Midrasz do Daniela 8:4

[(Gen. 27:28:) SO MAY GOD GIVE TO YOU.] It is written (in Job 29:19): MY ROOT IS OPEN UNTO WATER.⁵¹Cf. Gen. R. 66:1. Who spoke this verse? Job spoke it about himself, about the Temple, and about Jacob. In what way did he say about himself: MY ROOT IS OPEN … ? The doors of his house were open to those passing by, especially to Torah scholars. What is the meaning of UNTO (ele) WATER? To the rams (ele) of Torah and its warriors. It is just as you say (in Dan. 8:4): I SAW THE RAM CHARGING SEAWARD AND NORTHWARD. ["To water"] is not written here (in Job 29:19), but UNTO (ele) WATER, because the house of Job was opened to < such > wayfarers. Therefore (in Job 29:19, cont.): AND DEW SHALL LODGE ON MY BRANCHES (qatsir). R. Hanina said: Everybody saw that when Job harvested his field, there were clouds gathered over his harvest (qatsir) because it would not have recovered its freshness from the burning heat.⁵²Cf. MS 1240 from the De Rossi library in Parma: “Because he would plant it away from the burning heat.” Ergo (in Job 29:19): AND DEW SHALL LODGE ON MY BRANCHES (qatsir).

(Bamidbar 19:5) "And he shall burn the heifer before his eyes": Scripture apprises us about the heifer that preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its burning. — But even without this being stated, I know it a fortiori, viz.: If it (preoccupation) invalidates its slaughtering (see above), should it not invalidate its burning! If I know this a fortiori, what need is there for a verse? Rather, Scripture apprises us that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates it from the time of slaughtering until it becomes ashes. "And he shall burn the heifer before his eyes, and not the bullocks (that of Yom Kippur, etc.) that are burnt ("outside the camp"). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If with the red heifer, which is not processed within (the sanctuary), work invalidates its burning, then the bullocks, which are processed within, how much more so should work invalidate their burning! — No, this may be true of the red heifer, whose slaughtering is invalidated by work, wherefore it invalidates its burning, as opposed to the bullocks that are burnt, whose slaughtering is not invalidated by work, wherefore it should not invalidate their burning! — But let it (i.e., work) invalidate their slaughtering! And this would, indeed, follow, viz.: If bullocks, which are not processed within, work invalidates their slaughtering, then the bullocks that are burnt, which are processed within, how much more so should work invalidate their slaughtering! It is, therefore, written "then he shall burn the heifer (before his eyes") and (Ibid. 3) "and he shall slaughter it before him," and not the bullocks that are burned. "And he shall burn the heifer before his (Elazar's) eyes": Another burns and Elazar looks on. "Its skin, and its flesh, and its blood together with its dung": Just as the dung (remains) in its place, (i.e., it is not removed from the bowels,) so, all (of the others remain) in their place — whence they ruled: Any blood (remaining in his hand) should be returned to its place (i.e., the shechitah site), and if it is not returned, the heifer is invalidated. What does he do? He wipes his hand on the body of the heifer. "And he shall burn the heifer": to include bits (leaping from the fire) — whence they ruled: Any amount of flesh must be returned (to the fire); if he does not return it, it (the heifer) is invalidated. Any amount of bone must be returned; if he does not return it, it is not invalidated, ("bone" not being mentioned in the verse). If an olive-size (leapt out of the fire), he must return it (to the fire). (And if he returned it, even if a minute amount remained behind, he must return it.) If he does not return it, (the heifer) is invalidated. "he shall burn": (We have here an instance of) amplification ("he shall burn") after amplification ("And he shall burn") in which instance the rule is "diminution" — If most of it (and not necessarily all of it) has been consumed, (it is valid). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Yehudah says: (The intent of "he shall burn" is that) he shall not diminish the wood (supply). He adds to it bundles of hyssop and bundles of Grecian hyssop in order to increase the (amount of) ashes. (Ibid. 6) "And the Cohein shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet": It is written here "taking," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 18) "taking." Just as "taking" here is three (species), so, "taking" there, (although only "hyssop" is mentioned there.) "wood": This implies any kind of wood. It is, therefore, written "cedar": This (alone) implies even a branch. It is, therefore, written "wood." How so? A chip of cedar wood. "hyssop": Not "Grecian" or "Kochalith" or "Desert" or "Roman" (hyssop) or any other hyssop which has an epithet. "ushni tola'ath": i.e., whose variant ("shniyatho" [something called by a "variant" name]) is tola'ath (scarlet). "and he shall cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer": I might think (that he casts it in) when the heifer has already been reduced to ashes; it is, therefore, written "the heifer" (i.e., when it is still recognizable as a heifer.) If "the heifer," I might think (that he casts it in) even when it has not been burned. It is, therefore, written "into the midst of the burning." How is this to be reconciled? (He casts it in) when the flames have caught on to most of it. R. Akiva says: "the burning": I might think (that he casts it in) when the heifer has already been reduced to ashes; it is, therefore, written "the heifer." If "the heifer," I might think if he splits it open and places it into its midst; it is, therefore, written "and he shall cast it into the burning of the heifer." How is this to be reconciled? (He casts it in) when it has split open (of itself because of the fire.) "And the Cohein shall wash his garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water": Scripture hereby apprises us of the caster of the hyssop that he imparts tumah to garments. "and then he shall come to the encampment": Just as here, he (the caster of the hyssop) is forbidden to come to the encampment (before he cleanses himself), so, there, he (the burner and the gatherer of the ashes) is forbidden to come to the encampment. "and the Cohein shall be unclean until the evening": Just as here (he is unclean) until the evening, so, there, he (the burner of the bullock and the he-goat of Yom Kippur, [viz. Vayikra 16:26]), (he is unclean) until the evening. (Ibid. 8) "And he who burns it shall wash his garments": Scripture hereby apprises us of the burner of the heifer that he imparts tumah to garments. Even without the verse, I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If the caster of the hyssop imparts tumah to his garments, how much more so the burner of the heifer! Why, then, do I need the verse? Scripture hereby apprises us of those who occupy themselves with the heifer from beginning to end that they require the washing of garments and bathing of the body and the going down of the sun (to be cleansed). "And he who burns it shall wash his garments": and not plague-garments (i.e., the garments of the one who burns the clothes of the leper or of one afflicted with plague do not become unclean.) For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If the heifer, which does not impart tumah by contact, its burning imparts tumah to garments, then plague-garments, which do impart tumah by contact, how much more so should their burner impart tumah to garments! It is, therefore, written "And he who burns it shall wash his garments," and not plague-garments. "he shall wash his garments with water and he shall bathe his flesh in water": "in water" — twice. What is the intent of this? For it would follow: Since a man requires immersion and vessels require immersion, then just as a man immerses in (an amount of water) that is sufficient for him, i.e., forty sa'ah), so vessels are immersed in a (smaller amount of water) sufficient for them. It is, therefore, written "in water" twice. Where man is immersed (i.e., forty sa'ah), there hands (for ritual purposes) and vessels are immersed. (Ibid. 9) "And a man who is clean shall gather the ashes": Because we find that all of the processing of the heifer is by a Cohein, I might think that the gathering of the ashes, too, is by a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "And a man who is clean" — whence we are apprised that the gathering of the ashes is kasher through any man. "And a man who is clean" — to exclude a minor. ("a man" then) implies that both a minor and a woman are excluded; it is, therefore, written "who is clean" — to include (as kasher) a woman. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: "And a man who is clean" — to include a zar (a non-Cohein). "clean" — to validate a woman. ("clean" then) implies that both a woman and a minor are included; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and he shall place it outside the encampment": Scripture speaks only of someone who has the "mind" to "place" (with intent, excluding a minor, who does not have the mind to do so.) "a man who is clean": clean vis-à-vis ma'aser, and tamei vis-à-vis terumah. And elsewhere (Ibid. 18) it is written "And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water." R. Akiva asks: Why is this ("clean man") written? Even if it were not written, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If the gatherer (of the ashes) must be clean, how much more so the sprinkler! What, then, is the intent of "a clean man"? One who has left the category of "tumah." And who is that? One who immersed in the daytime (and whose cleanliness is consummated in the evening). And it is written elsewhere (Ibid. 19) "clean." Just as there, tamei for terumah and "clean" for ma'aser, so "clean" here (Ibid. 9), tamei for terumah and clean for ma'aser. "the ashes of the heifer": and not the brands — whence they ruled: A brand which has ash is crushed and one which does not have ash is discarded. A bone, in any event, will be crushed. "outside the encampment": in the Mount of Olives — whence they ruled: It is divided into three parts: one for the chel (a place within the fortification of the Temple); one for the Mount of Olives; one to be divided among all the priestly watches. "in a clean place": its surroundings must be clean — whence R. Elazar Hakapper said: A vessel containing the cleansing (ashes of the red heifer), with an air-tight lid in the tent of a dead man is tamei, it being written "in a clean place." And this is not a clean place. "And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping for waters of sprinkling." What is the intent of this? I might think that "work" (see above) is invalidated only vis-à-vis the heifer. Whence do I derive (the same for) the water (that is added to the ashes)? From "And it shall be … in keeping for waters of sprinkling" (which implies that "work" is to be abstained from only when they are being made waters of sprinkling.) — But perhaps (the stricture against "work" obtains even after they have been sanctified as waters of sprinkling. — It is, therefore, written "for (i.e., to make them) waters of sprinkling." And they are already waters of sprinkling. If a cow drank of the cleansing waters, its flesh is tamei (if it drank) within twenty-four hours (of being slaughtered). R. Yehudah says it (the water) is nullified in its intestines, it being written "And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping" (i.e., once it is no longer "in keeping," it does not confer tumah upon what comes in contact with it.) This question ("tahor or tamei"?) was asked before thirty-two elders and they ruled its flesh "tahor." This is one of the things that R. Yossi Haglili discussed with R. Akiva, (R. Yossi holding "tahor," and R. Akiva, "tamei"), and R. Akiva dismissed him, (R. Yossi being unable to substantiate his view.) Afterwards, R. Yossi found substantiation for his view, and asked R. Akiva: May I return? R. Akiva: Shall I allow everyone to return, and not you because your name is "Yossi Haglili"? R. Yossi (presenting his substantiation): It is written "And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping." It is only when they are "in keeping" that they are considered sprinkling waters (and confer tumah [see above].) R. Tarfon said (on Daniel 8:4) "I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward. And no beast could withstand him, and there was none to deliver from his power. He did as he willed and grew great." This ("the ram") is R. Akiva. (Ibid. 5) "As I looked on, a he-goat came from the west, passing over the entire earth without touching the ground. And the goat had a beetling horn between its eyes": This is R. Yossi Haglili and his response. (6) "And he came up to the two-horned ram that I saw standing before the water course, and he charged at him full force. (7) And I saw him reach the ram and rage at him, and he struck the ram and broke his two horns" — R. Akiva and Shimon b. Naness — "and the ram" — R. Akiva — "was powerless to withstand him. And he" — R. Yossi Haglili — "cast him to the ground and trampled him. And there were none" — the thirty-two elders — "to rescue him from his hand."