민수기 5:2의 미드라쉬

"Command": The command is immediately, for present performance and for future generations. You say thus, but perhaps it is only for future performance! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Command the children of Israel that they send … (Bamidbar 19:4) "And the children of Israel did so, sending them outside the camp" — whence we derive that the command is for immediate performance. And whence do we derive that it is (also) for future generations? From (Vayikra 24:2) "Command the children of Israel that they take to you clear olive oil … (3) … an eternal statute for your generations." — But how do we derive (the same) for all the commands in the Torah? R. Yishmael says: Since we find unqualified commands in the Torah, and one of them was qualified as being for present performance and for future generations, we derive the same for all the mitzvoth in the Torah. R. Yehudah b. Bethira says: "command" in all places connotes impulsion (to the act), as it is written (Devarim 3:28) "And command Joshua and strengthen him and fortify him" — whence we learn "We strengthen only the (internally) strengthened," and "We impel only the (internally) impelled." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "Command" in all places entails expense, as it is written (Vayikra 24:2) "Command the children of Israel that they take to you pure olive oil," (Bamidbar 35:2) "Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites from the inheritance, etc." (Bamidbar 28:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread, for My fires" — whence we see that "command" in all places entails expense. Except in one; and which is that? (Bamidbar 34:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land of Canaan, etc." — where the intent is: Impel them to the division of the land. Rebbi says: "Command" in all places is exhortation, as it is written (Bereshit 2:16-17) "And the L-rd G-d commanded (i.e., exhorted) the man, saying … but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat."

(Bamidbar 5:2) "that they send out of the camp": I understand this to mean from the Levite camp alone. Whence do I derive that the Israelite camp is also meant? From (Bamidbar 5:3) "Outside the camp shall you send them." (Bamidbar 5:3) "and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell": This is the camp of the Shechinah. — But even if this were not mentioned, I could derive it a fortiori, viz. If those with dead-body tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, that of the Israelites, how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, that of the Shechinah. If so, why is "and they shall not make unclean their camps" needed? To teach that we do not punish by an a fortiori argument. R. Yehudah says: There is no need (for the verse to teach that they are sent out of the camp of the Shechinah), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If those with (dead-body) tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, (that of) the ark (i.e., the camp of the Levites), how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, (that of) the Shechinah, (R. Yehudah obviously holding that we do punish by an a fortiori argument). If so, why is it written "and they shall not make unclean their camps?" Because from "they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav and every tamei meth," I would understand that they are all sent to one place; it is, therefore, written in respect to a leper (Vayikra 13:46) "Solitary shall he sit" — that no other unclean ones sit with him. I might then think that zavim and the tamei meth are sent to one camp; it is, therefore, written "and they shall not make unclean their camps" — to assign a separate camp for each. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: There is no need (for the above). A leper was included in the general category (of the unclean), and left the category (for special mention) to teach concerning the category, viz.: Just as a leper, whose tumah is most stringent — his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor, so, each one whose tumah is more stringent, his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor.

This is the source for the sages' gradations of partitions (mechitzoth). Wherever zav confers tumah, metzora (leper) confers tumah. metzora is of greater stringency (than zav) in that it confers tumah upon one who enters (a house afflicted with tzara'ath [viz. Vayikra 14:46] [— wherefore a metzora is sent out of all three camps]). Wherever tamei meth confers tumah, zav confers tumah. zav is of greater stringency (than tamei meth) in that it confers tumah under an even mesama (a stone beneath which there is a cavity [viz. Vayikra 15:9] [— wherefore a zav is sent out of two camps]). Wherever tvul yom (one who has immersed in the daytime [pending purification in the evening]) confers tumah, tamei meth confers tumah. tamei meth is of greater stringency (than tvul yom) in that it confers tumah upon a man (who touches him, viz. [Bamidbar 19:22] [— wherefore a tamei meth is sent out of one camp]). Wherever one's lacking atonement (through an offering) renders (him) unfit (for eating consecrated food) tvul yom renders (him) unfit. tvul yom is of greater stringency (than one's lacking atonement) in that he renders terumah unfit.

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

R. Nachman b. R. Chisda said to R. Nachman b. Isaac: "Let the master come and settle among us [so that we may study together]." We are taught in a Mishnah, answered the latter, "Not the place in which he lives distinguishes the man, but the man marks the place. And thus we find that with respect to Mount Sinai, as long as the Shechina rested there, the Torah admonishes (Ex. 34, 3) Neither let flocks or herds feed near the mount, but as soon the Shechina had withdrawn from the mount, it is said (Ex. 19, 13) They may come up to the mount. A similar instance can be found with respect to the Tabernacle, which was erected in the wilderness, that so long as the Tabernacle was pitched the Torah warned (Num. 5, 2)They send out of the camp every leper, etc. When the curtains [of the Tabernacle] were folded up immediately the lepers and Zab were allowed to enter the place." "If this be so," said R. Nachman b. R. Chisda "then I will go to the place where the master dwellest." Whereupon R. Nachman b. Isaac answered: "It is better that a Maneh son of a P'ras (half a Maneh), i.e., a distinguished son of a less distinguished father — should come to be a Maneh son of a Maneh, i.e., a distinguished son of a distinguished father, rather than the contrary."

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

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

3b) binyan av mishnei kethuvim (a general rule derived from two verses). viz.: The topic of the lamps (on the menorah) is not like that of sending the unclean outside (of the encampment), and the latter is not like the former. What is common to them is that they are introduced by "Tzav" ("Command") — [the lamps, (Vayikra 24:2); sending, etc., (Bamidbar 5:2)] — and apply both immediately and for future generations. [The lamps: immediately — (Bamidbar 8:3): "And Aaron did so. He kindled its lamps towards the face of the menorah, etc."; for future generations — (Vayikra 24:3): "… an eternal statute throughout your generations." Sending the unclean outside: immediately — (Bamidbar 5:4): "And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp"; for future generations — (Bamidbar 19:21): "And it shall be for them an everlasting statute."] So, all commandments introduced by "Tzav" apply both immediately and for future generations.

“All of you is fair, my love, and there is no blemish in you” (Song of Songs 4:7).
“All of you is fair, my love” – this is Jacob our patriarch, whose bed was unflawed and no waste was found among it.⁹²Unlike his father and grandfather, all his offspring were righteous.
What is, “all of you is fair, my love”? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: When Israel stood before Mount Sinai and said: “Everything that God spoke we will perform and we will heed” (Exodus 24:7), at that moment there were in their midst neither zav, nor leper, nor lame, nor blind, nor mute, nor deaf, nor imbecile, nor depressed, nor fool, nor doubter. Regarding that moment it is stated: “All of you is fair, my love.” When they sinned, there were not easy times, and there were in their midst zav, leper, lame, blind, mute, deaf, imbecile, and fool. At that moment it is stated: “They shall banish from the camp every leper and every zav” (Numbers 5:2).
Rabbi Ḥelbo said: It is written: “The one who presented his offering on the first day was [Naḥshon son of Aminadav of the tribe of Judah. And his offering was…]” (Numbers 7:12–13). “On the second day, presented Netanel [son of Tzuar].… his offering was…” (Numbers 7:18–19). Why did the Torah depict Judah as secondary?⁹³In relating Naḥshon’s offering the Torah uses a vav, meaning “and,” in the term vekorbano, “and his offering was,” indicating that there had been someone before him, although there had not been. Regarding Netanel the Torah does not use a vav even though there had been someone before him. It is so Judah would not become arrogant and say: I presented first, I am the greatest of them all. Rather, the Holy One blessed be He treated them as though they all presented on the first day and on the last day.
Rabbi Elazar said: It is written: “This was the dedication of the altar on the day it was anointed” (Numbers 7:84). But did each of them not offer one bowl, one ladle? Why does the verse state: “twelve silver bowls, twelve silver basins, twelve golden ladles” (Numbers 7:84)? It was so that Judah would not say: I presented first, I am the greatest of them all. Therefore, the Holy One blessed be He treated them as though they all presented on the first day and on the last day.
Rabbi Berekhya said: It is written: “All these are the tribes of Israel, twelve, [and this is that which their father spoke to them and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them]” (Genesis 49:28). After he blessed them did he bless them again? Rather, it teaches that Jacob our patriarch sat and likened them to beasts. He likened Judah to a lion, as it is stated: “Judah is a lion cub” (Genesis 49:9). Dan to a snake, as it is stated: “Dan will be a serpent on the road” (Genesis 49:17). Naphtali to a hind, as it is stated: “Naphtali is a hind let loose” (Genesis 49:21). Benjamin to a wolf, as it is stated: “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf” (Genesis 49:27). Then he called them all wolves, all of them snakes, all of them fiery serpents, all of them scorpions. Know that it is so, as Dan, whom he called a snake, he⁹⁴Moses then called a lion, as it is stated: “Dan is a lion cub” (Deuteronomy 33:22). Rabbi Idi said: We have found in the offerings of the princes that what this one offered that one offered. This one sacrificed a burnt offering, and that one sacrificed a burnt-offering; this one a meal offering and that one a meal offering; this one a sin offering and that one a sin offering; this one a peace offering and that one a peace offering. Why? It is because all of them are faultless and equal to one another.
What led the verse to delineate their genealogy in the book [of Exodus], Reuben, Simeon, and Levi?⁹⁵The verses delineate the genealogies of only these three tribes (see Exodus 6:14–25). Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Levi: one said: It is because their father reprimanded them,⁹⁶When Jacob gave blessings to his sons before his death, he reprimanded Reuben, Simeon, and Levi (see Genesis 49:3–7). In order to emphasize that these tribes were not inferior, the verses list their genealogies as they introduce Moses and Aaron. and one said: It was because it delineated the genealogy of Moses and Aaron.⁹⁷Because the Torah sought to address the genealogy of Aaron and Moses from the tribe of Levi, it began with Reuben, the first of the tribes, and continued through Levi. We do not know who said this and who said that. However, from the fact that Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Huna: “An ear that heeds life’s reprimand will rest among the wise” (Proverbs 15:31), it is Rabbi Huna⁹⁸This is possibly an alternate pronunciation of the name of Rabbi Ḥanina. Alternatively, the text should either state Rabbi Ḥanina here or Rabbi Huna above. who said because their father reprimanded them. Because they accepted their father’s reprimand they were privileged to have their genealogy delineated alongside Moses and Aaron. That is why it is stated: “All of you is fair.”
Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yehuda said: It is because all the tribes did not preserve their genealogies in Egypt, but Reuben, Simeon, and Levi preserved their genealogy.⁹⁹They married only with families that could prove they were of pure lineage. Rabbi Neḥemya said: It is because all the tribes engaged in idol worship in Egypt, but the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi did not engage in idol worship. The Rabbis say: It is because the other tribes did not exercise authority in Egypt, but these tribes exercised authority. How so? When Reuben died,¹⁰⁰Joseph had been the authority figure among the brothers and their descendants in Egypt, but he died before his brothers. At that point, Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob, became the authority figure. authority was transferred to Simeon. When Simeon died, authority was transferred to Levi. When Levi died, authority was going to be transferred to Judah. A Divine voice emerged and said: Leave it until its time arrives. When did its time arrive? After the death of Joshua. That is what is written: “It was after the death of Joshua.… the Lord said: Judah shall ascend” (Judges 1:1–2). He was called three names: Judah, Otniel, and Yabetz. Rabbi Berekhya and Rabbi Levi [said] in the name of Rabbi Ḥama ben Rabbi Ḥanina: This¹⁰¹Yabetz is Boaz. Rabbi Simon [said] in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: This¹⁰²Yabetz is Otniel.
It is written: “Son of man, the House of Israel has become dross to Me; they are all…” (Ezekiel 22:18). Zechariah said: I saw them, and they were pure gold: “I saw, and behold, a candelabrum of gold in its entirety, with a bowl [gulah] atop it.… and there are two olive trees over it” (Zechariah 4:2–3). There were two amora’im; one said exile [gola], and one said their Redeemer [go’alah]. The one who said gola: As they were exiled to Babylon, and the Divine Presence was exiled with them. The one who said go’alah: It is their redemption, as it is written: “Our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts is His name…” (Isaiah 47:4). The Holy One blessed be He said: Since that is the case:¹⁰³Since in the future they will all be comparable to pure gold, as envisioned by Zechariah. “All of you is fair, my love, and there is no blemish in you.”

7) kllal shehu tzarich lifrat ufrat shehu tzarich lichllal (general requiring specific and specific requiring general): (Shemoth 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every bechor (first-born), the opener of each womb." I might think that even females are included; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:19): "the male." If "the male," (I would think that) even a yotze dofen (Caesarian birth) were a bechor. It is, therefore, written "the opener of the womb." This is an instance of "general" (bechor) requiring "specific." I might think that even if it were born after a yotze dofen it were a bechor (being the first opener of the womb); it is, therefore, written "bechor," (which connotes first in all respects; not only first opener of the womb, but also first in birth). This is an instance of "specific" ("opener of the womb") requiring "general" (bechor).

And his offering: one silver bowl (Numbers 7:13). Behold it is written (Song of Songs 4:7) "You are all beautiful, my love, and there is no blemish in you" - this is speaking of Israel. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: at the time that Israel stood before Mount Sinai to accept the Torah, there were no blind people among them, nor deaf, nor mentally incapable, nor mutes, nor lame, nor limping. At that moment it says, "You are all beautiful, my love, there is no blemish in you." -- until they sinned with the calf, and among them were made zavim and metzoraim, as it says (Exodus 32:25) "And Moshe saw the people, that they were scattered [פרוע]", and it is also written (Leviticus 13:45) "As for the person with a leprous affection, their clothes shall be rent, their head shall be wild [פרוע],". At that moment, it says (Numbers 5:2) "Send out from the camp every tzarua and every zav". But before Mount Sinai, they were whole, as it says "You are all beautiful, my love, there is no blemish in you". Another opinion: "All of you is beautiful, my love" speaks of the tribes. And if you say, how can all of them be beautiful? For Ya'akov their father blessed the tribes, and chided Reuven, Shimon, and Levi. How can you say they "you are all beautiful"?! Rabbi Elazar says, even though he blessed the later tribes and chided the former tribes, even so he returned and blessed them, as it says (Genesis 49:28) "These are the tribes of Israel, twelve..." -- he made them nourished from each other. What is (Genesis 49:28) "And he blessed them, each according to his own blessing"? When he blessed them, he returned and blessed them again -- rather, it teaches that when Ya'akov our father blessed his children, he would compare them to animals. He compared Yehuda to a lion; "Yehuda is a lion's whelp..." (Genesis 49:9). He compared Dan to a snake; "Dan shall be a snake..." (Genesis 49:17). He compared Naftali to a hind; "Naftali is a hind let loose..." (Genesis 49:21). Binyamin to a wolf; "Binyamin is a ravenous wolf..." (Genesis 49:27). Even though this is so, he returned and called all of them lions, all snakes, all hinds, all wolves. You can know that this is so, since behold Dan was called a snake, and he returned and called him a lion; "Dan is a lion's whelp..." (Deuteronomy 33:22). So you learn that he returned and included Reuven, Shimon, and Levi in the blessing of their brothers, to uphold that which is written; "you are entirely beautiful, my love". And so the verse returns and counts Reuven, Shimon, and Levi individually in the book of Exodus, and does not count the others. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya and the rabbis [offer alternaive explanations for this]. Rabbi Yehuda says, this is why Reuven, Shimon, and Levi were counted individually: since all the tribes did not guard their lineage in Egypt, and Reuven and Shimon and Levi guarded their lineages, thus their lineages are enumerated there. Rabbi Nechemya says, all the tribes worshipped star-worship in Egypt, and tre tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Levi did not worship star-worship; thus they merited to be counted alone. And the rabbis say, all the tribes did not act with authoority/leadership [?] in Egypt, but Reuven, Shimon, and Levi acted with leadership in Egypt,. Reuven died and leadership was given to Shimon, Shimon died and it was given to Levi. Levi died and they wished to give it to Yehuda, and a Bat Kol went out and said, "Leave it, until its time comes!" When did it's time come? After the death of Yehoshua (Judges 1:1-2) "And it was after the death of Joshua that the Israelites inquired... and God said, Yehuda will go up". Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Chanin: one says "Therefore, it returned and related these three tribes, because their father had chided them." The other says, "because their lineage relates to Moshe and Aharon". And we do not know which of them said this and which of them said this, since it's from what Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Chanin in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak. "The ear that listens to the reproof of life abides among the wise" (Proverbs 15:31) -- this is Rabbi Chanin, who said, because he chided them. And because they accepted the reproof of their father, they merited to be ennumerated beside Moshe and Aharon. For this reason, it says "You are entirely beautiful, my love...". Another interpretation, "you are entirely beauutiful, my love..." according to Yirmiyahu, who said (Jeremiah 6:30) "They are called 'rejected silver'..." and Yechezkel called them dross; "O mortal, the House of Israel has become dross to Me" (Ezekiel 22:18). Zechariah came and said, "I saw, and behold, a menorah... entirely [כֻּלָּהּ] of gold.." (Zechariah 4:2), to fulfil that which is written, "all of you [כֻּלָּךְ] is beautiful, my love". Another interpreation; "you are entirely beautiful, ...": this is speaking of the princes of the tribes at the time that they brought forth for the dedication of the altar. They did not bring all together on one day, rather each and every one on individual days, as like that which is written "One prince each day" (Numbers 7:11). Could it be that the one who brought his offerings first was most beloved?! Yehuda who brought his offerings first was most beloved of all? So Rabbi Chelbo said; with all the tribes it is written "his offering", and with the prince of Yehuda it is written "and his offering" - and this is strange! He who offered first it is written of him, "and his offering" - it did not need to sppeak thus, rather of the first "his offering" and the rest "and his offering". And why is this so? Rabbi Brechya haCohen son of Rabbi said, since Yehuda ofered first, if he had come to pride himself over his brothers and say "I am more honoured than you, since I offered first", they would respond to him and say, "you are he who offered last, for thus it says 'and his offering'!" This made him lesser [and brought him down] to his brothers, and so: "all of you is beautiful".

13) But perhaps (I should say:) Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (in sitting solitary) nethakim, where the plague-spot is in his head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other afflicted ones? From "he shall be unclean. He is unclean; solitary shall he sit." I might think that two temai'im [zav and one who is tamei by a dead body] (who are classed with him [viz. Bamidbar 5:2]) may sit with him. It is, therefore, written "solitary shall he sit" — the two (other) temai'im may not sit with him.