Midrash sobre Levítico 1:2

(Lev. 6:2:) “This is the law of the burnt offering.” This text is related (to Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord, is like the Lord among the children of the powerful ones?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If I had [merely] desired an offering, would I not have told (the angel) Michael to bring me an offering? From whom do I desire sacrifice? From Israel.” And so it says about the shewbread (in Lev. 24:8), “on every Sabbath day shall he arrange it.” But it is written (in Micah 6:7), “Does the Lord want thousands of rams?” Balaam the wicked was an advocate¹Gk.: synegoros. for the nations of the world. It is in reference to the nations that that [Scripture] speaks (in Micah 6:7), “Does the Lord want thousands of rams with ten thousands of rivers of oil?” He wants what you offer to Him, [i.e.] a log²A log is a liquid measure that equals the contents of six eggs. of oil. We (gentiles) offer Him ten thousand times ten thousands rivers of oil. What did Abraham offer to Him? Was it not one ram? It is so stated (in Gen. 22:13), “Then [Abraham] lifted his eyes to look and there was a ram behind….” If He wants, we should offer Him thousands of rams; but what did Abraham offer Him? His son. I might offer Him my son and daughter, as stated (in Micah 6:7, cont.), “shall I give my first-born for my transgression,” this is my first-born son; “the fruit of my belly for the sin of my soul,” this is my daughter. See how crafty Balaam the wicked was! He began to say (in Numb. 23:4), “I have prepared the seven altars [and offered a ram and a bull on each altar].” He did not say, "seven altars," but, “the [seven] altars.” These are [all of the] seven altars, [which] they had built since the first Adam was created up to now. Now I am offering seven corresponding to the seven of them. And what did they offer? Twelve cakes, as stated (in Lev. 24:5), “Then you shall take fine white flour and bake it into twelve cakes.” When the Holy One, blessed be He, appeared to him, He said to him, “O wicked one, what are you doing?” He said to Him (in Numb. 23:4) “I have prepared the seven altars.” To whom is this wicked one comparable? To a butcher who sold [meat] in the market. When his store was full of meat, thieves saw [him] and looked at the meat. [When] that butcher saw that he was looking at the meat, he said to him, “Sir, I have already sent provisions³Gk.: opsonion. to your house.” So it was with Balaam. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “O wicked one, what are you doing here?” He said to Him (in Numb. 23:4), “I have prepared the seven altars with a bull and a ram on each altar.” He said to Him (in Micah 6:7), “Does the Lord want thousands of rams?” He said to Him (ibid., cont.), “Shall I give my first-born for my transgression?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “O evil one, if I had desired an offering, I would have spoken to Michael and Gabriel, and they would have presented offerings to me.” It is so stated (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord, is like the Lord among the children of the powerful ones?” This is [referring to] Balaam, who desired to imitate [what is done by] the children of the powerful ones to the Holy One, blessed be He. [“Among the children of the powerful ones” is referring to] the children of Abraham [which] are Isaac and Jacob. [These are the ones] who are the rams of the world. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “What do you desire? To deceive yourself before Me? [To persuade] Me to accept offerings from the gentiles? You are not able. It is an oath (in the words of Lev. 24:8, cont.), ‘an everlasting covenant on the part of the Children of Israel.’ It is a stipulation that I only accept offerings from Israel.” It is so stated (in Lev. 6:2), “Command Aaron and his children, saying.” When the nations said, “What is this, whereby Israel is presenting offerings and sacrificing?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them (ibid.), “This is the law of the burnt offering (rt.: 'lh),” [referring to (Cant. 3:6),] “Who is this that comes up (rt.: 'lh) from the desert?” (Exod. 19:3:) “Then Moses went up (rt.: 'lh) unto God.” Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:1-2) “Then the Lord spoke…, ‘Command Aaron…, “This is the law of the burnt offering”’”: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Fulfill what is written above on the matter. Then after that [comes,] ‘This is the law of the burnt offering.’” Why? (Is. 61:8) “Because I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering,” [meaning] even with a burnt offering. What is written above on the matter (in Lev. 5:23)? “And it shall come to pass that, when one has sinned and is guilty, he shall restore the stolen goods which he robbed.” Then after that (in Lev. 6:2), “This is the law of the burnt offering.” If you desire to present an offering, you shall not rob anyone. Why? “Because I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering.” So when do you present a burnt offering so that I accept it? When your hands are clean of robbery. David said (in Ps. 24:3-4), “Who may ascend (rt.: 'lh) the hill of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place? One with clean hands and a pure heart.” “This is the law of the burnt offering,” the one who has hands clean of robbery, he “may stand in His holy place.” “From the beginning of [this book on] offerings you learn (in Lev. 1:2), “Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them, ‘When one (adam) of you presents an offering.” Why is Adam mentioned? It is simply that the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When you sacrifice to Me, you shall be like the first Adam in that he did not rob from others, since he was alone in the world. So also you shall not rob people. Why? (Is. 61:8:) ‘Because I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering.’” Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:2), “This is the Torah of the burnt offering”: Why is it named a burnt offering ('olah, rt.: 'lh)? Because it is the highest (rt.: 'lh) of all the offerings. It is that which ascends ('olah, rt.: 'lh). You should know that when someone brings a sin offering, the priest takes it, and likewise the meal offering. Moreover, the peace offerings belong to their owners and a guilt offering belongs to the priest. In the case of the burnt offering, however, no creature tastes it. Rather all of it belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore, it is called burnt offering ('olah, rt.: 'lh), because it ascends ('olah) to the Holy One, blessed be He, who is [the] Most High (rt.: 'lh).

(Exodus 21:1) "And these are the judgments": R. Yishmael says: "And these" — What follows is being added to what precedes, viz.: Just as what precedes was stated at Sinai, so, what follows. R. Akiva says: What is the intent of "And these are the judgments"? From (Leviticus 1:2) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them," I would think, only once. Whence do I derive that it is to be repeated two, three, and four times until it is assimilated? From (Devarim 31:19) "and teach it to the children of Israel." I might think that it is to be taught but not repeated. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Place it in their mouths." I might think that it is to be repeated (even) if it is not understood. It is, therefore, written "And these are the judgments." Set them out before them as a set table, as it is written (Ibid. 4:35) "You have been shown to know, etc."

We are taught concerning the passage (Lev. 1, 2) From the cattle, this means to include such men who are like cattle. From here it is inferred that it is permissible to accept sacrifices from Jewish apostates, that they may repent, but not from a convert, who practices idolatrous libation, and who profanes the Sabbath pubicly. (Ib. b) Is this a general rule that whenever the word cattle is mentioned that it refers to an objectionable thing? Behold it is written (Ps. 36, 7) Man and beast Thou preservest, O Lord; and R. Juda said in the name of Rabbi: "This refers to men who are devoid of wisdom and who make themselves like beasts [hence it is a praise?]. There it is written 'man and beast,' but here it is written, 'beast' alone. And wherever it is written man and beast do you say that it means for improvement (perfection)? Behold it is written (Jer. 21, 27) And I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Juda with the seed of man and with the seed of beast. [Hence beast refers to a disadvantage?] There it is different, for the passage makes a separation between the seed of man and the seed of beast."

The tana, Rabbi Shimon son of Yochai: From where [is it] that a man must not say "a burnt offering (olah) to Hashem", "to Hashem as a meal-offering (minchah)", "a peace offering (shelamim) to Hashem"? We have learned to say: [When any one of you brings] an offering (qorban) unto Hashem (Leviticus 1:2). See! The words are an a fortiori (qal vechomer) inference: If when one is going to dedicate [an offering] the Torah says: he should not cause the name of Heaven to be associated [with anything besides a qorban], then they who revile and blaspheme and engage in idolatry, how very greatly they will be erased from the world! The rabbis said: flesh and blood builds a building, and when the building rises under his hand, he widens it as it rises, and if not, he widens it from below and makes it narrow at the top. But the Holy One, blessed be He does not act this way; rather [he created] "the heavens", heavens which rose by His thought, "and the earth" which rose by his thought. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean said: "even those about which it is written: "Now behold, I create a new heaven" (Isaiah 65:17); already these were created since the six days of creation. This is what is written: "For as the new heavens and the new earth [which I will make, shall remain before Me] (Isaiah 66:22), here "new" (hadashah) is not written, but rather "the new" (hachadashah).

1) (Vayikra 1:2): "Speak to the children of Israel … (Vayikra 1:4) and he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering" — The children of Israel perform semichah (the placing of the hands), and gentiles do not perform semichah. Now which measure is greater? That of tenufah (waving the devoted portions) or that of semichah? The measure of tenufah is greater. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life. If I exclude them (gentiles) from tenufah, the greater measure, (as the Torah does, indeed, exclude them), should I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for semichah would seem to be superfluous) Perceived thus, tenufah is (indeed) the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tenufah, the lesser. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If they (gentiles) are excluded from tenufah, the lesser measure, would I (without the verse) exclude them from semichah, the greater? So that because there obtains with tenufah what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tenufah, it must be written "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." — The children of Israel perform semichah, and not the gentiles.

1) (Vayikra 1:2): "shall you (plural) offer": We are hereby taught that two may offer it (a beast burnt-offering, in partnership). Now does this not follow (without an inclusion clause)? A bird burnt-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a bird burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may be offered by two, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may be offered by two!

1) (Vayikra 7:29) ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: He who presents the sacrifice of his peace-offerings to the L–rd shall bring his offering to the L–rd from the sacrifice of his peace-offerings. (Vayikra 7:30) His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of the L–rd. The fat of the breast shall he (a Cohein) bring it. The breast, to wave it, as a wave-offering before the L–rd.") The children of Israel wave; non-Jews (who offer vows and gifts as the Jews do) do not wave. Now which measure is greater? That of semichah (the placing of the hands on the animal's head) or the measure of tenufah (waving)? The measure of semichah is greater than the measure of tenufah. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If I exclude them from semichah, the greater measure (viz. Vayikra 1:2), should I not exclude them from tenufah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for tenufah would seem to be superfluous). Perceived thus, semichah is (indeed) the greater measure, and tenufah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise tenufah is the greater measure and semichah, the lesser. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life, (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), with the living (peace-offerings) and with the slaughtered, whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life, and with the living alone. Tenufah obtains both with individual offerings and communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with communal offerings alone. If I exclude them from semichah, the lesser, would I (without the verse) exclude them from tenufah, the greater? So that because there obtains with semichah what does not obtain with tenufah, and with tenufah, what does not obtain with semichah, it must be written "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." The children of Israel perform semichah and not the gentiles; the children of Israel perform tenufah and not the gentiles.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:1–2 [8–9]:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE…: COMMAND AARON…: THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING. The Holy One said: Fulfill what is written above on the matter. Then after that < comes > THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING. Why? (Is. 61:8:) BECAUSE I THE LORD LOVE JUSTICE, I HATE ROBBERY WITH A BURNT OFFERING. Even WITH A BURNT OFFERING. What is written above on the matter (in Lev. 5:23 [6])? AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT, WHEN ONE HAS SINNED AND IS GUILTY, HE SHALL RESTORE THE STOLEN GOODS WHICH HE ROBBED. Then after that (in Lev. 6:2 [9]): THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING. If you desire to present an offering, you shall not rob anyone. Why? BECAUSE I THE LORD LOVE JUSTICE, I HATE ROBBERY WITH A BURNT OFFERING. So when do you present a burnt offering so that I accept it? When your hands are clean of robbery. David said (in Ps. 24:3–4): WHO MAY ASCEND THE HILL OF THE LORD? AND WHO MAY STAND IN HIS HOLY PLACE? ONE WITH CLEAN HANDS AND A PURE HEART. From the beginning of < this book on > offerings you learn (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ONE (adam) OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING. Why is Adam mentioned? It is simply that the Holy One said: When you sacrifice to me, you shall be like the first Adam in that he did not rob from others, since he was alone in the world. So also you shall not rob people. Why? (Is. 61:8:) BECAUSE I THE LORD LOVE JUSTICE, I HATE ROBBERY WITH A BURNT OFFERING.

2) ("Speak to the sons of Israel, etc.") — the sons of Israel perform semichah, and not the daughters of Israel. R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: Women (though not obligated to do so) may perform semichah. R. Yossi said: Abba Elazar once told me: We had a calf for the peace-offerings, and we took it out to the women's quarter, where the women placed their hands upon it — not because semichah obtains with women, but for their gratification. I might think that they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, which do not require tenufah, but they do perform semichah upon peace-offerings, which require tenufah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:4): "and say to them" ("b'nei Yisrael") — to include all that is mentioned in that context. Just as they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, they do not perform semichah upon peace-offerings.

2) Or, go in this direction: A meal-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a meal-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may not be offered by two, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may not be offered by two.

(Lev. 19:2:) SPEAK UNTO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. What reason did he have to speak this parashah in an assembly?⁹Tanh., Lev. 7:3; Lev. R. 24:5. Why did he not say: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, as in the rest of the parashiot,¹⁰I.e., in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:13 Lev. 1:2; 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 15:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:6, 12; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 17:17 (2); 19:2; 33:51; 35:10. rather than < SPEAK > UNTO THE WHOLE CONGREGATION < OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL >? Because all of the < Ten > Commandments are included within it. How?

[(Lev. 1:1–2:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES <AND SPOKE UNTO HIM>…: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL <…>: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING.] Let our master instruct us: When the one who leads the prayers makes a mistake by not saying the benediction on the cursing of the heretics (minim), is it necessary to have him repeat <the benediction>?¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 1:2. Thus have our masters taught: When the one leading the prayers makes a mistake in any of the <other> benedictions, they do not have him repeat; <if he does so> in the <twelfth> benediction concerning the heretics, they force him to repeat it.¹¹yBer. 5:4 (19c) (bar.); Ber. 29a (bar.)]. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 16:4; 47:4; 93:4; 95:4; 96:2; 108:31; 117:3; 137:2; Epiphanius, Panarion (Haereses), 29:9; Jerome on Is. 2:18; 49:7; 52:4. This benediction has been the subject of much scholarly debate by many interpreters, including myself in “The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce,” AntiSemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, edited by Alan T. Davies (New York, Paulist, 1979), pp. 84–88, 95–97, and in “The Date of Luke-Acts,” Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical literature Seminar, edited by Charles H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 56, 61, 62. We suspect that he may be a heretic and therefore have him repeat, so that if there is a heretical side to him, he will be cursing himself with the community responding: Amen. So also <do we treat> whoever does not say <benediction 14>, "Who builds Jerusalem," since they will suspect that he may be a Samaritan. R. Jose said: If a proselyte takes upon himself <all> the words of Torah except for one, they do not accept him.¹²Cf. TDem. 2:6; Bek. 30b. And not only that, but <the same rule applies> even in the case of a single minute detail out of <all> the minute details in the Torah or out of the minute details from the scribes. R. Judah bar Shallum said: You find forty-eight times in the Torah where the Torah warns against <harming> the proselytes and, with reference to them, it warns against idolatry.¹³BM 59b; see Hor. 13:a. The Holy One said: It is enough that he forsakes his idolatry and comes to you; therefore I am warning you about him, because I love him, as stated (in Deut. 10:18): AND <HE> LOVES THE PROSELYTE¹⁴Heb.: ger. Although this word meant “sojourner” in biblical times, it had come to mean “proselyte” and is so understood here. IN GIVING HIM FOOD AND CLOTHING.

(Lev. 19:2:) “Speak unto the whole congregation of the Children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘You shall be holy.’” What reason did He have to speak this parashah in an assembly?⁵ Lev. 7:3; Lev. R. 24:5. Why did He not say, “Speak unto the Children of Israel,” as in the rest of the parashiot,⁶I.e., in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:13 Lev. 1:2; 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 15:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:6, 12; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 17:17; 19:2; 33:51; 35:10. rather than “[Speak] unto the whole congregation of the Children of Israel?” Because all of the [ten] commandments are included within it. How? In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:2 = Deut. 5:6), “I [am] the Lord your God”; and here (in Lev. 19:2), “I [am] the Lord your God.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:3 = Deut. 5:7), “You shall have no [other gods beside Me]”; and here (in Lev. 19:4), “Do not turn unto idols.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:7 = Deut. 5:11), “You shall not take [the name of the Lord your God in vain]”; and here (in Lev. 19:12), “You shall not swear falsely by My name.” In the commandments it is written (Deut. 5:12), “Guard the Sabbath day”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:3), “You shall keep My Sabbaths.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:12 = Deut. 5:16), “Honor your father and your mother”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:3, cont.), “you each shall fear his mother and his father.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), “You shall not murder”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:16), “you shall not stand over the blood of your neighbor.” in the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), “you shall not commit adultery”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:2), “You shall be holy.“ In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), “you shall not stea”l; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:11), “You shall not steal.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), “you shall not bear [false witness against your neighbor]”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:16), “You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people.” In the commandments it is written (in Exod. 20:14 = Deut. 5:18), “You shall not covet”; and here it is written (in Lev. 19:13), “You shall not oppress your neighbor, and you shall not rob him.” Here all of the [ten] commandments are included within [it]. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 19:2), “Speak unto the whole congregation [of the Children of Israel].”

3) [(Vayikra 1:2): "A man, if he offer of you, a sacrifice to the L–rd"] "A man" — to include proselytes; "of you" — to exclude heretics. Why do you see it that way? Why not: "A man" — to include heretics; "of you" — to exclude proselytes? After Scripture includes, it excludes, viz. (Vayikra 1:2): "the children of Israel." Just as the children of Israel are accepters of the covenant, so proselytes — to exclude heretics, who do not accept the covenant. — But why not say: Just as the children of Israel are children of accepters of the covenant, so, heretics — to exclude proselytes, who are not! It is, therefore, written "of you" (i.e., like you, in your deeds). So that, perforce, we must understand it as: Just as Israel are accepters of the covenant, so, proselytes — to exclude heretics, who are not, having broken the covenant. And thus is it written (Mishlei 21:27): "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination."

3) Let us see what it (a beast burnt-offering) is most like. We liken something which is entirely burnt (a beast burnt-offering) to something which is entirely burnt (a bird burnt-offering), and this is not countermanded by a meal-offering, which is not entirely burnt. (Why, then, the inclusion clause?) Or, go in this direction: We liken something which can come as a prescribed communal offering (a beast burnt-offering) to something which can come as a prescribed communal offering (a meal-offering), and this is not countermanded by a bird burnt-offering, which cannot come as a prescribed communal offering; it is, therefore, written "shall you (plural) offer," to teach us that it comes as vow or gift and that two may offer it.

4) "A man, if he offer, etc." I might think this is a decree (i.e., that he must do so), it is, therefore, written "if he offer" — it is optional. (Mishlei 21:27): "a sacrifice (korban) to the L–rd" — he must sanctify it (by saying "This is a burnt-offering") before offering it up, (thus rendering it a "korban" before he actually sacrifices it). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that one should not say: "To the L–rd, a burnt-offering," "To the L–rd, a meal-offering," "To the L–rd, peace-offerings?" From "a sacrifice (korban) to the L–rd." Now is this not a kal vachomer? If in respect to what is destined to be sanctified, Scripture states that the name of Heaven is to be mentioned only after "korban" (to forestall the possibility of its being mentioned in vain by his saying "To the L–rd," and not following up with "korban") — how much more so must the name of Heaven not be mentioned in vain (in mundane circumstances)!

4) (Vayikra 1:2): ("shall you offer) your (plural) offerings": We are hereby taught that it (a beast burnt-offering) may come as a communal gift offering. Now does it not follow (that it should not be so!) A meal-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a meal-offering, which comes as vow or gift, cannot come as a communal gift offering, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, should not come as a communal gift offering!

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2) “When anyone explicitly vows […]”: This text is related (to Prov. 11:30), “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).” If a person is righteous, and does not occupy himself with Torah, even though he is righteous, he has nothing in his possession. Rather, “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; this refers to the Torah. Because when one is a Torah scholar (literally, child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (npshwt), as stated (ibid.), “but a wise person acquires lives.” As if he makes a vow for the value of human beings, he would have learned what to do from the Torah. But if he does not have Torah in his possession, he has nothing in his possession. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he lost his daughter.¹⁶Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the Children of Ammon and made a vow at that time, as stated (in Jud. 11:30-31), “Then Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, [and said, ‘If You indeed give the Children of Ammon into my hand;] Then it shall be that whatever comes forth…, shall belong to the Lord, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.’” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, was angry with him. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to Me.” Hence He summoned his daughter to him. And why so much? So that all those that vow will learn the laws of vows and abnegations. [And the result was (in Jud. 11:34-35),] “and there was his daughter coming out to greet him [….] And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes […].” But was not Phinehas there?¹⁷Since he was an outstanding Torah scholar, and an outstanding Torah scholar could have annulled the vow. And still he said (in vs. 35), “and I cannot retract?” However, Phinehas had said, “I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus ('am ha'arets)?” [And] Jephthah said, “I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?”¹⁸Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished from the world; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the holy spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7), “and he was buried in the cities of Gilead.”¹⁹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. When he sought to sacrifice her, she cried in front of him. His daughter said to him, “My father, I came out to greet you in joy, and [now] you slaughter me? Is it perhaps that the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote in the Torah that Israel offer the lives (npshwt) of people in front of the Holy One, blessed be He? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2), ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord from the beasts.’ ‘From the beasts’ and not from people?” He said to her, “My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31), ‘Then it shall be that whatever comes forth […].’ Is it possible that anyone who makes a vow does not have to fulfill his vow?” She said to him, “Behold, when our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22), ‘and of all that You give me, I will surely set aside a tithe for You’; when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him twelve sons, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? Moreover, does not Hannah [do likewise], when she makes a vow and says (as reported in I Sam. 1:11), ‘And she made a vow and said, “Lord of hosts, if You will surely see… [then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life].”’ Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One, blessed be He?” All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. When she saw that he did not heed her, she said to him, “Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words.” Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37), “leave me alone for two months, so that I may go and come down to the mountains.” R. Zechariah said, “Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of ‘and come down to the mountains?’ These represent the Sanhedrin,²⁰Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2), ‘Hear, O mountains, the lawsuit of the Lord.’” She went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow, because of the sin of those that he slaughtered from the tribe of Ephraim. So it is with reference to him that Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3), “A poor man who exploits the indigent is a torrential rain which leaves no bread.” “A poor man who exploits the indigent.” This is referring to Jephthah; since he was poor in Torah like a [mere] sycamore shoot.²¹The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) “Who exploits the indigent,” since he exploited the indigent, when he said [to the men of Ephraim] (in Jud. 12:6), “Say, ‘Shibboleth’; and he said, ‘Sibboleth,’ not being able to pronounce it correctly.” Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) “a torrential rain, and there is no bread,” in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.), “there is no bread,” in that the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One, blessed be He. Then the holy spirit proclaimed, “Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (npshwt) to Me, [lives] (according to Jer. 19:5), ‘which I never commanded, never spoke for, and which never entered My mind.’” “Which I never commanded” Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12), “Do not raise your hand against the lad.” [This was] in order to make known Abraham’s love [of God] to the nations of the world, that he did not spare his only one from Me and carried out the will of his Maker. (Jer 19:5 cont.:) “Never spoke” to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to Me. Rabbi Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish [differed on the matter]. Rabbi Johanan says, “He was liable for money [in order to fulfill his vow], like the matter is written in Arakhin.” And R. Simoen ben Laquish said, “[He was liable for] nothing, as he made a stipulation about something that is impossible to sacrifice, and [so] there was no [liability] upon him.” “And which never entered my mind,” this is referring to Misha the king of Moab, about whom it is written that when he fell into the hand of the king of Israel (in II Kings 3:27), “And he took his firstborn son, who would become king in his stead, and offered him up as a burnt offering upon the wall.” What caused Misha to sacrifice his son?²²See the parallel text in Buber Tanchuma 10:7, which has the final question being about Jephthah, which fits much better with the continuation of the section. Because he was not a Torah scholar; for if he had read the Torah, he would not have lost his son, since it is written (in Lev 27:2-4) “When anyone explicitly vows [to the Lord the value of human beings (npshwt)] And the value of a male shall be […]. And if it is a female….” Ergo (in Prov. 11:30), “but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).”

5) R. Yossi says: Wherever "korban" is written, it is stated (only) in conjunction with Yod-Keh (the Tetragrammaton) so as not to provide an "opening" for heretics (as it would, if alternate names were used).

5) — No, you may say this of a meal-offering, which cannot come as a gift of two (i.e., in partnership), but not of a beast burnt-offering, which can come as a gift of two. — But this is countermanded by a bird burnt-offering, which can come as a gift of two, but not as a communal gift offering!

5) R. Chiyya says: Go and see what Scripture excludes above (by [Vayikra 1:2] "a man, if he offers, etc.") — what is offered? (i.e., the animal), or the offerers? The offerers (e.g., a woman is excluded from semichah). Likewise, I exclude them (gentiles) from semichah, because I am excluding the offerers. I do not exclude them (the animals of gentiles) from flaying and cutting, because then I would be excluding the burnt-offering itself from an act (affecting its body).

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2), “When anyone explicitly vows”: The nations say (in Micah 6:6-7), “With what shall I come before the Lord, bow myself before God on high, [….] Does the Lord want thousands of rams […] shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my belly for the sin of my soul?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, “Do you want to offer your children to Me? Neither your children nor your sacrifices do I want. For my children I have given a Parashah on value equivalents (in Lev. 27:1-8) and a Parashah on sacrifices, as it is their sacrifices that are beloved in front of Me.” And so it says (in Ps. 37:16), “Better is the little of the righteous.” You yourself know what is at the beginning of the book (in Lev. 1:2), “Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord,’” [i.e.] “of you,” and not "of the nations." Then at the end of the book [one finds (in Lev. 27:2),] “Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them, ‘When anyone explicitly [vows].’” It also says (in Ps. 147:19), “He declares His words to Jacob….” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel. “If you bring before me your value equivalents, I will ascribe it to you as if you had offered up your lives before Me.” It is therefore stated (in Lev. 27:2), “When anyone explicitly vows [to the Lord the value of human beings].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “By virtue of the value equivalents (rt.: 'rk) I am saving you from the [fiery] preparation (rt.: 'rk) of Geihinnom,²³Cf. Exod. R. 50:5. as stated (in Is. 30:33), “For Topheth has been prepared (rt.: 'rk) from of old.” And I will prepare a table before you, just as David has stated (in Ps. 23:5), “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.”

R. Simeon ben Johay said:¹⁶See Gen. R. 1:13. Woe to blasphemers who take the name of the Holy One lightly, for one should not say: To the LORD an offering, to the LORD a burnt offering. Rather, < use the biblical wording > (as in Lev. 1:2): WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD; (or as in Numb. 8:12): A SIN OFFERING < … > TO THE LORD; (or as in Lev. 23:18; Numb. 8:12; 28:11, 19; 29:8; Jud. 13:16; etc.): A BURNT OFFERING TO THE LORD; (or as in Gen. 4:3; Is. 66:20; Ezek. 46:14; Mal. 2:12; II Chron. 33:23): A MEAL OFFERING TO THE LORD. Learn (from the Hebrew word order in Gen. 1:1): IN THE BEGINNING CREATED, and after that, GOD. When he mentions his creation,¹⁷Gk.: ktisma. < it is only > afterwards < that > he mentions his name.

6) (Vayikra 1:2): "… an offering to the L–rd from the beasts (behemah)": I might think (that this permitted) even (non-domesticated) animals, which are also subsumed in "behemah," viz. (Devarim 14:4): "These are the beasts (behemah) that you may eat: the ox, the sheep … the hart and the roebuck" (animals); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): "from the cattle and from the sheep" (domesticated). I might think that he should not bring ("animals"), but if he did bring them they are permitted — as when one's master tells him: "Go and bring me wheat," and he goes and brings him wheat and barley, in which instance he (merely) adds to his master's words; it is, therefore, written: "from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer" — i.e., from the beasts shall you offer cattle and sheep alone. This is analogous to one's master telling him: "Bring me only wheat, in which instance, if he adds (barley) to wheat, he transgresses his master's words.

6) — No, this may be so with a bird burnt-offering, which cannot come as a prescribed communal offering, but not of a beast burnt-offering, which can come as a prescribed communal offering. — This is countermanded by peace-offerings, which can come as prescribed communal offerings, but not as communal gift offerings.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. This text is related (to Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, [BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NPShWT)]. This refers to the Torah, because when one is a Torah scholar (literally: child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (NPShWT), as stated (ibid.): BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES.²⁷Tanh., Lev. 10:5. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he forfeited his daughter.²⁸Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the children of Ammon and made a vow, as stated (in Jud. 11:30–31): THEN JEPHTHAH MADE A VOW TO THE LORD, < AND SAID: IF YOU INDEED GIVE THE CHILDREN OF AMMON INTO MY HAND, > THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…, < SHALL BELONG TO THE LORD, AND I WILL OFFER IT UP AS A BURNT OFFERING >. At that time the Holy One was angry with him. The Holy One said: If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to me. The Holy One summoned his daughter to him, as stated (in Jud. 11:34–35): AND THERE WAS HIS DAUGHTER COMING OUT TO MEET HIM <…. > AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE SAW HER, < THAT HE RENT HIS CLOTHES…. > But was not Phinehas there?²⁹As a high priest he could have annulled the vow, as explained in Eccl. R. 10:15:1, as well as in Gen. R. 60:5 and Lev. R. 37:4. Still he said (in vs. 35): AND I CANNOT RETRACT. However, Phinehas had said: I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus 'am ha'arets)? But Jephthah said: I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?³⁰Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the Holy Spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7): AND HE WAS BURIED IN THE CITIES OF GILEAD.³¹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. His daughter had said to him: My Father, is it ever written in the Torah: They offer the lives (NPShWT) of their sons upon the alter? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2): [WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD FROM THE CATTLE], < YOU SHALL PRESENT YOUR OFFERING > FROM THE HERD OR FROM THE FLOCK, < i.e., > from the cattle and not from the children of Adam? He said to her: My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31): THEN IT SHALL BE THAT WHATEVER COMES FORTH…. [She said to him:] When our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22): AND OF ALL THAT YOU GIVE ME, I WILL SURELY SET ASIDE A TITHE FOR YOU, and when the Holy One gave him twelve tribes, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? [Moreover, does not Hannah < do likewise >, when she makes a vow and says (in I Sam. 1:11): THEN I WILL GIVE HIM TO THE LORD ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE. Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One?] All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. She said to him: Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words. Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37): LEAVE ME ALONE FOR TWO MONTHS, [SO THAT I MAY GO AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS]. R. Levi ben Berekhyah said: Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of AND COME DOWN TO THE MOUNTAINS? These represent the Sanhedrin,³²Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2): HEAR, O MOUNTAINS, THE LAWSUIT OF THE LORD. [She³³The bracketed section, which continues to near the end of the paragraph, is taken from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34, and from the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 10:7. went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow. So it is with reference to him that the Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3): A POOR MAN WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT IS A TORRENTIAL RAIN WHICH LEAVES NO BREAD. A POOR MAN: This is Jephthah, since he was poor in the Torah. He was a < mere > sycamore shoot.³⁴The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) WHO EXPLOITS THE INDIGENT, since he exploited the indigent, when he said (in Jud. 12:6): SAY: SHIBBOLETH; AND HE SAID SIBBOLETH. Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) A TORRENTIAL RAIN, AND THERE IS NO BREAD, in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.): THERE IS NO BREAD, in that the Holy One had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One. Then the Holy Spirit proclaimed: Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (NPShWT) to me, < lives > (according to Jer. 19:5), WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED, NEVER SPOKE FOR, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND. WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12): DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND AGAINST THE LAD…. < It was > in order to make known to you how Abraham carried out my will, when the nations of the world were saying: Why does the Holy One love Abraham so much? For that reason he said to him (in Gen. 22:2): PLEASE TAKE YOUR SON…. Ergo (in Jer. 19:5): WHICH I NEVER COMMANDED Abraham, certainly not to slaughter his son, NEVER SPOKE FOR to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to me, AND WHICH NEVER ENTERED MY MIND, that the king of Moab would fall into the hand of the King of Israel and offer up his firstborn son to me as a sacrifice, as stated (in II Kings 3:27): SO HE TOOK HIS FIRSTBORN SON, WHO WOULD BECOME KING IN HIS STEAD, AND OFFERED HIM UP AS A BURNT OFFERING UPON THE WALL.] Who caused Jephthah to forfeit his daughter? < He himself > because he had not studied the Torah; for if he had studied the Torah, he would not had forfeited his daughter, since it is written (in Lev. 27:2, 4): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS < TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT) >…. AND IF IT IS A FEMALE < …. > Ergo (in Prov. 11:30): THE FRUIT OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS A TREE OF LIFE, < BUT A WISE PERSON ACQUIRES LIVES (NPShWT) >.

(Lev. 5:1:) “And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing […, if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity].” This text is related (to Eccl. 5:1), “Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart hasten to bring forth a word before God.” These [words refer to] people who vilify the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. Come and see, when the celestial beings were created, those below were created with half of the [divine] name, as stated (in Is. 26:4), “for through Yh,³⁸YH is the first half of the divine name, which the Hebrew spells out where the translation reads THE LORD. the Lord formed the worlds.”³⁹The midrash interprets tsur ‘olamim as FORMED THE WORLDS (i.e., this world and the world to come) rather than as the more usual EVERLASTING ROCK. For similar interpretations, see yHag. 2:1 (77c); Men. 29b; Gen. R. 12:10; M. Pss. 62:1; 114:3; cf. also M. Pss. 118:14. But why were they not created with all of it? So as not to mention the full name [of the Holy One, blessed be He] with him. Woe to those creatures who vilify the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in vain. See what is written about offerings (in Lev. 1:2), “When one of you presents an offering to the Lord.” It does not say "to the Lord, an offering," but “an offering to the Lord” (so that who changes his mind about an offering in mid-sentence not mention God’s name for no reason).⁴⁰Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:6; Ned. 10ab; Sifra to Lev. 1:2, Wayyiqra, Parashah 2; Sifre, Deut.32:3 (306); Gen. R. 1:13. And [yet] people vilify the name of the Lord in vain. It is therefore stated (in Eccl. 5:1), “Do not be rash with your mouth…. for God is in heaven and you are on earth.” For who would say that God is not in heaven and that people are not on earth? [Accordingly], Solomon has said, “Every time that the weakest of the weak is above, he defeats the warrior below.” Go and learn from Abimelech (in Jud. 9:53), “But a certain woman dropped an upper millstone on Abimelech's head and cracked his skull.”⁴¹Since the woman was above the warrior Abimelech in the tower of Thebez, her killing him is an example of a relatively weak person defeating a warrior from above. And if he was a warrior among warriors and there was none like him, and [yet] a woman [was able to] kill him from above, how much the more so in the case of the Holy One, blessed be He! See what is written about Him (in Dan. 4:32), “All the inhabitants of the earth are of no account, and He does as He wishes [with the host of heaven and with the inhabitants of the earth].” It is also written (in Ps. 47:3), “For the Lord most high is awesome, a great King over all the earth,” and people are below. (Eccl. 5:1:) “Therefore let your words be few.” So what is there for you to do? To put your hand upon your mouth and upon your ear in order to neither speak nor hear. Ergo (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins.”⁴²These words also appear in Lev. 5:21 [6:2]. (Lev. 5:1:) [“And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing,] when he is a witness to what he has either seen or come to know, [if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity].” This text is related (to Prov. 29:24), “The one who shares with a thief hates his own soul; he hears swearing and does not speak out.” What has caused anyone to say of him, “If a soul sins?” [It is] simply because he did not come and tell a sage, “So-and-so blasphemed the name of the Holy One, blessed be He.” He therefore shares his iniquities with him, as stated (in Lev. 5:1), “if he does not speak out, he shall bear his iniquity.” Therefore Solomon has said (in Prov. 29:24), “The one who shares with a thief hates his own soul.” Just as when the thief is caught, his partner is convicted along with him;⁴³Cf. Lev. R. 6:2. so whoever hears blasphemy of the Holy One, blessed be He, and does not speak out is convicted along with him. And let no one say, “What denunciation (lashon hara’ah) do I say?” The Holy One, blessed be He, has said (in Lev. 5:1ff.), “’On every matter,’ there is a denunciation in it. [But] with cursing the name, there is no denunciation.” Why? Because [it is] just like a case of a person cursing his companion. When he hears him, it is of no concern to him. But if he has cursed his father in his presence, he puts his life on the line and says, “You have cursed my father.” Moses said (in Deut. 32:6), “Is He not your Father who created you?” (Lev. 5:1:) [“And if a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing,] when he is a witness to what he has seen.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If you want to bear witness, bear witness; but if not, I will bear witness.” Thus it is stated (ibid.), “when he (He) is a witness.” And where is it shown that the Holy One, blessed be He, is called a witness? Where it is stated (in Jer. 29:23), “I am the One who knows and bears witness, says the Lord.” Come and see. All the parashioth written in this book have “mistake” written in them, except for this parashah, in which “mistake” is not mentioned.⁴⁴In fact, MISTAKE (shegagah), i.e., UNINTENTIONAL SIN, does appear in this parashah (in 5:15, 18). Elsewhere in Lev. the word only appears in 4:2, 22, 27; 22:4.) About him Solomon has said (in Eccl. 5:5), “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, and do not say before the angel that it was a mistake,” (in Eccl. 5:1), “for God is in the heavens.” It is comparable to two people who threw stones at an image of a king.⁴⁵Gk.: eikonion, a diminutive form of eikon. One was drunk, and one was in possession of his senses. Both of them were caught and went to trial. [The judge] rendered a [guilty] verdict⁴⁶Gk.: apophasis. against the one with his senses and acquitted the one who was drunk. So it is in the case of whoever sins. It is concerning him that “mistake” is written (in Lev. 4:2) – “When a soul sins by mistake (rt.: shgg) [against any of the Lord's commandments]….”; (and likewise in Lev. 4:13) “And if the whole congregation of Israel should err (rt.: shgg).” And [about] all of them; because they sinned by mistake, they bring an offering and it shall be forgiven them. It is so stated (in Numb. 15:26), “The whole congregation of the Children of Israel and the stranger who resides in their midst shall be forgiven because [it happened] to all the people by mistake.” But the one who blasphemes receives a [guilty] verdict, as stated (in Lev. 24:16) “And the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.” It is also written (in Jer. 4:2), “And you shall swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ in truth, in justice, and in righteousness; then shall nations bless themselves in Him, and Him shall they glory.” Scripture also says (in Deut. 10:20), “The Lord your God you shall fear, Him you shall serve, to Him you shall hold fast”; then after that, “and by Him you shall swear.”⁴⁷See Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 9:1; Numb. R. 9:1. (Ibid.:) “The Lord your God you shall fear,” so that you will be like those three of whom it is written, “he feared God (yr' 'lhym)”: Abraham, Joseph and Job. About Abraham it is written (in Gen. 22:12), “for now I know that you fear God (yr' 'lhym).” About Joseph it is written (in Gen. 42:18), “I fear (yr') God ('lhym).” About Job it is written (in Job 1:2), “he feared God (yr' 'lhym) and shunned evil.” (Deut. 10:20, cont.:) “Him you shall serve,” in that you will be busy with the Torah and with [fulfilling] the commandments. (Ibid. cont.:) “To him you shall hold fast,” in that you will honor the Torah scholars and benefit them with your property. Moses said to Israel, “Do not think that I have allowed you to swear by His name, even in truth. It is only, if all these conditions (mentioned earlier in the verse) abide with you, that you are entitled to swear; and if not, you are not entitled to swear [by His name], even in truth.” You shall not be like those of whom it is written (in Jer. 7:9), “[Will you …] swear falsely and sacrifice to Baal?” Rather, fulfill all these conditions and after that you are Mine, as stated (in Jer. 4:1), “If you return, O Israel, says the Lord, if you return unto Me [….]” Then after that [it says] (in vs. 2), “And you shall swear, ‘as the Lord lives’….” Our masters have said, “Even in truth one cannot swear.” Why? Thus have our masters taught (in Dem. 2:3): Let not someone from Israel be unrestrained in vows⁴⁸See also Ned. 20a. or in jesting, (or to lead one's companion astray with an oath by saying it is not an oath). There is a story about the royal mountain where there were two thousand towns, and all of them were destroyed because of a truthful oath that was unnecessary.⁴⁹Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 9:1; Numb. R. 9:1; cf. also Git. 57a. Now if one who swears in truth has this happen, how much the more so in the case of one who swears to a lie? How did they act? One would utter an oath to his companion that he was going to such and such a place to eat and drink. Then they would go and act to fulfill their oath. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins in that it hears a voice swearing.” Now when the Holy One, blessed be He, comes to judge all people in the world to come, He will judge them along with sorcerers and adulterers. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Mal. 3:5), “Then I will draw near to you in judgment; and I will be a swift witness against sorcerers, against adulterers, against those who swear to a lie (in My name).” And I am finding them guilty and bringing them down to Gehinnom. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “With the mouth that I gave you to be praising and glorifying My name, you are reproaching, blaspheming, and swearing to a lie in My name? Since I created all people to praise Me, as stated (in Prov. 16:4), “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose.” So is it not enough for you that you do not praise Me, but [that] you blaspheme [Me as well]! The Scripture has said (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea, [for it cannot rest (rt.: shqt)].” [They are] just like this [kind of] sea which has waves in its midst exalting themselves upward. When each and every one of them reaches the sand, it is broken and returns (hozer).⁵⁰The word also means “repents.” And its companion also looks at it breaking, and [yet] exalts itself upward without repenting (hozer). So are the wicked, who look at one another and exalt themselves. Therefore, they are likened to the sea, as stated (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea….” So did all the generations, the generation of Enosh, the generation of the flood, and the generation of the dispersion (i.e., of the Tower of Babel), not learn from each other. Instead they were exalting themselves. Therefore they are compared to the sea (in Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea.” (Is. 57:20, cont.:) “For it cannot rest (rt.: shqt).” The wicked have no rest in the world, but the righteous have serenity (shqt), as stated (in Jer. 30:10), “and Jacob shall again have peace (shqt) and quiet with none to make him afraid.” Another interpretation (of Is. 57:20), “But the wicked are like the troubled sea.” Just as the sea has its dirt and mud in its mouth, so the wicked have their stench in their mouth. Thus it is stated (at the end of Is. 57:20), “and its waters toss up slime and mud.” It is not from choice that one hears blasphemies and invectives, but from the midst of the sins which are within him. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 5:1), “If a soul sins and hears a voice swearing….”⁵¹Most translations equate the sinning with the swearing. This more literal translation illustrates the point that the swearing comes from a soul which has already sinned. You find [that there are] three things under human control and three things not under human control ….⁵²Tanh., Gen. 6:12 (i.e., Toledot 12); Gen. R. 67:12. And not only [now] but even in the world to come. [So it is stated] (in Job 12:23), “He exalts (msgy') nations and destroys them.” The written text (ketiv) is “mshg'” (which means, misleads).⁵³In unpointed Hebrew the Sin (S) and the Shin (Sh) look alike. Since MShG’, which is pointed mashge’, can also be spelled with the extra yod (i.e., Y), the two words are interchangable in an unpointed text. Then He destroys them [and] brings them down to Abaddon,⁵⁴Abbadon is a name for Hell, which means “destruction.” while the righteous watch them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 66:24), “Then they shall go out and look at the corpses of the people who have rebelled against Me; their worms shall not die nor shall their fire be quenched”.

4) kllal ufrat (general-specific): (Vayikra 1:2): "A man, if he offer from you an offering to the L–rd, from the beasts, from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer your offering." "from the beasts" — general (i.e., all animals); "from the cattle and from the sheep" — specific (i.e., domesticated animals) — the general subsumes only the specific (i.e., domesticated, and not non-domesticated animals).

7) "from the beasts" (but not all) — to exclude (animals used for sodomy), rovea (active) and nirva (passive). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is a verse needed to exclude them? (the kal vachomer:) If an animal with a blemish, which was not the object of transgression, is pasul (unfit) for the altar, rovea and nirva, which were objects of transgression, does it not follow that they should be unfit for the altar?

7) Likewise, you should not wonder if a beast burnt-offering, though it can come as a prescribed communal offering, could not come as a communal gift offering; it is, therefore, written "your (plural) offerings," to teach us that it can come as a communal gift offering.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 27:2:) WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS. The nations say (in Micah 6:6–7): WITH WHAT SHALL I COME BEFORE THE LORD, BOW MYSELF BEFORE GOD ON HIGH? [….] DOES THE LORD WANT THOUSANDS OF RAMS […? SHALL I GIVE MY FIRSTBORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION, THE FRUIT OF MY BELLY FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL?] The Holy One said to them: Do you want to offer your children to me? Neither your children nor your sacrifices do I want. For my children I have given a parashah on values (in Lev. 27:1–8) and a parashah on sacrifices, < i.e. > which of your offerings are acceptable to me (in Lev. 1). And so it says (in Ps. 37:16): BETTER IS THE LITTLE THAT THE RIGHTEOUS ONE HAS. You yourself know what is at the beginning of the book (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, [AND SAY UNTO THEM]: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING, < i.e. > OF YOU, and not "of the nations." Then at the end of the book < one finds > (in Lev. 27:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS…. It also says (in Ps. 147:19): HE DECLARES HIS WORDS TO JACOB…. The Holy One said to Israel: If you bring before me your value equivalents, I will ascribe it to you as if you had offered up your lives before me. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 27:2): WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGS…. The Holy One said: By virtue of the value equivalents (rt.: 'RK) I am saving you from the < fiery > preparation (rt.: 'RK) of Gehinnom,³⁵Cf. Exod. R. 50:5. as he has written about it (in Is. 30:33): FOR TOPHETH HAS BEEN PREPARED (rt.: 'RK) FROM OF OLD; and I will prepare a table before you, just as David has stated (in Ps. 23:5): YOU PREPARE A TABLE BEFORE ME IN THE PRESENCE OF MY ENEMIES; YOU ANOINT MY HEAD WITH OIL; MY CUP OVERFLOWS.

“I also gathered for myself silver and gold, and the treasure of kings and countries; I acquired for myself songsters and songstresses, and chests and wagons of the pleasures of people” (Ecclesiastes 2:8).
“I also gathered for myself silver and gold” – that is what is written: “The king made the silver in Jerusalem as stones” (I Kings 10:27). Is it possible that [silver was placed] as stones on paths and in courtyards and was not stolen? It is because they were large, ten-cubit stones and eight-cubit stones. It is taught: Even the weights during the reign of Solomon were made of gold, and they would use weights of gold, [even the weight of] a kanterin.¹⁸A talent; a very large measure. Each and every weight, large and small, was of gold.
“And the treasure of kings” – as it is stated: “All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon” (II Chronicles 9:23). “And countries [vehamedinot]” – this is the queen of Sheba, who would challenge [medayyenet] him with her wisdom and her questions, but was unable to overcome him, as it is stated: “She came to challenge him with riddles” (I Kings 10:1). “King Solomon gave the Queen of Sheba all her desires that she requested” (I Kings 10:13).¹⁹The Hebrew verse cited does not correspond exactly to the actual verse. “I acquired for myself songsters and songstresses” – male singers and female singers; “the pleasures of people” – pools of flowing water and bathhouses; “chests [shidda] and wagons [veshiddot]” – demons [sheida] and demonesses [vesheideta], who would heat them.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Neḥemya said: Does the verse come to teach us only of Solomon’s wealth? It is speaking only regarding matters of Torah. “I increased my actions [maasai]” – this is what is written: “The tablets were the work [maaseh] of God” (Exodus 32:16). “I built myself houses” – these are synagogues and study halls. “I planted myself vineyards” – these are the rows of Torah scholars who sit in rows like a vineyard, as it is taught in a mishna: This exposition was expounded by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne.²⁰Mishna Ketubot 4:6. Was it in fact a vineyard? Rather, these are Torah scholars who sit in rows like a vineyard.
“I made myself gardens and orchards” (Ecclesiastes 2:5) – these are the great compendia of baraitot like the compendium of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great, and the compendium of Rabbi Hoshaya the Great, and the compendium of bar Kappara. “And I planted in them trees of every fruit” (Ecclesiastes 2:5) – this is the Talmud that is included in them.²¹The great compendia of baraitot include expositions typical of the Talmud. “I made myself pools of water” (Ecclesiastes 2:6) – Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great said: These are the expositions. “To irrigate from them a forest which grows trees” (Ecclesiastes 2:6) – these are the children who study. Rabbi Naḥman said: This is the Talmud. “To irrigate from them a forest which grows trees” – these are the Torah scholars who study.
“I purchased myself slaves and maidservants” (Ecclesiastes 2:7) – these are the nations, as it is stated: “Upon the slaves and upon the maidservants, too, in those days I will pour out My spirit” (Joel 3:2). as it is written in Isaiah: “Strangers will stand and graze your flocks…” (Isaiah 61:5). “And I had stewards[benei bayit]” (Ecclesiastes 2:7) – this is the Divine Spirit.²²The term benei bayit literally means “household members.” Thus, the midrash is stating that the Divine Spirit was regularly present in Solomon’s home. “I also had great possession of herds and flocks” (Ecclesiastes 2:7) – these are offerings; this is what is written: “From the herds and the flocks you shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 1:2). “I also gathered for myself silver and gold” – these are matters of Torah, as it is stated: “More desirable than gold” (Psalms 19:11). “And the treasure of kings,” as it is stated: “Through me kings reign.… through me princes rule” (Proverbs 8:15–16).²³Torah scholars rule the world. “And countries [medinot]” – these are the Torah scholars, who deliberate [medainin] in halakha. “I acquired for myself songsters and songstresses” – these are the Tosefta.²⁴The men recite and memorize the halakhot relevant to them, and the women recite and memorize the halakhot relevant to them. “And the pleasures” – these are the aggadot, which are the pleasures of the biblical text; “chests [shidda] and wagons [shiddot]” – male judges and female judges.

8) — No, this is refuted by the instance of an ox plowing together with an ass, where, even though the ox was the object of transgression, it is kasher for the altar. — No, in that instance the animals are not to be killed, whereas rovea and nirva are to be killed. — "Take what you have brought" (i.e., let us grant this); still, (without the exclusion clause) I would know that they (rovea and nirva) are pasul only if they were the (proved) objects of transgression by the testimony of two witnesses. If there were only one witness, or only the testimony of the owner, whence would I derive this (that they are pasul, if not for the exclusion clause?) R. Yishmael said: I could derive it through a kal vachomer, viz.: If a blemished animal, which is not made pasul for eating by the testimony (to the blemish) of two witnesses, is made pasul for sacrifice by the testimony of one witness or of the owner — then rovea and nirva, which are made pasul for eating by the testimony of two witnesses, should they not be made pasul for sacrifice by the testimony of one witness or of the owner? (What need, then, is there for the exclusion clause?) R. Akiva said: No, (i.e., your argument does not stand.) In the instance of a blemished animal, the blemish is visible, whereas in the instance of rovea and nirva, the "blemish" is not visible, so that (without the exclusion clause), they would not be pasul for the altar. It must, therefore, be written "from the beasts," to exclude rovea and nirva.

8) An alternate formulation: Now if an individual, who does not bring a prescribed burnt-offering every day, may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift — the congregation, which does bring a prescribed burnt-offering every day, should it not follow that it may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift? (Why, then, the inclusion clause?) — No, it may be so with an individual, because he may bring a meal-offering as a gift! — This is refuted by the instance of partners, who cannot bring a meal-offering as a gift, yet may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift.

(Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh.” This text is related (to Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness. [This verse is] to teach you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not delight in convicting a person, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11), “As I live, says the Lord, it is not My delight for the wicked to die.” In what does He delight? In vindicating (rt.: tsdq) His people. Thus it is stated (in Is. 42:21), “The Lord was delighted because of His [servant's] vindication (tsdq)…,”⁴⁰This is the interpretation of the midrash and of the new JPS translation. [i.e.] because of His people's vindication (tsdq)] and not [their] conviction. So also you find that in the case of the first Adam, when he created him, He set him in the Garden of Eden. Then He gave him a command and said to him, “Eat this, but do not eat from this, for (according to Gen. 2:17) ‘on the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.’” [When] he transgressed, he brought a sentence⁴¹Gk.: apophasis. upon himself. [And then] the Sabbath came, and He acquitted him.⁴²Heb.: pinnahu. This word means “removed him” as well as “acquitted him.” In other words, Adam’s acquittal meant that his sentence was reduced from death to removal from the Garden. So M. Pss. 92:3. He began to talk with him [about] whether he would repent. It is so stated (in Gen. 3:9), “The Lord God called unto Adam and said, ‘Where are you?’” [This means, “What is your state?”] The Lord can only mean the quality of mercy, as stated (in Exod. 34:6), “The Lord, the Lord is a merciful and gracious God.” For him He had the quality of mercy precede the quality of strict justice. Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness,” in that He does not delight in convicting a person. He began to talk with him, as stated (in Gen. 3:11-12), “Who told you that you were naked? Then the man said, ‘The woman….’” He left Adam alone and began to talk with the woman, as stated (in vs. 13), “Then the Lord God said to the woman….” But when He came to the serpent He did not talk with him. Instead He immediately gave him a sentence, as stated (in vss. 14–15), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because you have done this …. I will put enmity between you [and the woman]….’” [Then] He returned to the woman and said to her (in vs. 16), “I will greatly multiply your pain in pregnancy.” And when He returned to the man, He did not convict him. Rather He intimated to him that he should repent. Where is it shown? R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Levi, “When He said to him (in vs. 19), ‘By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread, [until you return …].’ ‘You return’ can only be mean repentance, since it is stated (in Hos. 14:2), ‘Return O Israel, to the Lord your God, as you have stumbled in your iniquity.’” When [Adam] did not repent, He expelled him from the Garden of Eden, as stated [(in Gen. 3:24), “And He drove out the man.” Ergo I would say (in Ps. 5:5), “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness.” What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.), “evil may not abide with You.” R. Tanhuma bar Hanila'i in the name of R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Johanan, “Before the Holy One, blessed be He, stand only angels of peace and angels of mercy, but the angels of wrath are far from Him. It is so stated (in Numb. 14:15), ‘the Lord, of long patience.’ Do we not already know that He is of long patience? But rather what is the meaning of He is ‘of long patience?’ That the angels of wrath are far from Him, as stated (in Is. 13:5), ‘They come from a far land from the end of the heavens, even the Lord and the weapons of his wrath.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 5:5, cont.), “evil may not abide with You”: R. Johanan said, “If you do not pursue evil, evil will not pursue you, nor will it dwell with you. Ergo, (Ps. 5:5, cont.), ‘evil may not abide with You,’ as ‘abide with You,’ can only mean dwelling, as stated (Exodus 2:48), ‘And if a stranger dwells with you.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 5:5, cont.), “evil may not abide with You”: R. Eleazar ben Pedat said in the name of R. Johanan, “The name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not mentioned in connection with evil but only in connection with good.” You know that it is so. When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the light and the darkness and gave them names, [Scripture] mentioned His name in connection with the light but did not mention His name in connection with the darkness.⁴³Gen. R. 1:6. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 1:5), “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” Behold, it mentioned His name with the light; but when it comes to the dark it doesn’t say, “and God called the darkness night,” but “He called [the darkness] night.” So also you find that, when He created Adam and Eve, [Scripture] mentioned His name in connection with them, as stated (in Gen. 1:28), “Then God blessed them…”; but when He cursed them, it did not mention His name in connection with them. [Thus it is stated] (in Gen. 3:16-17), “And unto the woman He said […]. And unto Adam He said.” Now if you say [that] behold, [Scripture] mentioned [His name] in connection with the serpent when He cursed him, since it is written (in Gen. 3:14), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, more cursed shall you be’”; the sages have taught thus: The Holy One, blessed be He, has mentioned His name in connection with three things, even though they stood for evil: In connection with the inciter, i.e., the serpent, since he incited the woman and said (in Gen. 3:5), “’For God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes shall be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil,’ like Him. Just like He created His world, you [two] will be able to create worlds like Him. [But He doesn’t want this,] as every artisan hates his fellow [artisan].” So because he incited her and spoke slander, [Scripture] mentions His name in connection with [the serpent]. In connection with one who transgresses the words of the sages, as is stated (in Jer. 11:3), “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Cursed is the one who does not heed the words of this covenant.’” In connection with one who puts his trust in flesh and blood, as stated (in Jer. 17:5), “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in a human being, who makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns from the Lord.’”
So also you find in the case of Noah, [that Scripture used (God’s) name] when he blessed his sons, as stated (in Gen. 9:26), “And he said, ‘blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem…;’” but when he cursed Canaan, [Scripture did not mention the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, in connection with him], as stated (in vs. 25), “And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan….’” So also you find in the case of Elisha the prophet, that when the king of Aram came to fight against Israel, he consulted with his servants and made pits [to trap] them. He said, “When Israel comes to fight against us, they will fall into the pits,” as stated (in II Kings 6:8-9), “When the king of Aram was fighting against Israel, [he consulted with his servants, saying, ‘My camp shall be in such and such a place.’ But the man of God sent unto the king of Israel [saying], ‘Take care [not to pass this place, because the Aramaeans are camping there.]’” So the Holy One, blessed be He, does nothing (according to Amos 3:7) without having revealed His purpose unto His servants the prophets. When Israel passed by once and twice without falling in, the king of Aram took notice and said to his servants (in II Kings 6:11), “Will you not tell me which of us is for the king of Israel?” His servants said to him (in vs. 12-14), “’[It is because] Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words which you speak in your bedroom.’ So he said, ‘Go and see [where he is, so that I can send and seize him,’ and it was told to him, saying, ‘Behold he is in Dothan.’ Then he sent horses and chariots and a heavy force there.” Immediately Elisha’s youth rose and saw that horses, riders and a force encircled the city. Immediately he cried out (in vss. 15-16), “and said [unto him], ‘Alas, my Lord, what shall we do?’ Then he said, ‘Fear not, for there are more with us than with them.’” Immediately Elisha prayed and mentioned the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated (in vs. 17), “Then Elisha prayed and said, ‘Lord, please open his eyes and let him see’; so the Lord opened the eyes of the servant and he saw, and there was the hill full of fiery horses and chariots round about Elisha!” Immediately Elisha arose and cursed the Aramaeans (in vs. 18), and he said, “’Please smite this nation with a blinding light’; so He smote them with a blinding light according to the word of Elisha.” Now [Scripture] did not mention the name, but when [Elisha] prayed over them again for their eyes to be opened, he said (in vs. 20), “O Lord, open the eyes of these men that they may see.” Ergo, the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is mentioned in connection with good, but not with evil. So also you find that when the prophet saw the four chariots that were compared to the four kingdoms (that would rule over Israel), [it states (in Zech. 6:1),] “and I lifted my eyes, and behold, four chariots were coming out between the two mountains….” But when it spoke about the redemption, [it states (in Zech. 2:3),] “Then the Lord showed me four smiths.” So also you find that when the five angels of destruction came to destroy Jerusalem, as stated (in Ezek. 9:2), “And here were six persons coming by way of the upper gate [which faces north, each with his weapon of destruction in his hand]”; Gabriel was sent with them, as it is written (in Ezek. 10:2), “Then He spoke unto the person clothed in linen and said, ‘Go in among the wheelwork.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel, “Fill your hands with coals of fire from among the cherubim and scatter them over the city,” as it is written (in Ezek. 10:2), “Then He spoke unto the person clothed in linen and said, ‘Go in among the wheelwork [under the cherub, and fill your hands with coals of fire from among the cherubim, and scatter them over the city].’”⁴⁴Cf. below, Lev. 8:5. Gabriel came and stood at the wheel. The cherub said to him, “What do you desire?” He said to him, “Thus and so has the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded me.” He said to him, “Take [them].” He said to him, “You put them in my hand.” Immediately (according to Ezek. 10:7), “Then the cherub stretched out his hand from among the cherubim [unto the fire that was among the cherubim…].” R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, “If the coals had not been cooled off [while passing] from the hand of a cherub to the hand of Gabriel, there would not have remained of the enemies of Israel (a euphemism, meaning Israel) a [single] survivor or refugee.”⁴⁵Yoma 77a. For more details, see Lam. R. 1:13 (41). So the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to do what was evil, not by Himself, but through an angel. In the age to come, however, He will do what is good by Himself, as stated (in Ezek. 36:25), “I will sprinkle pure water upon you….” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not abide with You.” What is the meaning of (Ps. 5:5) “and evil may not abide with You?” [It is] that [Scripture] does not cause the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to rest upon evil, except for two [evil] sayings upon which the Holy One, blessed be He, did cause His name to rest. These are the following: (The first one is Dan. 9:14:) “So the Lord watched over evil and brought it upon us, because the Lord our God is righteous.” Was it because the Lord our God is righteous (tsaddik), that He brought the evil? It is simply that the Holy One, blessed be He, was charitable (tzekekah) to us when He first brought about the exile to Babylon of Jeconiah before the exile of Tsidikiyah. And what was charitable? That He first brought about the exile of Jeconiah to Babylon along with the artisans, the smiths, and all the valiant men. Now [those] descended to Babylon and they established a [framework] for Torah [study]. For if it had not happened like that, the Torah would have been forgotten in the exile. It is simply that those who believed in the words of Jeremiah went forth with the Torah. [They included (according to II Kings 24:16)] “a thousand artisans and smiths.” What is the meaning of “artisans (hrsh)?”⁴⁶Git. 88a; Sanh. 38a; Yalqut Shim‘oni, Dan., 1066. When they opened with words of Torah, all [present] became as those who are (deaf-)mute (hrsh). [And what is the meaning of] “smiths (rt.: sgr)?” After they closed (rt.: sgr) it, there was no one in all Israel who was able to open it. Ergo (in Dan. 9:14), “because the Lord our God is righteous.” So He acted justly during that exile in that He watched over it, and He still performed a great kindness for Israel [with reference to that exile]. How? In [the month of] Tebet they were scheduled to go into exile from Jerusalem, for so does [Scripture] say (in Ezek. 24:1-2), “[Then the word of the Lord came unto me in the ninth year of the tenth month on the tenth day of the month, saying,] ‘Son of man, write down the name of the day, [this very day;] on this very day [the king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem].’” What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He said, “If they go forth now in the cold, they will die.” What did He do for them? He waited for them and sent them into exile during the summer. This is what the prophet says (in Jer. 8:13), “I will utterly gather them, says the Lord.” "Gather" ('sp) can only mean "exile," since it is stated (in Micah 2:12), “I will gather Jacob, all of you.” Hence, this too was a great kindness. Now, the second [evil saying associated with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He] is (Ezek. 9:4:) “And the Lord said unto him, ‘Pass through the midst of the city, [through the midst of Jerusalem and mark (the letter) taw⁴⁷The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. For various interpretations of its meaning, see the parallel version in Shab. 55a. on the foreheads of those people who moan and groan over all the abominations] ….’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel, “Go and write an ink taw upon the foreheads of the righteous, so that the angels of destruction will have no dominion over them. Then upon the foreheads of the wicked write a blood taw so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them.” [The] prosecution⁴⁸Gk.: kategoria, i.e., “accusation,” “charge.” Here the concept is hypostatized as a separate being. came in before the Holy One, blessed be He, [and said to him], “Master of the world, how do the former differ from the latter?” He said to it, “The former are completely righteous, and the latter are completely wicked.” It said to Him, “It was in their power to protest, but they did not protest.” He said to it, “It was revealed and known to Me that, if they had protested, [the sinners] would not have accepted their [protest].” It said to Him, “Master of the world, if it was revealed and known in front of You, was if revealed in front of them? Hence they should have protested against them and demeaned themselves for the sanctification of Your name and take beatings from Israel upon themselves, just as the prophets endured [them].” So look at how many woes Jeremiah suffered from Israel; also Isaiah, of whom it is written (in Is. 50:6), “I gave my back to the smiters and my cheeks to the tearers of hair.” And [so with] the rest of the prophets. Immediately (in Ezek. 9:6) He spoke again to the angels of destruction, “[Kill off] old folk, youth ….” This also was a kindness, in that the Holy One, blessed be He, mitigated His wrath [by striking out] against Jerusalem, as stated (in Lam. 4:11), “The Lord has completed (klh) His wrath.” For if He had not done so, all Israel would have received a verdict of destruction (klyh). Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “and evil may not abide with You,” because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not cause His name to rest upon evil. So also even in the case of the wicked of Israel, He allotted them glory and did not mention them for evil. When He came to the offerings, He said to Moses (in Lev. 1:2), “Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them, ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord,’” [i.e.] “from Israel” and not from the idolaters. However, when He came to mention leprosy spots, He said (in Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has,” only saying “anyone.” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “and evil may not abide with you.”

9) "from the cattle" (but not all) — to exclude ne'evad (objects of idolatry). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is the exclusion clause necessary?) (the kal vachomer:) If an ethnan (the hire of a prostitute) [see Devarim 23:19]) and a mechir (the exchange of a dog [Devarim 23:19], whose ornaments are permitted (for mundane use), are forbidden for the altar — then ne'evad, whose ornaments are forbidden (see Devarim 7:25) — how much more so should it be forbidden for the altar! (Why, then, is an exclusion clause needed?) — But perhaps the reverse is true, viz.: If the ethnan and mechir, which are forbidden for the altar, (yet) their ornaments are permitted (for mundane use) — then ne'evad, which is permitted (for the altar [barring an exclusion clause]) — how much more so should its ornaments be permitted! — You have (hereby) abolished (Devarim 7:25) "Do not covet the silver and gold upon them!" I shall restore it, viz.: "Do not covet the silver and gold" of things (i.e., their images) which do not have a spirit of life. But things (i.e., their cattle), which do have a spirit of life, if they are permitted (for the altar), how much more so should their ornaments be permitted! It is, therefore, written "from the cattle" — to exclude ne'evad.

9) — (No, it may be argued that) partners may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift because they can bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift, as opposed to the congregation, which cannot bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift because it cannot bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift. — Why does the congregation not bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift? Because it does not bring it as a prescribed offering. Would you say that the congregation should not bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift, when it does bring it as a prescribed offering! Since it brings it as a prescribed offering, it should be able to bring it as a gift offering! — This is refuted by the instance of a meal-offering, which the congregation does bring as a prescribed offering, but not as a gift offering!

10) Why need it be written below (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle"? ("If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle, etc.") To exclude treifah (a "torn," ritually unfit animal). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? If a blemished animal, which is permitted for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), is pasul for the altar, treifah, which is forbidden for mundane purposes, how much more so should it be pasul for the altar! — This is refuted by cheilev (forbidden fats) and blood, which are forbidden for mundane purposes, yet kasher for the altar! — No (i.e., this is no refutation of the kal vachomer, for) forbidden fats and blood come from a thing (i.e., an animal) which is permitted (for mundane purposes), unlike treifah, which is entirely forbidden (for such purposes)! — This is refuted by melikah ("pinching" a bird's neck [as opposed to shechitah]), which is entirely forbidden (for mundane purposes), yet kasher for the altar! — No, (this is no refutation, for) the very thing that makes it kadosh (holy, for an offering), i.e., melikah, renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), whereas with treifah, it is not the thing that makes it kadosh which renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), and since this is so, it should be pasul for the altar! (Why, then, do we need an exclusion clause for treifah?) — Now that this refutation has been countered (at its origin, [viz., R. Akiva 8) above], so that the kal vachomer stands), what is the thrust of "from" (but not all) the cattle"? To exclude treifah.

10) Likewise, you should not wonder if a beast burnt-offering, though the congregation does bring it as a prescribed offering, could not be brought by them as a gift offering; it is, therefore, written "your (plural), offerings," to teach us that it may be brought as a communal gift offering.

8) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart): (Vayikra 7:20): "And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people." Now were peace-offerings not in the category of all sacrifices? viz. (Vayikra 7:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the offering of investiture (miluim), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings," and (Vayikra 22:3): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things that the children of Israel make holy unto the L–rd, with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off from before Me." (Why, then, do peace-offerings "depart" from the category for special, additional, mention?) When they depart from the category to teach, it is not to teach about themselves, but about the entire category, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that their sanctity is altar sanctity (i.e., bodily sanctity), so, all whose sanctity is altar sanctity (are included in the interdict) — to exclude those things dedicated to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance, where the sanctity is not body-related but value-related).

11) (Vayikra 1:2): "from the sheep" — to exclude muktzeh (an animal designated for idolatry); "and from the sheep" — to exclude noge'ach (an animal which gored a man to death). If rovea is excluded, why need noge'ach be (separately) excluded? And if noge'ach is excluded, why need rovea be excluded? For there is that in rovea (prompting exclusion) which is lacking in noge'ach, and there is that in noge'ach which is lacking in rovea, viz.: With rovea, forcing (the animal to be rovea) was equated with volition (i.e., in both instances, the animal must be killed); with noge'ach, forcing was not equated with volition (i.e., only in the latter instance is the animal killed). (The owners of) noge'ach pay kofer (indemnity) after (the animal has been put to) death; rovea (in an instance where the woman dies as a result) does not pay indemnity after death. There is that in rovea which is lacking in ne'evad, and that in ne'evad which is lacking in rovea. Rovea, whether one's own animal or another's is forbidden (for the altar); ne'evad — one's own (animal that he made an object of idolatry) is forbidden; another's (animal that he made an object of idolatry) is permitted (for the altar, one not voiding what is not his). Rovea — its ornaments are permitted; ne'evad — its ornaments are forbidden. Therefore, Scripture must adduce all (of these exclusions).

11) Another formulation: "your (plural), offerings": From the "place" (i.e., beast burnt-offering) that the individual brings (a gift) — from there, the congregation brings (a gift). a

(Lev. 5:1:) AND IF A SOUL SINS IN THAT IT HEARS A VOICE SWEARING…, <IF HE DOES NOT SPEAK OUT, HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY>. This text is related (to Eccl. 5:1 [2]): DO NOT BE RASH WITH YOUR MOUTH, AND LET NOT YOUR HEART HASTEN TO BRING FORTH A WORD BEFORE GOD. These < words refer to> the children of Adam who vilify the name of the Holy One.⁵⁰Tanh., Lev. 1:7. Come and see. When the celestial beings were created, those below were created with half of the name, as stated (in Is. 26:4): FOR THROUGH YH,⁵¹YH is the first half of the divine name, which the Hebrew spells out where the translation reads THE LORD. THE LORD FORMED THE WORLDS.⁵²The midrash interprets tsur ‘olamim as FORMED THE WORLDS (i.e., this world and the world to come) rather than as the more usual EVERLASTING ROCK. For similar interpretations, see yHag. 2:1 (77c); Men. 29b; Gen. R. 12:10; M. Pss. 62:1; 114:3; cf. also M. Pss. 118:14. But why were they not created with all of it? So that none of them would repeat the full name of the Holy One. Woe to those creatures who vilify the name of the Holy One in vain. See what is written about offerings (in Lev. 1:2): WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD. It does not say "To the Lord, an offering," but AN OFFERING TO THE LORD;⁵³Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:6; Ned. 10ab; Sifra to Lev. 1:2, Wayyiqra, Parashah 2; Sifre, Deut.32:3 (306); Gen. R. 1:13. so the Children of Adam vilify the name of the Lord in vain. It is therefore stated (in Eccl. 5:1 [2]): DO NOT BE RASH WITH YOUR MOUTH…. [FOR GOD IS IN HEAVEN AND YOU ARE ON EARTH.] For who would say that God is not in Heaven and that the children of Adam are not on earth? However, Solomon has said: Every time that the weakest of the weak is from above, he defeats the warrior from below. Go and learn from Abimelech (in Jud. 9:53): BUT A CERTAIN WOMAN DROPPED AN UPPER MILLSTONE [ON ABIMELECH'S HEAD AND CRACKED HIS SKULL].⁵⁴Since the woman was above the warrior Abimelech in the tower of Thebez, her killing him is an example of a relatively weak person defeating a warrior from above. And how much the more so in the case of a warrior among warriors from above! See what is written about him (in Dan. 4:32 [35]): ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH ARE OF NO ACCOUNT, [AND HE DOES AS HE WISHES WITH THE HOST OF HEAVEN AND WITH THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH]. It is also written (in Ps. 47:3 [2]): FOR THE LORD MOST HIGH IS AWESOME, A GREAT KING OVER ALL THE EARTH. But the children of Adam are below. (Eccl. 5:1 [2]:) THEREFORE LET YOUR WORDS BE FEW. So what is there for you to do? To put your hand upon your mouth and upon your ear in order to neither speak nor hear. Ergo (in Lev. 5:1): IF A SOUL SINS.⁵⁵These words also appear in Lev. 5:21 [6:2].

So he acted justly during that exile in that he watched over it, and he still performed a great kindness for < Israel > with reference to that exile. How? In < the month of > Tebet they were scheduled to go into exile from Jerusalem, for so does < Scripture > say (in Ezek. 24:1–2): < THEN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME IN THE NINTH YEAR OF THE TENTH MONTH ON THE TENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, SAYING >: SON OF ADAM, WRITE DOWN THE NAME OF THE DAY, [THIS VERY DAY;] ON THIS VERY DAY THE KING OF BABYLON LAID SIEGE TO JERUSALEM. What did the Holy One do? He said: If they go forth now in the cold, they will die. What did he do for them? He waited for them and sent them into exile during the summer.⁶³This sentence follows the parallel in Tanh., Exod. 4:9. The Buber text, which reads: “He waited for them during the summer and sent them into exile,” makes little sense. This is what the prophet says (in Jer. 8:13): I WILL UTTERLY DESTROY THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "Destroy" ('SP) can only mean "exile," since it is stated (in Zeph. 1:2): I WILL REMOVE ('SP) ALL THINGS < FROM THE FACE THE EARTH >…. Now, the second < evil saying associated with the name of the Holy One > is (Ezek. 9:4:) AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM: PASS THROUGH THE MIDST OF THE CITY, THROUGH THE MIDST OF JERUSALEM AND MARK < THE LETTER > TAW⁶⁴The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. For various interpretations of its meaning, see the parallel version in Shab. 55a. ON THE FOREHEADS OF THOSE PEOPLE < WHO MOAN AND GROAN OVER ALL THE ABOMINATIONS >…. The Holy One said to Gabriel: Go and write an ink taw upon the foreheads of the righteous, so that the angels of destruction will have no dominion over them. Then upon the foreheads of the wicked write a blood taw so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them. < The > prosecution⁶⁵Gk.: kategoria, i.e., “accusation,” “charge.” Here the concept is hypostatized as a separate being. came in before the Holy One, [it said to him]: Sovereign of the World, how do the former differ from the latter? He said to it: The former are completely righteous, and the latter are completely wicked. It said to him: It was in their power to protest, but they did not protest. He said to it: It was revealed and known to me that, if they had protested, they would not have accepted their < protest >. It said to him: Sovereign of the World, how does the one group differ from the other. After all, it was in their power to demean themselves for the sanctification of your name and take beatings from Israel upon themselves, just as the prophets endured < them >. So look at how many woes Jeremiah suffered from Israel; also Isaiah, of whom it is written (in Is. 50:6): I GAVE MY BACK TO THE SMITERS…., and the rest of the prophets. Immediately (in Ezek. 9:6) he spoke again to the angels of destruction: [KILL OFF] OLD FOLK, YOUTH, MAIDENS, SMALL CHILDREN, AND WOMEN, < BUT DO NOT TOUCH ANYONE WHO BEARS THE TAV UPON HIMSELF >. This also was a kindness, in that the Holy One {interceded with} [mitigated] his wrath against Jerusalem, as stated (in Lam. 4:11): THE LORD HAS COMPLETED (KLH) HIS WRATH. For if he had not done so, all Israel would have received a verdict of destruction (KLYH). Ergo (in Ps. 5:5 [4]): AND EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU, because the Holy One does not cause his name to rest upon evil. So also in the case of Israel, he allotted them glory and did not mention them for evil. When he came to the offerings, he said to Moses (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD, < i.e. > OF YOU, and not the peoples of the world. However, when he came to mention leprosy spots, he said (in Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < … >. It does not say: "One of you," but WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. Ergo (in Ps. 5:5): AND EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU.

5 "And he sent messengers" (Numbers 22:5). The Holy One, blessed be He, made miracles for them; and the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "I redeem you and do miracles for you, but your rebel against Me. Come and see the seven salvations that I saved you - and you should have been obligated to praise Me seven times, corresponding to the seven salvations. And likewise it states (Judges 10:11-12), "But the Lord said to the Children of Israel, 'Is it not that from the Egyptians, from the Amorites, from the Ammonites, and from the Philistines. And the Sidonians, Amalek, and Maon, etc., when you cried out to Me, I saved you from them.'" Behold seven salvations. But you rebelled against Me with seven idolatries, as it is stated (Judges 10:6), "The Israelites again did what was offensive in the eyes of the Lord; they served the Baalim and the Ashtaroth [...]." And likewise does He rebuke them, "'My people, what wrong have I done you; what hardship have I caused you' (Micah 6:3) What burden have I given to you? Did I say to you, 'Bring me burnt-offerings from the animals in the mountains?' Three animals are in your possession (according to Deuteronomy 14:4): 'the bull, the sheep, and the goat.' And seven are not in your possession (according to Deuteronomy 14:5): 'The deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.' Did I burden you to bring a sacrifice in front of Me from the animals which are not in your possession? I only commanded you from the animals which are in your possession, as it is stated (in Leviticus 22:27), 'A bull or a sheep or a goat.' And likewise, 'from the animals; (and) from the cattle and from the sheep' (Leviticus 1:2). And when Sichon and Og came out to fight against you, did I not bring them down before you? 'What hardship did I cause you?' Did I say to you to bring a sacrifice to them? Did Balak son of Tsippor not see that I did all of the miracles for you, so he hired Bilaam against you? But I turned the curses into blessings.

(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).

(Devarim 32:3) "When I call out the name (shem) of the L-rd, ascribe greatness to our G-d.": We find, then, that Moses (in awe of the L-rd) did not mention the name of the L-rd (yod-keh-vav-keh) until after twenty-one words (from "Ha'azinu" until shem"). From whom did he learn to do this? From the ministering angels, who do not mention the name of the L-rd until after three "holies," viz. (Isaiah 6:3) "And one would call to the other and say 'Holy, holy, holy is the L-rd of hosts.'" Moses reasoned: It suffices that I place fewer than seven (words before the name of the L-rd) to be like [i.e., to emulate the awe of]) the ministering angels. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Moses, the wisest of the sages, the greatest of the great, did not mention the name of the L-rd until after twenty-one words, then one who mentions the name of the L-rd in vain, how great (is his sin)! R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Whence is it derived that one should not say "to the L-rd a burnt-offering," "to the L-rd a meal-offering," "to the L-rd peace-offerings," but "a burnt-offering to the L-rd," "a meal-offering to the L-rd," "peace-offerings to the L-rd"? From (Vayikra 1:2) "an offering to the L-rd" (rather than "to the L-rd an offering.") Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If (in respect to) these (offerings) which are consecrated to Heaven, the L-rd says: Let My name not be ascribed to them until they have been consecrated, then one who mentions the name of the L-rd in vain, and in an inappropriate place, how great (is his sin)!