Midrash sobre Êxodo 12:5

R. Ami and R. Assi were sitting before R. Isaac Napcha. One was asking him to say some Halacha (traditional law) and the other to say some Agada (story). When he began to say some Halacha he was interrupted by the one [who desired Agada] and when he began Agada, he was interrupted by the other [who desired Halacha]. He then said: "I will tell you a parable: It is like unto a man who has two wives — an old one and a young one. The young one picks his gray hair and the old one, his black hair. The result is that he becomes bald-headed. I will tell you now, however, something which will be to the satisfaction of both of you, etc. (Agadah) It is written (Ex. 12, 5) If a fire breaks out and meet with thorns. This means, even if it should break out of itself. Yet he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. Said the Holy One, praised be He! I shall surely make restitution for the fire I kindled in Zion, as it is said (Lam. 4, 11) He kindled a fire in Zion, which had devoured her foundation; and, I shall also build it up again by fire, as it is said (Zech. 2, 9) For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her. ... a wall of fire round about, and will I be the glory in the midst of her. (Halacha) — why does the verse begin with the damage by one's property, etc?"

(Bamidbar 9:2) "And the children of Israel shall offer the Pesach in its appointed time": Why is this stated? (i.e., Isn't it obvious?) From (Shemot 12:6) "and the whole congregation of Israel shall slaughter it (the Paschal lamb)," I might think, either on a weekday or on Sabbath (as the case may be). And how would I satisfy (Ibid. 31:14) "Its (Sabbath's) desecrators shall be put to death"? With other labors, other than slaughtering the Paschal lamb. — Or, even with slaughtering the Paschal lamb. And how would I satisfy "and they shall slaughter it"? (If it falls out) on other days, other than Sabbath. It is, therefore, written "And the children of Israel shall offer the Pesach in its appointed time" (— even on the Sabbath). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan (to R. Yoshiyah): This is not sufficient (for the derivation [i.e., "in its appointed time" may mean if it does not fall out on a Sabbath.]) R. Yoshiyah (to R. Yonathan): Rather, it is written (Bamidbar 28:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them … to offer (the tamid) offering to Me in its appointed time." If (the intent of this is) to teach that the tamid offering overrides Sabbath, this is not needed; for it is already written (Ibid. 9) "And on the Sabbath day, (there are to be sacrificed) two lambs of the first year … (10) the burnt-offering of the Sabbath in its Sabbath in addition to the daily burnt-offering, etc." What, then, is the intent (of "in its appointed time")? It is "extra," to signal the formulation of an identity, viz.: it is written here "in its appointed time," and elsewhere (re the Paschal lamb) "in its appointed time." Just as "its appointed time" here overrides Sabbath, so, "its appointed time" there overrides Sabbath. "On the fourteenth day of this month, towards evening shall you offer it, in its appointed time.": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written "The children of Israel shall offer it in its appointed time"? Why, again, "in its appointed time"? Scripture hereby comes to teach us that just as the first Pesach (as opposed to Pesach Sheni) overrides the Sabbath, so it overrides (communal) uncleanliness. For (without this verse,) it would follow otherwise, viz.: If (the slaughtering of) the red heifer, which does not override the Sabbath overrides (communal) uncleanliness, the first Pesach, which overrides the Sabbath, how much more so should it override uncleanliness? — This is refuted by the second Pesach, which even though it overrides the Sabbath, does not override uncleanliness. And this would indicate of the first Pesach that even though it overrides the Sabbath, it does not override uncleanliness. It is, therefore, written "in its appointed time," to teach concerning the first Pesach that just as it overrides the Sabbath it overrides uncleanliness. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "According to all of its statutes": These are the mitzvoth (directly) pertaining to its body, viz. (Shemot 12:5) "an unblemished lamb, a male, of the first year." "its ordinances": These are the mitzvoth attendant upon its body, viz. (Devarim 16:3) "Seven days shall you eat matzoth 'upon' it." "according to all its ordinances": to include mitzvoth not attendant upon its body — the eating of matzoh for seven days and the burning of chametz.

"from a distant (rechokah) way": There is a (diacritical) dot above the heh in "rechokah" (to indicate that he observes Pesach Sheni) even if he were on a non-distant way and did not observe (the first) Pesach with them. Similarly, (Bereshit 16;5) "May the L-rd judge between me (Sarah) and between you (Abraham) (uvenecha)": There is a dot above (the yod in) "uvenecha" — She spoke of Hagar alone. Others say: (She spoke of Hagar) who engendered strife between him and her. Similarly, (Ibid. 18:9) "And they said to him (eilav): Where is Sarah, your wife?" There are dots above the aleph, yod and vav (in "eilav") — They knew where she was. Similarly (Ibid. 19:33) "and he did not know in her lying and in her rising (uvekumah)." There is a dot above (the vav in) "uvekumah" — He did not know in her lying and in her rising, but he knew in her rising. Similarly, (Ibid. 33:4) "And he (Esav) kissed (vayishakehu) him (Jacob)": There are dots above (all the letters in) "vayishakehu" — He did not kiss him with all his heart. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: It is a known halachah that Esav hates Jacob, but his mercy gained the ascendancy at that time and he kissed him with all his heart. (Ibid. 37:12) "And his brothers went to graze eth their father's flock in Shchem": There are dots above "eth" — They went only to graze themselves. Similarly, (Bamidbar 21:30) "We have laid it waste until Nofach which (asher) reaches unto Medva": There is a dot (above the resh in "asher") — They did so beyond that (Nofach) too, but here they destroyed the cities, too, whereas beyond that they destroyed only the people. Similarly, (Ibid. 3:39) "All the numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered": There are dots above "Aaron" — Aaron was not of the numbered (of the Levites). Similarly, (Ibid. 3:29) "And issaron, issaron, for the one lamb,": There is a dot above the second vav in "And issaron" — There was one issaron alone. Similarly, (Devarim 29:28) "The hidden things are for the L-rd our G-d and the revealed ones are for us and our children (lanu ulevanenu) forever.": There are dots (above "lanu ulevanenu.") He said to them: If you have done (i.e., violated) what is revealed, I (the L-rd), likewise, will apprise you of what is concealed. Here, too, (in our instance,) there is a dot (above the heh in "rechokah" to indicate that he observes Pesach Sheni) even if he were on a non-distant way and did not observe (the first) Pesach with them. (Ibid. 10) "or to your generations": This provision (of Pesach Sheni) obtains for all of the generations. (Ibid. 11) "In the second month, on the fourteenth day, towards evening shall they offer it": These are the mitzvoth (directly) pertaining to its body, viz. (Shemot 12:5) "an unblemished lamb, a male, of the first year." "with matzoh and bitter herbs shall they eat it": These are mitzvoth attendant upon its body. (Devarim, Ibid. 12) "They shall not leave over of it until the morning, and a bone shall they not break in it": Scripture hereby superadds two mitzvoth concerning its body. This tells me only of these (as obtaining on Pesach Sheni). Whence do I derive (the same for) the other mitzvoth pertaining to its body? From (Ibid.) "According to all the statue of the Pesach shall they offer it." — But perhaps this would also include (the eating of) matzoth for seven days and the burning of chametz! It is, therefore, written "and a bone shall they not break in it." "a bone, etc." was included in the general category (viz. "According to all the statute of the Pesach"), and it departed from the category (for special mention) — to teach about the category, viz. Just as "a bone, etc." is a mitzvah (directly) pertaining to its body, so, "according to all the statute of the Pesach" speaks of mitzvoth (directly) pertaining to its body, (and not of the others). Issi b. Akavya says: "shall they offer it": Scripture speaks of mitzvoth pertaining to its body.

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