Midrasz do Liczb 19:24

(Bamidbar 5:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp every leper (metzora) and everyone with a (genital discharge (zav), and everyone that is unclean by (contact with) a body (tamei meth)." Why was this section stated? (For) from (Bamidbar 19:20) "A man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the congregation, for he has defiled the sanctuary of the L-rd," we hear the punishment; but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written "Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp … (3) and they shall not make unclean their camps in which I dwell." This (3) is the exhortation that the unclean not enter the sanctuary in a state of uncleanliness.

(Numb. 19:2:) THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE TORAH. Blessed be the name of the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, who created the world in wisdom and understanding; for his wonders have no limit and his greatness is beyond reckoning.¹Tanh., 6:1; Numb. R. 18:22. (Ps. 33:7:) HE HAS GATHERED THE WATERS OF THE SEA LIKE A MOUND, AND HE HAS PUT THE DEEPS IN STOREHOUSES. Now what is the meaning of HE GATHERS THE WATERS OF THE SEA LIKE A MOUND? When the Holy One created the world, he said to the prince of the sea: Open your mouth and swallow all the waters of creation.²BB 74b. He said to him: Sovereign of the World, it is enough for me to continue with what is <already> mine. Then he began to weep. He kicked him to death, as stated (in Job 26:12): IN HIS POWER HE STILLED THE SEA, AND IN HIS UNDERSTANDING HE STRUCK DOWN RAHAB. [You find that the prince of the sea was named Rahab. What did the Holy One do? He subdued <the waters> and trampled them down;] and so it was that the sea accepted them, as stated (in Amos 4:13): HE TRAMPLES ON THE HEIGHTS³M. Pss. 93:5. Cf. Gen. R. 23:7, according to which the sea (i.e., the Mediterranean) is higher than the whole world. OF THE EARTH; THE LORD [GOD] OF HOSTS IS HIS NAME. So for <the waters> he set sand in place as bar and gates, according to what is stated (in Job 38:8): AND <WHO> BLOCKED OFF THE SEA WITH DOORS…. Moreover, it says (in Jer. 5:22): DO YOU NOT FEAR ME? SAYS THE LORD. [WILL YOU NOT TREMBLE BECAUSE OF ME,] WHEN I HAVE PLACED SAND AS A BOUNDARY FOR THE SEA? And it says (in Job 38: 10–11): <… AND I SET BAR AND GATES IN PLACE,> AND SAID: YOU MAY COME THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER. Then the sea said to him: Sovereign of the World, in that case my sweet waters will be mingled with the salt <waters>! He said to it: No! Each and every one will have a storehouse for oneself, as stated (in Ps. 33:7): AND HE HAS PUT THE DEEPS IN STOREHOUSES⁴See Gen. R. 4:5. If you should say that this is a great wonder for their waters not to mingle, then consider the face,⁵PRTsWP, an adaptation of the Gk.: prosopon. which the Holy One created in the children of Adam. <Although> the <size of> a full sit,⁶According to Rashi on Shab. 106a, a single sit was the distance between the tips of the of the middle and index fingers when held widely apart. A double sit was the distance between the tips of the thumb and index finger when held widely apart. For various definitions, see Jastrow, p. 977, s.v. SYT. it has so many springs (from 'YN); yet they do not mingle with one another. The waters of the eyes 'YN) are salty; the waters of the ears are oily; the waters of the nose are putrid; the waters of the mouth are sweet. For what reason are the waters of the eyes salty? Because when someone weeps for the dead, <doing so> all the time, he would immediately become blind; however, because <tears> are salty, he stops and does not weep. For what reason are the waters of the ears oily? Because when a person hears bad news, if he held it in his ears, it would collect in his heart, and he would die. Because they are oily, <the news> goes in one ear and out the other.⁷Literally: “<a person> discharges <bad news> through one <ear>, while he admits it through the other.” For what reason are the waters of the nose putrid? Because when a person emits a bad odor, if the waters of the nose were not putrid <enough> to stop it, he would soon die. And for what reason are the waters of the mouth sweet? It sometimes happens that someone eats food that does not agree with him, and he vomits. Now if the waters of the mouth were not sweet, he would not recover. Moreover, since he reads the Torah, of which it is written (in Ps. 19:11 [10]): SWEETER ALSO THAN HONEY AND THE DRIPPINGS OF THE COMB, the waters of the mouth are therefore sweet. Now here are the grounds for arguing a fortiori (qal wehomer), that if <something> <the size of> a full sit has so many springs without them mingling with one another, how much the more so in the case of the Great Sea, of which it is stated (in Ps. 104:25): THERE THE {GREAT SEA IS ALSO WIDE} [SEA IS GREAT AND WIDE]…. <This is> to teach that in everything the Holy One accomplishes his mission and that he has not created one thing in vain. Sometimes the Holy One has accomplished his mission by means of [a frog, by means of a gnat,⁸See Lev. R. 22:2-3; Eccl. R. 5:8:2, 4; PRE 49; also Shab. 77b; Exod. R. 10:1. by means of a wasp, or by means of] a scorpion. R. Hanan of Sepphoris said:⁹Cf. Gen. R. 10:7; Lev. R. 22:4; Eccl. R. 5:8:5. There is a story about a certain scorpion that went to carry out <the Holy One's> mission (to sting a certain person) beyond the Jordan; so the Holy One summoned a certain frog for him, and he crossed over upon it. Then that scorpion went and stung <the> person so that he died. <There is> also a story about a certain reaper who stood and reaped in the valley of Beth-Tofah. When burning heat came, he took grass <and> {cut} [tied] it on his head. <When> a certain mighty serpent came at him, he killed it. A certain <snake> charmer passed by him. He saw the slain serpent. He said to him: who killed that serpent? He said to him I <did>. He looked at the grass on his head. He said to him: Will you remove the grass from your head? He told him: Yes. When he had removed it, he said to him: Are you able to remove this snake with this staff? He told him: Yes. He did so. <When> he drew near to it, he had not succeeded in touching it, before he shed his body parts one by one.

(Numb. 19:2:) Blessed be the name of the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who created the world in wisdom and understanding; for His wonders have no limit and His greatness is beyond reckoning.¹Numb. R. 18:22. (Ps. 33:7:) “He has gathered the waters of the sea like a mound, and He has put the deeps in storehouses.” Now what is the meaning of “He gathers the waters of the sea like a mound?” When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He said to the ministering angel of the sea, “Open your mouth and swallow all the waters of creation,”²BB 74b. he said [back] to Him, “Master of the world, it is enough for me to continue with what is [already] mine.” Then he began to weep. [So God] kicked him to death, as stated (in Job 26:12), “In His power He stilled the sea, and in His understanding He struck down Rahab.” You find that the ministering angel of the sea was named Rahab. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He subdued [the waters] and trampled them down; and so it was that the sea accepted them, as stated (in Amos 4:13), “He tramples on the heights³M. Pss. 93:5. Cf. Gen. R. 23:7, according to which the sea (i.e., the Mediterranean) is higher than the whole world. of the earth; the Lord God of hosts is His name.” So for [the waters] He set sand in place as bar and gates, according to what is stated (in Job 38:8, 10), “And [who] blocked off the sea with doors…. and I set bar and gates in place.” Moreover, it says (in Jer. 5:22), “’Do you not fear Me,’ says the Lord; ‘Will you not tremble because of Me, when I have placed sand as a boundary for the sea?’” And it says (in Job 38:11), “And I said, ‘You may come this far and no farther [...].’” Then the sea said to Him, “Master of the world, in that case my sweet waters will be mingled with the salt [waters]!” He said to it, “No! Each and every one will have a storehouse for itself, as stated (in Ps. 33:7), “and he has put the deeps in storehouses.”⁴See Gen. R. 4:5. If you should say that this is a great wonder for their waters not to mingle, then consider the face,⁵PRTsWP, an adaptation of the Gk.: prosopon. which the Holy One, blessed be He, created in people. [Although only] the [size of] a full sit,⁶According to Rashi on Shab. 106a, a single sit was the distance between the tips of the of the middle and index fingers when held widely apart. A double sit was the distance between the tips of the thumb and index finger when held widely apart. For various definitions, see Jastrow, p. 977, s.v. SYT. it has so many springs (from 'yn); yet they do not mingle with one another. The waters of the eyes ('yn) are salty; the waters of the ears are oily; the waters of the nose are putrid; the waters of the mouth are sweet. For what reason are the waters of the eyes salty? Because when someone weeps for the dead, [doing so] all the time, he would immediately become blind; however, because [tears] are salty, he stops and does not weep. For what reason are the waters of the ears oily? Because when a person hears bad news, if he held it in his ears, it would collect in his heart, and he would die. Because they are oily, [the news] goes in one ear and out the other.⁷Literally, “[A person] admits [bad news] through one [ear], and discharges it through the other.” For what reason are the waters of the nose putrid? Because when a person smells a bad odor, if the waters of the nose were not putrid [enough] to stop it, he would soon die. And for what reason are the waters of the mouth sweet? It sometimes happens that someone eats food that does not agree with him, and he vomits. Now if the waters of the mouth were not sweet, he would not recover. Moreover, since he reads the Torah, of which it is written (in Ps. 19:11), “sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the comb,” the waters of the mouth are therefore sweet. Now here are the grounds for arguing a fortiori (qal wehomer), that if [something the size of] a full sit has so many springs [without them mingling with one another], how much the more so in the case of the Great Sea, of which it is stated (in Ps. 104:25), “There the sea is great and wide […].” [This is] to teach that in everything, the Holy One, blessed be He, accomplishes His mission and that He has not created one thing in vain. Sometimes the Holy One, blessed be He, has accomplished His mission by means of a frog, by means of a gnat,⁸See Lev. R. 22:2-3; Eccl. R. 5:8:2, 4; PRE 49; also Shab. 77b; Exod. R. 10:1. by means of a wasp, or by means of a scorpion. R. Hanan of Sepphoris said,⁹Cf. Gen. R. 10:7; Lev. R. 22:4; Eccl. R. 5:8:5. “There is a story about a certain scorpion that went to carry out the Holy One, blessed be He's mission (to sting a certain person) beyond the Jordan; so the Holy One, blessed be He, summoned a certain frog for him, and he crossed over upon it. Then that scorpion went and stung [the] person so that he died. [There is] also a story about a certain reaper who stood and reaped in the valley of Beth-Kuzevah. When burning heat came, he took grass and tied it on his head. [When] a certain mighty serpent came at him, he killed it. A certain [snake] charmer passed by him. He saw the slain serpent. He said to him, ‘Who killed that serpent?’ [So the reaper] said to him ‘I [did].’ He looked at the grass on his head. He [then] said to him, ‘Remove the grass from your head and [then you can brag (if you still have that power)].’ When he did so, [the charmer] drew near. He had not succeeded in touching him, before [the reaper’s] body parts [all] shed.” R. Jannay was sitting as a judge at the gate of his city, [when] he saw a serpent hissing and coming toward the city. When they would secure against it in one place, it would go to another. He said, “It seems to me that this [serpent] is on its way to carry out its mission.” When it entered the city, a rumor spread in the city, “So-and-so ben so-and-so was bitten by a serpent and he is dead.” R. Elazar was strolling by the seashore of Caesarea. He found a femur bone strewn on the path. [So] he removed it from there, but he found it there again; he removed it from there [a second time] and found it there again. He said, “It seems to me that this [bone] is arranged to carry out its mission.” After [some] days, a minister came and fell over it and died. They looked into him and found evil documents against the Jews in his hand. There is a story about two people who were walking on the way. One who could see, and one was blind. They sat down to eat. They reached out their hands for the herbs of the field and ate. The one who could see became blind, and the one who had been blind became sighted. They did not move from there until the former was being supported by the latter whom he had been supporting. There is a story about a certain person who was going from the land of Israel to Babylon.¹⁰Lev. R. 22:4. While he was eating, he saw two birds fighting with each other. One of them killed its companion. Then going to get an herb, [it placed it on its mouth,] and made it live again. That person (the one who saw what had happened) went and took the very herb that had fallen from the bird. Then he went to make the dead live with it. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre,¹¹A well-known landing dock four hours north of Tyre. See ‘Eruv. 80a. he found a dead lion lying in the open. He touched the herb to its mouth and made it live. The lion got up and ate him. The proverb says, “Do not do good to the evil, and evil will not happen to you.”¹²Gen. R. 22:8. There is a story of Shihin (a town near Sepphoris) about a certain blind person who went down to bathe in the waters in a cave. He happened upon the well of Miriam, immersed [himself in it], and was healed. Titus the wicked entered the interior of the holy of holies.¹³Git. 56b; Lev. R. 22:3. When he had cursed and blasphemed, he stood up and slashed the veil. Then he took a Torah scroll and brought it out. Next he unrolled it; and bringing two whores, he transgressed upon them. Then he drew his sword to cut up the book. A miracle took place in that blood began to spew forth from it. He began to boast, saying that he had killed himself (i.e. God).¹⁴The author is avoiding too literal a description of the sacrilege and therefore substitutes “himself” for God as a euphemism. He began to become bolder and bolder. When he reached the sea, the sea began to grow stormier and stormier. He said, “The God of these people only has power in the sea. When Pharaoh arose, He drowned him in the sea, and Sisera as well.¹⁵See Pes. 118b. Now if He would, let there be dry land between Him and I. Then let us see who overcomes.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “O you wicked one, son of a wicked one, I am sending against you a tiny creature, the least of My creatures, to eradicate you from the world.” A gnat entered his nostril, and stayed in his nostril for three years. When he passed by a place where blacksmiths were working [and the gnat] heard the sound of iron, it was still. Whenever a gentile [blacksmith] would pass him, [Titus] would hire him for four dinars and say to him, “Bang your hammer in front of me the whole day.” And when he would do this the whole day, [Titus] would give him his four dinars. But when a Jewish [blacksmith] passed him, he would say to him, “Take [your hammer] and bang it [here] and I will give you your wage.” And he would bang the whole day. [But] when he was about to leave him and the Jew would say to [Titus], “Give me my wage,” he would answer and say to him, “It is enough for you that you see your enemy like this.” So would he do every day for three years. When he died they split open his head and found that [the gnat had grown] to be like a partridge and a sparrow and its claws were as hard as copper. And he died an unnatural death. Why is it named a base creature? Because it takes in but does not excrete. Moreover, sometimes it is by means of a hornet [that God's will is carried out]. Thus it is written (in Exod. 23:28), “I will send the hornet before you [to drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you].” Our masters have said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, sent the hornet before Israel to kill the Amorites, see what was written about them (in Amos 2:9), “Yet I destroyed the Amorites [before them, whose stature was like the cedars in height and who were as strong as the oaks].” It entered one's right eye and poured out its poison in it. Then [that person] burst open and dropped dead. This indeed is the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, to carry out His missions by means of small things against all who vaunt themselves against Him. He sends them a small creature to exact punishment from them, in order to inform them that there is no substance to their might. Also in the world to come the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to exact punishment from the [idol-worshiping] peoples of the world by means of small things. It is so stated (in Is. 7:18–19), “And it shall come to pass on that day that the Lord shall whistle for the fly. They all shall come […].”

"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."

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.

"that they send out of the camp": Is this speaking of all men or only the Levites, the carriers of the ark? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "From male until female shall you send out" — Scripture speaks of all men. R. Yoshiyah says "that they send out of the camp" connotes both adults and minors. You say both adults and minors, but perhaps the criterion (for inclusion) should be punishment, viz.: Just as we find re sanctuary defilement that only adults are punished, viz. (Ibid. 19:20) "And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off" — here, too, only adults are intended. It is, therefore, written "From male until female shall you send out," both adults and minors. R. Yochanan says: Why is it written "From male until female shall you send out"? Because it is written "They shall send out of the camp," I might think, only these (viz. (Ibid. 2). Whence do I derive (the same for) all the other types of tumah? From "From male until female — any (type of tumah) that affects male or female — shall you send out." This tells me only of male and female. Whence do we derive the same for one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From (the redundant) "Outside the camp shall you send them." This tells me only of one who can be sent away (i.e., of one who can walk). Whence do I derive (the same for) one who cannot be sent away (i.e., that he must be taken by another)? From "Outside the camp shall you send them." This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) appurtenances (that have become tamei)? From "and they shall not make unclean their camps." R. Akiva says: "Outside of the camp shall you send them" connotes both men and appurtenances. R. Yishmael says: It is derived by induction, viz.: A man is subject to plague tumah and garments are subject to plague tumah. Just as a man is subject to being sent away, so, appurtenances. — No, this may be so for a man, who imparts tumah (to an object) by reclining (mishkav) or sitting (moshav [upon it]), for which reason he must be sent away — as opposed to appurtenances, which do not impart tumah in that manner! — No, this is refuted by (the instance of) stones from a leprous house, which, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav or moshav, require being sent away. Do not wonder, then, if appurtenances, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav and moshav are to be sent away. R. Yossi Haglili says "From male until female shall you send them out": Just as male and female are distinctive in being subject to becoming proto-tumah (av hatumah) require being sent away, so, all that are thus susceptible — to exclude earthenware vessels, which are not thus susceptible.

Another matter, “who is like the wise man” – this is Moses, in whose regard it is written: “A wise man ascended against the city of the mighty” (Proverbs 21:22).¹³This is an allusion to Moses ascending
heavenward to the stronghold of the angels to receive the Torah. “And who knows the meaning of a matter” – as he explained the Torah to Israel. Rabbi Mana of Shaab said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: For each and every matter that the Holy One blessed be He would say to Moses, He would tell him its ritual impurity and purity.¹⁴For each form of ritual impurity He taught Moses, God would also teach him how to return to a state of ritual purity. When he reached the portion of: “Say to the priests” (Leviticus 21:1),¹⁵This is the prohibition against priests subjecting themselves to the impurity imparted by a corpse. [Moses] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, but if they do become impure, in what manner is their purification?’ He did not respond to him. At that moment, Moses’s face changed. When they reached the portion of the red heifer,¹⁶Numbers chap. 19. Being sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer in a specific ritual removes the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘That statement that I said to you: “Say to the priests,” and you said to Me: ‘In what manner is their purification,’ and I did not respond to you; this is their purification: “They shall take for the impure from the ashes of the burning of the purification” (Numbers 19:17).’ [Moses] said to Him: ‘Master of the universe, is that purification?’¹⁷How can sprinkling ashes remove impurity imparted by a corpse? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘It is a statute, and I issued a decree, and no creature can comprehend My decree,’ as it is written: “This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:2).

Another matter, “who is like the wise man” – this is Moses, in whose regard it is written: “A wise man ascended against the city of the mighty” (Proverbs 21:22).¹³This is an allusion to Moses ascending
heavenward to the stronghold of the angels to receive the Torah. “And who knows the meaning of a matter” – as he explained the Torah to Israel. Rabbi Mana of Shaab said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: For each and every matter that the Holy One blessed be He would say to Moses, He would tell him its ritual impurity and purity.¹⁴For each form of ritual impurity He taught Moses, God would also teach him how to return to a state of ritual purity. When he reached the portion of: “Say to the priests” (Leviticus 21:1),¹⁵This is the prohibition against priests subjecting themselves to the impurity imparted by a corpse. [Moses] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, but if they do become impure, in what manner is their purification?’ He did not respond to him. At that moment, Moses’s face changed. When they reached the portion of the red heifer,¹⁶Numbers chap. 19. Being sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer in a specific ritual removes the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘That statement that I said to you: “Say to the priests,” and you said to Me: ‘In what manner is their purification,’ and I did not respond to you; this is their purification: “They shall take for the impure from the ashes of the burning of the purification” (Numbers 19:17).’ [Moses] said to Him: ‘Master of the universe, is that purification?’¹⁷How can sprinkling ashes remove impurity imparted by a corpse? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘It is a statute, and I issued a decree, and no creature can comprehend My decree,’ as it is written: “This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:2).

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].)

2) (The verse is needed for the above, for without it we would say) Does it not follow a fortiori that he does require seven sprinklings, viz.: If a leper, who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh day (viz. Bamidbar 19:12) requires seven sprinklings, then one who is tamei through a dead body, who does require sprinkling on the third and seventh day — how much more so does he require seven sprinklings! It must, therefore, be written "And he shall sprinkle upon the one to be cleansed from the leprosy." The one to be cleansed from the leprosy requires seven sprinklings; one (who is to be cleansed from) dead body uncleanliness does not require seven sprinklings.

2) I might think (that food) which is sealed air-tight in an earthen vessel and placed in the atmosphere of a stove becomes tamei; it is, therefore, written "of all the food," and not "all of the food," to exclude the above. I might think (that food) which is sealed air-tight in a "rinsing" vessel (i.e., one of wood or metal) placed in the midst of the oven is clean, and that this follows a fortiori, viz.: If an earthen vessel, which does not rescue itself (from tumah) without an air-tight seal in the tent of the dead, rescues therein what is sealed air-tight within it, then a "rinsing" vessel, which rescues itself without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel (see Vayikra 11:1) above) — how much more so should it rescue what is sealed air-tight within it! It is, therefore, written "the food," to include (as tamei) what is sealed air-tight in a "rinsing" vessel placed in the midst of the oven. An a fortiori argument that a rinsing vessel should not rescue itself (from tumah) without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel: If an earthen vessel, which rescues what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead, does not rescue itself therein without an air-tight seal, then a "rinsing" vessel, which does not rescue what is sealed air-tight within it in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, how much more so should it not rescue itself therein without an air-tight seal! It is, therefore, written (in negation of the above): "the food." Food acquires tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, but (other) vessels do not. An a fortiori argument that an earthen vessel does not rescue what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead: If a "rinsing" vessel, which rescues itself without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel does not rescue what is sealed air-tight within it in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, then an earthen vessel, which does not rescue itself without an air-tight seal in the tent of the dead, how much more should it not rescue what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead! It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 19:15): "And every open (earthen) vessel, over which there is no air-tight seal is tamei." But if it does have an air-tight seal over it, it is clean.

2) "and one who carries them": What is the intent of this? I might think that only merkav alone confers tumah by being carried. Whence do I derive the same for mishkav and moshav? (But a verse is not necessary for this.) I know it a fortiori, viz.: It merkav, which does not confer tumah upon garments by being touched, does confer tumah upon garments by being carried, then mishkav and moshav, which do confer tumah upon garments by being touched, how much more so do they do so by being carried! — (No,) this is refuted by the upper board and the side board of a coffin (viz. Bamidbar 19:16), which do confer tumah upon garments by being touched, but which do not do so by being carried.

Another interpretation (of Numb. 19:2):³⁶Buber has bracketed this whole section, because it is not found in his main Oxford MSS. Nor does it occur in the traditional Tanhuma printed editions. Rather he has taken it from Codex Vaticanus, Ebr. 34. [THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE TORAH <THAT THE LORD HAS COMMANDED, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, > AND LET THEM BRING YOU A RED COW WITHOUT BLEMISH. Let our master instruct us: In the case of a cow with black horns and hoofs, is it correct that it would be permissible (kesherah)? Thus have our masters taught (in Parah 2:2): A COW WITH BLACK HORN AND HOOFS < … > IS VALID,³⁷The Mishnah adds that the black horns and hoofs are to be cut off. but all <the rest> of it must be red. They told a story that one year they went around seeking a red cow without blemish.³⁸PR 14:1. They came to a certain star worshiper and found one with him. They said to him: Sell it to us. When he saw that they needed it greatly, he began to raise the price for it. They said to him: How much? He said to them: A hundred gold coins.³⁹Three or four gold coins would have been a reasonable price. They said to him: Take <the money> and bring out <the cow>. So they gave him <the money>. He entered his house⁴⁰Animals and humans commonly shared the same house. and came out. He said to them: I am not selling unless you pay me more. They paid him fifty coins in addition; but again he entered his house and came out. <So he did not sell,> until they gave him three hundred gold coins. He said to himself: I shall mock <these> Jews. He went in, took a yoke, and let it rest on <the cow> neck all night. In the morning he brought it out to them. When they saw it, they knew that a yoke had been on it, for they saw that its eyes were rolling. When they would come to place a yoke upon it, its eyes would roll and stare at the yoke. When they saw its signs⁴¹Gk.: semeia. that it had had a yoke on it, they said to him: Give us <the> gold coins, for we are not taking it from you, even with no payment. We do not need it. When he saw that they had looked at it and had known that a yoke had been on it, he gave them their money and began to praise the Holy One. Then he said: Blessed be your God, who has set wisdom and knowledge within you. He gave them back the gold coins and strangled himself (at the end of a rope). <This is> to inform you that it is a scriptural commandment for one to bring only a red cow. Where is it shown? From what is written on the subject (in Numb. 19:2): AND LET THEM BRING YOU A RED COW WITHOUT BLEMISH, IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT, ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO YOKE.]

It says elsewhere in Scripture in reference to the Oral Law: Neither is it found in the land of the living (ibid. 28:13). What is the meaning of the verse Neither is it found in the land of the living? Does it mean that the Oral Law is found only among the deceased? Indeed not. It means that the Oral Law is not found among those who pursue the pleasures of this world—its passions, its glory, or its greatness, but only among those who deprive themselves for its sake, as it is said: This is the law; when a man dieth in a tent (Num. 19:40). The following is the path that leads to an understanding of the law: “A morsel of bread with salt shall you eat; a measure of water shall you drink; upon the earth shall you sleep; a life of hardship shall you lead; and in the law shall you labor.”⁵Pirkei Avot 6:4. The Holy One, blessed be He, established His covenant with Israel through the Oral Law, as it is said: According to the tenor of these words have I made a covenant with thee and with Israel (Exod. 34:27).

3) (Vayikra 7:20) ("And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his tumah is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people.") "and tumatho is upon him": the tumah of the body (i.e., his tumah.) — But perhaps the tumah of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to [i.e., its tumah]); it is, therefore, written "and tumatho is upon him: "tumatho-tumatho for a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: Just as the tumah there (Bamidbar 19:13, "tumatho is yet upon him," clearly) refers to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of flesh, so tumatho here refers to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of flesh.

3) "he shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water": I might think that it is a decree of the King (that he must immerse, just as the high-priest does); it is, therefore, written "and then he may come to the camp." Just as "and then he may come to the camp" there (in respect to the red heifer [Bamidbar 19:7]) (means that he may immerse) to free himself of tumah; here, too, (it means) to free himself of tumah, (but if he wishes to prolong his state of tumah, he need not immerse.)

(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?”

(Numb. 19:2:) “This is the statute of the Torah.” R. Tanhum bar Hanila'i opened [his discourse] (with Ps. 12:7), “The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings.”³⁶Lev. R. 26:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:4. Are the sayings of the Lord [true] sayings, but the sayings of flesh and blood not [true] sayings? Now by universal custom, when a king of flesh and blood enters a province, the inhabitants of the province praise³⁷Rt.: QLS. Cf. Gk.: kalos (“beautiful”). him; and their praise is pleasing to him. He says to them, “Tomorrow I am building bath houses³⁸Dimosa’ot: The translation derives its meaning from the Gk. demosia (“public buildings”), but Jastrow, s.v., demosia, understands the plural of this word more specifically to mean “public baths”, a meaning that well fits this context. for you, and I am building baths for you and I am bringing in a water carrier for you.” [Then] he goes to sleep and never gets up. Where is he [now], and where are his promises (literally, statements)? The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is not like this. Rather the statement of God is true, as (in Jer. 10:10), “He is a living God and an everlasting King.” R. Joshua ben Levi said, “We find that the Torah has twisted two or three words in the Torah, so as not to bring forth something unclean from His (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He's) mouth.³⁹In addition to the parallels for the last section, see Gen. R. 32:4; also cf. M. Pss. 12:5; also Pes. 3b. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:2), ‘From the clean beast and from the beast which is not clean.’ So it is not written, ‘of the unclean beast.’" R. Judan said, “When He came to introduce the signs of an unclean beast, He only began with the signs of purity. It is not written here (in Lev. 11:4), ‘the camel, because it does not have a cloven hoof,’ but “[the camel] because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written here (in Lev. 11:6), ‘The hare, because it does not have a hoof,’ but ‘[The hare], because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written (in Lev. 11:7), ‘The pig, because it does not chew its cud,’ but ‘[the pig], because it has a cloven hoof [and is cleft footed, but does not chew its cud].’” R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “The infants who lived in the days of David, [even] before they had a gotten a taste of sin, knew how to interpret the Torah with forty-nine reasons for declaring an object unclean and forty-nine reasons for declaring an object clean.⁴⁰Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Cant. R. 2:4:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:10; 21:10; M. Pss. 7:7; 12:4; cf. PR 14:6; see also below. So David prayed for them and said (in Ps. 12:8), ‘You, O Lord, will keep them; You will guard each [of them] from this generation unto eternity.’ (ibid.:) ‘You, O Lord, will keep them,’ [i.e.,] watch over their instruction in their hearts; (ibid., cont.) ‘You will guard each [of them from this generation unto eternity],’ from the generation which is worthy of destruction. But after all this praise, they went out to war and fell, because there were slanderers⁴¹Lat.: delatores (“informers”). among them. This is what David says (in Ps. 57:5), ‘My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie down among those who are aflame, men whose teeth are spears and darts, and whose tongues are a sharp sword.’ (ibid.:) ‘My soul is in the midst of lions,’ these are Abner and Amasa, who were lions with the Torah⁴²Although lions, they did not support David when they should have. See Ps. 17:12.; (ibid., cont.) ‘I lie down among those who are aflame,’ these are Doeg and Ahithophel, who were aflame to slander [David]⁴³On Doeg, see I Sam. 22:8-10; Ps. 52:1. On Ahithophel, see II Sam. 17:1-23.; (ibid., cont.) ‘men whose teeth are spears and darts,’ these are the people of Keilah, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 23:12), ‘Will the people of Keilah surrender me?’ (Ps. 57:5, cont.:) ‘And whose tongue is a sharp sword,’ these are the Ziphites, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 54:2), ‘When the Ziphites came and said to Saul, “Is not David hiding among us […]?”’ At that time David said (in Ps. 57:6), ‘”Be exalted, O God, above the heavens,” remove your Divine Presence from among them.’ The generation of Ahab, however, were all worshipers of idols; yet because there were no slanderers among them, they went out to war and won.⁴⁴Deut. R. 5:10; cf. Meg. 11a, according to which Ahab was one of three who ruled over the whole world. The other two were Ahasuerus and Nebuchadnezzar. That [freedom from informers] is what [enabled] Obadiah to say to Elijah (in I Kings 18:13), ‘Has it not been told to my lord what I did [when Jezebel slew the prophets, how I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord …, and provided them with bread and water?’ If bread [is mentioned], why [mention] water? Simply because it was more difficult to bring them the water than the bread.⁴⁵Because of the drought, the greater difficulty in obtaining water would advertise what he was doing. And yet Elijah made his proclamation⁴⁶Rt.: KRZ; see Gk.: keryssein. on Mount Carmel and said (in vs. 22), ‘I am the only prophet of the Lord left,’ and [even though] all the people knew [about Obadiah’s prophets], they did not expose it to the king.” R. Samuel b. R. Nahman said, “They said to the serpent, ‘Why is it that you are found among the fences?’ It said to them, ‘I made a breach in the fence of the world.’⁴⁷I.e., brought sin into the world. They said to it, ‘Why is it that you move along with your tongue slavering?’⁴⁸See also yPe’ah 1:1 (16ab); cf. ‘Arakh. 15b. It said to them, ‘That [tongue] caused me [to make the breach].’ They said to it, ‘Why is it that, when all the [other] animals bite, they do not kill; but when you bite, you do kill?’ It said to them (in Eccl. 10:11), ‘”If a snake bites without being under a spell, the owner of the tongue (i.e., one able to charm the snake) has no advantage.” Is it possible for me to do anything without me being told from on High?’ ‘Then why is it that, when you bite one limb, all the limbs feel [the pain]?’ It said to them, ‘Are you asking me? Ask a slandering informer,⁴⁹Literally: “Master of the tongue.” the one who [remains] here and [yet] slays in Rome.’” Why is the slandering informer named a "third?”⁵⁰See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev. 19:16. The targumist translates rakhil, which came to be interpreted as “slanderer” or “informer,” with lishan telita’e (“triple tongue”). Because [such a slanderer] kills three people: the one who speaks it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is spoken.⁵¹Also ‘Arakh. 15b; M. Pss. 12:2. In the days of Saul it killed four: Doeg, who spoke it⁵²I Sam 22:9-10 and II Sam. 1:15, as interpreted by Rashi on II Sam. 1:2.; Saul, who received it⁵³See Rashi on II Sam. 1:9, who knows a midrash, according to which Saul was slain for slaying the priests of Nob.; Ahimelech, about whom it was spoken⁵⁴In I Sam. 22:16-19.; and Abner ben Ner. Now why was Abner ben Ner slain? Joshua ben Levi said, “[He was slain] because he had his [own] name precede the name of David. This is what is written (in II Sam. 3:12), ‘Then Abner sent messengers unto David where he was, saying, “To whom does the land belong?”’ [In the message] he wrote, ‘From Abner to David.’”⁵⁵Instead of “to David from Abner.” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “[He was slain] because he made the blood of young men [a matter of] amusement (rt.: shq), as stated (in II Sam. 2:14), ‘Please let the young men arise and play (rt.: shq) before us.’” Our masters have said, “[He was slain] because he did [not] wait for Saul to be reconciled⁵⁶Rt.: PYS. Cf. the Gk. noun, peisis, which designates the softer feelings. with David, where it is stated (in I Sam. 24:12, with David addressing Saul), ‘See, my father, see the corner of your cloak in my hand; for when I cut off the corner of your cloak, I did not kill you].’ [Saul] said to him, ‘Abner, what do you want [to understand] from the cloak? You said, “It was caught on a thorn.”’ When [David] came toward wagons around the camp, he said to him (in I Sam. 26:14), ‘“Abner, will you not answer?’ As for the corner of the cloak, you said was caught on a thorn. Were [the] spear and [the] water jar (of I Sam. 26:11) caught on a thorn?’” There are also some who say, “[Abner was slain] because he had the power to protest about Nob, the city of priests, but did not protest.”

Adam was created on the sixth day, and He informed him in a roundabout way that He had brought death into the world, as it is said: For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die (Gen. 2:12). To what may this be compared? It may be compared to a man who wished to divorce his wife. Before he enters his home, he writes out the divorce document and then enters the house with the divorce document in his hand. He then seeks a circuitous way to hand it to her. He says to her: “Give me some water that I may drink.” She does so, and when he takes the glass from her hand, he tells her: “Here is your divorce.” She asks: “What sin have I committed?” “Leave my house,” he retorts, “you have served me a warm drink.” “Apparently you already knew,” she replies, “that I would serve you a warm drink when you prepared the bill of divorce you brought with you.” And that is what Adam told the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, two thousand years before You created the world, You had the Torah as an artisan, as it is written: Then was I by Him, as an artisan; and I was day by day all delight (Prov. 8:30). (The repetition of the word day indicates) that two thousand years⁷A thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday (Ps. 90:4). (had passed since He wrote the Torah). Within it is written: This is the law; that a man dieth in his tent (Num. 19:14). If You had not previously decreed death for mankind, You would not have so stated in it (the Torah). The fact is, You introduced the threat of death against me in a roundabout way. Hence He acts circuitously in His doings toward the children of men (Ps. 66:5).

4) "and he shall cleanse him": through those things that are done upon his body, (viz. sprinkling, shaving, and bathing). I might think that his cleansing is thus consummated; it is, therefore, written "and he shall send," "and he shall shave," "and he shall wash," "and he shall bathe." I might think that they are all indispensable to his cleanliness; it is, therefore, written (here, after sprinkling): "and he shall cleanse him, and (after sending, washing, shaving, and bathing) (Bamidbar 19:8): "and he shall be clean." Just as the first cleansing relates to what is performed upon his body (i.e., the sprinkling), so the second relates to what is performed upon his body (i.e., the shaving and the bathing, and not the sending of the bird and the washing of his clothes.)

R. Nachman b. Isaac said: "The above passage refers to scholars who are ready to die for the sake of the Torah, as R. Simon b. Lakish said: 'The word of the Torah will not remain with one unless he is ready to die for it, as it is said (Num. 19, 14) This is the Law; when a man dieth in a tent.'"

R. Isaac began [his discourse] (with Eccl. 7:23), “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.” It is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom and discernment in great measure, with understanding....” R. Johanan said a parable in the name of R. Simeon ben Yehozedek, “This is comparable to a king who had a friend, and the king loved him exceedingly. The king said to him, ‘Ask me anything you want and I will give it to you.’ And that friend was very wise. He said [to himself], ‘If I ask him to make me a duke, it [alone] will come to me. If I ask him to make me a duke, it [alone] will come to me.” Rather I will ask him for something that is attached to all the advantages.’ Immediately he answered and said to the king, ‘Since you asked that I should ask for something in front of you, I am asking from you that you marry off your daughter to me.’ The king said, ‘By your life, I want this. Behold my daughter is [given] into your house.’ So [too] at the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Solomon (in I Kings 3:5), ‘Ask what I should give to you,’ Solomon said [to himself], ‘What shall I ask; If I ask for silver and gold, it [alone] will come to me. If I ask for the monarchy, it [alone] will come to me. Rather I will ask for something that is attached to all the things.’ Immediately he said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the World, I only request from you wisdom.’ [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘You have asked well in asking for wisdom, as all the things are attached to it. Silver and gold are attached to it, as stated (in Prov. 8:19), “My fruit is better than gold, fine gold, and my produce than choice silver.” Monarchy is attached to it, as stated (in Prov. 8:15), “Through me kings reign.” Behold everything is given to you.’” Hence it is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom,” as He gave him wisdom as a gift. (I Kings 5:9, cont.:) “As vast as the sand of the sea.” The rabbis say, “[This] teaches that He gave him as much wisdom as all Israel, who are compared to the sand, as stated (in Hos. 2:1), ‘The number of the Children of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea.’ How is this? The sages have knowledge, the elders of knowledge and the children have knowledge, but they are different, one from the other. And [so] if all of Israel would be on one side and Solomon on the other side, his wisdom would be greater than theirs.”⁶⁴Numb. R. 19:3; Eccl. R. 7:23:1; PRK 4:3; PR 14:8. R. Levi said, “Just as sand is a wall and a fence for [the sea], that it not go out and flood the world; so that his wisdom stand in front of his [evil] impulse, that he not sin.” The proverb says, “If you lack knowledge, what have you gained? If you have gained knowledge, what do you lack?” Like (in Prov. 25:28) “A city broken into with no walls,” so “is a person who does not restrain his spirit.” (I Kings 5:10:) “Now Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the East.” And what was the wisdom of the peoples of the East?⁶⁵Above, Gen. 7:24; PR 14:9. [In that] they knew about astrology and were astute at divination (from birds). Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “I like three things about the people of the East: They do not kiss on the mouth, but only on the hand; When they cut meat, they cut only with a knife and not on the back of the hand; And when they take counsel, they take it only in the field.
It is therefore stated (in Gen. 31:4), ‘So Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field where his flock was.’” (I Kings 5:10, cont.:) “From all the wisdom of Egypt.” What was the wisdom of Egypt? You find that when Solomon wanted to build the Temple, he sent to Pharaoh Necho and said to him, “Send me craftsmen [to work] for a wage, for I want to build the Temple.” What did Pharaoh do? He gathered all his astrologers⁶⁶Gk.: astrologoi. and said to them, “Foresee which people are going to die this year and send them to him. So that I can come to him with a grievance and say to him, ‘Give me the value of the craftsmen that you killed.’” When they came to Solomon, he foresaw through the holy spirit that they would die during that year. He [therefore] gave them shrouds and sent them [back] to [Pharaoh]. He sent to him, saying, “Do you not have shrouds to bury your dead? Here they are for you with their shrouds. Go and bury your dead.” Hence it is stated, (I Kings 5:10, cont.) “from all the wisdom of Egypt.” (I Kings 5:11:) “And he was wiser than any man, than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Chalkol, and Darda the sons of Mahol.” “Wiser than any man (literally, than all of Adam),” than the first Adam. And what was his wisdom? You find that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the first Adam, he consulted with the ministering angels. He said to them (in Gen. 1:26), “Let us make humankind (Adam) in Our image.” They said to him (in Ps. 8:5), “What is a human that You are mindful of him?” He said to them, “This Adam that I want to create Adam shall have wisdom greater than yours.” What did He do? He gathered all cattle, wild beasts, and fowl pass before them. He said to them, “What are the names of these [beings]?” They, however, did not know. When He had created Adam, He made them pass before him. He said to him, “What are the names of these [beings]?” He said, “It is fitting to call this one an ox, this one a lion, this one a horse, [...]” and so on for all of them. It is so stated (in Gen. 2:20), “So Adam recited names for all the cattle.”⁶⁷The understanding of the midrash is that the creatures implicitly already possessed names. He said to him, “And you, what is your name?” Adam said to him, “Adam, because I was created out of the ground (adamah).” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I, what is My name?” He said to him, “The Lord, because you are Lord over all creatures,” namely as written (in Is. 42:8), “I am the Lord, that is My name,” which the first Adam gave me.⁶⁸Above, Lev. 3:11. “That is my name,” the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and My creatures. (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “[Wiser] than Ethan the Ezrahite.” This is Abraham, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 89:1), “A maskil (a psalm of erudition) of Ethan the Ezrahite.”⁶⁹It is assumed, of course that Abraham wrote the Psalm, an assumption based on a comparison of Ps. 89:1 and Is. 41:2: WHO HAS RAISED UP RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM THE EAST?. See BB 15a. The Ezrahite (‘ezrahi) of Ps. 89:1 is understood in the sense of “Easterner,” and Ethan (which means “steadfast”) is regarded as equivalent to “righteous.” For another argument identifying Ethan and Abraham, see PR 6:5. (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “And Heman (rt.: 'mn).” This is Moses, of whom it is stated (in Numb. 12:7 with reference to Moses), “he is trusted (rt.: 'mn) in all My house.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “Calcol (klkl).” This is Joseph, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 47:12), “And joseph sustained (rt.: klkl) [his father and his brothers].” The Egyptians said, “Has this slave come to rule over us for any reason but because of his wisdom?” What did they do to him? They brought seventy tablets⁷⁰Gk.: piyyakia; Lat.: pittacia. and wrote on them in seventy tongues. Then when they cast them before him. He read each and every one in its own tongue. And not only that, but he spoke in the holy tongue, which they did not have the ability to understand, as stated (in Ps. 81:6), “He made it a statute upon Joseph, when he went out over the land of Egypt. I hear a language I had not known.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “Darda (drd')].” This is the generation (dor) of the desert, which had knowledge (de'ah). (I Kings 5:11, cont.:) “The children of Mahol,” i.e., the Children of Israel whom the Divine Presence forgave (rt.: mhl) for the deed of the calf. (I Kings 5:12:) “Moreover he composed three thousand proverbs.” R. Samuel bar Nahman said, “We have gone over all of the scriptures and have found that Solomon only uttered prophetically close to eight hundred verses.⁷¹See Cant. R. 1:1:11. Then what is meant by three thousand? [This number] teaches that each and every verse that he spoke contains two [or] three interpretations, just as it says (in Prov. 25:12), ‘Like an earring of gold, a necklace of fine gold, [so is a wise reprover to a listening ear].’”⁷²The midrash understands the WISE REPROVER TO BE Solomon himself, who is likened to both a golden earring and a golden necklace. But the rabbis say, “Every verse has three thousand proverbs, while each and every proverb has a thousand and five interpretations.” [(I Kings 5:12, cont.:) “And his song numbered a thousand and five.”] “Songs” is not written here, but “song,” the song of the proverb. (I Kings 5:13:) “And he spoke with/concerning ('al)⁷³The point of the midrash in this and in the following chapter concerns whether to understand ‘al as “with” or “concerning.” the trees.” Is it possible that a person would speak with the trees? Solomon merely said, “For what reason is a leper cleansed through the tallest among the trees (the cedar) and through the lowest of the low (the hyssop); through (according to Lev. 14:4) cedar wood, [crimson stuff,] and hyssop?’ It is simply because he had exalted himself like the cedar, that he was stricken with leprosy. As soon as he humbled himself like the hyssop, he was therefore cured through hyssop”. (I Kings 5:13, cont.:) “He also spoke with/concerning ('al) the cattle and the fowl.” Is it possible that [a person] would speak with cattle and with fowl? Rather [the passage is concerned with] why the cattle are permitted [as food] with [the cutting of] two organs⁷⁴Gk.: semeia (“signs,” “omens”). (the gullet and the windpipe); but the fowl, with [the cutting of] one organ (i.e., the gullet or the windpipe).⁷⁵See Hul. 2:1; Hul. 27b. Because cattle were created from the dry land, as stated (in Gen. 1:14), “Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after its kind, cattle, creeping things,” they are permitted with two organs. But in regard to fowl, because they were created from the mud, they were permitted with one organ. As one text says [they came] from the dry land, while another text says [they came] from the sea. [The text stating fowls came] from the dry land is what is written (in Gen. 2:19), “So from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens.” The other text says (in Gen. 1:20), “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and the fowl fly above the earth.”⁷⁶This unusual translation of Gen. 1:20 is required by the midrash. Bar Qappara said, “They were created from the mud which is in the sea.” R. Abbin said the name of R. Jose the Galilean said, “Nevertheless, the feet of the cock resemble the scaly skin⁷⁷Reading HSPNYT’ with the parallel in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Kings, 178, for Buber’s HRTsPYTYH. of the fish.”⁷⁸A fish of the genus anthias. (I Kings 5:13, cont.:) “And with/concerning ('al) the creeping things.” Is it possible that one would speak with a creeping thing? Solomon simply said, “What is the reason that in the case of the eight swarming creatures which are in the Torah, one is culpable for hunting or injuring them (on the Sabbath)⁷⁹Shab. 14:1.; but in the case of the rest of the swarming creatures, one is exempt?⁸⁰Shab. 14:1. For the reason that they (i.e. the former) have skins.”⁸¹Shab. 107ab, explains that in the case of skin, as distinct from the flesh, a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar. Thus part of the animal’s life is lost. See yShab. 14:1 (14b); also Hul. 9:2. Cf. Rashi on Shab. 14:1, according to whom cutting the skin causes blood to color it in a form of dying, an act forbidden on the Sabbath. (I Kings 5:13 cont.:) “And with/concerning ('al) the fish.” Is it possible that one would so speak? Solomon merely said, “For what reason do cattle, beasts, and birds require ritual slaughtering, while fish do not require ritual slaughtering?” Jacob the man of Kefar Gibburayya taught in Tyre with respect to fish, that they do require ritual slaughtering. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis did you decide this?” He said to him, “From here (in Gen. 1:20), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the fowl fly.’ Just as fowl require ritual slaughtering, so do the fish require ritual slaughtering.” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “On what basis?” He said to him, “From here (in Numb. 11:22), ‘Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them?’ The former require ritual slaughtering, while the latter [is taken] through gathering.” He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” And again did Jacob the man of Kefar Gibburayya teach in Tyre, [this time] with respect to an Israelite man, who came upon a foreign woman and had her bear him a son, that he should be circumcised on the Sabbath. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him, “[From this which is written] (in Numb. 1:18) ‘then they registered their lineages according to their families according to the house of their fathers.’” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “Where is it shown?” He said to him, “Lie down and listen.” He said to him, “If one of the gentiles came to you in order to become a proselyte on condition that you circumcise him on the Sabbath day or on the Day of Atonement, would you profane the Sabbath on account of him or not?” He said to him, “One does not profane the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement for him but only for the son of an Israelite woman.” He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him (in Ezra 10:3), “So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all (foreign) wives and (anyone] born of them […].” He said to him, “Would you lash me on the basis of [a non-Mosaic text]?” He said to him, “It is written (ibid.), ‘let it be done [according to] the Torah.’” He said to him, “From which [piece of] Torah?” He said to him, “From that of R. Johanan, when he said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, ‘It is written (in Deut. 7:3), “You shall not intermarry with them; do not give your daughters to their sons.” Why? (Deut. 7:4:) “Because they will turn your children away from following me.” Your child that comes from an Israelite woman is called "your child"; but that which comes from a foreign woman is called, not "your child," but "her child,” as stated (in Gen. 21:13), “And I will also make the son of the maidservant into a nation.”’" He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” Solomon said, “About all these things I have knowledge; but in the case of the parashah on the red heifer, I have investigated it, inquired into it, and examined it. Still (at the end of the verse in Eccl. 7:23), ‘I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.’” (Eccl. 8:1:) “Who is like the wise person, and who knows the explanation of a saying?” (Eccl. 8:1:) Who is like the wise person? This is the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated about Him (in Prov. 3:19), “Through wisdom the Lord founded the earth.”⁸²Numb. R. 19:4; Eccl. R. 8:1:1; PRK 4:4; PR 14:10. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “And who knows the explanation of a saying?” This [also] is the Holy One, blessed be He, who explained the Torah for Moses. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “A person's wisdom lights up his face.” R. Judan said, “Great is the power of the prophets, as they [are able to] compare the Almighty above to the form of a man, as stated (Daniel 8:16), ‘And I heard the voice of a man.’” And R. Judah bar Simon says [the proof] is from here (in Ezekiel 1:26), “and on the image of a chair was an image of a man.” (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) “And the radiance ('oz) of his face is changed (for the better),” in that he changes the principle of judgment into a principle of mercy with respect to Israel. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Over each and every word that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to Moses, He spoke to him of its [related] uncleanness and of its purification.⁸³See Numb. R. 19:4. When he made known the Parashah (starting with Lev. 21:1), ‘Speak (Emor) unto the priests,’ [Moses] said to him, ‘Master of the world, if a priest becomes unclean (through touching a human corpse), what means is there for his purification?’ When [the Holy One, blessed be He,] did not answer, at that time the face of Moses turned yellow (with shame). Then when the Holy One, blessed be He, reached the parashah on the [red] heifer, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Moses, [when I gave you] that saying which I spoke to you (in Lev. 21:1), “Go, speak unto the priests,” then you said to me, “If one becomes unclean, what means will there be for his purification,” I did not answer [you at that time. Now] this is his purification (in Numb. 19:17), “They shall take some ashes from the burning of the sin offering (i.e., the red heifer).”‘”

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) "the flesh of the zav": and not a detached bone, and not detached flesh. How much more so is (a bone or flesh) detached from one that is tahor, tahor. How, then, am I to understand (Bamidbar 19:16): "or the bone of a man or a grave"? That refers to a limb detached form a living man.

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.

7) (Vayikra 11:10) "And all that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of every creeping thing of the waters, and of every living (chayah) creature of the waters that is in the waters — they (hem) are detestable to you.") "chayah" — this is the sea-animal. "creature (nefesh)" — to include (as forbidden) the siren (half-human, half-fish). I might think that it causes tent-tumah according to R. Chanina b. Chachinai; it is, therefore written (Bamidbar 19:14): "This (is the Torah: a man (i.e., a whole man) if he die in a tent, etc.")

7) If it is written in respect to zav (that what is detached from him is clean), why need it be written in respect to mishkav? (See Section 2:3); and if it is written in respect to mishkav, why need it be stated in respect to zav?) Because there obtains with zav what does not obtain with mishkav, and with mishkav what does not obtain with zav — Zav makes a mishkav, and mishkav does not make a zav; the attachments of a zav are tahor (viz. Bamidbar 19:5 above) and the attachments of a mishkav are tamei (See Section 3:4) — Because there obtains with zav what does not obtain with mishkav and with mishkav what does not obtain with zav, it must be written both in respect to mishkav and in respect to zav.

(Numb. 19:2, cont:) “That they bring unto you [a red heifer without blemish].” R. Jose bar Hanina said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses. ‘To you I am revealing the reason for the heifer, but to others it is an unquestioned statute.’”⁸⁸PRK 4:7; PR 14:13; Numb. R. 19:6. As Rav Huna said, “It is written (in Ps. 75:3), ‘For I will set a time, when I Myself will judge with equity.’ It is also written (in Zech. 14:6), ‘On that day there shall be no light of cold (yqrot) and frost.’⁸⁹See also Pes. 50a. Things that are hidden from you in this world are going to be clear to you in the world to come, as with the blind person who gains his sight. Thus it is stated (in Is. 42:16), ‘I will lead the blind by a road they do not know, [… these things I have done].’ ‘I will do’ is not stated here, but ‘I have done,’ in that I have already done them for R. Aqiva and his colleagues.” Another interpretation: Things that were not revealed to Moses were revealed to R. Aquiva and his colleagues (as found in Job 28:10), “his eye sees every precious thing.” R. Jose bar Hanina said, “It was implied (in Numb. 19:2) was that all heifers perish, but [Moses’] lasts forever.” R. Aha said in the name of R. Jose bar Hanina, “When Moses ascended into the firmament, he heard the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He, sitting and being occupied with the parashah of the [red heifer], and he was reciting a halakhah (i.e., a passage of oral Torah) in the name of its author (from Parah 1:1), ‘My son, Eliezer says, “The calf [whose neck is to be broken]⁹⁰See Deut. 21:3-4. is to be one year old, but the [red] heifer is to be two years old.”’⁹¹See Braude’s translation of PR, 14:13 p. 290, n. 91, which records a suggestion of Mordecai Margulies, who notes that R. Eliezer would have begun his instruction with this mishnah. Moses said, ‘Master of the world, do not the realms above and below belong to you? Now you are citing a halakhah in the name of flesh and blood?’ He said to him, ‘A righteous man is going to arise in my world and is first going to begin [his teaching] with the parashah of the [red] heifer, R. Eliezer says, “The calf [whose neck is to be broken] is to be one year old, but the [red] heifer is to be two years old.”’ He told Him, ‘Master of the universe, may it be [Your] will that he come from my loins.’ He said to him, ‘By your life, he is to be from your loins.’ Thus it is stated (of Moses' offspring in Exod. 18:4), ‘And the name of the one⁹²So literally. In the biblical context the translation would normally read: AND THE NAME OF THE OTHER WAS ELIEZER. was Eliezer,’ [i.e.,] the name of that particular one [who would begin his teaching with Tractate Parah] was Eliezer. A certain stranger questioned Rabban Johanan ben Zakkay, “These things which you do seem like a kind of sorcery.⁹³Numb. R. 19:8; PRK 4:7; PR 14:14. You bring a heifer, burn it, pound it, and take its ashes. Then [when] one of you is defiled by a corpse, they sprinkle two or three drops on him, and you say to him, ‘You are clean.’” He said to him, “Have you ever had a bad spirit of madness enter you?” He told him, “No.” He said to him, “Perhaps you have seen someone into whom a bad spirit has entered?” He told him, “Yes.” He said to him, “So what did you do for him?” He said to him, “They bring roots and burn them beneath him. Then they sprinkle water on [the spirit], and it flees.” He said to him, “Let your ears hear what you are uttering with your mouth. Similarly is this spirit an unclean spirit. Thus it is stated (in Zech. 13:2), ‘and I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land.’ They sprinkle the purifying water upon him, and he flees.” After the gentile had left, [R. Johanan's] disciples said to him, “Our master, you repelled this one with a [mere] reed [of an answer]. What have you to say to us?” He said to them, “By your lives, a corpse does not defile, nor does a heifer purify, nor does water purify. Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, has said, ‘I have enacted a statute for you. I have issued a decree, [and] you are not allowed to transgress against my decree.’” Thus it is written (in Numb. 19:2), “This is the statute of the Torah.” And for what reason are all the sacrifices male and female, while that one is [only] female?⁹⁴PRK 4:8. R. Ayyevu said, “It is comparable to the son of a female slave who defiled a king's palace.⁹⁵Lat.: praetorium Gk.: praitoriom. The king said, ‘Let his mother come and clean up the excrement.’ Similarly has the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Let a heifer come and atone for the incident of the [golden] calf.’”

"The LORD is our Master, how mighty is Your Name in all the earth." Rav said: "We find three places where the angels prosecuted God; the creation of man, the tabernacle, and the giving of the Torah." Where do we find [this phenomenon] regarding man? When God wished to create man he consulted the angels as it says (Genesis 1:26) "Let Us make man." They began to say "What is man that you recall him?!" [God] replied " Tomorrow you'll see how smart he is." When He created man what did God do? He brought all animals before the angels and asked them the names of all the animals and they did not know. God said to them "Do you want to know the wisdom of Man? I will ask him and he will tell me what all their names." What did God do? He brought all the animals and birds before Adam as it says (ibid. 2:19) "And the LORD formed from the earth." Rabbi Acha said, Did it not already say (ibid. 1:25) "And God made the beasts of the land?" What does the word "and He formed" come to teach us? Rather there it says "and He made" i.e. created them and here it says יצר from the root that connotes convergence as in (Deuteronomy 20:19) "when you besiege a city. (Genesis 2:19) "And He came to Adam to see what to call them" Isn't God omniscient? Rather "to see" means "to show the angels Adam's wisdom [by showing what Adam would call them]," and Adam independently came up with the same name as God for each and every animal. Then God asked him, "And you, what is your name?" He replied, "it is appropriate to call me Adam because I was created from the earth (Adamah)." God asked, "And what's My name?" Adam replied "It is appropriate to call you the LORD because you are the Lord of the entire world." That is why He says (Isaiah 42:8) "I am the LORD, this is My name."

8) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4) "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters" (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar). "and his uncleanliness is upon him": bodily uncleanliness. I might think the uncleanliness of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to). It is, therefore, written (here) "and his uncleanliness is upon him" (and there, [Bamidbar 19:13] in respect to uncleanliness in entering the sanctuary) "and his uncleanliness is upon him," for an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as there, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, so, here, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, and not uncleanliness of the flesh. Rebbi says: "and his uncleanliness is upon him": Scripture speaks (here) of bodily uncleanliness, and not of uncleanliness of the flesh. R. Chiyya says: The offerings are written in the plural and cleanliness (tumatho) in the singular. How, then, must "tumatho" be understood? As referring to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of the flesh (of the offerings). Others say: Scripture speaks of that from which tumah can depart (i.e., the man), as opposed to the flesh, from which tumah cannot depart.

(Fol. 83b) We are taught: And they made Baal-b'rith for a god unto themselves (Jud. 8, 33). This refers to Zebub, the idol of Ekron. We learn from this that each and every one made an image of his idol [in miniature] and kept it in his pocket; whenever he was reminded of it, he took it out from his pocket and embraced and kissed it.R. Chanina b. Akabia said: "Why did the Rabbis say that a ship of the Jordan is subject to the statute of levitical uncleanliness? Because it is generally loaded on the shore and carried into the water owing to its small size." R. Juda in the name of Rab said: "Never shall a man absent himself from the house of learning, not even for a while; for the above Mishnah (regarding a ship of the Jordan) had been taught at the house of study for many years, and not one knew the reason for it, until R. Chanina b. Akabia came and explained it." R. Jonathan said: "Never shall a man absent himself from the house of learning and of learned words, even though he be at the point of death; for it is said (Num. 19, 14.) This is the Torah, when a man dieth in a tent, i.e., even at the point of death shall a man study the Torah." Resh Lakish said: "The words of the Torah will not endure except with him who is ready to die for it; as it is written. This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent."

R. Juda again opened in honor of the Torah and expounded Be attentive, and hearken, O Israel, this day art thou become a people. (Deu. 27, 9). "Was the Torah then given unto Israel on that day? Behold! forty years had already elapsed. But this is stated for the purpose of inferring from it that the Torah shall always be as dear and beloved by its students, as if that very day it had been given on Mt. Sinai." R. Tanchum, son of R. Chiya, the man from the village of Achu, said: "You may infer it from the following. A man who is accustomed to read the Sh'm'a, reads it every day, morning and evening; and if he miss but one evening it seems to him as if he had never read the Sh'm'a." Be attentive, i.e., organize yourself into a company for the purpose of studying the Torah, because the Torah can be acquired only if studied in company; for R. Jose, the son of R. Chanina, said: "What is meant by the passage (Jer. 50, 36.) The sword is against the lying soothsayers and they shall become foolish, i.e., the sword is against the learned who sit alone and study the Torah in privacy. Moreover, they become foolish; for it is written here Veno'alu (and they shall become foolish), and it is written there (Num. 12, 11.) No'alnu (wherein we have acted foolishly). Moreover, they will commit sins; for it is said (Ib.) And wherein we have sinned (No'alnu), and if you wish [I conclude] from this (Is. 19, 13.) The prince of Tzo-an are become fools (No'alu)." We can explain in another way: Be attentive and listen, Expose yourselves to being smitten over the study of the Torah, as Resh Lakish said: "Whence do we infer that the Torah will be preserved with him only who is ready to die for her? It is said (Num. 19, 14.) This is the Torah, when a man dieth in a tent." We may explain in another way: Be attentive and listen, O Israel; Be quiet, listen, and then explain it, as Raba said "A man shall first study and then think how to explain it." It was said in the academy of R. Janai, "What is meant by the passage (Pr. 30, 33). For the pressure of milk bringeth forth butter, and the pressure of the nose bringeth forth blood, so the pressure of wrath bringeth forth strife? That is, In whom can you find the butter (the prime) of Torah? who has vomited the milk of his mother's breast on account of her (the Torah). And the pressure of the nose bringeth forth blood, i.e., every disciple who is silent when the provocation of his teacher is upon him the first time, will be rewarded with the knowledge of being able to distinguish between ritually purified blood and unpurified blood. So the pressure of wrath bringeth forth strife, i.e., every disciple who remains silent at the provocation of his teacher once and a second time will be rewarded with the knowledge of being able to distinguish between civil and criminal laws; for we are taught (in a Mishnah) that R. Ishmael says: "He who wants to become wise shall study the civil laws for there is no store (of wisdom) in the entire Torah richer than this (civil law), which is like a flowing well." R. Samuel b. Nachmeini said: "What is meant by the passage (Pr. 30, 32.) If thou hast become degraded by lifting thyself up or, if thou hast devised evil, put thy hand to thy mouth, i.e., He who lowers himself (exposes his ignorance) for the sake of learning the Torah. shall finally be raised; if he muzzle his mouth (is ashamed to ask his teacher) he will have to put his hand to the mouth [when he in turn is questioned]."

“Your cheeks are lovely with ornaments, your neck with beads” (Song of Songs 1:10).
“Your cheeks are lovely”—just as these cheeks were created only for speech, so too, Moses and Aaron were created only for speech; “with ornaments [batorim],” with two Torahs, written and oral.
Another matter, batorim, many Torahs; that is what is written: “This is the law [tora] of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2); “this is the law [tora] of the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:7); “this is the law [tora] of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:1); “this is the law [tora] of the peace offering” (Leviticus 7:11). “This is the law [tora] of a person when he dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14).
Another matter, batorim, with two countenances [te’arim], with two brothers, these are Moses and Aaron, whose countenances were favorable to each other. This one rejoiced over the prominence of the other and that one rejoiced over the prominence of the other. Rabbi Pinḥas said: It is written: “He will speak to the people on your behalf, and he will be a mouth for you, and you will be an elohim for him” (Exodus 4:16). [“He will be a mouth for you,”] a disseminator. “And you will be an elohim for him,” did Moses become a god for Aaron that you say: “And you will be an elohim for him”? Rather, this is what the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘Moses, just as fear of Me is upon you, so too, your fear will be upon your brother.’ But he did not do so. Rather, “Moses and Aaron went and they assembled all the elders of the children of Israel; Aaron spoke all the matters” (Exodus 4:29–30). [Moses] equated his shoulder to [Aaon’s] shoulder,²⁵²They stood shoulder to shoulder and treated each other as equals. Thus, Moses did not send Aaron to do his bidding; they worked together. as this one still rejoiced over the prominence of the other, and that one over the prominence of the other.
From where [is it derived] that Aaron rejoiced over Moses’s prominence? As it is stated: “He will see you and he will rejoice in his heart” (Exodus 4:14). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: The heart that rejoiced over the prominence of Moses his brother will don the Urim and the Tumim. That is what is written: “You shall place the Urim and the Tumim in the breastplate of judgment and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart” (Exodus 28:30).
From where [is it derived] that Moses rejoiced over Aaron’s prominence? As it is stated: “It is like fine oil on the head, descending onto the beard, the beard of Aaron” (Psalms 133:2). Rabbi Aḥa said: Did Aaron have two beards, as it is written: “Descending onto the beard, the beard of Aaron”?²⁵³Why does it say the word beard twice? Rather, when Moses saw the anointing oil descending onto the beard of Aaron, it was comparable for him as though it descended onto the beard of Moses, and he rejoiced; therefore, it is stated: “Onto the beard, the beard of Aaron.”

And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron: “This is the ordinance of the passover” (Exod. 12:43). There are chapters of the Torah in which a general statement is made at the beginning of the chapter, and a particular statement is made at its end. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:6) is a particular statement, while the verse These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel (ibid.) is a general statement. This is the statue of the law (Num. 19:2) is a general statement, while the verse That they bring thee a red heifer (ibid.) is a particular statement. This is the ordinance of the Passover (Exod. 12:43) is a general statement, whereas There shall no alien eat thereof (ibid.) is a particular statement. Whenever a general statement is followed by a particular one, the general statement does not include more than is contained in the particular.¹⁰The fourth of the thirteen rules of interpretation developed by R. Ishmael. This is the ordinance of the Passover. This passage deals with the Passover in Egypt. How then do we know about Passover in subsequent generations? Scripture informs us of this in the verse According to all the statutes of it, and according to all the ordinances thereof, shall ye keep it (Num. 9:3). There shall no alien eat thereof (Exod. 12:43) alludes also to a renegade Jew and a Gentile. Every man’s servant that is bought for money (ibid., v. 44). (The verse states:) Every man’s servant. Does this mean that the servant of a woman or of a child is excluded? Scripture says: That is bought for money, which implies (every servant that was purchased).

Another matter: “Vineyard” – this is the Sanhedrin, as we learned there: Rabbi Yishmael testified three matters before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne.⁴²Mishna Eduyot 2:4. Were they sitting in a vineyard? Rather, this is the Sanhedrin, which was configured in rows like a vineyard. “At Baal Hamon” – hamon baal, for they streamed [hamu] after the Baal. Therefore the hordes [hamonot] beset them, and multitudes of angels followed them. That is what is written: “The kings [malkhei] of hosts flee [yidodun], they flee” (Psalms 68:13). Rabbi Yudan [said] in the name of Rabbi Aivu: It is not written there: “angels [malakhei] of hosts,” but rather “kings [malkhei].” These are the kings of the angels. Even Mikhael and even Gavriel flee again and again. Rabbi Yudan said: “Yidodun” – they were casting [memadedin] letters from among them,⁴³They were petitioning God not to give the Torah to Israel just as you say: “They cast [yadu] lots over My people” (Joel 4:3). Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Simon said: They prodded them⁴⁴The term yidodun is interpreted to mean they prodded [yedadun]. while going, they prodded them while returning.⁴⁵They prodded the Israelites to accept the Torah. Rabbi Aḥava son of Rabbi Ze’eira said: He had them racing, just as it says: “Why are you running, my son…” (II Samuel 18:22).⁴⁶The angels raced each other to assist Israel in accepting the Torah, similar to the race described in the verse in Samuel between two individuals who wanted to inform David about the death of Avshalom.
What is, “while the fair one at home divides the spoils” (Psalms 68:13)? The fair one in the home, this is the Torah, and you are giving it to him, and it is going to distribute the spoils?⁴⁷The angels said to God when He was about to give the Torah to Moses: Are you going to give it to him to bring to earth and disseminate among Israel, who will enjoy its heavenly purity?
Another matter: “The fair one at home” (Psalms 68:13) – fair one at home, will you distribute the spoils below? The fair one at home, this is Moses, as it is stated: “In all My house he is loyal” (Numbers 12:7); and you give it to him, and he will distribute it as spoils below?
Rabbi Pinḥas and Rabbi Aḥa [said] in the name of Rabbi Alexandri: It is written: “Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your name throughout the world that You set Your glory in the heavens” (Psalms 8:2). Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin [said] in the name of Rabbi Levi: It is not written here, “You set Your glory,” but rather, “that [asher] You set Your glory.” Your glory is in it; Your happiness [ishurakh] is that Your Torah remain in Heaven. He said to them: ‘Its essence will not be achieved in your midst.’⁴⁸The angels argued that it would be fitting for the Torah to remain in Heaven. God responded that the Torah is not meant for the angels. Rabbi Yudan said: [This is analogous] to one who had a son with severed fingers. What did he do? He took him to a master weaver to teach him his craft. He began looking at his fingers. He said: The entire essence of this craft is acquired only by means of the fingers. How can this one learn it? That is, its essence will not be achieved in your midst: So too, when the Holy One blessed be He sought to give the Torah to Israel, the ministering angels were prodding Israel away and they were prodding themselves before the Holy One blessed be He and saying: It is Your happiness, it is Your glory, it is Your honor that Your Torah remain in Heaven. He said to them: Its essence will not be achieved in your midst. It is written in it: “If a woman's blood flows for many days” (Leviticus 15:25). Is there a woman among you? That is, its essence will not be achieved in your midst. Moreover, it is written in it: “A person who dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14); is there death among you? That is, its essence will not be achieved in your midst. That is why the verse praises [Moses]: “You ascended On High, you took captives. [You received gifts among men]” (Psalms 68:19). Rabbi Aḥa said: These are the halakhot that are practiced among people, e.g., zavim,⁴⁹These are men who discharge impure emissions. zavot,⁵⁰These are women who are impure because they saw an emission of blood not during their period. menstruating women, and birthing mothers. That is, its essence will not be achieved in your midst.
The Rabbis say: [This is analogous] to a king who married off his daughter outside his province. The residents of his province said to him: ‘Our lord the king, it is your praise, and it is proper, that your daughter be with you in the province.’ He said to them: ‘Why do you care?’ They said to him: ‘Perhaps tomorrow you will go to her and live near her [in order to be] with her due to your love for her.’ He said to them: ‘I will marry off my daughter outside the province, but I will live with you.’ So too, when the Holy One blessed be He said to give the Torah to Israel, the ministering angels said to the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, “that You set Your glory” (Psalms 8:2), it is Your happiness, it is Your glory, it is Your praise that Your Torah remain in Heaven.’ He said to them: ‘Why do you care?’ They said to Him: ‘Perhaps tomorrow you will rest Your Divine Presence on the lower worlds.’ The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘I give My Torah in the lower worlds, but I reside in the upper worlds. I am giving My daughter with her marriage contract in another province, to be honored with her husband with her beauty and her pleasantness, as she is the daughter of a king and they will respect her, but I will reside with you in the upper worlds.’ Who articulated this? Habakkuk, as it is stated: “His glory covered the heavens, and His praise filled the earth” (Habakkuk 3:3). Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Every place that the Holy One blessed be He rested His Torah, He rested His Divine Presence. Who articulated this? David. That is what is written: “Let them praise the name of the Lord, for His name alone is exalted, His glory across earth and heaven” (Psalms 148:13) – first over the earth and thereafter over the heavens.

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord (ibid., v. 48). Does this mean that a stranger who is converted should offer a paschal sacrifice at the first opportunity? Yes, for Scripture says: And he shall be as one that is born in the land (ibid.). Therefore, just as one born in the land offers his sacrifice on the fourteenth day, so the proselyte should do so on the fourteenth day. If he is converted, however, between the two Passovers,¹¹That is, between the fifteenth day of Nisan and the fourteenth day of Iyar, the second Passover (Num. 19:10). he should offer the sacrifice on the second Passover. Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it (ibid.). This refers to the circumcision of free males and the circumcision of slaves, (the absence of which) prevents him (from offering the paschal sacrifice). If one wishes to perform the two rituals, the commandment of circumcision and the commandment of the paschal lamb, which takes precedence? Let all his males be circumcised is stated first, and that is followed by And let him come near and keep it. One law shall be to him that is home-born (ibid., v. 49). This verse declares that the home-born and the convert are equal with regard to all the commandments inscribed in the Torah.

(Numb. 23:4:) “Then God encountered Balaam.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You evil man! What are you doing?” (Ibid., cont.:) “And [Balaam] said unto him, ‘I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].’” [The matter] is comparable to a money-changer who lies about the weights. When the head of the marketplace came, he noticed him. He said to him, “What are you doing inflating and lying about the weights?” [The money changer then] said to him, “I have already sent a gift⁴⁶Gk.: doron. to your house.” So also it was in the case of Balaam. The holy spirit cried out to him. It said to him, “You evil man! What are you doing.” He said to it (in Numb. 23:4), “I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].” It said to him (in Prov. 15:17), “’Better a meal of vegetable greens [where there is love than a fattened ox with hatred in it].’ Better the dinner of unleavened bread and bitter herbs which Israel ate in Egypt, than bulls which you offer with hands of [hatred].” (Numb. 23:5:) “So the Lord put a word (davar) in Balaam's mouth,” which twisted his mouth and pierced it,⁴⁷Both “twisted” and “pierced” connote the use of a bit on a horse. as one would drive a nail into a board. R. Eliezer (understanding davar as word) says, “An angel was speaking.” But R. Joshua says, “[It was] the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated, (in Numb. 23:5), “Return unto Balak and speak thus.” (Numb. 23:6:) “So he returned unto him, and there he was standing beside his burnt offerings with all the ministers of Moab,” who stood anxiously awaiting [the time] when he would come and speak. (Numb. 23:7:) “So he took up his theme and said, ‘From Aram, Balak the king of Moab has brought me, from the hills of the east.’” I was one of the exalted ones,⁴⁸Ramim. The midrash links this word with ARAM in Numb. 23:7. but Balak has brought me down to the pit of corruption.⁴⁹Numb. R. 20:19; also above, Lev. 5:1 and the notes there. (Ibid.:) “Brought me (yanheni, rt.: nhh),” [is to be understood] just as you say (in Ezek. 32:18), “bring (rt.: nhh) the masses of Egypt [and cast them down… unto the lowest part of the netherworld along with those who go down to the pit].”⁵⁰Thus Numb. 23:7 comes to mean that Balak BROUGHT (rt.: NHH) Balaam down to the grave. The unusual Biblical translation is necessary to fit the sense of the midrash. Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram.” I was with the highest (ram) of the high, and Balak has brought me down from my glory. [The matter] is comparable to one who was walking with the king. When he saw [some] robbers,⁵¹Gk.: lestai. he left the king and toured along with the robbers. When he returned to be with the king, the king said to him, “Go with whomever you have toured with, because it not possible for you to walk with me again.” Similarly Balaam had been bound to the holy spirit. When he paired himself with Balak, the holy spirit departed from him. So he returned to being a diviner as in the beginning. Thus it is stated (at his execution in Josh. 13:22), “Balaam ben Beor the diviner….” Therefore did he say, “I was high up (ram), and Balak brought me down.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram, Balak the king of Moab has brought me, from the hills of the east.” [Balaam] said to [Balak], “We are alike, even both of us, for being ungrateful, because were it not for our father Abraham, there would have been no Balak. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 19:29), ‘And it came to pass that when God destroyed the cities of the plain, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot away.’ Except for Abraham, he would not have delivered Lot from Sodom; and you are one of the children of the children of Lot.⁵²As a Moabite, Balak was descended from Moab, the son of Lot. See Gen. 19:37. Moreover, if it were not for their father Jacob, I should not have been present in the world, because Laban had sons only through the merit of Jacob, since it is written at the beginning (in Gen. 29:9), ‘Rachel came with the sheep.’ Now if he had sons, how was his daughter a shepherdess? As soon as Jacob came there, sons were given to him, as stated (in Gen. 31:1), ‘Now he heard the things that Laban's sons [were saying].’⁵³Jewish tradition gives three views on Balaam’s relation to Laban: That he was Laban himself, that he was Laban’s nephew, and that he was Laban’s grandson. See Ginzberg, vol. III, p. 354; vol.. V, p. 303, n. 229; vol. VI, pp. 123f., nn. 722f.; p. 130, n. 764. And it also says [that Laban said] (in Gen. 30:27), ‘I have learned by divination that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.’ So if it were not for their ancestors, you and I would not have been present in the world”. (Numb. 23:7, cont.:) “Come, curse Jacob for me.” Whoever curses the Children of Jacob is cursing himself, since it is stated (in Gen. 12:3), “and the one who curses you, I will curse.” It also says (in Gen. 27:29), “cursed be those who curse you,⁵⁴See above, Gen. 6:16. and blessed be those who bless you.” (Numb. 23:7:) “Come, curse [Jacob] for me.” If you had told me to curse another people, for example, the Children of Abraham from the concubines, I would have been able [to do so]. But Jacob? When a king selects a portion for himself, and someone else gets up and speaks disparagingly about it, will he keep his life? Now these people are the Holy One, blessed be He’s, heritage, His portion, and His treasure. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 32:9), “For the Lord's share is His people; Jacob the portion of His heritage.” And it is written (in Exod. 19:5), “and you shall be My treasure.” (Numb. 23:7, cont.:) “And come, denounce Israel.” When a king takes a crown and puts it on his head, and someone says of it that it is nothing, will he keep his life? Now in regard to these people it is written about them (in Is. 49:3), “Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Numb. 23:8:) “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” When they deserved to be cursed, they were not cursed, when Jacob went in to receive the blessings. It is written (in Gen. 27:16), “Then [she clothed his arms and the hairless part of his neck] with the skins of goat kids.” His father said to him (in Gen. 27:18), “Who are you?” He said to him (in vs. 19), “I am Esau, your first-born.” Does not the one who puts forth a lie with his mouth deserve to be cursed? Yet not only [was he not cursed], but he was blessed; as stated (in Gen. 27:33), “he shall also be blessed.” So how do I curse them? (In the words of Numb. 23:8) “God has not cursed.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” According to universal custom, when a legion⁵⁵Lat.: legio. rebels against the king, it incurs the penalty of death. Now since these denied and revolted against Him, when they said to the calf (in Exod. 32:4), “This is your God, O Israel,” did they not, therefore, deserve to have Him destroy them at that time? [Still] He did not cease to cherish them. Instead He had clouds of glory accompany them. Nor did He withhold the manna and the well from them. And so it says (in Neh. 9:18-20), “Even though they had made themselves a molten calf […], You in Your great mercies did not abandon them in the desert […]; and You did not withhold Your manna from their mouth […].” How can I curse them? This [question] is related (to Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” When He commanded them concerning the blessings and the curses, He mentioned them (as the people) in connection with the blessings where it is stated (in Deut. 27:12), “These shall stand [on Mount Gerizim] for blessing the people;” but He did not mention them in connection with the curses. Thus it is stated (in vs. 13), “And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse.” Moreover, when they sin and He plans to bring a curse upon them, it is not written that He Himself is bringing them (i.e., the curses); but with respect to the blessings, He Himself is blessing them; for so it says (in Deut. 28:1, 8), “And it shall come to pass that, if you diligently obey […], the Lord your God will set you high [over all the nations of the earth]. The Lord will command the blessing to be with you.” But with respect to the curses, it is written (according to Deut. 28:15), “And it shall come to pass that, if you do not obey […], then [all these curses] shall come upon you,” [i.e.,] of their own accord. Ergo (in Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” (Numb. 23:9:) “For from the top of the rocks I see him,” in order to make the hatred of that evil man (i.e., Balaam) known to you. As from his blessing you may know his thoughts. To what is he comparable? To someone who came to chop down a tree. One who is not an expert chops off the branches one at a time and becomes tired, but the clever one exposes the roots and [then] chops it down. Similarly that wicked man said, “How shall I curse each and every tribe? Rather I will go to their roots.” When he came to touch them, he found them hard [to cut]. It is therefore stated (in Numb. 23:9), “For from the top of the rocks I see him.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:9), “For from the top of the rocks,” these are the patriarchs; (ibid., cont.) “and from the hills I behold him,” these are the matriarchs. (Numb. 23:9, cont.:) “Here is a people dwelling alone.” When He makes them rejoice, no nation rejoices along with them. Rather they are all afflicted, [as stated (in Deut. 32:12),] “The Lord alone did lead him, and there was no foreign god with him.” (Numb. 23:9, cont.:), “And they shall not be reckoned (rt.: hshb) among the nations.” But when the nations are rejoicing in this world, they (i.e., the Children of Israel) eat with each and every kingdom, and no one is charging [such pleasures] against their account (rt: hshb).⁵⁶In other words the pleasures that Israel enjoys in this world are not to be deducted from their pleasures in the world to come. It is so stated (in Numb. 23:9, cont.), “and they shall not be reckoned (rt.: hshb) among the nations.” (Numb. 23:10:) “Who has counted the dust of Jacob?” Who is able to count the commandments which they carry out upon the dust: (In Deut. 22:10,) “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together”; (in Deut. 22:9,) “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed”; (in Numb. 19:9,) “Then someone clean shall gather the ashes of the heifer”; (in Numb. 5:17,) “[Then the high priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel] and some of the dust which is on the floor of the tabernacle”; (in Lev. 19:23,) “[Moreover, when you come into the land and plant any tree for food, you shall count its fruit as forbidden,] three years it shall be forbidden to you, [it shall not be eaten]”; and so on with all of them. (Numb. 23:10, cont.:) “Or numbered the sand (rb') of Israel,” [i.e.,] their copulations (rt.: rb').⁵⁷For this interpretation, cf. Nid. 31a. Who can number the masses⁵⁸Gk.: ochloi. that have emerged from them, from those women who seize on and cherish the commandments (of procreation), as stated (in Gen. 30:15), “But she said to her, ‘Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband?’” [And so too (in Gen. 30:3, 9),] “Here is my maid Bilhah; go into her.” “When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, [she took her maidservant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife].” [And so too (in Gen. 16:3),] “So Abraham's wife Sarai took her maidservant Hagar the Egyptian… [and gave her to her husband Abraham as a wife].” (Numb. 23:10, cont.:) “Let me die the death of the upright.” The matter is comparable to a butcher who came to slaughter a cow that belonged to a king. The king began to take notice. When [the butcher] realized [what was happening], he began by discarding the knife, then giving [the cow] a rubdown [and] filling the feeding trough for it. He began to say, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to slaughter it; but observe that I have [now given it sustenance].” Similarly Balaam said, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to curse, but I will bless [them].” Ergo (in Numb. 23:10), “let me die the death of the upright!”

On the second day, brought (hikriv) Netanel, etc.: Why does it state, "brought" [only with Netanel]? Because Reuven came and appealed: He said, “It is enough that Yehudah should precede me with the encampments; I should bring [next] based on the order of birth! Moshe rebuked him and said to him, “It is from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, that it was told to me – bring (hakrev, which is the ketiv – the way the word is spelled in the Torah) from the [order of the] encampments!” Another explanation: Hikriv (which also means ‘he put him forward’) – Moshe put him forward against the will of Reuven. Another explanation: As if he brought first (even before Yehudah). Why is this so? Since he merited to have the counsel of the princes [to offer wagons], the verse counts it as if he were the first one to bring [it] up. Abba Chanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, “Since he merited to have the counsel, he merited to have understanding given to his tribe, as it is stated (I Chronicles 12:33), ‘And from the children of Yissachar, who know understanding of times.’” And it is stated (Judges 5:15), “And Yissachar’s chiefs were with Deborah, etc.” And so does the verse recount his praise in the courts in Egypt, as it is stated (Numbers 26:24), “To Yashuv was the Yashuvite family” – and Yashuv is always [referring to] courts, as it is stated (Ezekiel 33:31), “They will come to you in crowds and sit (yeshvu) before you, etc.”; “and Yaakov was a simple man who sits (yoshev) in tents” (Genesis 25:27), and it states (Deuteronomy 33:18), “and Yissachar in his tents.” Brought his sacrifice, etc. – Rabbi Pinchas be Yair said, “Why did it add [the word,] hikriv and remove [the letter,] yod? Rather it is corresponding to the red heifer that they made that day. Therefore, it added [the word,] hikriv missing yod, and left the word with four letters – corresponding to the four things that the heifer required: red, complete, without a blemish, without the carrying of a yoke. As you would say (Numbers 19:2), ‘and they shall take to you a red heifer that is complete, etc.’” One silver bowl – the prince of Yissachar came and brought the offering for the sake of the Torah; as they love the Torah more than the other tribes, as it is stated (I Chronicles 12:33), “And from the children of Yissachar, who know understanding of times, etc.” What is “of times?” Rabbi Tanchuma said, “ Of holidays.” Rabbi Yose said, “Of intercalations.” [This verse in Chronicles continues,] “to know what Israel shall do” – on which day they shall make the holidays. [And further in the verse,] “their heads are two hundred” – these are the two hundred leaders of the Sanhedrin groomed by the tribe of Yissachar. [Still in the verse,] “and all of their brothers according to their mouths” – that they would agree to the law based on their mouths. And it states (Genesis 49:15), “bent his shoulder to haul” – since they would haul the yoke of Torah. [The verse in Genesis continues] "and he will be a conscripted worker" - as anyone who was mistaken in the law would ask it to the tribe of Yissachar and they would clarify it for them. A silver bowl – corresponding to the Torah that is called ‘bread,’ as it stated (Proverbs 19:5), “Come repast on my bread.” And it is said about the showbread (Exodus 25:29), “And you shall make its bowls and its ladles”; and we learned, “its bowls” - these are the molds, as they would make the showbread in molds. One hundred and thirty was its weight – go out and calculate: twenty-four books of the written Torah and eighty from the Mishnah; which begins with [the letter,] mem (which has a numerical equivalent of forty), “me’imatai korin et haShema, etc. and ends with mem, “Hashem yivarech et amo be’shalom”. Mem is forty and [another] mem is forty; behold eighty, [so] one hundred and four, as this is the count that the written Torah and the oral Torah come to. Another explanation: The beginnings of the six Orders of the Mishnah – the first letters come to eighty. Go out and calculate: Mem (forty) from “me’imatai” from the Order of Seeds; yod (ten) from “yitziot haShabbat” from the Order of Appointed Time; chet (eight) from “chamesh-esreh nashim” from the Order of Women; one (alef) from “arbaah avot nezikin” from the Order of Salvations (Damages); caf (twenty) from “kol haZevachim” from the Order of Holy Things; one (alef) from “avot haTumaot ” from the Order of Purities - behold eighty, [so] from here [you see that] the count of the written Torah and the oral Torah come to one hundred and four. And it was given in twenty-six generations which were from Adam to Moshe, through whom the Torah was given – behold, one hundred and thirty. Hence the weight of the bowl was one hundred and thirty.

Our rabbis taught: An incident once took place with a Jewish man who had one cow [which he used] for ploughing. [Then], his hand [fortune] was diminished and he sold her [the cow] to a non-Jewish man and it ploughed with him [for the] six day of the week. On Shabbat he took her out to plough with him and she laid down under the yoke. He then walked [to the cow] and hit her, and she did not move from her place. Since he saw it was so, he walked and said to the Jewish man who sold her to him: "Come [and] take your cow, perhaps she has some [debilitating] pain since [no matter] how many times I hit her and she [still] does not move from her place." The Jewish man understood [the cause of the cow's action], saying [to himself] this is for the sake of Shabbat, [for] she has learned to rest on Shabbat. He [the Jew] said to him [the non-Jew]: "Come, I will make her stand up." When he neared [the cow], he spoke into the cow's ear: "Cow, you know that when you were in my possession you would plough during the days of the week and on Shabbat you would rest. [But] now that I have been afflicted by suffering, and you are in the hands of a non-Jew I am asking you to stand up and plough." Immediately, she stood up and ploughed. The non-Jew said to him: "I had not asked you to take the cow until now, and I did not come to you to address any matter apart from this. And I will not let you go until you tell me what you did to her in her ear, [for] I struggled with her and I hit her and she did not stand up." The Jewish man began to appease him and said: "I did no magic or sorcery, rather in this specific manner did I divert her." Immediately, the non-Jew was awestruck, saying [to himself]: If a cow which does not have [the ability of] speech nor understanding can recognize her Creator, then how can I - who was formed in His image, and who was given understanding - not walk and recognize my Creator. Immediately, he went and converted. And he studied and became worthy of [teaching] Torah. And they called his name "Yochanan be Tortah" and [even] until today, our Rabbis have reported Halacha in his name. And if you will wonder how it came to be that a cow led one man to be gathered under the wings of the Divine Presence, in fact, on the account of a cow all of Israel became pure as we read concerning [the Red Heifer] "This is the statute of the Torah" (Numbers 19:2)....

(Lev. 22:27), “And from the eighth day on [it shall be acceptable for an offering by fire to the Lord].” So that your [evil] drive not lead you astray by saying that there is eating and drinking in front of Him. Who sacrificed to Him before Israel arose? David said (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord?” [This is to mean], who offered sacrifices to Him? R. Abbin the Levite said, “[This verse means,] who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in sustaining orphans and feeding the hungry? After all, this word (ya'arokh) can only be a word concerning sustenance, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:8), ‘On [every] Sabbath day he shall [regularly] arrange (ya'arokh) it (i.e., the bread).’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in bringing light to the eyes of those in the dark?⁷⁵Below, 10:6. After all, this word (ya'arokh) can only be a word denoting light, since it is stated (Lev. 24:4), “He shall set up (ya'arokh) the lamps upon the unalloyed lampstand.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in clothing the naked? After all, this word (rt.: 'rk) can only be a word denoting a garment, since it is stated (in Jud. 17:10), “a suit (rt.: 'rk) of clothes and [your] maintenance.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies [is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord]”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in waging war for Israel? After all, the word, ya'arokh, can only be a word denoting war, since it is stated (in Gen. 14:8), “and they marshalled (ya'arokh in the plural) for battle with them.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord”: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If your [evil] drive comes and says to you, ‘Who sacrificed to (fed) the Holy One, blessed be He, before the world was created,’⁷⁶See PR 48:3. say to him, ‘Consider that Moses ascended to the sky and spent a hundred and twenty days there. Let him tell you whether they were sacrificing to the Holy One, blessed be He. And in addition he was accustomed to eat; but when he ascended to Me, he saw that there is no eating and drinking in front of Me, and so he also did not eat, as stated (in Exod. 34:28), “And he was there with the Lord [forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water].”’” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “If your [evil] drive comes to say to you, ‘If there were no eating and drinking before Him, He would not have told me to sacrifice and offer libations to Him’; [then ponder] what is written (in Numb. 28:6), ‘The continual burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai’: Did they offer sacrifices on Mount Sinai? [No.] Rather observe that it was Moses who went up onto Mount Sinai. Let him tell you whether there were food and drink before Me. And so why did I trouble you and tell you to bring a daily sacrifice? In order to benefit you.” R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “When a mighty man who is walking on the road is thirsty and goes to drink water, how much does he drink with his hands? Ten handfuls? Six handfuls? Four handfuls? Less than two he does not drink. Now all the water that is in the world would be a filling for the hollow of the Holy One, blessed be He's, hand, as stated (in Is. 40:12), ‘Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?’ [It is so written] in order to make known that for Him there is no eating or drinking. [Then] why did He tell me to offer a sacrifice? In order to benefit you.” Ergo (in Lev. 22:27), “When a bull or a sheep or a goat [is born… and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable for an offering by fire to the Lord].” (Lev. 22:27), “And from the eighth day.” This text is related (to Eccl. 3:19), “As for the fate of humans and the fate of beasts, [they have the same fate; as the one dies, so does the other die. They all have the same lifebreath, but the superiority of the human over the beast is nil ('yn)].”⁷⁷This is the translation required by the latter part of this section. A more traditional translation would be AND THE HUMAN IS NO BETTER THAN THE BEAST. It is written concerning the human (in Deut. 22:11), “You shall not wear interwoven stuff, wool and flax together.” It is also written concerning the beast (ibid., vs. 10), “You shall not plough with an ox and an ass together.” (Eccl. 3:19:) “[They] all have the same fate.” Just as the human contracts uncleanness, the beast also contracts uncleanness. It is written concerning the human (in Numb. 19:11), “One who touches the corpse of any human being shall be unclean.” Also concerning the beast (in Lev. 11:39), “whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean [...].” (Eccl. 3:19:) “As the one dies, so does the other die.” Concerning the human (in Lev. 20:16), “you shall kill the woman”; and concerning the beast (in vs. 15), “and you shall kill the beast.” (Eccl. 3:21:) “Who knows the lifebreath of a human that rises upward and the lifebreath of a beast that goes down into the earth?”⁷⁸This translation is required by the midrash. A more traditional translation in the biblical context would be this: WHO KNOWS WHETHER IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD, WHILE IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH? Because the lifebreath of the human is given from above, concerning it, a rising up is written. And because the beast is given from below, concerning it, a going down is written. (Eccl. 3:19, cont.:) “But the superiority of the human over the beast is 'yn (i.e., nil).” What is the meaning of 'yn?⁷⁹Eccl. R. 3:19(1). That [the human] speaks, but [the beast] does not ('yn) speak. And moreover, while there is knowledge in the human, in the beast there is no ('yn) knowledge. And moreover, while the human knows the difference between good and evil, the beast does not ('yn) know the difference between good and evil. And moreover, the human gets a reward for his works, but the beast does not ('yn) get a reward for its work. And moreover, when the human dies they care for him and he is buried, while the beast is not ('yn) buried. Ergo (in Eccl. 3:19), “but the superiority of the human over the beast is 'yn.” What is written concerning the human (in Lev. 12:2-3)? “When a woman emits her seed…. And on the eighth day [the flesh of his foreskin] shall be circumcised.” But about the beasts it is written (in Lev. 22:27), “When a bull or a sheep or a goat… and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable [for an offering by fire to the Lord].”

(Lev. 23:40:) “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day [beautiful tree fruit, branches of palm trees, boughs of dense trees and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days].” This text is related (to Prov. 4:10), “Heed, my child, and take in (rt.: lqh) my words,” and (in Prov. 2:1), “treasure my commandments.” I have charged you with many takings (rt.: lqh) in order to benefit you.⁸¹Lev. R. 30:13. I told you (in Numb. 19:2), “’And let them bring (rt.: lqh) you a red cow.’ Was it possibly for My sake? No. I only did it in order to cleanse you. Is it not so written (in vs. 19), ‘And the clean person shall sprinkle it [upon the unclean person]?’ I told you (in Exod. 25:2), ‘And let them take (rt.: lqh) for Me a priestly share,’ so that I might dwell among you.” It is so stated (in vs. 8), “And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.’” He, as it were, spoke a difficult thing to them, “Take Me that I may dwell among you.” “And take a priestly share” is not written here, but “And let them take (for)⁸²Since “for Me” can sometimes be understood as a direct object, the midrash is understanding the verse to mean: LET THEM TAKE ME AS A PRIESTLY SHARE. Me a priestly share.” [It is] I, [whom] you are taking.” “I said to you (in Exod. 27:20), ‘And let them bring unto you pure olive oil.’ Do I need your light? It is simply to preserve your souls, since the soul is likened to a lamp, where it is stated (in Prov. 20:27), ‘A person's soul is a lamp of the Lord.’ And now when it says (in Lev. 23:40), ‘And you shall take for yourselves on the first day,’ it is not because it is necessary for Me, but in order to benefit you.” (Lev. 23:40:) “A beautiful tree fruit, branches of palm trees, boughs of dense trees and willows of the brook.” What is the nature of these four species?⁸³Lev. R. 30:12. Some of them produce fruit and some of them do not produce fruit. “A beautiful tree fruit, the branches of the palm trees.” These are the righteous, [because they have good works, which are like these plants that have fruit]. “Boughs of dense trees and willows of the brook.” These are the average Israelites. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “All of you join together to become a single group, so that there not be leftovers among my children. If you have done so, I will be exalted upon you.” And so the prophet says (in Amos 9:6), “Who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and founds His celestial vault upon earth.” Now when is He exalted? When they become a single group (agudah), as stated (ibid., cont.), “and founds His celestial vault (agudah) upon earth.”

R. Ze’era said: The laws of uncleanness apply to human beings: To men: When any man hath an issue out of his flesh (Lev. 15:2), and to women: If a woman have an issue (ibid., v. 19). This is the law: When a man dieth in a tent, everything shall be unclean (Num. 19:14). Thou art fairer than the children of men (Ps. 45:3). Moses is merely called human (but his essence is of a higher level). In what way? The Holy One, blessed be He, causes death and restores to life, He casts men into the pit and brings them out again, and Moses did likewise. He cast Korah and his followers, while still alive, into the pit, as it is said: So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit (Num. 16:32). The Holy One, blessed be He, issued a decree, but he (Moses) caused it to be revoked, as is written: Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach (Ps. 106:23). Grace is poured upon thy lips (ibid. 45:3) indicates that he spoke in their defense, as it is said: And Moses besought the Lord (Exod. 32:11), and He did not depart until the Lord repented (ibid., v. 14).

This is the ordinance - As it is said verse (Job:14): Who gave (brought forth) purity to one who is impure? , such as Abraham from Terah, Hezekiah from Achaz, etc , Israel from the nations of the world, the world to come from this world. Who did so, who commanded so, who decreed it so, if not The One! (the world's only!) ....! There we learned (Parah 4:4): those who occupy themselves with the Parah from beginning to end, impurify their clothes, but it makes clothes Pure. God said: I carved a law (into the fabric of creation), a decree i made, you have no ability to transgress (override) My law!

... Another opinion "may my heart be complete in Your laws", this is concerning the law of Pesach and the law of the Red Cow. Why? Because the two of them are similar one to the other, regarding one it is stated "these are the laws of the Pesach" and regarding the other is it stated "these are the laws of the Torah". And you can't know which one is more important than the other. It is like the parable of two distinguished ladies that were walking, and they looked similar. How would you know which one is more distinguished? The one whom the other accompanies to her house and walks after her. So too, regarding Pesach it is written "law" and regarding the Red Cow it is written "law", and which one is more important? The Cow, since Pesach needs it, as it says "And they will take for the ritually impure from the ashes of the burnt sacrifice" (Numbers 19:17)...

... Another opinion "may my heart be complete in Your laws", this is concerning the law of Pesach and the law of the Red Cow. Why? Because the two of them are similar one to the other, regarding one it is stated "these are the laws of the Pesach" and regarding the other is it stated "these are the laws of the Torah". And you can't know which one is more important than the other. It is like the parable of two distinguished ladies that were walking, and they looked similar. How would you know which one is more distinguished? The one whom the other accompanies to her house and walks after her. So too, regarding Pesach it is written "law" and regarding the Red Cow it is written "law", and which one is more important? The Cow, since Pesach needs it, as it says "And they will take for the ritually impure from the ashes of the burnt sacrifice" (Numbers 19:17)...

This is the ordinance of the Torah - (Psalms 12:6) The sayings of G-d are pure (purify). R. Hanan Ben Pazzi elucidated this verse [of psalms with the parsha of Parah] Parah- which has seven seven sevens; seven cows, seven fires, seven sprinkling, seven washes, seven unclean, seven pure, seven priests. And if someone tells you they are five, tell him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is said: And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the Torah:

This is the ordinance of the Torah - (Psalms 12:6) The sayings of G-d are pure (purify). R. Hanan Ben Pazzi elucidated this verse [of psalms with the parsha of Parah] Parah- which has seven seven sevens; seven cows, seven fires, seven sprinkling, seven washes, seven unclean, seven pure, seven priests. And if someone tells you they are five, tell him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is said: And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the Torah:

This is the ordinance of the Torah - (Psalms 12:6) The sayings of G-d are pure (purify). R. Hanan Ben Pazzi elucidated this verse [of psalms with the parsha of Parah] Parah- which has seven seven sevens; seven cows, seven fires, seven sprinkling, seven washes, seven unclean, seven pure, seven priests. And if someone tells you they are five, tell him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is said: And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the Torah:

3 (Numb. 19:2) “This is the statute of the Torah”: R. Isaac began [his discourse] (with Eccl. 7:23), “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.” It is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom [...].” What is the meaning of (I Kings 5:9, cont.,) “As vast as the sand of the sea.” The rabbis say, “[This] teaches that He gave him as much wisdom as all Israel, who are compared to the sand, as stated (in Hos. 2:1), ‘The number of the Children of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea. R. Levi said, “Just as sand is a wall and a fence for [the sea], that it not go out and flood the world; so was wisdom a fence for Solomon.” The proverb says, “If you lack knowledge, what have you gained? If you have gained knowledge, what do you lack?” Like (in Prov. 25:28) “A city broken into with no walls,” so “is a person who does not restrain his spirit.” (I Kings 5:10) “Now Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the East”: And what was the wisdom of the peoples of the East?²⁹Above, Gen. 7:24; PR 14:9. [In that] they were astute at divination (from birds). Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “I like three things, etc.” (I Kings 5:10, cont.) “From all the wisdom of Egypt”: What was the wisdom of Egypt? You find that when Solomon wanted to build the Temple, he sent to Pharaoh Necho and said to him, “Send me craftsmen [to work] for a wage, for I want to build the Temple.” What did Pharaoh do? He gathered all his astrologers³⁰Gk.: astrologoi. and said to them, “Foresee which people are going to die this year and send them to him.” When they came to Solomon, he foresaw through the holy spirit that they would die during that year. He [therefore] gave them shrouds and sent them [back] to [Pharaoh]. He sent to him, saying, “Do you not have shrouds to bury your dead? Here they are for you with their shrouds.” (I Kings 5:11) “And he was wiser than any man (literally, than all of Adam),” than the first Adam. And what was his wisdom? You find that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the first Adam, He consulted with the ministering angels. He said to them (in Gen. 1:26), “Let us make humankind (Adam) in Our image.” They said to him (in Ps. 8:5), “What is a human that You are mindful of him?” He said to them, “This Adam that I want to create Adam shall have wisdom greater than yours.” What did He do? He gathered all cattle, wild beasts, and fowl to pass before them. He said to them, “What are the names of these [beings]?” They, however, did not know. When He had created Adam, He made them pass before him. He said to him, “What are the names of these [beings]?” He said, “It is fitting to call this one an ox, this one a lion, this one a horse, [...]” and so on for all of them. It is so stated (in Gen. 2:20), “So Adam recited names”³¹The understanding of the midrash is that the creatures implicitly already possessed names. He said to him, “And you, what is your name?” Adam said to him, “Adam, because I was created out of the ground (adamah).” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I, what is My name?” He said to him, “The Lord, because you are Lord over all creatures,” namely as written (in Is. 42:8), “I am the Lord, that is My name,” which the first Adam gave me. It is the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and Myself; it is the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and My creatures. (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “[Wiser] than Ethan the Ezrahite”: This is Abraham, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 89:1), “A maskil (a psalm of erudition) of Ethan the Ezrahite.”³²It is assumed, of course that Abraham wrote the Psalm, an assumption based on a comparison of Ps. 89:1 and Is. 41:2: WHO HAS RAISED UP RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM THE EAST?. See BB 15a. The Ezrahite (‘ezrahi) of Ps. 89:1 is understood in the sense of “Easterner,” and Ethan (which means “steadfast”) is regarded as equivalent to “righteous.” For another argument identifying Ethan and Abraham, see PR 6:5. (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “And Heman (rt.: 'mn)”: This is Moses, of whom it is stated (in Numb. 12:7 with reference to Moses), “[… he is trusted (rt.: 'mn) in all My house].” (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “Calcol (klkl)”: This is Joseph, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 47:12), “And joseph sustained (rt.: klkl) [his father and his brothers].” The Egyptians said, “Has this slave come to rule over us for any reason but because of his wisdom?” What did they do to him? They brought seventy tablets³³Gk.: piyyakia; Lat.: pittacia. and wrote on them in seventy tongues. Then when they cast them before him, he read each and every one in its own tongue. And not only that, but he spoke in the holy tongue, which they did not have the ability to understand, as stated (in Ps. 81:6), “He made it a statute upon Joseph, when he went out over the land of Egypt. I hear a language I had not known.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “Darda (drd')]:” This is the generation (dor) of the desert, which had knowledge (de'ah). (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “The children of Mahol,” i.e., the Children of Israel whom the Divine Presence forgave (rt.: mhl) for the deed of the calf. (I Kings 5:12) “Moreover he composed three thousand proverbs”: R. Samuel bar Nahmani said, “We have gone over all of the scriptures and have found that Solomon only uttered prophetically close to eight hundred verses.³⁴See Cant. R. 1:1:11. Then what is meant by three thousand? [This number] teaches that each and every verse that he spoke contains two [or] three interpretations, just as it says (in Prov. 25:12), ‘Like an earring of gold, a necklace of fine gold, [so is a wise reprover to a listening ear].’”³⁵The midrash understands the WISE REPROVER TO BE Solomon himself, who is likened to both a golden earring and a golden necklace. But the rabbis say, “Every verse has three thousand proverbs, while each and every proverb has a thousand and five interpretations.” [(I Kings 5:12, cont.) “And his song numbered a thousand and five”:] “His songs” is not written here, but “his song,” the song of the proverb. (I Kings 5:13) “And he spoke with/concerning ('al)³⁶The point of the midrash in this and in the following chapter concerns whether to understand ‘al as “with” or “concerning.” the trees”: Is it possible that a person would speak with the trees? Solomon merely said, “For what reason is a leper cleansed through the tallest among the trees (the cedar) and through the lowest of the low (the hyssop); through (according to Lev. 14:4) cedar wood, [crimson stuff,] and hyssop?’ It is simply because he had exalted himself like the cedar, that he was stricken with leprosy. As soon as he humbled himself like the hyssop, he was therefore cured through hyssop”. (I Kings 5:13, cont.) “He also spoke with/concerning ('al) the cattle and the fowl”: Is it possible that [a person] would speak with cattle and with fowl? Rather [the passage is concerned with] why the cattle are permitted [as food] with [the cutting of] two organs³⁷Gk.: semeia (“signs,” “omens”). (the gullet and the windpipe); but the fowl, with [the cutting of] one organ (i.e., the gullet or the windpipe).³⁸See Hul. 2:1; Hul. 27b. Because cattle were created from the dry land. But in regard to fowl, one text says [they came] from the dry land, while another text says [they came] from the sea. [The text stating fowls came] from the dry land is what is written (in Gen. 2:19), “So from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens.” The other text says (in Gen. 1:20), “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and the fowl fly above the earth.”³⁹This unusual translation of Gen. 1:20 is required by the midrash. Bar Qappara said, “They were created from the mud which is in the sea.” R. Abbin said the name of R. Jose the Galilean said, “Nevertheless, the feet of the cock resemble the scaly skin⁴⁰Reading HSPNYT’ with the parallel in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Kings, 178, for Buber’s HRTsPYTYH. of the fish.”⁴¹A fish of the genus anthias. (I Kings 5:13, cont.) “And with/concerning ('al) the creeping things”: Is it possible that one would speak with a creeping thing? Solomon simply said, “What is the reason that in the case of the eight swarming creatures which are in the Torah, one is culpable for hunting or injuring them (on the Sabbath)⁴²Shab. 14:1.; but in the case of the rest of the swarming creatures, one is exempt?⁴³Shab. 14:1. For the reason that they (i.e. the former) have skins.”⁴⁴Shab. 107ab, explains that in the case of skin, as distinct from the flesh, a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar. Thus part of the animal’s life is lost. See yShab. 14:1 (14b); also Hul. 9:2. Cf. Rashi on Shab. 14:1, according to whom cutting the skin causes blood to color it in a form of dying, an act forbidden on the Sabbath. (I Kings 5:13 cont.) “And with/concerning ('al) the fish”: Is it possible that one would so speak? Solomon merely said, “For what reason do cattle, beasts, and birds require ritual slaughtering, while fish do not require ritual slaughtering?” Rather it is from this verse (in Numb. 11:22), “Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; [are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them]?” Jacob the man of Kefar Nibburayya taught in Tyre with respect to fish, that they do require ritual slaughtering. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis did you decide this?” He said to him, “From here (in Gen. 1:20), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the fowl fly.’ Just as fowl require ritual slaughtering, so do the fish require ritual slaughtering.” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “On what basis?” He said to him, “From here (in Numb. 11:22), ‘Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them?’ The former require ritual slaughtering, while the latter [is taken] through gathering.” He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” And again did Jacob the man of Kefar Nibburayya teach in Tyre, [this time] with respect to an Israelite man, who came upon a foreign woman and had her bear him a son, that he should be circumcised on the Sabbath. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him, “[From this which is written] (in Numb. 1:18) ‘then they registered their lineages according to their families according to the house of their fathers.’” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “From where can you show me?” He said to him, “If one of the gentiles came to you in order to become a proselyte on condition that you circumcise him on the Sabbath day or on the Day of Atonement, would you profane the Sabbath on account of him or not? Is it not true that one does not profane the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement for him but only for the son of an Israelite woman.” He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him (in Ezra 10:3), “So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all (foreign) wives and (anyone] born of them […].” He said to him, “Would you lash me on the basis of [a non-Mosaic text]?” He said to him, “It is written (ibid.), ‘let it be done [according to] the Torah.’” He said to him, “From which [piece of] Torah?” He said to him, “From that of R. Johanan, when he said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, ‘It is written (in Deut. 7:3), “You shall not intermarry with them; do not give your daughters to their sons.” Why? (As in Deut. 7:4,) “Because they will turn your children away from following me.” Your child that comes from an Israelite woman is called "your child"; but that which comes from a foreign woman is called, not "your child," but "her child,” as stated (in Gen. 21:13), “And I will also make the son of the maidservant into a nation.”’" He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” Solomon said, “About all these things I have knowledge; but in the case of the parashah on the red heifer, I have investigated it, inquired into it, and examined it. [Still] (at the end of the verse in Eccl. 7:23), ‘I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.’”

4 (Eccl. 8:1) “Who is like the wise person, and who knows the explanation of a saying”: (Eccl. 8:1) “Who is like the wise person”: This is the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated about Him (in Prov. 3:19), “Through wisdom the Lord founded the earth.”⁴⁵Eccl. R. 8:1:1; PRK 4:4; PR 14:10. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.) “And who knows the explanation of a saying”: This [also] is the Holy One, blessed be He, who explained the Torah for Moses. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.) “A person's wisdom lights up his face”: R. Judan said, “Great is the power of the prophets, as they [are able to] compare the Almighty above to the form of a man, as stated (Daniel 8:16), ‘And I heard the voice of a man.’” And R. Judah bar Simon says [the proof] is from here (in Ezekiel 1:26), “and on the image of a chair was an image of a man […].” (Eccl. 8:1, cont.) “And the radiance ('oz) of his face is changed (for the better),” in that He changes the principle of judgment into a principle of mercy with respect to Israel. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Over each and every word that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to Moses, He spoke to him of its [related] uncleanness and of its purification.⁴⁶See Numb. R. 19:4. When he made known the Parashah (starting with Lev. 21:1), ‘Speak (Emor) unto the priests,’ [Moses] said to him, ‘Master of the world, if [a priest] becomes unclean (through touching a human corpse), what means is there for his purification?’ When [the Holy One, blessed be He,] did not answer, at that time the face of Moses turned yellow (with shame). Then when the Holy One, blessed be He, reached the parashah on the [red] heifer, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘Moses, [when I gave you] that saying which I spoke to you (in Lev. 21:1), “Go, speak unto the priests,” then you said to me, “If one becomes unclean, what means will there be for his purification,” I did not answer [you at that time. Now] this is his purification (in Numb. 19:17), “They shall take some ashes from the burning of the sin offering (i.e., the red heifer).”‘”

5 R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “There are four things that the evil drive would refute [as irrational], and for each of them is written [the word,] huqqah (i.e., an unquestioned statute).⁴⁷Although Huqqah is normally translated simply as “statute,” the word more fully denotes a command that demands implicit and unquestioned obedience. Huqqah is therefore translated “unquestioned statute” throughout this section. Now these concern the following: (1) the nakedness of a brother's wife, (2) diverse kinds, (3) the scapegoat, and (4) the red heifer.”⁴⁸PR 14:12; see Yoma 67b. In regard to the nakedness of a brother's wife, it is written (in Lev. 18:16), “[You shall not uncover] the nakedness of your brother's wife”; [yet if the brother dies] without children [it is written] (in Deut. 25:5), “her brother-in-law shall have sexual intercourse with her [and take her for a wife].” And it is written about the sexual prohibitions (in Lev. 18:5), “And you shall keep [all] My unquestioned statutes [...].” In regard to diverse kinds, it is written (in Deut. 22:11), “You shall not wear interwoven stuff, [wool and flax together]”; yet a linen cloak⁴⁹Gk.: sindon. with [wool] tassels is permitted.⁵⁰See Numb. 15:37-38. And for [this commandment also] it is written, [that it is] an unquestioned statute. [Thus it is written (in Lev. 19:19),] “You shall keep My unquestioned statute. [You shall not mate your cattle with a different kind…, nor shall you wear a garment with diverse kinds of interwoven stuff].” In regard to the scapegoat, it is written (in Lev. 16:26), “And the one who sets the azazel-goat free shall wash his clothes”; yet it is [the goat] itself that atones for others. And for [this commandment also] it is written (in Lev. 16:34), “And this shall be to you an unquestioned statute forever.” In regard to the red heifer, where is it shown? Since we are taught (in Parah 4:4), “All engaged with the [rite of the red] heifer from beginning to end render [their] garments unclean”; yet it is [the heifer] itself that purifies garments. And for [this commandment also] it is written, [that it is] an unquestioned statute. Thus it is written (in Numb. 19:2), “This is an unquestioned statute of the Torah.”

...And they will take for you a red cow - Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Hanina says, The Holy One blessed be he said to Moses: "to you I will reveal the reason for the red cow, but for others it will be a decree (without reason)", as Rav Huna says, "it is written (Psalms 75:3) "At the time I choose, I will give judgment righteously/equitably", and it is written (Zechariah 14:6), "And it will come to pass on that day there will not be light, yeqarot and qippa'on. The written [tradition of orthography in scrolls] version is "yiqpa'un" {future tense = they will float}, [meaning] things which are hidden/covered from you in this world, in the future will float up [to the surface] in the world to come."

A gentile asked Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, "These rituals you do, they seem like witchcraft! You bring a heifer, burn it, crush it up, and take its ashes. [If] one of you is impure by the dead [the highest type impurity], 2 or 3 drops are sprinkled on him, and you declare him pure?!" He said to him, "Has a restless spirit ever entered you?" He said to him, "No!" "Have you ever seen a man where a restless spirit entered him?" He said to him, "Yes!" [Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai] said to him, "And what did you do for him?" He sad to him, "We brought roots and made them smoke beneath him, and pour water and it flees." He said to him, "Your ears should hear what leaves from your mouth! The same thing is true for this spirit, the spirit of impurity, as it is written, (Zachariah 13:2) "Even the prophets and the spirit of impurity will I remove from the land." They sprinkle upon him purifying waters, and it [the spirit of impurity] flees." After he left, our rabbi's students said, "You pushed him off with a reed. What will you say to us?" He said to them, "By your lives, a dead person doesn't make things impure, and the water doesn't make things pure. Rather, God said, 'I have engraved a rule, I have decreed a decree (chukah chakakti, gezeira gazarti), and you have no permission to transgress what I decreed, as it says "This is a chok (rule) of the Torah."

[Another interpretation (of Eccl. 8:1): WHO IS LIKE THE WISE PERSON? This is Moses, of whom it is written (in Prov. 21:22): A WISE MAN WENT UP TO A CITY OF THE MIGHTY (i.e., Sinai).¹¹¹Eccl. R. 8:1:5; PRK 4:4; PR 14:10. (Eccl. 8:1, cont.:) AND WHO KNOWS THE INTERPRETATION OF A SAYING? <This is the one> who interpreted Torah for Israel. (Ibid., cont.:) A PERSON'S WISDOM LIGHTS UP HIS FACE.] R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: Over each and every word that the Holy One spoke to Moses, he spoke to him of its <related> uncleanness and of its purification.¹¹²The parallel text begins again in Tanh., Numb. 6:6, end. See also Numb. R. 19:4. When he made known the parashah (of Lev. 21:1): SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS, he said to him: Sovereign of the World, if one becomes unclean (through touching a human corpse), what means is there for his purification? When <the Holy One> did not answer, at that time the face of Moses turned yellow (with shame). This is what is written (in Eccl. 8:1): AND THE RADIANCE OF HIS FACE IS CHANGED. Then when the Holy One reached the parashah on the <Red> Heifer, the Holy One said to him: Moses, <when I gave you> that saying which I spoke to you (in Lev. 21:1): GO, SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS, then you said to me: If one becomes unclean, what means will there be for his purification? <At that time> I did not answer <you>. <Now> this is his purification (in Numb. 19:17): FOR THE UNCLEAN THEY SHALL TAKE SOME ASHES FROM THE BURNING OF THE SIN OFFERING (i.e., the red heifer).

(Numb. 23:10:) WHO HAS COUNTED THE DUST OF JACOB? Who is able to count the commandments which they carry out, <the ones> that concern the dust.⁶⁹K‘PR. It is also possible to translate: “Who is able to count the commands which they carry out. <They are> like the dust (K‘PR) <in number>.” The examples that follow, however, suggest the translation adopted in the text, if “dust” is understood to include earth and ashes. This interpretation certainly is that found in the parallels (Tanh., Numb. 7:12, and Numb. R. 20:20), both of which read B‘PR for K‘PR. (Deut. 22:10:) YOU SHALL NOT PLOW WITH AN OX AND AN ASS TOGETHER. (Deut. 22:9:) YOU SHALL NOT SOW YOUR VINEYARD <WITH TWO KINDS OF SEED>. (Numb. 19:9:) THEN SOMEONE CLEAN SHALL GATHER THE ASHES OF THE HEIFER. (Lev. 19:23:) <MOREOVER, WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND AND PLANT ANY TREE FOR FOOD, YOU SHALL COUNT ITS FRUIT AS FORBIDDEN.> THREE YEARS IT SHALL BE FORBIDDEN TO YOU. <IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN.> (Numb. 5:17:) <THEN THE HIGH PRIEST SHALL TAKE HOLY WATER IN AN EARTHEN VESSEL> AND SOME OF THE DUST WHICH IS ON THE FLOOR OF THE TABERNACLE.

19 (Numb. 23:7) “So he took up his theme and said, ‘From Aram, Balak the king of Moab has brought me, from the hills of the east.’” I was one of the exalted ones,³¹Ramim. The midrash links this word with ARAM in Numb. 23:7. but Balak has brought me down to the pit of corruption. (Ibid.) “Brought me (yanheni, rt.: nhh),” [is to be understood] just as you say (in Ezek. 32:18), “bring (rt.: nhh) the masses of Egypt [and cast them down [… unto the lowest part of the netherworld along with those who go down to the pit].”³²Thus Numb. 23:7 comes to mean that Balak BROUGHT (rt.: NHH) Balaam down to the grave. The unusual Biblical translation is necessary to fit the sense of the midrash. Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram”: I was with the highest (ram) of the high, and Balak has brought me down from my glory. [The matter] is comparable to one who was walking with the king. When he saw [some] robbers,³³Gk.: lestai. he left the king and toured along with the robbers. When he returned to be with the king, the king said to him, “Go with whomever you have toured with, because it not possible for you to walk with me again.” Similarly Balaam had been bound to the holy spirit. When he paired himself with Balak, the holy spirit departed from him. So he returned to being a diviner as in the beginning. Thus it is stated (at his execution in Josh. 13:22), “Balaam ben Beor the diviner….” Therefore did he yell out, “I was high up (ram), and Balak brought me down.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:7), “From Aram, he has brought me”: [Balaam] said to [Balak], “We are alike, even both of us, for being ungrateful, because were it not for their father Abraham, there would have been no Balak. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 19:29), ‘And it came to pass that when God destroyed the cities of the plain, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot away.’ Except for Abraham, he would not have delivered Lot from Sodom; and you are one of the children of the children of Lot.³⁴As a Moabite, Balak was descended from Moab, the son of Lot. See Gen. 19:37. Moreover, if it were not for their father Jacob, I should not have been present in the world, because Laban had sons only through the merit of Jacob, since it is written at the beginning (in Gen. 29:9), ‘Rachel came with the sheep.’ Now if he had sons, how was his daughter a shepherdess? As soon as Jacob came there, sons were given to him, as stated (in Gen. 31:1), ‘Now he heard the things that Laban's sons [were saying].’³⁵Jewish tradition gives three views on Balaam’s relation to Laban: That he was Laban himself, that he was Laban’s nephew, and that he was Laban’s grandson. See Ginzberg, vol. III, p. 354; vol.. V, p. 303, n. 229; vol. VI, pp. 123f., nn. 722f.; p. 130, n. 764. And it also says [that Laban said] (in Gen. 30:27), ‘I have learned by divination that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.’” (Numb. 23:7, cont.) “Come, curse Jacob for me”: Whoever curses [the Children of Jacob] is cursing himself, since it is stated (in Gen. 12:3), “and the one who curses you, I will curse.” It also says (in Gen. 27:29), “cursed be those who curse you.” (Numb. 23:7) “Come, curse [Jacob] for me […].” If you had told me to curse another people, for example, the Children of Abraham and Isaac, I would have been able [to do so]. But Jacob? When a king selects a portion for himself, and someone else gets up and speaks disparagingly about it, will he keep his life? Now these people are the Holy One, blessed be He’s, heritage, His portion, and His treasure. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 32:9), “For the Lord's share is His people; Jacob the portion of His heritage.” And it is written (in Exod. 19:5), “and you shall be My treasure.” (Numb. 23:7, cont.) “And come, denounce Israel:” When a king takes a crown and puts it on his head, and someone says of it that it is nothing, will he keep his life? Now in regard to these people it is written about them (in Is. 49:3), “Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Numb. 23:8) “How shall I curse [the one] whom God has not cursed”: When they deserved to be cursed, they were not cursed: When Jacob went in to receive the blessings, he went it with deception. As it is written (in Gen. 27:16), “[Then she clothed his arms and the hairless part of his neck] with the skins of goat kids.” His father said to him (in Gen. 27:18), “Who are you?” He said to him (in vs. 19), “I am Esau, your first-born.” Does not the one who puts forth a lie with his mouth deserve to be cursed? Yet not only [was he not cursed], but he was blessed; as stated (in Gen. 27:33), “he shall also be blessed.” So how do I curse them? (In the words of Numb. 23:8) “God has not cursed.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” According to universal custom, when a legion³⁶Lat.: legio. rebels against the king, it incurs the penalty of death. Now since these denied and revolted against Him, when they said [about the calf] (in Exod. 32:4), “This is your god, O Israel,” was it not necessary to have Him destroy them at that time? [Still] He did not cease to cherish them. Instead He had clouds of glory accompany them. Nor did He withhold the manna and the well from them. And so it says (in Exod. 32:4), “When they made a molten calf,” (in Neh. 9:18-20), “You in Your great mercies did not abandon them in the desert […]; and You did not withhold Your manna from their mouth […].” How can I curse them? (Numb. 23:8) “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed” When He commanded them concerning the blessings and the curses, He mentioned them (as the people) in connection with the blessings where it is stated (in Deut. 27:12), “These shall stand [on Mount Gerizim] for blessing the people;” but He did not mention them in connection with the curses. Thus it is stated (in vs. 13), “And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse.” Moreover, when they sin and He plans to bring a curse upon them, it is not written that He Himself is bringing them (i.e., the curses); but with respect to the blessings, He Himself is blessing them; for so it says (in Deut. 28:1, 8), “And it shall come to pass that, if you diligently obey […], the Lord your God will set you high [over all the nations of the earth]. The Lord will command the blessing to be with you.” But with respect to the curses, it is written (according to Deut. 28:15), “And it shall come to pass that, if you do not obey […], then [all these curses] shall come upon you,” [i.e.,] of their own accord. Ergo (in Numb. 23:8), “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” (Numb. 23:9) “For from the top of the rocks I see him,” in order to make the hatred of that evil man (i.e., Balaam) known to you. As from his blessing you may know his thoughts. To what is he comparable? To someone who came to chop down a tree. One who is not an expert chops off the branches one at a time and becomes tired, but the clever one exposes the roots and [then] chops it down. Similarly that wicked man said, “Why shall I curse each and every tribe? Rather I will go to their roots.” When he came to touch them, he found them hard [to cut]. It is therefore stated (in Numb. 23:9), “For from the top of the rocks I see him.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 23:9): “For from the top of the rocks,” these are the patriarchs; (ibid., cont.) “and from the hills I behold him,” these are the matriarchs. (Numb. 23:9, cont.) “Here is a people dwelling alone”: When He makes them rejoice, no nation rejoices along with them. But when the nations are rejoicing in this world, they (i.e., the Children of Israel) eat with each and every kingdom, and no one is charging [such pleasures] against their account (rt: hshb).³⁷In other words the pleasures that Israel enjoys in this world are not to be deducted from their pleasures in the world to come. It is so stated (in Numb. 23:9, cont.), “and they shall not be reckoned (rt.: hshb) among the nations.” (Numb. 23:10) “Who has counted the dust of Jacob”: Who is able to count the commandments which they carry out upon the dust: (In Deut. 22:10,) “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass”; (in Deut. 22:9,) “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed”; (in Numb. 19:9,) “Then someone clean shall gather the ashes of the heifer”; (in Numb. 5:17,) “[Then the high priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel] and some of the dust which is on the floor of the tabernacle”; (in Lev. 19:23,) “[Moreover, when you come into the land and plant any tree for food, you shall count its fruit as forbidden,] three years it shall be forbidden to you, [it shall not be eaten]”; and so on with all of them. (Numb. 23:10, cont.) “Or numbered the sand (rb') of Israel,” [i.e.,] their copulations (rt.: rb')³⁸For this interpretation, cf. Nid. 31a. Who can number the masses³⁹Gk.: ochloi. that have emerged from them, from those women who seize on and cherish the commandments (of procreation), as stated (in Gen. 30:15), “But she said to her, ‘Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband?’” [And so too (in Gen. 30:3, 9),] “Here is my maid Bilhah; go into her.” “When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, [she took her maidservant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife].” [And so too (in Gen. 16:3),] “So Abraham's wife Sarai took her maidservant Hagar the Egyptian… [and gave her to her husband Abraham as a wife].” (Numb. 23:10, cont.) “Let me die the death of the upright”: The matter is comparable to a butcher who came to slaughter a cow that belonged to a king. The king began to take notice. When [the butcher] realized [what was happening], he began by discarding the knife, then giving [the cow] a rubdown [and] filling the feeding trough for it. He began to say, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to slaughter it; but observe that I have [now given it sustenance].” Similarly Balaam said, “Let my life be forfeit for coming to curse, but I will bless [them].” Ergo (in Numb. 23:10), “let me die the death of the upright!” (Numb. 23:14) “So he took him to the Field of Zophim at the top of Pisgah”: He saw that [Israel would be] breached there, for it was there that Moses died, as stated (in Deut. 3:27), “Go up to the top of Pisgah …, [for you shall not cross over this Jordan].” Is there a breach greater than this? What he saw was through divinations, and he was of the opinion that because of him they would fall there.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 22:27): AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY. This text is related (to Eccl. 3:19): AS FOR THE FATE OF HUMANS [AND THE FATE OF BEASTS, THEY HAVE THE SAME < FATE >: AS THE ONE DIES, SO DOES THE OTHER DIE. THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME LIFEBREATH, BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS NIL ('YN)].⁸⁷This is the translation required by the latter part of this section. A more traditional translation would be AND THE HUMAN IS NO BETTER THAN THE BEAST. It is written concerning the human (in Deut. 22:11): YOU SHALL NOT WEAR INTERWOVEN STUFF, WOOL AND FLAX TOGETHER. It is also written concerning the beast (ibid., vs. 10): YOU SHALL NOT PLOUGH WITH AN OX AND AN ASS TOGETHER. (Eccl. 3:19): {ALL} [THEY] HAVE THE SAME FATE. Just as the human contracts uncleanness, the beast also contracts uncleanness. It is written concerning the human (in Numb. 19:11): ONE WHO TOUCHES {A CORPSE SHALL BE UNCLEAN} [THE CORPSE OF ANY HUMAN BEING SHALL BE UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS]. Also concerning the beast (in Lev. 11:39): WHOEVER TOUCHES ITS CARCASS SHALL BE UNCLEAN. (Eccl. 3:19:) AS THE ONE DIES, SO DOES THE OTHER DIE. Concerning the human (in Lev. 20:16): YOU SHALL KILL THE WOMAN; and concerning the beast (in vs. 15): AND YOU SHALL KILL THE BEAST. (Eccl. 3:21:) {AND} WHO KNOWS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD AND THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH?⁸⁸This translation is required by the midrash. A more traditional translation in the biblical context would be this: WHO KNOWS WHETHER IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD, WHILE IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH? Because the lifebreath of the human is given from above, concerning it a rising up is written. And because the beast is given from below, concerning it a going down is written. (Eccl. 3:19, cont.:) BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS 'YN (i.e., NIL). What is the meaning of 'YN?⁸⁹Eccl. R. 3:19(1). That < the human > speaks, but < the beast > does not ('YN) speak. And moreover, while there is knowledge in the human, in the beast there is no ('YN) knowledge. And moreover, while the human knows the difference between good and evil, the beast does not ('YN) know the difference between good and evil. And moreover, the human gets a reward for his works, but the beast does not ('YN) get a reward for its work. And moreover, when the human dies they care for him and he is buried, while the beast is not ('YN) buried. Ergo (in Eccl. 3:19): BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS 'YN. What is written concerning the human (in Lev. 12:2–3)? WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED…. AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY < THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN > SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED. But about the beasts it is written (in Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT IS BORN, [….AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY ON IT SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE] < FOR AN OFFERING BY FIRE TO THE LORD >.

(Numb. 19:2, cont:) THAT THEY BRING UNTO YOU <A RED HEIFER WITHOUT BLEMISH>. R. Jose bar Hanina said: the Holy One said to Moses. To you I am revealing the reason for the heifer, but to others it is an unquestioned statute.¹²⁰Tanh., Numb. 6:8; PRK 4:7; PR 14:13; Numb. R. 19:6.

(Lev. 23:40:) AND YOU SHALL TAKE FOR YOURSELVES ON THE FIRST DAY < BEAUTIFUL TREE FRUIT, BRANCHES OF PALM TREES, BOUGHS OF DENSE TREES, AND WILLOWS OF THE BROOK; AND YOU SHALL REJOICE BEFORE THE LORD YOUR GOD FOR SEVEN DAYS. > This text is related (to Prov. 4:10): HEED, MY CHILD, AND TAKE IN (rt.: LQH) MY WORDS. The Holy One said: I have charged you with a lot concerning acquisitions (rt.: LQH) in order to benefit you.⁹²Tanh., Lev. 8:17; Lev. R. 30:13. I told you (in Numb. 19:2): < SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, > AND LET THEM BRING (rt.: LQH) YOU A RED COW. Was it possibly for my sake? No. < It was > only in order to cleanse you. Is it not so written (in vs. 19): AND THE CLEAN PERSON SHALL SPRINKLE IT [UPON THE UNCLEAN PERSON]? I told you (in Exod. 25:2): < SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL,] AND LET THEM TAKE (rt.: LQH) FOR ME A PRIESTLY SHARE, so that I might dwell among you. It is so stated (in vs. 8): AND LET THEM MAKE ME A SANCTUARY THAT I MAY DWELL AMONG THEM. He, as it were, spoke a difficult thing to them: Take me that I may dwell among you. "And take a priestly share" is not written here, but AND LET THEM TAKE (FOR)⁹³Since “for me” can sometimes be understood as a direct object, the midrash is understanding the verse to mean: LET THEM TAKE ME AS A PRIESTLY SHARE. ME A PRIESTLY SHARE. < It is > I, < whom > you are taking. I said to you (in Exod. 27:20): AND LET THEM BRING UNTO YOU < PURE > OIL OF < BEATEN > OLIVES. Do I need your light? It is simply to preserve your souls, since the soul is likened to a lamp, where it is stated (in Prov. 20:27): A PERSON'S BREATH IS A LAMP OF GOD.⁹⁴The Masoretic Text uses the divine name here. And now when it says (in Lev. 23:40): AND YOU SHALL TAKE FOR YOURSELVES ON THE FIRST DAY, it is not because it is necessary for me, but in order to benefit you.

(Numb. 19:2:) <A RED HEIFER WITHOUT BLEMISH, IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT, ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO YOKE>. (Ibid.:) HEIFER. This is Egypt, as stated (in Jer. 46:20): EGYPT IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL YOUNG COW.¹³²PRK 4:9; PR 14:15. (Numb. 19:2:) RED. This is Babylon, as stated (in Dan. 2:38): YOU ARE THE HEAD OF <RED> GOLD. (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) WITHOUT BLEMISH (temimah). This is Media, of which R. Hiyya bar Abba has said: The kings of Media are blameless (temimim); and the Holy One had nothing against them, for they only served the idols which they had received from their ancestors. (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT. This is Greece. When Alexander of Macedon saw Simeon the Just, he stood on his feet and said: Blessed is the God of Simeon the Just. The people of his palace¹³³Lat.: palatium; Gk.: palation. said to him: Do you stand in the presence of a Jew? He said to them: When I go down to battle, I see his image, and I am victorious.

[Another interpretation (of Numb. 19:2): <A RED HEIFER WITHOUT BLEMISH, IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT, ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO YOKE>. (Ibid.:) HEIFER. This is Israel, since it is written (in Hos. 4:16): ISRAEL HAS BALKED LIKE A BALKY HEIFER.¹³⁸PRK 4:10; PR 14:15. (Numb. 19:2:) RED. This is Israel, of whom it is written (in Lam. 4:7): THEIR LIMBS WERE REDDER THAN CORAL. (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) WITHOUT BLEMISH (rt.:TMM). This is Israel, of whom it is written (in Cant. 6:9): <ONLY ONE IS> MY DOVE, MY PERFECT ONE (rt.: TMM). (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT. This is Israel, of whom it is written (in Cant. 4:7): AND THERE IS NO BLEMISH IN YOU. (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO YOKE. This is the generation of Jeremiah, which did not take the yoke of the Holy One upon themselves. (Numb. 19:3:) THEN YOU SHALL GIVE IT UNTO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST. This is Jeremiah, of whom it is written (in Jer. 1:1): ONE OF THE PRIESTS THAT WERE IN ANATHOTH.¹³⁹According to Josh. 21:13–19 and I Chron. 6:35–45 [50–60], Anathoth is part of the heritage of the children of Aaron, and Anathoth was also the home of Abiathar the descendant of Eli (I Kings 2:26–27), who in turn was descended from Eleazar, according to 4 Ezra 1:2–3. see Exod. 6:23–25. Against this view, cf. Josephus, Ant. 5:361–362; also I Chron 24:3, according to whom Eli was descended from Ithamar. So also TDER 12 (11), p. 58 (Friedmann); TDEZ, p. 191 (Friedmann). (Numb. 19:3, cont.:) AND HE SHALL TAKE IT OUTSIDE THE CAMP. (Ezra 5:12:) AND HE DEPORTED THE PEOPLE TO BABYLON. (Numb. 19:3, cont.:) AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT IN HIS PRESENCE. (II Kings 25:7:) THEY SLEW THE CHILDREN OF ZEDEKIAH BEFORE HIS EYES. (Numb. 19:5:) AND HE SHALL BURN THE HEIFER <BEFORE HIS EYES>. (II Kings 25:9 = Jer. 52:13:) HE ALSO BURNED THE HOUSE OF THE LORD AND THE HOUSE OF THE KING. (Numb. 19:5, cont.:) TOGETHER WITH ITS SKIN, <ITS FLESH, AND ITS BLOOD>. (II Kings 25:9, cont. = Jer. 52:13, cont:) AND ALL THE HOUSES OF JERUSALEM, EVEN {THE GREAT HOUSE} [ALL THE GREAT ONE'S HOUSE] DID HE BURN WITH FIRE. Now why does <Scripture> call <the heifer> a GREAT ONE'S HOUSE? It is simply that this was the house of study (bet midrash) that belonged to R. Johanan ben Zakkay, for there they taught the greatness of the Holy One.¹⁴⁰Rabbinic tradition tended to regard the Temple destruction under Nebuchadnezzar as closely paralleling the destruction under Titus. It is therefore possible to understand a description of the first destruction as a prophecy of the second, when R. Johanan ben Zakkay was teaching. (Numb. 19:6:) <AND THE PRIEST SHALL TAKE CEDAR WOOD, HYSSOP, AND CRIMSON STUFF, AND CAST THEM INTO THE MIDST OF THE BURNING HEIFER.> (Ibid.:) AND <HE> SHALL TAKE. This refers to Nebuchadnezzar. [(Ibid.:) THE PRIEST. This is Jeremiah, of whom it is stated (in Jer. 39:12, where Nebuchadnezzar gave the order): TAKE HIM AND LOOK AFTER HIM.] (Numb. 19:6, cont.:) CEDAR WOOD, HYSSOP, AND CRIMSON STUFF. These are Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. (Ibid., cont.:) AND CAST THEM INTO THE MIDST OF THE BURNING HEIFER. (Dan. 3:22): THE FLAME OF THE FIRE SLEW THEM (i.e., their executioners). (Numb. 19:9:) THEN <SOMEONE CLEAN> SHALL GATHER <THE ASHES OF THE HEIFER>. This refers to the Holy One, of whom it is stated (in Is. 11:12): SO HE SHALL RAISE UP A SIGNAL FOR THE NATIONS AND GATHER THE OUTCASTS OF ISRAEL. (Numb. 19:9:) SOMEONE (ish). This is the Holy One, of whom it is stated (in Exod. 15:3): THE LORD IS A MAN (ish) OF WAR. (Numb. 19:9, cont.:) CLEAN (rt.: THR). This is the Holy One, of whom it is stated (in Hab. 1:13): YOUR EYES ARE TOO PURE (rt.: THR) <TO BEHOLD EVIL>. (Numb. 19:9, cont.:) THE ASHES OF THE HEIFER. These are the dispersed people of Israel. (Ibid., cont.:) AND DEPOSIT THEM OUTSIDE THE CAMP IN A CLEAN (rt.: thr) PLACE. This <place> is Jerusalem, in that it is clean. (Ibid., cont.:) AND IT SHALL BE KEPT FOR THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, because in this world things are <pronounced> unclean and clean from the mouth of a priest; however, in the world to come it shall not be so. Rather the Holy One is going to do the cleansing (rt.: THR), as stated (in Ezek. 36:25): I WILL SPRINKLE PURE (rt.: THR) WATER UPON YOU, AND YOU SHALL BE PURE (rt.: THR); I WILL PURIFY (rt.: THR) YOU FROM ALL YOUR UNCLEANNESSES AND FROM ALL YOUR IDOLS.

"and he make unclean the head of his Naziritism": Scripture here speaks of one who was clean (when he began his Nazirite count) and became unclean. It is he who must remove his hair and bring an offering, and not one who undertook Naziritism in the cemetery (in which instance he was already unclean.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If one who was clean and became tamei is liable to remove his hair and to bring an offering, how much more so one who was unclean in the beginning! It is, therefore, written (to negate this) "and he make unclean the head of his Naziritism." "then he shall shave his head": It is his head that he shaves, and not all of his (bodily) hair. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a leper shaves and brings an offering and a Nazirite shaves and brings an offering, then if I learned of a leper that he shaves all of his hair, then a Nazirite, too, should shave all of his hair. — No, this may be true of a leper, who undergoes a second shaving (Vayikra 14:9), wherefore he shaves all of his hair. Would you say the same for a Nazirite, who does not shave a second shaving? — wherefore he should not shave all of his hair. — This is refuted by the Levites, who, though they do not undergo a second shaving, shave all of their hair. It must, therefore, be written "then he shall shave his head" — It is his head that he shaves and not all of his hair. ("then he shall shave his head) on the day of his cleansing": on the day of his sprinkling (of the waters of the red heifer [viz. Bamidbar 19:17]). You say, on the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh, but perhaps ("cleansing" refers to) the day of his offering, on the eighth; it is, therefore, written "on the seventh." If "on the seventh," (I might think that he shaves) even if the waters have not been sprinkled; it is, therefore, written ("then he shall shave") on the day of his cleansing" — the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh. This tells me only of the seventh. Whence do I derive the eighth, the ninth, and the tenth (as also valid for shaving)? From "he shall shave it" (— in any event). This ("on the day") tells me only of the daytime. Whence do I derive the night (as also valid)? From "he shall shave it." This tells me only of the shaving for tumah. Whence do I derive (the same for) the shaving of cleanliness (Ibid. 18)? From "he shall shave it." "he shall shave it, and on the eighth day he shall bring, etc." From here (i.e., from the juxtaposition) they ruled: What is the procedure of the shaving for tumah? First he shaves and then he brings the offering. And if he brought the offering and then shaved, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Rabbi Yehuda opened in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, "'Listen my son and take my words' (Proverbs 4:10). Many takings have I commanded you in order to give you merit. I said to you (Numbers 19:2), 'and you will take to you a pure red cow.' [Was it] maybe for My sake? But rather it was for your sake, to purify you, as it is written (Numbers 19:19), 'And the pure one will sprinkle on the impure one.' I said to you (Exodus 25:2), 'and they shall take an offering for Me' in order that I will dwell among you: 'And make for Me a sanctuary' (Ibid., verse 8). As if it were possible, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'take Me and I will dwell among you' - it does not say, 'and they shall take an offering,' but rather, 'and they shall take (for) Me:' they are taking Me. I said to you (Leviticus 24:2), 'and they shall take to you pure olive oil.' And do I need your light - behold, it is written (Daniel 2:22), 'and light dwells with Him?' But rather to give you merit and to atone for your souls which is compared to a candle, as it is stated (Proverbs 20:27), 'The candle of God is the soul of a man, it searches all of the chambers of the innards.' And now that I have said to you, 'And you shall take for yourselves on the first day,' it is to give you merit, so that I will bring down the rain for you. Hence Moshe warned Israel, 'And you shall take for yourselves on the first day.'"

Rabbi Yehuda opened in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, "'Listen my son and take my words' (Proverbs 4:10). Many takings have I commanded you in order to give you merit. I said to you (Numbers 19:2), 'and you will take to you a pure red cow.' [Was it] maybe for My sake? But rather it was for your sake, to purify you, as it is written (Numbers 19:19), 'And the pure one will sprinkle on the impure one.' I said to you (Exodus 25:2), 'and they shall take an offering for Me' in order that I will dwell among you: 'And make for Me a sanctuary' (Ibid., verse 8). As if it were possible, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'take Me and I will dwell among you' - it does not say, 'and they shall take an offering,' but rather, 'and they shall take (for) Me:' they are taking Me. I said to you (Leviticus 24:2), 'and they shall take to you pure olive oil.' And do I need your light - behold, it is written (Daniel 2:22), 'and light dwells with Him?' But rather to give you merit and to atone for your souls which is compared to a candle, as it is stated (Proverbs 20:27), 'The candle of God is the soul of a man, it searches all of the chambers of the innards.' And now that I have said to you, 'And you shall take for yourselves on the first day,' it is to give you merit, so that I will bring down the rain for you. Hence Moshe warned Israel, 'And you shall take for yourselves on the first day.'"

(Exodus 16:33) "And Moses said to Aaron: Take one tzintzeneth": I would not know what it is — whether of silver, or iron, or lead, or copper, or tin. It is, therefore, written "tzintzeneth" — something that can be seen through ("metztith"), i.e., an earthenware vessel (from which glass is made). "and put therein a full omer of manna and place it before the L rd as a keeping for your generations": R. Yehoshua says: for the fathers (i.e., for those of that generation). R. Eliezer says: for the days of the prophet Jeremiah. For when Jeremiah said to Israel: Why are you not studying Torah, they said to him: How will we feed ourselves? He took out the flask of manna and said to them (Jeremiah 2:31) "O generation, see the word of the L-td, etc." Your fathers, who studied Torah, see how they were fed. You, too, if you study Torah, the Holy One Blessed be He will feed you of this. And this is one of the three things that Eliyahu is destined to present to Israel: the flask of manna, the flask of the sprinkling waters (viz. Numbers 19:9), and the flask of the anointing oil, (viz. Exodus 30:31). Others say: Also the staff of Aaron, its almonds and its blossoms, (viz. Numbers 17:25).

(Exodus 12:43) "And the L rd said to Moses and Aaron": There are some sections (in the Torah) which are generic in the beginning and specific after, and some which are specific in the beginning and generic after. (Exodus 19:6) "And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of lords and a holy nation" — specific; (Ibid.) "these are the things that you shall speak" — generic. (Numbers 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — generic; (Ibid.) "They shall take to you a red heifer" — specific. (Exodus 12:43) "This is the statute of the Paschal offering" — generic; (Ibid.) "No stranger may eat of it" — specific. There is subsumed in the generic only what is in the specific. "This is the statute of the Paschal offering." Scripture speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. These are the words of R. Oshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks of the Pesach of Egypt. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Pesach of all the generations? From (Numbers 9:3) "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances." R. Yoshiyah said to him: Scripture (here) speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. What is the intent of "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances"? Scripture (there) comes to speak of details which are lacking here. R. Issi b. Akiva says: "statutes" (in Numbers 9:3) applies only (directly) to the body of the Paschal offering.

The ministering angels said to him: Moses ! This Torah has been given only for our sakes. Moses replied to them: It is written in the Torah, "Honour thy father || and thy mother" (Ex. 20:12). Have ye then father and mother? Again, it is written in the Torah, "When a man dieth in the tent" (Num. 19:14). Does death happen among you? They were silent, and did not answer anything further.

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Jamnia, said: Unless the father of a leprous person spit in his face, he will not be healed, as it is said, "And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?" (Num. 12:14). Hence (the sages) say: A male afflicted with unclean issue (needs) seven (days for his purification); a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days' separation); a menstruant (needs) seven (days of purification); one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification); a mourner (mourns for) seven (days); the wedding feast (lasts) seven (days); and a leprous person (requires) seven (days' separation). (Whence do we know that) a male with an unclean issue (requires) seven days (for his purification)? || (Because it is said,) "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing" (Lev. 15:13). Whence do we know that a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean" (Lev. 15:28). Whence do we know that a menstruant (requires) seven (days of separation)? Because it is said, "She shall be in her separation seven days" (Lev. 15:19). "Her separation" (or impurity) thou dost not read, but "in her impurity"; because Rabbi Ẓe'era said: The daughters of Israel have made the Law exceptionally stringent for themselves, so that if they see a blood stain of the size of a mustard seed they observe on its account seven days, after that they are cleansed (of their issue of blood). Whence do we know that one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body… shall be unclean seven days" (Num. 19:16). Whence do we know that the mourner (mourns for) seven (days)? Because it is said, "And he made a mourning for his father seven days" (Gen. 50.10). Whence do we know that the (bridal) banquet (lasts) seven days? Because it is said, "Fulfil the week of this one…. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week" (Gen. 29:27, 28). Whence do we know that a leper (keeps) seven (days of purification)? From Miriam, as it is said, "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (Num. 12:15).

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Jamnia, said: Unless the father of a leprous person spit in his face, he will not be healed, as it is said, "And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?" (Num. 12:14). Hence (the sages) say: A male afflicted with unclean issue (needs) seven (days for his purification); a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days' separation); a menstruant (needs) seven (days of purification); one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification); a mourner (mourns for) seven (days); the wedding feast (lasts) seven (days); and a leprous person (requires) seven (days' separation). (Whence do we know that) a male with an unclean issue (requires) seven days (for his purification)? || (Because it is said,) "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing" (Lev. 15:13). Whence do we know that a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean" (Lev. 15:28). Whence do we know that a menstruant (requires) seven (days of separation)? Because it is said, "She shall be in her separation seven days" (Lev. 15:19). "Her separation" (or impurity) thou dost not read, but "in her impurity"; because Rabbi Ẓe'era said: The daughters of Israel have made the Law exceptionally stringent for themselves, so that if they see a blood stain of the size of a mustard seed they observe on its account seven days, after that they are cleansed (of their issue of blood). Whence do we know that one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body… shall be unclean seven days" (Num. 19:16). Whence do we know that the mourner (mourns for) seven (days)? Because it is said, "And he made a mourning for his father seven days" (Gen. 50.10). Whence do we know that the (bridal) banquet (lasts) seven days? Because it is said, "Fulfil the week of this one…. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week" (Gen. 29:27, 28). Whence do we know that a leper (keeps) seven (days of purification)? From Miriam, as it is said, "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (Num. 12:15).

(Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd." They are given to the L-rd (for His service) and not to the Cohanim. (Ibid. 7) "And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar": From here, R. Eliezer Hakappar berebbi was wont to say: Whatever pertains to the altar should be only to you and your sons. "and within the parocheth (the curtain)" — whence they stated: There was a place behind the inside of the holy of holies, where the genealogy of the priests was ascertained. "and you shall serve": I might think, in concert; it is, therefore, written "a service of matanah." Just as "matanah" (the application of the blood of the sacrifices) is by lottery, so, all of the (other) services is by lottery. "As a service of gift have I given your priesthood (to you)": This equates the eating of kodshim (i.e., terumah, etc.) in the provinces (i.e., outside of the Temple) with the service of the Temple in the Temple. And it once happened that R. Tarfon (a Cohein) was late in coming to the house of study, whereupon R. Gamliel asked him: Why are you late? And he responded: I was serving (as a Cohein). R. Gamliel: All of your words are a puzzle. Is there (Temple) service now (that the Temple has been destroyed)? R. Tarfon: It is written "As a service of gift have I given your priesthood (to you)." This equates the eating of kodshim in the provinces with the service of the Temple in the Temple. Rebbi says: "This equates the eating of kodshim in the provinces with the service of the Temple in the Temple" — Just as with the service of the Temple in the Temple, he first washes his hands and then serves, so, with the eating of kodshim in the provinces — he first washes his hands and then eats. — But perhaps just as there, he washes both his hands and his feet, so, here! — Would you say that? In a place (the Temple) where he must wash his hands and his feet (in that he is standing on holy ground), he does so; but in a place where he needs to wash only his hands, that is what he does. We hereby learn the washing of the hands to be scripturally prescribed. "and the stranger (i.e., the non-priest) that draws near shall be put to death": ("that draws near") to (do) the (priestly) service. You say, to the service, but perhaps (the same obtains) to the service or not to the service, (but merely for entering). Would you say that? Now if one (a Cohein) who is blemished, who is only under an exhortation (and not subject to the death penalty), was exhorted only for performing a service, then a stranger, who is subject to the death penalty, how much more so is he to be punished only for a service! What, then, is the intent of "and the stranger that draws near is to be put to death? ("who draws near") to the service. "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death": even if he serves in (a state of) purity. — But perhaps (the intent is) if the serves in a state of tumah. — Would you say that? If one who (only) enters in (a state of) tumah, not for a service, is liable (to the death penalty [viz. Bamidbar 19:13]), how much more so one who serves (in a state of tumah)! What, then, is the intent of "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death"? Even if he serves in (a state of) purity. R. Yishmael says: It is written here "he shall be put to death," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 17:28) "Whoever draws near, who draws near to the mishkan of the L-rd, shall die." Just as there, at the hands of Heaven; here, too, at the hands of Heaven. R. Akiva says: It is written here "he shall be put to death," and, elsewhere, (Devarim 13:6) "And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death." Just as there, by strangulation, here, too, by strangulation. "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death." We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 18:4) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you."

(Bamidbar 19:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Aaron and to Moses saying: This is the statute of the Torah, which the L-rd has commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and let them take unto you a red heifer, complete, which does not have a blemish, upon which a yoke has not come." There are sections (of the Torah), which are general in the beginning and particular at the end, and (others), which are particular in the beginning and general at the end: (Shemot 19:3) "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel" — particular; (Ibid. 6) "These are the things, etc." — general. (Ibid. 12:43) "This is the statute of the Pesach" — general; (Ibid.) "Every stranger shall not eat of it" — particular. (Bamidbar 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — general; (Ibid.) "and let them take for you a red heifer, complete" — particular. General-Particular. (The rule is:) There exists in the general only what is found in the particular. R. Eliezer says: It is written here "statute" and (relative to the Yom Kippur service, Vayikra 16:34) "statute." Just as there, (the Cohein ministers) in the white vestments; here, too, in the white vestments. R. Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his disciples: In which vestments was the red heifer processed? He: In the golden vestments. They: But did our master not teach us (that it was processed) in the white vestments? He: If I have forgotten what my eyes have seen and what my hands have ministered, how much more so, what I have taught! And why all this? To strengthen the disciples (in application to their learning). Others say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not being a Cohein), he could not have said "what my hands have ministered." "and let them take": from the Temple treasury. "unto you": that you be appointed over it. And just as Moses was appointed over it, so, was Aaron. Similarly, in respect to the oil for lighting, (Shemot 21:20) "and let them take unto you" — that you be appointed over it. "a red heifer (parah)": R. Eliezer says: "eglah" signifies of the first year; "parah" signifies of the second year. The sages say: "eglah" — of the second year; "parah" — of the third or fourth year. R. Meir says: One of the fifth year, too, is valid. An old one is valid, but it is not waited for lest it sprout black hairs and become unfit. "parah": I understand black or white; it is, therefore, written "red." "whole": in redness or in (absence of) blemishes? "which does not have a blemish" accounts for blemishes. How, then, am I to understand "whole"? That it be "whole" in redness. "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work (having been done with them), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! — No, this may be true of offerings, which must be processed (by the Cohein) in a state of cleanliness, wherefore a blemish invalidates them, as opposed to the heifer, which may be processed in a state of tumah (i.e., when the Cohein is a tvul yom), wherefore a blemish would not invalidate it. (So that the verse is needed to tell us otherwise.) — (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) the Paschal lamb, which though it may be processed in a state of tumah, a blemish invalidates it, and this would indicate of the heifer that even though it is processed in tumah, a blemish invalidates it. (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, this may be true of the Paschal lamb, which must be sacrificed at a fixed time, wherefore it is invalidated by a blemish, as opposed to the heifer, which, not having a fixed time (for its processing), should not be invalidated by a blemish. It must, therefore, (to tell us otherwise) be written "which does not have a blemish." Issi b. Akiva says: "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by black or white (hairs), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by black or white, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish"! If I know this a fortiori, why need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? To exclude (from invalidation by a blemish) the heifer of the broken neck (eglah arufah [viz. Devarim 21:4]). For it would follow (if not for this verse) that blemishes should invalidate the eglah arufah, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work, are invalidated by a blemish, then eglah arufah, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! It is, therefore, written (in respect to the red heifer), "which does not have a blemish" — It (the red heifer) is invalidated by a blemish, but the eglah arufah is not invalidated by a blemish. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: If the sin-offering of a bird, whose offerers must be tahor, is not invalidated by a blemish, then the red heifer, whose processors may be tamei (tvul yom), how much more so should it not be invalidated by a blemish! (The verse, then, is needed to tell us that it is invalidated by a blemish.) — No, this may be true of the sin-offering of a bird, which is valid if either male or female, as opposed to a heifer, (where only a female is valid.) Why, then, need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? (lit., "when there is no blemish in it") When the blemish is in it (it is invalid), but when it has passed, it is valid. R. Yoshiyah Numithi asked before R. Yehudah b. Betheira: What is a blemish which has passed, in which instance it is valid? And he showed me between his two fingers — when(flesh) protrudes or when it has two tails. "upon which a yoke has not come": Scripture speaks of a yoke not in (the time of its) working. And if you would say, a yoke in (the time of its working), would you say that? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, is invalidated by a yoke (in its time of working), then the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should it be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working!) — (No,) this is refuted by the offerings, which are invalidated by a blemish, but not by a yoke (in the time of working), and they would indicate about the red heifer that even though it is invalidated by a blemish, it should not be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working). — No, this may be true of offerings, which are not invalidated by black and white hairs, wherefore a yoke does not invalidate them, as opposed to the red heifer, which is invalidated by black and white, wherefore a yoke (in the time of its working) should invalidate them. What, then, is the intent of "upon which a yoke has not come"? A yoke not in the time of its working. Whence is it derived that other labors are equated with a yoke (to invalidate the red heifer)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, (viz. Devarim 21:3 "which has never been worked, which has never pulled under a yoke"), then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke! — But perhaps it should be transposed, viz.: If (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, other labors were not equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors not be equated with a yoke! It is, therefore, written "which has never been worked." I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been refuted and I have emerged with the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If (in the instance of) the eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke!

(Bamidbar 19:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Aaron and to Moses saying: This is the statute of the Torah, which the L-rd has commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and let them take unto you a red heifer, complete, which does not have a blemish, upon which a yoke has not come." There are sections (of the Torah), which are general in the beginning and particular at the end, and (others), which are particular in the beginning and general at the end: (Shemot 19:3) "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel" — particular; (Ibid. 6) "These are the things, etc." — general. (Ibid. 12:43) "This is the statute of the Pesach" — general; (Ibid.) "Every stranger shall not eat of it" — particular. (Bamidbar 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — general; (Ibid.) "and let them take for you a red heifer, complete" — particular. General-Particular. (The rule is:) There exists in the general only what is found in the particular. R. Eliezer says: It is written here "statute" and (relative to the Yom Kippur service, Vayikra 16:34) "statute." Just as there, (the Cohein ministers) in the white vestments; here, too, in the white vestments. R. Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his disciples: In which vestments was the red heifer processed? He: In the golden vestments. They: But did our master not teach us (that it was processed) in the white vestments? He: If I have forgotten what my eyes have seen and what my hands have ministered, how much more so, what I have taught! And why all this? To strengthen the disciples (in application to their learning). Others say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not being a Cohein), he could not have said "what my hands have ministered." "and let them take": from the Temple treasury. "unto you": that you be appointed over it. And just as Moses was appointed over it, so, was Aaron. Similarly, in respect to the oil for lighting, (Shemot 21:20) "and let them take unto you" — that you be appointed over it. "a red heifer (parah)": R. Eliezer says: "eglah" signifies of the first year; "parah" signifies of the second year. The sages say: "eglah" — of the second year; "parah" — of the third or fourth year. R. Meir says: One of the fifth year, too, is valid. An old one is valid, but it is not waited for lest it sprout black hairs and become unfit. "parah": I understand black or white; it is, therefore, written "red." "whole": in redness or in (absence of) blemishes? "which does not have a blemish" accounts for blemishes. How, then, am I to understand "whole"? That it be "whole" in redness. "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work (having been done with them), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! — No, this may be true of offerings, which must be processed (by the Cohein) in a state of cleanliness, wherefore a blemish invalidates them, as opposed to the heifer, which may be processed in a state of tumah (i.e., when the Cohein is a tvul yom), wherefore a blemish would not invalidate it. (So that the verse is needed to tell us otherwise.) — (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) the Paschal lamb, which though it may be processed in a state of tumah, a blemish invalidates it, and this would indicate of the heifer that even though it is processed in tumah, a blemish invalidates it. (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, this may be true of the Paschal lamb, which must be sacrificed at a fixed time, wherefore it is invalidated by a blemish, as opposed to the heifer, which, not having a fixed time (for its processing), should not be invalidated by a blemish. It must, therefore, (to tell us otherwise) be written "which does not have a blemish." Issi b. Akiva says: "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by black or white (hairs), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by black or white, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish"! If I know this a fortiori, why need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? To exclude (from invalidation by a blemish) the heifer of the broken neck (eglah arufah [viz. Devarim 21:4]). For it would follow (if not for this verse) that blemishes should invalidate the eglah arufah, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work, are invalidated by a blemish, then eglah arufah, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! It is, therefore, written (in respect to the red heifer), "which does not have a blemish" — It (the red heifer) is invalidated by a blemish, but the eglah arufah is not invalidated by a blemish. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: If the sin-offering of a bird, whose offerers must be tahor, is not invalidated by a blemish, then the red heifer, whose processors may be tamei (tvul yom), how much more so should it not be invalidated by a blemish! (The verse, then, is needed to tell us that it is invalidated by a blemish.) — No, this may be true of the sin-offering of a bird, which is valid if either male or female, as opposed to a heifer, (where only a female is valid.) Why, then, need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? (lit., "when there is no blemish in it") When the blemish is in it (it is invalid), but when it has passed, it is valid. R. Yoshiyah Numithi asked before R. Yehudah b. Betheira: What is a blemish which has passed, in which instance it is valid? And he showed me between his two fingers — when(flesh) protrudes or when it has two tails. "upon which a yoke has not come": Scripture speaks of a yoke not in (the time of its) working. And if you would say, a yoke in (the time of its working), would you say that? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, is invalidated by a yoke (in its time of working), then the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should it be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working!) — (No,) this is refuted by the offerings, which are invalidated by a blemish, but not by a yoke (in the time of working), and they would indicate about the red heifer that even though it is invalidated by a blemish, it should not be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working). — No, this may be true of offerings, which are not invalidated by black and white hairs, wherefore a yoke does not invalidate them, as opposed to the red heifer, which is invalidated by black and white, wherefore a yoke (in the time of its working) should invalidate them. What, then, is the intent of "upon which a yoke has not come"? A yoke not in the time of its working. Whence is it derived that other labors are equated with a yoke (to invalidate the red heifer)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, (viz. Devarim 21:3 "which has never been worked, which has never pulled under a yoke"), then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke! — But perhaps it should be transposed, viz.: If (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, other labors were not equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors not be equated with a yoke! It is, therefore, written "which has never been worked." I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been refuted and I have emerged with the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If (in the instance of) the eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke!

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

(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."

(Bamidbar 19:11) "One who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean for seven days." Scripture hereby teaches about a dead body that it confers tumah by contact. — But even without a verse it follows a fortiori, viz.: If it confers tumah in a tent, how much more so by contact! Why, then, is the verse needed? To include an eight-month birth (who died). This would include both an eight-month birth and his blood; it is, therefore, written (lit.,) "the soul (i.e., the body) of a man" — to exclude his blood (as conferring tumah). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: (It is written) "all the soul of a man" — to include his blood. "then he shall be tamei for seven days": Scripture hereby apprises us that a dead body confers tumah for seven days (unlike other instances of contact tumah, which obtain for one day only). (Ibid. 12) "He shall be cleansed with it": Why "with it"? (i.e., "it" seems superfluous). (The thrust of "it" is) with ashes that were processed as prescribed. "on the third day and on the seventh day": Scripture hereby apprises us that one who is tamei by a dead body must be sprinkled on, on the third day and the seventh day. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) that if he is sprinkled on, on the third day, he is clean on the seventh day, and if not, he is not clean on the seventh day. It is, therefore, written "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, he shall not be clean on the seventh day." — But still, perhaps the meaning is: Why is he not clean on the seventh day, because he was not besprinkled on the seventh day, but if he were besprinkled on the third day, then he is clean on the seventh day! It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19) "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day." Scripture repeats it to void it (otherwise). "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day": Why is this written? (i.e., it follows from what precedes.) Because it is written (Ibid. 20) "And a man if he become tamei and he has not been sprinkled upon, etc.", does Scripture make him liable to kareth because of the defiling of the sanctuary and its holy things or because he has not been sprinkled upon? It is, therefore, written "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day." His punishment is not being clean, and not kareth. (Ibid. 13) "Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man": As heretofore stated, to exclude an eight-month birth. "that shall die": Scripture hereby apprises us that he does not confer tumah until he dies. From here, you reason to sheretz (a creeping thing), viz.: If the "graver," a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man (actually) dies, then the "lighter," a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! Or, transpose it, viz.: If sheretz, the "lighter," confers tumah while convulsing, then a man, the "graver" how much more so should he confer tumah even while convulsing (and not actually dead)! It is, therefore, written "Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man that shall die." Why need "that shall die" be written? Why is it written? To apprise us that he does not confer tumah until he (actually) dies. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been nullified and the original a fortiori argument remains, viz.: If the "graver," a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man actually dies, then the "lighter," a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! "and he not be cleansed": Rebbi says: and he not be cleansed by blood (i.e., if he has not brought his required offering, and enters the sanctuary, e.g., in the instance of a zav or a leper, who require an offering for their purification). You say, if he has not been cleansed by blood, but perhaps (the meaning is that) he has not been cleansed by the waters (of the red heifer)! (This is not so, for) "the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him" already speaks of the waters. How, then, am I to understand "and he not be cleansed"? (As) he will not be cleansed by blood," to include one lacking atonement, (as in the above instance). "and that soul shall be cut off': Why is this written (here)? Is it not written below? (viz. Ibid. 20). But because it is written (there) "The sanctuary ("mikdash," [i.e., the Temple]) of the L-rd he has defiled," this tells me only of the mikdash. Whence do I derive (the same for) the mishkan (i.e., the tabernacle of the desert)? From (Ibid. 13) "The tabernacle ("mishkan") of the L-rd he has defiled." "and that soul shall be cut off": And elsewhere (in the same connection [Vayikra 15:31]) "that they not die in their tumah." Why the difference (in terminology)? To teach that "kareth" and "death" (in this regard) are one and the same. "tamei shall he be": to include other varieties of tumah (e.g., sheretz and zav). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: It (the verse) is not needed (for this teaching.) It is already written (Vayikra, Ibid.) "And you shall separate the children of Israel from their tumah, that they not die in their tumah by making tamei My mishkan which is in their midst." Tumah through a dead body was in the category (of all the varieties of tumah), and Scripture isolated it (here for special mention), and made it liable to death and to the bringing of an offering (for unwitting transgression), to teach about the other varieties of tumah (in this connection) that they are liable to death and to the bringing of an offering. How, then, am I to understand "tamei shall he be"? Because it is written "for the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him," I might think (that the intent is) if they had not been sprinkled upon him at all. Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled (on the third day), but did not repeat (on the seventh day)? From "tamei shall he be." Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he repeated, but he did not immerse? From "His tumah is upon him." Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he immersed, but did not wait for "his sun to set"? From "His tumah is yet upon him."

(Bamidbar 19:14) "This is the Torah: A man if he die in a tent — all that enter the tent and all that is in the tent shall be tamei seven days." Scripture hereby comes to teach us a new tumah, that a dead man effects tent-uncleanliness. Whence do we derive that (the same obtains if he died) outside the tent (and were brought into it)? From "This is the Torah" (i.e., there is one law for both.) These are the words of Issi b. Akavya. R. Yishmael said (This derivation) is not needed. If when he had not been tamei (before), he effects tent-uncleanliness, how much more so, when he had been tamei (before, i.e., when he died outside the tent.) Whence do we derive that all things which "tent" are considered a tent (for purposes of tent-uncleanliness, and not only a flaxen tent)? R. Yitzchak said: If vis-à-vis a leper, the "lighter" (form of tumah), all things that "tent" (and not only flax) are considered tents, then vis-à-vis a dead man, the "graver" (form of tumah), how much more so should all things that "tent" be considered tents. "all that enter the tent": partially. "and all that is in the tent": entirely. Why need this be said? If one that enters partially is tamei, how much more so one who is in it entirely. R. Achi phrases it otherwise, viz.: If one who enters the tent is tamei, how much more so one who is already in it! What, then, is the intent of "all that is in the tent"? To render the floor of the house until the depths like the house itself (i.e., all that is in that space is tamei.) Everyone who enters the tent from its entrance becomes tamei, but it does not impart tumah from its sides if they are open (i.e., if a man or vessels touch the tent from the outside when it is open, they do not become tamei for seven days.) From here you can reason a fortiori to a grave, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, (being soil per se,) how much more so does it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open. — But perhaps the reverse is the case, viz.: If a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, imparts tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! It is, therefore, written "all that enter the tent" — It is only through its entrance that it imparts tumah, but not from all of its sides when it is open. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed (the reasoning). The transposition has been nullified and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! — But (in that case) it should not (even) impart "evening tumah" (viz. Ibid. 22) — Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that it does impart evening tumah), viz.: If one at a third remove from a dead body (as in Ibid. 22) is tamei, how much more so, one (as in our case) who is at a second remove! "and all that is in the tent shall be tamei": From this I understand that even straw and twigs and pieces of wood and stones are included; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18) "And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water and he shall sprinkle it upon the tent and upon all the vessels." — But I still would understand to be included vessels of ordure and vessels of earth and vessels of soil. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 31:20) "And every garment, and every vessel of skin, and every work of goats and every vessel of wood shall you cleanse." We learn, then, of four (types of) vessels (that are affected. Whence do we derive (the same for) metal vessels? From (Ibid. 22) "But the silver and the gold, etc." We learn, then, of four types of vessels and of metal vessels. Whence do we derive (the same for) earthen vessels? From (Ibid. 19:15) "And every open (i.e., earthen) vessel, etc." We learn, then, of four types of vessels, of metal vessels, and of earthen vessels. — But perhaps the intent is that these (those mentioned in 30:20) and those mentioned here (19:18 "and upon all the vessels") are subject to cleansing, and the others (straw and twigs) are subject to tumah in a tent, (but not to cleansing.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 11) "he shall be tamei for seven days. (12) He shall be cleansed with it." Whatever is subject to cleansing is subject to tumah; whatever is not subject to cleansing is not subject to tumah. (Ibid. 15) "And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is tamei." Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. — But perhaps it speaks of all vessels! (This is not so,) for you reason as follows: Four vessels are mentioned vis-à-vis a sheretz (a creeping thing, viz. Vayikra 11:33), and one (type of) vessel was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation (re tumah). And four vessels are mentioned in respect to a dead body, and one was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation. Just as there, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel (viz. Ibid.), so, here, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Is Scripture (here) speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is, therefore, written "an open vessel" — a vessel that is subject to tumah at (the atmosphere of) its opening (and not at its outer surface). R. Eliezer says; Is Scripture speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is unclean" — forever, there being no cleansing for its tumah. And what is the intent of "open"? Any amount. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: From "there is no tight covering upon it," I would understand upon all of it. It is, therefore, written "upon" — upon its opening and not upon all of it. "tight covering" ("tzamid pathil") "tzamid": This is the stopper (plugging the inside). "pathil": This is the lid. And though there is no proof for this, there is an allusion to it in (Ibid. 25:3) "And Israel adhered ("vayitzamed") to Ba'al Peor." "And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is unclean": Vessels are protected (against tumah) in the tent of the dead with a tzamid pathil, but in (plague-spot) tents, with a covering. "a tzamid pathil upon it": and not a vessel upon a tzamid pathil — whence they ruled: A jug which he turned on its mouth and smeared with clay from the sides is susceptible of tumah, it being written "a tzamid pathil upon it," and not "it upon a tzamid pathil." These are the words of R. Eliezer. "And every open vessel": This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive (the same for) vessels of ordure, vessels of stones, and vessels of soil? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If earthen vessels, which are subject to tumah, protect (what is in them against tumah) by a tzamid pathil, in the tent of the dead, then vessels of ordure, of stones, and of soil, which are not subject to tumah, how much more should they protect (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead! "It is tamei" (without a tzamid pathil). Why (the stress on) "it"? What protects (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead, protects itself by a tzamid pathil (from tumah) through contact with a sheretz.

(Bamidbar 19:16) "And all who touch on the face of the field": to include a (dead) fetus in its mother's body. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: to include the top-lid and the frame of the coffin. "one slain by the sword": Scripture comes to teach about the sword that it is tamei for seven days, as is one who touches it. We have learned about implements and men (i.e., that the implement and the man who touches it are tamei for seven days.) Whence do we derive (the same for) implements and man and implements (i.e., for implements that touched the man who touched implements)? From (Bamidbar 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean," (garments being "implements"), "one slain by the sword or a dead body": A dead body is in the category of "one slain," and Scripture removed it from that category (for special mention) to equate what separates from him (i.e., an olive-size of flesh) with the body itself. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: "dead body" is not in the category of "one slain," for we find each being mentioned by itself. Whence, then is it derived that what separates from it is equated with the body itself? It is derived a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, of lesser stringency, Scripture equated what separates from it with neveilah itself, then a dead body, of greater stringency, how much more so should what separates from it be equated with the body itself.— No, this may be so with neveilah, which confers "(until) evening" tumah, the preponderant (type of tumah), as opposed to a dead body, which confers seven-day tumah, the rarer type. — Would you say that? Where is the tumah itself more stringent? Is it not in a dead body, which confers tumah for seven days, whereas neveilah confers only (until) "evening tumah"? Whence is it derived that it (a dead body) confers tumah by being carried? It follows a fortiori, viz. If neveilah, of lesser stringency confers tumah by being carried, how much more so, a dead body, of greater stringency! — But in that case, why do we not say: Just as there (neveilah), the tumah is (only until) evening, then here (dead body), too, the tumah should be (only until) evening? Would you say that? Where touching confers seven-day tumah (i.e., with a dead body), carrying confers seven-day tumah. Where touching confers (until) evening tumah, (i.e., with neveilah), carrying confers (until) evening tumah. R. Meir says: This is not needed (for the derivation). It is written (Bamidbar 31:19) "Whoever has killed a man, etc." Is Scripture speaking of (one who kills him with) something which is susceptible of uncleanliness or even of one who shot him with an arrow and killed him? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Whoever killed a man or whoever has touched a slain one." The killer is being equated with the toucher. Just as the toucher (becomes tamei) by connection (with the object), so, the killer, by connection.

(Bamidbar 19:16) "or the bone of a man": This refers to a limb (cut off) from a living person. — But perhaps it refers to a bone the size of a barley-corn? "and upon him who touched a bone" already speaks of a bone the size of a barley-corn. How, then, are we to understand "or the bone of a man"? As referring to a limb (cut off) from a living person. And two "bones" are being spoken of, viz.: "or the bone of a man" — a limb (cut off) from a living person "and upon him who touched a bone" — a bone the size of a barley-corn.

(Bamidbar 19:17) "And they shall take for the unclean one from the earth of the burning (of the heifer) for cleansing." R. Shimon said: Is it earth? Is it not ashes? Why does Scripture depart from its usual meaning? To formulate an identity (gezeirah shavah ). It is written here "earth," and, elsewhere, "earth," (Bamidbar 5:17). "Just as there, "earth" on the water, so, here, "earth" on the water. And just as there, if the (taking of the) earth preceded the (taking of the) water, it is valid, so, here. Variantly: If it (the ashes) changed its appearance (to that of earth) it is (still) valid.

(Bamidbar 19:17) "and he shall place upon it living waters": Scripture speaks of spring waters. You say this, but perhaps the intent is "waters which are life to the world" (and all waters are valid)? Though there is no proof (that spring waters are meant), there is support for it in (Bereshit 26:19) "And the servants of Yitzchak dug in the stream and they found there a well of living waters." What is the intent of "and he shall place upon it (the ashes) living waters which are in a vessel"? We are hereby taught that all vessels are equated with earthenware vessels. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since water and earth are consecrated in the instance of sotah (viz. Ibid. 5:12), and water and earth are consecrated in the instance of the (red) heifer, then if I have learned about sotah that all vessels were not equated with earthenware vessels, this should be the case too with the heifer; it is, therefore, written "in a vessel" (unqualified), whereby we are taught that all vessels were equated with earthenware.

(Bamidbar 19:18) "And a clean man shall take": "Taking" is written here, and elsewhere (Ibid. 5) "Just as taking there involves three (objects), so, "taking" here. "hyssop": and not Greek hyssop, and not Kochalith hyssop, and not Roman hyssop, and not desert hyssop — and not any hyssop designated by an epithet.

(Bamidbar 19:18) "and a clean man shall dip (it) in the water": There must be enough water for "dipping" (three calyxes). "a man": to exclude a minor. This would exclude both a minor and a woman. It is, therefore, written "clean" — to include a woman. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: Why is "clean" written? Even if it were not written, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If the gatherer must be clean (viz. Ibid. 9), how much more so the sprinkler! What, then, is the intent of "clean"? Clean of all tumah. And who is he (who is not clean of all tumah)? One who immersed in the daytime. R. Akiva says: It is written here "clean," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 9), "clean." Just as (one who is) "clean" here is tamei vis-à-vis (the bringing of) a sin-offering, so, (one who is) "clean" there. "and he shall sprinkle it upon the tent." Scripture here apprises us that a tent is susceptible of tumah. Variantly: Scripture apprises us (that only those vessels require sprinkling, which were there) when the tent became tamei, (but not those which were brought in after the body was removed.) "and he shall sprinkle it … and upon him who touched a bone" — a bone the size of a barley-corn. You say this, but perhaps ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living person) is intended? (Ibid. 16) "or the bone of a man" already speaks of ever min hechai." What, then, is the intent of "and upon him who touched a bone"? A bone the size of a barley-corn. "or a slain one or a dead body or a grave": Just as all are mentioned vis-à-vis tumah (Ibid. 16), so, all are mentioned vis-à-vis sprinkling (here).

(Bamidbar 19:19) "And the clean one shall sprinkle on the unclean one": If the clean one sprinkles upon the unclean one, he becomes unclean. These are the words of R. Akiva. The sages say: Scripture is speaking only of those things which have become unclean (as being sprinkled upon, and not of things which are clean.) "on the third day and on the seventh day": Scripture comes to teach us that one who has become tamei through a dead body requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days. You say it comes to this end, but perhaps the intent is that if he sprinkled on the third day he becomes clean on the seventh day, and if not, not? It is, therefore, written "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day." It repeats ("on the seventh day") to indicate that it is invalid otherwise (i.e., if he does not sprinkle on the seventh day.) "and he shall wash his garments and he shall bathe in water": This tells me (that he may wash his garments) only on the seventh day. Whence do I derive (that it is also permissible on) the eighth and ninth days? From "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day," followed by "and he shall wash his garments and bathe in water and he will be clean in the evening."

(Bamidbar 19:20) "And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself": Scripture speaks of defilement of the sanctuary and its holy things, and its punishment is kareth (cutting-off). But perhaps the kareth is for (not) sprinkling? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 12) "and if he does not purify himself (with it) on the third day and on the seventh day, he shall not be clean." His punishment (for not purifying himself) is that he shall not be clean, and not kareth.

(Bamidbar 19:21) "And it (the sprinkling of the waters) shall be for them for an everlasting statute": that it be observed throughout the generations.

(Bamidbar 19:22) "And all that the unclean one (who touched a dead body) touches shall become unclean.": What is the intent of this? In (Ibid. 10) "one slain by the sword" Scripture teaches us about the sword that it is tamei for seven days and that one who touches it becomes tamei for seven days — We have thus learned about vessels (the sword) and the man (who touches it). Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels, man, and vessels (that the man touches)? From (Ibid. 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments ("vessels" touched by man). We have thus learned vessels, man, and vessels. Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels and vessels (touched by them)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which touch a man who touched vessels which touched a dead body are tamei, how much more so vessels which touch vessels! Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels which touch a man (who touched a dead body)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which touched a man who touched vessels (which touched a dead body) are tamei, how much more so vessels which touched a man (who touched a dead body)! — But perhaps a man should contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days? And it would thus follow a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which are not rendered tamei by the bed or the seat (of a dead man), contract tumah from a dead body to render a man (who touched them) unclean for seven days, how much more so should a man, who is rendered tamei by bed or seat, contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days! It is, therefore, written "and the soul that touches him (who touched a dead body) shall be unclean until the evening." He is rendered tamei until the evening, and he does not contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days. — But perhaps (such a man) should render one who moves him [heset] (even without touching him) tamei. And it would thus follow a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, the less stringent, renders one tamei by heset, how much more so should the more stringent, one who has become tamei through a dead body, render another tamei by heset! It is, therefore, written "And all that the unclean one (who touched a dead body) touches shall become tamei" — and he does not render tamei by heset.

(Bamidbar 31:19) "And you, abide outside the camp seven days": What is the intent of this? From (Bamidbar 19:14) "A man if he die in a tent, all that enter the tent (while the body is still in it) … shall be unclean seven days," I would think, even straw and twigs, etc. (see Chukath #126). "you and your captives": Just as you are children of the covenant (and require sprinkling with the waters of the red heifer), so, your captives (i.e., Those girls less than three year and one day of age, who were proselytized and became unclean, require sprinkling.)

(Bamidbar 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean": What is the intent of this? Since we are speaking of one slain by the sword, Scripture comes to teach us that the sword and one who touches it is tamei for seven days. Whence do we derive (the same for transfer of tumah from) vessels (i.e., appurtenances) to man to vessels (appurtenances)? From "And you shall wash your garments." "and then you shall come to the camp." Just as here, (without washing of garments and sprinkling) he is forbidden to enter the camp (of the Shechinah), so, there (vis-à-vis the red heifer, Vayikra 19:19) he is forbidden to enter the camp; and just as there, until the evening, so, here, until the evening.

"they shall take a heifer" ("eglath bakar"): R. Eliezer says: "eglath" — (up to) one year old; "parah" (a cow, the parah adumah [viz. Bamidbar 19:12]) — two years old. The sages say: "eglah" — (even one that is) two years old; "parah" — three or four years old — it being written (in respect to the former) "eglath bakar." How is this to be implemented? A two-year old satisfies both, "eglah" and "bakar." Similarly, (Ibid. 5) "Then there shall draw near the Cohanim … (6) and all the elders of that city." How so? The elders for washing; the Cohanim for atonement.

"into the house of the L-rd your G-d" to exclude (from the interdict) the bullock of the sin-offering, (i.e., the red heifer, which is not brought into the Temple, but is slaughtered outside the encampment [viz. Bamidbar 19:3]). These are the words of R. Eliezer. The sages say: to include (as interdicted) gold-foil (for the Temple).

(Devarim 32:50) "And die on the mountain which you are ascending": Moses said before Him: Why should I die? Is it not better that they should say "Moses is good" by sight than "Moses is good" by hearsay? Is it not better that they say: This Moses, who took us out of Egypt and split the sea for us and brought the Torah down for us and "flew in" the quail for us and performed miracles and feats of might for us, than "This and this is what he did"? and "This and this is what he said"? — whereupon He said to him: Leave off, Moses, this (i.e., death) is a decree for all men, viz. (Bamidbar 19:14) "This is the law: A man if he die in the tent." The ministering angels said before the Holy One Blessed be He: L-rd of the universe, Why did Adam die? He: Because he did not keep My commandments. They: But Moses kept Your commandments! He: It is a decree before Me for all men, viz. "This is the law: A man if he die."