레위기 1:18의 미드라쉬

(Lev. 1:1:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES <AND SPOKE UNTO HIM>…. This text is related (to Ps. 103:20): BLESS THE LORD, O HIS MESSENGERS¹Mal’akhaw. Throughout this section of the midrash mal’akh(im) is interpreted as referring to humans; therefore “messenger(s)” is a more appropriate translation here than the more usual “angel(s).” OF HIS, MIGHTY IN STRENGTH WHO FULFILL HIS WORD.²Tanh., Lev. 1:1; Lev. R. 1:1. These are the prophets, since they are called messengers where it is stated (in Numb. 20:16): AND HE SENT A MESSENGER (mal'akh) WHO BROUGHT US OUT OF EGYPT.³Numb. R. 16:1; see also Gen. R. 68:12, according to which the angels on Jacob’s ladder symbolized Moses ascending and descending Sinai. So also (in II Chron. 36:16): BUT THEY MOCKED THE MESSENGERS (mal'akhim) OF GOD, <DISDAINED HIS WORDS, AND TAUNTED HIS PROPHETS,>…. R. Huna said in the name of R. Aha: These <messengers> are Israel, since it says (in Ps. 103:20): MIGHTY IN STRENGTH WHO FULFILL HIS WORD, HEARKENING TO THE VOICE OF HIS WORD, in <reference to the fact> that they <were the ones who> had put fulfilling ahead of hearkening.⁴In Exod. 24:7, where Israel promises: WE WILL FULFILL AND WE WILL HEARKEN, in that order. R. Isaac the Smith said: These are those who observe the Sabbatical year. So why were they called MIGHTY IN STRENGTH? When <such a one> sees his field abandoned, his trees abandoned, his fences breached, and sees his fruit trees eaten, he suppresses his drive (like one mighty in strength) and does not speak. Thus have our masters taught (in Avot 4:1): AND WHO IS MIGHTY? ONE WHO SUBDUES HIS DRIVE.⁵Also Tamid 32a.

(Lev. 1:1:) “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses [and spoke unto him].” This text is related (to Ps. 103:20), “Bless the Lord, O His messengers,¹Mal’akhaw. Throughout this section of the midrash mal’akh(im) is interpreted as referring to humans; therefore “messenger(s)” is a more appropriate translation here than the more usual “angel(s).” mighty in strength who fulfill His word.”²Lev. R. 1:1. These are the prophets, since they are called messengers where it is stated (in Numb. 20:16), “and He sent a messenger (mal'akh) who brought us out of Egypt.”³Numb. R. 16:1; see also Gen. R. 68:12, according to which the angels on Jacob’s ladder symbolized Moses ascending and descending Sinai. So also (in II Chron. 36:16), “But they mocked the messengers (mal'akhim) of God, [disdained His words, and taunted His prophets].” R. Huna said in the name of R. Aha, “These [messengers] are Israel, since it says (in Ps. 103:20), ‘mighty in strength who fulfill His word, hearkening to the voice of His word,’ in [reference to the fact] that they [were the ones who] had put fulfilling ahead of hearkening.”⁴In Exod. 24:7, where Israel promises: WE WILL FULFILL AND WE WILL HEARKEN, in that order. R. Isaac the Smith said, “These are those who observe the sabbatical year. So why were they called mighty in strength? When [such a one] sees his field abandoned, his trees abandoned, his fences breached, and sees his fruit trees eaten, he suppresses his drive (like one mighty in strength) and does not speak.” And thus have our masters taught (in Avot 4:1): And who is mighty? One who subdues his drive.⁵Also Tamid 32a. R. Tanhum ben Hanila'i says (Ps. 103:20), “’Mighty in strength.’ This is Moses because no one is as mighty in strength as Moses. When Israel stood before Mount Sinai, they were not capable of hearing the divinely spoken word, as stated (in Deut. 5:22), ‘if we continue hearing the voice of the Lord our God any longer, we shall die.’ But Moses was not harmed.” [This is ] in order to teach you that the righteous ones are greater than the ministering angels, since the ministering angels are not able to hear His voice. Rather they stand with excitement and dismay, while the righteous are able to hear His voice. It is so stated (in Joel 2:11), “The Lord shouts aloud before His army, for His host is very great, for mighty is the one who fulfills His word.” “His host” denotes angels, since it is stated (regarding angels in Gen. 32:3), “This is God's host.” And so it says (in Dan. 7:10), “thousands upon thousands ministered to Him.” And who is stronger than them? The righteous, of whom it is stated (in Joel 2:11), “for mighty is the one who fulfills His word,” i.e., a righteous person who does His bidding. And who is this? This is Moses, to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Make a tabernacle.” So he was hurried and made it. Then he stood alone outside, because he was afraid to enter the tent of meeting, as stated (in Exod. 40:35), “Now Moses could not enter the tent of meeting.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “It is not right for Moses, since he made the tabernacle, to stand outside while I stand inside; so look, I am calling upon him to enter.” It is therefore written (in Lev. 1:1), “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.” Ergo, greater is the strength of the righteous, in that they are able to hear His voice! So also it is written concerning Samuel (in I Sam. 3:10), “Then the Lord came, and stood there, and He called as at other times, ‘Samuel, Samuel’; so Samuel said, ‘Speak, for Your servant is listening.’” Therefore David has said (in Ps. 103:20), “mighty in strength who fulfill His word.” Now if you say that, when He spoke with Moses, He spoke in a low voice, [and] for that reason he was able to hear, He only spoke in the voice [used in] the giving of Torah. [That was] when they heard His voice and were dying at the first utterance. It is so stated (in Deut. 5:22), “if we continue [hearing the voice of the Lord our God any longer, we shall die].” And so it says (in Cant. 5:6), “my soul departed when He spoke.” And where is it shown that He spoke with the voice [used in] the giving of Torah? Where it says (in Ps. 29:4), “The voice of the Lord has power.” It also says so (in Numb. 7:89), “When Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him, he would hear the voice speaking unto him,” the voice which he heard in the giving of Torah. He also spoke thus for each and every utterance and for each and every saying, as it is stated (Ps. 29:5), “The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars.” Perhaps you will say that Israel heard the voice from outside.⁶Sifra to Lev. 1:1, (2: Wayyiqra, Pereq 2). The text (of Numb. 7:89) reads, “he would hear the voice.” He alone heard the voice. But since He spoke in a loud voice, why did they not hear? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed over the utterance, that it would go forth and come to Moses. So the Holy One, blessed be He, made a path for it by which the utterance went forth until it reached Moses, but it was not heard here and there. It is so stated (in Job 28:25), “To fix a weight for the wind.” Thus, when each saying went forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, every one had a [fixed] weight. And so it says (in Job 28:26), “and a way for the thunder of voices,”⁷The midrash requires this literal translation. A more idiomatic translation would read: A WAY FOR THUNDERSTORMS. in that the Holy One, blessed be He, made a way for that voice, because it was going forth to Moses alone. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 1:1), “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses and spoke unto him.” It was heard by him and not by another. It is therefore stated (in Ps. 103:20), “mighty in strength who fulfill His word.” (Lev. 1:1:) “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses [and spoke unto him].” This text is related (to Prov. 25:7), “For it is better that you be told, ‘Come up here,’ than that you be put down before a prince, whom your eyes have seen.” R. Tanhum says, “Keep two or three places distance from your [rightful] place so that they will say to you, ‘Come up higher.’ So do not come up, lest they tell you, ‘Go down.’” R. Tanhuma says (Prov. 20:15), “’There is gold and a multitude of jewels, but lips with knowledge are a precious object.’ The proverb says, ‘If you lack knowledge, what do you possess? If you possess knowledge, what do you lack?’⁸Ned. 41a; PRK 3:1; Numb. R. 19:3; Eccl. R. 7:23:1. Even Moses did not ascend until the Holy One, blessed be He, called him (in Lev. 1:1), ‘Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.’”

(Numb. 30:2–3 [1–2]:) THEN MOSES SPOKE UNTO THE HEADS OF THE TRIBES …: WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A VOW (neder) TO THE LORD, <….> Let our master instruct us: What about konamot (i.e., vows of abstinence) and vows (nedarim)?¹Tanh., Numb. 9:1. Thus have our masters taught (in Ned. 2:1): <IF ONE MAKES> A KONAM (i.e., a vow of absitinence) [THAT HE WILL NOT SLEEP, THAT HE WILL NOT SPEAK, THAT HE WILL NOT WALK; IF HE UTTERS A KONAM TO HIS WIFE THAT HE WILL NOT HAVE MARITAL RELATIONS WITH HER, SUCH A ONE IS LIABLE TO <THE INJUNCTION> (in Numb. 30:3 [2]): HE SHALL NOT BREAK HIS WORD. <IF HE SWEARS> AN OATH (shevu'ah)] THAT HE WILL NOT SLEEP, THAT HE WILL NOT SPEAK, THAT HE WILL NOT WALK, HE IS FORBIDDEN <TO DO SO>.²Cf. Ned. 2:2-5; Ned. 13b, 14b-15a; 20a; yNed. 2:2-5 (37b-6); above, Lev. 1:16; cf. Matthew 5:33-37; 23:16-22; James 5:12. Oaths (shevu'ot) carry more weight than vows (nedarim); and vows, than oaths. How so? <If one makes> a konam not to make a Sukkah, not to take up a Lulab, not to put on phylacteries, in the case of vows (nedarim) it is forbidden to put them on or to make them, even though they are commanded (in Torah); but in the case of oaths (shevu'ot) it is permitted, because one does not swear to transgress against the commandments. The Holy One said to the Israelites: Be circumspect with your vows (nedarim) and do not break them, for all who break vows (nedarim) end up in being faithless in oaths (shevu'ot). Moreover, the one who is faithless in oaths is denying me and will never have forgiveness, as stated (in Exod. 20:7 = Deut. 5:11): <YOU SHALL NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD IN VAIN,> FOR THE LORD WILL NOT EXONERATE <ONE WHO TAKES HIS NAME IN VAIN>. It is also written (in Jer. 4:2): AND YOU SHALL SWEAR: AS THE LORD LIVES, <IN TRUTH, IN JUSTICE, AND IN RIGHTOUSNESS>. The Holy One said to the Israelites: Do not think that you have permission to swear in my name even in truth.³Numb. R. 22:1. You are not entitled to swear by my name unless you possess all the following attributes (of Deut. 10:20): THE LORD YOUR GOD YOU SHALL FEAR, [HIM YOU SHALL SERVE, TO HIM YOU SHALL HOLD FAST, AND BY HIM YOU SHALL SWEAR]:

(Numb. 30:3:) “When someone makes a vow (neder) to the Lord.” Let our master instruct us: How are konamot (i.e., vows of abstinence) and vows (nedarim)? Thus have our masters taught (in Ned. 2:1): [If one makes] a konam (i.e., a vow of absitinence) [that he will not sleep, that he will not speak; [if he utters a konam to his wife] “that I will not have marital relations with you,” such a one is liable to [the injunction] (in Numb. 30:3), “he shall not break his word.” [If he swears] an oath (shevu'ah)] that he will not sleep, that he will not walk, he is forbidden [to do so].¹Cf. Ned. 2:2-5; Ned. 13b, 14b-15a; 20a; yNed. 2:2-5 (37b-6); above, Lev. 1:16. Oaths (shevu'ot) carry more weight than vows (nedarim); and vows, than oaths. How so? [if one makes] a konam not to make a sukkah, not to take up a lulab, not to put on phylacteries, in the case of vows (nedarim) it is forbidden to put them on or to make them, even though they are commandments (of the Torah); but in the case of oaths (shevu'ot) it is permitted, because one does not swear to transgress against the commandments. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Be circumspect with your vows (nedarim) and do not break them; for all who break vows (nedarim) end up in being faithless in oaths (shevu'ot).” And the one who is faithless in oaths is denying the Holy One, blessed be He through it and will never have forgiveness, as stated (in Exod. 20:7 = Deut. 5:11), “for the Lord will not exonerate [one who takes His name in vain].” [Yet] it is also written (in Jer. 4:2), “And you shall swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ [in truth, in justice, and in righteousness].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Do not think that you have permission to swear in My name even in truth.²Numb. R. 22:1. You are not entitled to swear by My name unless you possess all the following attributes (of Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear, Him you shall serve, to Him you shall hold fast, [and by Him you shall swear]”: That you should be like those three who were called God-fearing, Abraham, Job, and Joseph: Abraham of whom it is written (in Gen. 22:12), “For now I know that you fear [God].” Concerning Job it is written (in Job 1:1), “the man was blameless [and upright, one who feared God].” Concerning Joseph it is written (in Gen. 42:18), “for I fear God.” Ergo (in Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear.” (Deut. 10:20, cont.:) “Him you shall serve.” [You do so,] if you turn [all] your attention to the Torah, fulfill [its] commandments and have no other work (abodah). It therefore is stated (ibid.), “Him you shall serve (rt.: 'bd).” (Deut. 10:20, cont.:) “To Him you shall hold fast.” Can one hold fast to the Divine Presence? Moreover, has it not already been stated (in Deut. 4:24), “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire?” It is simply [being stated with reference to] anyone marrying off his daughter to a scholar who reads [Scripture] and recites [Mishnah], that he engage in commerce³Gk.: pragmateia. for him and have him benefit from his assets.⁴Ket. 111b; cf. Sot. 14a. It is with reference to [such a] one that it is stated (in Deut. 10:20), “to him you shall hold fast.”
If you have all these [attributes] you may swear; if not, you are not entitled to swear. There is a story about King [Jannai], that he had two thousand towns and they all were destroyed because of a true oath. (Numbers 30:17:) “Between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter.” Just like a man only annuls vows of self-affliction and matters between him and her, so too a father only annuls with regards to self-affliction and what is between him and her.

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

(Exodus 21:1) "And these are the judgments": R. Yishmael says: "And these" — What follows is being added to what precedes, viz.: Just as what precedes was stated at Sinai, so, what follows. R. Akiva says: What is the intent of "And these are the judgments"? From (Leviticus 1:2) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them," I would think, only once. Whence do I derive that it is to be repeated two, three, and four times until it is assimilated? From (Devarim 31:19) "and teach it to the children of Israel." I might think that it is to be taught but not repeated. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Place it in their mouths." I might think that it is to be repeated (even) if it is not understood. It is, therefore, written "And these are the judgments." Set them out before them as a set table, as it is written (Ibid. 4:35) "You have been shown to know, etc."

R. Tanhum ben Hanila'i says: (Ps. 103:20): MIGHTY IN STRENGTH. This is Moses because no one is as MIGHTY IN STRENGTH as Moses. When Israel stood before Mount Sinai, they were not capable of hearing the divinely spoken word, as stated (in Deut. 5:22 [25]): IF WE CONTINUE HEARING THE VOICE OF THE LORD OUR GOD ANY LONGER, WE SHALL DIE. But Moses was not harmed, <an exception made > in order to teach you that the great ones are more righteous than the ministering angels, since the ministering angels are not able to hear his voice. Rather they stand with excitement and dismay, while the righteous are able to hear his voice. It is so stated (in Joel 2:11): THE LORD SHOUTS ALOUD BEFORE HIS ARMY, FOR HIS HOST IS VERY GREAT, {IF MIGHT <COMES TO> THE ONES WHO FULFILL} [FOR MIGHTY IS THE ONE WHO FULFILLS] HIS WORD. HIS HOST denotes angels, since it is stated (re angels in Gen. 32:3 [2]): THIS IS GOD'S HOST. And so it says (in Dan. 7:10): THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS MINISTERED TO HIM. And who among them are the strongest? The righteous, of whom it is stated (in Joel 2:11): {IF MIGHT <COMES TO> THE ONES WHO FULFILL} [FOR MIGHTY IS THE ONE WHO FULFILLS] HIS WORD, i.e., a righteous person who does his bidding. And who is this? This is Moses, to whom the [Holy One] said: Make a tabernacle. So he was hurried and made it. Then he stood alone outside, because he was afraid to enter the Tent of Meeting, as stated (in Exod. 40:35, 38): NOW MOSES COULD NOT ENTER THE TENT OF MEETING…. FOR THE CLOUD OF THE LORD RESTED UPON THE TABERNACLE…. The Holy One said: It is not right for Moses, since he fretted over the Tabernacle, to stand outside while I stand inside; so look, I am calling upon him to enter. It is therefore written (in Lev. 1:1): THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES. Look at the mighty strength of the righteous, in that they are able to hear his voice! So also it is written concerning Samuel (in I Sam. 3:10): THEN THE LORD CAME, AND STOOD THERE, AND HE CALLED AS AT OTHER TIMES: SAMUEL, SAMUEL. [SO SAMUEL SAID: SPEAK, FOR YOUR SERVANT IS LISTENING.] Therefore David has said (in Ps. 103:20): MIGHTY IN STRENGTH WHO FULFILL HIS WORD, HEARKENING TO THE VOICE OF HIS WORD. Now if you say that, when he spoke with Moses, he spoke in a low voice, <and> for that reason he was able to hear, he only spoke in the voice <used in> the giving of Torah. <That was> when they heard his voice and were dying at the first utterance. It is so stated (in Deut. 5:22 [25]): IF WE CONTINUE <HEARING THE VOICE OF THE LORD OUR GOD ANY LONGER, WE SHALL DIE>. And so it says (in Cant. 5:6): MY SOUL DEPARTED WHEN HE SPOKE. And where is it shown that he spoke with the voice <used in> the giving of Torah? Where it says so (in Ps. 29:4–5): THE VOICE OF THE LORD HAS POWER; THE VOICE OF THE LORD HAS MAJESTY; [THE VOICE OF THE LORD BREAKS CEDARS]. It also says so (in Numb. 7:89): WHEN MOSES WENT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING TO SPEAK WITH HIM, HE WOULD HEAR THE VOICE SPEAKING UNTO HIM, the voice which he heard in the giving of Torah. {(Ps. 29:5:) THE VOICE OF THE LORD BREAKS CEDARS.} He also spoke thus for each and every utterance and for each and every saying. Perhaps you will say that Israel heard the voice from outside.⁶Sifra to Lev. 1:1, (2: Wayyiqra, pereq 2). The text (of Numb. 7:89) reads: HE WOULD HEAR [THE VOICE]. He heard the voice alone. But since he spoke in a loud voice, why did they not hear? Because the Holy One decreed over the utterance, that it would go forth and come to Moses. So the Holy One made a path for it by which the utterance went forth until it reached Moses, and it was not heard here and there. It is so stated (in Job 28:25): TO FIX A WEIGHT FOR THE WIND. Thus, when each saying went forth from the mouth of the Holy One, [every one had a < fixed > weight]. And so it says (in Job 28:26): AND A WAY FOR THE THUNDER OF VOICES,⁷The midrash requires this literal translation. A more idiomatic translation would read: A WAY FOR THUNDERSTORMS. in that the Holy One made a way for that voice, because it was going forth to Moses alone. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 1:1): THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES AND SPOKE UNTO HIM. It was heard by him and not by another. It is therefore stated (in Ps. 103:20): MIGHTY IN STRENGTH WHO FULFILL HIS WORD.

We are taught concerning the passage (Lev. 1, 2) From the cattle, this means to include such men who are like cattle. From here it is inferred that it is permissible to accept sacrifices from Jewish apostates, that they may repent, but not from a convert, who practices idolatrous libation, and who profanes the Sabbath pubicly. (Ib. b) Is this a general rule that whenever the word cattle is mentioned that it refers to an objectionable thing? Behold it is written (Ps. 36, 7) Man and beast Thou preservest, O Lord; and R. Juda said in the name of Rabbi: "This refers to men who are devoid of wisdom and who make themselves like beasts [hence it is a praise?]. There it is written 'man and beast,' but here it is written, 'beast' alone. And wherever it is written man and beast do you say that it means for improvement (perfection)? Behold it is written (Jer. 21, 27) And I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Juda with the seed of man and with the seed of beast. [Hence beast refers to a disadvantage?] There it is different, for the passage makes a separation between the seed of man and the seed of beast."

(Lev. 1, 1) And the Lord called unto Moses, and spoke unto him. Why was it necessary to call first, and then to speak? The Torah teaches proper conduct; that one should not impart anything to another before telling him that he wishes to speak to him. This is in support of R. Chanina, for R. Chanina said that one should not impart anything to another before telling him that he wishes to speak to him. (Ib.) Saying; R. Menasseh, the great, said: "Whence do we infer that when one person imparts information to another, the person informed has no right to disclose it to any one without permission? From the text (Ib.) And He spoke unto him from the tabernacle of the congregation (Lomar), saying."

The tana, Rabbi Shimon son of Yochai: From where [is it] that a man must not say "a burnt offering (olah) to Hashem", "to Hashem as a meal-offering (minchah)", "a peace offering (shelamim) to Hashem"? We have learned to say: [When any one of you brings] an offering (qorban) unto Hashem (Leviticus 1:2). See! The words are an a fortiori (qal vechomer) inference: If when one is going to dedicate [an offering] the Torah says: he should not cause the name of Heaven to be associated [with anything besides a qorban], then they who revile and blaspheme and engage in idolatry, how very greatly they will be erased from the world! The rabbis said: flesh and blood builds a building, and when the building rises under his hand, he widens it as it rises, and if not, he widens it from below and makes it narrow at the top. But the Holy One, blessed be He does not act this way; rather [he created] "the heavens", heavens which rose by His thought, "and the earth" which rose by his thought. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean said: "even those about which it is written: "Now behold, I create a new heaven" (Isaiah 65:17); already these were created since the six days of creation. This is what is written: "For as the new heavens and the new earth [which I will make, shall remain before Me] (Isaiah 66:22), here "new" (hadashah) is not written, but rather "the new" (hachadashah).

The Master said above: "The smoke arose from the wood-pile on the altar." Was then any smoke on the altar? Behold we have been taught in a Baraitha: "Five things have been said concerning the fire on the altar: It had the form of a lion, it was clear as the sun, it was palpable, it consumed moist things as it did dry ones and never emitted any smoke." The smoke was that of fire kindled by men, as we are taught in a Baraitha: (Lev. 1, 7) And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, i.e., although the fire descended from heaven, it was meritorious to bring fire from outside the sanctuary also. "It had the form of a lion." Behold, we are taught in a Baraitha, R. Chanina, the Segan (Chief) of the priests, said: "I have seen it, and it had the form of a dog." No difficulty is presented; during the time of the first Temple it was like a lion, during the second, like a dog. Was there then any fire in the second Temple? Has not R. Samuel b. Inia said in the name of R. Acha: "What is the meaning of the passage (Hag. 1, 8) Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; that I may take pleasure in it, and be glorified; it is written V'ekabed (and I shall be glorified) although we read it V'ekabdah. Why is the letter Hay missing? This is to suggest that five [the numerical value of Hay] things were missing in the second Temple. They are: The ark, the Kaporeth, the Cherubim, the divine fire, the Shechina, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Tumim. [Hence we see there was no heavenly fire in the second Temple at all.] I will tell thee: It was there, only it did not assist in consuming.

1) (Vayikra 1:1): "And He called ("vayikra") to Moses, and the L–rd spoke ("vayedaber") to him from the tent of meeting, saying" — Now is this not evident? (that He called him before He spoke to him? Why need it be written?) Dibbur (speaking) is written here, and dibbur is written in relation to the sneh (the burning bush [(Shemoth 3:4): "And G d called to him from the midst of the sneh, and He said ("vayomer" - comparable to "vayedaber") …]). Just as in the instance of the sneh, kriyah (calling) precedes dibbur, so here, (it is understood that) kriyah precedes dibbur!

1) "And He called to Moses and the L–rd spoke to him, etc." "to him" — to exclude Aaron. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Thirteen dibroth (accompanied by a command) were stated in the Torah to Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to them, thirteen limitations, to teach us that they were not spoken to Aaron, but to Moses, to tell them to Aaron. (The dibroth: 1) [Shemoth 6:13]; 2) [Shemoth 7:8]; 3) [Shemoth 9:8]; 4) [Shemoth 12:1]; 5) [Shemoth 12:43]; 6) [Vayikra 11:1]; 7) [Vayikra 13:1]; 8) [Vayikra 14:33]; 9 [Vayikra 15:1]; 10 [Bamidbar 2:1]; 11 [Bamidbar 4:1]; 12 [Bamidbar 4:18]; 13) [Bamidbar 19:2].)

1) (Vayikra 1:10): "And (if from the flock is his offering, etc."): This ("And") adds to what precedes (so that what is stated above [about the cattle] applies to what follows [about the flock], and vice versa). And why is there a pause (between the two)? To give Moses time for reflection between parshah and parshah and verse and verse. This prompts a kal vachomer: If Moses, who heard it from the Holy One Blessed be He and spoke with the holy spirit, had to reflect between parshah and parshah, and verse and verse, how much more so, one plain person from another!

1) (Vayikra 1:3-4): "… before the L–rd. And he shall place (his hand on the head of the olah"): There is no semichah on a bamah (a temporary altar, it not being considered " before the L–rd"). (Vayikra 1:11): ("And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar) northward (tzafonah), before the L–rd": There is no tzafon (requirement) on a bamah. Now which measure is greater? That of tzafon or that of semichah? The measure of tzafon is greater. For tzafon obtains both with individual and with communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with individual offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the greater measure, would I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure? (Why, then, is the exclusion verse for bamoth re semichah necessary) Perceived thus, tzafon is the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tzafon the lesser. For semichah obtains with both higher and lower-order offerings, whereas tzafon obtains only with higher-order offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the lesser measure, I would not exclude them from semichah, the greater measure. So that because there obtains with tzafon what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tzafon; it is, therefore, written: "before the L–rd, vesamach" — there is no semichah on a bamah. "tzafonah before the L–rd" — there is no tzafon on a bamah. "before the L–rd vesamach": Even if he performed semichah outside (the azarah), he must return and perform it inside ("before the L–rd").

1) "northward before the L–rd": The north must be empty (so that it is "before the L–rd.") These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov. The altar was aligned with half the opening of the heichal (the sanctuary), and opposite one of the doors, extending south. R. Yehudah says: The altar was in the mid-point of the azarah, thirty-two amoth — ten amoth opposite the entrance of the heichal, eleven amoth to the north, and eleven amoth to the south. So that the altar is found to be aligned with the sanctuary and its walls.

1) (Vayikra 1:8): "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange": I might think even a hundred (sons); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:12): "And the Cohein shall arrange them." I might think one Cohein arranges all of the limbs; it is, therefore, written: "And they shall arrange." How is this to be reconciled? One Cohein arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten. And one (Cohein) for the innards, so that a lamb is offered up by six (Cohanim). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: "And they shall arrange" — two; "the sons of Aaron" — two; "the Cohanim" — two, whereby we are taught that a lamb is offered up by six. "the Cohanim" — to include those who are bald (baldness not being considered a disqualifying blemish).

1) (Vayikra 1:14): "And if from the fowl, an olah is his offering": "the fowl, an olah," but not peace-offerings. (Without the exclusion we might reason:) Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an olah, which may not be brought from females as (they may be brought) from males, may be brought from fowl — peace-offerings, which may be brought from females as from males, how much more so should it be permitted to bring them from fowl! It is, therefore, written "the fowl, an olah" — and not peace-offerings. These are the words of R. Shimon.

1) I might think that just as a bird cannot be brought as a communal gift-offering, so it cannot be brought as a gift of two (i.e., in partnership); it is, therefore, written (superfluously) "and he shall offer" (Ibid.) to teach us that it can be brought as a gift of two.

1) (Vayikra 1:15): "And the Cohein shall bring it near to the altar"): Why "And he shall bring it"? (In context the "it" is superfluous). Because it is written (Vayikra 1:14): "And he shall offer his offering from the turtle-doves or from the young," I might think that he could offer no fewer than two; it is, therefore, written "And he shall bring it near" — even one suffices.

1) (Vayikra 1:15): "And the Cohein shall bring it near to the altar"): Why "And he shall bring it"? (In context the "it" is superfluous). Because it is written (Vayikra 1:14): "And he shall offer his offering from the turtle-doves or from the young," I might think that he could offer no fewer than two; it is, therefore, written "And he shall bring it near" — even one suffices.

1) (Vayikra 1:16): "And he shall cast it" (the crop, etc.): "it" — that of a kasher offering, and not that of a pasul offering; "it" — not (that of) a bird sin-offering, (whose crop the Cohein may eat if he so wishes). "it" is cast (in the place of the ashes), and not the (corresponding parts of the) burnt-offering of a beast, (which are rinsed and sacrificed).

1) (Vayikra 1:2): "Speak to the children of Israel … (Vayikra 1:4) and he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering" — The children of Israel perform semichah (the placing of the hands), and gentiles do not perform semichah. Now which measure is greater? That of tenufah (waving the devoted portions) or that of semichah? The measure of tenufah is greater. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life. If I exclude them (gentiles) from tenufah, the greater measure, (as the Torah does, indeed, exclude them), should I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for semichah would seem to be superfluous) Perceived thus, tenufah is (indeed) the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tenufah, the lesser. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If they (gentiles) are excluded from tenufah, the lesser measure, would I (without the verse) exclude them from semichah, the greater? So that because there obtains with tenufah what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tenufah, it must be written "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." — The children of Israel perform semichah, and not the gentiles.

1) (Vayikra 1:2): "shall you (plural) offer": We are hereby taught that two may offer it (a beast burnt-offering, in partnership). Now does this not follow (without an inclusion clause)? A bird burnt-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a bird burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may be offered by two, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may be offered by two!

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

1) (Vayikra 1:3): ("If his offering is) a burnt-offering": Why need this be written? (i.e., It is clear from the context that we are speaking of a burnt-offering.) I might think that all of these p'sulin (invalidating factors: muktza, ne'evad, rovea, etc.) obtain only with a gift burnt-offering. How would I know that they also obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering? (Therefore, "a burnt-offering" is needed.) — But does it not follow (even without the inclusion clause)? It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a gift burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering!

1) (Vayikra 1:3-4): "… before the L–rd. And he shall place (his hand on the head of the olah"): There is no semichah on a bamah (a temporary altar, it not being considered " before the L–rd"). (Vayikra 1:11): ("And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar) northward (tzafonah), before the L–rd": There is no tzafon (requirement) on a bamah. Now which measure is greater? That of tzafon or that of semichah? The measure of tzafon is greater. For tzafon obtains both with individual and with communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with individual offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the greater measure, would I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure? (Why, then, is the exclusion verse for bamoth re semichah necessary) Perceived thus, tzafon is the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tzafon the lesser. For semichah obtains with both higher and lower-order offerings, whereas tzafon obtains only with higher-order offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the lesser measure, I would not exclude them from semichah, the greater measure. So that because there obtains with tzafon what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tzafon; it is, therefore, written: "before the L–rd, vesamach" — there is no semichah on a bamah. "tzafonah before the L–rd" — there is no tzafon on a bamah. "before the L–rd vesamach": Even if he performed semichah outside (the azarah), he must return and perform it inside ("before the L–rd").

1) (Vayikra 1:2): "Speak to the children of Israel … (Vayikra 1:4) and he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering" — The children of Israel perform semichah (the placing of the hands), and gentiles do not perform semichah. Now which measure is greater? That of tenufah (waving the devoted portions) or that of semichah? The measure of tenufah is greater. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life. If I exclude them (gentiles) from tenufah, the greater measure, (as the Torah does, indeed, exclude them), should I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for semichah would seem to be superfluous) Perceived thus, tenufah is (indeed) the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tenufah, the lesser. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If they (gentiles) are excluded from tenufah, the lesser measure, would I (without the verse) exclude them from semichah, the greater? So that because there obtains with tenufah what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tenufah, it must be written "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." — The children of Israel perform semichah, and not the gentiles.

1) "and he shall place his hand … and he shall slaughter": In the place (the azarah) where semichah is performed, shechitah is performed, and shechitah must follow immediately upon semichah. Just as semichah obtains only with those who are clean (from defilement), so, shechitah.

1) (Vayikra 1:6): "And he shall flay the burnt-offering, and he shall cut it into its pieces": I might think that he flays it limb by limb and he cuts it (i.e., each limb, after it has been flayed); it is, therefore, written "the burnt-offering." He flays the whole animal and then cuts it.

1) (Vayikra 1:8): "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange": I might think even a hundred (sons); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:12): "And the Cohein shall arrange them." I might think one Cohein arranges all of the limbs; it is, therefore, written: "And they shall arrange." How is this to be reconciled? One Cohein arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten. And one (Cohein) for the innards, so that a lamb is offered up by six (Cohanim). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: "And they shall arrange" — two; "the sons of Aaron" — two; "the Cohanim" — two, whereby we are taught that a lamb is offered up by six. "the Cohanim" — to include those who are bald (baldness not being considered a disqualifying blemish).

(Lev. 1:1:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES <AND SPOKE UNTO HIM>. This text is related (to Prov. 25:7): FOR IT IS BETTER THAT YOU BE TOLD: COME UP HERE, THAN THAT YOU BE PUT DOWN BEFORE A PRINCE, WHOM YOUR EYES HAVE SEEN. R. Tanhum says: Keep two or three places distance from your < rightful > place so that they will say to you: Come up higher.⁸Tanh., Lev. 1:1; cf. Lev. R. 1:5; ARN, A, 25; Exod. R. 45:5; also ‘Eruv. 85b-86a; PRE 2; Luke 14:7–10. So do not come up, lest they tell you: Go down. R. Tanhuma began (with Prov. 20:15): THERE IS GOLD AND A MULTITUDE OF JEWELS, BUT LIPS WITH KNOWLEDGE AREA PRECIOUS OBJECT. The proverb says: If you lack knowledge, what do you possess? If you possess knowledge, what do you lack?⁹Ned. 41a; PRK 3:1; Numb. R. 19:3; Eccl. R. 7:23:1. Even Moses did not ascend until the Holy One called him (in Lev. 1:1): THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES.

(Lev. 1:1:) “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.” Let our master instruct us: When the one who leads the prayers makes a mistake by not saying the benediction on the cursing of the heretics (birkat haminim), from where do we know that it is necessary to have him repeat [the benediction]? Thus have our masters taught: When the one leading the prayers makes a mistake in any of the [other] benedictions, they do not have him repeat; [if he does so] in the [twelfth] benediction concerning the heretics, they force him to repeat it.⁹YBer. 5:4 (19c) (bar.); Ber. 29a (bar.). See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 16:4; 47:4; 93:4; 95:4; 96:2; 108:31; 117:3; 137:2; Epiphanius, Panarion (Haereses), 29:9; Jerome on Is. 2:18; 49:7; 52:4. This benediction has been the subject of much scholarly debate by many interpreters, including myself in “The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce,” AntiSemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, edited by Alan T. Davies (New York, Paulist, 1979), pp. 84–88, 95–97, and in “The Date of Luke-Acts,” Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar, edited by Charles H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 56, 61, 62. We suspect that he may be a heretic and therefore have him repeat, so that if there is a heretical side to him, he will be cursing himself with the community responding, “Amen.” So also [do we treat] whoever does not say [benediction 14], "who builds Jerusalem," since they will suspect that he may be a Cuthite (Samaritan). R. Assi said, “If a proselyte takes upon himself [all] the words of Torah except for one, they do not accept him.¹⁰Cf. TDem. 2:6; Bek. 30b. And not only that, but [the same rule applies] even in the case of a single minute detail out of [all] the minute details in the Torah or out of the minute details from the scribes (rabbis). R. Judah bar Shallum said, “You find forty-eight times in the Torah where the Torah warns against [harming] the proselytes and, corresponding [to these forty-eight warnings], it warns against idolatry [forty-eight times as well].¹¹BM 59b; see Hor. 13a. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘It is enough that he forsakes his idolatry and comes to you; therefore I am warning you about him, because I love him, as stated (in Deut. 10:18), “and [He] loves the proselyte¹²Heb.: ger. Although this word meant “sojourner” in biblical times, it had come to mean “proselyte” and is so understood here. in giving him food and clothing.”’”

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

... 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)

(Fol. 15) We are taught in a Baraitha: Concerning a cattle burnt-offering the passage says (Lev. 1, 13) Sweet savour unto the Lord, which is intended to teach that before heaven all offerings, liberal as well as poor, are equal, provided they are intended to gratify the heavenly Father.

(Fol. 15) We are taught in a Baraitha: Concerning a cattle burnt-offering the passage says (Lev. 1, 13) Sweet savour unto the Lord, which is intended to teach that before heaven all offerings, liberal as well as poor, are equal, provided they are intended to gratify the heavenly Father.

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

2) Not necessarily. This may be so with the sneh, the beginning of G d's speaking, but not with the ohel moed (the tent of meeting), which was not the beginning. — This is refuted by Mount Sinai, which was not the beginning of G-d's speaking to him, and where dibbur is nonetheless preceded by kriyah (Shemoth 19:3).

2) "from the flock." "of the sheep," and "of the goats": These are limitations, to exclude (as offering) the sick, the old, and the malodorous. "his offering" — to exclude the stolen; "sheep" "or" goats" — to exclude kilayim (hybrids). You say that these limitations were stated for these (exclusions); but perhaps they were stated to exclude consecrated animals with which transgressions were committed, such (transgressions) as plowing with an ox and an ass hitched together, (plowing) kilayim (hybrid growths) in the vineyard, (plowing) shevi'ith (produce of the seventh year), (plowing on) yom tov, Yom Kippur, and Shabbath! (— No, this is not so, for) it is written (to include the above as permitted): "sheep" "as a burnt-offering," and "goats" "as a burnt-offering" — to include all of these (as permitted, so that the exclusions must be for the sick, the old, etc.)

2) Which is "north" (for purposes of shechitah of higher-order offerings)? From the northern wall of the altar until the northern wall of the azarah, and opposite (the length of) the altar (from east to west). These are the words of R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon adds: to the west (of the altar) between the ulam (the entrance hall to the heichal) and the altar, until the northern wall of the azarah. Rebbi adds: to the north-east (of the altar), the pathway of the Cohanim, and (continuing northward), the pathway of the Israelites, until the northern wall of the azarah. But all agree that (shechitah) is pasul in front (i.e., to the north) of the "cell of knives" (beth hachalafoth, in the north of the ulam [the altar being obscured from there]).

2) "And the Cohein shall bring it near … and he shall pinch off (malak) its head" — whence we are taught that melikah is performed by a Cohein. (For we would otherwise reason:) Is it not a kal vachomer (that a non-priest could also perform melikah), viz.: If a sheep, for (whose shechitah) "north" was mandated (see Vayikra 1:11), a Cohein was not mandated — melikah, for which north was not mandated, how much more so should a Cohein not be mandated! It is, therefore, written: "the Cohein … umalak" — melikah is performed only by a Cohein.

2) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the suet" — whereby we are taught that the head and the suet are not classed with the pieces. Another facet: He was to place the suet on the (bloodied) shechitah site in deference to the Exalted One. And whence is it derived that head and suet precede (for arrangement) all of the imurin (the devoted portions)? From (Vayikra 1:12): "and its head, and its suet, and the Cohein shall arrange them, etc."

2) If so, why "a man, a man"? To include gentiles, who vow votive (offerings) and gift-offerings as a Jew does "which" they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering": This tells me only of a burnt-offering. Whence do I include peace-offerings? From "their vows." Whence do I include the thank-offering? From "their free-will offerings. Whence do I include bird-offerings, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense, and wood? From "of all their vows," "of all their free-will offerings." If so, why is it written "which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering"? To exclude the burnt-offering of a Nazirite. (Naziriteship not "taking" with a gentile). These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Even if you "include" a whole day, only a burnt-offering obtains (i.e., Whatever he brings becomes a burnt-offering). (Vayikra 22:19) According to your wills, a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats.") (According to your wills": No coercion is exercised for the presentation of communal offerings. "a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats": The absence of blemishes and maleness are criteria for beasts but not for birds. I might think (even) if its wing withered, if its eye were gouged out or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:14) "of the bird," and not all of the bird.

2) R. Yehudah said: Now if female beasts, which may not be brought as oloth, may be brought as peace-offerings — female birds, (and, it goes without saying, male birds,) which may be brought as oloth, how much more so should it be permitted to bring them as peace-offerings! It is, therefore, written "the fowl, an olah" — and not peace-offerings.

2) Rebbi says: It is written (Vayikra 22:18): "… who will bring his offering, of all of their vows and of all of their gift-offerings which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering" — All consecrated offerings may be brought in partnership, Scripture excluding only meal-offerings, in respect to which it is written (Vayikra 2:1): "If a soul offer a meal-offering to the L–rd."

2) "And the Cohein shall bring it near … and he shall pinch off (malak) its head" — whence we are taught that melikah is performed by a Cohein. (For we would otherwise reason:) Is it not a kal vachomer (that a non-priest could also perform melikah), viz.: If a sheep, for (whose shechitah) "north" was mandated (see Vayikra 1:11), a Cohein was not mandated — melikah, for which north was not mandated, how much more so should a Cohein not be mandated! It is, therefore, written: "the Cohein … umalak" — melikah is performed only by a Cohein.

2) For (in the absence of "it"), I would reason: Is it not a kal vachomer (that these parts in a beast should be pasul), viz.: If in an instance (that of a bird) where the skin is permitted (for the altar), the crop is pasul, in the instance (that of a beast), where the skin is pasul, how much more so should the crop be pasul! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "it" — it (that of a bird burnt-offering) is to be cast, and not that of a beast.

2) ("Speak to the sons of Israel, etc.") — the sons of Israel perform semichah, and not the daughters of Israel. R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: Women (though not obligated to do so) may perform semichah. R. Yossi said: Abba Elazar once told me: We had a calf for the peace-offerings, and we took it out to the women's quarter, where the women placed their hands upon it — not because semichah obtains with women, but for their gratification. I might think that they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, which do not require tenufah, but they do perform semichah upon peace-offerings, which require tenufah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:4): "and say to them" ("b'nei Yisrael") — to include all that is mentioned in that context. Just as they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, they do not perform semichah upon peace-offerings.

2) Or, go in this direction: A meal-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a meal-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may not be offered by two, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may not be offered by two.

2) No, in the case of a gift bird-offering he cannot bring a [bird] burnt-offering as a) substitute, whereas in the case of a prescribed burnt-offering he can (sometimes) bring a bird burnt-offering as) a substitute. And since he can bring a substitute (we would say, without the inclusion verse that) all of these p'sulin should not obtain; it is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering" — Whether a gift burnt-offering or a prescribed burnt-offering, all of the p'sulin obtain with them.

2 ["vesamach" ("and he shall place") is written four times: once in respect to olah, thrice in respect to shelamim (peace-offerings)] (Vayikra 1:4): "And he shall place his hand" — not the hand of his wife (i.e., women do not perform semichah); "his hand" — not the hand of his bondsman; "his hand" — not the hand of his messenger. (Vayikra 1:4): "his hand on the head" — and not on the back; "his hand on the head" — and not on the throat; "on the head" — and not on the back of the head. I would exclude all of these, but not the breast; and it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if the head, which does not require tenufah, requires semichah — the breast, which requires tenufah, should it not require semichah! It is, therefore, written "on the head" — and not on the breast.

2) ("Speak to the sons of Israel, etc.") — the sons of Israel perform semichah, and not the daughters of Israel. R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: Women (though not obligated to do so) may perform semichah. R. Yossi said: Abba Elazar once told me: We had a calf for the peace-offerings, and we took it out to the women's quarter, where the women placed their hands upon it — not because semichah obtains with women, but for their gratification. I might think that they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, which do not require tenufah, but they do perform semichah upon peace-offerings, which require tenufah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:4): "and say to them" ("b'nei Yisrael") — to include all that is mentioned in that context. Just as they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, they do not perform semichah upon peace-offerings.

2 ["vesamach" ("and he shall place") is written four times: once in respect to olah, thrice in respect to shelamim (peace-offerings)] (Vayikra 1:4): "And he shall place his hand" — not the hand of his wife (i.e., women do not perform semichah); "his hand" — not the hand of his bondsman; "his hand" — not the hand of his messenger. (Vayikra 1:4): "his hand on the head" — and not on the back; "his hand on the head" — and not on the throat; "on the head" — and not on the back of the head. I would exclude all of these, but not the breast; and it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if the head, which does not require tenufah, requires semichah — the breast, which requires tenufah, should it not require semichah! It is, therefore, written "on the head" — and not on the breast.

2) "and he shall slaughter": This teaches us that shechitah is kasher with zarim (non-Cohanim), women, bondsmen, and the unclean, even with higher-order offerings, so long as the unclean do not touch the flesh. Or, perhaps only a Cohein may perform shechitah! — Now, "where are you coming from?" (i.e., What is your source?) From (Bamidbar 18:7): "And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood for all that pertains to the altar." I might think that this includes shechitah. But (Vayikra 1:5): "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present the blood, and they shall dash the blood, etc." indicates that from this point on (i.e., receiving the blood) is the mitzvah of the priesthood; but shechitah is kasher with all persons.

2) "and he shall slaughter": This teaches us that shechitah is kasher with zarim (non-Cohanim), women, bondsmen, and the unclean, even with higher-order offerings, so long as the unclean do not touch the flesh. Or, perhaps only a Cohein may perform shechitah! — Now, "where are you coming from?" (i.e., What is your source?) From (Bamidbar 18:7): "And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood for all that pertains to the altar." I might think that this includes shechitah. But (Vayikra 1:5): "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present the blood, and they shall dash the blood, etc." indicates that from this point on (i.e., receiving the blood) is the mitzvah of the priesthood; but shechitah is kasher with all persons.

2) I might think that only a gift burnt-offering requires flaying. Whence do I derive the same for a prescribed burnt-offering? It follows, viz.: It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as a gift burnt-offering requires flaying, so, a prescribed burnt-offering.

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

2) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the suet" — whereby we are taught that the head and the suet are not classed with the pieces. Another facet: He was to place the suet on the (bloodied) shechitah site in deference to the Exalted One. And whence is it derived that head and suet precede (for arrangement) all of the imurin (the devoted portions)? From (Vayikra 1:12): "and its head, and its suet, and the Cohein shall arrange them, etc."

[(Lev. 1:1–2:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES <AND SPOKE UNTO HIM>…: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL <…>: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING.] Let our master instruct us: When the one who leads the prayers makes a mistake by not saying the benediction on the cursing of the heretics (minim), is it necessary to have him repeat <the benediction>?¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 1:2. Thus have our masters taught: When the one leading the prayers makes a mistake in any of the <other> benedictions, they do not have him repeat; <if he does so> in the <twelfth> benediction concerning the heretics, they force him to repeat it.¹¹yBer. 5:4 (19c) (bar.); Ber. 29a (bar.)]. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 16:4; 47:4; 93:4; 95:4; 96:2; 108:31; 117:3; 137:2; Epiphanius, Panarion (Haereses), 29:9; Jerome on Is. 2:18; 49:7; 52:4. This benediction has been the subject of much scholarly debate by many interpreters, including myself in “The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce,” AntiSemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, edited by Alan T. Davies (New York, Paulist, 1979), pp. 84–88, 95–97, and in “The Date of Luke-Acts,” Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical literature Seminar, edited by Charles H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 56, 61, 62. We suspect that he may be a heretic and therefore have him repeat, so that if there is a heretical side to him, he will be cursing himself with the community responding: Amen. So also <do we treat> whoever does not say <benediction 14>, "Who builds Jerusalem," since they will suspect that he may be a Samaritan. R. Jose said: If a proselyte takes upon himself <all> the words of Torah except for one, they do not accept him.¹²Cf. TDem. 2:6; Bek. 30b. And not only that, but <the same rule applies> even in the case of a single minute detail out of <all> the minute details in the Torah or out of the minute details from the scribes. R. Judah bar Shallum said: You find forty-eight times in the Torah where the Torah warns against <harming> the proselytes and, with reference to them, it warns against idolatry.¹³BM 59b; see Hor. 13:a. The Holy One said: It is enough that he forsakes his idolatry and comes to you; therefore I am warning you about him, because I love him, as stated (in Deut. 10:18): AND <HE> LOVES THE PROSELYTE¹⁴Heb.: ger. Although this word meant “sojourner” in biblical times, it had come to mean “proselyte” and is so understood here. IN GIVING HIM FOOD AND CLOTHING.

(Lev. 1:1:) “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.” This text is related (to Prov. 29:23), “One's pride will bring him low, but the low in spirit will obtain honor.” Whenever anyone pursues [a position of] authority, authority flees from him, but whenever anyone flees from [a position of] authority, authority will pursue him. Saul fled from authority when he came to reign, as stated (in I Sam. 10:22), “So they inquired of the Lord again, ‘Has anyone else come [here]?’ And the Lord said, ‘Here he is hiding among the baggage.’” What does it (the word “baggage”) mean? When they came and brought him word of his kingship, he told them, “I am not worthy of kingship. Rather inquire by means of urim and thummim whether I am worthy; and if not, leave me alone.” Immediately (ibid.), “So they inquired of the Lord again (i.e., this second time),” [and] immediately he hid himself until they had inquired of urim and thummim. (Ibid. cont.:) “And the Lord said, ‘here he is hiding among the baggage (literally: instruments).’” Thus have our masters taught: These instruments were urim and thummim. This man fled from authority, and it pursued him, as stated (in I Sam. 10:24), “Do you see the one whom the Lord has chosen, that there is no one like him among all of this people?” But Abimelech ben Jerubbaal pursued authority, and it fled from him, as stated (in Jud. 9:1), “But Abimelech ben Jerubbaal went to Shechem unto his mother's brothers…,” and killed them all upon one stone and ruled over the masters of Shechem. But in the end (according to Jud. 9:23), “Then [God] sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the masters of Shechem,” and a woman killed him. Moses also fled from authority when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him (in Exod. 3:10), “Come, I will send you unto Pharaoh, (Exod. 14:13) “But he said, ‘Pray Lord, please make someone else Your agent.” R. Levi said, “For seven days did the Holy One, blessed be He, prevail upon Moses in the thornbush in order to send him,¹³Lev. R. 11:6; Numb. R. 21:15; M. Pss. 18:22; cf. Exod. R. 3:14; also PR 7:2. and he was answering him, ‘Please make someone else Your agent.’” Thus it is stated (in Exod. 4:10), “Then Moses said unto the Lord, ‘Pray, Lord, I have never been a man of words, either in the past or now that You have spoken unto Your servant, for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “By your life, in the end you shall go.” When he did go [and] said, (in Exod. 5:1), “Thus says the Lord, the God of (the Hebrews) [Israel], ‘Let My people go and they shall serve Me,’” [and] that wicked man said (in vs. 2), “Who is the Lord,”¹⁴Cf. Numb. R. 13:3. Moses began to say, “I have already fulfilled my mission.” [So] he went and sat down. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Are you sitting down? (Exod. 6:11:) ‘Go and speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt.’” And so too for each and every oracle (as in Exod. 7:15), “Go unto pharaoh”; (and Exod. 8:16) “Rise up early in the morning.” [These verses are] to teach you that he fled from authority. In the end he led them forth, divided the sea for them, brought them into the desert, brought down the manna for them, brought up the well for them, brought over the quails for them, and made the tabernacle. Then he said, “From now on what is there for me to do?” He got ready and sat down. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, now you have a greater work than any that you have done, [i.e.,] to teach My children clean and unclean, to enlighten them on how to offer sacrifices to Me,” as stated (in Lev. 1:1–2), “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses […], ‘Speak unto the Children of Israel […], “When one of you presents an offering.”’” Moshe fled from authority and it pursued him, in fulfillment of what is stated (in Prov. 29:23), “One's pride will bring him low, but the low in spirit will obtain honor.” This is Moses, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 8:6), “For You have made him a little less than divine, and crowned him with glory and majesty.” (Lev. 1:1:) “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.” This text is related (to Ps. 89:20), “Then you spoke to Your saints in a vision and said, ‘I have conferred help upon one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen from the people.’” Although the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with the first Adam and commanded him concerning the tree of knowledge, he was alone in the world. So also in the case of Noah; although He spoke with him, he [alone] “was upright in his generations.” And so it was in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were unique in the world. But in the case of Moses, how many righteous ones [were in the world]? Seventy elders, Bezalel, Uri, Aaron and his sons, and the [tribal] princes. Yet of them all, He called only Moses. Ergo, it says (in Ps. 89:20), “I have exalted one chosen from the people.” This is Moses, as stated (in Ps. 106:23), “had not Moses His chosen one […].”

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

[(Lev. 1:1–2:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES <AND SPOKE UNTO HIM>…: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL <…>: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING.] Let our master instruct us: When the one who leads the prayers makes a mistake by not saying the benediction on the cursing of the heretics (minim), is it necessary to have him repeat <the benediction>?¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 1:2. Thus have our masters taught: When the one leading the prayers makes a mistake in any of the <other> benedictions, they do not have him repeat; <if he does so> in the <twelfth> benediction concerning the heretics, they force him to repeat it.¹¹yBer. 5:4 (19c) (bar.); Ber. 29a (bar.)]. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 16:4; 47:4; 93:4; 95:4; 96:2; 108:31; 117:3; 137:2; Epiphanius, Panarion (Haereses), 29:9; Jerome on Is. 2:18; 49:7; 52:4. This benediction has been the subject of much scholarly debate by many interpreters, including myself in “The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce,” AntiSemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, edited by Alan T. Davies (New York, Paulist, 1979), pp. 84–88, 95–97, and in “The Date of Luke-Acts,” Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical literature Seminar, edited by Charles H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 56, 61, 62. We suspect that he may be a heretic and therefore have him repeat, so that if there is a heretical side to him, he will be cursing himself with the community responding: Amen. So also <do we treat> whoever does not say <benediction 14>, "Who builds Jerusalem," since they will suspect that he may be a Samaritan. R. Jose said: If a proselyte takes upon himself <all> the words of Torah except for one, they do not accept him.¹²Cf. TDem. 2:6; Bek. 30b. And not only that, but <the same rule applies> even in the case of a single minute detail out of <all> the minute details in the Torah or out of the minute details from the scribes. R. Judah bar Shallum said: You find forty-eight times in the Torah where the Torah warns against <harming> the proselytes and, with reference to them, it warns against idolatry.¹³BM 59b; see Hor. 13:a. The Holy One said: It is enough that he forsakes his idolatry and comes to you; therefore I am warning you about him, because I love him, as stated (in Deut. 10:18): AND <HE> LOVES THE PROSELYTE¹⁴Heb.: ger. Although this word meant “sojourner” in biblical times, it had come to mean “proselyte” and is so understood here. IN GIVING HIM FOOD AND CLOTHING.

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

“[The Lord called to Moses, and spoke to him] from the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 1:1). Rabbi Elazar said: Although the Torah was given from Sinai, Israel was not punished for [transgressing] it until it was explained to them at the Tent of Meeting. [This is analogous] to a royal missive that was written and sealed and entered the province. The residents of that province were not liable for it until it was explained to them in the province. So too, although the Torah was given from Sinai, [Israel] was not punished for [transgressing] it until it was explained to them at the Tent of Meeting. That is what is written: “Until I brought him into my mother’s house” (Song of Songs 3:4); this is Mount Sinai, “and into the chamber of the one who conceived me” (Song of Songs 3:4); this is the Tent of Meeting, as it is from there that Israel became liable for its teachings.

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

3) (This is no refutation.) This may be so because the dibbur of Mount Sinai was to all of Israel (i.e., to Moses on behalf of all of Israel), which was not the case with the ohel moed. Rather, this (that there was kriyah at the ohel moed) can be derived from a binyan av (see hermeneutical principles 3b), viz.: The dibbur of the sneh, which is the beginning of G d's speaking (to Moses) is not like the dibbur of Mount Sinai, which is not, and the dibbur of Mount Sinai, which is on behalf of all of Israel, is not like the dibbur of the sneh, which is not.

The ALEPH in ויקרא And He called (Leviticus 1:1) is small, to teach that the Holy Blessed One is only revealed to the nations of the earth through half speech — the verb of And God happened upon Bil'am (Numbers 23:4) is written ויקר without an aleph — but with the prophets of Israel through full speech, and thus it says ויקרא.

3) R. Shimon says: "sheep" "as a burnt-offering," and "goats" "as a burnt-offering" — to include temurah (a substitute, as permitted). Now does it not follow (that they are permitted, even without the inclusion clauses)? viz.: If the temurah of peace-offerings, for which fowl are not kasher, is kasher, how much more so the temurah of a burnt-offering, for which fowl are kasher! — No, it may be argued that this is so with peace-offerings, for which females are kasher just as males are, but not with an olah, where this is not the case; it is, therefore, written "sheep" and "goats" "as a burnt-offering," to include temurah.

3) R. Chiyya says: Whence is it derived that the shechitah site is the throat? From "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces." Let it not continue "the head and the suet." Were they not included among all the limbs? Why mention them separately? But, because it is written: "And he shall flay the burnt-offering and he shall cut it into its pieces, and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces," (I might think that only) pieces which were flayed (should be arranged on the altar). Whence would I derive that the head, which was already severed by shechitah [— apparently from the throat —] (for which reason it was not flayed) [Whence would I derive that it, too, should be placed upon the altar?] It is, therefore, written "the head and the suet."

3) (Vayikra 1:12): "And he shall cut it": "it" — an animal that is kasher, and not one that is pasul; "it" — it into its pieces, and not its pieces into pieces. "and its head and its suet": We are hereby taught that the head and the suet precede all the limbs (for arrangement). "and the Cohein shall arrange them" — in an orderly arrangement; "upon the wood, upon the fire, which is upon the altar" — he should not change the (normal) place of the woodpile for them.

3) "from the fowl" — and not all the fowl. Because it is written (Ibid. 22:19): "a male without blemish, in the cattle, in the sheep, and in the goats," implying that "unblemished male" is a requirement only in the above, but not in fowl, I might think that it is kasher even if its wing were dried up, its eye dug out, or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written: "from the fowl" — and not all the fowl.

3) I might think that any bird is kasher; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 2:14): "… then he shall offer his offering from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons" — only these are permitted. "turtle-doves" — large, and not small. For is it not a kal vachomer (if not for a limiting clause, that small ones should be permitted), viz.: If young pigeons, which may not be offered large, may be offered small — turtle-doves, which may be offered large, how much more so should it be permitted to offer them small.

3) I might think that he should perform melikah with a knife. And it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: If shechitah, for which a Cohein was not mandated, an instrument (i.e., a knife) was mandated — melikah, for which a Cohein was mandated, should it not follow that an instrument be mandated! It is, therefore written: "the Cohein … umalak" — concerning which R. Akiva says: Now would it enter your mind that a non-priest could offer it on the altar? What, then, is the intent of "the Cohein … umalak"? To teach us that melikah must be performed with the body (i.e., with the fingernail) of the Cohein.

3) (Vayikra 1:16): "etzel the altar" — near the altar; "kedmah" — to the east of the ramp; "in the place of the ashes" — where the ashes were deposited. R. Chaninah says: There were two ash depositories, one in the east of the ramp and one in the east of the altar. In the first were placed the crops of birds and the ashes of the inner altar and of the menorah; and in the second were burned the p'sulin of higher-order offerings and (those of) the devoted portions of lower-order offerings.

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

3) [(Vayikra 1:2): "A man, if he offer of you, a sacrifice to the L–rd"] "A man" — to include proselytes; "of you" — to exclude heretics. Why do you see it that way? Why not: "A man" — to include heretics; "of you" — to exclude proselytes? After Scripture includes, it excludes, viz. (Vayikra 1:2): "the children of Israel." Just as the children of Israel are accepters of the covenant, so proselytes — to exclude heretics, who do not accept the covenant. — But why not say: Just as the children of Israel are children of accepters of the covenant, so, heretics — to exclude proselytes, who are not! It is, therefore, written "of you" (i.e., like you, in your deeds). So that, perforce, we must understand it as: Just as Israel are accepters of the covenant, so, proselytes — to exclude heretics, who are not, having broken the covenant. And thus is it written (Mishlei 21:27): "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination."

3) Let us see what it (a beast burnt-offering) is most like. We liken something which is entirely burnt (a beast burnt-offering) to something which is entirely burnt (a bird burnt-offering), and this is not countermanded by a meal-offering, which is not entirely burnt. (Why, then, the inclusion clause?) Or, go in this direction: We liken something which can come as a prescribed communal offering (a beast burnt-offering) to something which can come as a prescribed communal offering (a meal-offering), and this is not countermanded by a bird burnt-offering, which cannot come as a prescribed communal offering; it is, therefore, written "shall you (plural) offer," to teach us that it comes as vow or gift and that two may offer it.

3) And whence is it derived that they (these p'sulin) obtain with a temurah (an animal given in exchange for a consecrated animal). It follows, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought and it is written that a temurah is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a temurah.

3) I might think that only a gift-offering (the subject of the verse) required semichah. Whence do I derive the same for a prescribed burnt-offering? It follows, viz.: It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as a gift burnt-offering requires semichah, so a prescribed burnt-offering requires semichah.

3) (Vayikra 1:5): "the bullock before the L–rd": and not the slaughterer before the L–rd." (If the slaughterer stood outside the azarah and performed shechitah with a long knife, the shechitah would be valid.) Shimon Hatemani says: Whence is it derived that the hand of the shochet should be on the "inside" of the animal being slaughtered (and not on the outside towards the entrance of the azarah)? From: "and he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd."

3) I might think that only a burnt-offering from the cattle requires flaying. Whence do I derive the same for a burnt-offering from the flock? It follows, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought from the cattle, and it is written that a burnt-offering is brought from the flock. Just as the first requires flaying, so, the second.

3) R. Chiyya says: Whence is it derived that the shechitah site is the throat? From "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces." Let it not continue "the head and the suet." Were they not included among all the limbs? Why mention them separately? But, because it is written: "And he shall flay the burnt-offering and he shall cut it into its pieces, and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces," (I might think that only) pieces which were flayed (should be arranged on the altar). Whence would I derive that the head, which was already severed by shechitah [— apparently from the throat —] (for which reason it was not flayed) [Whence would I derive that it, too, should be placed upon the altar?] It is, therefore, written "the head and the suet."

(Lev. 1:1:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES. This text is related (to Prov. 29:23): ONE'S PRIDE WILL BRING HIM LOW, BUT THE LOW IN SPIRIT WILL OBTAIN HONOR. Whenever anyone flees from authority, the authority will pursue him.¹⁵Tanh., Lev. 1:3. Saul fled from authority when he came to reign, as stated (in I Sam. 10:22): SO THEY INQUIRED OF THE LORD AGAIN: HAS ANYONE ELSE COME [HERE]? AND THE LORD SAID: HERE HE IS HIDING AMONG THE BAGGAGE. What does it (the word BAGGAGE) mean? When they came and brought him word of his kingship, he told them: I am not worthy of kingship. Rather inquire by means of Urim and Thummim whether I am worthy; and if not, leave me alone. Immediately (ibid.), THEY INQUIRED OF THE LORD AGAIN (i.e., this second time), <and> immediately he hid himself until they had inquired of Urim and Thummim. (Ibid., cont.:) AND THE LORD SAID: HERE HE IS HIDING AMONG THE BAGGAGE (literally: INSTRUMENTS). Thus have our masters taught: These instruments were Urim and Thummim. This man fled from authority, and it pursued him, as stated (in I Sam. 10:24): DO YOU SEE THE ONE WHOM THE LORD HAS CHOSEN, THAT THERE IS NO ONE LIKE HIM AMONG ALL THE PEOPLES? But Abimelech ben Jerubbaal pursued authority, and it fled from him, as stated (in Jud. 9:1–2, 23): BUT ABIMELECH BEN JERUBBAAL WENT TO SHECHEM <UNTO HIS MOTHER'S BROTHERS >…, <SAYING>: PLEASE SPEAK IN THE EARS OF ALL THE CITIZENS OF SHECHEM…. THEN {THE LORD} [GOD] SENT AN EVIL SPIRIT BETWEEN ABIMELECH <AND THE CITIZENS OF SHECHEM >….

(Lev. 1:1:) “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.” From where did He call him? From the tent of meeting. May His name be blessed forever, because He left the upper world and chose to dwell below in the tabernacle out of love for Israel. Solomon said (in I Kings 8:27), “For will God really dwell on the earth; even the heavens and the heavens above the heavens cannot contain You?” Is there a potter who yearns for a clay pot, as it were? (Jer. 10:16) “For He has formed everything.” However, out of love (according to Ps. 84:3), “My soul longs for and even pines for [the courts of the Lord].” And so it says (in Lev. 1:1), “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses [and spoke unto him] from the tent of meeting.” Moses was great. See what is written (in Gen. 1:5), “And God called the light day.” There is a "calling" for the one (in Gen. 1:5), and there is a "calling" for the other (in Lev. 1:1). Who is greater, the captor or the captive? You must say, “The [captor] (captive).”¹⁵See ‘Etz Yosef here on Tan., Vayikra 1:4. Cf. Gen. R. 78:1; M. Pss. 91:6; 104:3; Sifre, Deut. 11:21 (47); also Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Neziqin 18. See what is written. “And God called the light day.” Now there is no light but Torah, as stated (in Prov. 6:23), “For the commandment is a lamp, and Torah is a light.” Moses captured the Torah, as stated (of him at Sinai in Ps. 68:19), “You ascended on high; you captured a captive.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “In this world I have made you head over all Israel; but in the world to come,¹⁶This formula normally ends a parashah. Perhaps the fact that the next section jumps to vs. 7 encourages the midrash to use the formula here. when the righteous come to receive their reward, you will come at the head of them all.” It is so stated (in Deut. 33:21), “and he came at the head of the people….”¹⁷This translation is required by the midrash.

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

(Lev. 1:1:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES. This text is related (to Prov. 29:23): ONE'S PRIDE WILL BRING HIM LOW, BUT THE LOW IN SPIRIT WILL OBTAIN HONOR. Whenever anyone flees from authority, the authority will pursue him.¹⁵Tanh., Lev. 1:3. Saul fled from authority when he came to reign, as stated (in I Sam. 10:22): SO THEY INQUIRED OF THE LORD AGAIN: HAS ANYONE ELSE COME [HERE]? AND THE LORD SAID: HERE HE IS HIDING AMONG THE BAGGAGE. What does it (the word BAGGAGE) mean? When they came and brought him word of his kingship, he told them: I am not worthy of kingship. Rather inquire by means of Urim and Thummim whether I am worthy; and if not, leave me alone. Immediately (ibid.), THEY INQUIRED OF THE LORD AGAIN (i.e., this second time), <and> immediately he hid himself until they had inquired of Urim and Thummim. (Ibid., cont.:) AND THE LORD SAID: HERE HE IS HIDING AMONG THE BAGGAGE (literally: INSTRUMENTS). Thus have our masters taught: These instruments were Urim and Thummim. This man fled from authority, and it pursued him, as stated (in I Sam. 10:24): DO YOU SEE THE ONE WHOM THE LORD HAS CHOSEN, THAT THERE IS NO ONE LIKE HIM AMONG ALL THE PEOPLES? But Abimelech ben Jerubbaal pursued authority, and it fled from him, as stated (in Jud. 9:1–2, 23): BUT ABIMELECH BEN JERUBBAAL WENT TO SHECHEM <UNTO HIS MOTHER'S BROTHERS >…, <SAYING>: PLEASE SPEAK IN THE EARS OF ALL THE CITIZENS OF SHECHEM…. THEN {THE LORD} [GOD] SENT AN EVIL SPIRIT BETWEEN ABIMELECH <AND THE CITIZENS OF SHECHEM >….

“You are fair, my love, like Tirtza, lovely like Jerusalem, formidable like banners” (Song of Songs 6:4).
“You are fair, my love, like Tirtza.” Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon interpreted the verse regarding offerings. “You are fair, my love, like Tirtza,” these are the offerings, as you achieve acceptance [mitratzim] with offerings, just as you say: “It will be accepted [venirtza] for him, to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4). “Lovely like Jerusalem,” these are the consecrations in Jerusalem, just as it says: “Like the consecrated flock, like the flock of Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 36:38).
Another matter, “you are fair, my love, like Tirtza,” these are the women of the generation of the wilderness [tiran], as Rabbi said: The women of the generation of the wilderness were upright. They stood and asserted themselves and did not give their rings for the incident of the Golden Calf. They said: If the Holy One blessed be He smashed the hard idol, this soft idol, all the more so.⁶If God smashed the idols of Egypt, how much more so this golden calf. They referred to the idols of Egypt as hard because they were made from stone, which is harder than gold, or because the Egyptians worshipped Aries, the first sign of the Zodiac, which is harder to destroy than a golden calf (see Etz Yosef). “Lovely like Jerusalem,” as anyone who wants and seeks molds of Peor, he would go and find in Jerusalem; that is what is written: “And their idols from Jerusalem and from Samaria” (Isaiah 10:10).⁷The midrash means that Israel is lovely to God for distancing themselves from the idols that had become ubiquitous even in Jerusalem and Samaria (Matnot Kehuna).

(Lev. 1:1:) “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.” From where did He call him? From the tent of meeting. May His name be blessed forever, because He left the upper world and chose to dwell below in the tabernacle out of love for Israel. Solomon said (in I Kings 8:27), “For will God really dwell on the earth; even the heavens and the heavens above the heavens cannot contain You?” Is there a potter who yearns for a clay pot, as it were? (Jer. 10:16) “For He has formed everything.” However, out of love (according to Ps. 84:3), “My soul longs for and even pines for [the courts of the Lord].” And so it says (in Lev. 1:1), “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses [and spoke unto him] from the tent of meeting.” Moses was great. See what is written (in Gen. 1:5), “And God called the light day.” There is a "calling" for the one (in Gen. 1:5), and there is a "calling" for the other (in Lev. 1:1). Who is greater, the captor or the captive? You must say, “The [captor] (captive).”¹⁵See ‘Etz Yosef here on Tan., Vayikra 1:4. Cf. Gen. R. 78:1; M. Pss. 91:6; 104:3; Sifre, Deut. 11:21 (47); also Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Neziqin 18. See what is written. “And God called the light day.” Now there is no light but Torah, as stated (in Prov. 6:23), “For the commandment is a lamp, and Torah is a light.” Moses captured the Torah, as stated (of him at Sinai in Ps. 68:19), “You ascended on high; you captured a captive.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “In this world I have made you head over all Israel; but in the world to come,¹⁶This formula normally ends a parashah. Perhaps the fact that the next section jumps to vs. 7 encourages the midrash to use the formula here. when the righteous come to receive their reward, you will come at the head of them all.” It is so stated (in Deut. 33:21), “and he came at the head of the people….”¹⁷This translation is required by the midrash.

Moses also fled from authority when the Holy One said to him (in Exod. 3:10): {ARISE} [COME], I WILL SEND YOU UNTO PHARAOH…. (Exod. 14:13): BUT HE SAID: PRAY LORD, PLEASE MAKE SOMEONE ELSE YOUR AGENT. R. Levi said: For seven days the Holy One prevailed upon Moses in the thornbush in order to send him,¹⁶Lev. R. 11:6; Numb. R. 21:15; M. Pss. 18:22; cf. Exod. R. 3:14; also PR 7:2. and he was answering him: PLEASE MAKE SOMEONE ELSE YOUR AGENT. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 4:10): THEN MOSES SAID UNTO THE LORD: <PRAY, LORD,> I HAVE NEVER BEEN A MAN OF WORDS, EITHER IN THE PAST OR NOW THAT YOU HAVE SPOKEN UNTO YOUR SERVANT, FOR I AM SLOW OF SPEECH AND SLOW OF TONGUE. The Holy One said to Moses: By your life, in the end you shall go. When he did go, he said: (in Exod. 5:1): THUS SAYS THE LORD, THE GOD OF {THE HEBREWS} [ISRAEL]: <LET MY PEOPLE GO>…. That wicked man said (in vs. 2): WHO IS THE LORD, THAT I SHOULD HEED HIS VOICE?¹⁷Cf. Numb. R. 13:3. Moses began to say: I have already fulfilled my mission. He went and sat down. The Holy One said to him: Are you sitting down? (Exod. 6:11:) GO AND SPEAK UNTO PHARAOH KING OF EGYPT. For each and every oracle (as in Exod. 7:15), GO UNTO PHARAOH. (Exod. 8:16 [20]:) RISE UP EARLY IN THE MORNING. <These verses are> to teach you that he fled from authority. In the end he led them forth, divided the sea for them, brought them into the desert, brought down the manna for them, brought up the well for them, brought over the quails for them, and made the Tabernacle. Then he said: From now on what is there for me to do? He got ready and sat down. The Holy One said to him: By your life, now you have a greater work than any that you have done, <i.e.,> to teach my children clean and unclean, to enlighten them on how to offer sacrifice to me, as stated (in Lev. 1:1–2): THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES <…> [SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL <…>: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING.] Abimelech pursued authority and it fled from him, in fulfillment of what is stated (in Prov. 29:23): ONE'S PRIDE WILL BRING HIM LOW. (Ibid., cont.: BUT THE LOW IN SPIRIT WILL OBTAIN HONOR. This is Moses, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 8:6 [5]): FOR YOU HAVE MADE HIM A LITTLE LESS THAN DIVINE, AND CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND MAJESTY.

(Prov. 1:21:) AT THE HEAD OF THE ROARING HOSTS⁹So the midrash interprets this difficult word, homiyyot. SHE CALLS (rt.: QR'). [AT¹⁰The bracketed section continues to the end of the section and is followed by a second bracketed section, which includes the whole of section 5. Buber has provided the bracketed material from parallels in the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 1:3; from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34; and from MS 1240 of the De Rossi library in Parma. THE HEAD (R'Sh) OF THE ROARING HOSTS she is the one calling (rt.: QR'). How so? From the beginning (rt.: R'Sh) of Torah how many hosts¹¹Gk. ochloi (“crowds”). does she destroy? The generation of the flood, the generation of the dispersion (i.e., of the Tower of Babel), and the generation of Sodom. Ergo: AT THE HEAD OF THE ROARING HOSTS SHE CALLS.

4) R. Yossi Haglili says: In three places, the Torah limits dibbur to Moses — the land of Egypt, Mount Sinai, the ohel moed — the entire Torah! The land of Egypt — "And it was on the day that the L–rd spoke (dibber) to Moses in the land of Egypt" — Aaron is excluded from the dibroth of the land of Egypt. Mount Sinai — "And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai." The ohel moed — "And He called to Moses." Aaron is excluded from the dibroth of the ohel moed. He spoke to Moses and not to Aaron.

4) What is common to them is that they are dibbur from the mouth of the Holy One to Moses, and kriyah precedes dibbur — so, wherever there is dibbur from the Holy One to Moses (as in the instance of the ohel moed), kriyah must precede dibbur. Why, then, need kriyah be written here?)

4) R. Eliezer says: "sheep" "as a burnt-offering," and "goats" "as a burnt-offering" — to include (for sacrifice as an olah) mothar (the surplus of what is spent for an offering). For I might think that only the surplus of an olah is to be sacrificed as an olah. Whence do I derive the same for the mothar of a sin-offering, a guilt-offering, the tenth of an ephah, the birds of zavim, zavoth, and yoldoth, the surplus of the offerings of the Nazirite and the leper, (the surplus of) one who consecrated his possessions, among which were things fit for the altar — wines, oils, and birds — Whence is it derived that these are sold for the (altar) needs of that article (i.e., wines, for libations; oils, for meal-offerings, etc.), and burnt-offerings bought for the (remaining) monies? From "sheep" "as a burnt-offering," and "goats" "as a burnt-offering" — to include all of the above. And the sages say: Let them (the monies) fall for a gift (i.e., for communal gift-offerings). — Now are not these, too, burnt-offerings? What is the difference between R. Eliezer and the sages? (The difference is that) when the offering is prescribed, he (the owner) performs semichah upon it and brings libations for it from his own funds; and if he were a Cohein, its (sacrificial) service and its hide revert to him. But when the offering is a (communal) gift, he does not perform semichah upon it, and does not bring libations for it, these coming from communal funds; and if he were a Cohein, its service and its hide revert to the men of the watch.

4) (Vayikra 1:13): "And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water": He shall wash the innards, and he shall wash the legs — even if the innards of one olah got mixed up with those of another, or with those of a temurah. I might think even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:9): "and its innards," to exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin. I would then exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin, but not what got mixed up with higher or lower-order offerings; it is, therefore, written: "and its innards and its legs." (Vayikra 1:13): "he shall wash": I might think that just as "washing" written elsewhere (in respect to one who had had an emission) is with forty sa'ah, here, too, forty sa'ah are required. It is, therefore, written "with water" — any amount. "with water" — and not with wine; "with water" — and not with diluted wine; "with water" — all water (even "gathered" [i.e., non-flowing] water) — how much more so with water (fit for) the (Temple) laver, (which is flowing water [but not with the water of the laver itself].)

4) R. Shimon said: I might think that an ethnan ("the hire of a prostitute") or a mechir ("the exchange of a dog") were kasher with fowl, and that this would even be supported by a kal vachomer, viz.: Now if consecrated animals are made pasul by a blemish, but not by ethnan and mechir — fowl, which are not made pasul by a blemish, how much more so should they not be made pasul by ethnan and mechir! It is, therefore, written (in relation to ethnan and mechir [Devarim 23:19]): "for every vow" — to include (as interdicted, even) fowl.

4) "young pigeons" — small, and not large. For is it not a kal vachomer (if not for a limiting clause, that large ones should be permitted), viz.: If turtle-doves, which may not be offered small, may be offered large — young pigeons, which may be offered small, how much more so should it be permitted to offer them large! It is, therefore, written "young pigeons" — small (the usual), and not large.

4) I might think that he could perform melikah either above or below (the red line in the middle of the altar); it is, therefore, written "… umalak its head and smoke it upon the altar." "upon the altar" refers to both smoking and melikah. Just as smoking is "above," so is melikah.

4) (Vayikra 1:16): "And he shall rend it" — one that is kasher and not one that is pasul (i.e., If he performed melikah outside the prescribed time, he does not remove it from the altar, but sacrifices it without rending.) "it" required rending, but not a beast burnt-offering. For (in the absence of "it") I would reason: Is it not a kal vachomer, viz.: If a bird burnt-offering, which does not require flaying, requires rending — a beast burnt-offering, which does require flaying, how much more so must it require rending! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "And he shall rend it" — it requires rending, but not a beast burnt-offering.

4) (Vayikra 1:16); "soleth": Just as "soleth" mentioned elsewhere is of wheat, so, here, it is of wheat. "unleavened cakes (challoth) mixed (with oil"); but the wafers are not to be mixed. For (if not for the exclusion clause) we would reason: If challoth, which do not require spreading (with oil after they are baked), require mixing (with oil before they are baked) — wafers, which require spreading (with oil after they are baked), how much more so should they require mixing (with oil before they are baked)! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "challoth mixed," and not wafers mixed.

4) "A man, if he offer, etc." I might think this is a decree (i.e., that he must do so), it is, therefore, written "if he offer" — it is optional. (Mishlei 21:27): "a sacrifice (korban) to the L–rd" — he must sanctify it (by saying "This is a burnt-offering") before offering it up, (thus rendering it a "korban" before he actually sacrifices it). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that one should not say: "To the L–rd, a burnt-offering," "To the L–rd, a meal-offering," "To the L–rd, peace-offerings?" From "a sacrifice (korban) to the L–rd." Now is this not a kal vachomer? If in respect to what is destined to be sanctified, Scripture states that the name of Heaven is to be mentioned only after "korban" (to forestall the possibility of its being mentioned in vain by his saying "To the L–rd," and not following up with "korban") — how much more so must the name of Heaven not be mentioned in vain (in mundane circumstances)!

4) (Vayikra 1:2): ("shall you offer) your (plural) offerings": We are hereby taught that it (a beast burnt-offering) may come as a communal gift offering. Now does it not follow (that it should not be so!) A meal-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a meal-offering, which comes as vow or gift, cannot come as a communal gift offering, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, should not come as a communal gift offering!

4) — No, in the instance of a burnt-offering, sanctity does not attach to it in the case of permanent blemish (i.e., if one dedicates an animal with a permanent blemish as a burnt-offering, it becomes chullin ["mundane," for all purposes] when redeemed), as opposed to a temurah, to which sanctity does attach in such a case (i.e., if one redeems a permanently blemished animal which he made a temurah, it does not become chullin (to be shorn or worked with, but only to be eaten). And since sanctity attaches to a temurah with a permanent blemish, we would think that all of these p'sulin do not obtain with it; it is, therefore, written: "if a burnt-offering," to include a temurah.

4) — No, a gift burnt-offering does not allow of a bird substitute to exempt it from semichah, whereas a prescribed burnt-offering (that of a leper) does allow of a bird substitute (in the instance of an impoverished leper) to exempt it (a beast brought by a leper) from semichah — so that it should not require semichah. It is, therefore, written "burnt-offering" — Both a gift burnt-offering and a required burnt-offering require semichah. ...

4) (Vayikra 1:5) "and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present (vehikrivu) the blood": I might think that this refers to z'rikah (dashing the blood on the altar). But z'rikah is already mentioned (following). How, then, am I to understand "vehikrivu"? As referring to the receiving of the blood — that it be done only by a Cohein kasher, and with a ministering vessel. R. Akiva said: Whence is it derived that the receiving of the blood be done only by a Cohein kasher? Kihun (priesthood) is mentioned here ("the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim"), and it is mentioned elsewhere [(Bamidbar 3:3): "These are the names of the sons of Aaron, whom he invested lechahein"]. Just as the kihun there is with a Cohein kasher and ministering vessels, so, the kihun here (in respect to the receiving of the blood).

4) This tells me only that (the burnt-offering) of men (requires flaying). Whence do I derive the same for that of women? This tells me only of the burnt-offering of a Jew. Whence do I derive the same for that of bondsmen? — until even that of gentiles is included? From "the burnt-offerings" — Whatever is a burnt-offering requires flaying. Why did you see fit to include them (the burnt-offerings of all the above) for flaying and cutting and to exclude them from semichah? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I include them for flaying and cutting and exclude them from semichah? For flaying and cutting are kasher with all persons. And I exclude them from semichah, for semichah is performed only by the owner.

4) (Vayikra 1:8): "upon the wood, upon the fire": wood which is readily flammable. Now is all wood kasher for the woodpile? Yes, all woods are kasher except olive-wood and grape-vine, but most commonly used are young boughs of fig, nut, and pine. R. Eliezer adds carob, palm, sycamore, mayish, and oak.

4) (Vayikra 1:13): "And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water": He shall wash the innards, and he shall wash the legs — even if the innards of one olah got mixed up with those of another, or with those of a temurah. I might think even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:9): "and its innards," to exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin. I would then exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin, but not what got mixed up with higher or lower-order offerings; it is, therefore, written: "and its innards and its legs." (Vayikra 1:13): "he shall wash": I might think that just as "washing" written elsewhere (in respect to one who had had an emission) is with forty sa'ah, here, too, forty sa'ah are required. It is, therefore, written "with water" — any amount. "with water" — and not with wine; "with water" — and not with diluted wine; "with water" — all water (even "gathered" [i.e., non-flowing] water) — how much more so with water (fit for) the (Temple) laver, (which is flowing water [but not with the water of the laver itself].)

(Lev. 1:1:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES. This text is related (to Ps. 89:20 [19]): THEN YOU SPOKE TO YOUR SAINTS IN A VISION AND SAID: I HAVE CONFERRED HELP UPON ONE WHO IS MIGHTY; I HAVE EXALTED ONE CHOSEN FROM THE PEOPLE. Although the Holy One spoke with the first Adam and commanded him concerning the tree of knowledge, he was alone in the world. So also in the case of Noah, although he spoke with him, he < alone > was upright in his generations. And so it was in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were unique in the world. But in the case of Moses, how many righteous ones [were in the world]? Seventy elders, Bezalel, Uri, Aaron and his sons, and the <tribal> princes. Yet of them all he called only Moses. Ergo, it says (in Ps. 89:20 [19]): I HAVE EXALTED ONE CHOSEN FROM THE PEOPLE. This is Moses, [since it is written] (in Ps. 106:23): <…,> HAD NOT MOSES HIS CHOSEN ONE <…>.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2) “When anyone explicitly vows […]”: This text is related (to Prov. 11:30), “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).” If a person is righteous, and does not occupy himself with Torah, even though he is righteous, he has nothing in his possession. Rather, “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; this refers to the Torah. Because when one is a Torah scholar (literally, child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (npshwt), as stated (ibid.), “but a wise person acquires lives.” As if he makes a vow for the value of human beings, he would have learned what to do from the Torah. But if he does not have Torah in his possession, he has nothing in his possession. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he lost his daughter.¹⁶Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the Children of Ammon and made a vow at that time, as stated (in Jud. 11:30-31), “Then Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, [and said, ‘If You indeed give the Children of Ammon into my hand;] Then it shall be that whatever comes forth…, shall belong to the Lord, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.’” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, was angry with him. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to Me.” Hence He summoned his daughter to him. And why so much? So that all those that vow will learn the laws of vows and abnegations. [And the result was (in Jud. 11:34-35),] “and there was his daughter coming out to greet him [….] And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes […].” But was not Phinehas there?¹⁷Since he was an outstanding Torah scholar, and an outstanding Torah scholar could have annulled the vow. And still he said (in vs. 35), “and I cannot retract?” However, Phinehas had said, “I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus ('am ha'arets)?” [And] Jephthah said, “I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?”¹⁸Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished from the world; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the holy spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7), “and he was buried in the cities of Gilead.”¹⁹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. When he sought to sacrifice her, she cried in front of him. His daughter said to him, “My father, I came out to greet you in joy, and [now] you slaughter me? Is it perhaps that the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote in the Torah that Israel offer the lives (npshwt) of people in front of the Holy One, blessed be He? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2), ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord from the beasts.’ ‘From the beasts’ and not from people?” He said to her, “My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31), ‘Then it shall be that whatever comes forth […].’ Is it possible that anyone who makes a vow does not have to fulfill his vow?” She said to him, “Behold, when our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22), ‘and of all that You give me, I will surely set aside a tithe for You’; when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him twelve sons, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? Moreover, does not Hannah [do likewise], when she makes a vow and says (as reported in I Sam. 1:11), ‘And she made a vow and said, “Lord of hosts, if You will surely see… [then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life].”’ Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One, blessed be He?” All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. When she saw that he did not heed her, she said to him, “Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words.” Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37), “leave me alone for two months, so that I may go and come down to the mountains.” R. Zechariah said, “Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of ‘and come down to the mountains?’ These represent the Sanhedrin,²⁰Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2), ‘Hear, O mountains, the lawsuit of the Lord.’” She went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow, because of the sin of those that he slaughtered from the tribe of Ephraim. So it is with reference to him that Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3), “A poor man who exploits the indigent is a torrential rain which leaves no bread.” “A poor man who exploits the indigent.” This is referring to Jephthah; since he was poor in Torah like a [mere] sycamore shoot.²¹The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) “Who exploits the indigent,” since he exploited the indigent, when he said [to the men of Ephraim] (in Jud. 12:6), “Say, ‘Shibboleth’; and he said, ‘Sibboleth,’ not being able to pronounce it correctly.” Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) “a torrential rain, and there is no bread,” in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.), “there is no bread,” in that the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One, blessed be He. Then the holy spirit proclaimed, “Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (npshwt) to Me, [lives] (according to Jer. 19:5), ‘which I never commanded, never spoke for, and which never entered My mind.’” “Which I never commanded” Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12), “Do not raise your hand against the lad.” [This was] in order to make known Abraham’s love [of God] to the nations of the world, that he did not spare his only one from Me and carried out the will of his Maker. (Jer 19:5 cont.:) “Never spoke” to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to Me. Rabbi Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish [differed on the matter]. Rabbi Johanan says, “He was liable for money [in order to fulfill his vow], like the matter is written in Arakhin.” And R. Simoen ben Laquish said, “[He was liable for] nothing, as he made a stipulation about something that is impossible to sacrifice, and [so] there was no [liability] upon him.” “And which never entered my mind,” this is referring to Misha the king of Moab, about whom it is written that when he fell into the hand of the king of Israel (in II Kings 3:27), “And he took his firstborn son, who would become king in his stead, and offered him up as a burnt offering upon the wall.” What caused Misha to sacrifice his son?²²See the parallel text in Buber Tanchuma 10:7, which has the final question being about Jephthah, which fits much better with the continuation of the section. Because he was not a Torah scholar; for if he had read the Torah, he would not have lost his son, since it is written (in Lev 27:2-4) “When anyone explicitly vows [to the Lord the value of human beings (npshwt)] And the value of a male shall be […]. And if it is a female….” Ergo (in Prov. 11:30), “but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).”

(Lev. 1:7:) “And the sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the altar, and they shall lay wood in order upon the fire.” (Tamid 2:3:) All of the trees are proper for [altar] firewood except the vine and the olive.¹⁸TMen. 9:14; Sifra to Lev. 1:7, Wayyiqra, Pereq 6.Why? Because they produce excellent fruit.¹⁹Cf. Tamid 29b. See, you have learned that by virtue of sons, fathers are honored. (Lev. 2:5:) “And if [your offering] is a meal offering on a griddle.” [But] it is also written (in Exod. 2:7), “And if [your offering] is a meal offering in a pan.” (Men. 5:8:) What is the difference between a griddle and a pan?²⁰Sifra to Lev. 2:5, Wayyiqra, Pereq 12. A pan has a cover, and a griddle does not have a cover. A pan (rt.: rhsh) is deep, and its products tremble (rt.: rhsh).²¹Lev. R. 3:7. A griddle is flat and its products are solid. (Men. 11:3:) The cakes of the high priest had their kneading and their rolling out within [the Temple court], and [doing so] overrides the Sabbath. Their grinding and sifting do not override the Sabbath. (Men. 5:1:)²²See Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 8:11. All meal offerings were offered unleavened except the leavened [cakes] in the thank offering and the two loaves (of Pentecost) which were offered leavened. (Men. 5:2:) All meal offerings were kneaded in lukewarm water and one watched them lest they become leavened; and if the rest of it became leavened, one transgressed a negative commandment, as stated (in Lev. 2:11), “No meal offering which you offer to the Lord [shall be made with leaven].”

"of the lambs and of the goats shall you take it": of each in itself. You say this, but perhaps both are required. It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 1:10) "And if from the sheep is his offering." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a burnt-offering, of higher sanctity, is kasher (if brought) of one kind (only), a Pesach, of lower sanctity, how much more so! What, then, is the intent of "of the lambs and of the goats"? Of each in itself.

5) (It must be written, for) the common factor may be: Wherever there is dibbur in the context of fire (as there was in the instance of sneh and Sinai), dibbur is preceded by kriyah, so, wherever this obtains, kriyah precedes dibbur — as opposed to the instance of the ohel moed, which was not in the context of fire. It must, therefore, be written "vayikra," "vayedaber," that kriyah preceded dibbur.

5) R. Elazar says (Shemoth 29:43): "Venoadeti there (in the ohel moed) for the children of Israel, and it will be sanctified with My glory" — I am destined to be met (va'ad [from "venoadeti"]) with them (in the ohel moed) and to be exalted by them. When did this transpire? On the eighth day of the investiture (miluim), viz. (Vayikra 9:24): "And all the people saw and they exalted (the L–rd), and they fell upon their faces." — But perhaps it is to give ye'idah (an appointment) for dibroth! — This cannot be, for it is written (Shemoth 25:22): "Venoadeti for you" (in the ohel moed for dibbur) — for you, and not for all of Israel.

5) (Vayikra 1:11): "And he shall slaughter it (on the side of the altar northward"): "it" northward, and not a bird northward. (For without the exclusion we might reason:) Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an animal of the flock, for which a Cohein was not stipulated (for shechitah), "northward" was stipulated, then a bird, for which a Cohein was stipulated (for melikah), how much more so should "northward" be stipulated for it! It is, therefore, written "And he shall slaughter it" — "it" northward, and not a bird northward.

5) (Vayikra 1:13): "And the Cohein shall present the whole" — on the ramp, "and he shall smoke it upon the altar" — even if it is pasul, even if it had gone out (i.e., even if the flesh had left the precincts of the azarah), even if it is piggul, even if it is nothar, even if it is tamei. I might think that this applies even if they are below (i.e., even if they had not already been placed on the altar); it is, therefore, written "upon the altar" — this applies when they are already on the altar, but not when they are below.

5) R. Eliezer says: Wherever "male" and "female" are mentioned, tumtum (an animal of doubtful sex) or androgynus (a hermaphroditic animal) are pasul. "male" and "female," not being mentioned in respect to birds, tumtum and androgynus do not render them pasul.

5) I might think that all turtle-doves and all young pigeons are kasher. It is, therefore, written: "from the turtle-doves," and not all of them — to exclude, in both, those at the stage when the neck feathers begin to shine (the intermediate stage). When are turtle-doves kasher? When they are gold-like (i.e., qualifying as "large"). When are young pigeons unfit? When they begin to shine (i.e., no longer qualifying as "small").

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

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

5) ("And he shall rend it) with its feathers" — This permits the skin (to which the feathers are attached). For (in the absence of "with its feathers") I would reason: If in an instance (that of a beast burnt-offering) where the crop, (which is foul), is permitted (to be sacrificed) — the skin, (which gives off a foul odor upon burning), is forbidden, here, where the crop is forbidden, how much more so should the skin be forbidden! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "with its feathers" — the skin is permitted.

5) (Vayikra 1:16): "wafers spread (with oil" after baking), and not challoth spread. Now does it not follow (that challoth should require spreading), viz.: If wafers, which do not require mixing (with oil before baking) require spreading (with oil after baking) — challoth, which require mixing, how much more so should they require spreading! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "wafers spread," and not challoth spread.

5) R. Yossi says: Wherever "korban" is written, it is stated (only) in conjunction with Yod-Keh (the Tetragrammaton) so as not to provide an "opening" for heretics (as it would, if alternate names were used).

5) — No, you may say this of a meal-offering, which cannot come as a gift of two (i.e., in partnership), but not of a beast burnt-offering, which can come as a gift of two. — But this is countermanded by a bird burnt-offering, which can come as a gift of two, but not as a communal gift offering!

5) R. Chiyya says: Go and see what Scripture excludes above (by [Vayikra 1:2] "a man, if he offers, etc.") — what is offered? (i.e., the animal), or the offerers? The offerers (e.g., a woman is excluded from semichah). Likewise, I exclude them (gentiles) from semichah, because I am excluding the offerers. I do not exclude them (the animals of gentiles) from flaying and cutting, because then I would be excluding the burnt-offering itself from an act (affecting its body).

5) And whence is it derived that they (these p'sulin) obtain with peace-offerings? It, indeed, follows that they should, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that peace-offerings are brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, so should they obtain with peace-offerings.

[(Vayikra 1:3): "If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle … then he shall place his hand, etc."] This tells me only of a burnt-offering from the cattle. Whence do I derive (that the same holds true for) a burnt-offering from the sheep? It follows, viz.: It is written that an olah from the cattle is brought and that an olah from the sheep is brought. Just as an olah from the cattle requires semichah, so an olah from the sheep requires semichah.

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

5) R. Tarfon said to him: Akiva, how long will you continue "piling up" verses and bringing us (identities)! May I be bereaved if I did not hear that there is a difference between receiving and dashing (the blood. How, then, can you compare them!); but I cannot recall it (the difference) — whereupon R. Akiva said: Allow me to repeat to you something that you taught me. R. Tarfon: Say on. R. Akiva: With kabbalah (receiving), thought (of kabbalah) is not accounted act (so that a "negative" kabbalah thought does not invalidate the service), whereas with z'rikah (dashing), thought is accounted act. One who receives the blood outside (the azarah) is not liable; one who dashes it outside, is. If unclean persons received it, they are not liable; if they dashed it, they are. R. Tarfon: May I be bereaved that you have not swerved right or left (i.e., if you have not spoken truly)! I did, indeed, hear it, but it slipped my mind, and you expound (verses) and restore the teaching. Whoever departs from you departs from life.

5) R. Chiyya says: Go and see what Scripture excludes above (by [Vayikra 1:2] "a man, if he offers, etc.") — what is offered? (i.e., the animal), or the offerers? The offerers (e.g., a woman is excluded from semichah). Likewise, I exclude them (gentiles) from semichah, because I am excluding the offerers. I do not exclude them (the animals of gentiles) from flaying and cutting, because then I would be excluding the burnt-offering itself from an act (affecting its body).

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

5) I might think that one who vowed a burnt-offering could bring its wood and fire with him; it is, therefore, written: "upon the wood, upon the fire, which is upon the altar." Just as the altar is communal, so the fire and the wood must be communal. These are the words of R. Elazar b. R. Shimon. R. Eliezer says: Just as the altar was not used for mundane purposes, so the wood and the fire must not have been used for mundane purposes. Another facet: "upon the wood, upon the fire, which is upon the altar" — the wood is not to project from the woodpile.

Another interpretation (of Numb. 8:2), “When you set up [the lamps]”: This text is related (to Ps. 139:12), “Even darkness is not dark to You; for night shines as the day, and darkness becomes like the light.” Yet You are saying to us (in Numb. 8:2), “When you set up the lamps!”¹Numb. R. 15:8. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who had a friend. The king said to him, “You should know that I am dining with you; so make ready for me.” His friend went [and] prepared a commoner's²Gk.: idiotes. couch [and] a commoner's³Gk.: idiotes. table. When the king arrived, attendants came with him. They set around menorahs of gold before him on either side. When his friend saw all the splendor, he felt ashamed and concealed everything that he had prepared, because everything was [of the type used by] commoners. The king said to him, “What is this? Did I not tell you that I was dining with you? Why did you prepare nothing for me?” His friend said to him, “My lord king, when I saw all this splendor that came with you, I felt ashamed and concealed everything that I had prepared for you, as it consisted of commoner's utensils.” The king said to him, “By your life, I am rejecting all my utensils which I have brought with me, and out of love for you I only wish to use yours.” So it was with the Holy One, blessed be He. He is all light, as stated (in Dan. 2:22), “and the light dwells within Him.” When he says to Israel, “Prepare a menorah and lamps for Me,” what is written there (in Exod. 25:8, 31)? “And let them make Me a sanctuary and I shall dwell within them; And you shall make a menorah of pure gold.” When they had done so, immediately the Divine Presence arrived. What is written there (in Exod. 40:35)? “Now Moses could not enter the tent of meeting… [because the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle].” Immediately He called to Moses, as stated (in Lev. 1:1), “Then [the Lord] called unto Moses.” And it is written (in Numb. 7:89), “When Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him.” But what did He say unto him (in Numb. 8:2)? “When you set up the lamps.” Israel said (in Ps. 43:3), “Send out Your light and Your truth; they will lead me”. Great is the light of the Holy One, blessed be He!⁴Numb. R. 15:9. The sun and the moon give light to the world, but from where do they derive their light? They snatch some sparks of celestial light. It is so stated (in Hab. 3:11), “[Sun and moon remain on high;] they go for the light of Your arrows, for the brightness of Your shining spear.” Great is the celestial light, of which only one part in a hundred has been given to mortals. It is so stated (in Dan. 2:22), “He knows what⁵MH read as M’H which means “a hundred.” is in the darkness, and the light [dwells with Him].” Therefore [the Holy One, blessed be He, says,] “I made sun and moon so that they would give you light, as stated (in Gen. 1:17), “God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” (Numb. 8:2:) “[Let the seven lamps] give their light in front of the menorah.” (David) [Solomon] said (in Prov. 16:15), “In the light of the king's face there is life.”⁶Numb. R. 15:9. R. Jacob bar Jose said, “Joy was withheld from the wicked and given to the righteous, to Israel, because the Holy One, blessed be He, was obliged to dwell among flesh and blood in the light. Thus he said to them (in Numb. 8:2), ‘[Let the seven lamps] give their light in front of the menorah.’” R. Levi said, “A pure menorah descended from the heavens.⁷Numb. R. 15:9. Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses (in Exod. 25:31), ‘And you shall make a menorah of pure gold.’ He said to Him, ‘How shall we make [it]?’ He said to him (ibid. cont.), ‘Of hammered work shall the menorah be made.’ Nevertheless Moses had difficulty; for when he descended, he had forgotten its construction.⁸See Above, Lev. 3:33; Tanh., Lev. 3:8; Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Piska 2; PRK 15; PR 15:21; 20:4; Exod. R. 15:28. He went up and said, ‘Master of the world, I have forgotten [it].’ He said to him (in Exod. 25:40), ‘Observe and make [it].’ Thus He took a pattern of fire and showed him its construction,⁹See Men. 29a Bar.; Sifre Numb. 8:4 (61); Numb. R. 15:4, 10. but it was still difficult for Moses. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Go to Bezalel and he will make it.’ [So] Moses went down to talk to Bezalel, [and] he made it immediately. Moses began to wonder and say, ‘In my case, how many times did the Holy One, blessed be He, show it to me; yet I had difficulty in making it. Now without seeing it, you have made it from your own knowledge. Bezalel (btsl'l), were you perhaps standing in (b) the shadow (tsl) of God ('l) when the Holy One, blessed be He, showed it to me and said (in Exod. 25:31), “And you shall make”?’ Therefore when the Temple was destroyed, the menorah was stored away.” Now this was one of the five things that were stored away: the ark, the menorah, the fire, the holy spirit, and the cherubim.¹⁰Therefore, these five things were lacking from the Second Temple. See Syr. Baruch 6:4–10; TYoma2:15; TSot. 13:1; yTa‘an. 2:1 (65a); yHor. 3:3(2) (47c); Yoma 21b; Hor. 12a; ARN, A, 41. When the Holy One, blessed be He, returns in his mercy to build His house and His Temple, He will restore them to their place and cause Jerusalem to rejoice. Thus it is stated (in Is. 35:1-2), “The desert and the arid land shall be glad, and the wilderness shall rejoice and blossom like a crocus. It shall blossom abundantly and be glad.”¹¹These five expressions of gladness in these verses correspond to the five things that will be restored in the new temple.

(Lev. 1:1:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES. From where [did he call him]?¹⁸Tanh., Lev. 1:4. From the Tent of Meeting. May his name be blessed forever, because he left the upper world and chose to dwell below in the Tabernacle out of love for Israel. Solomon said (in I Kings 8:27): FOR WILL {THE LORD} GOD REALLY DWELL ON THE EARTH? [EVEN THE HEAVENS AND THE HEAVENS ABOVE THE HEAVENS CANNOT CONTAIN YOU, HOW MUCH LESS THIS HOUSE THAT I HAVE BUILT!] Is there a potter who yearns for vessels of clay? <It is the Holy One>, as it were, (in Jer. 10:16): FOR HE HAS FORMED EVERYTHING. However, out of love (according to Ps. 84:3 [2]): MY SOUL LONGS FOR AND EVEN PINES FOR <THE COURTS OF THE LORD>…. And so it says (in Lev. 1:1): THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES <AND SPOKE UNTO HIM FROM THE TENT OF MEETING>. Moses was great. See what is written (in Gen. 1:5). AND GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY. [There is a "calling" for the one (in Gen. 1:5), and there is a "calling" for the other (in Lev. 1:1). Who is greater, the captor or the captive? You must say: The captive.¹⁹Cf. Gen. R. 78:1; M. Pss. 91:6; 104:3; Sifre, Deut. 11:21 (47); Luke 22:27; also Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Neziqin 18. See what is written. AND GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY.] Now there is no light but Torah, as stated (in Prov. 6:23): FOR THE COMMANDMENT IS A LAMP, AND TORAH IS A LIGHT. Moses captured the Torah, as stated (of him at Sinai in Ps. 68:19 [18]): YOU ASCENDED ON HIGH; YOU CAPTURED [CAPTIVES…. The Holy One said to him: In this world I have made you head <over all Israel >;²⁰The bracketed words come from the traditional Tanh., Lev. 1:4. but in the world to come,²¹This formula normally ends a parashah. Perhaps the fact that the next section jumps to vs. 7 encourages the midrash to use the formula here. when the righteous come to receive their reward, you will come at the head of them all. It is so stated (in Deut. 33:21): AND HE CAME AT THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE….²²This translation is required by the midrash.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2), “When anyone explicitly vows”: The nations say (in Micah 6:6-7), “With what shall I come before the Lord, bow myself before God on high, [….] Does the Lord want thousands of rams […] shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my belly for the sin of my soul?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, “Do you want to offer your children to Me? Neither your children nor your sacrifices do I want. For my children I have given a Parashah on value equivalents (in Lev. 27:1-8) and a Parashah on sacrifices, as it is their sacrifices that are beloved in front of Me.” And so it says (in Ps. 37:16), “Better is the little of the righteous.” You yourself know what is at the beginning of the book (in Lev. 1:2), “Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord,’” [i.e.] “of you,” and not "of the nations." Then at the end of the book [one finds (in Lev. 27:2),] “Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them, ‘When anyone explicitly [vows].’” It also says (in Ps. 147:19), “He declares His words to Jacob….” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel. “If you bring before me your value equivalents, I will ascribe it to you as if you had offered up your lives before Me.” It is therefore stated (in Lev. 27:2), “When anyone explicitly vows [to the Lord the value of human beings].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “By virtue of the value equivalents (rt.: 'rk) I am saving you from the [fiery] preparation (rt.: 'rk) of Geihinnom,²³Cf. Exod. R. 50:5. as stated (in Is. 30:33), “For Topheth has been prepared (rt.: 'rk) from of old.” And I will prepare a table before you, just as David has stated (in Ps. 23:5), “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.”

R. Simeon ben Johay said:¹⁶See Gen. R. 1:13. Woe to blasphemers who take the name of the Holy One lightly, for one should not say: To the LORD an offering, to the LORD a burnt offering. Rather, < use the biblical wording > (as in Lev. 1:2): WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD; (or as in Numb. 8:12): A SIN OFFERING < … > TO THE LORD; (or as in Lev. 23:18; Numb. 8:12; 28:11, 19; 29:8; Jud. 13:16; etc.): A BURNT OFFERING TO THE LORD; (or as in Gen. 4:3; Is. 66:20; Ezek. 46:14; Mal. 2:12; II Chron. 33:23): A MEAL OFFERING TO THE LORD. Learn (from the Hebrew word order in Gen. 1:1): IN THE BEGINNING CREATED, and after that, GOD. When he mentions his creation,¹⁷Gk.: ktisma. < it is only > afterwards < that > he mentions his name.

(Lev. 27:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [AND SAY UNTO THEM]: WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE (rt.: 'RK) OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT). This text is related (to Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD, [IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS]? The Holy One said: Whoever performs deeds like mine shall be like me.²¹Tanh., Lev. 10:4. R. Levi said: < The matter > is comparable to a king who built a city and lit two lanterns²²Gk.: phanoi, also panoi. within it. The king said: When anyone lights two lanterns like these, I will call him Augustus²³Agustah, from the Lat.: Augusta. and not be jealous of him. Similarly, the Holy One created the heavens and set in them [two lanterns, to give light to the world], the sun and the moon, as stated (in Gen. 1:17): AND GOD SET THEM IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVENS TO GIVE LIGHT UPON THE EARTH. The Holy One said: Whoever makes < lights > like these shall be equal to me. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD? These words can only be words < referring to > light, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:4): HE SHALL SET (rt.: 'RK) UP < THE LAMPS > UPON THE UNALLOYED LAMPSTAND. [Ergo²⁴The bracketed section, which extends to the end of this section (6), is missing from Buber’s main Oxford ms. He has added it from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34, and from the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 1:3. (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD, IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS? That is what it is written (in Is. 40:25): THEN UNTO WHOM WILL YOU LIKEN ME THAT I SHOULD BE EQUAL? SAYS THE HOLY ONE. < The term > HOLY is applied to him just as HOLY is applied to me.

(Lev. 1:1:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES. From where [did he call him]?¹⁸Tanh., Lev. 1:4. From the Tent of Meeting. May his name be blessed forever, because he left the upper world and chose to dwell below in the Tabernacle out of love for Israel. Solomon said (in I Kings 8:27): FOR WILL {THE LORD} GOD REALLY DWELL ON THE EARTH? [EVEN THE HEAVENS AND THE HEAVENS ABOVE THE HEAVENS CANNOT CONTAIN YOU, HOW MUCH LESS THIS HOUSE THAT I HAVE BUILT!] Is there a potter who yearns for vessels of clay? <It is the Holy One>, as it were, (in Jer. 10:16): FOR HE HAS FORMED EVERYTHING. However, out of love (according to Ps. 84:3 [2]): MY SOUL LONGS FOR AND EVEN PINES FOR <THE COURTS OF THE LORD>…. And so it says (in Lev. 1:1): THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES <AND SPOKE UNTO HIM FROM THE TENT OF MEETING>. Moses was great. See what is written (in Gen. 1:5). AND GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY. [There is a "calling" for the one (in Gen. 1:5), and there is a "calling" for the other (in Lev. 1:1). Who is greater, the captor or the captive? You must say: The captive.¹⁹Cf. Gen. R. 78:1; M. Pss. 91:6; 104:3; Sifre, Deut. 11:21 (47); Luke 22:27; also Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Neziqin 18. See what is written. AND GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY.] Now there is no light but Torah, as stated (in Prov. 6:23): FOR THE COMMANDMENT IS A LAMP, AND TORAH IS A LIGHT. Moses captured the Torah, as stated (of him at Sinai in Ps. 68:19 [18]): YOU ASCENDED ON HIGH; YOU CAPTURED [CAPTIVES…. The Holy One said to him: In this world I have made you head <over all Israel >;²⁰The bracketed words come from the traditional Tanh., Lev. 1:4. but in the world to come,²¹This formula normally ends a parashah. Perhaps the fact that the next section jumps to vs. 7 encourages the midrash to use the formula here. when the righteous come to receive their reward, you will come at the head of them all. It is so stated (in Deut. 33:21): AND HE CAME AT THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE….²²This translation is required by the midrash.

(Fol. 63a) Rabina, while sitting before R. Ashi observed a man tying an ass to a tree on the Sabbath. Rabina admonished the man but the latter paid no attention to him, whereupon Rabina said: "Thou art under ban for this." Rabina then said to R. Ashi: "Can this action of mine be regarded as disgraceful?" [Because I have done it in the presence of you, my teacher.] R. Ashi answered: "There us no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord (Pr. 21, 30), i.e., whenever the desecration of the name of the Lord is threatened, no regard must be paid to a teacher." Raba said: "In the presence of his teacher, it is prohibited [for a disciple to decide a legal question] and it involves capital punishment; but in the absence of his teacher [if a disciple does so] it is, of course, prohibited but no capital punishment is involved." And in the absence of his teacher, you say, it does not involve capital punishment. Behold! It is taught that R. Elazar says: "The sons of Aaron did not die for any other sin than that they decided questions of law in the presence of their teacher, Moses. What verse did they interpret? [without asking Moses their teacher:] And the sons of Aaron the priest, shall put fire upon the latter (Lev. 1, 7). Thus they said to themselves: 'Although fire is to descend from heaven [upon the altar], it is nevertheless, a virtuous act to bring common fire.'" There was a disciple of R. Elazar. who decided legal questions in the presence of the latter. Whereupon R. Elazar said unto Ema Salmon, his wife: "I wonder if this disciple will live through this year." And the disciple died within that year. So his wife said to R. Elazar: "Art thou a prophet?" "Neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet," was his answer, "but I have a tradition that whoever decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher is guilty of capital punishment." And Rabba b. Chana said that this disciple was Juda b. Guriah and he was three miles away from his teacher, R. Elazar. [Hence it shows that even in the absence of his teacher, deciding legal questions involves capital punishment.'] It was in his teacher's presence. But R. Jachanan said he was three miles away from his teacher! And according to your own opinion [is there not an objection to be raised]? Wherefore was it necessary to state the disciple's name and his father's name? We must say (that these names are given) that we should not construe the above story as a mere parable. [Therefore it stated all the facts and it was indeed decided in the presence of R. Elazar.] R. Chiya b. Abba, in the name of R. Jochanan, said: "Whoever decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher, deserves to be bitten by a serpent, for it is said (Job 32, 6.) And Elihu, the son of Barachel, the Buzite, commenced, and said: 'Young am I in days, and ye are very old; therefore I hesitated and feared to show you what I Icnoiv.' It is written here vachalei (I feared). and it is written there (Deu. 32. 24.) With the power of serpents (Zochalei) that crawl in the dust." R. Zera said in the name of R. Chanina: "He is to be called sinner, as it is said (Ps. 119, 11.) In my heart have I treasured up thy saying, in order that I may not sin against thee." R. Humnuna raised the following contradictory point: "It is written (Ib.) In my heart, have I treasured up thy saying, and it is written (Ib. 40, 10.) I announce Thy righteousness in the great assembly"; and he himself explained it: "The former was said when Ira, the Yairite [his teacher], was living, [therefore David did not teach others]; and the latter refers to the time when Ira, the Yairite, was dead." R. Abba b. Zabda said: "He who sends his [priestly] gifts unto one priest will bring a famine into the world, for it is said (II Sam. 20, 26.) and Ira, the Yairite, was a priest unto David, etc. Was he a priest unto David only? Behold he was a priest unto all Israel also! We must therefore say that it means 'All the priestly gifts were given unto him by David, and immediately following this it is written (Ib. 21, 1.) And there was a famine for three years in the days of David." R. Elazar said: "He [who decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher] will be deposed from his honorable position, as it is said (Num. 31, 21.) And Elazar, the priest, said unto the men of the army," etc. And although he said that the law was taught to his uncle and not to him, still he was deposed from his honorable position, as it is written (Ib. 27, 28.) And before Elazar, the priest, shall he (Joshua) stand and he shall ask of him after the Judgment of the Urim before the Lord, etc. We, however, do not find an instance where Joshua ever availed himself of Elazar's help."

R. Phinehas the priest, the son of Hama, declared: A woman who is modest in her home atones for her household, just as the altar brings atonement, as it is said: Thy wife shall be a fruitful vine in the innermost parts of thy house (Ps. 128:3). The word innermost refers here to the altar, as is stated: And he shall kill it on the innermost side of the altar (Lev. 1:11).

Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE TO THE LORD? When the Holy One wanted to create Adam, the ministering angels said to the Holy One (in Ps. 8:5 [4]): WHAT IS A HUMAN THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM, AND A CHILD OF ADAM THAT YOU SHOULD THINK OF HIM? What do you want from this human? The Holy One said to them: Who is to fulfill my Torah and my commandments? They said to him: We will fulfill your Torah. He said to them: You are unable. They²⁶Although the Buber text reads “he” here, the context certainly requires the plural, “they.” said to him: Why? He said to them: It is written in < Torah > (in Numb. 19:14): < THIS IS THE TORAH: > WHEN A PERSON DIES IN HIS TENT, but there are none among you who die. It is written in < Torah > (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE, but there are none among you who bear < children >. It is written in < Torah > (in Lev. 11:21): THESE YOU MAY EAT, but in your case there is no eating among you. Ergo, the Torah is not going forth to you, as stated (in Job 28:13): NOR IS < WISDOM > FOUND IN THE LAND OF THE LIVING. Rather when the Holy One said to Israel that they should make a tabernacle for him and < when > they had made it, they began to build the altar of burnt offering, the altar of incense, and to offer sacrifice within it. < Then > the Holy One began to give them several commandments. These commands concerned every single thing, and they carried them out. The Holy One began to say to the ministering Angels: Who among you would prepare (rt.: 'RK) < everything > for me just as Israel prepares (rt.: 'RK) for me? Now you were saying to me (in Ps. 8:5 [4]): WHAT IS A HUMAN THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM…? They prepare (rt.: 'RK) sacrifices for me, just as stated (in Lev. 1:12): AND THE PRIEST SHALL ARRANGE (rt.: 'RK) THEM. They set (rt.: 'RK) tables for me, just as stated (in Lev. 24:8): HE SHALL ARRANGE (rt.: 'RK) IT (i.e., the shewbread) BEFORE THE LORD REGULARLY ON EVERY SABBATH DAY. They prepare (rt.: 'RK) human beings for me, just as stated (in Lev. 27:2): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE (rt.: 'RK) OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT). Ergo (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD (i.e., is capable of making preparations for the Lord)?]

6) I might think that there was kriyah only for this dibbur. Whence is it derived that the same is true for all the dibroth in the Torah? From "from the ohel moed" — from the ohel moed on, kriyah precedes dibbur.

6) — But let this exclude only Israel, who were not found fit to ascend Mount Sinai, but not the elders, who were found fit to do so! (viz. [Shemoth 24:1]: "And to Moses He said: Go up … and seventy of the elders of Israel.") Let it exclude the elders, who were not present at the L–rd's dibbur to Moses (on Mount Sinai after the giving of the Torah, viz. [Shemoth 24:14]: "Abide for us here," in the encampment, with the rest of the people), and not the sons of Aaron, who were present at the L–rd's dibbur to Moses. Let it exclude the sons of Aaron, who were not together with Moses for dibbur, and not Aaron, who was together with Moses for dibbur (viz.: "And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron" — and not to his sons). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 30:6): "… where I shall be appointed for you" — For you there was appointment, but not for (any) of the others.

6) (Vayikra 1:2): "… an offering to the L–rd from the beasts (behemah)": I might think (that this permitted) even (non-domesticated) animals, which are also subsumed in "behemah," viz. (Devarim 14:4): "These are the beasts (behemah) that you may eat: the ox, the sheep … the hart and the roebuck" (animals); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): "from the cattle and from the sheep" (domesticated). I might think that he should not bring ("animals"), but if he did bring them they are permitted — as when one's master tells him: "Go and bring me wheat," and he goes and brings him wheat and barley, in which instance he (merely) adds to his master's words; it is, therefore, written: "from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer" — i.e., from the beasts shall you offer cattle and sheep alone. This is analogous to one's master telling him: "Bring me only wheat, in which instance, if he adds (barley) to wheat, he transgresses his master's words.

6) R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: "it" northward, and not the pesach (offering) northward. Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an olah, for which a time for shechitah was not stipulated, a place for shechitah ("northward") was stipulated — pesach, for which a time for shechitah was stipulated (i.e., after midday), how much more so should a place for shechitah be stipulated! It is, therefore, written "And he shall slaughter it" — "it" northward, and not the pesach northward.

6) (Vayikra 1:9): ("And its innards and its legs he shall wash with water") He shall wash the innards, and he shall wash the legs — even if the innards of one olah got mixed up with those of another, or with those of a temurah. I might think even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:9): "and its innards," to exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin. I would then exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin, but not what got mixed up with higher or lower-order offerings; it is, therefore, written: "and its innards and its legs."

6) (Vayikra 1:13): ("It is" an olah" — even if it were not flayed; even if it were not cut into pieces. — But perhaps (the implication is) even if it were not slaughtered in the north! It is, therefore, written (to negate this supposition): "It." Why do you see fit to make it kasher (in the absence of) flaying and cutting, and pasul (in the absence of) "north"? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I call it kasher (in the absence of) flaying and cutting? Because they follow conciliation (effected by the application of the blood.) Correspondingly, it is pasul (in the absence of) "north," because that precedes conciliation....

6) (Vayikra 1:14): "his offering" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering. Now does it not follow (that a bird may be brought as a communal offering), viz.: A beast-burnt-offering may be brought as vow or gift, and a bird burnt-offering may be brought as vow or gift. Just as the first may be brought as a communal gift offering, so, the second!

6) (Vayikra 1:14): ("… from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons shall be his offering"): His offering shall be turtle-doves and young pigeons, but not his authorization (i.e., they may not serve [as birds (tzipporin) do] as authorization for a leper to re-enter the encampment). For (without the exclusion clause) is it not a kal vachomer (that they should serve as authorization), viz.: If tzipporin, which are not fit to atone (i.e., to be offerings) within (the Temple), are fit to atone (i.e., to serve as authorization) outside — turtle-doves and young pigeons, which are fit to atone within, how much more so should they be fit to atone outside! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "turtle-doves and young pigeons shall be his offering" — but not his authorization.

6) And whence is it derived that the head is smoked by itself? "And the Cohein shall smoke it on the altar" (Ibid. 17) refers to the body. What, then, must "and he shall smoke" (Ibid. 15) refer to? The head. And just as we find with smoking that the head (is smoked) by itself, and the body by itself, so, with melikah, etc.

6) ("And he shall rend it) but he shall not divide it." I might think that if he did divide it, it is pasul; it is, therefore, written: "and (including an instance in which it was divided), he shall smoke." If "and he shall smoke," I might think (it is sacrificed) even if he performed melikah with a knife (instead of with his fingernail); it is, therefore, written: ("and he shall smoke) it." Why do you see fit to make it kasher in the instance of dividing and to make it pasul in that of melikah? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I make dividing kasher? Because it follows conciliation (by the blood). I make melikah (with a knife) pasul because it precedes conciliation.

6) And whence is it derived that the head is smoked by itself? "And the Cohein shall smoke it on the altar" (Ibid. 17) refers to the body. What, then, must "and he shall smoke" (Ibid. 15) refer to? The head. And just as we find with smoking that the head (is smoked) by itself, and the body by itself, so, with melikah, etc.

6) (Vayikra 1:2): "… an offering to the L–rd from the beasts (behemah)": I might think (that this permitted) even (non-domesticated) animals, which are also subsumed in "behemah," viz. (Devarim 14:4): "These are the beasts (behemah) that you may eat: the ox, the sheep … the hart and the roebuck" (animals); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): "from the cattle and from the sheep" (domesticated). I might think that he should not bring ("animals"), but if he did bring them they are permitted — as when one's master tells him: "Go and bring me wheat," and he goes and brings him wheat and barley, in which instance he (merely) adds to his master's words; it is, therefore, written: "from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer" — i.e., from the beasts shall you offer cattle and sheep alone. This is analogous to one's master telling him: "Bring me only wheat, in which instance, if he adds (barley) to wheat, he transgresses his master's words.

6) — No, this may be so with a bird burnt-offering, which cannot come as a prescribed communal offering, but not of a beast burnt-offering, which can come as a prescribed communal offering. — This is countermanded by peace-offerings, which can come as prescribed communal offerings, but not as communal gift offerings.

6) (Vayikra 1:2): "… an offering to the L–rd from the beasts (behemah)": I might think (that this permitted) even (non-domesticated) animals, which are also subsumed in "behemah," viz. (Devarim 14:4): "These are the beasts (behemah) that you may eat: the ox, the sheep … the hart and the roebuck" (animals); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): "from the cattle and from the sheep" (domesticated). I might think that he should not bring ("animals"), but if he did bring them they are permitted — as when one's master tells him: "Go and bring me wheat," and he goes and brings him wheat and barley, in which instance he (merely) adds to his master's words; it is, therefore, written: "from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer" — i.e., from the beasts shall you offer cattle and sheep alone. This is analogous to one's master telling him: "Bring me only wheat, in which instance, if he adds (barley) to wheat, he transgresses his master's words.

6) And it is a kal vachomer (that they should so obtain), viz.: Now if these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, which may come from fowl, how much more so should they obtain with peace-offerings, which may not come from fowl! — No, it may be so with a burnt-offering, where females may not be offered as well as males, but not with peace-offerings, where females may be offered as well as males. And since females may be offered as well as males (we would say that) all of these p'sulin should not obtain with them; it is, therefore, written (the superfluous) "his offering," to include peace-offerings.

6) — No, this may be so with an animal from the cattle, where the libations are greater (in quantity), and not with an animal from the flock, where the libations are less. We might think, since the libations, are less, that it would not require semichah; it is, therefore, written "olah" — Both an olah from the cattle and one from the flock require semichah.

6) sarua: an animal whose thigh has come out of joint. "and kalut": one whose hooves are fused (and not split), as those of an ass. "a gift you may make it": For Temple maintenance. And whence is a vow derived (as similarly permissible)? From "and as a vow." I might think (that it is permissible) even for the altar (i.e., as an offering); it is, therefore, written "it shall not be accepted." This tells me only of a vow. Whence do I derive the same for a gift? (— It is understood as if it were written) "and as a vow and as a gift (for the altar) it will not be received." Rebbi says: It is derived from its context (that altar offerings are being referred to), it being written "and as a vow it shall not be accepted." And which holy thin effects acceptance? The altar (offerings), as it is written (in that context, Vayikra 1:4, "and it shall effect acceptance for him and make atonement for him.")

6) "the sons of Aaron": I might think (that they are fit for the service) even if they are challalim (children of marriages forbidden to Cohanim); it is, therefore, written (Ibid.): "the Cohanim" — to exclude challalim. I would exclude these, but not those who are blemished. It is, therefore, written "the sons of Aaron." Just as Aaron is kasher, so, his children — to exclude challalim and those who are blemished.

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) This tells me (that flaying is required) only of a (burnt-offering) that was slaughtered lishmah (i.e., with the intent that it be a burnt-offering). Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered lo lishmah (i.e., with a different intent)? From "the burnt-offering." Whatever is a burnt-offering requires flaying.

6) (Vayikra 1:9): ("And its innards and its legs he shall wash with water") He shall wash the innards, and he shall wash the legs — even if the innards of one olah got mixed up with those of another, or with those of a temurah. I might think even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:9): "and its innards," to exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin. I would then exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin, but not what got mixed up with higher or lower-order offerings; it is, therefore, written: "and its innards and its legs."

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. This text is related (to Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, [BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NPShWT)]. This refers to the Torah, because when one is a Torah scholar (literally: child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (NPShWT), as stated (ibid.): BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES.²⁷Tanh., Lev. 10:5. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he forfeited his daughter.²⁸Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the children of Ammon and made a vow, as stated (in Jud. 11:30–31): THEN JEPHTHAH MADE A VOW TO THE LORD, < AND SAID: IF YOU INDEED GIVE THE CHILDREN OF AMMON INTO MY HAND, > THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…, < SHALL BELONG TO THE LORD, AND I WILL OFFER IT UP AS A BURNT OFFERING >. At that time the Holy One was angry with him. The Holy One said: If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to me. The Holy One summoned his daughter to him, as stated (in Jud. 11:34–35): AND THERE WAS HIS DAUGHTER COMING OUT TO MEET HIM <…. > AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE SAW HER, < THAT HE RENT HIS CLOTHES…. > But was not Phinehas there?²⁹As a high priest he could have annulled the vow, as explained in Eccl. R. 10:15:1, as well as in Gen. R. 60:5 and Lev. R. 37:4. Still he said (in vs. 35): AND I CANNOT RETRACT. However, Phinehas had said: I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus 'am ha'arets)? But Jephthah said: I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?³⁰Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the Holy Spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7): AND HE WAS BURIED IN THE CITIES OF GILEAD.³¹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. His daughter had said to him: My Father, is it ever written in the Torah: They offer the lives (NPShWT) of their sons upon the alter? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2): [WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD FROM THE CATTLE], < YOU SHALL PRESENT YOUR OFFERING > FROM THE HERD OR FROM THE FLOCK, < i.e., > from the cattle and not from the children of Adam? He said to her: My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31): THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…. [She said to him:] When our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22): AND OF ALL THAT YOU GIVE ME, I WILL SURELY SET ASIDE A TITHE FOR YOU, and when the Holy One gave him twelve tribes, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? [Moreover, does not Hannah < do likewise >, when she makes a vow and says (in I Sam. 1:11): THEN I WILL GIVE HIM TO THE LORD ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE. Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One?] All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. She said to him: Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words. Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37): LEAVE ME ALONE FOR TWO MONTHS, [SO THAT I MAY GO AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS]. R. Levi ben Berekhyah said: Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS? These represent the Sanhedrin,³²Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2): HEAR, O MOUNTAINS, THE LAWSUIT OF THE LORD. [She³³The bracketed section, which continues to near the end of the paragraph, is taken from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34, and from the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 10:7. went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow. So it is with reference to him that the Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3): A POOR MAN WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT IS A TORRENTIAL RAIN WHICH LEAVES NO BREAD. A POOR MAN: This is Jephthah, since he was poor in the Torah. He was a < mere > sycamore shoot.³⁴The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT, since he exploited the indigent, when he said (in Jud. 12:6): SAY: SHIBBOLETH; AND HE SAID SIBBOLETH. Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) A TORRENTIAL RAIN, AND THERE IS NO BREAD, in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.): THERE IS NO BREAD, in that the Holy One had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One. Then the Holy Spirit proclaimed: Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (NPShWT) to me, < lives > (according to Jer. 19:5), WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED, NEVER SPOKE FOR, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND. WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12): DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND AGAINST THE LAD…. < It was > in order to make known to you how Abraham carried out my will, when the nations of the world were saying: Why does the Holy One love Abraham so much? For that reason he said to him (in Gen. 22:2): PLEASE TAKE YOUR SON…. Ergo (in Jer. 19:5): WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED Abraham, certainly not to slaughter his son, NEVER SPOKE FOR to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to me, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND, that the king of Moab would fall into the hand of the King of Israel and offer up his firstborn son to me as a sacrifice, as stated (in II Kings 3:27): SO HE TOOK HIS FIRSTBORN SON, WHO WOULD BECOME KING IN HIS STEAD, AND OFFERED HIM UP AS A BURNT OFFERING UPON THE WALL.] Who caused Jephthah to forfeit his daughter? < He himself > because he had not studied the Torah; for if he had studied the Torah, he would not had forfeited his daughter, since it is written (in Lev. 27:2, 4): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS < TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT) >…. AND IF IT IS A FEMALE < …. > Ergo (in Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, < BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NPShWT) >.

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

(Lev. 1:7:) AND THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST SHALL PUT FIRE UPON THE ALTAR, AND THEY SHALL LAY WOOD IN ORDER UPON THE FIRE.²³Tanh., Lev. 1:5. (Tamid 2:3:) ALL OF THE TREES ARE PROPER FOR <ALTAR> FIREWOOD EXCEPT THE VINE AND THE OLIVE.²⁴TMen. 9:14; Sifra to Lev. 1:7, Wayyiqra, pereq 6. Why? Because they produce excellent fruit.²⁵Cf. Tamid 29b. See, you have learned that by virtue of sons, fathers are honored.

(Lev. 1:7:) AND THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST SHALL PUT FIRE UPON THE ALTAR, AND THEY SHALL LAY WOOD IN ORDER UPON THE FIRE.²³Tanh., Lev. 1:5. (Tamid 2:3:) ALL OF THE TREES ARE PROPER FOR <ALTAR> FIREWOOD EXCEPT THE VINE AND THE OLIVE.²⁴TMen. 9:14; Sifra to Lev. 1:7, Wayyiqra, pereq 6. Why? Because they produce excellent fruit.²⁵Cf. Tamid 29b. See, you have learned that by virtue of sons, fathers are honored.

7) I might think that kriyah preceded only dibbur. Whence is it derived that the same is true for amiroth ("sayings") and tzivuyin ("commandings") as well? R. Shimon said: From (Ibid. 2): "daber … ve'amarta" — the same applies to amiroth and tzivuyin.

7) — But let this exclude them only from appointment (i.e., meeting in the ohel moed), but not from dibroth! — It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 25:22): "and I will speak to you." — But let this exclude (from dibroth) only Israel, but not the elders! Let it exclude the elders, but not the sons of Aaron! — Let it exclude the sons of Aaron, but not Aaron himself! It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 29:42): "to speak to you" — With you there was dibbur, and not with any of the others.

7) (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle": As we have said before (Section 2:10) — to exclude treifah; "a male," and not a female. As for (Vayikra 1:10): "a male," this is to exclude a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite.

7) R. Chiyyah says: "it" northward, but the slaughterer need not stand in the north. For since we find that the receiver (of the blood) must stand in the north and receive in the north, and that if he stood in the south and received in the north it is pasul, we might think that the same is true of the slaughterer; it is, therefore, written "it" — it (must be slaughtered) in the north, but the shochet need not stand with it in the north. (But he may stand southward and slaughter it with a long knife.)

7) "and he shall cut it into its pieces": I might think that he cuts its pieces into pieces; it is, therefore, written "it" — it into its pieces, and not its pieces into pieces. I might think that even an animal that is pasul requires flaying and cutting; it is, therefore, written "it" — an animal that is kasher, and not one that is pasul. And one that is pasul, which was placed on the altar, is sacrificed as it is (without flaying and cutting).

7) "an olah" — even if he did not perform semichah. Now does not semichah precede conciliation? Even if he did not perform semichah, it is kasher. Why did you see fit to make it kasher (in the absence of) semichah, and to make it pasul in the absence of "north"? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I call it kasher (in the absence of) semichah? Because semichah does not obtain with all oloth. I call it pasul (in the absence of) "north," because "north" obtains with all oloth.

7) No, this is refuted by a meal-offering, which is brought (by an individual) as gift or vow, but which is not brought as a communal gift-offering. No, that may be so with a meal-offering, which may not be offered (in partnership) by two (persons), as opposed to a bird burnt-offering, which may be brought by two. This is refuted by peace-offerings, which may be brought by two, but which may not be brought as a communal gift-offering.

7) kal vachomer that tzipporin should be kasher to atone within: If turtle-doves and young pigeons, which are not fit to atone outside (see above), are fit to atone within — tzipporin, which are fit to atone outside, how much more so should they be fit to atone within! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "and he shall offer from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons, his offering." Only these are kasher for offerings from the fowl.

7) "And its blood shall be wrung out" — the blood of all of it. He holds both the head and the body and wrings (the blood of) both of them out against the wall of the altar — not the wall of the ramp, not the wall of the foundation, not the wall of the heichal, but the upper wall of the altar (i.e., above the red line). I might think (he could do so) on the lower wall, and derive it by kal vachomer, viz.: If the (blood of the) sin-offering of a beast is (applied) above (the red line), and the (blood of its) burnt-offering, below — the (blood of the) sin-offering of a bird, whose blood is (applied) below (the red line), how much more so should (the blood of) its burnt-offering be applied below! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "And he shall pinch its head and smoke it on the altar, and its blood shall be wrung out against the wall of the altar." "the altar" mentioned in respect to smoking is "the altar" mentioned in respect to wringing. Just as smoking is "above," so is wringing.

7) ("It is) a burnt-offering" — even if he wrung out the blood of the body and not that of the head. — But perhaps (the intent is) even if he wrung out the blood of the head and not that of the body! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "It is a burnt-offering" (connoting the greater part of it). "a burnt-offering, a fire-offering, a savor, sweet, to the L–rd": "a burnt-offering" — to that end (i.e., he must have that intent); "a fire-offering" — to that end (i.e., to exclude charring it instead of burning its ashes); "a savor" — to that end (to exclude roasting it beforehand); "sweet" (nichoach) — to give pleasure (nachath ruach); "to the L–rd" — to the Creator of the world.

4) kllal ufrat (general-specific): (Vayikra 1:2): "A man, if he offer from you an offering to the L–rd, from the beasts, from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer your offering." "from the beasts" — general (i.e., all animals); "from the cattle and from the sheep" — specific (i.e., domesticated animals) — the general subsumes only the specific (i.e., domesticated, and not non-domesticated animals).

7) "from the beasts" (but not all) — to exclude (animals used for sodomy), rovea (active) and nirva (passive). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is a verse needed to exclude them? (the kal vachomer:) If an animal with a blemish, which was not the object of transgression, is pasul (unfit) for the altar, rovea and nirva, which were objects of transgression, does it not follow that they should be unfit for the altar?

7) Likewise, you should not wonder if a beast burnt-offering, though it can come as a prescribed communal offering, could not come as a communal gift offering; it is, therefore, written "your (plural) offerings," to teach us that it can come as a communal gift offering.

7) (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle": As we have said before (Section 2:10) — to exclude treifah; "a male," and not a female. As for (Vayikra 1:10): "a male," this is to exclude a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite.

7) I might think that a bird burnt-offering also required semichah; it is, therefore, written "the olah" — to exclude a bird burnt-offering.

7) "and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present the blood and they shall dash the blood." Why the repetition? Whence is it derived that if the blood of an olah got intermixed with that of a different olah, or with that of a temurah or with that of chullin, that it should be offered? From "the blood." I might think that this is so because the same applies even to live animals that got mixed up (see Section 3:14). Whence do I derive that the same applies even if it (the blood) became intermixed with that of an asham (where the same does not apply to live animals?) I would include asham, for both (olah and asham) are higher-order offerings. And whence would I derive that the same applies even with shelamim and todah? I would include shelamim and todah, for both (these and olah) entail four applications (of blood upon the altar). And whence would I derive that the same applies even with bechor, ma'aser and pesach? From (the repetition of) "the blood."

7) "and he shall cut it into its pieces": I might think that he cuts its pieces into pieces; it is, therefore, written "it" — it into its pieces, and not its pieces into pieces. I might think that even an animal that is pasul requires flaying and cutting; it is, therefore, written "it" — an animal that is kasher, and not one that is pasul. And one that is pasul, which was placed on the altar, is sacrificed as it is (without flaying and cutting).

7) "he shall wash": I might think that just as "washing" written elsewhere (in respect to one who has had an emission) is with forty sa'ah, here, too, forty sa'ah are required. It is, therefore, written "with water" — any amount. "with water" — and not with wine; "with water" — and not with diluted wine; "with water" — all water (even "gathered" [i.e., non-flowing] water) — how much more so with water (fit for) the (Temple) laver, (which is flowing water [but not with the water of the laver itself].)

And He called to Moshe: And why does it say, "And He called?" Rather it is is because it stated above (Exodus 40:35), "and Moshe could not come to the Tent of Meeting" - when the Divine Presence rested upon the Tent of Meeting. And he could not come since the cloud [of glory] was resting upon it. Hence the Holy One, blessed be He, called him. "Saying": What is "saying?" To say to the Children of Israel. "A man from you that brings a sacrifice": Why does it state, "a man (adam)" and it does not say, "eesh?" It wants to say, when a man sins like Adam (the first man) started to sin - he should bring a sacrifice. Why does it state, "from the beast," when it [also] states, "from the cattle or the sheep?" Rather, it wanted to say [that we should] distinguish them from the beast; that his soul does not descend to the lowest pit like the beast, the soul of which descends below to the earth - as it is stated (Ecclesiastes 3:21), "Who knows if the [soul] of man ascends above, and the [soul] of the beast is the one that descends below." And truly does a man not know? Rather it is like the verse stated (Joel 2:14), "Who knows, [God] may turn and regret" - and this is its understanding: He "who knows" that he is a sinner, should "turn" to "God," and He will atone for him for all of his iniquities. What is "and regret?" Rather, He will relent about the bad that He planned to do to him. And likewise it is saying [here], "Who is the one that knows and understands and has intelligence and understanding - he will understand and know that the soul of man ascends above to the place from which it was fashioned, and the spirit of the beast descends below to earth." As so did King Shlomo, peace be upon him, state (Ecclesiastes 12:7), "and the spirit returns to God who gave it." And which spirit returns to "God who gave it?" These are the spirits of the righteous ones, the pious ones and the penitents who stand in front of Him in great stature. And that is the life that has no death with it, and the good which has [nothing] bad with it. This is the [meaning of] that which is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:7), "so that it shall be good for you," forever. And we learned from the heard tradition, "'so that is shall be good to you,' in the world that is completely good; 'and you shall have length of days,' in the world that is completely long." And the reward of the righteous is that they will merit and live for the good. Happy is the man that merited good and delight; may the Omnipresent have us merit it with the righteous! And the early sages have already informed us that man does not have the ability to investigate and speak [about] the goodnesses of the world to come, as it has no measure, nor comparison nor model. And so did the verse state (Isaiah 64:3), "no eye has seen, God, but You, who acts for those who wait for Him" - meaning to say, the good that no eye has seen besides You, God. And that which they called it, "the world to come," is not because it is not found now. [Rather,] for us who are in this world now, it is [still] to come. And hence he says, the world to come - after a man leaves this world. And one who says that [first] this world is destroyed, and afterwards comes the world to come - the matter is not like that. Rather, when the righteous depart from the world, they immediately ascend and stand in this stature, as it is stated (Psalms 31:20), "How great is Your goodness that You have stored for those that fear You, that You have done for those that take refuge in You." But [the souls] of the evildoers float throughout the whole world and do not find rest for the soles of their feet. And they only ascend to the place from which they were fashioned [after] twelve months. What does it do [during this time]? It goes to the grave and comes back, and its seeing the body rotten and that it is maggots and worms is difficult for it. To what is the thing comparable? To a man that had a nice house and it fell. He goes to see it every day, that thorns are growing on it, brambles are covering its face and its stone fence is destroyed - and he cries and mourns over it, since he sees it like this. And so is the spirit floating throughout all of the world and coming back to the grave. And so did our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say (Berakhot 18b), "Maggots are as harsh for the dead as a needle for the flesh of the living." And from where [do we know] that the soul mourns over it? As it is stated (Job 14:22), "But his flesh pains him, and his soul mourns over it." That is [the meaning of] "the beast" - and it is destroyed like a beast. And therefore it stated, "from the beast," and it stated "from the cattle and from the sheep" - since they will offer from the cattle and from the sheep, so that his soul not descend below like a beast. And why do we offer sacrifices from fowl, from lambs, from sheep and from goats, but not from fish - as it is stated, "if from the fowl is his burnt-offering sacrifice?" Rather, since they are flesh and blood like man and they come out of the belly of their mothers like man, [so too, do] they atone for a man. But fish are eggs - they come out of them and live. Our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said "Any image that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the dry land, He [also] created in the ocean with fish." Rabbi Tarfon said, "The fish was designated from the six days of creation to swallow Yonah, as it is stated (Jonah 2:1), 'And the Lord designated a great fish.'" Yonah fled from his God on the fifth day. And why did he flee? Rather the first time, [God] sent him to restore the border of Israel; and his words were fulfilled, as it is stated (II Kings 14:25), "He restored the border of Israel." The second time, He sent him to Jerusalem to destroy it; but the Holy One, blessed be He, worked up His great mercies and relented from the bad, and did not destroy it. And [so] they would call him a false prophet. The third time, He sent him to Nineveh to destroy it. Yonah judged the case between him and himself - Yonah said: I know that the [other] nations are close to repentance. Now if I go on my mission, they will repent immediately and the Holy One, blessed be He, is long-suffering and of great kindness - at the time that they repent, He will immediately have mercy [on them]. And the Holy One, blessed be He will [resultantly] become enraged towards Israel, as He did at the time of Sancheriv. When Ravshakeh came to blaspheme the living God, he said, "You are saying that mere words of the lips is counsel and valor for war; now, on whom are you relying, that you have rebelled against me? And if you tell me, 'we are relying on the Lord, our God,' He is the one whose shrines and altars Hizkiyahu did away with" (II Kings 18:20, 22) - what did Hizkiyahu do at that time? "And Hizkiyahu prayed to the Lord and said, 'Lord, God of Israel, enthroned on the cherubs - You alone are God of all the kingdoms of the earth; You made the heavens and the earth. Lord, incline Your ear and hear; open Your eyes and see - hear the words that Sancheriv has sent to blaspheme the living God!' And Yishayahu son of Amots sent to Hizkiyahu, saying, 'Thus said the Lord, God of Israel, "I have heard that which you prayed to Me concerning King Sancheriv of Assyria. I will [delude] him, etc."' (II Kings 19:15-16, 20, 7)." And four hundred angels armed with swords and spears came and drove him away, etc. - "And it was on that night that an angel of the Lord went out and smote one hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp, and the following morning behold, they were all dead corpses. And King Sancheriv of Assyria moved and went and returned, and he stayed in Nineveh" (II Kings 19:25-26). He said to [his] sages, "Why is the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, with Israel more than all the nations of the world?" They said to him, "They had an ancient father and his name was Avraham, and he went to slaughter his son to bring up as a burnt-offering." He said to them, "Did he slaughter him?" They said to him, "No." He said to them, "[With] him, it was because it was his will to slaughter [his son, that] there was [such] love between him and his God." He said, "I will [then actually] slaughter my son and bring him up as a burnt-offering." And so did he do, as it is stated (II Kings 3:27), "And he took his first-born son, who was to reign in his place, and brought him up as a burnt-offering." [So] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "How much do the nations of the world, to whom I did not give statutes and judgments, do for My name; as it is stated (Malachi 1:11), 'and everywhere incense is presented for My name.'" [And] immediately, "and a great wrath came upon Israel" (II Kings 3:27). Therefore Yonah said, "The nations will repent and the anger of the Holy One, blessed be He, will be upon Israel; as He will say, 'The nations, to whom I did not give statutes and judgments - when I make a decree upon them and they know [about it], they immediately repent. But Israel is not like this, as I send them My prophets all the time, yet they are stiff-necked.' And therefore, 'a great wrath [will come] upon Israel.'" And not only does Israel call him a false prophet, but even the nations of the world [will] call him so. Yonah said, "I am fleeing from in front of Him to a place where His glory is not [found]. What shall I do? If I ascend to the heavens, His glory is there, as it is stated (Psalms 113:4), 'upon the heavens is His glory.' And if upon the earth, His glory is there [too], as it is stated (Isaiah 6:3), 'the whole earth is full of His glory.' Behold, I will flee to the sea, as His glory is not stated there." [So] he went down to Jaffa, but he did not find a ship to board there. And the ship that Yonah would board upon was two days' journey away from Jaffa, in order to test Yonah. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He brought a great storm in the sea and brought [the ship quickly] to Jaffa. And Yonah saw this and rejoiced in his heart and said, "Now, I know that my path is straight in front of me." And he did not know that the Holy One, blessed be He, was causing the thing to let him know that His glory was there (in the sea). He said to [the boatsmen], "I will come with you." And the way of all ships is that when a man exits from them, he gives his payment. But in the joy of Yonah's heart, He preceded and gave his wage [right away], as it is stated (Jonah 1:3), "And Yonah arose to flee to Tarshish from in front of the Lord [... and he gave its pay]." And they traveled the distance of a day, and a great storm came upon them in the sea from their right and from their left. And the way of all ships is to come and go in peace and quiet. And the ship upon which Yonah boarded was in great distress to break apart, as it is stated (Jonah 1:4), "And the Lord placed a great wind upon the sea." Rabbi Chaninah said, "[Men of all] the seventy languages were in the ship, and each and every one had his god in his hand." They said, "The god that answers and saves us from this distress, he is the [true] God." And they stood and each man cried out in the name of his god, but they did not help. [Meanwhile,] Yonah dozed off and was sleeping in the distress of his soul; and the captain came to him. He said to him, "Behold, we are standing between death and life, and you are dozing off? From which people are you?" He said to them, "I am a Hebrew." They said to him, "And have we not heard that the God of the Hebrews is great? 'Cry out to your God' (Jonah 1:6). Maybe He will do for us like all of His wonders at the Red Sea." He said to them, "This distress has come upon you because of me, as I am fleeing from in front of Him, as I thought that His glory was not in the sea, and now I see that His glory is on the dry land and in the sea." He said to them, "Because of me; 'Lift me and put me in the sea, and the sea will be quiet upon you' (Jonah 1:12)." Rabbi Shimon said, "The men did not accept from Yonah to drop him into the sea; and [so] they cast lots, as it is stated (Jonah 2:7), 'and they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Yonah.'" What did they do? They took the vessels that were on the ship and threw them to the sea to make themselves lighter, but it did not help a bit. They sought to return to dry land, but they were not able, as it is stated (Jonah 1:13), "And the men rowed, etc." What did they do? They took Yonah and stood him upon the edge of the ship and said, "God of the world, Lord, 'do not put innocent blood upon us' (Jonah 1:14), as we do not know what is the nature of this man; yet he says to us with his mouth, 'because of me has this distress come upon you.'" They placed him [into the sea] until his knees, and the sea stopped from its fury. They [then] took him back towards them, and the sea stormed against them. They placed him [into the sea] until his navel, and the sea stopped from its fury. They [then] took him back towards them, and it stormed against them. They placed him completely [in the sea, and] the sea was immediately quiet from its fury, as it is stated (Jonah 1:15), "And they lifted Yonah and placed him, etc." "And the Lord designated a great fish to swallow Yonah, and Yonah was in the innards of the fish three days and three nights"(Jonah 2:1) - and Yonah entered its mouth, like a man that enters a large synagogue, and the two eyes of the fish were like opened windows giving light to Yonah. Rabbi Meir said, "A pearl was hanging in the innards of the fish, and it would give light to Yonah, like the sun lights up in its strength in the afternoon. And Yonah could see everything that was in the sea and that was in the depths, as it is stated (Psalms 97:11), "Light is planted for the righteous, and joy for the righteous of heart." The fish said to Yonah, "Do you not know that my time has come to be eaten into the mouth of the Leviathan?" He said to it, "Take me there and I will save you, and my soul." It took him to the Leviathan. He said to the Leviathan, "Because of you have I come to see your dwelling place in the sea. And not only that, but in the future I will come down to put a rope on your neck and to bring you up for the great meal of the righteous ones." He showed it his seal from Avraham, our father (his circumcision). The Leviathan saw it and fled the journey of two days from before Yonah. He said to the fish, "Behold, I saved you from the mouth of the Leviathan; [now] show me all that is in the sea and in the depths." And [so] it showed him the great river of the waters of the ocean, as it is stated (Yonah 2:6), "up to my soul was the deep." And it showed him the paths of the Red (literally Reed) Sea, as it is stated, "reeds are twined around my head." And it showed him the place from where the breakers of the sea and its waves go out, as it is stated (Yonah 2:4), "all Your breakers and waves passed over me." And it showed him the pillars of the Earth in its foundation, as it is stated (Jonah 2:7), "the bars of the earth were around me forever." And it showed him Geihinnom, as it is written (Jonah 2:3), "from the belly of the pit I cried out; You heard my voice." And it showed him under the Chamber of God, as it is stated (Jonah 2:7), "I descended to the bases of the mountains." From here we learn that Jerusalem stands on seven mountains. And he saw the Stone of the Foundation there, set in the depths. And he saw the sons of Korach, standing and praying upon it. It said to Yonah, "Behold, you are standing under the Chamber of the Lord; pray and you shall be answered." Immediately Yonah said to the fish, "Stand in the place that you are standing, as I would like to recite a prayer." And the fish stopped. And Yonah began to pray in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, "Master of the Universe, You have been called the One that brings down and raises up - behold, I have gone down, [now] raise me up; You have been called the One that brings death and that brings life - behold, my soul has reached death, [now] bring me life." And he was not answered until [this] came out from his mouth (Jonah 2:10): "that which I have vowed, I will fulfill, etc." - "That which I have vowed" to bring up the Leviathan in front of You, "I will fulfill" on the day of Israel's salvation, as it is stated, "But I, with loud thanksgiving, will sacrifice to You that which I have vowed." And immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, indicated [to the fish], and it spewed Yonah out to the dry land, as it is stated (Jonah 2:11), "And the Lord said to the fish, and it spewed Jonah out to the dry land." When the sailors saw all of the great miracles, signs and wonders that the Holy One, blessed be He, did with Yonah, they got up and every man cast away his god, as it is stated (Jonah 2:9), "They who preserve the vanities of emptiness forsake their kindness." And they went back to Jaffa and went up to Jerusalem, and they circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, as it is stated (Jonah 1:15), "And the men feared a great fear of the Lord, and they slaughtered a sacrifice to the Lord and they made vows" - and did they slaughter a sacrifice? Rather, [this was] circumcision, which is like the blood of a sacrifice. And each man of them vowed to bring his children and everything that he had to the God of Yonah. And they vowed and they fulfilled [it]. And about them is it said, the converts were righteous converts.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS. The nations say (in Micah 6:6–7): WITH WHAT SHALL I COME BEFORE THE LORD, BOW MYSELF BEFORE GOD ON HIGH? [….] DOES THE LORD WANT THOUSANDS OF RAMS […? SHALL I GIVE MY FIRSTBORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION, THE FRUIT OF MY BELLY FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL?] The Holy One said to them: Do you want to offer your children to me? Neither your children nor your sacrifices do I want. For my children I have given a parashah on values (in Lev. 27:1–8) and a parashah on sacrifices, < i.e. > which of your offerings are acceptable to me (in Lev. 1). And so it says (in Ps. 37:16): BETTER IS THE LITTLE THAT THE RIGHTEOUS ONE HAS. You yourself know what is at the beginning of the book (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, [AND SAY UNTO THEM]: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING, < i.e. > OF YOU, and not "of the nations." Then at the end of the book < one finds > (in Lev. 27:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. It also says (in Ps. 147:19): HE DECLARES HIS WORDS TO JACOB…. The Holy One said to Israel: If you bring before me your value equivalents, I will ascribe it to you as if you had offered up your lives before me. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 27:2): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS…. The Holy One said: By virtue of the value equivalents (rt.: 'RK) I am saving you from the < fiery > preparation (rt.: 'RK) of Gehinnom,³⁵Cf. Exod. R. 50:5. as he has written about it (in Is. 30:33): FOR TOPHETH HAS BEEN PREPARED (rt.: 'RK) FROM OF OLD; and I will prepare a table before you, just as David has stated (in Ps. 23:5): YOU PREPARE A TABLE BEFORE ME IN THE PRESENCE OF MY ENEMIES; YOU ANOINT MY HEAD WITH OIL; MY CUP OVERFLOWS.

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

“I also gathered for myself silver and gold, and the treasure of kings and countries; I acquired for myself songsters and songstresses, and chests and wagons of the pleasures of people” (Ecclesiastes 2:8).
“I also gathered for myself silver and gold” – that is what is written: “The king made the silver in Jerusalem as stones” (I Kings 10:27). Is it possible that [silver was placed] as stones on paths and in courtyards and was not stolen? It is because they were large, ten-cubit stones and eight-cubit stones. It is taught: Even the weights during the reign of Solomon were made of gold, and they would use weights of gold, [even the weight of] a kanterin.¹⁸A talent; a very large measure. Each and every weight, large and small, was of gold.
“And the treasure of kings” – as it is stated: “All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon” (II Chronicles 9:23). “And countries [vehamedinot]” – this is the queen of Sheba, who would challenge [medayyenet] him with her wisdom and her questions, but was unable to overcome him, as it is stated: “She came to challenge him with riddles” (I Kings 10:1). “King Solomon gave the Queen of Sheba all her desires that she requested” (I Kings 10:13).¹⁹The Hebrew verse cited does not correspond exactly to the actual verse. “I acquired for myself songsters and songstresses” – male singers and female singers; “the pleasures of people” – pools of flowing water and bathhouses; “chests [shidda] and wagons [veshiddot]” – demons [sheida] and demonesses [vesheideta], who would heat them.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Neḥemya said: Does the verse come to teach us only of Solomon’s wealth? It is speaking only regarding matters of Torah. “I increased my actions [maasai]” – this is what is written: “The tablets were the work [maaseh] of God” (Exodus 32:16). “I built myself houses” – these are synagogues and study halls. “I planted myself vineyards” – these are the rows of Torah scholars who sit in rows like a vineyard, as it is taught in a mishna: This exposition was expounded by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne.²⁰Mishna Ketubot 4:6. Was it in fact a vineyard? Rather, these are Torah scholars who sit in rows like a vineyard.
“I made myself gardens and orchards” (Ecclesiastes 2:5) – these are the great compendia of baraitot like the compendium of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great, and the compendium of Rabbi Hoshaya the Great, and the compendium of bar Kappara. “And I planted in them trees of every fruit” (Ecclesiastes 2:5) – this is the Talmud that is included in them.²¹The great compendia of baraitot include expositions typical of the Talmud. “I made myself pools of water” (Ecclesiastes 2:6) – Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great said: These are the expositions. “To irrigate from them a forest which grows trees” (Ecclesiastes 2:6) – these are the children who study. Rabbi Naḥman said: This is the Talmud. “To irrigate from them a forest which grows trees” – these are the Torah scholars who study.
“I purchased myself slaves and maidservants” (Ecclesiastes 2:7) – these are the nations, as it is stated: “Upon the slaves and upon the maidservants, too, in those days I will pour out My spirit” (Joel 3:2). as it is written in Isaiah: “Strangers will stand and graze your flocks…” (Isaiah 61:5). “And I had stewards[benei bayit]” (Ecclesiastes 2:7) – this is the Divine Spirit.²²The term benei bayit literally means “household members.” Thus, the midrash is stating that the Divine Spirit was regularly present in Solomon’s home. “I also had great possession of herds and flocks” (Ecclesiastes 2:7) – these are offerings; this is what is written: “From the herds and the flocks you shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 1:2). “I also gathered for myself silver and gold” – these are matters of Torah, as it is stated: “More desirable than gold” (Psalms 19:11). “And the treasure of kings,” as it is stated: “Through me kings reign.… through me princes rule” (Proverbs 8:15–16).²³Torah scholars rule the world. “And countries [medinot]” – these are the Torah scholars, who deliberate [medainin] in halakha. “I acquired for myself songsters and songstresses” – these are the Tosefta.²⁴The men recite and memorize the halakhot relevant to them, and the women recite and memorize the halakhot relevant to them. “And the pleasures” – these are the aggadot, which are the pleasures of the biblical text; “chests [shidda] and wagons [shiddot]” – male judges and female judges.

8) I might think that it applied to hafsakoth (pauses, parshiyoth,) as well; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 1): "vayedaber" — there was kriyah only for dibbur and not for hafsakoth.

8) I might think that they did not hear the dibbur (i.e., the enunciated words), but that they did hear the voice (of the L–rd); it is, therefore written (Numbers 7:89): "And he heard the voice speaking (to him") — The voice (itself, aside from the words) was to him alone. Let this exclude Israel but not the elders! Let it exclude the elders but not the sons of Aaron. Let it exclude the sons of Aaron, but not Aaron himself! It is, therefore, written: "the voice speaking to him" — alone!

8) (Vayikra 1:11): "And he shall slaughter it at the foot of the altar northward": The foot was in the north. And where was the face? In the south — whence we derive that the ramp was in the south. R. Yehudah says (Ezekiel 43:17): "And its rising turned to the east." One who ascended it, turned to his right, to the east — whence we derive that the ramp was in the south.

8) ("a burnt-offering, a fire offering, a savor, sweet, to the L–rd":) "a burnt-offering" — to that end (i.e., he must have that intent); "a fire-offering" — to that end (i.e., to exclude charring it instead of burning it to ashes); "a savor" — to that end (to exclude roasting it beforehand); "sweet" (nichoach) — to give pleasure (nachath ruach); "to the L–rd" — to the Creator of the world.

8) No, it may be that peace-offerings may not be brought as communal gift-offerings because they are excluded (from sacrifice) by (absence of) wholeness or of maleness, as opposed to birds, which are not thus excluded. And since they are not thus excluded, (we would say, without an exclusion clause,) that they may be brought as communal gift offerings. It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering.

8) R. Yehudah said: Now if in a case (that of a rich leper), where the authorization (to eat consecrated food) within is similar to the atonement within, (i.e., in both instances it is a beast [that is sacrificed]), the authorization (tzipporin) outside is different (i.e., it is a bird), then in a case (that of a poor leper), where the authorization within (i.e., a beast) is not similar to the atonement within (turtle-doves or young pigeons), how much more so should it follow that the authorization outside should be different! (so that we would know even without the exclusion clause that he could not bring turtle-doves or young pigeons for that authorization!) — That kal vachomer would serve for a poor leper; but whence would we derive the same for a rich leper (where even turtle-doves or young pigeons would satisfy the "difference" requirement for outside authorization, [inside authorization being effected by a beast])? It is, therefore, written: "from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons, his offering" — and not his (outside) authorization.

8) How was this done? He (the Cohein) ascended the ramp and turned to the sovev (the gallery around the altar). When he came to the northeast corner, he pinched its head alongside its oref, sundered it, and wrung out its blood on the wall of the altar. And if he processed it beneath his feet, even as much as one ell, it is kasher, (this still being above the red line). R. Nechemiah and R. Eliezer b. Yaakov say: All of it must be done near the top of the altar.

8) From here they ruled: If one designates an unblemished animal for Temple maintenance, he transgresses a positive commandment. Whence is it derived that he also transgresses a negative commandment? From (Vayikra 1:17): "And the L–rd spoke to Moses lemor" (also construable as "lo amar" ["He said not"]. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: There is no transgression here of a negative commandment.

8) — No, this is refuted by the instance of an ox plowing together with an ass, where, even though the ox was the object of transgression, it is kasher for the altar. — No, in that instance the animals are not to be killed, whereas rovea and nirva are to be killed. — "Take what you have brought" (i.e., let us grant this); still, (without the exclusion clause) I would know that they (rovea and nirva) are pasul only if they were the (proved) objects of transgression by the testimony of two witnesses. If there were only one witness, or only the testimony of the owner, whence would I derive this (that they are pasul, if not for the exclusion clause?) R. Yishmael said: I could derive it through a kal vachomer, viz.: If a blemished animal, which is not made pasul for eating by the testimony (to the blemish) of two witnesses, is made pasul for sacrifice by the testimony of one witness or of the owner — then rovea and nirva, which are made pasul for eating by the testimony of two witnesses, should they not be made pasul for sacrifice by the testimony of one witness or of the owner? (What need, then, is there for the exclusion clause?) R. Akiva said: No, (i.e., your argument does not stand.) In the instance of a blemished animal, the blemish is visible, whereas in the instance of rovea and nirva, the "blemish" is not visible, so that (without the exclusion clause), they would not be pasul for the altar. It must, therefore, be written "from the beasts," to exclude rovea and nirva.

8) An alternate formulation: Now if an individual, who does not bring a prescribed burnt-offering every day, may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift — the congregation, which does bring a prescribed burnt-offering every day, should it not follow that it may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift? (Why, then, the inclusion clause?) — No, it may be so with an individual, because he may bring a meal-offering as a gift! — This is refuted by the instance of partners, who cannot bring a meal-offering as a gift, yet may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift.

8) Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If peace-offerings, where female animals are kasher as well as males, tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher — a burnt-offering, where females are not kasher as well as males, should it not follow that tumtum and hermaphrodite not be kasher? (Why, then, is the exclusion clause needed?) — No, this may be so in the case of peace-offerings, where fowl are not kasher (for the altar), but fowl are kasher for burnt-offerings (so that without the exclusion, tumtum and hermaphrodite would also be assumed to be kasher.) — This is refuted by a sin-offering, where fowl are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite.

8) (Vayikra 1:4): "venirtzah lo" ("and it shall be acceptable for him"): We are hereby taught that the L–rd is conciliated with him (meratzeh lo). For which things (i.e., transgressions) is the L–rd conciliated with him"? If you say for things which incur death by beth-din, death at the hands of Heaven, kareth at the hands of heaven, forty stripes, sin-offerings, and guilt-offerings — these punishments are stipulated (i.e., irrevocable). For what, then, is the L–rd conciliated with him" For (transgression of) positive commandments and of negative commandments linked to positive commandments, (where stripes are not administered). R. Shimon says: "and it shall be acceptable for him": for him, and not for his offering — Even if he did not perform semichah, his offering conciliates for him.

8) I might think that the same applied even if it got intermixed with (the blood of) p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 11); "and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall dash) its blood." I would exclude p'sulin, which are not kasher as offerings. Whence would I derive (that the blood of the olah is permitted) even if it got mixed up with inner sin-offerings? I would exclude inner sin-offerings, those being inner and that (the olah), outer (see Section 3:14). Whence would I derive the exclusion) even in the instance of outer sin-offerings? It is, therefore, written: "its blood."

8) (Vayikra 1:7): "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar." R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that the kindling of the alita (kindling wood) is to be performed by a Cohein kasher in priestly vestments? From "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar." R. Shimon said: Would it enter your mind that a zar (a non-priest) could sacrifice on the altar! If so, why is it written "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, etc."? To teach that the wood must be kindled on the top of the altar (and not below, and then brought up to the altar).

8) (Vayikra 1:9): "and the Cohein shall smoke (the whole upon the altar"): even if it is pasul, even if it had gone out (i.e., even if the flesh had left the precincts of the azarah), even if it is piggul, even if it is nothar, even if it is tamei. I might think that this applies even if they are below (i.e., even if they had not already been placed on the altar); it is, therefore, written "upon the altar" — this applies when they are already on the altar, but not when they are below.

(Numb. 8:2:) WHEN YOU SET UP <THE LAMPS>. This text is related (to Ps. 139:12): EVEN DARKNESS IS NOT DARK TO YOU; [FOR NIGHT SHINES AS THE DAY, AND DARKNESS BECOMES LIKE THE LIGHT]. But you are saying to us (in Numb. 8:2): WHEN YOU SET UP THE LAMPS!²⁰Tanh. Numb. 3:6; Numb. R. 15:8. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who had a friend. The king said to him: You should know that I am dining with you; so make ready for me. His friend went <and> prepared a commoner's²¹Gk.: idiotes. coach, a commoner's lamp (menorah), <and> a commoner's²²Gk.: idiotes. table. When the king arrived, attendants came with him. They set around²³The Buber text reads SWBQYN, but the translation follows parallel texts and manuscripts and reads SBB as the verb root here. menorahs of gold before him on either side. When his friend saw all the splendor, he felt ashamed and concealed everything that he had prepared, because everything was <of the type used by> commoners. The king said to him: What is this? Did I not tell you that I was dining with you? Why did you prepare nothing for me? His friend said to him: My Lord King when I saw all this splendor that came with you, I felt ashamed and concealed everything that I had prepared for you, because it consisted of commoner's utensils. The king said to him: By your life I am rejecting all my utensils which I have brought with me, and out of love for you I only wish to use yours. So it was with the Holy One. He is all light, as stated (in Dan. 2:22): AND THE LIGHT DWELLS WITHIN HIM. When he says to Israel: Prepare a menorah and lamps for me, what is written there (in Exod. 25:8, 31)? AND LET THEM MAKE ME A SANCTUARY <…>, AND MAKE A MENORAH OF PURE GOLD. When they had done so, the Divine presence arrived. What is written there (in Exod. 40:35)? NOW MOSES COULD NOT ENTER THE TENT OF MEETING …, <BECAUSE THE GLORY OF THE LORD FILLED THE TABERNACLE>. Immediately he called to Moses, {<as stated (in Lev. 1:1): THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES.} (Numb. 7:89:) WHEN MOSES WENT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING TO SPEAK WITH HIM. But what did he say unto him? (Numb. 8:2:) WHEN YOU SET UP <THE LAMPS>. By your life out of regard for you I am rejecting everything <of mine> and using yours. (Numb. 8:2:) WHEN YOU SET UP THE LAMPS.

(Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh.” This text is related (to Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness. [This verse is] to teach you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not delight in convicting a person, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11), “As I live, says the Lord, it is not My delight for the wicked to die.” In what does He delight? In vindicating (rt.: tsdq) His people. Thus it is stated (in Is. 42:21), “The Lord was delighted because of His [servant's] vindication (tsdq)…,”⁴⁰This is the interpretation of the midrash and of the new JPS translation. [i.e.] because of His people's vindication (tsdq)] and not [their] conviction. So also you find that in the case of the first Adam, when he created him, He set him in the Garden of Eden. Then He gave him a command and said to him, “Eat this, but do not eat from this, for (according to Gen. 2:17) ‘on the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.’” [When] he transgressed, he brought a sentence⁴¹Gk.: apophasis. upon himself. [And then] the Sabbath came, and He acquitted him.⁴²Heb.: pinnahu. This word means “removed him” as well as “acquitted him.” In other words, Adam’s acquittal meant that his sentence was reduced from death to removal from the Garden. So M. Pss. 92:3. He began to talk with him [about] whether he would repent. It is so stated (in Gen. 3:9), “The Lord God called unto Adam and said, ‘Where are you?’” [This means, “What is your state?”] The Lord can only mean the quality of mercy, as stated (in Exod. 34:6), “The Lord, the Lord is a merciful and gracious God.” For him He had the quality of mercy precede the quality of strict justice. Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness,” in that He does not delight in convicting a person. He began to talk with him, as stated (in Gen. 3:11-12), “Who told you that you were naked? Then the man said, ‘The woman….’” He left Adam alone and began to talk with the woman, as stated (in vs. 13), “Then the Lord God said to the woman….” But when He came to the serpent He did not talk with him. Instead He immediately gave him a sentence, as stated (in vss. 14–15), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because you have done this …. I will put enmity between you [and the woman]….’” [Then] He returned to the woman and said to her (in vs. 16), “I will greatly multiply your pain in pregnancy.” And when He returned to the man, He did not convict him. Rather He intimated to him that he should repent. Where is it shown? R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Levi, “When He said to him (in vs. 19), ‘By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread, [until you return …].’ ‘You return’ can only be mean repentance, since it is stated (in Hos. 14:2), ‘Return O Israel, to the Lord your God, as you have stumbled in your iniquity.’” When [Adam] did not repent, He expelled him from the Garden of Eden, as stated [(in Gen. 3:24), “And He drove out the man.” Ergo I would say (in Ps. 5:5), “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness.” What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.), “evil may not abide with You.” R. Tanhuma bar Hanila'i in the name of R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Johanan, “Before the Holy One, blessed be He, stand only angels of peace and angels of mercy, but the angels of wrath are far from Him. It is so stated (in Numb. 14:15), ‘the Lord, of long patience.’ Do we not already know that He is of long patience? But rather what is the meaning of He is ‘of long patience?’ That the angels of wrath are far from Him, as stated (in Is. 13:5), ‘They come from a far land from the end of the heavens, even the Lord and the weapons of his wrath.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 5:5, cont.), “evil may not abide with You”: R. Johanan said, “If you do not pursue evil, evil will not pursue you, nor will it dwell with you. Ergo, (Ps. 5:5, cont.), ‘evil may not abide with You,’ as ‘abide with You,’ can only mean dwelling, as stated (Exodus 2:48), ‘And if a stranger dwells with you.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 5:5, cont.), “evil may not abide with You”: R. Eleazar ben Pedat said in the name of R. Johanan, “The name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not mentioned in connection with evil but only in connection with good.” You know that it is so. When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the light and the darkness and gave them names, [Scripture] mentioned His name in connection with the light but did not mention His name in connection with the darkness.⁴³Gen. R. 1:6. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 1:5), “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” Behold, it mentioned His name with the light; but when it comes to the dark it doesn’t say, “and God called the darkness night,” but “He called [the darkness] night.” So also you find that, when He created Adam and Eve, [Scripture] mentioned His name in connection with them, as stated (in Gen. 1:28), “Then God blessed them…”; but when He cursed them, it did not mention His name in connection with them. [Thus it is stated] (in Gen. 3:16-17), “And unto the woman He said […]. And unto Adam He said.” Now if you say [that] behold, [Scripture] mentioned [His name] in connection with the serpent when He cursed him, since it is written (in Gen. 3:14), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, more cursed shall you be’”; the sages have taught thus: The Holy One, blessed be He, has mentioned His name in connection with three things, even though they stood for evil: In connection with the inciter, i.e., the serpent, since he incited the woman and said (in Gen. 3:5), “’For God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes shall be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil,’ like Him. Just like He created His world, you [two] will be able to create worlds like Him. [But He doesn’t want this,] as every artisan hates his fellow [artisan].” So because he incited her and spoke slander, [Scripture] mentions His name in connection with [the serpent]. In connection with one who transgresses the words of the sages, as is stated (in Jer. 11:3), “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Cursed is the one who does not heed the words of this covenant.’” In connection with one who puts his trust in flesh and blood, as stated (in Jer. 17:5), “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in a human being, who makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns from the Lord.’”
So also you find in the case of Noah, [that Scripture used (God’s) name] when he blessed his sons, as stated (in Gen. 9:26), “And he said, ‘blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem…;’” but when he cursed Canaan, [Scripture did not mention the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, in connection with him], as stated (in vs. 25), “And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan….’” So also you find in the case of Elisha the prophet, that when the king of Aram came to fight against Israel, he consulted with his servants and made pits [to trap] them. He said, “When Israel comes to fight against us, they will fall into the pits,” as stated (in II Kings 6:8-9), “When the king of Aram was fighting against Israel, [he consulted with his servants, saying, ‘My camp shall be in such and such a place.’ But the man of God sent unto the king of Israel [saying], ‘Take care [not to pass this place, because the Aramaeans are camping there.]’” So the Holy One, blessed be He, does nothing (according to Amos 3:7) without having revealed His purpose unto His servants the prophets. When Israel passed by once and twice without falling in, the king of Aram took notice and said to his servants (in II Kings 6:11), “Will you not tell me which of us is for the king of Israel?” His servants said to him (in vs. 12-14), “’[It is because] Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words which you speak in your bedroom.’ So he said, ‘Go and see [where he is, so that I can send and seize him,’ and it was told to him, saying, ‘Behold he is in Dothan.’ Then he sent horses and chariots and a heavy force there.” Immediately Elisha’s youth rose and saw that horses, riders and a force encircled the city. Immediately he cried out (in vss. 15-16), “and said [unto him], ‘Alas, my Lord, what shall we do?’ Then he said, ‘Fear not, for there are more with us than with them.’” Immediately Elisha prayed and mentioned the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated (in vs. 17), “Then Elisha prayed and said, ‘Lord, please open his eyes and let him see’; so the Lord opened the eyes of the servant and he saw, and there was the hill full of fiery horses and chariots round about Elisha!” Immediately Elisha arose and cursed the Aramaeans (in vs. 18), and he said, “’Please smite this nation with a blinding light’; so He smote them with a blinding light according to the word of Elisha.” Now [Scripture] did not mention the name, but when [Elisha] prayed over them again for their eyes to be opened, he said (in vs. 20), “O Lord, open the eyes of these men that they may see.” Ergo, the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is mentioned in connection with good, but not with evil. So also you find that when the prophet saw the four chariots that were compared to the four kingdoms (that would rule over Israel), [it states (in Zech. 6:1),] “and I lifted my eyes, and behold, four chariots were coming out between the two mountains….” But when it spoke about the redemption, [it states (in Zech. 2:3),] “Then the Lord showed me four smiths.” So also you find that when the five angels of destruction came to destroy Jerusalem, as stated (in Ezek. 9:2), “And here were six persons coming by way of the upper gate [which faces north, each with his weapon of destruction in his hand]”; Gabriel was sent with them, as it is written (in Ezek. 10:2), “Then He spoke unto the person clothed in linen and said, ‘Go in among the wheelwork.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel, “Fill your hands with coals of fire from among the cherubim and scatter them over the city,” as it is written (in Ezek. 10:2), “Then He spoke unto the person clothed in linen and said, ‘Go in among the wheelwork [under the cherub, and fill your hands with coals of fire from among the cherubim, and scatter them over the city].’”⁴⁴Cf. below, Lev. 8:5. Gabriel came and stood at the wheel. The cherub said to him, “What do you desire?” He said to him, “Thus and so has the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded me.” He said to him, “Take [them].” He said to him, “You put them in my hand.” Immediately (according to Ezek. 10:7), “Then the cherub stretched out his hand from among the cherubim [unto the fire that was among the cherubim…].” R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, “If the coals had not been cooled off [while passing] from the hand of a cherub to the hand of Gabriel, there would not have remained of the enemies of Israel (a euphemism, meaning Israel) a [single] survivor or refugee.”⁴⁵Yoma 77a. For more details, see Lam. R. 1:13 (41). So the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to do what was evil, not by Himself, but through an angel. In the age to come, however, He will do what is good by Himself, as stated (in Ezek. 36:25), “I will sprinkle pure water upon you….” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not abide with You.” What is the meaning of (Ps. 5:5) “and evil may not abide with You?” [It is] that [Scripture] does not cause the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to rest upon evil, except for two [evil] sayings upon which the Holy One, blessed be He, did cause His name to rest. These are the following: (The first one is Dan. 9:14:) “So the Lord watched over evil and brought it upon us, because the Lord our God is righteous.” Was it because the Lord our God is righteous (tsaddik), that He brought the evil? It is simply that the Holy One, blessed be He, was charitable (tzekekah) to us when He first brought about the exile to Babylon of Jeconiah before the exile of Tsidikiyah. And what was charitable? That He first brought about the exile of Jeconiah to Babylon along with the artisans, the smiths, and all the valiant men. Now [those] descended to Babylon and they established a [framework] for Torah [study]. For if it had not happened like that, the Torah would have been forgotten in the exile. It is simply that those who believed in the words of Jeremiah went forth with the Torah. [They included (according to II Kings 24:16)] “a thousand artisans and smiths.” What is the meaning of “artisans (hrsh)?”⁴⁶Git. 88a; Sanh. 38a; Yalqut Shim‘oni, Dan., 1066. When they opened with words of Torah, all [present] became as those who are (deaf-)mute (hrsh). [And what is the meaning of] “smiths (rt.: sgr)?” After they closed (rt.: sgr) it, there was no one in all Israel who was able to open it. Ergo (in Dan. 9:14), “because the Lord our God is righteous.” So He acted justly during that exile in that He watched over it, and He still performed a great kindness for Israel [with reference to that exile]. How? In [the month of] Tebet they were scheduled to go into exile from Jerusalem, for so does [Scripture] say (in Ezek. 24:1-2), “[Then the word of the Lord came unto me in the ninth year of the tenth month on the tenth day of the month, saying,] ‘Son of man, write down the name of the day, [this very day;] on this very day [the king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem].’” What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He said, “If they go forth now in the cold, they will die.” What did He do for them? He waited for them and sent them into exile during the summer. This is what the prophet says (in Jer. 8:13), “I will utterly gather them, says the Lord.” "Gather" ('sp) can only mean "exile," since it is stated (in Micah 2:12), “I will gather Jacob, all of you.” Hence, this too was a great kindness. Now, the second [evil saying associated with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He] is (Ezek. 9:4:) “And the Lord said unto him, ‘Pass through the midst of the city, [through the midst of Jerusalem and mark (the letter) taw⁴⁷The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. For various interpretations of its meaning, see the parallel version in Shab. 55a. on the foreheads of those people who moan and groan over all the abominations] ….’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel, “Go and write an ink taw upon the foreheads of the righteous, so that the angels of destruction will have no dominion over them. Then upon the foreheads of the wicked write a blood taw so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them.” [The] prosecution⁴⁸Gk.: kategoria, i.e., “accusation,” “charge.” Here the concept is hypostatized as a separate being. came in before the Holy One, blessed be He, [and said to him], “Master of the world, how do the former differ from the latter?” He said to it, “The former are completely righteous, and the latter are completely wicked.” It said to Him, “It was in their power to protest, but they did not protest.” He said to it, “It was revealed and known to Me that, if they had protested, [the sinners] would not have accepted their [protest].” It said to Him, “Master of the world, if it was revealed and known in front of You, was if revealed in front of them? Hence they should have protested against them and demeaned themselves for the sanctification of Your name and take beatings from Israel upon themselves, just as the prophets endured [them].” So look at how many woes Jeremiah suffered from Israel; also Isaiah, of whom it is written (in Is. 50:6), “I gave my back to the smiters and my cheeks to the tearers of hair.” And [so with] the rest of the prophets. Immediately (in Ezek. 9:6) He spoke again to the angels of destruction, “[Kill off] old folk, youth ….” This also was a kindness, in that the Holy One, blessed be He, mitigated His wrath [by striking out] against Jerusalem, as stated (in Lam. 4:11), “The Lord has completed (klh) His wrath.” For if He had not done so, all Israel would have received a verdict of destruction (klyh). Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “and evil may not abide with You,” because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not cause His name to rest upon evil. So also even in the case of the wicked of Israel, He allotted them glory and did not mention them for evil. When He came to the offerings, He said to Moses (in Lev. 1:2), “Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them, ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord,’” [i.e.] “from Israel” and not from the idolaters. However, when He came to mention leprosy spots, He said (in Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has,” only saying “anyone.” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “and evil may not abide with you.”

9) And what purpose did hafsakoth serve? To give Moses time for reflection between parshah and parshah and verse and verse (e.g., as in the parshah of pesach, where each verse is a mitzvah in itself.) This prompts a kal vachomer: If Moses, who heard it from the Holy One Blessed be He and spoke with the holy spirit, had to reflect between parshah and parshah, and verse and verse, how much more so, one plain person from another!

9) But let this exclude the others, and not the ministering angels, for Moses could not enter their midst (G d and the angels) until he was called (viz. [Shemoth 40:35]: "And Moses could not come to the tent of meeting, for the cloud rested upon it!") It is, therefore, written "to him" — to him alone. Moses heard the voice and none of the others did.

9) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein": Why "the Cohein"? From "Aaron," do I not know that he is a Cohein? Why is it mentioned? To emphasize "in his priesthood" — to teach that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, his service is pasul. And whence is it derived that if a regular priest officiated in the vestments of the high-priest his service is pasul? From (Vayikra 1:8) "the priests" — in their priesthood. So that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, or a regular priest, in those of a high-priest, their service is pasul.

9) "the altar northward": The entire altar may be considered "northward," so that if he slaughtered higher-order offerings on its top, they are kasher. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Yehudah says: From the midpoint of the altar northward is considered north; from the midpoint southward is considered south.

9) Another derivation process (for including fowl in communal gift-offerings, so that an exclusion clause is required for ruling otherwise): Now if a beast burnt-offering, which is limited by Scripture as an offering, not being brought from females as from males, and (not being brought) from blemished animals as from unblemished, still is brought as a communal gift-offering — a bird burnt-offering, which is "broadened" by Scripture as an offering, being brought from females and from males, and from blemished birds as from unblemished — how much more so should it be permitted as a communal gift-offering! It is, therefore, written "his offering" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering.

9) (Vayikra 1:16): "And he shall remove murato with its entrails"): This ("murato") is the crop. I might think he pierces through (the skin) with a knife and removes it; it is, therefore, written: "with its entrails." He removes it together with the entrails. Abba Yossi b. Chanan says: He removes the maw with it.

9) "from the cattle" (but not all) — to exclude ne'evad (objects of idolatry). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is the exclusion clause necessary?) (the kal vachomer:) If an ethnan (the hire of a prostitute) [see Devarim 23:19]) and a mechir (the exchange of a dog [Devarim 23:19], whose ornaments are permitted (for mundane use), are forbidden for the altar — then ne'evad, whose ornaments are forbidden (see Devarim 7:25) — how much more so should it be forbidden for the altar! (Why, then, is an exclusion clause needed?) — But perhaps the reverse is true, viz.: If the ethnan and mechir, which are forbidden for the altar, (yet) their ornaments are permitted (for mundane use) — then ne'evad, which is permitted (for the altar [barring an exclusion clause]) — how much more so should its ornaments be permitted! — You have (hereby) abolished (Devarim 7:25) "Do not covet the silver and gold upon them!" I shall restore it, viz.: "Do not covet the silver and gold" of things (i.e., their images) which do not have a spirit of life. But things (i.e., their cattle), which do have a spirit of life, if they are permitted (for the altar), how much more so should their ornaments be permitted! It is, therefore, written "from the cattle" — to exclude ne'evad.

9) — (No, it may be argued that) partners may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift because they can bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift, as opposed to the congregation, which cannot bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift because it cannot bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift. — Why does the congregation not bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift? Because it does not bring it as a prescribed offering. Would you say that the congregation should not bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift, when it does bring it as a prescribed offering! Since it brings it as a prescribed offering, it should be able to bring it as a gift offering! — This is refuted by the instance of a meal-offering, which the congregation does bring as a prescribed offering, but not as a gift offering!

9) — No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male are kasher, as opposed to a burnt-offering, where all species of male are kasher. — This is refuted by a bechor (a first-born male), where all species of male are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite.

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

9) (Vayikra 1:5): "And they shall dash the blood (on the altar roundabout"): I might think one dashing; it is, therefore, written "roundabout." If "roundabout," I might think they encircle it (with blood) in a line; it is, therefore, written "and they shall dash." How is this to be effected? Two applications, which are four (i.e., two "dashings" from a vessel on two diagonally opposite corners of the altar).

9) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein": Why "the Cohein"? From "Aaron," do I not know that he is a Cohein? Why is it mentioned? To emphasize "in his priesthood" — to teach that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, his service is pasul. And whence is it derived that if a regular priest officiated in the vestments of the high-priest his service is pasul? From (Vayikra 1:8) "the priests" — in their priesthood. So that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, or a regular priest, in those of a high-priest, their service is pasul.

9) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein": Why "the Cohein"? From "Aaron," do I not know that he is a Cohein? Why is it mentioned? To emphasize "in his priesthood" — to teach that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, his service is pasul. And whence is it derived that if a regular priest officiated in the vestments of the high-priest his service is pasul? From (Vayikra 1:8) "the priests" — in their priesthood. So that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, or a regular priest, in those of a high-priest, their service is pasul.

9) "the whole": to include the bone, the sinews, the horns, the hooves, the wool on the heads of sheep, the chin-hair of he-goats. I might think (that this applies) even if they had become detached; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 12:27): "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh …" If "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood," I might think the sinews and bones should be extracted, and the flesh offered (on the altar); it is, therefore, written "the whole," to include these. How is this to be reconciled? When they are attached (to the flesh) they are to be offered up. If they have become detached, even if they are on top of the altar, they are to be taken down.

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

“What was, its name was already called, and it is known that he is man, and neither can he contend with what is mightier than he” (Ecclesiastes 6:10).
“What was, its name was already called” – this is Adam the first man, as it is stated: “The Lord God took the man” (Genesis 2:15), “and it is known that he is man.” This is analogous to a king and a minister who were in a royal carriage and the countrymen sought to say to the king, ‘Sire,’ but they did not know which one he was. What did the king do? He shoved [the minister] out of the carriage and everyone knew that he was the minister. So too, when the Holy One blessed be He created Adam, the first man, the ministering angels were mistaken and sought to say before him: ‘Holy.’²⁷As they say in praise of God (see Isaiah 6:3). What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He brought sleep upon him and they knew that he was man, and He said to him: “For you are dust and you will return to dust” (Genesis 3:19).
Another matter, “what was, its name was already called” – this is Moses, as it is stated: “The Lord called to Moses” (Leviticus 1:1), and it became known to all that this Moses was a prophet when the Holy One blessed be He said to him: “Now, go, and I will send you to Pharaoh [and take My people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt]” (Exodus 3:10). When it came to that incident,²⁸The sin of the Golden Calf. He said: “Go descend [as your people…has been corrupted]” (Exodus 32:7). [Moses] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, when they are good they are Yours, and when they are bad they are mine? Whether they are good or bad they are Yours.’ This is analogous to a king who has a vineyard and he entrusts it to a sharecropper to toil in it. When it produces superior wine, the king says: ‘How fine is the wine of my vineyard!’ When it produces inferior wine, the king says: ‘How poor is the wine of the vineyard of my sharecropper.’ The sharecropper weeps and cries and says before him: ‘My lord the king, when it produces superior wine it is yours, and when it produces inferior wine it is mine? Whether it is good or bad it is yours.’ So too, Moses said: ‘Whether they are good or bad, they are Yours.’
“And neither can he contend with what is mightier than he.” When he said to Him: “Please, let me cross and see the good land” (Deuteronomy 3:25), the Holy One blessed be He said to him: “Let it suffice you, do not speak to Me anymore about this matter” (Deuteronomy 3:26).
Another matter, “what was” – this is Jeremiah, and it is known to all that he is a prophet, as it is stated: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5).

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

10) And whence is it derived that all the kriyoth were "Moshe, Moshe"? From (Shemoth 3:4): "And G d called to him from the midst of the sneh and He said 'Moshe, Moshe.'" Let "and He said (vayomer)" not be written. Why is it written? We are hereby taught that all the kriyoth were "Moshe, Moshe."

10) "And the L–rd spoke to him from the tent of meeting" — We are hereby taught that the voice was "cut off" and did not travel beyond the tent of meeting. I might think that this was because the voice was low; it is, therefore, written (Numbers 7:89): "And he heard the voice" — the distinctive voice described in Scripture, viz. (Psalms 29:47): "The voice of the L–rd, in power; the voice of the L–rd, in glory. The voice of the L–rd breaks the cedars of Lebanon … The voice of the L–rd hews out flames of fire, etc." Why, then, (if the voice is so vast) is it written "from the (circumscribed) tent of meeting"? We are hereby taught that the voice was "cut off," and did not travel beyond (the confines of) the tent of meeting.

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

10) Why need it be written below (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle"? ("If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle, etc.") To exclude treifah (a "torn," ritually unfit animal). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? If a blemished animal, which is permitted for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), is pasul for the altar, treifah, which is forbidden for mundane purposes, how much more so should it be pasul for the altar! — This is refuted by cheilev (forbidden fats) and blood, which are forbidden for mundane purposes, yet kasher for the altar! — No (i.e., this is no refutation of the kal vachomer, for) forbidden fats and blood come from a thing (i.e., an animal) which is permitted (for mundane purposes), unlike treifah, which is entirely forbidden (for such purposes)! — This is refuted by melikah ("pinching" a bird's neck [as opposed to shechitah]), which is entirely forbidden (for mundane purposes), yet kasher for the altar! — No, (this is no refutation, for) the very thing that makes it kadosh (holy, for an offering), i.e., melikah, renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), whereas with treifah, it is not the thing that makes it kadosh which renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), and since this is so, it should be pasul for the altar! (Why, then, do we need an exclusion clause for treifah?) — Now that this refutation has been countered (at its origin, [viz., R. Akiva 8) above], so that the kal vachomer stands), what is the thrust of "from" (but not all) the cattle"? To exclude treifah.

10) Likewise, you should not wonder if a beast burnt-offering, though the congregation does bring it as a prescribed offering, could not be brought by them as a gift offering; it is, therefore, written "your (plural), offerings," to teach us that it may be brought as a communal gift offering.

10) Why need it be written below (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle"? ("If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle, etc.") To exclude treifah (a "torn," ritually unfit animal). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? If a blemished animal, which is permitted for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), is pasul for the altar, treifah, which is forbidden for mundane purposes, how much more so should it be pasul for the altar! — This is refuted by cheilev (forbidden fats) and blood, which are forbidden for mundane purposes, yet kasher for the altar! — No (i.e., this is no refutation of the kal vachomer, for) forbidden fats and blood come from a thing (i.e., an animal) which is permitted (for mundane purposes), unlike treifah, which is entirely forbidden (for such purposes)! — This is refuted by melikah ("pinching" a bird's neck [as opposed to shechitah]), which is entirely forbidden (for mundane purposes), yet kasher for the altar! — No, (this is no refutation, for) the very thing that makes it kadosh (holy, for an offering), i.e., melikah, renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), whereas with treifah, it is not the thing that makes it kadosh which renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), and since this is so, it should be pasul for the altar! (Why, then, do we need an exclusion clause for treifah?) — Now that this refutation has been countered (at its origin, [viz., R. Akiva 8) above], so that the kal vachomer stands), what is the thrust of "from" (but not all) the cattle"? To exclude treifah.

10) — No, this may be so with bechor, which is holy from the womb, as opposed to a burnt-offering, which is not holy from the womb. — This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), which is not holy from the womb, and where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher.

10) This tells me [(that the tzitz conciliates)] only in respect to the blood. Whence do we derive the same for the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed high-priest, and the libation meal-offering? (that if they were offered in a state of uncleanliness, the tzitz conciliates) From (Shemoth, Ibid.): "for all the gifts of their consecrations." This tells me only of men. Whence is it derived that the same applies with women? It tells me only of Israelites. Whence is it derived that the same applies with proselytes and with bondsmen? It is, therefore, written — in addition — "which they shall consecrate." Since we find that only the blood effects atonement, what is the intent of "And he shall place his hand … and it shall be acceptable"? To teach us that if he treated semichah lightly (and did not perform it), it is as if there were no atonement. R. Shimon says (Ibid.): "to make atonement alav" (lit., "upon him"). What is "upon him" (i.e., if he said: "A burnt-offering upon me"), he must make restitution (if it died or were stolen). And, what is not "upon him" (i.e., if he said: "Let this be a burnt-offering"), he need not make restitution.

10) R. Yishmael says: "roundabout" is written here, and "roundabout" is written elsewhere (in respect to the investiture sin-offering [chatath hamiluim]). Just as "roundabout" there entails a pause for (each of) four applications (of blood), so, "roundabout" here entails a pause for (each of) four applications (on two corners) [one on each side of the corner]).

10) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar." Even though fire descends from Heaven, it is a mitzvah to bring man-made fire. The fire that descended in the days of Moses did not depart from the copper altar until they came to the temple. The fire that descended in the days of Solomon did not depart from the burnt-offering altar until the days of Menasheh.

(Vayikra, Ibid.): "… a burnt-offering, a fire-offering, a savor, sweet, to the L–rd": "a burnt-offering" — to that end (i.e., he must have that intent); "a fire-offering" — to that end (i.e., to exclude charring it instead of burning it to ashes); "a savor" — to that end (to exclude roasting it beforehand); "sweet" (nichoach) — to give pleasure (nachath ruach); "to the L–rd" — to the Creator of the world.

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

(Numb. 28:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND SAY UNTO THEM: MY OFFERING, MY BREAD FOR MY FIRE OFFERING, <MY SWEET AROMA, YOU SHALL TAKE HEED TO OFFER ME IN ITS DUE SEASON>. Let our master instruct us: Regarding the meal offerings that were offered upon the altar, how were they offered?⁴¹Tanh., Numb. 8:12. Thus have our masters taught (in Men. 5:1–2):⁴²See above, Lev. 1:7. ALL MEAL OFFERINGS WERE OFFERED UNLEAVENED EXCEPT THE LEAVENED <CAKES> IN THE THANK OFFERING AND THE TWO LOAVES (of Pentecost) WHICH WERE OFFERED LEAVENED. R. MEIR SAYS: THE LEAVEN IS SEPARATED FROM THEIR OWN <DOUGH>, AND <IT IS FROM THIS THAT> THEY ARE LEAVENED. R. JUDAH SAYS: EVEN THAT IS NOT THE BEST <METHOD>; ONE SHOULD BRING THE LEAVEN, PUT IT INTO THE MEASURE, AND FILL THE MEASURE <WITH THE FLOUR>. <THE SAGES> SAID TO HIM: EVEN THAT <METHOD> RESULTED TOO LITTLE OR TOO MUCH. ALL MEAL OFFERINGS WERE KNEADED IN LUKEWARM WATER AND ONE WATCHED THEM LEST THEY BECOME LEAVENED; AND IF THE REST OF IT BECAME LEAVENED, ONE TRANSGRESSED A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT, AS STATED (in Lev. 2:11): NO MEAL OFFERING WHICH YOU OFFER TO THE LORD SHALL BE MADE WITH LEAVEN. THUS ONE MAY BECOME CULPABLE IN THE KNEADING OF <LEAVEN>, IN ROLLING IT, AND IN BAKING IT. Of all the offerings none is more pleasing to you than the thank offering. The Holy One said to Moses: Say to those Israelites: I did not tell you to offer me sacrifices because I have need of them, since the whole world is mine.⁴³Numb. R. 21:16; see Men. 110a; PRK 6:1; PR 16:1; 48:3; Tanh., Exod. 8:14. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 50:12): IF I AM HUNGRY, I WOULD NOT TELL YOU, FOR THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT BELONG TO ME.

11) And whence is it derived that for every kriyah he said "Hineni" ("Here I am")? From (Shemoth 3:4): "… and He said … 'Hineni.'" — whereby we are taught that all the kriyoth were answered "Hineni." (i.e., Just as "and He said" indicates that all the kriyoth were "Moshe, Moshe," so does it indicate that all of them were answered "Hineni.")

11) Similarly, (Ezekiel 10:5): "And the sound of the wings of the cherubs was heard (only) until the outer court." I might think that this was because it was a low sound; it is, therefore, written (Ezekiel 10:5): "like the voice of the almighty G d in His speaking" — in His speaking at Sinai. If so, why (only) "until the outer court"? Once it reached the outer court, it was "cut off."

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

11) (Vayikra 1:2): "from the sheep" — to exclude muktzeh (an animal designated for idolatry); "and from the sheep" — to exclude noge'ach (an animal which gored a man to death). If rovea is excluded, why need noge'ach be (separately) excluded? And if noge'ach is excluded, why need rovea be excluded? For there is that in rovea (prompting exclusion) which is lacking in noge'ach, and there is that in noge'ach which is lacking in rovea, viz.: With rovea, forcing (the animal to be rovea) was equated with volition (i.e., in both instances, the animal must be killed); with noge'ach, forcing was not equated with volition (i.e., only in the latter instance is the animal killed). (The owners of) noge'ach pay kofer (indemnity) after (the animal has been put to) death; rovea (in an instance where the woman dies as a result) does not pay indemnity after death. There is that in rovea which is lacking in ne'evad, and that in ne'evad which is lacking in rovea. Rovea, whether one's own animal or another's is forbidden (for the altar); ne'evad — one's own (animal that he made an object of idolatry) is forbidden; another's (animal that he made an object of idolatry) is permitted (for the altar, one not voiding what is not his). Rovea — its ornaments are permitted; ne'evad — its ornaments are forbidden. Therefore, Scripture must adduce all (of these exclusions).

11) Another formulation: "your (plural), offerings": From the "place" (i.e., beast burnt-offering) that the individual brings (a gift) — from there, the congregation brings (a gift). a

11) — No, ma'aser is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive,) whereas a burnt-offering is "one out of one" (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since it is one out of one, tumtum or hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "male," and not female, and, again, (Ibid. 10), ("male") — to exclude tumtum and hermaphrodite.

11) "roundabout": R. Yishmael says: "roundabout" is written here, and "roundabout" is written elsewhere (viz. Shemoth 1:5). Just as here there are four distinct applications (one on each corner), so, there, there are four distinct applications.

11) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present the blood and they shall sprinkle the blood": Why the repetition? Whence do you derive that if the blood spilled from the vessel to the floor and it was gathered up it is kasher? From the repetition of "the blood." I might think that even if it spilled from the beast's throat to the floor it should be gathered up; it is, therefore, written "the blood," the blood that was received in a vessel.

11) (Vayikra 1:7): "And they shall arrange wood upon the fire": "wood upon the fire," and not fire upon the wood. R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that the daily afternoon offering requires two additional logs for the woodpile? From "And they shall arrange the (lit.,) woods upon the fire."

(Numb. 2:2:) “Each with his standard, under the banners for their fathers' house.” [This text is related] (to Job 36:3), “I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and justify my maker.” It was only necessary to say, "under the banners shall the Children of Israel camp.⁵⁵Numb. R. 2:8. Then what is the significance of saying (in Numb. 2:2), “under the banners [for their fathers' house].” Simply that when our father Jacob departed from this world, he said to them (in Gen. 47:30), “When I sleep with my ancestors, you are to take me up from Egypt and bury me in their grave.” He went around to all his sons, blessed them, and gave them a charge. He said to them, “When you take me, you are to take me with reverence and honor. Let no other person, neither one of the Egyptians nor one of your children, touch my bier, because there are some among them who have taken [wives] from the daughters of Canaan.⁵⁶Cf. Gen. R. 84:21; PRK 39, according to which there was no such intermarriage. And so it says (in Gen. 50:12-13), “So his children did for him just as he had commanded them. And his children brought him up to the land of Canaan.” His children, but not his grandchildren (who were forbidden to touch the bier)! How did he charge them? He said to them, “Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun shall carry my bier on the East; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, on the South; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, on the West; Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, on the North. Joseph is not to carry [at all], because he is a king; and you must impart honor to him. Nor is Levi to carry. Why? Because he will carry the ark (aron), and whoever carries the ark of the One who lives forever is not to carry a coffin (aron) of the dead. If you do this and carry my bier, just as I have charged you, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to have you encamp by the various standards.” When he passed away, they carried him just as he had charged them. It is so stated (in Gen. 50:12), “So his children did for him just as he had commanded them.” What is written next (in vs. 13)? “And his children brought him up to the land of Canaan.” When Israel went forth from Egypt, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Now is the time for them to make standards, just as their father had proclaimed to them that they were going to make standards.” Immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “Make those standards for my name.” Immediately Moses began to be concerned. He said, “There is going to be dissension among the tribes. If I tell the tribe of Judah to encamp in the East, they will say, ‘It is impossible for us to encamp anywhere but in the South.’ And so each and every tribe [would act] like that one.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “What concern is that to you? They do not need you in this matter. They will recognize their dwellings by themselves. Why? Because their father's will was in their hand on how to encamp by the standards. I am not establishing something new. They already have their father's arrangements⁵⁷Gk.: taxeis. in their hands. Just as they have taken positions around his bier, so let them take positions around the tabernacle.” Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Numb. 2:2), “Each with his standard, under the banners [for their fathers' house].” How were they encamped? The Levites camped around the tabernacle of witness, with Moses, Aaron, and his children on the East.⁵⁸See Numb. R. 2:10. It is so stated (in Numb. 3:38), “Those who camped before the tabernacle, in front before the tent of meeting to the East, were Moses, Aaron, and his children.” And adjacent to them were Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. Hence they said, “Fortunate is the righteous person and fortunate are his neighbors.”⁵⁹Suk. 56b. See below, Numb. 5:8. This refers to the three tribes (rt.: shbt) which were adjacent to Moses and Aaron.⁶⁰Gen. R. 3:13; Numb. R. 3:12. They became great in the Torah, as stated (in Gen. 49:10), “The scepter (shbt) shall not depart from Judah, nor the inscriber from between his feet.” In the case of Issachar it is written, (in I Chron. 12:33), “And from the Children of Issachar, those who had an understanding of the times,⁶¹The midrash regards UNDERSTANDING as synonymous with Torah. to know what Israel should do; their heads numbered two hundred and all their kindred under their command ('al pihem),” because they harmonize law (halakhah) at their command ('al pihem). [Of Zebulun it is written] (in Jud. 5:14), “and from Zebulun those who wield the scribal pen.” Because they were neighbors [of Torah, embodied by Moses] they all became children of Torah (i.e., Torah scholars). Now on the South were the Children of Kohath (ben Levi), and adjacent to them were Reuben, Simeon, and Gad. Hence they say, “Woe to the wicked person; and woe to his neighbor.”⁶²Suk. 56b; Numb. R. 18:5; ARN, A, 9:1; see Avot 1:7. These are the three tribes which were neighbors of Korah (the grandson of Kohath) and his community in the South. These were destroyed with him in his dissension (as stated in Numb. 16:32), “And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, their households, every person that belonged to Korah, and their property.” On the West were the Children of Gershom (i.e., Gershon ben Levi), with Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin being adjacent to them. And on the North were the Children of Merari (ben Levi), with Dan, Naphtali, and Asher being adjacent to them. Seven clouds of glory were surrounding them, and this was their [method] of travel: There was a sign⁶³Gk.: semeion. for Moses in the cloud when it departed. When it departed, he would say (in Numb. 10:35), “Rise up, O Lord, and may Your enemies be scattered.” Then the cloud would depart. When the cloud departed, they all prepared to travel and put away their implements. Whoever had a domestic beast put them on it; and if [a person] had none, the cloud took the remainder. When they were settled, they blew the trumpets. Then Judah and its standard moved out, first its prince and his tribe after him.⁶⁴CF. Numb. R. 2:7. And as signs for each and every prince there was a flag.⁶⁵Lat. (from the Punic): mappa And from them the empire learned to make a flag. There was also a color for each and every flag, like the color of the precious stones which were on the heart of Aaron. Each and every tribe had its flag dyed like the color of its stone. Then over them were the clouds. Until they were settled, they blew the trumpets. They traveled, and likewise the clouds [traveled over them]. Moreover, something like a kind of beam came out of the cloud, so that they would know in which direction they would be traveling. So was the journey of each and every standard. [When] they finished going to where it wanted them to camp, [since] that cloud which appeared like a kind of beam had, as it were, been traveling independently, they knew that they would camp in that place. [When] clouds of glory stood still for them, they began putting [things] away in their tents where they were to rest. Then the cloud which was over the tabernacle, moved over the camp of the Levites in the middle of the camps. First it stood still. When it stood still, the Children of Kohath and the Children of Levi set up the tabernacle in the presence of all the camps before they came, as stated (in Numb. 10:21), “And they would set up the tabernacle before they came.” When they had set up the tabernacle, each and every one set up [camp] in his [proper] place. Then the clouds of glory stood over them. This was grandeur in the hands of Moses, for the cloud of the glorious Divine Presence did not come down to the tabernacle, until Moses had said (in Numb. 10:36), “Return, O Lord, to the myriad thousands of Israel.” Then the clouds of glory encompassed them. Moreover, the holy spirit says through Solomon (in Cant. 6:4), “You are as beautiful my darling, as (ke) tirzah.” What is the meaning of “ketirzah (ktrtsh, rt.: rtsh)?” That I am pleasing (mtrtsh, rt.: rtsh) to you.⁶⁶Numb. R. 2:5. Another interpretation (of Cant. 6:4), “Ketirzah" (rt.: rtsh) [means] just as you are pleasing (rt.: rtsh) to Me in the sacrifices. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 1:4), “And it shall be pleasing (rt.: rtsh) for Him to atone for him.” (Cant. 6:4, cont.,) “As comely as Jerusalem (yrushlym),” [means] like these ministering angels, in that they feared (rt.: yr') [Me] and were reconciled (rt.: shlm) to Me. (Ibid., cont.,) “Awesome as [hosts] with standards,” like the standards which I gave you. So when David sees [them], he says (in Ps. 147:20), “He has not done so for any nation,” only for it.

In the world to come the Holy One will bring in the soul and say to it: Why have you transgressed against the commandments? Then it will say: The body transgressed against the commandments. From the day that I left it, have I ever sinned? <Then> he will go back and say to the body: For what reason did you transgress the commandments? It will say to him: The soul sinned. Since the soul left me, have I ever sinned? What will the Holy One do? He will bring them both in and judge them as one. To what is the matter comparable? To a king who had an orchard in which were grapes, figs, pomegranates, and early-ripening figs.⁴⁸Tanh., Lev. 1:6; Sanh. 91ab; Lev. R. 4:5; Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon b. Johay, edited by J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1955), pp. 76–77 (on Exod. 15:1); Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata 2; The Apocryphon of Ezekiel, cited in Epiphanius, Panarion (Haereses), 64:70 (Origen), K. Holl edition in GCS31(1922), pp. 236–243 (not in the Migne edition), translated by J.R. Mueller and S.E. Robinson in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. I, edited by J.H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), p. 492; see Tertullian, De resurrectione carnis, 15–17. The king said (to himself): If I post someone there who can see and walk, he will eat the early-ripening figs for himself. He <therefore> posted two guards, one lame and one blind. They stayed and watched the orchard. They smelled the early-ripening figs. The lame one said to the blind one: I see lovely early-ripening figs in the orchard. Come and give me a ride, so we can get them and eat them. The lame one rode upon the back of the blind one, so that he got them, and they ate them. One day the king came. He wanted the early-ripening figs, but he did not find any. He said to the blind one: Did you eat them? He said to him: Do I have any eyes? He said to the lame one: Have you eaten them? He said: Do I have any feet? He < therefore > mounted the lame person on the blind person's back and judged them as one. So the Holy One will take a spirit and toss it into a body, as stated (in Ps. 50:4): HE SUMMONED THE HEAVENS ABOVE, i.e., the soul; (ibid., cont.:) AND THE EARTH TO JUDGE HIS PEOPLE, i.e., the body. So David foresaw how the Holy One would judge his creatures. He began to seek mercy for his soul. He said: Master of the World, when you judge your creatures, do not judge me like them. [(Ps. 143:2): AND DO NOT ENTER INTO JUDGMENT WITH YOUR SERVANT, FOR NO ONE LIVING SHALL BE JUSTIFIED BEFORE YOU.] Rather act justly with me, as stated (in Ps. 17:15): AS FOR ME, I WILL BEHOLD YOUR FACE IN JUSTICE. The Holy One said: In this world because the evil drive rules in them.⁴⁹The parallel text in Tanh., Lev. 1:6, reads: “in you.” You have sinned, but in the world to come I will root it out from you, as stated (in Ezek. 36:26): I WILL REMOVE THE HEART OF STONE FROM YOUR FLESH AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH….

(Numb. 28:1–2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, ‘Command the Children of Israel, [and say unto them], “My offering, My bread for My fire offering….”’” Let our master instruct us: Regarding the meal offerings that were offered upon the altar, how were they offered? Thus have our masters taught (in Men. 5:1–2):³³See above, Lev. 1:7. All meal offerings were offered unleavened except the leavened [cakes] in the thank offering and the two loaves (of Pentecost) which were offered leavened. R. Meir says, “The leaven is separated from its own [dough], and [it is from this that] they are leavened.” R. Judah says, “Even that is not the best [method]; one should bring the leaven, put it into the [measure], and fill the measure [with flour].” [The sages] said to him, “Even that [method] resulted in too little or too much.” All meal offerings were kneaded in lukewarm water and one watched them lest they become leavened; and if the remnants of it became leavened, one transgressed a negative commandment, as stated (in Lev. 2:11), “No meal offering which you offer to the Lord shall be made with leaven.” Thus one may become culpable in the kneading of [leaven], in rolling it, and in baking it. There is nothing more pleasing for you than the offerings. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “Say to those Israelites, ‘I did not tell you to offer me sacrifices because I have a need for them, since the whole world is Mine, and I created the animal from which you offer a sacrifice in front of Me.’”³⁴Numb. R. 21:16; see Men. 110a; PRK 6:1; PR 16:1; 48:3; Tanh., Exod. 8:14. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 50:12), “If I am hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and everything in it belong to Me.” R. Judah bar Simon said, “It is not that I require to eat anything which I commanded you to offer as My offering, My bread; as there is not eating or drinking in front of Me.” R. Simon said, “There are thirteen attributes of mercy that are written about the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated (in Exod. 34:6), ‘And the Lord passed over his face….’ Is there a merciful one that delivers his victuals to a cruel one?” Ergo (in Ps. 50:12), “If I am hungry, I would not tell you.” R. Judah bar Simon said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I have delivered ten [kinds of] clean animals to you (for food).³⁵See also PR 16:1; Numb. R. 20:5; 21:16. Three are in your possession, and seven are not in your possession. Now these are those which are in your possession (according to Deut. 14:4), “the bull, the sheep, and the goat.” And these are those which are not in your possession (according to Deut. 14:5), “The deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.” I did not burden you to have you seek them in the mountains and the hills, in order to bring Me a sacrifice from those [which are not in your possession]. Rather [your sacrifices come] from those which are in your possession, which grew up at your feeding trough.’” Ergo (in Ps. 50:12), “If I am hungry, I would not tell you.” R. Isaac said, “It is written (in Numb 28:2), ‘My offering, My Bread, for My burnt offering.’ Is there eating and drinking in front of Me? And if you say there is eating and drinking in front of Me, [you should] learn from the ministering angels, as stated (in Ps. 104:4), ‘His servants flaming fire.’” From what are they [then] sustained? R. Judan said in the name of R. Isaac, “They are nourished from the radiance of the Divine Presence, as stated (in Prov. 16:15), ‘The light of the king’s face is light.‘” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, [Regarding (Numb. 28:6),] “The regular burnt offering done at Mount Sinai,” “And did they do it at Mount Sinai? It is simply that if you will say that that there is eating and drinking in front of Him, learn from Moshe, our teacher. Observe what is written about him (in Exod. 34:28), ‘And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water.’ If there was eating and drinking in front of Me, he would have eaten and drank from what I eat and drink. And if Moses who [only] fulfilled the errand of God, ‘neither ate bread nor drank water,’ all the more so is it true of the Holy One, blessed be He.” Ergo (in Ps. 50:12), “If I am hungry, I would not tell you.” R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “So did the Holy One blessed be He say: ‘My [other] creatures do not need My creatures (people). In your days have you heard one saying, “Let this vine produce wine,” and it produces much wine, [or] “Let this olive tree produce oil,” and it produces much wine. My creatures do not need My creatures and I should need My creatures?’” R. Jannai said, “It is customary that when a man is walking by a river, it is impossible for him not to drink two or three log. Now all the water that is in the world would fill the hollow of My hand, as stated (in Is. 40:12), ‘Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?’ But [yet] I have written about your log (in Numb. 28:7), ‘to be poured in the sacred precinct as an offering of fermented drink to the Lord,’ which is an expression of drinking, an expression of satiation, an expression of inebriation.” I have created one animal in My world, and you are not able to support its victuals. And which is it? That is (in Psalms 50:10), “the behemoths on a thousand mountains.” R. Johanan, R. Joshua ben Levi and the Sages [disagreed about this]. R. Johanan said, ‘It was one animal crouching on a thousand mountains and it would pasture on a thousand [different] mountains each day, as stated, (in Job 40:20), ‘The mountains yield him produce.’” R. Joshua ben Levi says, “It was one animal crouching on a thousand mountains and a thousand mountains would produce many types of food, for the righteous to eat in the future to come, as stated (in Is. 65:10), ‘Sharon shall become a pasture for flocks, And the Valley of Achor a place for cattle to lie down.’” And the Sages say, “It crouches upon the thousand mountains, and the thousand mountains produce animals every day and it eats [them].” What is the explanation? As it states (in Job 40:20, cont.), “and all the beasts of the field play there.” Is it possible for a grazing animal to eat a grazing animal? R. Tanchuma says, “Great is the work of our God and how great are His acts.” And from where does it drink? R. Joshua ben Levi and the Sages [disagreed about this]. R. Joshua ben Levi says, “It drinks up with one swallow all that the Jordan produces in six months, as stated (in Job 40:23), ‘He can restrain the river from its rushing; [he is confident the Jordan will gush at his command].’ [And the sages say, “Twelve months….”]³⁶See Numb. R. 21:18. But it only has a moistening of the mouth [from it].” And [so] from where does it drink? R. Shimon ben Gamliel taught (form Gen. 2:10), “’A river issues from Eden to water the garden’ and its name is Yuval, as stated (in Jer. 17:8), ‘sending forth its roots by a stream (yuval),’ and it drinks from it.” R. Chiya taught in the name of R. Meir (from Job 12:7), “’But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the sky, they will tell you’: ’But ask the beasts,’ this is the behemoth; ‘the birds of the sky,’ this is the ziz of the Omnipresent (a giant bird). (Job 12:8:) ‘Or speak to the earth, it will teach you; the fish of the sea, they will inform you’: ‘Or speak to the earth,’ this is the Garden of Eden; ‘The fish of the sea,’ that is the leviathan. (Job 12:9:) ‘Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?’” You have one king and his name was Solomon, as stated (about the lavishness of his meals in I Kings 5:2-3), “Solomon’s daily provisions consisted of thirty kor of semolina, and sixty kor of [ordinary] flour, ten fattened oxen….” R. Yehuda bar Zvidah said, “Solomon had a thousand wives and each and every one would make him like this every day, as she thought he would eat with her. [And] Nehemiah the governor did not [even] have the ability to reckon his meal, as stated (in Neh. 5:18), ‘And although what was prepared for each day came to one ox….’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘My children, it is not because there is eating and drinking in front of Me. Rather it is because of the smell, that you shall be pleased and give the pleasant smell in front of Me.’”

12) "Moshe, Moshe," "Avraham, Avraham," "Yaakov, Yaakov," "Shmuel, Shmuel" — an expression of affection and of prompting to zeal. Another connotation: "Moshe, Moshe" — He is "Moshe" before being spoken to; he is (the same, righteous) "Moshe" after being spoken to.

12) "from the tent of meeting": I might think (that the voice came) from the whole house; it is, therefore, written: "from above the kapporeth." If "from above the kapporeth," I might think from above the entire kapporeth; it is, therefore, written: "from between the two cherubs." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon b. Azzai said: I come not to dispute the words of the master, but to add to them. That great glory, of which it is written, "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" — see how His love of Israel wrought upon this glory! The L–rd, as it were, contracted Himself to speak from above the kapporeth between the two cherubs! R. Dossa says: It is written (Shemoth 33:20): "For a man shall not see Me and live." (Even the holy creatures who bear the Throne of Glory do not behold His glory.) — In their life they do not see (Him), but they see (Him) in their death. And thus is it written (Psalms 22:30): "Before Him (i.e., before His manifest glory) shall bow down all who descend to the dust, when his (i.e., a man's) soul no longer animates (the body" [but departs from it.]). R. Shimon said: I come not to dispute the words of the master, but to add to them: "For a man shall not see Me, and the living" — Even the angels, whose lives are eternal, do not behold the glory.

12) "the blood on the altar" — And not the dasher (of the blood) on the altar (i.e., he should not stand on the foundation of the altar [the yesod], but on the floor alongside it). Another nuance of "the blood on the altar" — (the blood should be dashed on the altar) even in the absence of the flesh (e.g., if it became unclean or were lost.) If so, how am I to understand (Devarim 12:27): "And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood"? Blood and flesh are being likened to each other, viz., just as the blood is flung on the altar, so, the flesh. I might think he flings them (the pieces) so that they form a pile; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:12): "And the Cohein shall arrange them." How is this (fling-arrange) to be reconciled? He flings them in such a way that they fall into an orderly arrangement.

12) (Vayikra 1:3): "unblemished": Just as if it is not unblemished it is not acceptable, so if it is not as indicated (i.e., if it is rovea, nirva, ne'evad, etc.) it is not acceptable. "unblemished shall he bring it" — unblemished shall he sanctify it (i.e., it is a positive commandment to sanctify unblemished animals). R. Yossi says: "unblemished shall he offer it (yakrivenu)" — yevakrenu ("He shall examine it" [for blemishes]), veyakrivenu (and he shall offer it). R. Yossi said: I have heard that if one slaughters an unexamined tamid (the offering of the day) on Shabbath he must bring a sin-offering (for having performed a forbidden labor on the Sabbath), and he brings a different tamid.

12) (Vayikra 16:19) ("And he shall sprinkle upon it of the blood with his finger seven times; and he shall cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanliness of the children of Israel.") "And he shall sprinkle upon it": upon the "clean spot" of the altar (i.e., After sprinkling upon the corners, he moves the coals and the ashes on the altar aside and sprinkles on the area that has been cleared.) "of the blood": of the blood under discussion (i.e., that in the sprinkling bowl). "seven times": and not seven drops. "seven": He counts seven times, not "one and seven" (as he does in the instance of the sprinklings on the curtain).

12) "the blood on the altar" — And not the dasher (of the blood) on the altar (i.e., he should not stand on the foundation of the altar [the yesod], but on the floor alongside it). Another nuance of "the blood on the altar" — (the blood should be dashed on the altar) even in the absence of the flesh (e.g., if it became unclean or were lost.) If so, how am I to understand (Devarim 12:27): "And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood"? Blood and flesh are being likened to each other, viz., just as the blood is flung on the altar, so, the flesh. I might think he flings them (the pieces) so that they form a pile; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:12): "And the Cohein shall arrange them." How is this (fling-arrange) to be reconciled? He flings them in such a way that they fall into an orderly arrangement.

(Exod. 32:1:) WHEN THE PEOPLE SAW THAT MOSES WAS LATE <IN COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN >. What is the meaning of WAS LATE (boshesh)?³⁹Shab. 89a; Gen. R. 18:6; Exod. R. 41:7; cf. PR 11:12. <That> six (shesh) hours had passed (bo) without Moses having come down, for Moses had made an agreement with them and said to them: After forty days I will bring you the Law. As soon as six hours had passed and he had not come down, immediately (ibid., cont.): THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST AARON. Our masters have said: Satan came, confounded the world,⁴⁰See also Tanh., Exod. 9:19. and showed them something like Moses suspended from the earth, i.e., in the air⁴¹Avir; cf. Gk.: aer. beneath it.⁴²Cf. the parallel in Exod. R. 41:7, which reads, “suspended between heaven and earth.” Then they pointed a finger at him and said (ibid., cont.): <ARISE AND MAKE A GOD FOR US WHO WILL GO BEFORE US, > FOR THIS IS THE MAN, MOSES.⁴³The biblical context would suggest the following translation: FOR REGARDING THIS MAN MOSES <WHO BROUGHT US UP FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAS BECOME OF HIM >. At that time Hur said to them: O stiff-necked < people >, do you not remember what he did for you?⁴⁴Lev. R. 10:3. According to Exod. 24:14, Moses left Aaron and Hur in charge while he was up on the mountain. They arose and killed him.⁴⁵Below, Exod. 10:4; Exod. R. 41:7; 42:1; 48:3; Numb. R. 9:45. Then they gathered together against Aaron, as stated (ibid.): THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST AARON….⁴⁶Sanh. 7a; Exod. R. 51:8. They said to him: If you make a god for us, well and good; but if not, we will do to you just as we did to Hur. (Exod. 32:5:) WHEN AARON SAW THIS, <i.e., when> he saw what they had done to Hur, (ibid., cont.) HE BUILT (YBN) AN ALTAR (MZBH), <i.e.> he understood (HBYN) from the slaughtered (MZBWH) one.⁴⁷So also Lev. R. 10:3; cf. Gen. R. 34:9, which gives the same interpretation of BUILT, in Gen. 8:20. They wanted to build <the altar> along with him. He said to them, leave me alone, and I will make it by myself, for no one is to build it along with me. Now Aaron had a plan. <He was> saying <to himself>: While I am building it, Moses will come down.⁴⁸So also Exod. R. 37:2. Immediately (in Exod. 32:6): SO THEY ROSE EARLY THE NEXT DAY, < OFFERED BURNT OFFERINGS, AND BROUGHT PEACE OFFERINGS>; [AND THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK.] In every place that you find sitting, there you find degradation.⁴⁹Exod. R. 41:7; similarly Sanh. 106a; Gen. R. 38:7; Tanh., Gen. 9:1; Sifre, Numb. 131; PRE 47. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD. What degradation happened there? <It was there> that they sold Joseph. It is also written (in Numb. 25:1): WHILE ISRAEL WAS STAYING (literally: SITTING) AT SHITTIM. And what was the degradation there? (Ibid., cont.:) THE PEOPLE BEGAN TO GO WHORING <WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF MOAB>. And here too (in Exod. 32:6): THEN THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN, <i.e., in> the sitting of idolatry. The Holy One said to Moses; They have risen to revel in idolatry, while you are sitting <up here>. (Exod. 32:7:) GO AND GET DOWN. At that time Moses was going to go down, but he saw the angels of destruction and was afraid to go down. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 9:19): FOR I WAS AFRAID OF ANGER AND RAGE. What did he do? He went and grasped the throne, as stated (in Job 26:9): HE (Moses) GRASPS THE FACE OF A THRONE; [HE (the Holy One) SPREAD HIS CLOUD UPON HIM]. So the Holy One protected him and spread some of the radiance of his Divine Presence over him. Come and see how many troubles they caused. Yesterday Moses had shoved them (the angels of destruction) aside,⁵⁰According to Shab. 88b-89a and Exod. R. 28:1, because the angels wanted the Torah for themselves, they tried to prevent Moses from receiving it. and now he was afraid of them. (Deut. 9:19:) FOR I WAS AFRAID OF [ANGER AND RAGE]. The five angels of destruction were Af (Anger), Qetsef (Wrath), Meshabber (Smasher), Mashhit (Destroyer), and Hemah (Rage); ⁵¹Cf. Tanh., Exod. 9:20. Moses mentioned three patriarchs, and three <angels> went away.⁵²See also Exod. R. 44:1. But ANGER AND RAGE remained behind. Moses said to the Holy One: Sovereign of the World: You stand up to one and I to one, as stated (in Ps. 7:7 [6]): RISE UP, O LORD, IN YOUR Af (ANGER).⁵³A more traditional translation would be: RISE UP, O LORD IN YOUR ANGER. The Holy One said to him (in Exod. 32:7): GO AND GET DOWN; you have a descent (i.e., degradation). He said to him: Why? HE SAID TO HIM: BECAUSE YOUR PEOPLE <WHOM YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT > HAVE ACTED BASELY. Moses said to him: Now are they my people and not your people! (Exod. 32:12:) TURN BACK FROM YOUR WRATHFUL ANGER. R. Simeon ben Johay said: Moses did not move from praying until the Holy One was reconciled to them. The Holy One said: In this world you sinned against me because the evil drive was ordering you; but in the world to come I am rooting it out of you, as stated (in Ezek. 36:26): I WILL REMOVE THE HEART OF STONE FROM YOUR FLESH AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH.⁵⁴Below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 1:12; above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:40; Tanh., Exod. 9:19; Tanh., Lev. 1:6.

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

(Exod. 32:1:) WHEN THE PEOPLE SAW THAT MOSES WAS LATE <IN COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN >. What is the meaning of WAS LATE (boshesh)?³⁹Shab. 89a; Gen. R. 18:6; Exod. R. 41:7; cf. PR 11:12. <That> six (shesh) hours had passed (bo) without Moses having come down, for Moses had made an agreement with them and said to them: After forty days I will bring you the Law. As soon as six hours had passed and he had not come down, immediately (ibid., cont.): THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST AARON. Our masters have said: Satan came, confounded the world,⁴⁰See also Tanh., Exod. 9:19. and showed them something like Moses suspended from the earth, i.e., in the air⁴¹Avir; cf. Gk.: aer. beneath it.⁴²Cf. the parallel in Exod. R. 41:7, which reads, “suspended between heaven and earth.” Then they pointed a finger at him and said (ibid., cont.): <ARISE AND MAKE A GOD FOR US WHO WILL GO BEFORE US, > FOR THIS IS THE MAN, MOSES.⁴³The biblical context would suggest the following translation: FOR REGARDING THIS MAN MOSES <WHO BROUGHT US UP FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAS BECOME OF HIM >. At that time Hur said to them: O stiff-necked < people >, do you not remember what he did for you?⁴⁴Lev. R. 10:3. According to Exod. 24:14, Moses left Aaron and Hur in charge while he was up on the mountain. They arose and killed him.⁴⁵Below, Exod. 10:4; Exod. R. 41:7; 42:1; 48:3; Numb. R. 9:45. Then they gathered together against Aaron, as stated (ibid.): THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST AARON….⁴⁶Sanh. 7a; Exod. R. 51:8. They said to him: If you make a god for us, well and good; but if not, we will do to you just as we did to Hur. (Exod. 32:5:) WHEN AARON SAW THIS, <i.e., when> he saw what they had done to Hur, (ibid., cont.) HE BUILT (YBN) AN ALTAR (MZBH), <i.e.> he understood (HBYN) from the slaughtered (MZBWH) one.⁴⁷So also Lev. R. 10:3; cf. Gen. R. 34:9, which gives the same interpretation of BUILT, in Gen. 8:20. They wanted to build <the altar> along with him. He said to them, leave me alone, and I will make it by myself, for no one is to build it along with me. Now Aaron had a plan. <He was> saying <to himself>: While I am building it, Moses will come down.⁴⁸So also Exod. R. 37:2. Immediately (in Exod. 32:6): SO THEY ROSE EARLY THE NEXT DAY, < OFFERED BURNT OFFERINGS, AND BROUGHT PEACE OFFERINGS>; [AND THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK.] In every place that you find sitting, there you find degradation.⁴⁹Exod. R. 41:7; similarly Sanh. 106a; Gen. R. 38:7; Tanh., Gen. 9:1; Sifre, Numb. 131; PRE 47. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD. What degradation happened there? <It was there> that they sold Joseph. It is also written (in Numb. 25:1): WHILE ISRAEL WAS STAYING (literally: SITTING) AT SHITTIM. And what was the degradation there? (Ibid., cont.:) THE PEOPLE BEGAN TO GO WHORING <WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF MOAB>. And here too (in Exod. 32:6): THEN THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN, <i.e., in> the sitting of idolatry. The Holy One said to Moses; They have risen to revel in idolatry, while you are sitting <up here>. (Exod. 32:7:) GO AND GET DOWN. At that time Moses was going to go down, but he saw the angels of destruction and was afraid to go down. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 9:19): FOR I WAS AFRAID OF ANGER AND RAGE. What did he do? He went and grasped the throne, as stated (in Job 26:9): HE (Moses) GRASPS THE FACE OF A THRONE; [HE (the Holy One) SPREAD HIS CLOUD UPON HIM]. So the Holy One protected him and spread some of the radiance of his Divine Presence over him. Come and see how many troubles they caused. Yesterday Moses had shoved them (the angels of destruction) aside,⁵⁰According to Shab. 88b-89a and Exod. R. 28:1, because the angels wanted the Torah for themselves, they tried to prevent Moses from receiving it. and now he was afraid of them. (Deut. 9:19:) FOR I WAS AFRAID OF [ANGER AND RAGE]. The five angels of destruction were Af (Anger), Qetsef (Wrath), Meshabber (Smasher), Mashhit (Destroyer), and Hemah (Rage); ⁵¹Cf. Tanh., Exod. 9:20. Moses mentioned three patriarchs, and three <angels> went away.⁵²See also Exod. R. 44:1. But ANGER AND RAGE remained behind. Moses said to the Holy One: Sovereign of the World: You stand up to one and I to one, as stated (in Ps. 7:7 [6]): RISE UP, O LORD, IN YOUR Af (ANGER).⁵³A more traditional translation would be: RISE UP, O LORD IN YOUR ANGER. The Holy One said to him (in Exod. 32:7): GO AND GET DOWN; you have a descent (i.e., degradation). He said to him: Why? HE SAID TO HIM: BECAUSE YOUR PEOPLE <WHOM YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT > HAVE ACTED BASELY. Moses said to him: Now are they my people and not your people! (Exod. 32:12:) TURN BACK FROM YOUR WRATHFUL ANGER. R. Simeon ben Johay said: Moses did not move from praying until the Holy One was reconciled to them. The Holy One said: In this world you sinned against me because the evil drive was ordering you; but in the world to come I am rooting it out of you, as stated (in Ezek. 36:26): I WILL REMOVE THE HEART OF STONE FROM YOUR FLESH AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH.⁵⁴Below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 1:12; above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:40; Tanh., Exod. 9:19; Tanh., Lev. 1:6.

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

So he acted justly during that exile in that he watched over it, and he still performed a great kindness for < Israel > with reference to that exile. How? In < the month of > Tebet they were scheduled to go into exile from Jerusalem, for so does < Scripture > say (in Ezek. 24:1–2): < THEN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME IN THE NINTH YEAR OF THE TENTH MONTH ON THE TENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, SAYING >: SON OF ADAM, WRITE DOWN THE NAME OF THE DAY, [THIS VERY DAY;] ON THIS VERY DAY THE KING OF BABYLON LAID SIEGE TO JERUSALEM. What did the Holy One do? He said: If they go forth now in the cold, they will die. What did he do for them? He waited for them and sent them into exile during the summer.⁶³This sentence follows the parallel in Tanh., Exod. 4:9. The Buber text, which reads: “He waited for them during the summer and sent them into exile,” makes little sense. This is what the prophet says (in Jer. 8:13): I WILL UTTERLY DESTROY THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "Destroy" ('SP) can only mean "exile," since it is stated (in Zeph. 1:2): I WILL REMOVE ('SP) ALL THINGS < FROM THE FACE THE EARTH >…. Now, the second < evil saying associated with the name of the Holy One > is (Ezek. 9:4:) AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM: PASS THROUGH THE MIDST OF THE CITY, THROUGH THE MIDST OF JERUSALEM AND MARK < THE LETTER > TAW⁶⁴The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. For various interpretations of its meaning, see the parallel version in Shab. 55a. ON THE FOREHEADS OF THOSE PEOPLE < WHO MOAN AND GROAN OVER ALL THE ABOMINATIONS >…. The Holy One said to Gabriel: Go and write an ink taw upon the foreheads of the righteous, so that the angels of destruction will have no dominion over them. Then upon the foreheads of the wicked write a blood taw so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them. < The > prosecution⁶⁵Gk.: kategoria, i.e., “accusation,” “charge.” Here the concept is hypostatized as a separate being. came in before the Holy One, [it said to him]: Sovereign of the World, how do the former differ from the latter? He said to it: The former are completely righteous, and the latter are completely wicked. It said to him: It was in their power to protest, but they did not protest. He said to it: It was revealed and known to me that, if they had protested, they would not have accepted their < protest >. It said to him: Sovereign of the World, how does the one group differ from the other. After all, it was in their power to demean themselves for the sanctification of your name and take beatings from Israel upon themselves, just as the prophets endured < them >. So look at how many woes Jeremiah suffered from Israel; also Isaiah, of whom it is written (in Is. 50:6): I GAVE MY BACK TO THE SMITERS…., and the rest of the prophets. Immediately (in Ezek. 9:6) he spoke again to the angels of destruction: [KILL OFF] OLD FOLK, YOUTH, MAIDENS, SMALL CHILDREN, AND WOMEN, < BUT DO NOT TOUCH ANYONE WHO BEARS THE TAV UPON HIMSELF >. This also was a kindness, in that the Holy One {interceded with} [mitigated] his wrath against Jerusalem, as stated (in Lam. 4:11): THE LORD HAS COMPLETED (KLH) HIS WRATH. For if he had not done so, all Israel would have received a verdict of destruction (KLYH). Ergo (in Ps. 5:5 [4]): AND EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU, because the Holy One does not cause his name to rest upon evil. So also in the case of Israel, he allotted them glory and did not mention them for evil. When he came to the offerings, he said to Moses (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD, < i.e. > OF YOU, and not the peoples of the world. However, when he came to mention leprosy spots, he said (in Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < … >. It does not say: "One of you," but WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. Ergo (in Ps. 5:5): AND EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU.

Another interpretation (of Cant. 6:4). AS TIRZAH (rt.: RTsH) <means> just as you are pleasing (rt.: RTsH) to me in the sacrifices. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 1:4): AND IT SHALL BE PLEASING (rt.: RTsH) FOR HIM TO ATONE FOR HIM. (Cant. 6:4, cont.:) AS COMELY AS JERUSALEM (YRUShLYM) <means> like these ministering Angels, in that they feared (rt.: YR') <me> and were reconciled (rt.: ShLM) to me. (Ibid., cont.:) AWESOME AS <HOSTS> WITH STANDARDS, like the standards which I gave you. So when David sees <them>, he says (in Ps. 147:20): HE HAS NOT DONE SO FOR ANY NATION, only for his people.

MISHNAH: The passage says concerning the burnt-offering of a cattle (Lev. 1, 9) An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord, and concerning a burnt-offering of a fowl it says (Ib.) An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord, and concerning a meal-offering it also says, An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour, unto the Lord. This is to teach thee that no matter whether he gives much or little, he should direct his attention toward Heaven.

GEMARA: R. Zeira said: "Where is the Biblical passage to prove this? (Ecc. 5, 11) Sweet is the sleep of a laboring man, whether he eat little or much." R. Ada b. Ahaba said: "From here (Ib. ib. 10) When good increase, they are increased that eat them; and what advantage is there to the owner thereof, saving the beholding of them with his eyes?" We are taught that R. Simon b. Azai said: "Come and see that in the entire chapter of sacrifices there is not mentioned the Divine attributes Ail (God), nor Elohim (God), but the original name Jehova (Tetragrammaton) in order not to allow anyone an opportunity of doubting [as to His monotheism]. It is said concerning a Bullock (Lev. 1, 9) An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour made unto the Lord; and concerning a fowl, it is written (Ib.) An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord; and concerning a meal-offering it says, An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. From this it may be inferred that whether one donates much or little, he should always direct his attention toward Heaven. Perhaps thou wilt say that He needs it for food; it therefore reads (Ps. 50, 12) If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine; do I eat the flesh of bulls? etc. I do not ask you to bring sacrifices in order that you should do My desire or likewise, but ye are bringing the sacrifices upon your own free will, as it is said (Lev. 19, 5) In accordance with your, own free will shall it be offered."

13) ("… and He spoke to him from the tent of meeting) lemor" ("saying") — "Say it" to them in humble terms (so that they accept it gladly), viz.: "For your sake does He speak with me." For we find that all of the thirty-eight years that Israel were out of grace (because of the sin of the spies) He did not speak with Moses, viz. (Devarim 2:16-17): "And it was, when all the men of war (those from the age of twenty) had finished dying from amidst the people that the L–rd spoke to me." Another nuance: "saying" — Go out and say it to them and return word to Me (if they accept it). And whence is it derived that Moses went out and spoke with them? From (Shemoth 34:34): "… and he would go forth and speak to the children of Israel what he had been commanded." And whence is it derived that He returned word to the Almighty? From (Shemoth 19:8): "And Moses returned the words of the people to the L–rd." Elazar b. Achvai says: I might think He spoke to him for his own needs; it is, therefore, written: "to say" — to Israel. He spoke to him for Israel's sake, and not for his own.

13) "to the door of the tent of meeting (shall he bring [yakriv] it"): The owner must attend to getting it there (and he cannot say to the Cohein: Since the sacrificial service is yours, you get it there!), it being written "yakriv (enu), yakriv" (the second "yakriv" coming for the above teaching). Whence is it derived that if an olah (a burnt-offering) got mixed up (so that it cannot be identified) with an (other) olah, or with a temurah, or with chullin that it should (still) be sacrificed (with certain pre-conditions)? From "yakriv, yakriv" (— in any event): I might think (that this were true) even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written "yakrivenu" ("he shall offer it") — to exclude an animal that got mixed up with p'sulin, which are not kasher as offerings.

13) (Vayikra 1:5): "on the altar roundabout" — when it is "roundabout" (i.e., entirely intact), and not when one of its horns is incomplete. If it was, and he performed the service on it, it is pasul.

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

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

The following illustrations provide an example of each of the homily types described above, and are based upon the same verse taken from the Torah reading: And the Lord called unto Moses (Lev. 1:1).

14) Whence is it derived (that the olah is offered) even (if it got mixed up) with inner sin-offerings (i.e., where the blood is sprinkled inside the mishkan). — No, such an instance is excluded (i.e., the olah would not be offered in such an instance), for these (the sin-offerings) are inner (as explained), whereas this (the olah) is outer. And whence is it derived (that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with outer sin-offerings? ) — No, in such an instance it is excluded, for this (i.e., the service of the olah) is above (the red line on the outer altar), and (the service of) these (the sin-offerings) below. And whence is it derived that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with a bechor, or ma'aser or pesach? — No, such an instance is excluded, for with this (the olah) there are four (applications of blood on the altar), whereas with the others, there is (only) one. And whence is it derived (that the olah is offered even if it got mixed up with peace-offerings or with a thank-offering? — No, such an instance is excluded, for this (the olah) is a higher-order offering (kodshei kodshim), whereas the others are lower-order offerings (kodshim kalim). I might think that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with an asham (a guilt-offering, both being kodshei kodshim); it is, therefore, written "yakrivenu" ("He shall offer it") — he offers only it, alone, and not when it got mixed up with others (like an asham).

14) (Vayikra 1:5): "at the entrance of the tent of meeting" — and not when it has been dismantled or when the wind has furled the curtain. R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "at the entrance of the tent of meeting"? Because it is written (Shemoth 40:7): "And you shall place the laver (hakiyor) between the tent of meeting and the altar," I might think (directly) between the tent of meeting and the altar; it is, therefore, written "the altar roundabout, which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting" — the altar is at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and not the laver. Where, then, was the laver placed? Between the ulam (the hall leading to the interior of the sanctuary) and the altar, somewhat removed (from the corner of the altar) towards the south (so that the laver was indirectly between the tent of meeting and the altar.)

Another interpretation, "at your setting up" (Numbers 8:2). This is what the verse says (Psalms 139:12) "Darkness is not dark for You; night is as light as day; darkness and light are the same". And to us He says "at your setting up" -- to what is the matter similar? To a king who had a loved one. The king said, "know that I will eat with you, so go and prepare for me". The loved one went and prepared an ordinary couch, an ordinary lamp [menora], an ordinary table. When the king came, he brought his assistants around him and a golden lamp before him. When the loved one saw all the glory of the king, he became ashamed and hid all he had prepared for the king, since they all were ordinary. The king said to him, "Did I not tell you I would eat with you? Why have you prepared nothing for me?" The loved one said to him, "I saw all the glory that you came with, and I was ashamed and hid all I had prepared for you, for they were all ordinary things." The king said to him, "By your life [I swear] that I will ruin all my things that I brought with me, and for the sake of your love I will not use anything except your possessions!" And so, the Holy Blessed One is entirely light, as it is said (Daniel 2:22) "And light dwells with Him", and God says to Israel "Prepare for me a menorah and lights". Why is written there (Exodus 25:8) "And they will make me a Mikdash and I will dwell in their midst", (Exodus 25:31) "And make Me a menorah of pure gold"? So when you make it, the Shechina comes. Why is it written there (Exodus 40:35) "And Moshe was not able to enter the Tent of Meeting", immediately [God] called to Moshe (Numbers 7:89) "When Moshe went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he would her the Voice speaking". What would it speak to him? "At your setting up of the lights".

15) Why did you choose (to include for offering) an olah that got mixed up with an olah? — It has the same name. An olah that got mixed up with a temurah? — A temurah can be sacrificed as an olah. An olah that got mixed up with chullin? — He can consecrate the chullin and make it an olah. (Ibid.): "yakriv otho" ("he shall bring it"): We are hereby taught that (if he is remiss in bringing his sacrifice) he is compelled to bring it. I might think, even against his will; it is, therefore, written: "of his own volition." How can this be reconciled? — He is compelled until he says: "I will it."

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

R. Nehemiah held: Punishment is desirable, for just as sacrifices are a means of atonement, so is chastisement. Concerning sacrifice it is written: And it shall be accepted for him (Lev. 1:4), and about punishment it is stated: And they shall be paid the punishment of their iniquity (ibid. 26:43). The fact is that punishment is more important (for atonement) than sacrifice. For sacrifices involve property, while punishment involves the body. Thus it says: Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life (Job. 2:4).

Now when the Holy One comes to judge all people in the age to come, he will judge them along with sorcerers and adulterers.⁶⁵Tanh., Lev. 1:7. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Mal. 3:5): THEN I WILL DRAW NEAR TO YOU IN JUDGMENT; AND I WILL BE A SWIFT WITNESS AGAINST SORCERERS, AGAINST ADULTERERS, AGAINST THOSE WHO SWEAR TO A LIE.<…> Moreover, I am finding them guilty and bringing them down to Gehinnom. The Holy One said: How is it that I have allowed you to be praising and glorifying my name, <when> you are reproaching, blaspheming, and swearing to a lie in my name? All people were created for my praise, as stated (in Prov. 16:4): THE LORD HAS MADE EVERYTHING FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE. So is it not enough for you that you do not praise him, but <that> you blaspheme <him as well>! The Scripture has said (in Is. 57:20): BUT THE WICKED ARE LIKE THE TROUBLED SEA, <FOR IT CANNOT REST (rt.: ShQT) >…. <They are> just like this <kind of> sea which has rollers in its midst exalting themselves upward. When each and every one of them reaches the sand, it is broken and returns (hozer).⁶⁶The word also means “repents.” Moreover, its companion is looking at it. That one also, when it is to be broken, exalts itself upward without repenting (hozer). So are the wicked, who look at one another and exalt themselves. Therefore, they are likened to the sea, as stated (in Is. 57:20): BUT THE WICKED ARE LIKE THE TROUBLED SEA…. All the generations, the generation of Enosh, the generation of the flood, and the generation of the dispersion (i.e., of the Tower of Babel), did not learn from each other. Instead they were exalting themselves. Therefore, (in Is. 57:20): BUT THE WICKED ARE LIKE THE TROUBLED SEA. The wicked have no rest in the world, but the righteous have serenity (ShQT), as stated (in Jer. 30:10): AND JACOB SHALL AGAIN HAVE PEACE (ShQT) AND QUIET WITH NONE TO MAKE HIM AFRAID.

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

18) "and Moses smoked the head, and the pieces, and the suet": as it is written (Vayikra 1:12): "And he shall cut it into its pieces, and its head and its suet." (Vayikra 8:21): "And the innards and the legs he washed with water": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water." (Vayikra 8:21) "and Moses smoked the whole ram upon the altar": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "and he shall smoke it upon the altar." (Vayikra 8:21): "It is a burnt-offering for a sweet savor": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd." From here it is derived that all (the limbs of the burnt-offering) are consigned to the fire.

18) "and Moses smoked the head, and the pieces, and the suet": as it is written (Vayikra 1:12): "And he shall cut it into its pieces, and its head and its suet." (Vayikra 8:21): "And the innards and the legs he washed with water": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water." (Vayikra 8:21) "and Moses smoked the whole ram upon the altar": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "and he shall smoke it upon the altar." (Vayikra 8:21): "It is a burnt-offering for a sweet savor": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd." From here it is derived that all (the limbs of the burnt-offering) are consigned to the fire.

18) "and Moses smoked the head, and the pieces, and the suet": as it is written (Vayikra 1:12): "And he shall cut it into its pieces, and its head and its suet." (Vayikra 8:21): "And the innards and the legs he washed with water": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water." (Vayikra 8:21) "and Moses smoked the whole ram upon the altar": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "and he shall smoke it upon the altar." (Vayikra 8:21): "It is a burnt-offering for a sweet savor": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd." From here it is derived that all (the limbs of the burnt-offering) are consigned to the fire.

18) "and Moses smoked the head, and the pieces, and the suet": as it is written (Vayikra 1:12): "And he shall cut it into its pieces, and its head and its suet." (Vayikra 8:21): "And the innards and the legs he washed with water": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water." (Vayikra 8:21) "and Moses smoked the whole ram upon the altar": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "and he shall smoke it upon the altar." (Vayikra 8:21): "It is a burnt-offering for a sweet savor": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): "a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd." From here it is derived that all (the limbs of the burnt-offering) are consigned to the fire.

(Ibid. 20) "You shall not make unto Me gods of silver and gods of gold": R. Yishmael says: The likeness of My servants who serve before Me on high ("you shall not make unto Me.") Neither the likeness of angels nor the likeness of ofanim (heavenly creatures), nor the likeness of cherubs. R. Nathan says: "You shall not make (alongside) with Me," i.e., Do not say I will make a kind of image and I will bow down to it. And thus is it written (Devarim 4:15) "And you shall take great heed to your souls. For you did not see any likeness (on the day that the L rd spoke to you in the midst of the fire.") R. Akiva says: "You shall not do (i.e., deport yourselves) with Me" as others do with their gods. When good befalls them, they honor their gods, viz. (Habakkuk 1:16) "Therefore, he sacrifices to his "nets" (i.e., to his idols, which "net" him riches). And when evil befalls them, they curse their gods, viz. (Isaiah 8:21) "… and he will curse his king and his gods." But, as for you, if I bring good upon you, you give thanks, and when I bring afflictions upon you, you give thanks. And thus did David say (Psalms 116:3) "the cup of salvation shall I raise, and in the name of the L-td will I call" — (Ibid. 4) "Trouble and sorrow will I find, and in the name of the L rd shall I call." And thus, Iyyov says (Iyyov 1:21) "the L rd has given and the L rd has taken — Let the name of the L rd be blessed!" Both for the good and for the evil. What does his wife say to him? (Ibid. 2:9) "Do you still hold on to your innocence? Blaspheme G d and die!" He answers (Ibid. 10) "You speak as one of the lowly ones! The men of the generation of the flood, who were "ugly" in good (i.e., when good befell them), accepted distress perforce. But we, who were amiable in good, should we not be amiable in distress!" — wherefore he said "You speak as one of the lowly ones!" And, what is more, one should rejoice in affliction more than in good. For even if one were to bask in good all of his days, his transgressions would not be forgiven. Whereby are they forgiven? By afflictions. R. Eliezer says: It is written (Mishlei 3:11) "The chastisement of the L rd, my son, do not despise … (12) "For whom the L-=rd loves He chastises, as a father, the son whom he favors. What caused this son to conciliate his father? Afflictions. R. Meir says (Devarim 8:5) "And you shall know in your heart that just as a man chastises his son, the L rd your G d chastises you." R. Yonathan says: Beloved are afflictions. Just as a covenant is forged with the land (viz. Genesis 15:18), a covenant is forged with afflictions, viz. "the L rd your G d chastises you … (7) for the L rd your G d brings you to a good land." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Beloved are afflictions, for three goodly gifts were given to Israel and are desired by the nations of the world, and they were given to them only through afflictions — Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the world to come. Torah, (Mishlei 1:2) "to know wisdom and chastisement, to comprehend words of understanding," and (Psalms 94:12) "Happy is the man whom you chastise, O L rd, and whom you teach from Your Torah." Eretz Yisrael, (Devarim 8:5) "… the L rd your G d chastises you … (7) for the L rd your G d brings you to a good land." The world to come, (Mishlei 6:23) "For a mitzvah is a lamp, and Torah, light, and the way of life, the chastisements of mussar." Which is the way which leads a man to life in the world to come? Afflictions. R. Nechemiah says: Beloved are afflictions. Just as offerings conciliate, so, afflictions conciliate. What is written of offerings? (Leviticus 1:5) "and it shall conciliate for him to atone for him." What is written of afflictions? (Ibid. 26:43) "… and they shall conciliate for their sin." And, what is more, afflictions conciliate more than offerings do. For offerings are (effected) with one's money, and afflictions, with one's body. Once, R. Eliezer was sick, and four elders came to visit him: R. Tarfon, R. Yehoshua, R. Elazar b. Azaryah, and R. Akiva … R. Tarfon responded: "You are more beloved by Israel than the solar orb" … whence we derive that afflictions are beloved (see Sanhedrin 107b)

5 "And he sent messengers" (Numbers 22:5). The Holy One, blessed be He, made miracles for them; and the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "I redeem you and do miracles for you, but your rebel against Me. Come and see the seven salvations that I saved you - and you should have been obligated to praise Me seven times, corresponding to the seven salvations. And likewise it states (Judges 10:11-12), "But the Lord said to the Children of Israel, 'Is it not that from the Egyptians, from the Amorites, from the Ammonites, and from the Philistines. And the Sidonians, Amalek, and Maon, etc., when you cried out to Me, I saved you from them.'" Behold seven salvations. But you rebelled against Me with seven idolatries, as it is stated (Judges 10:6), "The Israelites again did what was offensive in the eyes of the Lord; they served the Baalim and the Ashtaroth [...]." And likewise does He rebuke them, "'My people, what wrong have I done you; what hardship have I caused you' (Micah 6:3) What burden have I given to you? Did I say to you, 'Bring me burnt-offerings from the animals in the mountains?' Three animals are in your possession (according to Deuteronomy 14:4): 'the bull, the sheep, and the goat.' And seven are not in your possession (according to Deuteronomy 14:5): 'The deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.' Did I burden you to bring a sacrifice in front of Me from the animals which are not in your possession? I only commanded you from the animals which are in your possession, as it is stated (in Leviticus 22:27), 'A bull or a sheep or a goat.' And likewise, 'from the animals; (and) from the cattle and from the sheep' (Leviticus 1:2). And when Sichon and Og came out to fight against you, did I not bring them down before you? 'What hardship did I cause you?' Did I say to you to bring a sacrifice to them? Did Balak son of Tsippor not see that I did all of the miracles for you, so he hired Bilaam against you? But I turned the curses into blessings.

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

[(Gen. 35:9:) NOW GOD APPEARED UNTO JACOB AGAIN….] < AND BLESSED HIM >. This text is related (to Job 4:12-13): NOW A WORD WAS SECRETLY BROUGHT UNTO ME, AND MY EAR RECEIVED A WHISPER OF IT, IN THOUGHTS FROM NIGHT VISIONS, WHEN DEEP SLEEP FALLS UPON PEOPLE. NOW A WORD WAS SECRETLY BROUGHT UNTO ME. [When the Holy One reveals himself unto the wicked, he reveals himself unto them by stealth at night; but] when he reveals himself unto the righteous, he reveals himself unto them in public.⁷⁹Gk.: parresia. {But when he} [R. Issachar said: When the Holy One] reveals himself unto the wicked, he reveals himself in colloquial speech, in unclean speech,⁸⁰Gen. R. 52:5; Lev. R. 1:13. in semi-utterance. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 23:4): THEN GOD ENCOUNTERED BALAAM. ENCOUNTERED < denotes > nothing but unclean speech. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 23:11 [10]): WHO IS UNCLEAN BECAUSE OF WHAT HE ENCOUNTERS AT NIGHT (i.e., a nocturnal emission). But when he reveals himself to the righteous, he reveals himself in clean speech. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 1:1): THEN < THE LORD > CALLED UNTO MOSES < AND SPOKE UNTO HIM FROM THE TENT OF MEETING >. It was therefore stated (in Job 4:12): NOW A WORD WAS SECRETLY BROUGHT UNTO ME (Eliphaz). When the Holy One reveals himself to the wicked, [he reveals himself] in the night because their deeds are dark like the night. For that reason he reveals himself to them in the night. Thus it is stated (concerning Laban in Gen. 31:24): THEN GOD CAME UNTO LABAN < THE ARAMAEAN > IN A DREAM AT NIGHT. But when he comes to the righteous, what is written (in Gen. 35:9)? NOW GOD APPEARED UNTO JACOB AGAIN, < WHEN HE CAME FROM PADDANARAM >.⁸¹Since the Holy One appeared to Jacob on arrival, before he had retired for the night, the verse implies that the Holy One appeared during the daylight hours.

R. Nechemiah says: Beloved are afflictions. For just as sacrifices reconcile (man with G-d), so, afflictions. Sacrifices — (Vayikra 1:4) "And it (the offering) shall be accepted for him." Afflictions — (Ibid. 26:43) "and they (i.e., their afflictions) will effect reconciliation (with G-d) for their sins." And, what is more, afflictions (in this regard) are more potent than sacrifices, the latter being a function (only) of their wealth; the former, of their bodies. And thus is it written (Iyyov 2:4) "Skin for skin, and all that a man has will he give for his life." Once, R. Eliezer was ill, and there came to visit him R. Tarfon, R. Yehoshua, R. Eliezer b. Azaryah, and R. Akiva. R. Tarfon opened: "Rebbi, you are more beloved by Israel than the solar orb. For the solar orb gives light only in this world, and you give light both in this world and the world to come." R. Yehoshua: "You are more beloved by Israel than the rains. For the rains give life only in this world, and you give us life in this world and the world to come." R. Elazar b. Azaryah: "You are more beloved by Israel than father and mother. For father and mother bring a man to this world, and you bring us to this world and to the world to come." R. Akiva: "Rebbi, afflictions are beloved" — whereupon R. Eliezer said to his disciples: "Support me, and let me hear the words of Akiva, my disciple." R. Eliezer sat up and said: "Say on, Akiva."

A sighted person and a blind person were walking together. The sighted person said, "Come and I will be your guide"; which enabled the blind person to walk. When they entered the house, the sighted person said to the blind person, "Go and light the candle for me, and provide me with light, so that you should no longer feel obliged to me for having accompanied you; therefore I said to you to light [the candle]."

... Teach us oh, teacher: A court which sanctified the month, but not at Eintav with witnesses, is it sanctified? R’ Abahu said in the name of R’ Chiya the great: if a court sanctified the month without witnesses, it is sanctified, as it says “…which you shall designate in their appointed time.” (Leviticus 23:4) This means whether it is with witnesses or without. Whether witnesses saw it or not it is sanctified, as it says ‘which you shall designate.’ And why did the court intercalate a month into the calendar at Eintav? Because this was the meeting place for the court. Therefore on Rosh HaShana which fell out on Shabbat the shofar is not blown anywhere except at Eintav, in the place where the court sat and intercalated the years and months. The Holy One said: Zion is the meeting place for the whole world, as it says “…for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:3) Therefore when I redeem Zion and her exiles, as it says “Zion shall be redeemed through justice and her penitent through righteousness,” (Isaiah 1:27) they will come and blow the shofar within her. From where do we learn this? From how the prophet finished his words “Sound a shofar in Zion…” (Yoel 2:15). This is how R’ Tanchuma opened in the name of the House of R’ Aba: “The fairest of branches (nof) , the joy of the entire earth- Mount Zion, by the north side, the city of a great king.” (Psalms 48:3) What does nof mean? A bride (kloninfe). Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches’ R’ Chanina bar Pappa said: The most beautiful in her branches, like the fig whose roots are in the land, rising up with her branches going out in every direction, she is beautiful. This is why Jerusalem is called the fairest of branches, because in the future she will be so “And it became wider and it wound higher and higher…” (Ezekiel 41:7) Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches’ R’ Berachia said: The one who is beautiful through the waving (hanafat) of her omer offering. R’ Yitzchak said: The one who is beautiful because in the future she will wave away the nations of the world. R’ Levi said: the fairest of branches (nof) because everyone beautifies her, praises her and waves (manifim) to her. “Tyre, you said, 'I am the perfection of beauty.'” (Ezekiel 27:3) but everyone praises and says ‘how beautiful’ to Jerusalem “Is this the city that was called the perfection of beauty, the joy of all the earth?” (Lamentations 2:15) Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches’ R’ Levi said: her branches are beautiful through the circling of the altar. Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches, the joy of the entire earth’ R’ Yochanan said: there was a dome of accounting outside of Jerusalem, and they would take their accounts to do them outside of Jerusalem under that dome outside of the city limits. Within the city they would eat, drink and be joyful. Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches, the joy of the entire earth’ Through the dew which comes out from there and causes the grains to wave (m’nafef), gives blessing and makes all the land rejoice. ‘The fairest of branches, the joy of the entire earth’ R’ Yonatan of Bet Guvrin went into Jerusalem with merchandise in his hands and no one was around. He said: and this is the joy of the entire earth?! He hadn’t finished saying this before he sold everything that was in his hands. “…Mount Zion, by the north side…” (Psalms 48:3) And is Zion located in the north, isn’t it actually in the south? What is ‘the north side’? That her sacrifices were offered “…on the northern side of the altar…” (Leviticus 1:11) And what does “…the city of a great king…” (Psalms 48:3) mean? The city of the Great King. Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches, the joy of the entire earth’ R’ Levi said: joy comes from Zion, “…and they shall come to Zion with song, with joy of days of yore shall be upon their heads…” (Isaiah 35:10) The blessing comes from there, “Like the dew of Hermon, that comes down upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life forever.” (Psalms 133:3) The Torah comes from Zion “…from out of Zion comes the Torah…” (Isaiah 2:3) Help comes to Israel out Zion, “Send forth your help from the sanctuary, and support you out of Zion.” (Psalms 20:3) Life comes from Zion, “…for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life forever.” (Psalms 133:3) Salvation comes from Zion, as it says “Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion!” (Psalms 14:7) And the shofar blast which will bring near the redemption of Israel comes out of Zion “Blow the shofar in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain; Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; For the day of the Lord comes, for it is at hand…” (Yoel 2:15)

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

This tells me only of unblemished animals (that they may not be slaughtered in the azarah [lest they be confused with offerings]). Whence do I derive (the same for) blemished animals? From (Vayikra 3:2) "and he shall slaughter it" (implying an offering only [and not chullin of any kind]) at the entrance of the tent of meeting" (i.e., the azarah.) Whence do I derive (the same for) animals and birds, (which cannot be confused with offerings)? From (Ibid. 8) "and he shall slaughter it (a sheep) before the tent of meeting" — it, and not animals and birds.

I might think that the Cohein stood from afar and flung them (the flesh sections onto the altar); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:12) "and the Cohein shall arrange them": He stands close (to the altar) and flings them in order upon the wood pile.

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

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

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

H' has chastised me greatly. Chastisements are to be loved, because they please (martzin) like sacrifices. For of sacrifices [Scripture] says: "that it may be pleasing (nirtzah) in his behalf, to atone for him." (Lev. 1:4) And of chastisements it is written: "as a father is pleased with (yirtzeh) the son." (Prov. 3:12) Another interpretation: Chastisements are to be loved, because they are more pleasing than sacrifices. Sin offerings and guilt offerings atone only for that [particular] transgression, as it is said: "that it may be pleasing (nirtzah) in his behalf, to atone for him." (Lev. 1:4) But chastisements atone for all [sins]. That is, H' has chastised me greatly [for all my sins, so my atonement is complete].

(Devarim 32:3) "When I call out the name (shem) of the L-rd, ascribe greatness to our G-d.": We find, then, that Moses (in awe of the L-rd) did not mention the name of the L-rd (yod-keh-vav-keh) until after twenty-one words (from "Ha'azinu" until shem"). From whom did he learn to do this? From the ministering angels, who do not mention the name of the L-rd until after three "holies," viz. (Isaiah 6:3) "And one would call to the other and say 'Holy, holy, holy is the L-rd of hosts.'" Moses reasoned: It suffices that I place fewer than seven (words before the name of the L-rd) to be like [i.e., to emulate the awe of]) the ministering angels. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Moses, the wisest of the sages, the greatest of the great, did not mention the name of the L-rd until after twenty-one words, then one who mentions the name of the L-rd in vain, how great (is his sin)! R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Whence is it derived that one should not say "to the L-rd a burnt-offering," "to the L-rd a meal-offering," "to the L-rd peace-offerings," but "a burnt-offering to the L-rd," "a meal-offering to the L-rd," "peace-offerings to the L-rd"? From (Vayikra 1:2) "an offering to the L-rd" (rather than "to the L-rd an offering.") Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If (in respect to) these (offerings) which are consecrated to Heaven, the L-rd says: Let My name not be ascribed to them until they have been consecrated, then one who mentions the name of the L-rd in vain, and in an inappropriate place, how great (is his sin)!