Midrash sobre Números 18:34

“And Hashem said to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, ‘I hear that the the word was to Aaron and to Moses. When it says, ‘It happens on the day Hashem spoke to Moses (in the land of Egypt)’ (Exodus 6) - it was to Moses and not to Aaron. If so why does it teach, ’to Moses and to Aaron'? Except it teaches that just as that Moses was crowned for leadership, thus also Aaron was crowned for leadership. For what reason did he not speak with him? Because of his respect for Moses. Aaron is found excluded from all of the leadership that is in the Torah except from three places, from which it is possible.

“And Hashem said to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, ‘I hear that the the word was to Aaron and to Moses. When it says, ‘It happens on the day Hashem spoke to Moses (in the land of Egypt)’ (Exodus 6) - it was to Moses and not to Aaron. If so why does it teach, ’to Moses and to Aaron'? Except it teaches that just as that Moses was crowned for leadership, thus also Aaron was crowned for leadership. For what reason did he not speak with him? Because of his respect for Moses. Aaron is found excluded from all of the leadership that is in the Torah except from three places, from which it is possible.

(Exodus 12:1) "in the land of Egypt":(He spoke to them) outside the city. __ But perhaps in the city itself? (This cannot be, for it is written (Exodus 9:29) "When I leave the city" (I shall pray). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If prayer (that of Moses to the L rd) — the lesser — was only outside the city, then speech (that of the L rd to Moses) — the greater — how much more so (was it not spoken in the city)! And why did He not speak with him in the city? For it was full of abominations (of idolatry)! And before the land of Israel was chosen, all of the lands were kasher for speech. Once it was chosen, all other lands were excluded. Before Jerusalem was chosen all of Eretz Yisrael was kasher for altars. Once it was chosen, the rest of Eretz Yisrael was excluded. As it is written (Devarim 12: 13-14) "Take heed unto yourself lest you offer your burnt-offerings … but in the place that the L rd shall choose." Before the Temple was chosen, all of Jerusalem was fit for (the reposing of)) the Shechinah. Once the Temple was chosen, (the rest of) Jerusalem was excluded. As it is written (Psalms 132:13-14) "For the L rd has chosen Zion … This is My resting place forever." Before Aaron was chosen, all of Israel were kasher for the priesthood. Once he was chosen, the rest of Israel were excluded. As it is written (Numbers 18:19) "An everlasting covenant of salt is it (the priesthood) before the L rd for you (Aaron) and for your sons," and (Numbers 25:13) "And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood." Before David was chosen (as king) every Israelite was kasher for kingship. Once David had been chosen, the other Israelites (i.e., those not in his line) were excluded. As it is written (II Chronicles 13:5) "Is it not for you to know that the L rd, the G d of Israel, has given over the kingdom to David, to him and to his sons?" If you would contend: But the L rd did speak with the prophets outside the land, (I would answer:) Though He spoke with them outside the land, He did so only in the merit of the fathers. As it is written (Jeremiah 31:15-17) "Thus said the L rd: A voice is heard in Ramah … Thus said the L rd: Keep your voice from weeping, and all your eyes from tears … And there is hope for your future, says the L rd, etc." And even though He spoke with them outside the land in the merit of the fathers, He did so only in a clean place, one of water. As it is written (Daniel 10:4) "And I was by the stream Ulai," (Ibid. 10:4) "and I was by the great river, the Tigris," (Ezekiel 1:3) "The word of the L rd came to Ezekiel … by the river Kevar." Some say: He spoke with him in the land, (and then) He spoke with him outside the land, it being written (literally) "the word of the L rd was, was." (The first) "was" — in the land; (the second,) outside the land. R. Elazar b. Tzaddok says: It is written (Ibid. 3:22) "Arise, go out to the plain" — whence it is derived that the plain is kasher (for prophecy). Know that the Shechinah is not revealed outside the land. For it is written (Jonah 1:3) "And Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish, etc." Now can one flee from the L rd? Is it not written (Psalms 139:7-10) "Where can I flee from Your presence … If I ascend to heaven, You are there, etc. If I take wing with the dawn, there, too, Your hand will lead me," (Zechariah 4:10) "the eyes of the L rd range the entire land," (Mishlei 15:3) "The eyes of the L rd see the bad and the good," (Amos 9:2) "though they dig into Sheol, though they hide in the top of the Carmel, though they go into captivity (Job 34:22) "There is no darkness nor shadow of death, etc." Rather, Jonah's intent was: I will go outside the land, where the Shechinah does not repose and reveal itself. For the gentiles are close to repentance — so that they not make Israel (who do not repent) liable (by invidious contrast). An analogy: The bondsman of a Cohein flees from his master, saying: I will go to the cemetery, a place where my master cannot come after me. His master: I have (messengers) like you. Thus, Jonah said: I will go outside the land, a place where the Shechinah is not revealed. For the gentiles are close to repentance, (this, so as not to render Israel liable by invidious contrast.) The Holy One responds: I have many messengers like you, viz. (Jonah 1:4) "Then the L rd cast a great wind on the sea, etc." We find there to have been three (kinds of) prophets. One claimed the honor of the Father and the father of the son; another, the honor of the Father, but not the honor of the son; another, the honor of the son, but not the honor of the Father. Jeremiah claimed the honor of the Father and the honor of the son, viz. (Eichah 3:42) "We have offended and rebelled" (the honor of the Father); "You have not forgiven" (the honor of the son). Therefore, his prophecy was "doubled," (Jeremiah 36:33) "… and many other words were added to them" (the prophecies of Jeremiah). Eliyahu claimed the honor of the Father, but not the honor of the son, viz. (I Kings 19:10) "I have been very jealous for the L rd, the G d of hosts, etc." And what is stated in this regard? (Ibid. 15-16) "And the L rd said to him: Go, return on your way to the desert of Damascus … And Yehu the son of Nimshi shall you anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shafat … shall you anoint to be a prophet in your place." What is the intent of this? He does not desire your prophecy (because you do not claim the honor of Israel). Jonah claimed the honor of the son, but not the honor of the Father. What is stated in that regard? (Jonah 1:3) "And the word of the L rd came to Jonah a second time, saying." What is the intent of this? We will speak with him a second time, but not a third, (for he did not claim the honor of the L rd). R. Yochanan said: Jonah went (on that voyage) only to cast himself into the sea, as it is written (Jonah 1:12) "And he said to them: Lift me up and cast me into the sea." All this do you find with Moses and the (other) prophets, that they gave their lives for Israel. What is written of Moses? (Exodus 32:32) "And now, if You forgive their sin — and if not, blot me out of Your book which You have written." (Numbers 11:15) "If thus You do with me, kill me if I have found favor in Your eyes and let me not look upon my evil" (i.e., the destruction of Israel). What is written of David? (II Samuel 24:17) "Behold, I have sinned and I have been corrupt. But these sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand be in me and in the house of my father." In all places you find that Moses and the (other) prophets gave their lives for Israel.

1) (Vayikra 7:14) ("And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering (terumah) to the L–rd. To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be.") "And he shall offer of it": of the conjoined loaves. "one": he must not take a broken one. "of each offering": All the offerings must be equal. (He may not take a greater portion of one on behalf of the other), and he may not take from one offering for the other. "terumah to the L–rd": I would not know from how many (challoth he takes one); it is, therefore, written here "terumoth," and, in respect to terumath ma'aser (Numbers 18:29) "terumah." Just as there, one of ten; here, too, one of ten.

1) (Vayikra 7:14) ("And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering (terumah) to the L–rd. To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be.") "And he shall offer of it": of the conjoined loaves. "one": he must not take a broken one. "of each offering": All the offerings must be equal. (He may not take a greater portion of one on behalf of the other), and he may not take from one offering for the other. "terumah to the L–rd": I would not know from how many (challoth he takes one); it is, therefore, written here "terumoth," and, in respect to terumath ma'aser (Numbers 18:29) "terumah." Just as there, one of ten; here, too, one of ten.

1) (Vayikra 17:2) ("Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel and say to them: This is the thing that the L–rd has commanded, saying:") This teaches us that the children of Israel are commanded not to slaughter and bring an offering outside (the Temple court), but not gentiles. And, what is more, a gentile is permitted to build a bamah (a temporary altar) in all places and to offer sacrifices to Heaven. If (it were written only) "the children of Israel," I would know (that this applies) only to the children of Israel. Whence do I derive (that it applies also) to proselytes and bondsmen? From "and say to them." I might thing that (only) Israelites, who are commanded against offering sacrifices within (viz. Bamidbar 18:4), are commanded against slaughtering outside; but Aaron and his sons, who are not commanded against offering sacrifices within, are not commanded against slaughtering outside. It is, therefore, written ("Speak to) Aaron and to his sons." Whence is it derived that the heads of tribes are included here? It is written here "This is the thing," and elsewhere (Bamidbar 30:1, in connection with vows,) "This is the thing." Just as there, the heads of tribes (are specified), here, too, the heads of tribes (are intended). And just as here, Aaron and his sons and the children of Israel (are specified), so, there, Aaron and his sons and the children of Israel (are intended — See Nedarim 78b).

"Let not the rich person glorify themselves with their wealth (Yirm 9:22)." This [refers to] Korach the Levite, who had three hundred mules just to carry the load of the keys to his hidden storehouses. His wealth was so much the more so, wondrous and vast. Where did he get all this money? From the money that Yosef the Righteous had collected in Egypt [in return for distributing the stored grain during the seven years of famine], which had filled three towers. Each tower was a hundred amot [about 180 feet] deep, a hundred amot wide, and one hundred amot inside. Yosef gave them all to the house of Pharaoh, and did not give his children even five silver [coins]. For what reason? Because he proceeded faithfully, as it says (Ber 47:14), "Yosef brought the silver into Pharaoh's house." When Korach found one of these towers, he became proud of his wealth. Another one was found by Antoninus, and the third is hidden for the World to Come. What was the origin of Korach's dispute with Moshe and with Aharon? It was for the sake of a particular widow who had a single ewe. When she came to shear it [for the first time], Aharon heard and took the wool. She went to Korach and cried out and wept, telling him, "This and this has Aharon done to me." Korach came by Aharon and said to him, "What is it with you and this widow, that poor woman? Return to her her wool!" Aharon said to him, "It is mine according to the Torah, for as it says, 'the premier-part of the shearing of your sheep you are to give him' (Dev 18:4)." What did Korach do? He took four silver [coins] and gave [them] to her. She went off, and Korach went full of anger. The days [passed] and the ewe gave birth to a [first-born] male. Aharon heard and took the lamb. She went before Korach, crying out and weeping. Korach said to Aharon, "What is it with you and the poor woman, this widow?" He said to him, "It is mine according to the Torah, for as it says, 'every firstling that is born in your flock and in your herd, the male-one, you are to hallow to ha-Shem your God' (Dev 15:19)." Korach went on his way, full of anger. When the widow saw this, she went and slaughtered the ewe. Aharon heard, and came and took the shankbone, the jawbone, and the rough-stomach. Korach said to him, "What is it with you and this widow?" He said to him, "They are mine according to the Torah, for as it says, 'the priest is to be given the shankbone, the jawbone, and the rough-stomach' (Dev 18:3)." And Korach went, full of anger. When the widow saw this, she stood and made an oath, saying the meat of this ewe is set-aside for me. Aharon heard and took all the meat, as it says, 'everything specially-devoted in Israel -- it is for you' (Bam 18:14, Parshat Korach)." He [Korach] said to him [Moshe], "Why should you, son of Amram, establish authority over us?" [not in ed. Jellinek: 'Should you pluck out the eyes of these men, we will not come up.' They said this verse specifically against Moshe and Aharon.] Moshe said to him, "To the morrow, judgement." In the morning, Korach had gathered to him 250 men (and alongside Moshe and Aharon, all the prophets), these with their fire pans, these offering sacrifices and these burning incense. Immediately Moshe Rabbeinu stood in prayer before ha-Shem and said, "Multiplier of Universes, is this prophecy you have sent us true?" Ha-Shem replied to him, "It is true. And you will see what I will do to Korach." This is why he was named Korach -- for in his days, 'a void was created in Israel' (Sanhedrin 109b). Moshe said further before the Holy One of Blessing, "If these die as all people do, if their lot be the common fate of all humanity, ha-Shem did not send me (Bam 16:29)." The Holy One of Blessing said to Moshe, "You have rejected a major principle of faith" (Passover Haggadah, Maggid, Four Children; and Yer. Sanhedrin 10:1, 50a). Moshe said before the Holy One of Blessing, "Multiplier of Universes, 'if ha-Shem creates a new creation...' (Bam 16:30). The Holy One of Blessing said to him, "I will do according to your will." Immediately the Holy One of Blessing hinted to the ground and it swallowed them [Korach and his followers] up to their navels. Korach and all his household cried out and said, "Moshe! Moshe! Have mercy on us!" Moshe said to them, "'Too much is yours, Sons of Levi!' (Bam 16:7)." Immediately they were swallowed up [by the earth], and the rest were burned up [by fire], as it says, 'so they went down, they and all theirs, alive, into Sheol; the earth covered them (Bam 16:33).' And it is written, 'fire went out from before the presence of ha-Shem and consumed the fifty and two hundred men, those who had brought-near the incense.' Those that descended below the earth remained there. And they reasoned that they would never rise up [again]. Until Hannah came and prophesied for them, as it [the song of Hannah] says, 'ha-Shem brings death and gives life, lowers to Sheol and raises up' (Shmuel I 2:6). But with all this, they didn't believe that they would rise again, until the Beit ha-Mikdash was destroyed and the gates of the Beit ha-Mikdash were swallowed up, as it says, 'her gates have sunk into the ground' (Eichah 2:9). They [the gates] came by Korach and he grabbed hold of them. Immediately they believed and said, "When these gates rise up, so too will we rise up with them." And they were appointed the guardians [or, those who carried out the observances] over those gates until they rise up. Thus was Korach and his wealth obliterated from among the community. Therefore it says, 'Do not praise the wealthy for their wealth,' for all wealth belongs to the Holy One of Blessing. As it says, 'Mine is the silver and mine is the gold -- the word of ha-Shem, Master of Legions' (Hag 2:8). [ed. Jellinek: And it says, 'One who pursues righteousness and kindness will find life, righteousness, and honor' (Mish 21:21).]  

2) "and he shall slaughter": This teaches us that shechitah is kasher with zarim (non-Cohanim), women, bondsmen, and the unclean, even with higher-order offerings, so long as the unclean do not touch the flesh. Or, perhaps only a Cohein may perform shechitah! — Now, "where are you coming from?" (i.e., What is your source?) From (Bamidbar 18:7): "And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood for all that pertains to the altar." I might think that this includes shechitah. But (Vayikra 1:5): "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present the blood, and they shall dash the blood, etc." indicates that from this point on (i.e., receiving the blood) is the mitzvah of the priesthood; but shechitah is kasher with all persons.

Another [explanation]: "Bring close the tribe of Levi, etc." - this is [the meaning of] what is written (Psalms 65:5), "Happy is the one whom You have chosen and You have brought close": Happy is the one whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen, even though he has not brought him close. And happy is the man that He has brought close, even though He has not chosen him. And who is the one whom He has chosen? That is Avraham, as it is stated (Nehemiah 9:7), "You are He, Lord God, Who chose Avram." But He did not bring him close, but rather he brought himself close. The Holy One, blessed be He, chose Yaakov, as it is stated (Psalms 135:4), "For Yaakov did the Lord choose." And so [too] it says (Isaiah 41:8), "Yaakov whom You have chosen." But He did not bring him close, but rather he brought himself close, as it is stated (Genesis 25:27), "Yaakov was a simple man that sat in tents." He chose Moshe, as it is stated (Psalms 106:23), "were it not for Moshe, His chosen"; but He did not bring him close. Happy are those that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose, even though He did not bring them close. Come and see - the Holy One, blessed be He, brought Yitro close, but He did not choose him. He brought Rachav the prostitute close but He did not choose her. Happy are these that whom He brought close, even though He did not choose them. A [Roman] matron asked Rabbi Yose, "[Does] your God bring close whomever He wants (arbitrarily)?" [So] he brought a basket of figs in front of her and she would choose a nice one, she would choose it and eat it. He said to her, "You know how to choose, [does] the Holy One, blessed be He not know how to choose? The one whom He sees has good deeds, He chooses him and brings him close." Rabbi Nechemiah [said] in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitschak, "Not all who are close are close, and not all who are distant are distant. There is one who is chosen and pushed off and brought close, [and] there is one who is chosen and pushed off and not brought close. Aharon was chosen - (I Samuel 2:28) 'And I chose him from all the tribes of Israel for Me as a priest.' And he was pushed off - (Deuteronomy 9:20) 'And with Aharon did the Lord get angry.' And it is written [after the event that the last verse cited was referring to] (Exodus 28:1), 'And you should bring close to you Aharon your brother.' Shaul was chosen - (I Samuel 10:24) 'Have you seen the one that the Lord chose?' And he was pushed off - (ibid., 15:11) 'I have regretted that I have crowned Shaul, etc.' And he was not brought close [again] - (ibid., 16:1) 'And I have been disgusted with him from ruling over Israel.' David was chosen - (Psalms 78:70) 'And He chose David, His servant.' And he was pushed off - (II Samuel 15:16-17) 'And the king went out, and all of household on his heels,... and they stood in Beit Merchak.'" Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "They excommunicated him. Nonetheless, he accepted his excommunication. This is [the meaning] of that which is written, (II Samuel 15:30) 'and David went up to the Ascent of Olives, he went up and cried, and his head was covered.'" "And he was brought close [again]." Rabbi Yudan said, "Eira Hayairi, the teacher of David, brought him close. This is what David says (Psalms 119:79), 'Let those that fear You (yeirecha) return to me, and they that know Your testimonies' - ['they that know'] is written as 'he that knows,' [meaning that] Eira Hayairi was his teacher and brought [David] close." Rabbi Yehoshua of Sakhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi, "There are six that were chosen: the priesthood; the order of Levi; Israel; the monarchy of the house of David; Jerusalem; [and] the Temple. From where [do we know this about] the priesthood? Since it is written (I Samuel 2:28), 'And I chose him from all the tribes of Israel for Me as a priest.' From where [do we know this about] the order of Levi? As it is stated (Deuteronomy 18:5), 'As he was chosen by the Lord, your God.' From where [do we know this about]Israel? As it is stated (Ibid., 7:6), 'the Lord, your God, chose you.' From where [do we know this about] the monarchy of the house of David? As it is stated (Psalms 78:70), 'And He chose David, His servant.' From where [do we know this about] Jerusalem? As it is stated (I Kings 11:32), 'the city that you chose.' From where [do we know this about] the Temple? As it stated (II Chronicles 7:16), 'I have chosen and sanctified this house.'" David [meant to say in Psalms 65:5], "Happy is the one whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen, and happy is the one that He has brought close. And who is the one who is doubly happy? The one that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose and brought close." And who is that? That is Aharon and [the tribe of] Levi. From where [do we know this about] Aharon? Since it is written (I Samuel 2:28), "And I chose him from all the tribes of Israel for Me as a priest." And from where [do we know] that He brought him close? As it is stated (Exodus 28:1), "And you should bring close to you Aharon your brother." The Holy One, blessed be He chose Levi, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 18:5), "As he was chosen by the Lord, your God." And from where [do we know] that He brought him close? As it is stated [here], "Bring close the tribe of Levi, and stand [it up]." And about them the verse (Psalms 65:5) says, "Happy is the one whom You have chosen and You have brought close, who dwells in your courtyards"; as you say (Numbers 3:7), "And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation, etc." [The continuation of Psalms 65:5 is:] "let us be satiated from the good of Your house" - that thy would eat from the tithes that were brought to the [Temple], as you would say (Numbers 18:21), "To the house of Levi, behold, I have given all tithe in Israel for an inheritance, etc."

4) (Vayikra 27:33) ("He shall not discriminate between good and bad, and he shall not substitute for it; and if he did substitute for it, then it and its substitute shall be holy. It shall not be redeemed.") Because it is written (Devarim 12:11) "and all the choicest of your vows," I might think that he should "spy out" (his flock) and pick out the choicest (for ma'aser); it is, therefore, written "he shall not discriminate between good and bad." "and he shall not substitute for it": If he did, he receives forty lashes. "if substitute he shall substitute": to include his wife. "and if substitute he shall substitute": to include his heir. "then it and its substitute shall be holy. It shall not be redeemed": About a bechor it is written (Bamidbar 18:17) "you shall not redeem," (but) it is sold, when whole, alive. And when blemished, (it is sold) alive or slaughtered; but (it is) not (sold) slaughtered when whole. And about ma'aser it is written (here) "It shall not be redeemed." And it is not to be sold neither alive nor slaughtered; nor whole nor blemished.

Why did the Shekhinah appear in the land of Egypt? To teach us that prior to the selection of the land of Israel, all lands merited the revelation of the Holy One, blessed be He, but that after the land of Israel was selected, all other lands were disqualified. Similarly, before Jerusalem was chosen, the entire territory of Israel merited the revelation of the Divine Word, but after Jerusalem was selected, the Divine Word forsook the remainder of the land. Likewise, before the Temple was designated, the city of Jerusalem was considered suitable for the words of the Shekhinah, but after the establishment of the Temple, it removed itself from the rest of Jerusalem, as it is written: For the Lord hath chosen Zion, He hath desired it for His habitation (Ps. 132:13). And it says also: That is My resting place forever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it (ibid., v. 14). Prior to the selection of Aaron, every Israelite merited priesthood, as it is said: It is an everlasting covenant of salt (Num. 18:19), but after he was selected the other Israelites were deemed unfit for priesthood, as it is said: And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood (ibid. 25:13). Before David was chosen, all Israelites were eligible for kingship, but after the selection of David, all Israelites lost the right of kingship, as it is said: Ye have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord, the God of Israel (Ezra 4:3).

Another interpretation (of Ps. 33:18): BEHOLD, THE EYE OF THE LORD < IS ON THOSE WHO FEAR HIM >. This < refers to > the tribe of Levi, of whom it is stated (in Mal. 2:5): AND I GAVE THEM (i.e., life and peace) TO HIM²¹Buber’s reading, TO ME, is surely in error. (i.e., Levi) AS WELL AS FEAR, [AND HE FEARED ME]. (Ps. 33:18, cont.:) ON THOSE WHO WAIT, since they were always waiting for the Holy One. (Ps. 33:19:) TO DELIVER THEIR SOUL FROM DEATH, when they enter < the Sanctuary > to offer sacrifice. (Ps. 33:19, cont.:) TO KEEP THEM ALIVE IN THE FAMINE, since he has given them a tithe, as stated (in Numb. 18:26): NOW < YOU SHALL SPEAK > UNTO THE LEVITES < AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE TITHES FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL >.

5) It was said in the name of R. Yishmael: It is written (Bamidbar 18:17): But the bechor (the first-born) of an ox, or the bechor of a sheep, or the bechor of a goat, you shall not redeem. They are consecrated. Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar and their fat shall you smoke.": This teaches us that a bechor requires blood and fats upon the altar. Whence do we derive the same for ma'aser and pesach? From (Devarim 12:27): "And the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of your G d (first), and (then) the flesh shall you eat." This tells me only of their blood. Whence do I derive (the same for) their fat? From (Vayikra 3:16): "all the fat for the L–rd."

(Bamidbar 5:10) "And every man, his holy things, to him shall they be": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18:19) "All the terumoth of the holy things which the children of Israel will separate for the L-rd have I given to you (Aaron) and to your sons, etc.", I might think that he (a Cohein) could forcibly seize them (the priestly gifts). It is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him shall they be" — He has the option of giving them to any Cohein he wishes. "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": If one measured out (terumah) for them (certain Cohanim) on the ground and others (later) joined them, I might think that I pronounce over him "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, (in this instance the Cohein for whom he measured it out), to him (that Cohein) shall it be"; it is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be" (i.e., he retains the option of giving it to those who came later). I might then think that if he measured it out (for him) in a basket and others joined later, I still pronounce over him "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be" (and he can give it to the later ones); it is, therefore, (for such a circumstance) written "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, (in this instance, the first Cohein), to him (that Cohein) shall it be." R. Yossi says if one redeemed his (first-born) son within thirty days, and he (the son) died, I might think that I pronounce over him (the father) "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein to him (the Cohein) shall it be"; it is, therefore, written "And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be." (If he died) after thirty days, the money is not taken back from the Cohein, it being pronounced over the father "Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it be."

6) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.")

7) (Vayikra 27:24) "In the Yovel year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought": I might think, to the Temple treasurer, from whom it was bought (by the last purchaser); it is, therefore, written "to the one who has the holding in the land (i.e., the original owner). (In that case let it be written [only] "to the one who has the holding in the land." Why state "to the one from whom it was bought'? (For I might think that) a field which went out to the Cohanim on the Yovel and was sold by the Cohein (who acquired it), and was consecrated by the buyer — I might think that when the second Yovel arrived, it reverted to the original owner (whose field of holding it was before he consecrated it); it is, therefore, written "to the one from whom it was bought" (namely, the Cohein who sold it, [as opposed to the original owner, who consecrated it]). (Vayikra 27:25) ("And all of your valuations (concerning which it is written "shekalim") shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary; twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") "And all of your shekels shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary": There is no valuation less than a sela (the same as a shekel). "according to the shekel of the sanctuary": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:27) "and he shall redeem," I might think, with servants, deeds, and land; it is, therefore written "with the shekel of the sanctuary." This tells me only of the shekel of selaim of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive for inclusion anything that is (of monetary value and is) movable? From "and he shall redeem." If so, why is it written "with the shekel of the sanctuary"? To exclude servants, deeds, and land.

8) And whence is it derived that they (the two loaves) precede the (bringing of) the first-fruits (bikkurim)? From (Shemoth 34:22): ("And the festival of Shavuoth shall you make for yourself,) the first of the wheat harvest" (i.e., What you make on Shavuoth [the two loaves] should precede [all that comes of] the wheat harvest.) This tells me (that it precedes only bikkurim) of wheat. Whence do I derive (that it precedes also bikkurim) of barley? From (Shemoth 23:16): "which you sow" (implying all that you sow.) This tells me only of what is sown. Whence do I derive (that the two loaves precede) what grows of itself (from seeds scattered by the wind)? From (Shemoth 23:16): "in the field" (implying all that grows in the field.) This tells me only of what grows in the field. Whence do I derive the same for (fruits planted on) a roof, in a yard, or in a ruin? From (Bamidbar 18:13): (The two loaves shall be) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land." And whence is it derived that they precede the (bikkurim of) libations and the fruits of the tree? From (Bamidbar 23:16): (The two loaves shall be) "the first fruits of your labor," and (Bamidbar 23:16): "when you gather your labor from the field." (Grapes for libations and fruits are subsumed in "gathered.")

8) "twenty gerah shall the shekel be": Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the value of the shekel), he may do so? From "shall be" (connoting the possibility of a change). I might then think that if he wishes to decrease (the value) he may do so. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 20:6) "It is (twenty gerah"), (i.e., at least twenty gerah).

(Fol. 86) Our Rabbis were taught: "Heave-offering must be given to the priest, first tithe to the Levite," so says R. Akiba. R. Elazar b. Azaria, however, says: (Ib. b) "Even the first tithes must be given to the priest." Does he mean to the priest only and not to the Levite? Say, "Also to the priest." What is the reason for R. Akiba's statement? It is written (Num. 18, 26) And to the Levites shalt thou speaks, and say unto them. Hence the passage speaks concerning Levites. But the other authority explains the passage as R. Joshua b. Levi did. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: "In twenty-four places, priests are called Levites, and the following is one of them. (Ez. 44, 15) But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadak," etc. There was a garden of which R. Elazar b. Azaria was getting the first tithes, whereupon R. Akiba went there and removed its entrance toward a cemetery. R. Elazar then remarked: "It is all right with Akiba, who has his [shepherd] bag wherein he keeps his maintenance (i.e., has a rich father-in-law); but how can I live through it?" It was taught: Why were the Levites punished with the tithes? R. Jochanan and one of the seniors of the academy differ. One said because they did not go up to the land of Israel in the time of Ezra, and the other said because the Priests should have to rely upon [cheap food,] during their uncleanliness. And when do we infer that they did not go to the land of Israel in the time of Ezra? It is written (Ez. 8, 15) And I gathered them together to the river that turneth unto the Ahava, and we encamped there three days; and I looked about among the people, and the priests, but of the sons of Levi I found none there. R. Chisda said: "In the beginning the executive officers were appointed only from the Levites, as it is said (II. Chr. 19, 11) And the Levites are officers before you; but nowadays such executive officers are appointed only from Israel, as it is said, And the numerous officers that are at your heads.

And God remembered Rachel. Prior to this verse, it is written: And Leah conceived again, and bore a son; and she said: “This time will I praise the Lord” (Gen. 29:35). Why did she not say I will praise the Lord after the births of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and all the others, but only after the birth of Judah? This may be compared to a priest who goes to a man’s barn to collect the tithe⁸A tenth of a man’s possessions appropriated as a tax or sacrifice. The Mosaic law (Num. 18:21–26) made the tithe obligatory. and the priestly portion. When the owner of the barn hands the priest the priestly portion, he does not thank him, and when he gives him the tithe, he still does not thank him. But if, after he gives the priest what is due him, he adds a measure of unconsecrated food, the priest does thank him and recites a prayer in his behalf. A bystander asked the priest: “Why is it that when he gave you the tithe and the priestly portion, you did not thank him, but when he added only a single measure of unconsecrated food, you thanked him?” The priest replied: “The tithe and the priestly offering belong to me, and I merely accepted that which belonged to me, but the measure of unconsecrated food he added belonged to him, and so I thanked him for it.” Similarly Leah said: “Twelve tribes are to descend from Jacob, and since he has four wives, each of us is entitled to bear three sons. I have already given birth to three sons, my rightful share, but now a fourth son has been granted to me; surely it is fitting that I praise the Lord this time.” Therefore Rachel envied her sister (Gen. 30:1). The Holy One, blessed be He, declared: How long shall this righteous woman grieve? Is it not just that she too shall conceive? Should she not be at least equal to the handmaidens? Forthwith, And God remembered Rachel.

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

A firstborn human must be redeemed when thirty days old;¹³Firstborn boys are redeemed through the pidyon ha-ben ceremony at the end of thirty days. As indicated above, those born by Caesarean section are exempt. if it survives less than this it is considered a premature child and is exempt from this regulation. The firstborn beast must be redeemed on the eighth day; if it survives less than this it is considered a premature birth. In reference to a human, it is written: And their redemption money—from a month old shalt thou redeem them (Num. 18:16), while in regard to beasts, it is written: But from the eighth day and henceforth it may be accepted (Lev. 22:27). That is, after one is able to lead it to the Temple, since it is said: And thither you shall bring your burnt offerings (Deut. 12:6). In the case of the firstborn of your flock and herds, Scripture says: Thou shalt redeem. This implies that one may redeem the offering from the priest whenever (he wishes). (But if that is so)¹⁴Etz Joseph omits the parenthesized words. Why does the Scripture say: Thou shalt sanctify to the Lord? So that you receive a reward for so doing. But even if you should not sanctify it, it is consecrated, nevertheless, to the Lord, since as Scripture says: It is mine. Why then does Scripture decree Thou shalt sanctify it? In order that you may be rewarded for doing so (voluntarily).

GEMARA: Why such a punishment [to him who says that the resurrection is not intimated in the Torah]? It was taught in a Baraitha: He denied resurrection, therefore as punishment he will not have a share in it; for all retributions of the Holy One, praised be He! are commensurate with man's doings." And R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whence do we know that all the retributions of the Holy One, praised be He! are commensurate with man's doings?' It is said (II Kings 7, 1-2) Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus hath said the Lord, About this time tomorrow a s'ah of fine flour shall be sold for a shekel, and two s'ahs of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned, answered the man of God, and said, Behold, will the Lord make windows in heaven, that this thing shall be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but thereof shalt thou not eat. (Ib. b) And further it is written, And it happened unto him so; for the people trod him down in the gate and he died." But perhaps this was because Elisha cursed him? As R. Juda, in the name of Rab, said: "If a sage curses anyone, even for no cause, it nevertheless comes to pass?" If this were the cause, it should read: And the people trod on him and he died. Why "in the gate"? Because of [his protest which he made at] the gate. R. Jochanan said: "Where is the resurrection of the dead intimated in the Torah?" It is said (Num. 18, 28) And ye shall give thereof the heave-offering (T'rumah) of the Lord to Aaron the priest. Would then Aaron remain alive forever that Israel should give him heave-offerings? Infer from this that he will come to life again and Israel will give him heave-offerings. Hence here is an intimation in the Torah of the resurrection. The school of R. Ismael, however, explained the above passage in this manner: 'To Aaron,' means priests who are similar to him — viz., scholars as he was. And from this it is inferred that no T'rumah should be given to an ignorant priest. R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said: "Whence do we know that one must not give the heaveoffering to a priest who is an ignoramus? It is said (I Chron. 31, 4) To give the portion of the priests, and the Levites, in order that they might hold firmly to the law of the Lord. Hence the priest who knows how to hold firmly to the law has a portion, but not he who is ignorant of the law." R. Acha b. Ada said in the name of R. Juda: "Whoever gives T'rumah to an ignorant priest acts as if he threw it before a lion; just as in throwing it before a lion there is a doubt whether it shall be trodden upon and eaten or not, so is it doubtful whether the priest will eat it in Levitical cleanliness or uncleanliness." R. Jochanan said: "He may even cause death to the ignorant priest [by doing so] as it is said (Lev. 22, 9) That they may not bear sin through it, and die therefor, if they profane it." At the college of R. Eliezer b. Jacob it was taught that (Ib. ib. 16) also applies to him who gives heaveoffering to an ignoramus. There is a Baraitha: R. Simi said: "Whence is the Biblical intimation of the resurrection of the dead? It is said (Ex. 6, 4) And as I did also establish my covenant with them, to give unto them the land of Canaan." It does not read to you (lachem), but (lahem) to them — hence this is an intimation of the resurrection. The Sadducees questioned Rabban Gamaliel: "Whence do you infer that the Holy One, praised be He! would restore the dead to life?" And he answered: "From the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa." However, they did not accept it. From the Pentateuch, — it is written (Deut. 31, 16) And the Lord said unto Moses, Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers (v-kam) and arise. And they answered: "Perhaps the word v-kam is connected with its succeeding words, and the people will go astray." From the Prophets, — it is written (Is. 26, 19) Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for a dew on herbs is thy dew, and the earth shall cast out the departed. [They also rejected this explanation, saying] "Perhaps this refers to those dead who were revivified by Ezekiel (Ez. 36)." From the Hagiographa: — It is written, (Son. 7, 10) And thy palate like the best wine, that glided down for my friend, gently exciting the lips of those that are asleep. And they answered: "Perhaps only their lips moved [in the graves], as R. Jochanan said; for R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Simon b. Jehozadak: "Whoever reports a traditional law in the name of its author, [causes] his [the author's] lips to move in the grave, as it is said, Exciting the lips of those that are asleep." Thereafter, when Rabban Gamaliel mentioned to them (Deut. 11, 9) And the Lord hath sworn unto your fathers to give unto them, which does not read to you, but to them — hence it is an intimation for resurrection from the Torah — his explanation was accepted. According to others, he inferred from this passage (Deut. 4, 4) But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day, i.e., just as this day you are all alive, so also will you be alive in the world to come. The Romans questioned R. Joshua b. Chananiah: "Whence do you know that the Holy One, praised be He! will restore the dead to life and that it is revealed before Him all that will happen in the future?" And he answered: "Both things are inferred from the following passage (Deut. 31, 16) And the Lord said unto Moses, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers (v'kam) and arise." "Perhaps the word v'kam belongs to its succeeding words, And the people will go astray?" He rejoined: "Accept at least the explanation of the [half] of your question, that it is revealed before Him all that will happen in the future." The same was taught also by R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "Whence do we infer that the Holy One, praised be He! will restore the dead to life and that it is revealed before Him all that will happen in the future? It is said, Thou shalt sleep with thy parents and (v'kam) arise."

(Prov. 6:20:) MY CHILD, KEEP YOUR FATHER's {TORAH} [COMMANDMENTS], <AND DO NOT FORSAKE THE TORAH OF YOUR MOTHER>. Our earliest ancestors separated out terumot²⁹I.e., the priestly tithes on produce, sometimes called “heave offerings.” and tithes.³⁰Tanh., Deut. 4:14, cont.; PRK 10:6; see PR 25:3, cont. Abraham separated out a great terumah, as stated (in Gen. 14:22): <THEN ABRAM SAID UNTO THE KING OF SODOM:> I HAVE LIFTED UP MY HAND UNTO THE LORD, GOD MOST HIGH. A lifting up is nothing but a terumah (rt.: RWM), since it is stated (in Numb. 18:26): <NOW YOU SHALL SPEAK UNTO THE LEVITES AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN YOU RECEIVE TITHES FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, THE TITHE THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU AS YOUR PORTION,> YOU SHALL LIFT (rt.: RWM) OUT OF IT A TERUMAH OF THE LORD, <A TITHE FROM THE TITHE>. Isaac separated out a second tithe, as stated (in Gen. 26:12): SO ISAAC SOWED ON THAT LAND AND REAPED IN THAT YEAR A HUNDREDFOLD, <FOR THE LORD HAD BLESSED HIM>. R. Abba bar Kahana said: Is it not true that a blessing does not rest on what is measured, on what is weighed, or on what is counted? So why did he measure them? In order to tithe them. This is what is written (ibid.): FOR THE LORD HAD BLESSED HIM.³¹See Deut. 14:24, which mentions a blessing in the context of the second tithe; therefore, the blessing of Gen. 26:12 must have been the result of Isaac’s second tithe. Jacob separated out a first tithe, as stated (in Gen. 28:22): AND OF ALL THAT YOU GIVE ME, I WILL SURELY SET ASIDE A TITHE FOR YOU.

And thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the womb (ibid. 12). Set apart means to put aside, as in the matter of an inheritance. Then ye shall cause his inheritance to be set apart unto his daughter (Num. 27:8). Simeon the son of Azzai said: Why does Scripture mention Thou shalt set apart all that openeth the womb (Exod. 13:12)? Since it states elsewhere: Whatsoever passeth under the rod,¹⁸Word-play on haavarta (“set apart”) and yavaor (“passeth under”). the tenth shall be holy unto Me the Lord (Lev. 27:32). Does this say (I might deduce) that this includes an orphaned animal? Since the word set aside is used in the former verse, just as in the latter verse, one may not sanctify the priests’ share of the offering except during the life of its mother, so in this instance one may not sanctify the priests’ share except during the lifetime of its mother. If this is so, then just as the latter verse refers only to male animals, so the former verse applies only to male animals. Hence, when Scripture says Whatsoever passeth under the rod, it means (to include) male and female. All that openeth the womb indicates that a prematurely born offspring is exempted from the law of the firstborn. The one that is born after the premature offspring is also considered not to be the firstborn.

Which thou hast. This excludes the animals that are still in the embryonic state when sold to a gentile. Is the one who purchases an animal in the embryonic state obligated to consecrate it? Scripture answers this question with the verse All the firstling males that are born of thy flock and thy herd, those thou shalt sanctify unto the Lord (Deut. 15:19). (This tells us no.¹⁹The embryo was conceived before the sale was made.) The males shall be the Lord’s (Exod. 13:12). R. Yosé stated: You learn from this that if an ewe, which had not given birth previously, bears twin males, they both belong to the priest, since it is said: The males shall be the Lord’s. Every firstling of an ass, thou shalt redeem with a lamb (Exod. 13:12); but not with a calf or with a wild beast, or with a ritually slaughtered animal, or with hybrids, or with a koy.²⁰An antelope or bearded deer. The rabbis were in doubt as to whether it is considered a domesticated animal or a wild beast. The firstling of an ass you may redeem, but not with any other animal. What is meant by Thou shalt surely redeem? You may redeem the firstling of an ass with any impure animal only if it is to be sanctified for the purpose of the upkeep of the Temple.

All the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem is a general statement, and According to thy evaluation, five shekels of silver (Num. 18:16) is a particular statement. And nothing may be attributed to the general statement that is not included in the particular. But when another general statement follows the preceding verse, The firstborn of man shalt thou redeem (Num. 18:15), we have an instance of a general statement and a particular one followed by another general statement, which must be considered to include anything resembling that which is stated in the particular.²²The sixth of Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules. In this case the particular statement stipulates movable property that has no permanency, and so the general statement must refer to movable property that has no permanency. From this the sages concluded that the firstborn of man may be redeemed with anything except slaves, bonds, or land, for they have permanency. All the firstborn of man among thy sons (Exod. 13:13). If a man has five wives who were virgins, and they gave birth to five sons, must he redeem them all? Yes, for All that openeth the womb that is a male—thou shalt redeem. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The firstlings are the priest’s property and are not considered as a gift. Why did Scripture need to say: All the firstborn among thy sons thou shalt redeem? To point out that if a man’s father did not redeem him, he must redeem himself. From this you learn that a man is obligated to teach his son the Torah, but if the father does not instruct him, he must study by himself. This may be deduced logically from the subject of redemption.

All the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem is a general statement, and According to thy evaluation, five shekels of silver (Num. 18:16) is a particular statement. And nothing may be attributed to the general statement that is not included in the particular. But when another general statement follows the preceding verse, The firstborn of man shalt thou redeem (Num. 18:15), we have an instance of a general statement and a particular one followed by another general statement, which must be considered to include anything resembling that which is stated in the particular.²²The sixth of Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules. In this case the particular statement stipulates movable property that has no permanency, and so the general statement must refer to movable property that has no permanency. From this the sages concluded that the firstborn of man may be redeemed with anything except slaves, bonds, or land, for they have permanency. All the firstborn of man among thy sons (Exod. 13:13). If a man has five wives who were virgins, and they gave birth to five sons, must he redeem them all? Yes, for All that openeth the womb that is a male—thou shalt redeem. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The firstlings are the priest’s property and are not considered as a gift. Why did Scripture need to say: All the firstborn among thy sons thou shalt redeem? To point out that if a man’s father did not redeem him, he must redeem himself. From this you learn that a man is obligated to teach his son the Torah, but if the father does not instruct him, he must study by himself. This may be deduced logically from the subject of redemption.

(Exodus 13:13) "and every firstling of an ass shall you redeem with a lamb": And not with a calf, and not with an animal, and not with a slaughtered (beast) and not with a treifah, and not with a koi (a creature that is not clearly "beast" or "animal") and not with kilayim (a hybrid). (Ibid. 34:20) "And the firstling of an ass you shall redeem": What is the intent of this? From (Numbers 18:15) "but redeem shall you redeem the first-born of the man, and the first-born of the unclean beast," I might think that every unclean beast is understood. It is, therefore, written (Exodus 13:13) "and every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb." It is an ass that you redeem, and not the firstling of other unclean beasts. But still I would say: It is the firstling of an ass that you redeem with a lamb, and the firstling of other unclean beasts, with garments or vessels. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 34:20) "And the firstling of an ass, etc." It is the firstling of an ass that you redeem and you do not redeem the firstling of any other unclean beast. What, then, is the intent of (Numbers 18:15) "but redeem shall you redeem, etc."? If it cannot apply to redeeming an unclean beast, understand it as indicating that one may dedicate an unclean beast to the department for Temple maintenance and redeem it thence.

"and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck": From here they ruled: The mitzvah of redemption takes precedence to the mitzvah of breaking the neck. "if you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck": Since you have caused a loss to the Cohein, you, too, shall suffer a loss. And whence is it derived that benefit may not be derived from it? It is written here "breaking," and elsewhere (in respect to the heifer of the broken neck [Devarim 21:4]), "breaking." Just as there, no benefit may be derived (from the heifer), so, here, (in respect to the first-born of an ass). "among your sons shall you redeem": What is the intent of this? It is written (Numbers 18:16) "And redemption from one month" — general. "according to the monetary valuation, five shekalim" — particular. (In sum,) general-particular: (the rule is:) The general contains only what is (specifically) in the particular. And (Exodus 13:13) "Every human first-born among your sons shall you redeem" reverts to the general. __ But perhaps (instead of reversion to the general) it is added to the first generalization (i.e., "And his redemption from one month, etc.", where the rule is as indicated above)? Would you say that? Rather, (it is perceived as) general-particular-general, where the rule is: The general is of the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable, not mortgaged, and of monetary value in itself, so I will include all such property (as valid for redemption of one's son.) From here they ruled: All is valid for the redemption of a man's first-born, except for bondsmen, bills, land, and consecrated property.

Another explanation (of Deut. 14:22), “You shall tithe, tithe.” This is related to the verse (in Is. 24:5), “And the earth was distorted under its inhabitants, because they transgressed Torahs;¹⁷Torot. Such a literal translation is required by the midrash. In the biblical context the word denotes something more general, such as teachings. they violated a statute; [they broke an eternal covenant].” R. Isaac said, “You have already been false to it, and [so] it is distorted for you. It [may] show you standing grain, but it does not show you a shock of sheaves. It [may] show you [a shock of sheaves, but it does not show you a threshing floor]. It [may] show you a threshing floor, but it does not show you a winnowed heap. Why [not]? (Ibid.:) ‘Because they transgressed Torahs; they violated statutes,’ in that they did transgress two Torahs, the written Torah and the oral Torah; (ibid.) ‘they violated a statute,’ the statute of tithes; (ibid.) ‘they broke an eternal covenant,’ an ancestral covenant.” For that reason Moses warned Israel (in Deut. 14:22), “You shall surely tithe.” (Prov. 6:20:) “My child, keep your father's commandments, [and do not forsake the Torah of your mother].” R. Huna said, “Our earliest ancestors separated out terumot and tithes.” Abraham separated out the great terumah, as stated (in Gen. 14:22), “[Then Abram said unto the king of Sodom,] ‘I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, God most high.’” A lifting up is nothing but a terumah (rt.: rwm), as you say (in Numb. 18:26), “[Now you shall speak unto the Levites and say unto them, ‘When you receive tithes from the Children of Israel, the tithe that I have given you as your portion,] you shall lift (rt.: rwm) out of it a terumah of the Lord, [a tithe from the tithe].’” Isaac separated out the second tithe, as stated (in Gen. 26:12), “So Isaac sowed on that land and reaped in that year a hundredfold, [for the Lord had blessed him]”; R. Eiba bar Kahana said, “Is it not true that a blessing does not rest on what is measured, on what is weighed, or on what is counted? So why did he measure them? In order to tithe them. This is what is written (ibid.), ‘for the Lord had blessed him.’”¹⁸See Deut. 14:24, which mentions a blessing in the context of the second tithe; therefore, perhaps the blessing of Gen. 26:12 would have been the result of Isaac’s second tithe. Jacob separated out the first tithe, as stated (in Gen. 28:22), “and of all that You give me, I will surely set aside a tithe for You.” A certain Cuthean (i.e., a Samaritan) came and questioned R. Meir. He said to him, “Do you not say that indeed your ancestor Jacob is truthful?” He said [back] to him, “Yes, as it is written (in Micah 7:20), ‘You give truthfulness to Jacob.’” [The Cuthean] said to him, “He separated out the tribe of Levi [as a tithe] for the tribes, [i.e.,] one out of ten. Should he not have separated out [a tithe] from two more [tribes]?” R. Meir said to him, “You have said that there were twelve, but I say that there were fourteen, as stated (in Gen. 48:5), ‘Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine like Reuben and Simeon.’” He said to him, “So here you are supporting me. You have added flour. Have you added water?” He said to him, “Do you not admit that there are four matriarchs that had four first-borns? Take away from [the fourteen] the four firstborn (of Jacob's four wives), since the firstborn is not tithed. Why? Because he is holy, and something holy does not redeem for use something [else that is] holy.” He said to him, ‘It is good for your people that you are among them.” Hence it is written (Prov. 6:20), “and do not forsake the Torah of your mother (immekha),” [i.e.,] your people (ummatekha). That is what David said (in Ps. 40:9), “To carry out Your will, my God, is my desire, [for Your Torah is within my belly].” R. Aha bar Ulla said, “Is there Torah within the belly? And is it not so written (in Jer. 31:33), ‘and upon their heart (not their belly) I will write it?’ It is simply that David said, ‘May [a curse] come upon me, if something goes down into my belly, except when it is tithed.’ This is what is written (in I Chron. 27:25), ‘And over the treasuries of the king was Azmaveth ben Adiel; and over the treasuries in the country in the cities, in the villages, and in the towers was Jonathan ben Uzziah.’”¹⁹In other words, David was concerned enough about tithes to appoint overseers. For that reason Moses warned Israel (in Deut. 14:22), “You shall surely tithe.”

Rabbi Yudan [said] in the name of Rabbi Ḥama ben Rabbi Ḥanina, and Rabbi Berekhya [said] in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: It is written: “I have separated you from the peoples…” (Leviticus 20:26) – had it been stated: “I have separated the peoples from you,” there would not have been any revival for the enemies of Israel.⁹²It would have been impossible for members of other nations to convert to Judaism. Rather, “I have separated you from the peoples” – for one who separates the bad from the good, does not return to separate again;⁹³If one separates undesirable material from a mixture, he does not have to do so again, because he never returns that undesirable material to the mixture. however, one who separates the good from the bad, he must again separate.⁹⁴If one separates desirable material from a mixture, he may later separate more of the desirable material from the mixture. So too, had it been stated: “I have separated the peoples from you,” there would not have been any revival for the enemies of Israel. Rather, it is stated: “I have separated you from the peoples” – to be for Me, for My name forever. Rabbi Aḥa said: From here [it may be demonstrated] that the Holy One blessed be He said to the nations of the world that they should repent and He would bring them near, under His wings.
Rabbi Levi said: All the actions of Israel are different from the nations of the world, in their plowing, in their sowing, in their planting, in their reaping, in their gathering, in their threshing, on their threshing floors and in their winepresses, on their roofs, regarding their firstborn, regarding their flesh, in their shaving, and in their counting. In their plowing, as it is stated: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey” (Deuteronomy 22:10). In their sowing, as it is stated: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds” (Deuteronomy 22:9). In their planting, as it is stated: “You shall consider its fruit forbidden” (Leviticus 19:23). In their reaping, as it is stated: “When you reap the harvest of your land” (Leviticus 19:9). In their gathering, as it is stated: “And you forget a sheaf in the field” (Deuteronomy 24:19). In their threshing, as it is stated: “You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:4). On their threshing floors and in their winepresses, as it is stated: “The fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses you shall not delay” (Exodus 22:28), and it is written: “Like the produce of the threshing floor, and like the produce of the winepress” (Numbers 18:30). On their roofs, as it is stated: “You shall make a guardrail for your roof” (Deuteronomy 22:8). In their shaving, as it is stated: “You shall not mar the edge of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27). In their counting, as it is stated: “When you take a census of the children of Israel…” (Exodus 30:12).⁹⁵The census is to be conducted by each individual donating a half-shekel and the total sum being counted, rather than by counting the people. Israel counts by the moon⁹⁶The lunar calendar and the nations of the world count by the sun.⁹⁷The solar calendar

(Numb. 3:40:) “And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Enroll every [first-born] male….’” Let our master instruct us: When an infant is born at six months, does one profane the Sabbath for it?⁹⁰Numb. R. 4:3. Thus have our masters taught: When an infant is born at six months one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place; however, its mother does lean over it to suckle it.⁹¹TShab. 15[16]:5; Shab. 135a. And in the case of one moving it on the Sabbath, it is as though he were moving a stone. [When there is] doubt [whether it is] an nine-month infant or a eight-month infant, one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place. [When there is] doubt [whether it is] a nine-month infant or a eight-month infant, one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place. [When there is] doubt [whether it is] a seven-month infant or an eight-month infant, one does not profane the Sabbath for it, etc. But if it is a sure thing that it is [an infant of] seven months, one does profane the Sabbath for it, because it is capable of life. However, in the case of one born at eight [months], it is not capable of life. For that reason one does not profane the Sabbath for it. They asked R. Abbahu, “Where is it shown that one born at seven months will live?”⁹²yYev. 4:2 (5d); Gen. R. 14:2; 20:6. He said to them, “In the Greek⁹³YWNYT. Cf. Gk.; Iones. language zeta⁹⁴This letter name sounds like word, zete, a Gk. pres. pl. imperative, which means, “live.” is hepta (the greek number seven); eta⁹⁵This letter sounds like the Gk. word, ite, a pres. pl. imperative, which means, “go.” The corresponding imperfect form (ete) is even closer. is okto (the greek number eight).” Now which is [an infant] of eight months? Anyone whose hair and nails are undeveloped. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “Whoever does not live thirty days has not [completed] his months, but is a miscarriage.”⁹⁶Shab. 135b; Yev. 36b, 80b. And how much did the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel depend on the words of Torah, because the first-born were only redeemed after thirty days, as so is it written (in Numb. 18:16), “And their redemption money — from a month of age [and older] you shall redeem them.”

The kings of the House of David likewise abolished the precept of circumcision. Jehoiakim extended his own foreskin (to hide his circumcision), as it is said: Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found upon him (II Chron. 36:8). What is the meaning of was found upon him? It means that he stretched his foreskin. Others maintain that this verse indicates that he tattooed his skin. Hence, we learn that both the priests and the kings abrogated the covenant of circumcision. The Holy One, blessed be He, declared: “I informed Aaron and David that their offspring would survive forever, as it is said: Ought you not to know that the Lord, the God of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt? (ibid. 13:5). And unto Aaron I swore: It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee (Num. 18:19). But they (their offspring) abrogated the covenant of circumcision!” The Holy One, blessed be He, declared unto the prophet: Go and say unto them: If ye can break My covenant with the day, and My covenant with the night, so that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also My covenant be broken with David, My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, My ministers (Jer. 33:20–21). When the Israelites heard this, they cried out: Woe unto us, the two families which the Lord did choose, He cast them off (ibid., v. 24). The Holy One, blessed be He, responded to them: Consider thou not what this people have spoken, saying: The two families, etc. (ibid.). And He asked: “When were they cast off?” At the time they abrogated the commandment mentioned in the verse that follows: Thus saith the Lord, If My covenant be not with day and night, etc. (ibid., v. 25), and it says: Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion, put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the Holy City, for no more shall enter into thee henceforth the uncircumcised and the unclean (Isa. 52:1). Amen and so may it be Thy will.

(Numb. 3:40:) AND THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES: ENROLL EVERY [FIRST-BORN] MALE…. Let our master instruct us: When an infant is born at eight months, does one profane the Sabbath for it?¹¹²Tanh., Numb. 1:18; Numb. R. 4:3. Thus have our masters taught: When an infant is born at eight months one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place; however, its mother does lean over it to suckle it.¹¹³TShab. 15[16]:5; Shab. 135a. And in the case of one moving it on the Sabbath, it is as though he were moving a stone. <When there is> doubt <whether it is> an eight-month infant or a seven-month infant, one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place. But if it is a sure thing that it is <an infant of> seven months, one does profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, and move it from place to place. And why does one profane the Sabbath for one born, when it is born at seven <months from conception>? Because it is capable of life. However, in the case of one born at eight <months>, it has not <completed> its months and is not capable of life. For that reason one does not profane the Sabbath for it. They asked R. Abbahu: Where is it shown that one born at seven months will live?¹¹⁴yYev. 4:2 (5d); Gen. R. 14:2; 20:6. He said to them: In the Greek¹¹⁵YWNYT. Cf. Gk.; Iones. language zeta¹¹⁶This letter name sounds like word, zete, a Gk. pres. pl. imperative, which means, “live.” is hepta (the Greek number seven); eta¹¹⁷This letter sounds like the Gk. word, ite, a pres. pl. imperative, which means, “go.” The corresponding imperfect form (ete) is even closer. is okto (the Greek number eight). Now which is <an infant> of eight months? Anyone whose hair and nails are undeveloped. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: whoever does not live thirty days has not <completed> his months, but is a miscarriage.¹¹⁸Shab. 135b; Yev. 36b, 80b. And on what did the knowledge of Rabban [Simeon ben] Gamaliel depend? On the word of Torah, because the first-born were only redeemed after thirty days, [as stated] (in Numb. 18:16): AND THEIR REDEMPTION MONEY — FROM A MONTH OF AGE <AND OLDER> YOU SHALL REDEEM THEM. Therefore, the Holy One said to Moses that the first-born should only be redeemed FROM A MONTH OF AGE <AND OLDER>. Where is it shown? From what they have read on the matter (in Numb. 3:40): AND THE <LORD SAID UNTO MOSES: > ENROLL EVERY FIRST-BORN MALE AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL A MONTH OF AGE AND OLDER….

Three things were given conditionally: Eretz Yisrael, the Temple, and the kingdom of the house of David, but not the Torah scroll and the covenant of Aaron, which were not given conditionally. Eretz Yisrael — (Devarim 11:16-17) "Take heed unto yourselves lest your hearts be enticed … and the wrath of the L rd will burn against you." The Temple — (I Kings 6:12) "This Temple that you build, if you follow My statutes and keep all of My mitzvoth to walk in them, then I shall uphold My word with you that I spoke to David your father, etc." And if not, (Michah 7:15) "… then the land will be a ruin (together) with its inhabitants." The kingdom of the house of David — (Psalms 132:12) "If your sons keep My covenant, etc.", and if not, (Ibid. 89:33) "then I will punish their offense with the rod." And whence is it derived that the Torah scroll was given unconditionally? From (Devarim 33:4) "The Torah which Moses commanded us is the (eternal) inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." Whence is it derived that the covenant with Aaron was made unconditionally? From (Numbers 18:19) "It is a covenant of salt forever," (Ibid. 25:13) "And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him a covenant of eternal priesthood." And whence is it derived that the sons of Yonadav the son of Rechav are the descendants of Yithro? From (I Chronicles 2:55) "They were the Kenites, who descended from Chamath the father of Rechav." They sought a master and Yaavetz sought disciples, viz. (Ibid. 4:10) "and Yaavetz called out to the G d of Israel, saying: 'If You bless me and expand my borders, and Your hand be with me and You keep (me) from evil, not to sadden me …' And the L rd brought what he asked." "If you bless me" — with Torah study.. "and You expand my borders" — with disciples. "and Your hand be with me" — that I not forget my learning. "and You keep (me) from evil" — that You give me friends such as I am. "not to sadden me" — that the evil inclination not keep me from Torah study. "And the L rd brought what he asked" — He granted him what he asked, and them what they asked. As it is written (Proverbs 29:13) "the poor man and the man of means meet. The L rd brightens the eyes of both," and (Ibid. 22:2) "The rich man and the poor man have met. The L rd makes them all." How so? A disciple who pays attendance upon his master, and his master desires to teach him — "The L rd brightens the eyes of both." Both acquire life in the world to come. But if a disciple pays attendance upon his master, and his master does not desire to teach him — "The L rd makes them all" — The one whom He made wise, He makes stupid in the end; and the one He made stupid, He makes wise in the end.

Michael, the angel, descended and took Levi, and brought him up before the Throne of Glory, and he spake before Him: Sovereign of all || the universe ! This is Thy lot, and the portion of Thy works. And He put forth His right hand and blessed him, that the sons of Levi should minister on earth before Him, like the ministering angels in heaven. Michael spake before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of all worlds ! Do not such who serve the king have provision of their food given to them? Therefore He gave to the sons of Levi all holy things which accrue to His Name, as it is said, "They shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance" (Deut. 18:1).

(I Chronicles 4:5) "And Ashchur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Chelah and Na'arah." Ashchur is Calev. Why was he called "Ashchur"? Because his face was "blackened" (hushcharu") with fasting. "the father" — He was like a father to her (Miriam). "Tekoa" — He "pegged" (taka) his heart to his father in heaven. "two wives" — Miriam, who became to him like "two wives." "Chelah and Na'arah": At first she was sick (cholah), and then she "awakened" (na'arah). (Ibid. 7) "And the sons of Chelah were Tzereth, Tzochar, and Ethnan": Tzereth — she became a "vexation" (tzarah) to her co-wife, (who envied her). Tzochar — Her face was resplendent as mid-day (tzoharayim). "and Ethnan" — Anyone who saw her brought an "exchange" (for cohabitation) to his wife. (Ibid. 8) "And Kotz begot Anuv and Hatzovevah": "Kotz" is Calev, who "spurned" (katzath) the counsel of the spies. "Anuv" — he generated good in the bringing of the grape cluster (viz. Bamidbar 13:23) for if not for Calev they would not have brought it. "and Hatzovevah" — he did the will (tzivyon) of the Holy One blessed be He. "and the families of Acharchel the son of Charum. "and the families of Acharchel" — This is Miriam, viz. (Shemot 15:20) "and all the women went out after ("achar") her (Miriam) with timbrels and dances." "and the families" — He (Calev) merited establishing families from her. "the son of Charum" — This is Yocheved, of whom (the Cohanim) it is written (Bamidbar 18:14) "Every devoted thing ("cherem") in Israel shall be yours," (the Cohanim - Levites descending from Yocheved). Variantly: This ("Charum") is Miriam from whom there issued forth David, whose kingdom was exalted ("romem") by the Holy One Blessed be He, viz. (I Samuel 2:10) "And He will give strength to His king and He will exalt the horn of His anointed one." We find, then, that David came from the descendants of Miriam — whence we derive "One who draws near (to Israel) is drawn near by Heaven."

I might think, (that it is tithed) even if it has not been completely processed (for eating); it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 18:27) "as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness (i.e., ripeness) of the pit."

R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: This (verse) is not needed (to tell us this). It is written (Bamidbar 18:21) "And to the sons of Levi I have given all the tithe in Israel as an inheritance" — Just as an inheritance does not "move" (i.e., is not rescinded), so, the first-tithe.

(Bamidbar 15:15-17) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: … upon your coming to the land whither I bring you there": R. Yishmael says: Scripture varied (linguistically) this "coming" from all the other "comings" in the Torah. For in all the other instances it is written "And it shall be, when you come to the land"; "And it shall be when the L-rd shall bring you" (all such expressions connoting permanent settlement), whereas here it is written "upon your coming" (connoting the moment of arrival), to teach that the mitzvah of challah (the Cohein's share of the dough) devolved upon them immediately upon their entering the land "whither I bring you there": From here you derive that produce grown outside the land which enters the land is subject to challah. It is from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there that R. Eliezer ruled it subject to challah, and R. Akiva exempts it. R. Yehudah says: Produce grown outside the land which entered the land — R. Eliezer exempts it, it being written (Ibid. 19) "and it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land," and R. Akiva rules it subject to challah, it being written "there" (i.e., in Eretz Yisrael). What is the intent of "when you eat of the bread of the land"? From (Ibid 20) "the first of your dough," I would understand even other produce (as being subject to challah). You, therefore, reason: It is written here "bread" and elsewhere (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there is of the five species: wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt, so, "bread" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "that you shall separate an offering (terumah)": This speaks of the "great terumah" (taken from one's produce [viz. Devarim 18:4]) — But perhaps it speaks of the challah offering! — (This cannot be, for) (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) "challah, you shall offer up an offering" already speaks of challah. How, then, is "you shall offer up an offering to the L-rd to be understood? As referring to the "great terumah," (which is taken before the challah is separated). (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him" (the Cohein). This is mandatory. You say that it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional (i.e., if you separate it, you must give it to him, but you need not separate it.) It is, therefore, written "You shall separate terumah" — It is mandatory and not optional. I might think that flours, too, are subject to challah; it is, therefore, written "the first of your dough" — when it has become dough. [From here they ruled: One may eat a chance meal of started dough of wheat before it has been rolled out, or of barley before it had been well kneaded, (after which it becomes subject to challah). If one ate of it — of wheat flour, after it had been rolled out, or of barley flour after it had been well kneaded, (without taking challah) — he is liable to the death penalty. Once she had added the water, she must remove her challah, so long as there not remain there (in the kneading-trough) five quarter-kavs or more of flour that had not been mixed with water, (for if there did, they are subject to challah.)] For challah is not taken from (unprocessed) flour. If one had not taken challah from the dough, I might think he may not take it from the bread; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall separate, etc." R. Akiva says: All (vis-à-vis the separation of challah) is contingent upon its forming a crust in the oven. (Ibid. 24) "As terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it" (the challah). Just as with terumah, (the designated separation is) one (part) to a thousand, so, challah. And just as terumah of the threshing floor is "raised" (if it became intermixed) with one hundred and one times (its amount of non-terumah — which may then be eaten by non-Cohanim); and it creates a forbidden admixture for non-Cohanim if it fell into (only) a hundred of non-terumah; and it creates liability to the death penalty and to the one-fifth (chomesh) restitution penalty (viz. Vayikra 5:16) — so, with challah. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan "whispered" to him: You liken it to terumah of the threshing floor, (the percentage of) which is unspecified (in the Torah)? I will liken it to terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26), (the percentage of) which is explicit (in the Torah) — and one-tenth should be taken (as challah). He responded: It is written "As the terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it." It is likened to terumah of the threshing floor, and not to terumath ma'aser.

(Bamidbar 18:1) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.": R. Yishmael says: Because the thing (i.e., what follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: Whence is it derived that if he (a Cohein) sprinkled the blood without knowing in whose name he is doing so or smoked the fat without knowing in whose name he is doing so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From "You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary." R. Yonathan says: Whence is it derived that if he took the flesh (of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering) before the blood was sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the breast and the shoulder before the smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31), that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood." And thus do we find that the decree of Eli was sealed only because they (the Cohanim) abused the offerings, as it is written (I Samuel 2:15) "Even before they would burn the fat … (16) And the man would say: Let them first burn the fat today (upon the altar) … (17) And the sin of the youths (the attendants of the Cohanim was very great, etc." And similarly we find that the decree of the men of Jerusalem was decreed only because they abused the offerings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) "You abused My offerings." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.": This refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-priests] from entering the sanctuary). You say this, but perhaps it refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to beth-din, (it being their duty to exhort the Cohanim in this regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7]) "You and your sons, with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar" already speaks of what is relegated to beth-din. How, then, am I to understand "you shall bear the sin of your priesthood"? As referring to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid. 1) "And you and your sons with you": and not Israelites (i.e., they are not to guard the sanctuary.) You say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who also guard the sanctuary) do bear the sin of the Cohanim, (who are remiss in this regard.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And they (the Levites) shall bear their (own) sin" (of remissness), but not the sin of the Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) "And also your brothers": I might think that this also includes Israelites. It is, therefore, written "the tribe of Levi." I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "your brothers" — to exclude the women. "draw near with you": R. Akiva says: It is written here "with you," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) "with you." Just as here, the Levites are being referred to, so, there, the Levites are being referred to — to exhort the Levites (against defect) in the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) "and they shall be joined to you and they shall serve you": through their service. Treasurers and trustees are to be appointed from among them. You say this, but perhaps the intent is that they shall serve you (the Cohanim) in your (priestly) service. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent." — But perhaps (both are intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you in your (priestly) service and they shall serve you through their service. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd." To the L-rd are they given, and not to the Cohanim — whereby we derive that it is not to be construed in the second way (i.e., "for your [priestly] service"), but in the first way, i.e., their being appointed as treasurers and trustees. "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony": the Cohanim within, (in the court of the sanctuary,) and the Levites outside (the court). You say this, but perhaps the intent is both, within. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And they (the Levites) will join you, and they will keep (the watch of) the watch (by the Cohanim within) of the tent of meeting." How, then, am I to understand "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony"? The Cohanim within, and the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent": As stated above: They will serve you through their service, and appoint from among them treasurers and trustees. "But to the vessels of the kodesh they shall not come near." This "hakodesh" ("the holy") refers to the ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "And they (the Levites) shall not come to see (the vessels) when the kodesh is being covered and they (the Levites) die." "and to the altar": This refers to the (sacrificial) service of the altar. "they shall not come near": the exhortation. "and they shall not die": the punishment. This tells me only of the Levites, that they are punished and exhorted for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) Cohanim (appropriating) the service (i.e., singing) of the Levites? From ("so that they not die,) both they (the Levites) and you" (the Cohanim.) And it once happened that R. Yehoshua b. Chanania sought to assist R. Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for you are close to forfeiting your life! For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers. Rebbi says that this ("both they and you") is not needed (for the above learning). For it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-19) "Do not cut off the tribe of the families of the Kehathi … but do this for them and they will live," (the implication being that otherwise they will die.) This tells me only of the sons of Kehath. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid. 19) "Aaron and his sons shall come and set them (the sons of Levi), each man to his service and to his burden." This tells me only that the Levites are punished for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Cohanim (appropriating) the service of the Levites? From (Bamidbar 1:51) "And when the mishkan travels, the Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall dismantle it. And the stranger (a non-Levite) that draws near (to this service) shall be put to death." Whence do I derive (the same for) one who goes from his (assigned) service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38) "And those who encamped before the mishkan, in front, before the tent of meeting on the east" (i.e., only these being assigned to the aforementioned service) … and the stranger (to that service, [even a Levite]) that draws near shall be put to death." What, then, is the need for "so that they not die both they and you"? Because Korach came and contested Aaron's prerogative, Scripture reiterated the entire exhortation (on demarcation of bounds). Variantly: "both they and you": Just as you (the Cohanim, are thus forewarned) vis-à-vis the altar service, so, they (the Levites, are thus forewarned). R. Nathan says: Levitical singing is hereby intimated in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature) was explicated by Ezra. Chanania, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: This (intimation) is not needed, for it is already written (Shemot 19:19) "and G-d answered him (Moses, the Levite) by voice" — relative to the mitzvah of the voice, whence (the mitzvah of Levitical) singing is intimated in the Torah. (Bamidbar 18:4) "And they shall join you": As we have stated, the Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside, and the Levites, on the outside. (Ibid.) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you": Why is this written? (i.e., it has already been mentioned.) — "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death" tells us (only of) the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From "and a stranger shall not draw near to you." (Ibid. 5) "And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar.": This is an exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites to exhort the Cohanim towards the proper performance of the (sacrificial) service, which (service), when properly performed, fends off calamity from the world. (Ibid.) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He has already vented His wrath (viz. 17:11). Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) "and no more shall there be a flood." Why "no more"? For it has already happened. Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the goat-demons." Why "no more"? Because it already happened (in Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7). Similarly, (Bamidbar 18:22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near to the tent of meeting." Why "no more"? Because they had already done so (in the time of Korach, viz. Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He had already vented His wrath, as it is written (Ibid. 17:11) "for the wrath has gone forth, etc."

(Bamidbar 18:1) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.": R. Yishmael says: Because the thing (i.e., what follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: Whence is it derived that if he (a Cohein) sprinkled the blood without knowing in whose name he is doing so or smoked the fat without knowing in whose name he is doing so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From "You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary." R. Yonathan says: Whence is it derived that if he took the flesh (of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering) before the blood was sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the breast and the shoulder before the smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31), that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood." And thus do we find that the decree of Eli was sealed only because they (the Cohanim) abused the offerings, as it is written (I Samuel 2:15) "Even before they would burn the fat … (16) And the man would say: Let them first burn the fat today (upon the altar) … (17) And the sin of the youths (the attendants of the Cohanim was very great, etc." And similarly we find that the decree of the men of Jerusalem was decreed only because they abused the offerings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) "You abused My offerings." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.": This refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-priests] from entering the sanctuary). You say this, but perhaps it refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to beth-din, (it being their duty to exhort the Cohanim in this regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7]) "You and your sons, with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar" already speaks of what is relegated to beth-din. How, then, am I to understand "you shall bear the sin of your priesthood"? As referring to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid. 1) "And you and your sons with you": and not Israelites (i.e., they are not to guard the sanctuary.) You say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who also guard the sanctuary) do bear the sin of the Cohanim, (who are remiss in this regard.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And they (the Levites) shall bear their (own) sin" (of remissness), but not the sin of the Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) "And also your brothers": I might think that this also includes Israelites. It is, therefore, written "the tribe of Levi." I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "your brothers" — to exclude the women. "draw near with you": R. Akiva says: It is written here "with you," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) "with you." Just as here, the Levites are being referred to, so, there, the Levites are being referred to — to exhort the Levites (against defect) in the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) "and they shall be joined to you and they shall serve you": through their service. Treasurers and trustees are to be appointed from among them. You say this, but perhaps the intent is that they shall serve you (the Cohanim) in your (priestly) service. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent." — But perhaps (both are intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you in your (priestly) service and they shall serve you through their service. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd." To the L-rd are they given, and not to the Cohanim — whereby we derive that it is not to be construed in the second way (i.e., "for your [priestly] service"), but in the first way, i.e., their being appointed as treasurers and trustees. "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony": the Cohanim within, (in the court of the sanctuary,) and the Levites outside (the court). You say this, but perhaps the intent is both, within. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And they (the Levites) will join you, and they will keep (the watch of) the watch (by the Cohanim within) of the tent of meeting." How, then, am I to understand "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony"? The Cohanim within, and the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent": As stated above: They will serve you through their service, and appoint from among them treasurers and trustees. "But to the vessels of the kodesh they shall not come near." This "hakodesh" ("the holy") refers to the ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "And they (the Levites) shall not come to see (the vessels) when the kodesh is being covered and they (the Levites) die." "and to the altar": This refers to the (sacrificial) service of the altar. "they shall not come near": the exhortation. "and they shall not die": the punishment. This tells me only of the Levites, that they are punished and exhorted for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) Cohanim (appropriating) the service (i.e., singing) of the Levites? From ("so that they not die,) both they (the Levites) and you" (the Cohanim.) And it once happened that R. Yehoshua b. Chanania sought to assist R. Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for you are close to forfeiting your life! For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers. Rebbi says that this ("both they and you") is not needed (for the above learning). For it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-19) "Do not cut off the tribe of the families of the Kehathi … but do this for them and they will live," (the implication being that otherwise they will die.) This tells me only of the sons of Kehath. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid. 19) "Aaron and his sons shall come and set them (the sons of Levi), each man to his service and to his burden." This tells me only that the Levites are punished for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Cohanim (appropriating) the service of the Levites? From (Bamidbar 1:51) "And when the mishkan travels, the Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall dismantle it. And the stranger (a non-Levite) that draws near (to this service) shall be put to death." Whence do I derive (the same for) one who goes from his (assigned) service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38) "And those who encamped before the mishkan, in front, before the tent of meeting on the east" (i.e., only these being assigned to the aforementioned service) … and the stranger (to that service, [even a Levite]) that draws near shall be put to death." What, then, is the need for "so that they not die both they and you"? Because Korach came and contested Aaron's prerogative, Scripture reiterated the entire exhortation (on demarcation of bounds). Variantly: "both they and you": Just as you (the Cohanim, are thus forewarned) vis-à-vis the altar service, so, they (the Levites, are thus forewarned). R. Nathan says: Levitical singing is hereby intimated in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature) was explicated by Ezra. Chanania, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: This (intimation) is not needed, for it is already written (Shemot 19:19) "and G-d answered him (Moses, the Levite) by voice" — relative to the mitzvah of the voice, whence (the mitzvah of Levitical) singing is intimated in the Torah. (Bamidbar 18:4) "And they shall join you": As we have stated, the Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside, and the Levites, on the outside. (Ibid.) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you": Why is this written? (i.e., it has already been mentioned.) — "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death" tells us (only of) the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From "and a stranger shall not draw near to you." (Ibid. 5) "And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar.": This is an exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites to exhort the Cohanim towards the proper performance of the (sacrificial) service, which (service), when properly performed, fends off calamity from the world. (Ibid.) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He has already vented His wrath (viz. 17:11). Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) "and no more shall there be a flood." Why "no more"? For it has already happened. Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the goat-demons." Why "no more"? Because it already happened (in Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7). Similarly, (Bamidbar 18:22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near to the tent of meeting." Why "no more"? Because they had already done so (in the time of Korach, viz. Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He had already vented His wrath, as it is written (Ibid. 17:11) "for the wrath has gone forth, etc."

(Bamidbar 18:1) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.": R. Yishmael says: Because the thing (i.e., what follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: Whence is it derived that if he (a Cohein) sprinkled the blood without knowing in whose name he is doing so or smoked the fat without knowing in whose name he is doing so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From "You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary." R. Yonathan says: Whence is it derived that if he took the flesh (of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering) before the blood was sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the breast and the shoulder before the smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31), that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood." And thus do we find that the decree of Eli was sealed only because they (the Cohanim) abused the offerings, as it is written (I Samuel 2:15) "Even before they would burn the fat … (16) And the man would say: Let them first burn the fat today (upon the altar) … (17) And the sin of the youths (the attendants of the Cohanim was very great, etc." And similarly we find that the decree of the men of Jerusalem was decreed only because they abused the offerings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) "You abused My offerings." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.": This refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-priests] from entering the sanctuary). You say this, but perhaps it refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to beth-din, (it being their duty to exhort the Cohanim in this regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7]) "You and your sons, with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar" already speaks of what is relegated to beth-din. How, then, am I to understand "you shall bear the sin of your priesthood"? As referring to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid. 1) "And you and your sons with you": and not Israelites (i.e., they are not to guard the sanctuary.) You say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who also guard the sanctuary) do bear the sin of the Cohanim, (who are remiss in this regard.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And they (the Levites) shall bear their (own) sin" (of remissness), but not the sin of the Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) "And also your brothers": I might think that this also includes Israelites. It is, therefore, written "the tribe of Levi." I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "your brothers" — to exclude the women. "draw near with you": R. Akiva says: It is written here "with you," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) "with you." Just as here, the Levites are being referred to, so, there, the Levites are being referred to — to exhort the Levites (against defect) in the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) "and they shall be joined to you and they shall serve you": through their service. Treasurers and trustees are to be appointed from among them. You say this, but perhaps the intent is that they shall serve you (the Cohanim) in your (priestly) service. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent." — But perhaps (both are intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you in your (priestly) service and they shall serve you through their service. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd." To the L-rd are they given, and not to the Cohanim — whereby we derive that it is not to be construed in the second way (i.e., "for your [priestly] service"), but in the first way, i.e., their being appointed as treasurers and trustees. "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony": the Cohanim within, (in the court of the sanctuary,) and the Levites outside (the court). You say this, but perhaps the intent is both, within. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And they (the Levites) will join you, and they will keep (the watch of) the watch (by the Cohanim within) of the tent of meeting." How, then, am I to understand "and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony"? The Cohanim within, and the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) "And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent": As stated above: They will serve you through their service, and appoint from among them treasurers and trustees. "But to the vessels of the kodesh they shall not come near." This "hakodesh" ("the holy") refers to the ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "And they (the Levites) shall not come to see (the vessels) when the kodesh is being covered and they (the Levites) die." "and to the altar": This refers to the (sacrificial) service of the altar. "they shall not come near": the exhortation. "and they shall not die": the punishment. This tells me only of the Levites, that they are punished and exhorted for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) Cohanim (appropriating) the service (i.e., singing) of the Levites? From ("so that they not die,) both they (the Levites) and you" (the Cohanim.) And it once happened that R. Yehoshua b. Chanania sought to assist R. Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for you are close to forfeiting your life! For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers. Rebbi says that this ("both they and you") is not needed (for the above learning). For it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-19) "Do not cut off the tribe of the families of the Kehathi … but do this for them and they will live," (the implication being that otherwise they will die.) This tells me only of the sons of Kehath. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid. 19) "Aaron and his sons shall come and set them (the sons of Levi), each man to his service and to his burden." This tells me only that the Levites are punished for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Cohanim (appropriating) the service of the Levites? From (Bamidbar 1:51) "And when the mishkan travels, the Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall dismantle it. And the stranger (a non-Levite) that draws near (to this service) shall be put to death." Whence do I derive (the same for) one who goes from his (assigned) service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38) "And those who encamped before the mishkan, in front, before the tent of meeting on the east" (i.e., only these being assigned to the aforementioned service) … and the stranger (to that service, [even a Levite]) that draws near shall be put to death." What, then, is the need for "so that they not die both they and you"? Because Korach came and contested Aaron's prerogative, Scripture reiterated the entire exhortation (on demarcation of bounds). Variantly: "both they and you": Just as you (the Cohanim, are thus forewarned) vis-à-vis the altar service, so, they (the Levites, are thus forewarned). R. Nathan says: Levitical singing is hereby intimated in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature) was explicated by Ezra. Chanania, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: This (intimation) is not needed, for it is already written (Shemot 19:19) "and G-d answered him (Moses, the Levite) by voice" — relative to the mitzvah of the voice, whence (the mitzvah of Levitical) singing is intimated in the Torah. (Bamidbar 18:4) "And they shall join you": As we have stated, the Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside, and the Levites, on the outside. (Ibid.) "and a stranger shall not draw near to you": Why is this written? (i.e., it has already been mentioned.) — "and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death" tells us (only of) the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From "and a stranger shall not draw near to you." (Ibid. 5) "And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar.": This is an exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites to exhort the Cohanim towards the proper performance of the (sacrificial) service, which (service), when properly performed, fends off calamity from the world. (Ibid.) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He has already vented His wrath (viz. 17:11). Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) "and no more shall there be a flood." Why "no more"? For it has already happened. Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the goat-demons." Why "no more"? Because it already happened (in Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7). Similarly, (Bamidbar 18:22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near to the tent of meeting." Why "no more"? Because they had already done so (in the time of Korach, viz. Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5) "so that there be no more wrath." Why "no more"? For He had already vented His wrath, as it is written (Ibid. 17:11) "for the wrath has gone forth, etc."

(Bamidbar 18:8) "And the L-rd spoke to Aaron": I would think (the intent is) that the speaking was to Aaron; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17:5) "A sign for the children of Israel … as the L-rd spoke to Moses about him" (Aaron, viz., that only he and his sons are to be Cohanim), whereby we are apprised that the speaking was to Moses, to tell to Aaron. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And I, behold, (I have given to you") with joy, (the twenty-four priestly gifts.) These are the words of R. Yishmael — whereupon his disciples said to him: But master, it is written (Bereshit 6:17) "And I, behold, shall bring a flood of water, etc." Are we, then to assume that this was a joy to Him? He answered: When His angerers go lost from the world, it is a joy to Him. And thus is it written (Proverbs 11:10) "When the righteous prosper, the city exults, and when the wicked perish there is rejoicing." And (Psalms 3:9-10) "You have broken the teeth of the wicked. Deliverance is the L-rd's. Upon Your people are Your blessings, selah." And (Ibid. 10:16) "The L-rd is King for ever and ever. Nations have gone lost from His land." And (Ibid. 104:35) "Sinners will end from the earth, and the wicked will be no more. Bless the L-rd, O my soul, Hallelukah!" R. Nathan said to him: I will add to your words: "And I" — willingly; "behold" — with joy. And thus is it written (Shemot 4:14) "Behold, he (Aaron) is going out to meet you (Moses; and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart."

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "For all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, etc.": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) to declare a law to make a covenant with them. And why was this necessary? For Korach arose against Aaron and contested the priesthood. An analogy: A king of flesh and blood had a retainer to whom he gave a field of holding as a gift, without writing or sealing (the transaction) and without recording it, whereupon someone came and contested his (the retainer's) ownership of the field. At this, the king said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. Come (now) and I will write, seal, and record it. Korach came and contested his (Aaron's) claim to the priesthood, at which the L-rd said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. I am (now) writing and sealing and recording it — wherefore this section is juxtaposed with (the episode of) Korach. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "to you have I given them (the gifts)": in your merit "lemashchah": "meshichah" connotes greatness, as in (Vayikra 7:35) "This is mishchath Aaron and mishchath his sons, etc." R. Yitzchak says "mishchah" (here) connotes anointment, as in (Psalms 133:2) "the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and to your sons": in the merit of your sons. "as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. (Ibid. 9) "This shall be for you from the holy of holies from the fire": I would not know of what this speaks. Go out and see: What remains (for the Cohanim) of the holy of holies, all of which is consigned to the fire? You find this as obtaining only with a beast burnt-offering, (the hide of which reverts to the Cohanim.) "all of their offerings": the two loaves and the show-bread. "all of their meal-offerings": the sinner's meal-offering and the donative meal-offering. "all of their sin-offerings": the sin-offering of the individual and the communal sin-offering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird sin-offering and the beast sin-offering. "all of their guilt-offerings": the "certain" guilt-offering, the "suspended" guilt-offering, the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. "which they shall return to Me": This refers to the theft of a proselyte, (which reverts to the Cohanim [viz. Ibid. 5:8]). "holy of holies": This refers to the leper's log of oil. "to you and to your sons": in your merit and in the merit of your sons. (Ibid. 10) "In the holy of holies shall you eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten only in a holy place, within the curtains (i.e., in the azarah [the Temple court]). R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the azarah, they may be eaten (even) in the sanctuary? From "In the holy of holies shall you eat it." (Ibid.) "Every male shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten by males of the priesthood. "Holy shall it be to you": What is the intent of this? I might think that only something fit for eating should be eaten in holiness. Whence do I derive (the same for) something which is not fit for eating? From "Holy shall it be to you." (Ibid. 11) "And this is for you the terumah of (i.e., what is set apart from) their gift-offerings": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included holy of holies to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include lower-order offerings. "From all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel": This thing requires waving. "To you have I given them, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. "Every clean one in your house shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with lower-order offerings that they are to be eaten only by those who are clean. "All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the wheat": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included the offerings of the sanctuary to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include the border offerings (i.e., those outside the sanctuary) to decree a law to make a covenant with them. "All the best of the oil": This is terumah gedolah (Devarim 18:4). "and all the best, etc.": This is terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26). "the first of them": the first of the shearing (Devarim 18:4). "which they shall give": shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3). "to the L-rd": challah (Bamidbar 15:20). (Ibid. 18:13) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land": Scripture here comes to teach us about the bikkurim that holiness "takes" upon them while they are yet attached to the ground. For it would follow (otherwise, viz.:) Since holiness "takes" on bikkurim and holiness "takes" on terumah, then, if I have learned about terumah that holiness does not "take" on it while it is yet on the ground, so, with bikkurim. It is, therefore, written "the first-fruits of all that is in their land," to teach us otherwise. (Bamidbar 18:12) "To you have I given them": Scripture comes to teach that it is given to the Cohein. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "Every clean one of your household shall eat it": Why is this stated? Is it not already written (Ibid. 11) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it (terumah)"? Why repeat it? To include the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as eating terumah. Does this include one who is betrothed? Perhaps it speaks only of one who is married! — (This is not so, for) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it" already speaks of one who is married. How, then, am I to understand "Every clean one of your household"? As including the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, as eating terumah. This would seem to include (as eating terumah) a betrothed one and a toshav (a ger toshav [sojourner]) and a sachir (a hired non-Jew). How, then, am I to understand (Shemot 12:45) "a toshav … shall not eat of it"? A toshav who is not in your domain; but one who is in your domain may eat of it. Or even a toshav who is in your domain (may eat of it). And how am I to understand "Every clean one of your household may eat of it"? As excluding a toshav and a sachir. Or perhaps, including a toshav and a sachir! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:10) "and a sachir shall not eat the holy thing" (terumah): whether or not he is in your domain. And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in Netzivim: I heard about you that you said that the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah. He sent back: And I held you to be expert in the recesses of Torah when you cannot even expound a kal vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse (with her master) does not acquire her (or him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, her money (i.e., the money by which he acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) causes her to eat terumah — then the daughter of an Israelite, whose intercourse (with her husband) acquires her (to him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, how much more so should her money (by which he betroths her) acquire her for (purposes of) eating terumah! But what can I do? The sages said: The daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to a Cohein) does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah (the marriage canopy). Once she enters the chuppah, even if there were no intercourse, she eats terumah, and if she dies, her husband inherits her.

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "For all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, etc.": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) to declare a law to make a covenant with them. And why was this necessary? For Korach arose against Aaron and contested the priesthood. An analogy: A king of flesh and blood had a retainer to whom he gave a field of holding as a gift, without writing or sealing (the transaction) and without recording it, whereupon someone came and contested his (the retainer's) ownership of the field. At this, the king said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. Come (now) and I will write, seal, and record it. Korach came and contested his (Aaron's) claim to the priesthood, at which the L-rd said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. I am (now) writing and sealing and recording it — wherefore this section is juxtaposed with (the episode of) Korach. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "to you have I given them (the gifts)": in your merit "lemashchah": "meshichah" connotes greatness, as in (Vayikra 7:35) "This is mishchath Aaron and mishchath his sons, etc." R. Yitzchak says "mishchah" (here) connotes anointment, as in (Psalms 133:2) "the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and to your sons": in the merit of your sons. "as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. (Ibid. 9) "This shall be for you from the holy of holies from the fire": I would not know of what this speaks. Go out and see: What remains (for the Cohanim) of the holy of holies, all of which is consigned to the fire? You find this as obtaining only with a beast burnt-offering, (the hide of which reverts to the Cohanim.) "all of their offerings": the two loaves and the show-bread. "all of their meal-offerings": the sinner's meal-offering and the donative meal-offering. "all of their sin-offerings": the sin-offering of the individual and the communal sin-offering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird sin-offering and the beast sin-offering. "all of their guilt-offerings": the "certain" guilt-offering, the "suspended" guilt-offering, the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. "which they shall return to Me": This refers to the theft of a proselyte, (which reverts to the Cohanim [viz. Ibid. 5:8]). "holy of holies": This refers to the leper's log of oil. "to you and to your sons": in your merit and in the merit of your sons. (Ibid. 10) "In the holy of holies shall you eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten only in a holy place, within the curtains (i.e., in the azarah [the Temple court]). R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the azarah, they may be eaten (even) in the sanctuary? From "In the holy of holies shall you eat it." (Ibid.) "Every male shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten by males of the priesthood. "Holy shall it be to you": What is the intent of this? I might think that only something fit for eating should be eaten in holiness. Whence do I derive (the same for) something which is not fit for eating? From "Holy shall it be to you." (Ibid. 11) "And this is for you the terumah of (i.e., what is set apart from) their gift-offerings": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included holy of holies to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include lower-order offerings. "From all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel": This thing requires waving. "To you have I given them, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. "Every clean one in your house shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with lower-order offerings that they are to be eaten only by those who are clean. "All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the wheat": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included the offerings of the sanctuary to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include the border offerings (i.e., those outside the sanctuary) to decree a law to make a covenant with them. "All the best of the oil": This is terumah gedolah (Devarim 18:4). "and all the best, etc.": This is terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26). "the first of them": the first of the shearing (Devarim 18:4). "which they shall give": shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3). "to the L-rd": challah (Bamidbar 15:20). (Ibid. 18:13) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land": Scripture here comes to teach us about the bikkurim that holiness "takes" upon them while they are yet attached to the ground. For it would follow (otherwise, viz.:) Since holiness "takes" on bikkurim and holiness "takes" on terumah, then, if I have learned about terumah that holiness does not "take" on it while it is yet on the ground, so, with bikkurim. It is, therefore, written "the first-fruits of all that is in their land," to teach us otherwise. (Bamidbar 18:12) "To you have I given them": Scripture comes to teach that it is given to the Cohein. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "Every clean one of your household shall eat it": Why is this stated? Is it not already written (Ibid. 11) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it (terumah)"? Why repeat it? To include the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as eating terumah. Does this include one who is betrothed? Perhaps it speaks only of one who is married! — (This is not so, for) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it" already speaks of one who is married. How, then, am I to understand "Every clean one of your household"? As including the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, as eating terumah. This would seem to include (as eating terumah) a betrothed one and a toshav (a ger toshav [sojourner]) and a sachir (a hired non-Jew). How, then, am I to understand (Shemot 12:45) "a toshav … shall not eat of it"? A toshav who is not in your domain; but one who is in your domain may eat of it. Or even a toshav who is in your domain (may eat of it). And how am I to understand "Every clean one of your household may eat of it"? As excluding a toshav and a sachir. Or perhaps, including a toshav and a sachir! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:10) "and a sachir shall not eat the holy thing" (terumah): whether or not he is in your domain. And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in Netzivim: I heard about you that you said that the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah. He sent back: And I held you to be expert in the recesses of Torah when you cannot even expound a kal vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse (with her master) does not acquire her (or him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, her money (i.e., the money by which he acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) causes her to eat terumah — then the daughter of an Israelite, whose intercourse (with her husband) acquires her (to him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, how much more so should her money (by which he betroths her) acquire her for (purposes of) eating terumah! But what can I do? The sages said: The daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to a Cohein) does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah (the marriage canopy). Once she enters the chuppah, even if there were no intercourse, she eats terumah, and if she dies, her husband inherits her.

(Bamidbar 18:14) "Every devoted thing (i.e., a thing dedicated to the Temple) in Israel shall be yours (the Cohein's)": This tells me only of the devoted objects of Israelites. Whence do I derive (the same for) the devoted objects of gentiles, women, and bondsmen? From "Every devoted thing in Israel." R. Yossi Haglili says: Unqualified "devotions" revert to the Cohanim, it being written (Vayikra 27:21) "As a devoted field, to the Cohein shall be his holding." Even if he specified "for Temple maintenance"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 28) "Every devoted thing (specified as) holy of holies reverts to the L-rd." R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to Temple maintenance, it being written "Every (unqualified) "devotion" is holy of holies to the L-rd." Even if he specified "to the Cohanim"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid.) "Ach" ("But" [to exclude the above instance]). R. Yehudah b. Bava says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to the Cohanim, it being written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours." Even if he specified "to the L-rd"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Every devoted thing is holy of holies to the L-rd" (when specified as such.) R. Shimon says: All unqualified "devotions" revert to Heaven, it being written "holy of holies to the L-rd." — Even if he specified "to the Cohein"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours (the Cohein's)."

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be." I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast." Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be." I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast." Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be." I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast." Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be." I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast." Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.

(Bamidbar 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit, and you will not have a portion in their midst. I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the children of Israel.": Why is (all of) this stated? Because it is written (Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned," I would think that all are included — Cohanim, Levites, Israelites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtum (those of uncertain sex) and androgynous (hermaphrodites); it is, therefore, written: "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit" — This excludes (from inheritance) Cohanim." (Ibid. 23) "And in the midst of the children of Israel, they (the Levites) shall not inherit an inheritance" — This excludes Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit" — This excludes bondsmen and proselytes (Ibid. 54) "A man, according to his numbers shall his inheritance be given" — This excludes tumtum and androgynous. (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit" — in the division of the land. "and you will not have a portion in their midst" — ("a portion") of the spoils. "I am your portion and your inheritance" — At My table (i.e., from the sacrifices) you eat and at My table you drink. An analogy: A king gave gifts to (all of) his sons except one, saying to him: My son, I gave you a gift. At My table you eat and at My table you drink. And thus is it written (Vayikra 6:10) "Their portion have I given to them from My fire-offerings." (Devarim 18:1) "The fire-offering of the L-rd and His inheritance shall they eat." Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to the Cohanim, twelve in the sanctuary and twelve in the borders (i.e., outside of Jerusalem.) Twelve in the sanctuary: sin-offering, guilt-offering, the remnant of the log of oil of the leper, the remnant of the omer, the two loaves, the show-bread, the remnant of meal-offerings, the terumah of the thank-offering (viz. Vayikra 7:14), the terumah of breast and thigh, the shoulder of the ram of the Nazirite.

Greater is the covenant forged with Aaron than that forged with David. Aaron merited (priesthood) for his sons — whether righteous or wicked, and David merited (kingdom only) for the righteous, but not for the wicked, viz. (Psalms 132:12) "If your children will keep My covenant … (they will sit on the throne for you.") (Bamidbar 18:19) "It is a covenant of salt … (21) and to the sons of Levi." Scripture hereby apprises us that just as the covenant is forged with the priesthood, so, is it forged with the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated at Mount Sinai, so, that of the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated with joy, so, that of the Levites, as it is written "and to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given, etc." "Behold" connotes joy, as in (Shemot 5:14) "And, behold, he goes out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "in exchange for their service": All the mitzvoth of the priesthood (i.e., the twenty-four priestly gifts) were acquired by the L-rd and given to the Cohanim; and these (the mitzvoth of the Levites), "in exchange for their services of the tent of meeting." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This, too, was acquired by the land and given to the Levites, as it is written (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land … is the L-rd's; it is holy to the L-rd." "And to the sons of Levi I have given all the tithe of Israel as an inheritance": Just as an inheritance does not change from its place, so, first tithe, (which is given to the Levite), does not change from its place, (unlike second tithe, which in the third and sixth years converts to poor-tithe.) "in exchange for the service which they perform": If he serves, he takes (the tithe); if not, he does not. (Ibid. 22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near": the exhortation. "to bear sin, to die": the punishment (at the hands of Heaven.). (Ibid. 23) "And the Levite shall serve — he": Why is this written? From "in exchange for their service" I might understand, if he wishes, he serves, and if he does not wish, he does not serve; it is, therefore, written "And the Levite shall serve — he" — perforce. Variantly: Why is this written? From "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel (in exchange for their service, etc.") This tells me only (that they must serve) only in the years that the tithes obtain. Whence do I derive (that they must also serve) on shemitoth and yovloth, (when the tithes do not obtain)? From "And the Levite shall serve — he" (in any event). R. Nathan says: If no Levite were there, I might think that a Cohein may serve. And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place (i.e., the priestly service), where Levites are not kasher, Cohanim are kasher, then, in a place (i.e., the Levitical service), where Levites are kasher, how much more so should Cohanim be kasher! It is, therefore, written "And the Levite shall serve — he." "and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of not guarding property)": And others (the Israelites, who, [being unguarded, enter the sanctuary]) will not bear their (the Levites') sin. This is to say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Levites, but the Cohanim, (who enter where they should not), do bear their (the Levites') sin. It is, therefore, written "and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of improper guarding)," and not the Israelites or the Cohanim (who, as a result, enter where they should not.) "a statute forever for your generations": It obtains for all succeeding generations. And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance": Why is this written? For, since it is written (Ibid. 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned," I would think that the Levites, too, are included; it is, therefore, written "And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance." (Ibid. 24) "For the tithe of the children of Israel which they set apart for the L-rd as terumah": Scripture refers to it as terumah until he separates terumath ma'aser from it, whereby it teaches that if he wishes to make it terumah for other (untithed) produce, he may do so. "have I given to the Levites as an inheritance": Why is this written? Because it is written "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel in exchange for the service, etc.", I would think (that first-tithe is given to the Levites) only when the Temple, (in which service is performed), exists. Whence do I derive (that it is given) even when the Temple does not exist? From "as an inheritance." Just as "inheritance" obtains whether or not the Temple exists, so, first-tithe. "Therefore, I have said to them that in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance": Why is this written? Is it not already written (23) "And in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance"? I might think that this applies only at the time of the apportionment of the land; but after the apportionment each tribe sets aside from its portion (a parcel of land for Levi). It is, therefore, written "Therefore, I have said, etc." Variantly: "Therefore, I have said": Why is this written? Because it is written (Devarim 7:1) "And He will cast out many nations from before you, the Chitti, the Girgashi, etc.", but Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni are not mentioned, (so that we might think that when they are conquered, Levi can have inheritance in their land); it is, therefore, written "Therefore, I have said, etc." — forever (are they not to have inheritance). Variantly: (It is written) to exhort beth-din to this end (of their not receiving inheritance).

(Bamidbar 18:26) "And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe (ma'aser) that I have given to you from their inheritance, (then you shall separate from it the terumah of the L-rd, ma'aser from the ma'aser.") Why is this written? To teach that (Ibid. 21) "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe" speaks of (one-tenth of) the produce (of the land, and not of [one-tenth of] the land itself.) You say, the produce, but perhaps (the reference is to) the land (itself)! It is, therefore, written (26) "And to the Levites you shall speak and you shall say to them (… that I have given to you from them in their inheritance"). "that I have given to you from them in their inheritance": Because they have not been given a portion in the land, there has been given to them one-tenth of the produce. "then you shall separate from it": From one kind (of produce) for its kind, and not from one kind for a different kind, and not from what is rooted for what is unrooted, and not from what is unrooted for what is rooted, and not from the new (crop) for the old, and not from the old for the new. And whence is it derived that one is not to take terumah from produce of the land (Eretz Yisrael) for produce outside the land or from produce outside the land for produce of the land? From (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land, etc.)" Variantly: "from it": This is "extra" (mufneh) for formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ) viz.: It is written here "from it," and, in respect to the Paschal lamb, (Shemot 12:9) ("Do not eat) from it, etc." Just as re "with it" mentioned here (in respect to ma'aser), it (ma'aser) is forbidden to a mourner, (viz. Devarim 26:14), so, re "with it" mentioned in respect to Pesach, it (the Paschal lamb) is forbidden to a mourner.

(Bamidbar 18:27) "And your terumah will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the pit": R. Yishmael says: When is your terumah accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor? When you have taken it as prescribed (i.e., a kind for its kind, new for new, etc. [see above]). If you have not taken it as prescribed, it is not thus accounted for you. Variantly: "And your (the Levites') terumah (terumath ma'aser) will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor" (terumah gedolah). Now what do we learn from terumah (gedolah) to terumath ma'aser? It (terumah gedolah) comes (apparently) to teach (something), and it ends up being learned (i.e.,) Just as terumath ma'aser is obligatory, so, terumah (gedolah) is obligatory. Abba Eliezer b. Gomel says: Scripture comes to teach you that just as terumah (gedolah) may be taken by estimate and by thought (i.e., without actually handling it), so, terumath ma'aser may be taken by estimate and by thought. "as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the pit": Why is this stated? From (26) "then you shall separate from it," I might think that he could take ears (of grain as terumah) for grain; grapes, for wine; and olives, for oil; it is, therefore, written "as corn from the threshing floor," i.e., (he may take) from what is processed — whence they ruled; (He may take terumah:) from grain, from the time that it (i.e., its pile) has been evened; from wine, from the time that it is skimmed; from oil, from the time that it has dripped down into the trough. (Ibid. 28) "Thus shall you, too, separate the terumah of the L-rd": Why is this written? From (26) "And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel, etc.", (I would say:) The children of Israel give ma'aser to the Levites, but the Cohanim do not give ma'aser to the Levites. And since they do not give ma'aser to the Levites, I might think that they could eat it (the produce) tevel (i.e., untithed); it is, therefore, written: "thus shall you separate, you (the Cohanim), too, the terumah of the L-rd." (i.e., the Cohanim separate terumah, and ma'aser, and terumath ma'aser which reverts to them.) R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed, for if challah, which does not obtain with all produce (i.e., with all the varieties of grain), obtains with the produce of Cohanim, then ma'aser, which does obtain with all produce, how much more so should it obtain with all the produce of Cohanim! What, then, is the intent of "Thus shall you separate, you, too"? I might think that only the ma'aser of an Israelite (is subject to terumath ma'aser). Whence do I derive the (same for) their (the Levites') own tithe (i.e., the tithe that they separate from what is theirs)? It is, therefore, written "Thus shall you separate, you, (the Levites,) too." (Ibid. 29) "From all of your gifts, etc." Scripture hereby teaches that ma'aser obtains with all (produce [see above]) — whence you rule to terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser), viz.: If ma'aser, the "lighter," (not being subject to the death penalty), obtains with all produce), then terumah, the "graver," (being subject to the death penalty, [viz. Vayikra 22:9]), how much more so does it obtain with all (produce [of first tithe])! Variantly: If ma'aser (second tithe), which does not obtain in the third and sixth year (of shemitah, [being replaced by poor-tithe]), obtains with all (produce), then terumah, the graver, how much more so should it obtain with all (produce [of second tithe])! Issi b. Menachem says: If ma'aser (second tithe), which comes only as an incentive to fear and to learning (viz. Devarim 14:23), obtains with all (produce), how much more so does it obtain with the "graver," terumah! (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And you shall give of it the terumah of the L-rd to Aaron the Cohein": Just as Aaron was a chaver (a Torah scholar, so the (other) Cohanim (to receive the priestly gifts, should be chaverim) — whence it was ruled: Priestly gifts should be given only to a chaver. (Ibid. 29) "From all of your gifts shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd. From all of its best (shall you separate) its hallowed part from it." Is Scripture here speaking of terumah gedolah or of terumath ma'aser? "from all of your tithes" (28) speaks of terumath ma'aser. How, then, is "From all of your gifts shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd" to be understood? As referring to terumath gedolah. (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him": This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional! It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 11:29) "shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd" — It is obligatory and not optional. These are the words of R. Yonathan. "from all of its best, its hallowed part from it.": So that if it (terumath ma'aser) fell (back) into it (what it was taken from), it "hallows" it — whence they ruled: Terumah is "neutralized" (from its hallowed state) if it fell into one hundred parts of non-terumah when (it is) one to (that) one hundred. This tells me only of terumah that is (ritually) clean. Whence do I derive (the same for) terumah that is tamei, (that if it fell into a hundred of clean terumah, it is neutralized in such a mixture?) It follows a fortiori, viz.: [Note: The translator, with all his consultation of the commentaries, has not been able to render meaningfully what follows (from here until #122)]

(Bamidbar 18:30) "And you shall say to them (the Levites): When you separate its best part from it, (then it [i.e., what remains]) shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the winepress."): This is an exhortation to the Levites to take (terumath ma'aser) only from its choicest. "then it shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the winepress": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Ibid. 27]) Because it is written (27) "And your terumah will be accounted for you, etc.", I might think that since Scripture refers to it (first tithe) as "terumah," (viz. Ibid. 24), it retains its holiness forever; it is, therefore, written "then it shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the wine press" — Just as with the produce of the threshing floor, one separates terumah, and what remains is chullin (non-terumah), so, with first tithe, he separates terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser) and what remains is chullin. (Ibid. 31) "And you may eat it in every place": even in a cemetery. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since "terumah" (of a Cohein) is called "terumah," and first tithe is called "terumah," then if I have learned that terumah (of a Cohein) is to be eaten only in a (ritually) clean place, so, first tithe; it is, therefore, written "And you may eat it in every place" — even in a cemetery. "you and your household": to include an Israelite woman married to a Levite as permitted to depute (a messenger) to take terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser, from her husband's first tithe). — But perhaps (this permits her) only to eat it! — Would you say that? It follows otherwise, viz.: If she (a Cohein's wife) eats the "graver" — terumah, how much more so should (a Levite's wife) eat the "lighter" — ma'aser! It must mean, then, that an Israelite woman (married to a Levite) is permitted to be deputed to take terumah. (Ibid. 31) "For it is payment to you, in exchange for your service in the tent of meeting.": If he serves, he takes; if he does not serve, he does not take — whence it was ruled: If a Levite took upon himself every Levitical service except one, he has no portion in the Leviate. (Ibid. 32) "And you shall not bear sin because of it": And whence is it derived that if he did not separate (for terumath ma'aser) its choicest part, he does bear sin? From "And you shall not bear sin because of it when you separate its best part from it." This tells me only of terumath ma'aser (i.e., what the Levi separates for the Cohein). Whence do I derive (the same for) terumah gedolah (i.e., what the Israelite separates for the Cohein)? From (Ibid.) "And the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane and you shall not die." This is an exhortation to both the Levites and the Israelites.

(Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned as an inheritance according to the number of names": I would understand that all are included — Israelites, Cohanim, Levites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtumim (those of indeterminate sex), and hermaphrodites. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you shall not inherit" — to exclude Cohanim. (Ibid. 24) "In the midst of the children of Israel they shall not have an inheritance" — to exclude Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit" — to exclude proselytes and bondsmen. (Ibid. 59) "To a man, according to his numbers, shall his inheritance be given" — to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites. R. Yoshiyah says: The land was apportioned to those who left Egypt, as it is written "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit." What, then, is the intent of "To these shall the land be apportioned"? (To such as these,) to exclude minors (below the age of twenty). R. Yonathan says: The land was apportioned according to those who came to the land, as it is written "To these shall the land be apportioned." And what is the intent of "By the names of the tribes of their fathers"? The L-rd changed this inheritance from all the inheritances in the Torah. For in all the inheritances in the Torah the living inherit the dead, whereas here, the dead inherit the living. Rebbi says: An analogy: Two brothers, Cohanim, were in a city. One had one son; the other, three. They go to the granary (to take their portion.) The first takes one sa'ah; the others, three, after which they go to their fathers' father and share equally. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: The land was apportioned to these and to these. How so? If they were of those who left Egypt, they took a share with those who left Egypt. If they were of those who entered the land, they took a share with those who entered the land. If they were both of these and of the others, they took a share of both — so that both verses are satisfied.