Midrash sobre II Crônicas 26:18

(Bamidbar 5:5-6) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do of all the sins of man": Why is this section mentioned? (i.e., it has already been mentioned elsewhere.) — It is written (Vayikra 5:20-22) "If a soul sin and commit a profanation against the L-rd … or if he find a lost object and swear falsely, etc." But the stolen property of a proselyte is not mentioned. It is, therefore, written (here) "Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do all of the sins of man." Scripture comes to teach us about the stolen property of a proselyte that if one swore to him falsely (that he did not steal it) and the proselyte died, he pays the principal and the fifth to the Cohanim and the guilt-offering to the altar, (a proselyte, halachically, not having any heirs). This is a rule in the Torah: Any section stated in one place in the Torah, missing one thing, and repeated in a different place is repeated only for the sake of the thing that is originated. R. Akiva says: Everything stated therein must be expounded. R. Yoshiyah (in explication of R. Akiva) says: Why is "a man or a woman" stated? From (Shemot 21:3) "And if a man open a pit or if a man dig a pit," I would know only of a man. Whence would I derive (the same for) a woman? From "a man or a woman," to liken a woman to a man in respect to all transgressions and damages in the Torah. R. Yonathan says: (The above derivation) is not needed, for it is already written (Ibid. 34) "The owner (whether man or woman) of the pit shall pay," and (Ibid. 22:5) "Pay shall pay the kindler (whether man or woman) of the fire." Why, then, is it stated "a man or a woman"? For its (own) teaching, (i.e., that the law of theft of the proselyte" obtains both with men and with women.) "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 5:21] "If a soul sin and commit a profanation, etc.") Because it is written "If a soul sin and commit a profanation… (22) or find a lost object, etc.", I might think that only one who lies in respect to what is mentioned therein is regarded as one who lies against the L-rd Himself. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who lies in respect to all other things? It is, therefore, written "if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd." "to commit a profanation" ("limol ma'al"). "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bima'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu (II Chronicles 26:18), "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta')," and (Bamidbar 5:12) "… and she be false (uma'ala) to him" — whence we see that "me'ilah" is "lying." (Ibid. 6) "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? (i.e., it seems redundant.) "a man or a woman" would seem to indicate specifically these. Whence would I derive (the same for) one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From "and that soul shall be guilty" — All are included, even proselytes and servants. — But this would seem to include all, both the above and minors! — Would you say this? If a minor is exempt from (punishment for) the grave sin of idolatry, how much more so (is he exempt from punishment for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! Whence is it derived that if one stole and swore (falsely) and went to bring the money (to repay) and the guilt-offering and could not manage to bring them before he died, that his heirs are exempt? From "and that soul shall be guilty." — But perhaps just as they are exempt from the guilt-offering, so, they are exempt from the principal. — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "and he shall give it (the principal) to the one to whom he is liable (for payment)." "and that soul shall be guilty": Why is this stated? Whence do you derive that if one burned his neighbor's grain sack on the Sabbath that beth-din does not exact payment from him because he is liable to the death penalty? From "and that soul shall be guilty" (i.e., in the aforementioned instance, the life alone is taken.) (Ibid. 7) "and they confess their sin which they have done": This tells me that a sin-offering requires confession. Whence do I derive (the same for) a guilt-offering? From "and that soul be guilty and they confess." R. Nathan says: This is a paradigm (binyan av) for all that are put to death that they require confession.

(Bamidbar 5:12) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man, a man, if his wife go astray, and she be faithless to him": What is the intent of this section? From (Devarim 24:1) "If a man take a woman and he cohabit with her, etc.", we hear only that if he had two witnesses (to her adultery) and she had not been forewarned, that she leaves him by divorce. But if she were adulterous in the presence of only one witness or it is in doubt whether she had or had not been adulterous after having been secreted (with the one she had been forewarned against), we did not hear what is to be done with her. It is, therefore, written "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: "A man, a man, if his wife go astray, etc.", that (in the above instance) she must drink the bitter waters. This is the intent of this section. "A man, a man": to include the wife of a deaf mute, an imbecile, one who has gone abroad or been incarcerated, or a dullard — that beth-din forewarns her (if she is deporting herself immodestly) to the end of invalidating her kethubah (her marriage contract). I might think, even to the end of making her drink (the bitter waters); it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Ibid. 11) "Then the man shall bring his wife." R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: also to the end of making her drink when her husband is released from incarceration. Variantly: "A man, a man": to include a woman awaiting levirate marriage (yibum). "if his wife go astray": Scripture speaks of those who are fit to be "wives" — to exclude a widow married to a high-priest, a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who has performed the chaliztah ceremony to break a levirate connection), who are married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a Nethinah (a descendent of the Geveonites) married to an Israelite, and a daughter of an Israelite married to a Nathin or a mamzer. And, according to Akavya b. Mehallalel, (to exclude) a woman who is a proselyte or a freed slave. They (the sages) said to him (Akavya): But there was a freed slave, Charkemis, in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon had her drink (the bitter waters)! He replied: They dissimulated their doing so — whereupon they excommunicated him and he died in his state of excommunication, and beth-din stoned his coffin. ("if his wife go astray,) and she is guilty of ma'al against him": ("ma'al") In the area of illicit relations or in the area of monetary (fraudulence)? (Ibid. 5:13) "And a man lie with her a lying of seed" indicates that ma'al here is in the area of illicit relations, and not in that of monetary (fraudulence). "and she is guilty of ma'al against him": "me'ilah" in all places is "lying." And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) "Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers," and (Joshua 7:1) "And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban," and (I Chronicles 10:13) "And Saul died because of his falsification ('bema'alo ma'al') against the L-rd." And, in respect to Uzziyahu, king of Judah, (II Chronicles 26:18) "Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta)," and (Vayikra 5:21) "and he (the denier) ma'ala ma'al against the L-rd" — whence we see that "me'ilah" in all places is "lying."

9) R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Plague-spots come also because of pride. For thus do we find with Uzziyahu (king of Judah), viz. (II Chronicles 26:16) "But when he grew strong, his heart grew proud to (the point of) corruption. And he rebelled against the L–rd his G d, and he came into the sanctuary of the L–rd to burn incense on the incense altar (II Chronicles 26:17) And there after him Azaryahu the Cohein and with him Cohanim of the L–rd, eighty strong (II Chronicles 26:18) And they stood over Uzziyahu the king, and they said to him: 'It is not for you, Uzziyahu, to burn incense to the L–rd, but for the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron who are consecrated for the burning of incense. Leave the sanctuary …' And Uzziyahu fumed, and in his hand …" (and he was stricken with leprosy.)

Scripture states in reference to Uzziah: He loved husbandry (II Chron. 26:10). He was a king who devoted himself to husbandry while ignoring the Torah. One day he visited the House of Study and inquired of those present: “What are you engaged in doing?” They responded with the verse: The common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death (Num. 1:51). Thereupon, he replied: “The Holy One, blessed be He, is King, and I am king, and it is fitting indeed for a terrestrial king to serve a Celestial King by burning incense before Him.” He went into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord (II Chron. 26:16–17). The young priests who entered with him said to him: It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated it pertaineth to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary, for thou has trespassed (ibid., v. 18). Therefore God was angry with him. Immediately, Uzziah was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy broke out in his forehead (ibid., v. 19). At that moment the Temple was rent asunder, and its pieces were hurled a distance of twelve by twelve miles.²²The word mil indicates a distance of 2,000 cubits And they thrust him out quickly from thence; yea, himself made haste also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him (ibid., v. 20). Why did this all happen to him? Because he neglected the Torah and devoted himself to husbandry.