Мидраш к Бамидбар 18:19

(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.

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).

(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.")

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).

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.

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.

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).