Nechemiah 12:27) The current one of the House of Hasmonean. The dedication of the world to come, because even that has lights, as it is written “And the light of the moon shall be like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be seven-fold as the light of the seven days…” (Isaiah 30:26)

Our Rabbis were taught: Whence do we infer that we should mention the Patriarchs [in the prayer of Amida]? It is written (Ps. 29, 1) Ascribe unto the Lord, ye sons of the mighty. And whence do we infer that we should mention [in the Amida the power [of God]? It is written (Ib.) Ascribe unto the Lord glory and strength. And whence do we infer that the K'dusha [His Holiness] must be mentioned? It is written (Ib. 2) Ascribe unto the Lord the glory of His name; bow down to the Lord in the beauty of holiness. And what reason had they for placing the Benediction of Wisdom [fourth] after the Benediction K'dusha? Because it is said (Is. 29, 23) Then will they sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and the God of Israel will they reverence; and immediately follows: They also that were erring in spirit shall acquire understanding. And what reason had they in placing the Benediction concerning Repentance after Wisdom? Because it is written (Is. 6, 10) Lest his heart understand, and he will repent, and be healed. If so, we ought then to mention the section treating with Healing after Repentance [the sixth, instead of the eighth benediction]? This you cannot assume, for it is written (Ib. 55, 7) And let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and unto our God, for He will abundantly pardon. The section of Pardon is therefore arranged after Repentance. But why did they desire to rely on this [verse], and not rely on the former? Because there is another passage to the same effect (Ps. 103, 3) Who forgiveth all thy iniquities, who healeth all thy diseased, who redeemeth from the pit thy life. This means to say that both redemption and healing come after forgiveness. But there is a passage (Is. 6, 10) He will repent and be healed? [Hence healing follows repentance]? This healing, however, does not refer to disease, but to forgiveness. And what reason had they in arranging the prayer for Redemption in the seventh Benediction? Said Raba: "Because Israel is destined to be redeemed in the seventh (Sabbatical) year, it was therefore designated in the seventh benediction. But has not the master said that in the sixth [of the Sabbatical years], there will be different rumors, in the seventh year of the Sabbatical years [great] wars will break out, and at the close of the seventh year Mesiah b. David will appear? Hence in the seventh will there be war and not redemption. War will mark the beginning of the redemption. And what reason had they for arranging the prayer for Healing in the eighth Benedictions? "Because," said R. Akiba, "circumcision takes place on the eighth day, and requires healing; it was therefore designated in the seventh Benediction." And what reason had they for arranging the prayer for the Blessing of the Year in the ninth Benediction? "This prayer," said R. Alexandri, "is against those who raise prices, as it is written (Ps. 10, 15), Break Thou the arm of the wicked, etc. And David also said it in the ninth chapter." And what reason had they for arranging the prayer for the Reunion of the Exile after the Benediction of the Blessing [of the harvest] of the Year? Because it is written (Ezek. 36, 8) But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall send forth your boughs, and your fruit shall ye bear for my people Israel; for they are near at hand to come. And as soon as the reunion of the exile will take place, there will be the punishment of the wicked, as it is said (Is. 1, 25) I will turn my hand against thee, and purge away as with lye thy dross. And further (26) it is written: I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning. After the judgment of the wicked there shall no more exist any sinners. This includes the arrogant, as it is said (Ib.) But destruction shall come over transgressors and sinners together. And those that forsake the Lord shall perish, and when sinners will cease to exist, the strength of the righteous is exalted; as it is written (Ps. 75, 11) And all the strength of the wicked will I hew off, but the strength of the righteous shall be exalted. Righteous proselytes are included among the righteous; as it is said (Lev. 19, 32) Before the hoary head shalt thou rise up, and honor the old man. And immediately it follows: If a stranger sojourn with thee, ye shall not vex him. And where will their horn be exalted? In Jerusalem; as it is said (Ps. 122, 6) Pray ye for the peace of Jerusalem; may those that love ye prosper. And as soon as Jerusalem will be rebuilt David will come (Fol. 18) as it is said (Hos. 3, 5) After that will the children of Israel return and seek for the Lord their God and David their king. And together with David will come prayer, as it is said (Is. 57, 7) Even these will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. And as soon as prayer comes, service in the Temple will come with it, as it is said further: Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon My altar. And as soon as service comes, there will come a thanksgiving, as it is said (Ps. 50, 23) Who so offereth thanksgiving glorifieth Me. And what reason had they for placing the Blessing of the Priests after the Benediction of Thanks giving? Because it is written (Lev. 9, 22) And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed them, and came down after he had offered the sin-offering and burnt-offering and peace-offering. Why not say that he blessed them before the service? You cannot possibly think so; for it is written: He came down after he had offered — it is not written to offer, but after offering. Then why not say it immediately after the Benediction concerning the [restoration of the Temple] Service? You cannot possibly think so, because it is written: Whoso offereth the thanksgiving (glorifieth Me. And why did they desire to rely on this [verse], and not rely on the former? Because common sense teaches that service and thanksgiving are the same thing. And what reason had they for placing [the Benediction concerning] Peace after the Blessing of Priests? Because it is written (Num. 6, 21) And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them; i.e., the blessing of the Holy One, praised be He! is peace, as it is said (Ps. 29, 11) The Lord will bless His people with peace. [Hence the arrangement of the Amida or Eighteen Benedictions.] Now [let us see], if one hundred and twenty elders, among whom there were many prophets, have arranged the Eighteen Benedictions in accordance with their orders, why was it necessary that Simon of Peculi should rearrange them? They had been forgotten, therefore he reintroduced the order.

Our Rabbis were taught: Whence do we infer that we should mention the Patriarchs [in the prayer of Amida]? It is written (Ps. 29, 1) Ascribe unto the Lord, ye sons of the mighty. And whence do we infer that we should mention [in the Amida the power [of God]? It is written (Ib.) Ascribe unto the Lord glory and strength. And whence do we infer that the K'dusha [His Holiness] must be mentioned? It is written (Ib. 2) Ascribe unto the Lord the glory of His name; bow down to the Lord in the beauty of holiness. And what reason had they for placing the Benediction of Wisdom [fourth] after the Benediction K'dusha? Because it is said (Is. 29, 23) Then will they sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and the God of Israel will they reverence; and immediately follows: They also that were erring in spirit shall acquire understanding. And what reason had they in placing the Benediction concerning Repentance after Wisdom? Because it is written (Is. 6, 10) Lest his heart understand, and he will repent, and be healed. If so, we ought then to mention the section treating with Healing after Repentance [the sixth, instead of the eighth benediction]? This you cannot assume, for it is written (Ib. 55, 7) And let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and unto our God, for He will abundantly pardon. The section of Pardon is therefore arranged after Repentance. But why did they desire to rely on this [verse], and not rely on the former? Because there is another passage to the same effect (Ps. 103, 3) Who forgiveth all thy iniquities, who healeth all thy diseased, who redeemeth from the pit thy life. This means to say that both redemption and healing come after forgiveness. But there is a passage (Is. 6, 10) He will repent and be healed? [Hence healing follows repentance]? This healing, however, does not refer to disease, but to forgiveness. And what reason had they in arranging the prayer for Redemption in the seventh Benediction? Said Raba: "Because Israel is destined to be redeemed in the seventh (Sabbatical) year, it was therefore designated in the seventh benediction. But has not the master said that in the sixth [of the Sabbatical years], there will be different rumors, in the seventh year of the Sabbatical years [great] wars will break out, and at the close of the seventh year Mesiah b. David will appear? Hence in the seventh will there be war and not redemption. War will mark the beginning of the redemption. And what reason had they for arranging the prayer for Healing in the eighth Benedictions? "Because," said R. Akiba, "circumcision takes place on the eighth day, and requires healing; it was therefore designated in the seventh Benediction." And what reason had they for arranging the prayer for the Blessing of the Year in the ninth Benediction? "This prayer," said R. Alexandri, "is against those who raise prices, as it is written (Ps. 10, 15), Break Thou the arm of the wicked, etc. And David also said it in the ninth chapter." And what reason had they for arranging the prayer for the Reunion of the Exile after the Benediction of the Blessing [of the harvest] of the Year? Because it is written (Ezek. 36, 8) But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall send forth your boughs, and your fruit shall ye bear for my people Israel; for they are near at hand to come. And as soon as the reunion of the exile will take place, there will be the punishment of the wicked, as it is said (Is. 1, 25) I will turn my hand against thee, and purge away as with lye thy dross. And further (26) it is written: I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning. After the judgment of the wicked there shall no more exist any sinners. This includes the arrogant, as it is said (Ib.) But destruction shall come over transgressors and sinners together. And those that forsake the Lord shall perish, and when sinners will cease to exist, the strength of the righteous is exalted; as it is written (Ps. 75, 11) And all the strength of the wicked will I hew off, but the strength of the righteous shall be exalted. Righteous proselytes are included among the righteous; as it is said (Lev. 19, 32) Before the hoary head shalt thou rise up, and honor the old man. And immediately it follows: If a stranger sojourn with thee, ye shall not vex him. And where will their horn be exalted? In Jerusalem; as it is said (Ps. 122, 6) Pray ye for the peace of Jerusalem; may those that love ye prosper. And as soon as Jerusalem will be rebuilt David will come (Fol. 18) as it is said (Hos. 3, 5) After that will the children of Israel return and seek for the Lord their God and David their king. And together with David will come prayer, as it is said (Is. 57, 7) Even these will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. And as soon as prayer comes, service in the Temple will come with it, as it is said further: Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon My altar. And as soon as service comes, there will come a thanksgiving, as it is said (Ps. 50, 23) Who so offereth thanksgiving glorifieth Me. And what reason had they for placing the Blessing of the Priests after the Benediction of Thanks giving? Because it is written (Lev. 9, 22) And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed them, and came down after he had offered the sin-offering and burnt-offering and peace-offering. Why not say that he blessed them before the service? You cannot possibly think so; for it is written: He came down after he had offered — it is not written to offer, but after offering. Then why not say it immediately after the Benediction concerning the [restoration of the Temple] Service? You cannot possibly think so, because it is written: Whoso offereth the thanksgiving (glorifieth Me. And why did they desire to rely on this [verse], and not rely on the former? Because common sense teaches that service and thanksgiving are the same thing. And what reason had they for placing [the Benediction concerning] Peace after the Blessing of Priests? Because it is written (Num. 6, 21) And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them; i.e., the blessing of the Holy One, praised be He! is peace, as it is said (Ps. 29, 11) The Lord will bless His people with peace. [Hence the arrangement of the Amida or Eighteen Benedictions.] Now [let us see], if one hundred and twenty elders, among whom there were many prophets, have arranged the Eighteen Benedictions in accordance with their orders, why was it necessary that Simon of Peculi should rearrange them? They had been forgotten, therefore he reintroduced the order.

(Fol. 19) We are taught in a Baraitha: R. Elazar Hakappar the Great, said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Num. 6, 11) And make an atonement for him, because he hath sinned through the soul? With what soul has that Nazir sinned? We must therefore say that it refers to the suffering borne through abstaining from wine. Now is this not a fortiori reasoning? If the Nazir is called sinner only because he abstained from wine, how much more so should one, abstaining himself from everything, be called sinner? But the passage deals with a case where the Nazir defiled himself, and perhaps only on account of defilment is he called sinner? Nevertheless, R. Elazar Hakappar holds that even a clean Nazir is called a sinner, and the reason why the passage used the word [sin] for a defiled Nazir is because he repeated his sin [by having defiled himself.]

(Fol. 49) We are taught in a Baraitha concerning the passage (Num. 6, 23) On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel. R. Ishmael says: "We learn from here that the blessing upon Israel comes through the priests, but we have not learned from where comes the blessings upon the priests themselves? Since the verse says (Ib.) And I will bless them, it should be understood that the priests will bless Israel and the Holy One, praised be He! will bless the priests." R. Akiba says: "We learn from the above passage that the blessing upon Israel comes only through the priests, but not from the Almighty. Since, however, the passage says, And I will bless them, it is understood that the priests bless Israel and the Holy One, praised be He! gives His consent to it." But whence does R. Akiba infer the blessings for the priests themselves? Said R. Nachman b. Isaac: "From (Gen. 12, 3) And I will bless them that bless thee." And thy sign [not to exchange R. Akiba's opinion for R. Ishmael's], is R. Ishmael, who is a priest himself, supports the priest [contending that the last part of the blessings refers to the priests instead of to Israel].

(Ib. b) R. Avira expounded, sometimes speaking in the name of R. Ami, and at other times speaking in the name of R. Assi: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Praised be He! "Sovereign of the universe, it is written in Thy Torah (Deu. 10, 17.) Who shows no favor to persons, and taketh no bribe. Behold Thou showest favors to Israel, for it is written (Num. 6. 26.) The Lord will show His favor unto thee." "Why shall I not favor Israel?" answered He, "for I wrote in my Torah which I gave to them (Deu. 8, 10.) And when thou hast eaten and are satisfied, then shalt thou bless. But they are so particular and careful that even if they eat only as much as the size of an olive or an egg, they also recite the after-meal grace."

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

The Rock, His action is perfect: Yishaiyahu said, "Pursue the Lord in His being found" (Isaiah 55:6), and David said, "Pursue the Lord and His might, etc." (I Chronicles 16:11). Why did he [continue to] say, "seek His face always?" To teach you [that] the Holy One, blessed be He - may His name be blessed - sometimes appears and sometimes does not appear; sometimes hears and sometimes does not want to hear; sometimes answers and sometimes does not answer; sometimes is pursued and sometimes is not pursued; sometimes is found and sometimes is not found; sometimes is close and sometimes is not close. How is this? He appeared to Moshe, as it is stated (Exodus 33:11), "And the Lord spoke to Moshe." He went back and disappeared from him, when he said to Him, "Please show me Your glory" (Exodus 33:18). And so [too,] He appeared to Israel at Sinai, as it is stated (Exodus 24:10), "And they saw the God of Israel," and it states (Exodus 24:17), "And the appearance of the glory of the Lord." [But] He went back and disappeared from them, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:15), "since you did not see any picture," and it states (Deuteronomy 4:15), "the voice of words do you hear." And when Israel were in Egypt in torturous subjugation, "And God heard their moaning" (Exodus 2:24). [But] when they sinned, "The Lord did not hear your voice and did not listen to you" (Deuteronomy 1:45). He answered Shmuel at Mitspeh, as it is stated (I Samuel 7:9), "and Shmuel cried out to the Lord [...] and the Lord answered Shmuel." [But] He went back and did not answer Him, as it is stated (I Samuel 16:1), "And the Lord said to Shmuel, 'Until when are you mourning for Shaul.'" He answered David - and it stated (Psalms 34:5), "I have pursued the Lord and He answered me." [But] He went back and did not answer him, as it is stated (II Samuel 12:16), "and David fasted a fast, and he went in and laid down on the ground," and it is written (II Samuel 12:14), "also the child that is born to you will surely die." And at the time that Israel repents, He is found for them, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:29), "And from there, you will seek the Lord, your God [and you will find Him]." But if they do not repent, "They will go with their sheep and cattle to seek the Lord, but they will not find Him; He has cast them off" (Hosea 5:6). Sometimes He is close, as it is stated (Psalms 145:18), "Close is the Lord to all who call to Him"; [but] sometimes He is not close, as it is stated (Proverbs 15:29), "Far from evildoers is the Lord." And it is written (Numbers 6:26), "And the Lord shall lift His face"; but [another[ verse states (Deuteronomy 10:17), "Who does not lift the face." [Only] if [one] repents, He lifts His face to him. It is possible [that He does this] for all. [Hence] we learn to say "to you" (Numbers 6:26) - but not to another nation; as it is stated (Jeremiah 4:14), "Wash your heart from evil, Jerusalem, in order that you be saved" - if they repent. But if not, "Even if you wash with natron [... your iniquity is before Me]" (Jeremiah 2:22). Hence Yishaiyahu said, "Pursue the Lord in His being found; call to Him in His being close." [There is a relevant] parable: To what is the matter similar? To a king who said to his servants, "Go out and announce in all of my dominion that I am sitting and judging financial cases. Anyone who has an issue with his fellow - let him come in front of Me, and I will judge him favorably, [now] before I sit to judge capital cases." And so [too,] did the Holy One, blessed be He - may His name be blessed - say to Israel, "My sons, Know that I judge the world at these four periods: At Pesach about the grain; at [Shavouot] about the fruit of the trees; at Rosh HaShanah, all those that come to the world come in front of me like bnei Maron; and at [Sukkot] about the water. On three of these periods, I sit to judge financial cases, to make wealthy or make poor, to increase or to decrease. But on Rosh HaShanah, I judge capital cases, whether for death or life - as you say in the shofar blows of Rav, 'And upon it is said, about the provinces, etc.' But if you repent with a full heart, I will accept you and judge you favorably. As the gates of the Heavens are open and I will hear your prayers, since I 'observe from the windows, peer through the lattice,' [now] before I seal the judgement on Yom Kippur." Hence it is stated, "Pursue the Lord in His being found." Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said, "[There is a relevant] parable: To what is the matter similar? To a king who resided in a province and the people of the province were angering him. The king got angry and went outside of it [a distance of] ten mil and he stayed there. A man saw him, [and] he said to the people of the province, 'Know that the king is angry with you and he is seeking to send his legions upon the city to destroy it. Go out and appease him and he will return to you, before he distances himself from you.' A clever man was there, [and] he said to them, 'Fools, While the king was with you, you did not seek to appease him. And now before he distances himself, go out to him. Maybe he will accept you.'" Hence it is stated, "Pursue the Lord in His being found" - these are the ten days of repentance, that he is found among you, as so did Yechezkel say, "a wall between Me and them" (Ezekiel 43:8). This is "call to Him in His being close. Let the evildoer leave his path and a man his thoughts of iniquity and return to the Lord and He will have mercy upon him" (Isaiah 55:6-7).

Another explanation of And I will bless those who bless thee (ibid. 12:3). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: I will cause a tribe to descend from among your sons that will bless Israel, and it will be called the tribe of Levi. “Master of the Universe,” he replied, “but who will bless that tribe?” The Holy One, blessed be He, responded: When they bless Israel, I will bless them, as it is said: So shall they put My Name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them (Num. 6:27). The Holy One, blessed be He, said unto Israel: In this world the tribe of Levi will bless you, but in the world-to-come I Myself will bless you, as it is said: The Lord blessed thee, O habitation of righteousness, O mountain of holiness (Jer. 31:22).

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

4) "his head": Why is this written? (i.e., Why is the above generalization not sufficient to include it?) Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a blade shall not pass over his head, I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Nazirite); it is, therefore, written "his head." "his beard": Why is this written? Because it is written (of Cohanim, Vayikra 21:5): "the corner of their beard they shall not shave off," I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Cohein); it is, therefore, written "his beard." Why mention both "his head" and "his beard"? (i.e., Why can one not be derived from the other?) — Because there obtain (strictures) with head which do not obtain with beard, and with beard, which do not obtain with head — The head (of a Nazirite) is forbidden both with scissors and with blade, and the (destruction of the) beard does not obtain with scissors; the head is permitted with all men (who are not Nazirites), and the (destruction of the beard is forbidden with all men — Because there obtain with head (strictures) which do not obtain with beard, and with beard (strictures) which do not obtain with head, there must be written (to include for the shaving of the leper) both "his head" and "his beard."

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

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

Another interpretation (of Gen. 12:2): SO BECOME A BLESSING. The Holy One said to him: I am going to raise up a tribe from you so that it may bless Israel. And which one is this? The tribe of Levi, since that < is the one which > blesses Israel. Abraham said to him: Sovereign of the World, who is to bless that tribe? The Holy One said to him: When they bless Israel, I will bless them. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 6:27): THUS THEY SHALL SET MY NAME UPON THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND I WILL BLESS THEM. The Holy One said to Israel: In this world the tribe of Levi is blessing you in my name, but in the world to come I will bless you in my glory. Thus it is stated (in Jer. 31:22 [23]): MAY THE LORD BLESS YOU, O HABITATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, O HOLY MOUNTAIN.

Alternatively, "proclaim peace unto it" (Deuteronomy 20), See how great is the power of peace. Come see, a human of flesh and blood, if one has an enemy and wonders what to do to the enemy. What does one do? One goes and honors another greater than the enemy so that as to do evil to the enemy. But the Holy One of Blessing is not like that, rather all the idol worshipers anger God, and they sleep and all the souls rise up to him. From where do we know this? As it says, "He in Whose hand is the spirit of all life" (Job 12:10). And in the morning God returns to each and every one their soul. From where do we know this? As it says "He gives breath to the people upon it" (Isaiah 42:5). Alternatively: A human of flesh and blood, if one's friend does evil to them, it does not leave their heart for ever. But the Holy One of Blessing is not so, rather Israel was in Egypt and the Egyptians enslaved them with mortar and brick, and after all the evil they did to Israel, the Torah has mercy on them and it says "You shall not abhor an Egyptian for you were a stranger in his land" (Deut.23:8), but rather pursue peace as it is written "seek peace and pursue it". (Psalms 34:15) Another interpretation: what is "seek peace and pursue it"? A story about Rabbi Meir: he was sitting and teaching, etc, that woman went home and it was Friday evening, and she discovered that her [Shabbat] light had gone out and her husband asked her: 'where were you, out this late?' and she answered: 'I was listening to Rabbi Meir expound on Torah.' And that man was a nincompoop, and told her: 'the only way you are getting into my house is if you spit on the face of Rabbi Meir'. And he expelled her from the house. Eliahu Hanavi, may he be mentioned for good, revealed all this to Rabbi Meir, and said to him: 'it was because of you that this woman was expelled from her house.' And Eliahu Hanavi, may he be mentioned for good, informed him of all the drama. What did Rabbi Meir do?He went and sat in the big Beit Midrash, and that woman came to pray and he saw her, and pretended to be blinking [with discomfort], and said in a loud voice: 'who here knows an incantation over the eye? And she said: I know. And she spit on his face. He said to her: now go and tell your husband: I did spit on Rabbi Meir's face, he said: go back to your husband. See! How great is the power of peace. Another word: Rabbi Akiva said: know how great is the power of peace! The Holy One of Blessing said that when a man feels jealous towards his wife the very Holy Name of God which is written in sanctity is to be erased in water, in order to send [a bomb of] peace between a sotah and her husband. Resh Lakish said: so great is peace that Scripture said lying words in order to set peace between Yosef and his brothers. At the time of their father's death they were afraid that he would take revenge upon them, and what did they say "your father commanded before his death to say: such you will say to Yosef [please forgive your brothers' offense and guilt] (Gen. 50:16-17) and we do not find such a command from Yaakov our father, rather, scripture said lying words because of the ways of peace. Another interpretation: Beloved is peace, that the Holy One of Blessing gave it to Tzion, as it says: "Ask for the peace of Jerusalem" (Ps. 122:6). Another interpretation: So beloved is peace, that the Holy One of Blessing gave it to the heaven, as it says: "The Maker of Peace on His heights / oseh shalom bimromav" (Job 25:2). Alternatively: So beloved is peace, that the Holy One of Blessing gave it to near ones and far ones, as it says "Peace peace, to the far and to the near" (Isaiah 57:19). Alternatively: so beloved is peace, that the Holy One of Blessing did not give it to the wicked, as it says "There is no peace, said Ad-nai, for the wicked" (Isaiah 48:22). Alternatively: so beloved is peace, that the Holy One of Blessing gave it to Pinchas as his reward, as it says "Behold I give him my covenant of peace". (Numbers 25:12). Alternatively: So great is peace, that the Holy One of Blessing doesn't announce to Jerusalem that they will be redeemed except in peace, as it says "Announce peace..." (Isaiah 52:7). Alternatively: R. Levi said: so beloved is peace, that all the closings of blessings are in peace. The reading of the Shema closes in peace: "Spread a sukah of peace", prayer closes in peace, the priestly blessing closes in peace "And He shall give to you peace". Alternatively: so beloved is peace, that the Holy One of Blessing only comforts Jerusalem with peace. From where do we know this? As it is written "Behold I will extend peace to her like a river" (Isaiah 66:12). David said, 'I asked to hear what the Holy One of Blessing says about Israel, and I heard that God busies Godself with their peace', as it says "I will hear what God Ad-nai will speak, God will speak peace to His people, and unto his followers" (Psalms 85:9). R. Shimon Ben Chalafta said: See how beloved peace is, when the Holy One of Blessing wanted to bless Israel he found no vessel that could hold all the blessings to bless them with except for peace. From where do we know this? As it says "Ad-nai will give strength to his people, Ad-nai will bless his people with peace" / Ad-nai oz l'amo yiten. (Psalms 29:11)

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

God’s way is not man’s way. As long as a man’s friend lives, his friendship for him continues, but after his friend’s death, his concern for him ceases. The Holy One, blessed be He, however, does not act in that manner. When Abraham died, the Holy One, blessed be He, continued to love his son Isaac, as it is said: And it came to pass after the death of Abraham that God blessed Isaac, his son (ibid. 25:11). It may happen that a king bestows gifts of silver, gold, and raiment upon his friend, and the friend then sails away. These possessions may be lost when a storm arises, and the king is powerless to protect him from the sea or from pirates. However, when the Holy One, blessed be He, presents a gift to his beloved one He guards it, as it is said: The Lord bless thee and guard thee (Num. 6:24). He blessed Abraham and guarded him, as it is said: And the Lord blessed Abraham in all things (Gen. 24:1). He acted similarly toward Isaac and Jacob.

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

6) "Then he shall be shaved": even if he is a Nazirite. Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a razor shall not pass over his head," I might think even if he was afflicted (with leprosy); it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — even if he was afflicted.

“Behold the bed of Solomon: sixty valiant men surround it, from the valiant of Israel, each armed with a sword, trained in war; each man, a sword on his thigh, from fear in the nights” (Song of Songs 3:7–8).
“Behold the bed of Solomon: sixty valiant men surround it,” Rabbi Beivai in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yosei interpreted the verse regarding the Priestly Benediction. “Behold the bed [mitato],” behold his tribes [matotav] and his clans, just as it says: “The oaths to the tribes [matot]” (Habakkuk 3:9); “of Solomon [Shlomo],” of the king [of Whom it may be said that] peace [shalom] is His; “sixty valiant men surround it,” these are the sixty letters in the Priestly Benediction; “from the valiant of Israel,” as they bolster Israel.
“Each armed with a sword,” Rabbi Azarya said: Matters that are blessed with Might,⁸¹Each blessing contains the name of the mighty God. “may the Lord bless you” (Numbers 6:24), “may the Lord shine” (Numbers 6:25), “may the Lord lift” (Numbers 6:26). “Trained in war,” as they battle all sorts of calamities that exist in the world. “Each man, a sword on his thigh from fear in the nights,” for even if a person sees in his dream a sword cutting his thigh, what shall he do? He shall go to the synagogue, recite Shema, pray his prayer, hear the Priestly Benediction, and answer amen after them, and no evil matter will harm him. Therefore, He cautions the sons of Aaron and says to them: “So you shall bless the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:23).

“Behold the bed of Solomon: sixty valiant men surround it, from the valiant of Israel, each armed with a sword, trained in war; each man, a sword on his thigh, from fear in the nights” (Song of Songs 3:7–8).
“Behold the bed of Solomon: sixty valiant men surround it,” Rabbi Beivai in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yosei interpreted the verse regarding the Priestly Benediction. “Behold the bed [mitato],” behold his tribes [matotav] and his clans, just as it says: “The oaths to the tribes [matot]” (Habakkuk 3:9); “of Solomon [Shlomo],” of the king [of Whom it may be said that] peace [shalom] is His; “sixty valiant men surround it,” these are the sixty letters in the Priestly Benediction; “from the valiant of Israel,” as they bolster Israel.
“Each armed with a sword,” Rabbi Azarya said: Matters that are blessed with Might,⁸¹Each blessing contains the name of the mighty God. “may the Lord bless you” (Numbers 6:24), “may the Lord shine” (Numbers 6:25), “may the Lord lift” (Numbers 6:26). “Trained in war,” as they battle all sorts of calamities that exist in the world. “Each man, a sword on his thigh from fear in the nights,” for even if a person sees in his dream a sword cutting his thigh, what shall he do? He shall go to the synagogue, recite Shema, pray his prayer, hear the Priestly Benediction, and answer amen after them, and no evil matter will harm him. Therefore, He cautions the sons of Aaron and says to them: “So you shall bless the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:23).

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

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

From whom did the priests receive the privilege of pronouncing the blessing over Israel? R. Eleazer the son of Azariah said: They received this privilege from Jacob, concerning whom it is written: And the lad will go yonder(koh) (Gen. 22:5). The word koh is also contained in the words spoken by Moses to the priests, as it is said: Thus (koh) shall ye bless (Num. 6:22). The rabbis maintained: They obtained this right at the time of the giving of the Torah, since it is said there: Thus (koh) shalt thou say to the house of Jacob (Exod. 19:3).

From whom did the priests receive the privilege of pronouncing the blessing over Israel? R. Eleazer the son of Azariah said: They received this privilege from Jacob, concerning whom it is written: And the lad will go yonder(koh) (Gen. 22:5). The word koh is also contained in the words spoken by Moses to the priests, as it is said: Thus (koh) shall ye bless (Num. 6:22). The rabbis maintained: They obtained this right at the time of the giving of the Torah, since it is said there: Thus (koh) shalt thou say to the house of Jacob (Exod. 19:3).

(Fol. 38b) R. Joshua b. Levi said: "Whence do we learn that the Holy One, praised be He, is anxious to hear the blessings of the priests? It is said (Num. 6, 27) And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them." R. Joshua b. Levi said further: "Whence do we learn that every priest who blesses Israel will in return be blessed, and the priest who does not bless Israel will in return not be blessed? It is said, (Gen. 12, 3) And I will bless those that bless thee."

... “May the Lord bless you from Zion…” (Psalms 128:5) This comes to teach that the Holy One blesses them from the place that He blesses Israel. And from where do we learn that the blessings come out from Zion? As it says “As the dew of Hermon which runs down on the mountains of Zion…” (Psalms 133:3) and it says “May the Lord bless you from Zion, and see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life.” (Psalms 128:5) May you merit to see the good of Jerusalem in the time to come, “And may you see children to your children, peace upon Israel.” (Psalms 128:6)

Another matter, “My beloved is like a gazelle,” Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, You said to us: Come, come. You come to us first.’
“My beloved is like a gazelle,” just as this gazelle leaps from mountain to mountain, from valley to valley, from tree to tree, from booth to booth, and from fence to fence, so too, the Holy One blessed be He leaps from this synagogue to that synagogue, from this study hall to that study hall. Why to that extent? In order to bless Israel. By what merit? By the merit of Abraham; that is what is written: “The Lord appeared to him at the terebinths of Mamre [and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent]” (Genesis 18:1). Rabbi Berekhya [said] in the name of Rabbi Levi: “Was sitting [yoshev],” [the word] yoshev is written without a vav.¹⁰³This indicates that there was something incomplete about his sitting, because he had begun to get up (Etz Yosef). Abraham sought to stand, [but] the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Sit, Abraham, you are a model for your descendants. Just as you are sitting and I am standing, so will it be for your descendants when they enter the synagogue and the study hall and recite Shema; they will be sitting, and My glory will stand in their midst.’ What is the source? “God stands [nitzav] in the congregation of God” (Psalms 82:1). Rabbi Ḥagai said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: “God stands [omed]” is not written, but rather, nitzav. What is nitzav? It is standing at the ready, just as it says: “You shall stand [venitzavta] there for Me atop the mountain” (Exodus 34:2), and it is written: “It will be, before they call [I will answer, while they yet speak I will hear]” (Isaiah 65:24).¹⁰⁴This indicates that God stands at the ready, anticipating Israel’s prayers. Rabbi Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: With each and every praise with which Israel lauds the Holy One blessed be He, the Holy One blessed be He sits in their midst, as it is written: “You are holy, sitting upon the praises of Israel” (Psalms 22:4).
“Or a fawn,” Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Like the offspring of a hind. “Behold, he is standing behind our wall,” behind the walls of synagogues and study halls. “Gazing through the window,” from between the priests’ shoulders. “Peering through the lattice,” from between the priests’ fingers. “My beloved spoke up, and he said to me” (Song of Songs 2:10), what did He say to me? “May the Lord bless you and keep you” (Numbers 6:24).

R. Joshua of Sikhnin was of the opinion that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Abraham a sign that whatever happened to him would likewise happen to his descendants. He chose Abraham from among all those in his father’s house, as it is said: Thou art the Lord God who didst choose Abraham, and brought him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham (Neh. 9:7). And He selected Abraham’s sons to be His chosen ones among the seventy nations, as is said: For thou art a Holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be His own treasured nation out of all the peoples that are upon the face of the earth (Deut. 14:2). He said to Abraham: Get thee, and to Abraham’s sons, He said: I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Emorite, etc. (ibid. 3:17). He promised Abraham: And I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing (Gen. 12:2), and He told his sons: The Lord bless thee, and keep thee (Num. 6:24). To Abraham He said: I will make thee a great nation (Gen. 12:2), and to his descendants He said: And what great nation is there (Deut. 4:8). Concerning Abraham it is written: Abraham was one (Ezek. 33:24), and of Israel it is said: And who is like thy people Israel, a nation one in the earth (I Chron. 17:21). In reference to Abraham it is said: and hunger was in the land (Gen. 12:10), and about his descendants it is said: When they returned to Egypt, hunger was already in the land (ibid. 43:1). Abraham descended to Egypt because of famine, and his sons, also, descended because of famine, as is said: And Joseph’s ten brethren went down to buy corn from Egypt (ibid. 42:3). When Abraham descended the Egyptians approached him, and the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair (ibid. 12:14), and concerning his descendants, the Egyptians declared: Come, let us deal wisely with them lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land (Exod. 1:10).

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

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

(Exod. 23:21:) PAY HEED TO HIM, AND HEARKEN (SM') TO HIS VOICE. DO NOT REBEL AGAINST HIM, FOR HE WILL NOT PARDON YOUR TRANSGRESSION. You were not worthy of hearing (rt.: SM') my voice. Hearken to (rt.: SM') the voice of an angel. He is unable to pardon your transgressions, because he is from the class who do not sin. Another interpretation (of Exod. 23:21:) FOR HE WILL NOT PARDON YOUR TRANSGRESSION. Why? Because he is an agent (sheliah),⁵⁷Sheliah designates one given power of attorney. It is equivalent to the Gk. term, apostolos (“apostle”), as used by early Christians. and whatever an agent is ordered to do, he does. But I lift up my face to you (i.e., show you favor), as stated (in Numb. 6:26): THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE <UNTO YOU>. David said to him: Sovereign of the World, You have delivered me to your angel, one who does not lift up his face. Who can withstand him? (Ps. 130:3) IF YOU, O LORD, {LORD}, KEEP ACCOUNT OF INIQUITIES, WHO WILL WITHSTAND? <Even> if you say there is no forgiveness with you, it is with you, as stated in (vs. 4): FOR WITH YOU THERE IS FORGIVENESS SO THAT YOU MAY BE FEARED.

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

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

R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: The Holy One transmitted a sign⁵⁹Gk.: semeion. to Abraham that whatever had happened to him would happen to his children.⁶⁰Cf. Gen. R. 40:6. Abraham was chosen from the whole household of his father. Israel also was chosen from seventy tongues. It was said to Abraham (in Gen. 12:1): GO … < FROM YOUR FATHER'S HOUSE >; and it was said for Israel (in Exod. 3:17): AND I HAVE SAID: I WILL BRING YOU UP < OUT OF THE AFFLICTION OF THE LAND OF EGYPT >. It was said to Abraham (in Gen. 12:3): I WILL BLESS THOSE WHO BLESS YOU; and also for Israel (in Numb. 6:24): THE LORD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU. It was said to Abraham (in Gen. 12:2): [THEN I WILL MAKE YOU INTO A GREAT NATION, BLESS YOU], AND MAKE YOUR NAME GREAT; and also concerning Israel (in Deut. 4:8): AND WHAT GREAT NATION IS THERE < WHICH HAS STATUTES AND ORDINANCES AS RIGHTEOUS AS ALL THIS LAW THAT I SET BEFORE YOU THIS DAY >? Abraham was called an individual, as stated (in Ezek. 33:24): ABRAHAM WAS ONE (ehad); and also Israel (in I Chron. 17:21): AND WHO IS LIKE YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL, A UNIQUE (ehad) NATION ON EARTH? Just as with Abraham, when he came to the land, there was a famine in the land; with Israel also, when they had settled in the land of Israel, there was famine, as stated (in Gen. 43:1): BUT THE FAMINE WAS SEVERE IN THE LAND. Just as Abraham went down to Egypt because of famine, [as stated (in Gen. 12:10): NOW THERE WAS A FAMINE IN THE LAND, AND ABRAM WENT DOWN TO EGYPT]; so with Israel, as stated (in Gen. 42:3): SO THE TEN BROTHERS OF JOSEPH WENT DOWN TO BUY GRAIN < FROM EGYPT >. Just as in the case of Abraham, when he went down to Egypt, the Egyptians provoked him; so in the case of Israel, as stated (in Exod. 1:10): COME, LET US (Egyptians) ACT SHREWDLY < TOWARD THEM (Israel), LEST THEY MULTIPLY >…. Just as in the case of Abraham, four kings engaged him in battle;⁶¹“Engage in battle” comes from the Hebrew root ZWG, which corresponds to the Greek zeugos or zugon. so in the case of Israel, the nations are going to make an alliance⁶²Gk.: omonoia. against them, as stated (in Ps. 2:2): THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TAKE THEIR STAND, < AND THE RULERS TAKE COUNSEL TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS ANOINTED >. Just as in the case of Abraham, the Holy One went out to fight before him and slew his enemies; so the Holy One has fought for Israel. In the age to come the Holy One is going out to fight their wars, as stated (in Zech. 14:3): THEN THE LORD WILL COME FORTH AND FIGHT WITH THOSE NATIONS AS WHEN HE FIGHTS IN THE DAY OF BATTLE.

An idolater asked Rabban Gamliel, "Why was the Holy One, Blessed be He revealed to Moses in the Burning Bush?" Rabban Gamliel replied to him, "If God had been revealed in a carob tree or a fig tree, you would have asked me the same thing, and I could not send you away without an answer. This teaches you that there is no place in the world devoid of the Shekhinah."

Similarly, Absalom was punished by the very thing with which he prided himself, as it is said: Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty; from the soul of his feet to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him … and when he polled his head … now it was every year’s end that he polled it (II Sam. 14:25–26). R. Nehorai stated: He was a Nazirite, yet he cut his hair every thirty days,¹⁰Nazirites are forbidden to cut their hair (Num. 6:5). as it is said: Now at the end of the days he polled it. R. Judah maintained that he was a Nazirite throughout his life, yet he cut his hair every twelve months, as it is said: And it came to pass at the end of forty years that Absalom said unto the king: “I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the Lord in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Aram, saying: If the Lord shall indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord” (II Sam. 15:7–8).

The Holy One of Blessing said to Pinchas: 'you defended My children with your tongue, hold onto the jaw as a gift; you directed the spear on the belly of a man and a woman, hold onto [your] belly; you exerted yourself with your arm, hold your arm as you project peace between people - behold you will bless My children with peace, as it says "May Ad-nai give you favor and grant you peace" (Numbers 6:26)

(Numb. 6:22–23:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE [UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO AARON AND UNTO HIS CHILDREN, SAYING:] THUS SHALL YOU BLESS THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Let our master instruct us: In the case of priest with a blemish, it is right for him to raise his hands (in the priestly blessing)?⁵⁵Tanh., 2:8. Thus have our masters taught (in Meg. 4:7): A PRIEST WHOSE HANDS ARE BLEMISHED MAY NOT RAISE HIS HANDS, but Rabbi taught: A priest whose has any blemishes at all may not raise his hands. (Ibid., cont.:) R. JUDAH SAYS: ALSO WHOEVER HAS HIS HANDS STAINED WITH WOAD,⁵⁶Buber’s note suggests emending satim to satis, and the translation follows his emendation. On satis, see the Gk. and Lat. word, isatis, which denotes a plant producing a deep blue dye. MADDER, OR RUBIA MAY NOT RAISE HIS HANDS. Why? (Ibid., cont.:) BECAUSE IT IS CUSTOMARY FOR PEOPLE TO BE LOOKING AT HIM. R. Joshua the Great taught: If the majority of the men in the town are in that business (i.e., of dying cloth), he is permitted to raise his hands.⁵⁷Cf. Meg. 24b.

Another interpretation: "This month for you..." (Exodus 12:2) This is what is written, "That the righteous shall flourish in his days and multiply peace until the moon is no more" (Psalms 72:7) - until the Holy One Blessed Be He does not bring out Israel from the land of Egypt. It was a hint that kingship did not come to them for 30 generations, as it is written "This month for you shall be the head of the months..." A month is 30 days, and your kingship is 30 generations. The moon begins to give light on the 1st of Nissan, and all the more so it gives light until 15 days, and its disc becomes full. And from 15 to 30, its light diminishes - on the 30th, it cannot be seen. Accordingly is Israel 15 generations from Abraham to Solomon. Abraham began to give light, as was written: "Who has roused a righteous one from the East; He shall call him to His foot" (Isaiah 41:2) [reading ha-ir with an ayin "roused" as "ha-ir" with an aleph "gave light"] Isaac came, and even he gave light, as was said, "Light was sown for the righteous" (Psalms 97:11). Jacob came and added light, as was said, "And the light of Israel will be for fire" (Isaiah 10:17). And after this: Judah, Peretz, Ram, Amminadab, Nachshon, Salmon, Boaz, Oved, Jesse, David. When Solomon came, the disc of the moon became full, as was said, "And Solomon sat on the throne of YHVH as king" (1 Chronicles 29:23). And how could a human sit on the throne of the Holy One Blessed Be He who said about it, "His throne was tongues of flame" (Daniel 7:9)? Rather, just as the Holy One Blessed Be He dominated from end to end of the earth and dominates all kings, as is said "All of the kings of the world shall acknowledge You" (Psalms 138:4), so Solomon dominated from end to end of the earth, as was said, "And all the kings of the earth would request to come before Solomon... and each one of them would bring his tribute..." (2 Chronicles 9:23-24) And therefore it was said, "And Solomon sat on the throne of YHVH as king". The Holy One Blessed Be He dressed him in majesty and splendor and gave Solomon the majesty of kingship, as was said, "And He gave him the majesty of kingship..." (1 Chronicles 29:25) on the throne of the Holy One Blessed Be He, as was written, "And the likeness of their faces was the face of a man and the face of a lion..." (Ezekiel 1:10). And regarding Solomon, it was written "And on the insets that were between the frames were lions, oxen..." (I Kings 7:29) And one verse says, "...like the work of chariot wheels..." (I Kings 7:33). On the throne of the Holy One Blessed Be He, no bad thing befalls, as was said, "Evil cannot dwell with You" (Psalms 5:5), and regarding Solomon it is written, "...there is no bad adversary and no bad happenstance" (I Kings 5:20). The Holy One Blessed Be He made 6 firmaments and dwelt in the seventh. And regarding Solomon's throne it is written "Six steps up to the throne..." (I Kings 10:19) and he sits on the seventh step. Behold, the disc of the moon became full, and from there, the kings began to diminish and go: "And the son of Solomon was Rehoboam" (I Chronicles 3:10), and the son of Rehoboam was Aviyah, and his son Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Achazia, Joash, Amazia, Uzziah, Jotham, Achaz, Hezekiah, Menashe, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim. Since Zedekiah came, as was written "And the eyes of Zedekiah were blinded" (Jeremiah 52:11) - lacking the moon's light. And all of those years, despite Israel sinning, the patriarchs would pray for them and make peace between Israel and the Omnipresent, as was said, "Let the mountains lift up peace for the people" (Psalms 72:3). And there are no mountains other than the patriarchs, as was said, "Listen, mountains, to the argument of YHVH" (Micah 6:2) . And until when were the patriarchs praying for them? Until Zedekiah lost his eyes and the Temple was destroyed, as was said "..and multiply peace until the moon is no more" (Psalms 72:7) - until 30 generations that Israel had kingship. From that hour until now, who makes peace for Israel? YHVH, as was said, "May YHVH lift his face to you and grant you peace" (Numbers 6:26)

Another interpretation (of Numb. 6:23): THUS SHALL YOU BLESS. This text is related (to Cant. 3:7): THERE IS HIS BED, THE ONE BELONGING TO SOLOMON (rt.: ShLM), WITH SIXTY WARRIORS AROUND IT. What reason did <the author of Canticles, i.e.,> Solomon (rt.: ShLM), have to be concerned with a with a bed?⁶⁰Tanh., Numb. 2:9; Cant. R. 3:7:2, 4. When it said: THERE IS HIS BED, it is simply that <the verse> was only concerned with the king to whom peace (rt.: ShLM) belonged. (Ibid.:) THERE IS HIS BED. This is the Temple.⁶¹Numb. R. 11:3. But why was the Temple compared to a bed? It is simply that just as a bed is only for being fruitful and multiplying, so it was with the Temple. Whatever was in it was being fruitful and multiplying, as stated (in I Kings 8:8 = II Chron. 5:9): THE POLES GREW SO LONG.⁶²This literal interpretation of the Hebrew text was seen to imply that the poles miraculously lengthened while within the Temple. See Tanh., Exod. 7:11. It also says (in II Chron. 3:6): THE GOLD WAS GOLD FROM PARVAIM (as if from PRH), which produced fruit (rt.: PRH). And so it says (in I Kings 7:2): AND HE BUILT THE HOUSE OF THE FOREST OF LEBANON. Why was it compared to a forest? Just as a forest is fruitful and multiplies, so it is in the case of the Temple. Whatever was in it was being fruitful and multiplying. It is therefore stated (in Cant. 3:7): THERE IS HIS BED. (Ibid., cont.:) WITH SIXTY WARRIORS. These are the sixty letters that are in the priestly blessing (in Numb. 6:24–26). (Cant. 3:8:) ALL OF THEM EQUIPPED WITH A SWORD, because in each and every <verse of the priestly blessing> the name of the Holy One is mentioned: THE LORD⁶³This translation follows the common practice of substituting THE LORD for the Divine Name. BLESS YOU <…>; THE LORD MAKE <HIS FACE> SHINE< … >; THE LORD LIFT UP HIS <FACE … >. (Cant. 3:8, cont.:) EACH WITH HIS SWORD ON HIS THIGH. What is the reason for the thigh to be mentioned here? simply that, even if one sees in his dream a sword being drawn, placed over his neck, and <then> cutting off his thigh, he rises early in the morning and goes to the synagogue.⁶⁴There may be an allusion here to circumcision. See Numb. R. 11:3; Cant. R. 3:7:4. On the symbolic use of the sword, cf. also Ephesians 6:17. (Cant. 3:8, cont.:) BECAUSE OF FEAR AT NIGHT, <i.e.,> because of a fear which he saw in his dream at night. Then <when> he sees the priests raising their hands, the bad dream passes away from him. It is therefore stated: BECAUSE OF FEAR AT NIGHT. Therefore the holy one told moses to caution Aaron and his children to bless my children, as stated (in numb. 6:23): THUS SHALL YOU BLESS [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL].

"And it was on the day that Moses had finished" (Numbers 7:1). What is written above the matter? "May the Lord bless you and keep you" (Numbers 6:24). Rabbi Yehoshua of Sakhnin said, "[There is a relevant] parable about a king who had his daughter betrothed and [prepared] the wedding for her, when the evil eye overpowered her. [But] the king stood [in his decision] to marry off his daughter. What did he do? He gave her a charm and said to her, 'This charm should be upon you, so that the evil eye not overpower you.' So [too], when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel the Torah, He made for them a public [ceremony], as it is stated (Exodus 20:15), 'And all the people saw the sounds.' And this was nothing but marriage (kiddushin), as it is stated (Exodus 19:10), 'And the Lord said to Moshe, "Go to the people and sanctify them (kiddishtam)...."' And [so] the evil eye overpowered them and the tablets were broken, as it is stated (Exodus 32:19), 'As soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moshe became enraged; and he hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain.' Once they came and made the tabernacle for themselves, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them the blessings first, so that the evil eye not overpower them. Hence it is written, 'May the Lord bless you and keep you,' first; and afterwards, 'And it was on the day that Moses had finished.'" Rabbi Abahu said, "The trait of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like the trait of flesh and blood. When a king of flesh and blood enters a province, it is after the people of the province praise him and honor him that he gives them satisfaction in the province. But the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like this. Before Israel [completed] the tabernacle, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them the blessings. As it is stated, [first] 'May the Lord bless you and keep you'; and afterwards, 'And it was on the day that Moses had finished erecting the tabernacle.' Therefore David said (Psalms 85:9), 'Let me hear what God, the Lord, will speak; for He will speak peace to His people, His faithful ones.'"

Another explanation of He will not pardon your transgressions. Why not? For he is only a messenger, and a messenger can only do what he is sent to do. I alone can lift up countenances (i.e., grant pardon), as it is said: The Lord lift up His countenance unto thee (Num. 6:26). David cried out: Master of the Universe, you trust us into the keeping of an angel who cannot pardon us, but if Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who can stand? (Ps. 130:3). If You should say: Forgiveness is not available to you, For with Thee there is forgiveness that Thou mayest be feared (ibid., 4), therefore do not place over us the angel who is guardian of the Inner Sanctum, since it is said: For he will not pardon your transgressions. Why? For it is said My name is in him (Exod. 23:21) (i.e., he is only my messenger). R. Simeon the son of Lakish said: The name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is coupled with every angel, as it is said: For My name is in him.

21 The Seers (i.e., the prophets) were the ones who said the doubled letters, mantzepakh (mem, nun, tzadi, peh, and kaf, which are the letters that have a different form when they appear at the end of a word). [The doubling of kaf that is found in Genesis 12:1,] "Lekh lekha (Go for yourself)," hints to Avraham that he will father Yitschak at one hundred years [of age] (as the numerical value of these two words is one hundred). [The doubling of mem that is found in Genesis 26:16,] "ki atsamta memenu (as you have become more powerful than us)" is a hint [to Yitschak] that hints that he and his seed will be powerful in both worlds. The doubling of nun [that is found in Genesis 32:12,] "Hatsileini na (Save me)" [is a hint to] Yaakov, [that] he will be saved in both worlds. The doubling of peh [that is found in Exodus 3:15, is a hint to] Israel, to Moshe,"pakod pakadeti etchem (I have surely remembered you)." The doubling of tsadi [that is found in Zachariah 6:12,] "hinei eesh, Tsemach shemo, [ou'metachtav yitsmach] (behold, a man called Branch shall branch out from the place where he is,)" is [referring to] the Messiah. And so is it stated (Jermiah 23:5), "vahikimoti leDavid tsemach tsadeek [...] (and I will raise up a true branch of David [...])." "The leader of fifty" (Isaiah 3:3). Twenty-four books (of the Bible); add to them eleven of the thirteen [books of the minor prophets] - besides Yonah which is by itself - and six orders of the Mishnah and nine chapters of Torat Kohanim, behold fifty. "Sixty were the queens," (Song of Songs 6:8), sixty tractates; "and eighty were the concubines," eighty study halls that were in Jerusalem corresponding to its gates.; and maidens without number," the study outside. "Behold the bed of Shlomo, sixty warriors" (Song of Songs 3:7). [This corresponds to] the sixty letters of the priestly blessing (Numbers 6:24-26). Three hundred and eighteen [souls mentioned in Genesis 14:14 is the numerical equivalent of] Eliezer. "Inasmuch (ekev) as Avraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws, and My teachings" (Genesis 26:5) - he recognized him when he was three (the numerical equivalent of ekev, being three less than that of Avraham). The Satan (HaSatan) has the numerical equivalent of three hundred and sixty-four, the count of the days of the solar year that he rules over all of them to slander, excepting Yom Kippur. Rabbi Ami beiRabbi Abba said, "Avraham was missing five organs before he was circumcised and [before] he fathered. The [letter] hay (with a numerical value of five) was added [to his name] and he became complete and fathered [corresponding to the complete set of organs, two hundred and forty-eight], the numerical count of his letters." "A woman of valor is the crown of her husband" (Proverbs 12:4) - that is Sarah. Her name had been Sarai. Two Amoraim (later rabbinic teachers) differed. One said, "The [letter] yod (with a numerical count of ten that was taken from her) was divided into two, [to give] a hay to Avaraham and a hay to Sarah." And [the other] said, "The yod that was taken from Sarah raised a protest until Yehoshua came and Moshe added to him a yod - the Lord save you from the counsel of the [other] spies. [The significance of the letters in the name,] Yitschak [is as follows]: Yod (with a numerical count of ten) corresponds to the ten trials [of Avraham]. [The letter] tsadi (with a numerical count of ninety), [as] Sarah was ninety when he was born. [The letter] chet (with a numerical count of eight), [as] he was circumcised on the eighth day. And the letter kof (with a numerical count of one hundred), [as] Avraham was a hundred years old when he was born. Yaakov was called according to [the significance of the letters of] his [own] name: Yod [corresponds to] the tenth of his offspring going backwards. Count from (the last son), Binaymin to Levi - there are ten sons, [and Levi] was the tenth. [The letter] ayin (with a numerical count of seventy corresponds to the number of offspring he took to Egypt), "with seventy souls" (Deuteronomy 10:22). Kof corresponds to the [number of the] letters of the blessing [that he received minus the name of God, "And may He give you etc." (Genesis 27:28)]. [The letter] bet (with a numerical count of two) remains, corresponding to two angels (that he saw on the ladder in his dream) rising. There were six hundred and thirteen commandments in the tablets - corresponding to the letters from "I am" (Exodus 20:2) to "to your neighbor" (Exodus 20:14) - corresponding to the six hundred and thirteen commandments - no less and no more. And they were all given to Moshe at [Mount] Sinai; and in them are statutes and judgments, Torah and Mishnah, Talmud and aggadah. "The fear of the Lord is his treasure" (Isaiah 33:6). There is no greater characteristic than fear and humility, [as it is stated] (Deuteronomy 10:12), "And now Israel, what does the Lord, your God, ask of you besides to fear Him [...]." "The fear of" (Yirat) has a numerical value of six hundred and eleven; and Torah has a numerical value of six hundred and eleven - and Torah and fear [of God] along with them, behold that is six hundred and thirteen. [The numerical value of] fringes (tsitsit) [is six hundred] - the rabbis taught: [Add] eight [strings] and five [knots], behold that is six hundred and thirteen. The days of Avraham were one hundred and seventy-five years, [of] Yitzchak were one hundred and eighty years [and of] Yaakov were a hundred and forty-seven years. When you put them together, it is found to be five hundred and two years. And so is the distance of the the heavens to the earth, "like the the days of the heavens above the earth" (Deuteronomy 11:21). "[The man (David)] raised on high" (II Samuel 23:1) - [high (al) has a numerical value of one hundred] corresponding to one hundred blessings. As on every day, one hundred men of Israel were dying. [So] David came and ordained [the daily saying of] one hundred blessings. Once he ordained them, the pestilence ceased. High (al) [corresponds to] the yoke (ulah) of Torah and the yoke of suffering. "Forgive all guilt and take the good (tov) that we pay with the words of our lips" (Hosea 14:3). Israel said, "Master of the world, at the time that the Temple existed, we would offer a sacrifice and be cleansed. But now all we have in our hand is prayer." The numerical value of tov is seventeen. Prayer [consists of] nineteen blessings. Take away from them the blessing for the malfeasers that was composed at Yavneh, and "Let the sprout of David blossom," which they ordained after it for the sake of "Probe me, Lord, and try me" (Psalms 26:2). Rabbi Simon says, "Take tov [in at-bash (matching letters based on how close they are to the center of the alphabet), which is the same] as the numerical value of soul (nefesh). Israel said, 'At the time that the Temple existed, we would incinerate the fats and the innards and be cleansed. But now behold our fat, our blood and our souls. May it be Your will that it be atonement for us and "that we pay with the words of our lips" (Hosea 14:3).'" "And the Lord gave her conception (herayon)" (Ruth 4:13). [Herayon] has a numerical value of two hundred and seventy one (the number of the days of the nine months of birthing). The measure of the water of a mikveh (ritual bath) is forty seah [corresponding to the forty mentions] of well water, written in the Torah. And [the volume of] how many eggs is the measure of the mikveh? Five thousand seven hundred and sixty. Each seah is a hundred and forty-four eggs. Forty-three and a fifth eggs is the measure of [what is required for] challah [tithe]. And from where [do we know] that a mikveh requires forty seah? As it is written (Isaiah 8:6), "Since this nation has rejected the waters of Shiloach that flow gently (le'at)." The numerical value [of le'at] is forty. And one who separates the measure of the challah [tithe] must separate one part in forty three and a fifth from Torah writ like the [numerical] value of challah. The main categories of work [on Shabbat] are forty minus one (thirty-nine), as it is written (Exodus 35:1), "These (eleh) are the things which the Lord commanded." [The numerical count of] "eleh" is thirty-six; "things" (being plural) is two; "the things" [indicates an additional] one - behold, forty minus one. "He shall strike him forty, he shall not add" (Deuteronomy 25:3), corresponds to the forty curses that the snake, Chava, Adam and the ground were cursed - and the sages lessened one, because of "he shall not add." Those [judges] advocating innocence are more those advocating guilt. [For] it is best for the two to come and push off one. Seshach is Bavel (Babylon) [according to] its numerical value in at-bash. Tavel is Ramlah [according to] its numerical value in al-bam (another numerical scheme). "Thus (bezot) shall Aaron enter the shrine; with a bull of the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering" (Leviticus 16:3). Bezot (which has a numerical count of four hundred and ten) is a hint to the first Temple that stood for four hundred and ten years.

(Bamidbar 6:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man or a woman, if he shall declare to vow the vow of a Nazirite, to be a Nazirite to the L-rd": What is the intent of this section? (i.e., the section of vows has already been stated!) — Because it is written (Ibid. 30:3) "A man if he vow a vow to the L-rd, or if he take an oath to bind upon his soul, etc.", whence if he vows (to forbid) something for one day it is forbidden for one day; for two days, it is forbidden for two days; (to forbid) a specific thing, that specific thing is forbidden — I would think that the same is true of Naziritism. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." that if he vowed (Naziritism, to forbid something to himself) for one day or for one moment, it is forbidden to him for thirty days. And he is forbidden to drink wine and to render himself tamei for the dead and to cut his hair. This is the intent of this section. "a man or a woman": to equate women with men (in respect to Naziritism). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where minors are equated with adults, (i.e., in respect to Cohanim not rendering themselves tamei for the dead, viz. Vayikra 21:1), women are not equated with men, then here (in respect to Naziritism), where minors are not equated with adults, how much more so should women not be equated with men! It is, therefore, written "a man or a woman," to equate women with men. "a man": and not a minor. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where women are not equated with men (see above), minors are equated with adults, then here, (in respect to Naziritism), where women are equated with men, how much more so should minors be equated with adults! It is, therefore, written "a man," and not a minor. "if he shall declare": to include (Naziritism as obtaining with) one who knows how to declare (i.e., one who is cognizant of the import of what he is saying.) From here they ruled: The vows of a girl of eleven years and one day are examined (for such cognizance); of twelve years and one day — her vows stand. The vows of a boy of twelve years and one day are examined; of thirteen years and one day — his vows stand. "if he declare": willingly, and not under coercion. — But perhaps even under coercion! — It follows (that they must be willing), viz.: It is written here "declare," and, in respect to vows and gifts (Vayikra 22:21) "declare." Just as there, willingly; here, too, willingly. "to vow a vow": I might think that even if he vows to bring an offering he becomes a Nazirite; it is, therefore, written "to make a Nazirite" — he must make the vow of a Nazirite. I might think (from "to make a Nazirite") that he may make even others Nazirites. It is, therefore, written "nazir," (which connotes that) he makes himself a Nazirite, and not others. If so, why is it written (lit.,) "nazir, to make a nazir"? To equate epithets of Naziritism with Naziritism and "signals" of Naziritism with Naziritism. This tells me only of Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows? From "the vow of a Nazirite," to equate vows with Naziritism and Naziritism with vows, viz.: Just as in Naziritism, epithets of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, and signals of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, so, with vows, epithets of vows are equated with vows, and signals of vows are equated with vows. And just as vows are subject to transgression of (Bamidbar 30:3) "He shall not profane his word" and (Devarim 23:22) "You shall not delay to pay it," so, Naziritism. And just as with vows a father may void the vows of his daughter, and a husband, the vows of his wife, so, with Naziritism. R. Yehoshua says: "to make a Nazirite": (to make) even others (Nazirites, e.g., a father, vis-à-vis his son). "to make a Nazirite to the L-rd": It is a mitzvah to become a Nazirite to the L-rd. Shimon Hatzaddik said: I never ate the guilt-offering of a Nazirite who had become unclean (by contact with a dead body) but once. Once a Nazirite came to me from the south. His eyes were beautiful, he was very handsome, and his hair was wavy. I said to him: "What prompted you to destroy this beautiful hair?" (at the end of the Nazirite period). He answered: "I was a shepherd for my father in my town. Once, while drawing water from the well, I gazed upon my reflection and my evil inclination seized hold of me and threatened to snatch me from the world — whereupon I said to it: 'Empty one, why do you vaunt yourself in a world that is not yours, where you are destined to be consigned to worms and maggots? I swear, I shall shear you in the name of Heaven!'" I thereupon arose, and, kissing him on the head, said to him: "May Nazirites like you multiply in Israel, doing the will of the L-rd! Of such as you it is written 'A man … if he shall declare to vow the vow of the Nazirite to be a Nazirite to the L-rd.'"

(Bamidbar 6:3) "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself": (The intent is) to equate wine of mitzvah with non-mitzvah (i.e., optional) wine, as being forbidden to a Nazirite (viz. Ibid. 4). For (without this verse) it would follow that since a mourner is forbidden to drink wine (viz. Devarim 26:14) and a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine, then since I have learned about a mourner that wine of mitzvah (i.e., second-tithe wine) was not equated with optional wine, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted), also, in the instance of a Nazirite, wine of mitzvah is not to be equated with optional wine, (i.e., the second, being forbidden, the first must be permitted, [wherefore the verse is needed to tell us that mitzvah wine, too, is forbidden to a Nazirite]). — No, this may be so in the instance of a mourner, where mitzvah eating was not equated with optional eating, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted,) wherefore mitzvah wine was not equated with optional wine. But in the instance of the Nazirite, we would say that just as mitzvah eating was equated with optional eating, so, mitzvah wine should be equated with optional wine, (and both should be forbidden. Why, then, is the verse needed to tell us this?). And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that mitzvah wine is forbidden to a Nazirite,) viz.: If in the instance of an officiating (Cohein in the Temple), where the rind was not equated with the fruit, nor eating with drinking, nor the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, (only the last being forbidden), mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, (both being forbidden, viz. [Vayikra 10:9]), then in the instance of the Nazirite, where the rind was equated with the fruit (both being forbidden), and eating with drinking, and the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, how much more so, should mitzvah wine be equated with optional wine (and be forbidden!) Why, then, is the verse needed? — No, (i.e., it is needed.) This (i.e., what you have said), may be so with the officiating (Cohein), whose punishment (for drinking) is death, wherefore mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, whereas in the instance of the Nazirite, whose punishment (for drinking) is not death, we would say that mitzvah wine was not to be equated with optional wine, (and should be permitted.) It must, therefore, be written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself," to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? Because it is written (Devarim 14:23) "and you shall eat before the L-rd your G-d … the (second-) tithe of your grain and wine, etc.", I might think that even Nazirites are included. And how would I satisfy "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? With other wines, excluding mitzvah wines. Or even with mitzvah wines. And how would I satisfy "and you shall eat, etc."? With other men, aside from Nazirites. Or even with Nazirites. It is, therefore, written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself" — to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden.) Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is it written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself"? For it would follow: Since he (a Nazirite) is forbidden to defile himself (for the dead) and he is forbidden (to drink) wine, then if I learn that (for a Nazirite) a meth-mitzvah [(one who, lacking kin, it is a mitzvah for everyone to bury)] is not equated with a non-meth-mitzvah, then mitzvah wine, likewise, should not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden.) And, further, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If (dead-body) tumah, which voids (one's elapsed period of Nazaritism) does not equate a meth-mitzvah with a non meth-mitzvah, (it being a mitzvah for a Nazirite to render himself tamei for the first, but forbidden to do so for the second), how much more so should mitzvah wine, which does not void (his lapsed Naziritism) not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden)! It must, therefore, be written "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself" to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). "From yayin (wine) and shechar he shall separate himself": Now yayin is shechar, and shechar is yayin! — But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues (i.e., synonymously). Similarly: Shechitah (slaughtering) is zevichah, and zevichah is shechitah. Kemitzah (taking the fistful) is haramah, and haramah is kemitzah. Amuka (lowland) is shefelah, and shefelah is amukah. Oth (a sign) is mofeth, and mofeth is oth — but the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. Here, too — "From yayin and shechar he shall separate himself": Now yayin is shechar and shechar is yayin. But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. R. Elazar Hakappar says: "yayin" is diluted; shechar is undiluted. You say this, but perhaps the reverse is the case! — From(Bamidbar 28:7) "And its libation a fourth of a hin for the one lamb. On the holy place (i.e., the altar) shall it be poured (connoting "undiluted"), a pouring of shechar to the L-rd," you must deduce that "yayin" is diluted, and "shechar," undiluted. "From wine and strong drink yazir": "nezirah" in all places connotes separation, viz. (Vayikra 22:2) "and they shall separate ("veyinazru") from the holy things of the children of Israel," and (Ibid. 25:5) "The after-growth of your harvest you shall not reap (in the sabbatical year), and the guarded ("nezirecha," lit., "separated") grapes of your vine you shall not gather," and (Hoshea 9:10)) "And they came to Baal-peor and 'separated themselves' ('vayinazru') to shame," and (Zechariah 7:3) "Shall I weep in the fifth month (Tisha B'av), separating myself ("hinazer"), etc." We find, then, that in all places "nezirah" connotes separation. "From wine and shechar he shall separate himself": I might think, (even) from selling wine or healing (himself with it); it is, therefore, written "he shall not drink," but he is permitted to sell it or to heal himself with it. "Vinegar of wine and vinegar of shechar he shall not drink": We are hereby taught that vinegar is equated with wine. For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since an officiating Cohein may not drink wine, then if I have learned that in his case vinegar is not equated with wine, then for a Nazirite, too, vinegar should not be equated with wine. And, furthermore, this should follow a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) an officiating Cohein, whose punishment (for drinking wine) is death, vinegar is not equated with wine, then (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose punishment is not death, how much more so should vinegar not be equated with wine! (The verse then is needed) to tell us that vinegar is equated with wine. And just as mitzvah wine is equated with optional wine, so, mitzvah vinegar (i.e., second-tithe vinegar) is equated with optional vinegar. What is the intent of "and any steeping of grapes he shall not eat"? We are hereby taught that if he steeped grapes in water, and the taste (of the grapes) was transmitted to the water, it is forbidden. And this serves as a paradigm for everything forbidden by the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re wine) is not for all time, (but only for the period of his Naziritism), and whose prohibition does not extend to derivation of benefit (e.g., selling and healing), and whose prohibition is subject to release (by absolution of his Naziritism), the taste (of the forbidden substance) was regarded as the substance itself, then the other prohibitions in the Torah, whose prohibitions are for all time, and whose prohibition extends to derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is not subject to release — how much more so should the taste (of the forbidden substance) be regarded as the substance itself! "and grapes": Why is this written? It follows (logically) even without being stated, viz.: If he is liable for what issues from the fruit (i.e., wine), should he not be liable for the fruit itself! Rather, what is the intent of "wet" grapes"? To include (as forbidden) half-ripe grapes. You say "to include half-ripe grapes. But perhaps its intent is to exclude dry grapes? (This cannot be) for "and dry" includes dry grapes. What, then, is the intent of "wet"? For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: He is liable for wine and he is liable for grapes. Just as wine is a finished fruit (i.e., product), so, grapes must be a finished product (and not half-ripe). It is, therefore, written "wet" to include half-ripe grapes (as forbidden). Issi b. Yehudah says: What is the intent of "grapes wet and dry"? To impose liability for each in itself (i.e., eating "wet" and "dry" grapes together is regarded as two separate transgressions though one kind of fruit is eaten). (And this serves as a paradigm for all prohibitions in the Torah.) Let it be written "and dry grapes he shall not eat" (i.e., "wet" is understood from "grapes itself," and only "dry" need be written.) If it were stated thus, all dried fruits would be understood (to be forbidden). "wet" and "dry" (in this context) implies what issues from the vine wet and then dried up.

(Bamidbar 6:4) "All the days of his Naziritism, of all that is made from the grape-vine, from the kernels to the husk, he shall not eat": Scripture hereby apprises us that if he ate an olive-size of all of them (kernel and husk combined), he receives forty lashes. And this serves as a paradigm for all of the prohibitions of the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re wine) is not for all time, (but only for the period of his Naziritism), and whose prohibition does not extend to the derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is subject to release (by absolution of his Naziritism), separate elements (in an injunction) combine with each other to (form the forbidden) olive-size, then the other prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibitions are for all time, and whose prohibition extends to derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is not subject to release — how much more so do they combine with each other to (form the forbidden) olive-size! "of all that is made from the grape-vine": I might think that leaves and sprouts, too, (are included); it is, therefore, written "from the kernels to the husk": Just as the specific instance is of fruit (kernel) and residue of fruit (husk), so, only these are included (in the prohibition), to exclude leaves and sprouts, (which do not satisfy these parameters). R. Eliezer says: Leaves and sprouts are also subsumed in "of all that is made from the grape-vine." "from the chartzanim to the zag he shall not eat": The minimum (amount for transgression) — two kernels, one husk. These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Azaryah. Which are the chartzanim and which are the zagim? "chartzanim" are the outer, and "zagim" are the inner. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: So that you not err, (they are) like the bells ("zugim") of an animal: the outer (part) is the "zag"; the inner (the clapper) is the "inbal." "From the kernels to the husk he shall not eat": We are hereby apprised that "pained eating" (as in eating kernels and husk) does not free him from liability. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If for the graver — Yom Kippur — one is not liable for "pained eating," should this not be so for the lesser, Naziritism? It is, therefore, written "From the kernels to the husk he shall not eat.": Why is this written" (i.e., it may be derived from the preceding verse, viz.:) "of all that is made of the grape-vine … he shall not eat" — general. "From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself. Vinegar of wine and vinegar of strong drink he shall not drink" — particular. (We have here an instance of) general-particular. (The rule is:) There is subsumed in the general only what is in the particular. Just as the particular is "fruit (wine) and residue of fruit (vinegar)," so, I derive (as forbidden) anything which is "fruit and residue of fruit" — including kernels and husk, which satisfy that parameter! (Why, then is "from the kernels to the husk" needed?) — Perhaps, just as the particular is an "actual" fruit, so, I may derive only an "actual" fruit. — (No!) Which "actual" fruit has not been mentioned? You must revert, then, to the original formulation, (and the question remains:) If I can derive it from the rule, why need "from the kernels to the husk" be stated? We are hereby taught that (in the instance of) a "general" which adds to the "particular," what is to be derived is not (of necessity) to be of the same nature as the "particular" to remove it from the "general" (formulation) unless Scripture indicates it specifically, as it does in the instance of the Nazirite.

(Bamidbar 6:5) "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head."): Scripture now leaves the subject of wine and comes to speak of shaving. "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism": His vow (i.e., his offerings) is contingent upon his Naziritism (i.e., If he vows to be a Nazirite, then after his (period of) Naziritism he must bring his offerings), and his Naziritism is not contingent upon his vow (i.e., If he vows to bring the offering, he need not become a Nazirite.) "a blade shall not pass over his head": to equate the shaver with the shaved one (i.e., one who shaves him is liable, as is the shaved one himself). "a blade shall not pass over his head": This tells me only of a blade. Whence do I derive that he also receives forty lashes for tearing, plucking, and trimming? From "holy shall he be," in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks (only) of a blade. If he tore, plucked, or trimmed, he does not receive stripes. "until the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd": Whence is it derived that if one vows to be a Nazirite without qualifying (for how long), he shaves on the thirty-first day, and if he shaved on the thirtieth day he has fulfilled his obligations? From "until the fulfillment of the day of his Naziritism to the L-rd" — and they have been fulfilled. I might think that even if he vowed a one hundred day Naziritism and he shaved on the thirty-first day he has fulfilled his obligation; it is, therefore, written "until the fulfillment of his days," and he has not yet fulfilled them. This tells me (only) of one whose (period of) Naziritism is limited. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who vowed "eternal" Naziritism (i.e., that he must be a Nazirite all of his days)? From "all the days of the vow of his Naziritism … holy shall he be." "holy shall he be": You say that this refers to holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the hair. But perhaps it refers to the holiness of the body (i.e., not to become defiled by the dead). (This is not so, for) (Ibid. 8) "He is holy to the L-rd" speaks of holiness of the body. How, then, am I to understand "holy shall he be"? As referring to holiness of the hair, "holy shall he be": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18) "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting," I would think that only the hair of one who shaves as prescribed is forbidden and imposes constraints. How would I know (that the same applies) if vandals shaved him? From "holy shall he be" — in any event. R. Yossi says: Why is it written "holy shall he be"? Because it is written "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head," I might think (that Naziritism obtains only) with one who has hair. Whence do I derive (that it also obtains) with one who does not have hair? From "holy shall he be" — in any event. R. Yonathan says: It is not needed (for the above), for it is written (Ibid. 7) "for the crown of his G-d is on his head" — whether or not he has hair. What, then, is the intent of "holy shall he be"? As we stated above (in respect to "eternal" Naziritism). Unqualified Naziritism is thirty days, it being written "holy shall he be ("yiheyeh"): The numerical equivalent of "yiheyeh" is thirty. "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head." Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written "a blade shall not pass over his head.") It is written (of a leper, Vayikra 14:9) "And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair." This implies even a Nazirite (leper). And how would I understand "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head"? As applying to other Nazirites, excluding the leper. Or, perhaps, even a Nazirite (leper). It is, therefore, written "he shall let grow the locks ('pera') of the hair of his head." From here you learn of the leper, of whom it is written (Vayikra 13:45) "And his head shall be parua" that "parua" means "grown long." You say it means that, but perhaps it is to be taken literally (as meaning "uncovered.") You, therefore, reason as follows: It is written here (in respect to a leper) "parua," and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite) "parua" (i.e., "pera," like "parua"). Just as there (re Nazirite), "parua" means growing the hair, so, "parua" here (re leper) means growing the hair. "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head."): (A Nazirite who shaved his head at the end of his period of Naziritism [before he brought the offering, etc.] is liable,) it being written "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism a blade shall not pass over his head" — to include the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering (as in the above-cited instance) as equivalent (for liability) to the days in the midst of his Naziritism. — But perhaps he is liable (for shaving his head) only if he does so before he completes his period of Naziritism! — (No,) it follows (that this is not so,) viz.: Since he is forbidden to drink wine and he is forbidden to shave, if I have learned about wine that the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering were equated with the days in the midst of the period of his Naziritism, the same must be true of shaving. And, furthermore, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If re wine, the drinking of which does not void (the count of his preceding Nazirite days), the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of his offering were equated (for liability) with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period, then re shaving, which does void (the Nazirite count), how much more so should this be true! — (No,) this may be true of the drinking of wine, where no act in its category (the drinking of wine by a Nazirite) was permitted — wherefore the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period — but would you say the same for shaving, where an act in its category (the shaving of a Nazirite leper on the seventh day) was permitted — wherefore we would say that the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were not equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! — (No!) This is refuted by the instance of tumah (a Nazir's defiling himself with a dead body), where though there is an act in its category which is permitted (i.e., a Nazir's defiling himself for a meth mitzvah [one who has no kin to bury him]), still the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! And this would indicate about shaving, that even though there is an act in its category which is permitted, still, the days after the Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are to be equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period. — No, this may be true of tumah, which voids the whole (previous) count, which is not so with shaving, which does not void the whole. I have not succeeded (in proving the equality) with my a fortiori argument. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 20) "and thereafter (i.e., after bringing the offering), the Nazirite may drink wine." Now may a Nazirite drink wine? But (the idea is that) it (the word "Nazirite") is "extra" to signal a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: it is written here (in respect to shaving [6:5]) "nazir," and it is written elsewhere (20) "nazir" (in respect to the drinking of wine). Just as with (the "extra") "nazir" there, the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period, so, with shaving. (6:5) "He shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head." Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written [Ibid.] "a blade shall not pass over his head until the fulfillment of the days when he is a Nazirite to the L-rd.") From "until the fulfillment of the days," I would think that this ("fulfillment") is satisfied by a minimum of two days; it is, therefore, written "He shall let grow the hair of the locks of his head." How long does this take? Not less than thirty days. But (if he said: I will be a Nazirite) a month and above — even a month and one day or a month and two days, (he is a Nazirite for any period superadded.)

(Bamidbar 6:6) "All the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd, upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come." Scripture now leaves the subject of shaving and comes to speak of tumah. "upon the soul … he shall not come": I might think that even beasts are herein subsumed, as in (Vayikra 24:18) "One who strikes the soul of a beast, etc."; it is, therefore, written: "upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come," Scripture referring to a human being. R. Yishmael says: This (proof) is not needed, for it is written "he shall not come." Scripture is speaking of a (dead) soul that confers tumah by entry (into his tent, [i.e., the soul of a man, and not that of a beast]). (6:7) "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah (one who has no one to bury him). Why need this be stated? It is understood a fortiori, viz.: If the high-priest, whose holiness is permanent, becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, how much more so, a Nazirite, whose holiness is temporary! — No, this may be true of a high-priest, who does not bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, as opposed to a Nazirite, who does bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he should not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah! It must, therefore, be written "For his father and his mother he shall not become tamei" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But perhaps the intent of the verse is: "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei," but he does become for other dead! — Would you say such a thing? If an ordinary Cohein, who does become tamei for his kin, may not become tamei for other dead, how much more so a Nazirite, who may not become tamei for his kin! What, then, is the intent of "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei? He does not become tamei for his father and his mother, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But even without this verse, I can derive it by reasoning, viz.: There is a general rule for a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11: "And upon all souls of the dead he shall not come"), and there is a general rule for a Nazirite ("Upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come.") Just as with the general rule for the high-priest, he may not become tamei for kin, so with the general rule for the Nazirite, he may not become tamei for kin. You derive it from the high-priest, but I can derive it from an ordinary priest, viz.: There is a general rule for an ordinary priest and there is a general rule for a Nazirite. Just as with the general rule for the ordinary priest he does become tamei for kin, so, with the general rule for the Nazirite, he should become tamei for kin. It must, therefore, be written "For his father and his mother; for his brother and for his sister, he shall not become tamei, etc." R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 21:11): "souls" — these are the distant (i.e., non-kin); "the dead" — these are kin; "for his (the high-priest's) father and his mother" — For his father and his mother he does not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. (Bamidbar 6:7) "for his brother": If he were a high-priest or a Nazirite, he may not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. "and for his sister": What is the intent of this? If one (an ordinary Cohein) were going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, and he hears that one of his kin had died, I might think that he should become tamei for them; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "he shall not become tamei." I might think that he should (also) not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah; it is, therefore, written "and for his sister" — He does not become tamei for his sister, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. But (a verse) is not needed for his (young) son and daughter; for minors cannot become Nazirites. "he shall not become tamei for them in their death": In their death he does not become tamei for them, but he does become tamei for them in their leprous or zivah (genital discharge) state. This tells me only of a Nazirite. Whence do I derive (the same for) a high-priest? It is written in respect to a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11) "for his mother (he shall not) become tamei." This is superfluous, for I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may become tamei for his father's brother, a high-priest may not become tamei for his father, then in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may not become tamei for his father's brother, how much more so may a high-priest not become tamei for his father! If I can derive it, then, a fortiori, why is the verse "for his mother, etc." needed in respect to a high-priest? It is "extra," to the end of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written "his mother" here (in respect to a high-priest), and it is written "his mother" elsewhere (in respect to a Nazirite). Just as there he does become tamei (for them) in their leprous or zivah state, so, here. Variantly: "He shall not become tamei for them in their death": In their death he may not become tamei for them, but he may stand at their eulogy and in the mourner's row. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "for the crown of his G-d is on his head": whether or not he has hair. These are the words of R. Yonathan.

(Bamidbar 6:6) "All the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd, upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come." Scripture now leaves the subject of shaving and comes to speak of tumah. "upon the soul … he shall not come": I might think that even beasts are herein subsumed, as in (Vayikra 24:18) "One who strikes the soul of a beast, etc."; it is, therefore, written: "upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come," Scripture referring to a human being. R. Yishmael says: This (proof) is not needed, for it is written "he shall not come." Scripture is speaking of a (dead) soul that confers tumah by entry (into his tent, [i.e., the soul of a man, and not that of a beast]). (6:7) "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah (one who has no one to bury him). Why need this be stated? It is understood a fortiori, viz.: If the high-priest, whose holiness is permanent, becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, how much more so, a Nazirite, whose holiness is temporary! — No, this may be true of a high-priest, who does not bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, as opposed to a Nazirite, who does bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he should not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah! It must, therefore, be written "For his father and his mother he shall not become tamei" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But perhaps the intent of the verse is: "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei," but he does become for other dead! — Would you say such a thing? If an ordinary Cohein, who does become tamei for his kin, may not become tamei for other dead, how much more so a Nazirite, who may not become tamei for his kin! What, then, is the intent of "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei? He does not become tamei for his father and his mother, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But even without this verse, I can derive it by reasoning, viz.: There is a general rule for a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11: "And upon all souls of the dead he shall not come"), and there is a general rule for a Nazirite ("Upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come.") Just as with the general rule for the high-priest, he may not become tamei for kin, so with the general rule for the Nazirite, he may not become tamei for kin. You derive it from the high-priest, but I can derive it from an ordinary priest, viz.: There is a general rule for an ordinary priest and there is a general rule for a Nazirite. Just as with the general rule for the ordinary priest he does become tamei for kin, so, with the general rule for the Nazirite, he should become tamei for kin. It must, therefore, be written "For his father and his mother; for his brother and for his sister, he shall not become tamei, etc." R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 21:11): "souls" — these are the distant (i.e., non-kin); "the dead" — these are kin; "for his (the high-priest's) father and his mother" — For his father and his mother he does not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. (Bamidbar 6:7) "for his brother": If he were a high-priest or a Nazirite, he may not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. "and for his sister": What is the intent of this? If one (an ordinary Cohein) were going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, and he hears that one of his kin had died, I might think that he should become tamei for them; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "he shall not become tamei." I might think that he should (also) not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah; it is, therefore, written "and for his sister" — He does not become tamei for his sister, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. But (a verse) is not needed for his (young) son and daughter; for minors cannot become Nazirites. "he shall not become tamei for them in their death": In their death he does not become tamei for them, but he does become tamei for them in their leprous or zivah (genital discharge) state. This tells me only of a Nazirite. Whence do I derive (the same for) a high-priest? It is written in respect to a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11) "for his mother (he shall not) become tamei." This is superfluous, for I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may become tamei for his father's brother, a high-priest may not become tamei for his father, then in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may not become tamei for his father's brother, how much more so may a high-priest not become tamei for his father! If I can derive it, then, a fortiori, why is the verse "for his mother, etc." needed in respect to a high-priest? It is "extra," to the end of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written "his mother" here (in respect to a high-priest), and it is written "his mother" elsewhere (in respect to a Nazirite). Just as there he does become tamei (for them) in their leprous or zivah state, so, here. Variantly: "He shall not become tamei for them in their death": In their death he may not become tamei for them, but he may stand at their eulogy and in the mourner's row. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "for the crown of his G-d is on his head": whether or not he has hair. These are the words of R. Yonathan.

(Bamidbar 6:8) "All the days of his Naziritism, holy is he to the L-rd.": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (5) "until the fulfillment of the days," I might think (that the interdict of shaving applies) only to one whose Naziritism has a term. Whence do I derive (the same for) a life-long Nazirite? To this end it is written "All the days of his Naziritism." "holy is he to the L-rd": This applies to holiness of the body (vis-à-vis the interdict of becoming tamei.) — But perhaps it applies to the holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the hair! — (5) "holy shall he be" already refers to the holiness of the hair. How, then, am I to understand "holy is he to the L-rd"? As referring to holiness of the body.

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

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

(Bamidbar 6:10) "And on the eighth day he shall bring, etc.": to exclude the seventh day. You say, to exclude the seventh day; but perhaps, to exclude the ninth day? Would you say that? If (the eighth day), which is close to the forbidden (seventh day), is permitted, how much more so should (the ninth day), which is close to the permitted (eighth day) be permitted! — This is refuted by the time for eating the Paschal offering, where the time (the night of the fifteenth of Nissan), which is close to the forbidden (the day preceding that night) is permitted, and (after midnight on the night of the fifteenth), which is close to the permitted, is forbidden. Do not wonder, then, about this (forbidding of the offering on the ninth day) that even though what is close to the forbidden is permitted, what is close to the permitted is forbidden. We have not succeeded (with this argument). Let us derive it from the offered (i.e., the animals offered on the altar.) A time has been fixed for the offered (viz. Vayikra 22:17) "From the eighth day (of its birth) on it shall be accepted as a fire-offering"), and a time has been fixed for the offerers ("And on the eighth day he shall bring, etc." Just as with the offered, the eighth day and beyond was permitted, so, with the offerers. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If with the offered, where Scripture enumerates many that are unfit (for offerings), it validates (offerings) of the eighth day and beyond, how much more so with the offerers, where Scripture did not enumerate many that are unfit, should (offering) be validated from the eighth day and beyond! — No, this may be so with the offered, this time obtaining with all offerings, wherefore the eighth day and beyond was permitted, would you say the same for the offerers, where this time does not obtain for all, (but only for the Nazirites) — wherefore it would not be permitted from the eighth day on. I have not succeeded with ratiocination; I derive it by identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written here (in the instance of the Nazirite) "the eighth day," and elsewhere (in the instance of the offerings), "the eighth day." Just as there, the eighth and beyond is validated, so, here.

"two turtle-doves or two young pigeons" — whence they ruled: Turtle-doves cannot be substituted for pigeons nor pigeons for turtle-doves. "to the Cohein, to the door of the tent of meeting": We are hereby taught that it is his obligation to care for them until he brings them to the door of the tent of meeting.

(Bamidbar 6:11) "And the Cohein shall make one a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering": The Cohein shall designate them; one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. This tells me of designation by the Cohein. Whence do I derive designation by the owner? Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If one (the Cohein), who is not permitted to dedicate it (as an offering), is permitted to designate it, then one (the owner), who is permitted to dedicate it, how much more so is he permitted to designate it! And thus, (that designation is by the owner) is it written in respect to a woman who has given birth (Vayikra 12:8) "Then she shall take two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering" — whence we find that there is designation by the Cohein and designation by the owner — whence we find that there is an unqualified ken (the couple of sacrificial birds, [in the instance of the Nazirite, where the Cohein designates them]) and a qualified ken, (in the instance of the child-bearing woman, where she herself designates them, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering.) "and he shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul": Now against which soul did he sin that he needs atonement? (His sin is) that he deprived himself of wine. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who deprives himself of wine needs atonement, how much more so, one who deprives himself of everything (by fasting)! R. Yishmael says: Scripture speaks of a Nazirite who made himself tamei (by a dead body), it being written "and he shall atone for him by having sinned (i.e., for having defiled himself) by the soul" — a dead soul. "and he shall make holy his head on that day": On the day of his shaving. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: On the day of the bringing of his offerings.

30) "and He blessed them": (The formula of) this blessing is undisclosed (here). Scripture discloses it elsewhere, viz. (Bamidbar 6:24-26): "The L–rd bless you and keep you; the L–rd cause His countenance to shine upon you and grant you favor; the L–rd lift His countenance unto you and confer peace upon you." (Vayikra 9:23): "And Moses and Aaron came into the tent of meeting": Why did Moses and Aaron come in together? (For Moses) to teach Aaron the service of the incense. But perhaps he entered for some other reason. I derive it (thus): Coming down (from offering sacrifices) entails a blessing (the priestly blessing) and coming in (to the tent of meeting) entails a blessing. Just as (the blessing upon) coming down follows a service (sacrificing), so, (the blessing upon) coming in (to the tent of meeting) follows a service (that of the incense [whence it is seen that they went in for that purpose and not for some other reason]). Whence is it derived that coming in entails a blessing? It follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if leaving (the tent of meeting), which does not require laving entails a blessing (viz. Vayikra 9:23: "And they went out and they blessed the people"), then coming in, which does require laving (viz. Shemoth 30:20) how much more so should it entail a blessing! — But why not reverse it! (viz.:) Now if coming in, which (we do not find) to entail a blessing, requires laving, then going out, which does entail a blessing, how much more so should it require laving! No — this may be so (that washing is required), for coming in, where he goes from the mundane to the holy. But would you say the same for going out, where he goes from the holy to the mundane! The "reversion," then, is nullified and we return to the original formulation, viz.: Coming down entails a blessing and coming in entails a blessing. Just as coming down follows a service, so coming in follows a service (that of the incense). Why, then, did Moses come in with Aaron? To teach him the service of the incense.

(Bamidbar 6:12) "And he shall devote to the L-rd the days of his Naziritism (and he shall bring a lamb of the first-year as a guilt-offering"): What is the intent of this? Because we find in respect to all the guilt-offerings of the Torah that they are categorical (requirements for the effecting of a new condition), I might think that this (guilt-offering of the Nazirite) is also categorical (in respect to the resumption of his Naziritism), it is, therefore, written "and he shall devote … and he shall bring, etc." Though he has not yet brought (the guilt-offering), he may re-devote himself (to Naziritism). R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan b. Berokah says: This, too, is categorical, it being written "And he shall devote to the L-rd, etc." (the verse being understood as ) "When (shall he devote to the L-rd)?" when he has brought a lamb of the first year as a guilt-offering. "and the first days shall fall off": Whence is it derived that if one declares himself a Nazirite for a hundred days and he becomes tamei on the ninety-ninth day, he voids all (of the previous count)? From "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has later days voids (the first days). Perhaps even one who becomes tamei on the hundredth day voids all (of the previous count). It is, therefore, written "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has later days voids (the first days), but this one has no later days. Perhaps even if he becomes tamei in the beginning of the hundred (i.e., on the first day) he voids all. It is, therefore, written "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has first "days" (plural), voids, but this one does not have (them). "because his Naziritism was tamei": Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If tumah (i.e., making himself tamei) is forbidden and shaving is forbidden, if I have learned that tumah voids all, shaving, too, should void all. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If tumah, where the defiler (i.e., one who makes a Nazirite tamei) is not equated (for liability) with the defiled (i.e., the Nazirite who makes himself tamei), (if tumah) voids all, then shaving, where the shaver (of a Nazirite) is equated (for liability) with the shaved (i.e., the Nazirite who shaves himself), how much more so should he void all! It is, therefore, written "because his Naziritism was tamei" — Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all, (but just the first thirty days). This (6:11 "and he shall hallow his head to that day") tells me only that the days of his tumah are not counted towards his Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) the days of his confirmation (as a leper)? (i.e., If the Nazirite were a leper, and the Cohein quarantined him, and the plague-spot spread, and he were confirmed as tamei — Whence do I derive that the days of his confirmation are not counted towards his Naziritism?) And it follows (that they should not be counted, viz.: Since the days of his (Nazirite) tumah require shaving and the bringing of an offering, as do the days of confirmation (as a leper), then if I have learned about the days of his tumah that they are not counted towards his Naziritism, so should I learn about the days of his confirmation (as a leper). — No, this may be true of the days of his tumah, which void the preceding days, wherefore they are not counted towards his Naziritism. But would you say the same for the days of his confirmation, which do not void the preceding days? — wherefore they should be counted! Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that they should not be counted), viz.: If one who undertakes Naziritism in the cemetery, whose hair is susceptible of shaving (for new Naziritism after he leaves the cemetery) — If his preceding days are not counted towards his Naziritism, then the days of his (leprosy) confirmation, when his hair is not susceptible of the shaving for Naziritism, how much more so should they not be counted. And the same (i.e., that they are not counted towards his Naziritism) is true for the days of his counting (seven days outside of his tent, Vayikra 14:8).

(Bamidbar 6:13) "This is the law of the Nazirite": "This," for the offering of purity (i.e., when the Nazirite is in a state of purity) or also for the offering of tumah (i.e., when the Nazirite is in a state of tumah)? (Ibid.) "On the day of the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism" — Scripture is speaking only of one who has an end to his Naziritism (i.e., a thirty-day Naziritism, a Naziritism of purity) "This is the law of the Nazirite": (i.e., the offerings that follow) obtain with both a Nazirite of "days" and with an "eternal" Nazirite. "yavi otho (to the door of the tent of meeting"): Now do others bring him? ([this being the usual connotation of "yavi otho"]). Does he not bring (i.e., present) himself? — This is one of the three ethim (as in "otho") which R. Yishmael would expound in the Torah as (being reflexive,) "himself" (rather than accusative, "it" or "him"). Similarly, (Vayikra 22:16) "And they will bear otham the sin of guilt": Now do others bear them? Is it not they who bear upon themselves, etc.? Similarly, (Devarim 34:6) "And he buried otho in the valley." Now did others bury him? Did he not bury himself? Here, too, "yavi otho" — he brings (i.e., presents) himself, and others do not bring him.

(Bamidbar 6:14) "And he shall offer up his sacrifice to the L-rd: one lamb of the first year, whole": to exclude one that is blemished. "and one ewe-lamb of the first year, whole": to exclude one that is blemished. "and one ram, whole": to exclude one that is blemished. We are hereby taught that the Nazirite requires three (mutually exclusive) animals (i.e., each is a mitzvah in itself).

(Bamidbar 6:18) "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting": Scripture here speaks of peace-offerings (i.e., that the Nazirite shaves after the sacrifice of the peace-offerings), it being written of them (Vayikra 3:2) "and he shall slaughter it at the door of the tent of meeting." You say this, but perhaps the verse is to be taken literally, (i.e., that he shaves at the door of the tent of meeting. If you say this, this is demeaning. Scripture states (Shemot 20:23): "Do not go up by steps, (but by a smooth ramp) upon My altar, so that your nakedness not be revealed upon it (by your having to take relatively long strides) — how much more so should he not shave (at the door of the tent of meeting)! What, then, is the intent of "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting"? Scripture refers here to the sacrifice of the peace-offerings (as above). R. Yitzchak says: Scripture speaks of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings. You say this? Perhaps it refers to (shaving at) the door of the tent of meeting, literally. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism, etc." In the place (the room) where he cooks it (the peace-offerings), there shall he shave. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting." If the door was not open, he would not shave. "and he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism and he shall place it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." This tells me only of the peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (that he can do the same) under the sin-offering and under the guilt-offering? From "under the sacrifice" — in any event. This tells me only of (his shaving his hair in) the sanctuary. Whence do I derive the same for (his doing so) outside it? From "and he shall place it on the fire" — in any event.

(Bamidbar 6:19) "And the Cohein shall take the cooked ("beshelah") shoulder of the ram": "beshelah" connotes "whole" (i.e., it is first cooked and then separated from the ram.) R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "beshelah" implies only that it must be cooked together with the ram, (but it is separated before the cooking.) "and one unleavened cake": If it were broken or part were missing, it is invalid. "and one unleavened wafer": If it were broken or part were missing it is invalid. "and he shall place them on the palms of the Nazirite after his shaving of (the head of) his Naziritism.": This is after his shaving, but the bringing of the offerings is not after his shaving.

...Just as a vine has large and small clusters and the large ones hang lower, so too the Jewish people: Whoever labors in Torah and is greater in Torah, seems lower than their fellow [due to their humility]...

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

(Bamidbar 6:21) "This is the law of the Nazirite": This (i.e., what we have learned of the offerings) tells me only of the time (of the Temple, when there are offerings). Whence do we derive (that Naziritism obtains) in all generations? From "This is the (perpetual) law." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This (i.e., "This is the law") is stated by way of summation. "his offering to the L-rd for his Naziritism": i.e., his offering to the L-rd is contingent upon his Naziritism, and his Naziritism is not contingent upon his offering (i.e., if he vows to bring the offering, he does not thereby become a Nazirite.) "his offering to the L-rd for his Naziritism": and not the offering of others for his Naziritism (i.e., if he said "I will be a Nazirite on condition that others bring the Nazirite offering," he has said nothing.) "aside from what his hand attains": We are hereby apprised that if he said: I am a Nazirite on condition that I shave over a hundred burnt-offerings and a hundred peace-offerings, I recite over him "According to his vow that he vows thus shall he do." I might think (that the same applies) even if he said: I am a Nazirite on condition that I shave over a hundred sin-offerings and a hundred guilt-offerings. It is, therefore, written "that he vows." It applies only to offerings that are brought as vows and gifts (to exclude the above). I might think that even if he said "I undertake five Naziritisms (on condition) that I shave one shaving for all," I recite over him "according to his vow that he vows"; it is, therefore, written "thus shall he do according to the law of his Naziritism" (i.e., he must shave for each Naziritism individually). R. Eliezer b. Shamua and R. Yochanan Hasandlar asked R. Shimon b. Yochai: If one were a clean Nazirite (as opposed to one defiled by the dead) and a leper, may he perform one shaving, which satisfies both his Naziritism and his leprosy? He answered: Is this possible? If each shaved in order to grow hair, or if each shaved in order to remove hair, your question would be in place; but the leper shaves in order to grow hair (for he must shave a second time after his count (viz. Vayikra 14:9), and the Nazirite shaves in order to remove hair, so how can one shaving serve for both? — If not, let it (one shaving) suffice for the days of his (the leper's state of) confirmation and his (the Nazirite's) counting, (where both shave in order to remove hair). He answered: If both were before the sprinkling of the blood, your question would be in place. But the (confirmation) shaving of the leper is before the sprinkling of the blood, and that of the Nazirite, after the sprinkling of the blood. They responded: If it (one shaving) does not suffice for the days of his leprosy and a clean Nazirite, let it suffice for the days of his leprosy and an unclean (i.e., defiled) Nazirite. He answered: An unclean Nazirite in the days of his (the leper's) counting — the intent of one (the leper) is to grow hair, and of the other (the Nazirite), to remove it. An unclean Nazirite in the days of his (the leper's) confirmation, (even though the intent of both is to remove it) — one, (the leper, shaves) before the administration of the waters of the red heifer; the other, (the Nazirite, shaves) after the administration of the waters. The conditions (for a single shaving) cannot be satisfied, neither in the days of his (the leper's) consummation nor in the days of his counting; neither with an unclean (Nazirite) nor with a clean one.

(Bamidbar 6:22-23) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: Thus shall you bless, etc.": Because the entire section deals with Cohanim, Aaron and his sons are brought into the context of "saying" (dibbur). For this is the rule: Wherever the "dibbur" is to the Cohanim, the action (of that section) is that of the Cohanim. Where the "dibbur" is to Israel as a whole, the action is that of Israel. Where the "dibbur" is to all men, the proselytes are to be included. "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel": in the holy tongue. — But perhaps any tongue is permitted. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 27:12) "These shall stand to bless the people." Just as there, in the holy tongue, so, here, in the holy tongue. R. Yehudah says: This (i.e., the above identity) is not needed, for wherever "aniyah" ("answering"), "amirah" ("saying") or "cachah" ("thus") is written, the holy tongue is intended. "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel" — standing. You say, standing; but perhaps either standing or not standing is permitted. It is, therefore, written "These shall stand to bless the people." It is written here "blessing" and there, "blessing." Just as "blessing" there is standing, so, "blessing" here. R. Nathan says: This (derivation) is not needed, for it is written (of the Cohanim, Devarim 10:8) "… to stand before the L-rd, to minister unto Him, and to bless His name." Blessing is likened to ministering. Just as ministering is standing, so, blessing. "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel": with raised hands. You say, with raised hands; but perhaps either with or without raised hands is permitted. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 9:22) "And Aaron lifted his hands to the people and he blessed them." Just as there, with raised hands, so, here. R. Yonathan says: But perhaps just as there, Rosh Chodesh, offering, and the high-priest, so, here (these elements must obtain)! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 18:5) "For him (a Cohein) did the L-rd your G-d choose from all of your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the L-rd, he and his sons all of the days." His sons are likened to him. Just as he, with raised hands, so, his sons with raised hands. "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel": with the explicit name (the Tetragrammaton [yod-keh-vav-keh]). You say, with the Tetragrammaton. But, perhaps, only with an epithet. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 27) "And they shall place My name on the children of Israel" — the name that is distinctive with Me. I might think that this obtains even in those places bordering (on Jerusalem). It is, therefore, written here "And they shall place My name," and, elsewhere, (I Kings 11:36) "to place My name there." Just as there, the Temple, so, here, the Temple. In the Temple, with the Tetragrammaton; elsewhere, with an epithet. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says (Shemot 20:21) "Wherever I mention My name, etc.": This is an inverted verse, (to be understood as) "Wherever I am revealed to you, there shall you mention My name." Where am I (i.e., My shechinah) revealed to you? In the Temple. You, too, may mention My name only in the Temple — whence they ruled: It is forbidden to utter the explicit Name (the Tetragrammaton) in the borders (of Jerusalem). "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel": This tells me only of a blessing for (the men of) Israel. Whence do I derive (the same for) women, proselytes, and bondsmen? From "Say to them" — to all of them. Whence do I derive a blessing for the Cohanim (by the L-rd)? From (6:27) "and I shall bless them (the Cohanim)." "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel": face to face. You say face to face, but perhaps face to back is intended! It is, therefore, written "Say to them" (as a man speaks to his neighbor) face to face. "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel": in a loud voice so that the entire congregation can hear." — But perhaps in a whisper is intended. — It is, therefore, written "Say to them" — so that the entire congregation can hear. And whence is it derived that the prayer leader must tell them (the Cohanim) to say? From "Say to them."

(Bamidbar 6:24) "The L-rd bless you": with the explicit blessing (Devarim 28:3-6) "Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the field … Blessed shall be your basket and your remainder. Blessed shall you be in your coming in and blessed shall you be in your going out." "The L-rd bless you": with possessions "and keep you": with possessions. R. Nathan says: May He bless you with possessions and keep you — in body. R. Yitzchak says "and keep you": from the evil inclination, as it is written (Proverbs 3:26) "For the L-rd will be with you in your trust, and He will guard your feet from entrapment." Variantly: "and keep you": from all evil, viz. (Psalms 121:4-7) "He neither slumbers nor sleeps, the Keeper of Israel … at your right hand … By day the sun … The L-rd will keep you from all evil." Variantly: "and keep you": from mazikkin (destructive agents), viz. (Ibid. 91:11) "For His angels will He charge for you to keep you in all your ways." Variantly: "and keep you": He will keep for you the covenant of your fathers, viz. (Devarim 7:12) "… then the L-rd your G-d will keep for you the covenant and the lovingkindness which He swore to your fathers." Variantly: "and keep you": He will keep for you the "end" (i.e., the time of redemption). And thus is it written (Isaiah 21:11-12) "A prophecy concerning Duma (Edom): He (Israel) calls to Me from Seir: 'Keeper, what of the night?' 'Keeper, what of the night?' The Keeper says: 'Morning is coming and also night, etc.'" Variantly: "and keep you": He will keep your soul at the time of death, viz. (I Samuel 25:29) "and my master's soul will be bound up (after death) in the bond of life." From this I would understand both (the soul of) the righteous and the wicked to be intended. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "but the soul of your foes will He hurl away from the hollow of a sling." Variantly: "and keep you": He will keep your feet from Gehinnom, viz.: (Ibid. 2:9) "He will keep (from Gehennom) the feet of His pious ones." Variantly: "and keep you": He will keep you in the world to come, viz. (Isaiah 4:31) "But those who trust in the L-rd will renew strength. They will lift their wings as eagles, etc."

40) (Vayikra 10:6): "Your heads al tifrau (lit., 'do not uncover')": I might take this to mean that you should not remove your hat, but we derive (otherwise), viz.: It is written here periah ("tifrau"), and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5), "periah." Just as "periah" there refers to letting the hair grow long; here, too, it refers to letting the hair grow long, (so that the translation above becomes "Your hair do not grow long" (in mourning).

(Bamidbar 6:25) "The L-rd cause His countenance to shine upon you": He will give you "light" of the eyes. R. Nathan says: This refers to the light of the Shechinah, as it is written (Isaiah 60:1-2) "Arise, shine, for your Light has come. For the darkness will cover the earth, and a thick mist, the peoples, but upon you the L-rd will shine, and His glory will be seen upon you," (Psalms 67:2) "G-d will favor us and bless us. He will cause His countenance to shine upon us, Selah," (Ibid. 118:27) "… and He shone for us." Variantly: "The L-rd cause His countenance to shine upon you": This refers to the light of Torah, as it is written (Proverbs 6:23) "For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah, light." "and be gracious to you": in (the granting of) your requests, as it is written (Shemot 33:19) "And I shall be gracious to whom I shall be gracious, and I shall be merciful to whom I shall be merciful." Variantly: Let Him grant you grace in the eyes of man, as it is written (Bereshit 39:21) "And He granted him grace in the eyes of the overseer of the prison," and (Esther 2:14) "And Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her," and (Daniel 1:9) "And G-d granted Daniel grace and mercy," and (Proverbs 3:4) "You will find favor and goodly wisdom in the eyes of G-d and man." Variantly: "and be gracious to you": with understanding, insight, mussar, and wisdom. Variantly: "and be gracious to you": in Torah study, as it is written (Proverbs 4:9) "It (Torah) will set a chaplet of grace upon your head," and (Ibid. 1:9) "For they (words of Torah) are a chaplet of grace to your head and a necklace to your throat." Variantly: "and be gracious to you": with gifts of "grace," as it is written (Psalms 123:2) "Behold, as the eyes of servants to their masters; as the eyes of a maidservant to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes to the L-rd our G-d, until He grants us grace," and (Ibid. 3) "Grant us grace, O L-rd, grant us grace, for we are fully sated with contempt, and (Isaiah 33:2) "O L-rd, grant us grace, for in You have we hoped."

(Bamidbar 6:26) "The L-rd lift His countenance unto you": when you stand in prayer), as it is written (in respect to the prayers of Abraham, Bereshit 19:21): "Behold, I have lifted your countenance." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If I have lifted the countenance for Lot for the sake of Abraham, My beloved, shall I not do so for you, and for the sake of your fathers!

(Bamidbar 6:27) "And they shall place My name": Why is this stated? It is written (Ibid. 23) "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel" — with the explicit Name (the Tetragrammaton). — But perhaps with an epithet (only). It is, therefore, written "And they shall place My name" — My distinctive name (Yod-Keh-Vav-Keh). I might think, even in the borders (of Jerusalem). It is, therefore, written here "And they shall place My name," and elsewhere (Devarim 12:5) "to place My name there." Just as there, the Temple; here, too, the Temple. In the sanctuary, with the explicit Name; in the province, with an epithet. "and I shall bless them": Why is this stated? (Ibid. 23) "Thus shall you bless, etc." tells us only of a blessing [by the Cohanim] to Israel. Whence do I derive a blessing for the Cohanim themselves? From "and I shall bless them." Variantly: "and I shall bless them": So that Israel not say that their blessings are dependent upon the Cohanim; it is written "and I shall bless them." So that the Cohanim not say We shall bless Israel, it is written "and I shall bless them." I shall bless My people Israel, as it is written (Devarim 2:7) "For the L-rd your G-d has blessed you in all the work of your hands," (15:6) "as He spoke to you," viz. (7:13) "And He will love you and bless you and multiply you, and bless etc.", and (28:12) "The L-rd will open for you His goodly treasure, the heavens," and (Ezekiel 34:14) "In a goodly pasture will I graze them," and (Ibid. 15) "I will feed My flock."

"to place His name there": It is written here "to place His name there," and elsewhere (Bamidbar 6:27) "And they (the Cohanim) shall place My name on the children of Israel" — Just as here, in the Temple, so, there, in the Temple. This tells me only of the Temple. Whence do I derive (the same for) all places? From (Shemoth 20:21) "In every place in which I mention My name I shall come to you and I shall bless you." If so, why is it written "to place His name there, His dwelling shall you seek"? — In the Temple you pronounce it (the Tetragrammaton) as it is written; outside it, by epithet.

"thirty days": What is the nature of these (thirty days)? We are hereby taught that they mourned him for thirty days before his death. And whence is it derived that the days of Naziritism are thirty? It is written here "days" and elsewhere, (in respect to Naziritism, Bamidbar 6:4) "days." Just as "days" here is thirty, so, "days" there is thirty.