Мидраш к Бамидбар 19:2

(Numb. 19:2:) THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE TORAH. Blessed be the name of the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, who created the world in wisdom and understanding; for his wonders have no limit and his greatness is beyond reckoning.¹Tanh., 6:1; Numb. R. 18:22. (Ps. 33:7:) HE HAS GATHERED THE WATERS OF THE SEA LIKE A MOUND, AND HE HAS PUT THE DEEPS IN STOREHOUSES. Now what is the meaning of HE GATHERS THE WATERS OF THE SEA LIKE A MOUND? When the Holy One created the world, he said to the prince of the sea: Open your mouth and swallow all the waters of creation.²BB 74b. He said to him: Sovereign of the World, it is enough for me to continue with what is <already> mine. Then he began to weep. He kicked him to death, as stated (in Job 26:12): IN HIS POWER HE STILLED THE SEA, AND IN HIS UNDERSTANDING HE STRUCK DOWN RAHAB. [You find that the prince of the sea was named Rahab. What did the Holy One do? He subdued <the waters> and trampled them down;] and so it was that the sea accepted them, as stated (in Amos 4:13): HE TRAMPLES ON THE HEIGHTS³M. Pss. 93:5. Cf. Gen. R. 23:7, according to which the sea (i.e., the Mediterranean) is higher than the whole world. OF THE EARTH; THE LORD [GOD] OF HOSTS IS HIS NAME. So for <the waters> he set sand in place as bar and gates, according to what is stated (in Job 38:8): AND <WHO> BLOCKED OFF THE SEA WITH DOORS…. Moreover, it says (in Jer. 5:22): DO YOU NOT FEAR ME? SAYS THE LORD. [WILL YOU NOT TREMBLE BECAUSE OF ME,] WHEN I HAVE PLACED SAND AS A BOUNDARY FOR THE SEA? And it says (in Job 38: 10–11): <… AND I SET BAR AND GATES IN PLACE,> AND SAID: YOU MAY COME THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER. Then the sea said to him: Sovereign of the World, in that case my sweet waters will be mingled with the salt <waters>! He said to it: No! Each and every one will have a storehouse for oneself, as stated (in Ps. 33:7): AND HE HAS PUT THE DEEPS IN STOREHOUSES⁴See Gen. R. 4:5. If you should say that this is a great wonder for their waters not to mingle, then consider the face,⁵PRTsWP, an adaptation of the Gk.: prosopon. which the Holy One created in the children of Adam. <Although> the <size of> a full sit,⁶According to Rashi on Shab. 106a, a single sit was the distance between the tips of the of the middle and index fingers when held widely apart. A double sit was the distance between the tips of the thumb and index finger when held widely apart. For various definitions, see Jastrow, p. 977, s.v. SYT. it has so many springs (from 'YN); yet they do not mingle with one another. The waters of the eyes 'YN) are salty; the waters of the ears are oily; the waters of the nose are putrid; the waters of the mouth are sweet. For what reason are the waters of the eyes salty? Because when someone weeps for the dead, <doing so> all the time, he would immediately become blind; however, because <tears> are salty, he stops and does not weep. For what reason are the waters of the ears oily? Because when a person hears bad news, if he held it in his ears, it would collect in his heart, and he would die. Because they are oily, <the news> goes in one ear and out the other.⁷Literally: “<a person> discharges <bad news> through one <ear>, while he admits it through the other.” For what reason are the waters of the nose putrid? Because when a person emits a bad odor, if the waters of the nose were not putrid <enough> to stop it, he would soon die. And for what reason are the waters of the mouth sweet? It sometimes happens that someone eats food that does not agree with him, and he vomits. Now if the waters of the mouth were not sweet, he would not recover. Moreover, since he reads the Torah, of which it is written (in Ps. 19:11 [10]): SWEETER ALSO THAN HONEY AND THE DRIPPINGS OF THE COMB, the waters of the mouth are therefore sweet. Now here are the grounds for arguing a fortiori (qal wehomer), that if <something> <the size of> a full sit has so many springs without them mingling with one another, how much the more so in the case of the Great Sea, of which it is stated (in Ps. 104:25): THERE THE {GREAT SEA IS ALSO WIDE} [SEA IS GREAT AND WIDE]…. <This is> to teach that in everything the Holy One accomplishes his mission and that he has not created one thing in vain. Sometimes the Holy One has accomplished his mission by means of [a frog, by means of a gnat,⁸See Lev. R. 22:2-3; Eccl. R. 5:8:2, 4; PRE 49; also Shab. 77b; Exod. R. 10:1. by means of a wasp, or by means of] a scorpion. R. Hanan of Sepphoris said:⁹Cf. Gen. R. 10:7; Lev. R. 22:4; Eccl. R. 5:8:5. There is a story about a certain scorpion that went to carry out <the Holy One's> mission (to sting a certain person) beyond the Jordan; so the Holy One summoned a certain frog for him, and he crossed over upon it. Then that scorpion went and stung <the> person so that he died. <There is> also a story about a certain reaper who stood and reaped in the valley of Beth-Tofah. When burning heat came, he took grass <and> {cut} [tied] it on his head. <When> a certain mighty serpent came at him, he killed it. A certain <snake> charmer passed by him. He saw the slain serpent. He said to him: who killed that serpent? He said to him I <did>. He looked at the grass on his head. He said to him: Will you remove the grass from your head? He told him: Yes. When he had removed it, he said to him: Are you able to remove this snake with this staff? He told him: Yes. He did so. <When> he drew near to it, he had not succeeded in touching it, before he shed his body parts one by one.

(Numb. 19:2:) Blessed be the name of the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who created the world in wisdom and understanding; for His wonders have no limit and His greatness is beyond reckoning.¹Numb. R. 18:22. (Ps. 33:7:) “He has gathered the waters of the sea like a mound, and He has put the deeps in storehouses.” Now what is the meaning of “He gathers the waters of the sea like a mound?” When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He said to the ministering angel of the sea, “Open your mouth and swallow all the waters of creation,”²BB 74b. he said [back] to Him, “Master of the world, it is enough for me to continue with what is [already] mine.” Then he began to weep. [So God] kicked him to death, as stated (in Job 26:12), “In His power He stilled the sea, and in His understanding He struck down Rahab.” You find that the ministering angel of the sea was named Rahab. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He subdued [the waters] and trampled them down; and so it was that the sea accepted them, as stated (in Amos 4:13), “He tramples on the heights³M. Pss. 93:5. Cf. Gen. R. 23:7, according to which the sea (i.e., the Mediterranean) is higher than the whole world. of the earth; the Lord God of hosts is His name.” So for [the waters] He set sand in place as bar and gates, according to what is stated (in Job 38:8, 10), “And [who] blocked off the sea with doors…. and I set bar and gates in place.” Moreover, it says (in Jer. 5:22), “’Do you not fear Me,’ says the Lord; ‘Will you not tremble because of Me, when I have placed sand as a boundary for the sea?’” And it says (in Job 38:11), “And I said, ‘You may come this far and no farther [...].’” Then the sea said to Him, “Master of the world, in that case my sweet waters will be mingled with the salt [waters]!” He said to it, “No! Each and every one will have a storehouse for itself, as stated (in Ps. 33:7), “and he has put the deeps in storehouses.”⁴See Gen. R. 4:5. If you should say that this is a great wonder for their waters not to mingle, then consider the face,⁵PRTsWP, an adaptation of the Gk.: prosopon. which the Holy One, blessed be He, created in people. [Although only] the [size of] a full sit,⁶According to Rashi on Shab. 106a, a single sit was the distance between the tips of the of the middle and index fingers when held widely apart. A double sit was the distance between the tips of the thumb and index finger when held widely apart. For various definitions, see Jastrow, p. 977, s.v. SYT. it has so many springs (from 'yn); yet they do not mingle with one another. The waters of the eyes ('yn) are salty; the waters of the ears are oily; the waters of the nose are putrid; the waters of the mouth are sweet. For what reason are the waters of the eyes salty? Because when someone weeps for the dead, [doing so] all the time, he would immediately become blind; however, because [tears] are salty, he stops and does not weep. For what reason are the waters of the ears oily? Because when a person hears bad news, if he held it in his ears, it would collect in his heart, and he would die. Because they are oily, [the news] goes in one ear and out the other.⁷Literally, “[A person] admits [bad news] through one [ear], and discharges it through the other.” For what reason are the waters of the nose putrid? Because when a person smells a bad odor, if the waters of the nose were not putrid [enough] to stop it, he would soon die. And for what reason are the waters of the mouth sweet? It sometimes happens that someone eats food that does not agree with him, and he vomits. Now if the waters of the mouth were not sweet, he would not recover. Moreover, since he reads the Torah, of which it is written (in Ps. 19:11), “sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the comb,” the waters of the mouth are therefore sweet. Now here are the grounds for arguing a fortiori (qal wehomer), that if [something the size of] a full sit has so many springs [without them mingling with one another], how much the more so in the case of the Great Sea, of which it is stated (in Ps. 104:25), “There the sea is great and wide […].” [This is] to teach that in everything, the Holy One, blessed be He, accomplishes His mission and that He has not created one thing in vain. Sometimes the Holy One, blessed be He, has accomplished His mission by means of a frog, by means of a gnat,⁸See Lev. R. 22:2-3; Eccl. R. 5:8:2, 4; PRE 49; also Shab. 77b; Exod. R. 10:1. by means of a wasp, or by means of a scorpion. R. Hanan of Sepphoris said,⁹Cf. Gen. R. 10:7; Lev. R. 22:4; Eccl. R. 5:8:5. “There is a story about a certain scorpion that went to carry out the Holy One, blessed be He's mission (to sting a certain person) beyond the Jordan; so the Holy One, blessed be He, summoned a certain frog for him, and he crossed over upon it. Then that scorpion went and stung [the] person so that he died. [There is] also a story about a certain reaper who stood and reaped in the valley of Beth-Kuzevah. When burning heat came, he took grass and tied it on his head. [When] a certain mighty serpent came at him, he killed it. A certain [snake] charmer passed by him. He saw the slain serpent. He said to him, ‘Who killed that serpent?’ [So the reaper] said to him ‘I [did].’ He looked at the grass on his head. He [then] said to him, ‘Remove the grass from your head and [then you can brag (if you still have that power)].’ When he did so, [the charmer] drew near. He had not succeeded in touching him, before [the reaper’s] body parts [all] shed.” R. Jannay was sitting as a judge at the gate of his city, [when] he saw a serpent hissing and coming toward the city. When they would secure against it in one place, it would go to another. He said, “It seems to me that this [serpent] is on its way to carry out its mission.” When it entered the city, a rumor spread in the city, “So-and-so ben so-and-so was bitten by a serpent and he is dead.” R. Elazar was strolling by the seashore of Caesarea. He found a femur bone strewn on the path. [So] he removed it from there, but he found it there again; he removed it from there [a second time] and found it there again. He said, “It seems to me that this [bone] is arranged to carry out its mission.” After [some] days, a minister came and fell over it and died. They looked into him and found evil documents against the Jews in his hand. There is a story about two people who were walking on the way. One who could see, and one was blind. They sat down to eat. They reached out their hands for the herbs of the field and ate. The one who could see became blind, and the one who had been blind became sighted. They did not move from there until the former was being supported by the latter whom he had been supporting. There is a story about a certain person who was going from the land of Israel to Babylon.¹⁰Lev. R. 22:4. While he was eating, he saw two birds fighting with each other. One of them killed its companion. Then going to get an herb, [it placed it on its mouth,] and made it live again. That person (the one who saw what had happened) went and took the very herb that had fallen from the bird. Then he went to make the dead live with it. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre,¹¹A well-known landing dock four hours north of Tyre. See ‘Eruv. 80a. he found a dead lion lying in the open. He touched the herb to its mouth and made it live. The lion got up and ate him. The proverb says, “Do not do good to the evil, and evil will not happen to you.”¹²Gen. R. 22:8. There is a story of Shihin (a town near Sepphoris) about a certain blind person who went down to bathe in the waters in a cave. He happened upon the well of Miriam, immersed [himself in it], and was healed. Titus the wicked entered the interior of the holy of holies.¹³Git. 56b; Lev. R. 22:3. When he had cursed and blasphemed, he stood up and slashed the veil. Then he took a Torah scroll and brought it out. Next he unrolled it; and bringing two whores, he transgressed upon them. Then he drew his sword to cut up the book. A miracle took place in that blood began to spew forth from it. He began to boast, saying that he had killed himself (i.e. God).¹⁴The author is avoiding too literal a description of the sacrilege and therefore substitutes “himself” for God as a euphemism. He began to become bolder and bolder. When he reached the sea, the sea began to grow stormier and stormier. He said, “The God of these people only has power in the sea. When Pharaoh arose, He drowned him in the sea, and Sisera as well.¹⁵See Pes. 118b. Now if He would, let there be dry land between Him and I. Then let us see who overcomes.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “O you wicked one, son of a wicked one, I am sending against you a tiny creature, the least of My creatures, to eradicate you from the world.” A gnat entered his nostril, and stayed in his nostril for three years. When he passed by a place where blacksmiths were working [and the gnat] heard the sound of iron, it was still. Whenever a gentile [blacksmith] would pass him, [Titus] would hire him for four dinars and say to him, “Bang your hammer in front of me the whole day.” And when he would do this the whole day, [Titus] would give him his four dinars. But when a Jewish [blacksmith] passed him, he would say to him, “Take [your hammer] and bang it [here] and I will give you your wage.” And he would bang the whole day. [But] when he was about to leave him and the Jew would say to [Titus], “Give me my wage,” he would answer and say to him, “It is enough for you that you see your enemy like this.” So would he do every day for three years. When he died they split open his head and found that [the gnat had grown] to be like a partridge and a sparrow and its claws were as hard as copper. And he died an unnatural death. Why is it named a base creature? Because it takes in but does not excrete. Moreover, sometimes it is by means of a hornet [that God's will is carried out]. Thus it is written (in Exod. 23:28), “I will send the hornet before you [to drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you].” Our masters have said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, sent the hornet before Israel to kill the Amorites, see what was written about them (in Amos 2:9), “Yet I destroyed the Amorites [before them, whose stature was like the cedars in height and who were as strong as the oaks].” It entered one's right eye and poured out its poison in it. Then [that person] burst open and dropped dead. This indeed is the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, to carry out His missions by means of small things against all who vaunt themselves against Him. He sends them a small creature to exact punishment from them, in order to inform them that there is no substance to their might. Also in the world to come the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to exact punishment from the [idol-worshiping] peoples of the world by means of small things. It is so stated (in Is. 7:18–19), “And it shall come to pass on that day that the Lord shall whistle for the fly. They all shall come […].”

Another matter, “who is like the wise man” – this is Moses, in whose regard it is written: “A wise man ascended against the city of the mighty” (Proverbs 21:22).¹³This is an allusion to Moses ascending
heavenward to the stronghold of the angels to receive the Torah. “And who knows the meaning of a matter” – as he explained the Torah to Israel. Rabbi Mana of Shaab said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: For each and every matter that the Holy One blessed be He would say to Moses, He would tell him its ritual impurity and purity.¹⁴For each form of ritual impurity He taught Moses, God would also teach him how to return to a state of ritual purity. When he reached the portion of: “Say to the priests” (Leviticus 21:1),¹⁵This is the prohibition against priests subjecting themselves to the impurity imparted by a corpse. [Moses] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, but if they do become impure, in what manner is their purification?’ He did not respond to him. At that moment, Moses’s face changed. When they reached the portion of the red heifer,¹⁶Numbers chap. 19. Being sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer in a specific ritual removes the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘That statement that I said to you: “Say to the priests,” and you said to Me: ‘In what manner is their purification,’ and I did not respond to you; this is their purification: “They shall take for the impure from the ashes of the burning of the purification” (Numbers 19:17).’ [Moses] said to Him: ‘Master of the universe, is that purification?’¹⁷How can sprinkling ashes remove impurity imparted by a corpse? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘It is a statute, and I issued a decree, and no creature can comprehend My decree,’ as it is written: “This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:2).

1) "And He called to Moses and the L–rd spoke to him, etc." "to him" — to exclude Aaron. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Thirteen dibroth (accompanied by a command) were stated in the Torah to Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to them, thirteen limitations, to teach us that they were not spoken to Aaron, but to Moses, to tell them to Aaron. (The dibroth: 1) [Shemoth 6:13]; 2) [Shemoth 7:8]; 3) [Shemoth 9:8]; 4) [Shemoth 12:1]; 5) [Shemoth 12:43]; 6) [Vayikra 11:1]; 7) [Vayikra 13:1]; 8) [Vayikra 14:33]; 9 [Vayikra 15:1]; 10 [Bamidbar 2:1]; 11 [Bamidbar 4:1]; 12 [Bamidbar 4:18]; 13) [Bamidbar 19:2].)

Another interpretation (of Numb. 19:2):³⁶Buber has bracketed this whole section, because it is not found in his main Oxford MSS. Nor does it occur in the traditional Tanhuma printed editions. Rather he has taken it from Codex Vaticanus, Ebr. 34. [THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE TORAH <THAT THE LORD HAS COMMANDED, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, > AND LET THEM BRING YOU A RED COW WITHOUT BLEMISH. Let our master instruct us: In the case of a cow with black horns and hoofs, is it correct that it would be permissible (kesherah)? Thus have our masters taught (in Parah 2:2): A COW WITH BLACK HORN AND HOOFS < … > IS VALID,³⁷The Mishnah adds that the black horns and hoofs are to be cut off. but all <the rest> of it must be red. They told a story that one year they went around seeking a red cow without blemish.³⁸PR 14:1. They came to a certain star worshiper and found one with him. They said to him: Sell it to us. When he saw that they needed it greatly, he began to raise the price for it. They said to him: How much? He said to them: A hundred gold coins.³⁹Three or four gold coins would have been a reasonable price. They said to him: Take <the money> and bring out <the cow>. So they gave him <the money>. He entered his house⁴⁰Animals and humans commonly shared the same house. and came out. He said to them: I am not selling unless you pay me more. They paid him fifty coins in addition; but again he entered his house and came out. <So he did not sell,> until they gave him three hundred gold coins. He said to himself: I shall mock <these> Jews. He went in, took a yoke, and let it rest on <the cow> neck all night. In the morning he brought it out to them. When they saw it, they knew that a yoke had been on it, for they saw that its eyes were rolling. When they would come to place a yoke upon it, its eyes would roll and stare at the yoke. When they saw its signs⁴¹Gk.: semeia. that it had had a yoke on it, they said to him: Give us <the> gold coins, for we are not taking it from you, even with no payment. We do not need it. When he saw that they had looked at it and had known that a yoke had been on it, he gave them their money and began to praise the Holy One. Then he said: Blessed be your God, who has set wisdom and knowledge within you. He gave them back the gold coins and strangled himself (at the end of a rope). <This is> to inform you that it is a scriptural commandment for one to bring only a red cow. Where is it shown? From what is written on the subject (in Numb. 19:2): AND LET THEM BRING YOU A RED COW WITHOUT BLEMISH, IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT, ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO YOKE.]

(Numb. 19:2:) “This is the statute of the Torah.” R. Tanhum bar Hanila'i opened [his discourse] (with Ps. 12:7), “The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings.”³⁶Lev. R. 26:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:4. Are the sayings of the Lord [true] sayings, but the sayings of flesh and blood not [true] sayings? Now by universal custom, when a king of flesh and blood enters a province, the inhabitants of the province praise³⁷Rt.: QLS. Cf. Gk.: kalos (“beautiful”). him; and their praise is pleasing to him. He says to them, “Tomorrow I am building bath houses³⁸Dimosa’ot: The translation derives its meaning from the Gk. demosia (“public buildings”), but Jastrow, s.v., demosia, understands the plural of this word more specifically to mean “public baths”, a meaning that well fits this context. for you, and I am building baths for you and I am bringing in a water carrier for you.” [Then] he goes to sleep and never gets up. Where is he [now], and where are his promises (literally, statements)? The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is not like this. Rather the statement of God is true, as (in Jer. 10:10), “He is a living God and an everlasting King.” R. Joshua ben Levi said, “We find that the Torah has twisted two or three words in the Torah, so as not to bring forth something unclean from His (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He's) mouth.³⁹In addition to the parallels for the last section, see Gen. R. 32:4; also cf. M. Pss. 12:5; also Pes. 3b. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:2), ‘From the clean beast and from the beast which is not clean.’ So it is not written, ‘of the unclean beast.’" R. Judan said, “When He came to introduce the signs of an unclean beast, He only began with the signs of purity. It is not written here (in Lev. 11:4), ‘the camel, because it does not have a cloven hoof,’ but “[the camel] because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written here (in Lev. 11:6), ‘The hare, because it does not have a hoof,’ but ‘[The hare], because it chews its cud [but does not have a cloven hoof].’ It is not written (in Lev. 11:7), ‘The pig, because it does not chew its cud,’ but ‘[the pig], because it has a cloven hoof [and is cleft footed, but does not chew its cud].’” R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “The infants who lived in the days of David, [even] before they had a gotten a taste of sin, knew how to interpret the Torah with forty-nine reasons for declaring an object unclean and forty-nine reasons for declaring an object clean.⁴⁰Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Cant. R. 2:4:1; PRK 4:2; PR 14:10; 21:10; M. Pss. 7:7; 12:4; cf. PR 14:6; see also below. So David prayed for them and said (in Ps. 12:8), ‘You, O Lord, will keep them; You will guard each [of them] from this generation unto eternity.’ (ibid.:) ‘You, O Lord, will keep them,’ [i.e.,] watch over their instruction in their hearts; (ibid., cont.) ‘You will guard each [of them from this generation unto eternity],’ from the generation which is worthy of destruction. But after all this praise, they went out to war and fell, because there were slanderers⁴¹Lat.: delatores (“informers”). among them. This is what David says (in Ps. 57:5), ‘My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie down among those who are aflame, men whose teeth are spears and darts, and whose tongues are a sharp sword.’ (ibid.:) ‘My soul is in the midst of lions,’ these are Abner and Amasa, who were lions with the Torah⁴²Although lions, they did not support David when they should have. See Ps. 17:12.; (ibid., cont.) ‘I lie down among those who are aflame,’ these are Doeg and Ahithophel, who were aflame to slander [David]⁴³On Doeg, see I Sam. 22:8-10; Ps. 52:1. On Ahithophel, see II Sam. 17:1-23.; (ibid., cont.) ‘men whose teeth are spears and darts,’ these are the people of Keilah, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 23:12), ‘Will the people of Keilah surrender me?’ (Ps. 57:5, cont.:) ‘And whose tongue is a sharp sword,’ these are the Ziphites, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 54:2), ‘When the Ziphites came and said to Saul, “Is not David hiding among us […]?”’ At that time David said (in Ps. 57:6), ‘”Be exalted, O God, above the heavens,” remove your Divine Presence from among them.’ The generation of Ahab, however, were all worshipers of idols; yet because there were no slanderers among them, they went out to war and won.⁴⁴Deut. R. 5:10; cf. Meg. 11a, according to which Ahab was one of three who ruled over the whole world. The other two were Ahasuerus and Nebuchadnezzar. That [freedom from informers] is what [enabled] Obadiah to say to Elijah (in I Kings 18:13), ‘Has it not been told to my lord what I did [when Jezebel slew the prophets, how I hid a hundred prophets of the Lord …, and provided them with bread and water?’ If bread [is mentioned], why [mention] water? Simply because it was more difficult to bring them the water than the bread.⁴⁵Because of the drought, the greater difficulty in obtaining water would advertise what he was doing. And yet Elijah made his proclamation⁴⁶Rt.: KRZ; see Gk.: keryssein. on Mount Carmel and said (in vs. 22), ‘I am the only prophet of the Lord left,’ and [even though] all the people knew [about Obadiah’s prophets], they did not expose it to the king.” R. Samuel b. R. Nahman said, “They said to the serpent, ‘Why is it that you are found among the fences?’ It said to them, ‘I made a breach in the fence of the world.’⁴⁷I.e., brought sin into the world. They said to it, ‘Why is it that you move along with your tongue slavering?’⁴⁸See also yPe’ah 1:1 (16ab); cf. ‘Arakh. 15b. It said to them, ‘That [tongue] caused me [to make the breach].’ They said to it, ‘Why is it that, when all the [other] animals bite, they do not kill; but when you bite, you do kill?’ It said to them (in Eccl. 10:11), ‘”If a snake bites without being under a spell, the owner of the tongue (i.e., one able to charm the snake) has no advantage.” Is it possible for me to do anything without me being told from on High?’ ‘Then why is it that, when you bite one limb, all the limbs feel [the pain]?’ It said to them, ‘Are you asking me? Ask a slandering informer,⁴⁹Literally: “Master of the tongue.” the one who [remains] here and [yet] slays in Rome.’” Why is the slandering informer named a "third?”⁵⁰See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev. 19:16. The targumist translates rakhil, which came to be interpreted as “slanderer” or “informer,” with lishan telita’e (“triple tongue”). Because [such a slanderer] kills three people: the one who speaks it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is spoken.⁵¹Also ‘Arakh. 15b; M. Pss. 12:2. In the days of Saul it killed four: Doeg, who spoke it⁵²I Sam 22:9-10 and II Sam. 1:15, as interpreted by Rashi on II Sam. 1:2.; Saul, who received it⁵³See Rashi on II Sam. 1:9, who knows a midrash, according to which Saul was slain for slaying the priests of Nob.; Ahimelech, about whom it was spoken⁵⁴In I Sam. 22:16-19.; and Abner ben Ner. Now why was Abner ben Ner slain? Joshua ben Levi said, “[He was slain] because he had his [own] name precede the name of David. This is what is written (in II Sam. 3:12), ‘Then Abner sent messengers unto David where he was, saying, “To whom does the land belong?”’ [In the message] he wrote, ‘From Abner to David.’”⁵⁵Instead of “to David from Abner.” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “[He was slain] because he made the blood of young men [a matter of] amusement (rt.: shq), as stated (in II Sam. 2:14), ‘Please let the young men arise and play (rt.: shq) before us.’” Our masters have said, “[He was slain] because he did [not] wait for Saul to be reconciled⁵⁶Rt.: PYS. Cf. the Gk. noun, peisis, which designates the softer feelings. with David, where it is stated (in I Sam. 24:12, with David addressing Saul), ‘See, my father, see the corner of your cloak in my hand; for when I cut off the corner of your cloak, I did not kill you].’ [Saul] said to him, ‘Abner, what do you want [to understand] from the cloak? You said, “It was caught on a thorn.”’ When [David] came toward wagons around the camp, he said to him (in I Sam. 26:14), ‘“Abner, will you not answer?’ As for the corner of the cloak, you said was caught on a thorn. Were [the] spear and [the] water jar (of I Sam. 26:11) caught on a thorn?’” There are also some who say, “[Abner was slain] because he had the power to protest about Nob, the city of priests, but did not protest.”

(Numb. 19:2, cont:) “That they bring unto you [a red heifer without blemish].” R. Jose bar Hanina said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses. ‘To you I am revealing the reason for the heifer, but to others it is an unquestioned statute.’”⁸⁸PRK 4:7; PR 14:13; Numb. R. 19:6. As Rav Huna said, “It is written (in Ps. 75:3), ‘For I will set a time, when I Myself will judge with equity.’ It is also written (in Zech. 14:6), ‘On that day there shall be no light of cold (yqrot) and frost.’⁸⁹See also Pes. 50a. Things that are hidden from you in this world are going to be clear to you in the world to come, as with the blind person who gains his sight. Thus it is stated (in Is. 42:16), ‘I will lead the blind by a road they do not know, [… these things I have done].’ ‘I will do’ is not stated here, but ‘I have done,’ in that I have already done them for R. Aqiva and his colleagues.” Another interpretation: Things that were not revealed to Moses were revealed to R. Aquiva and his colleagues (as found in Job 28:10), “his eye sees every precious thing.” R. Jose bar Hanina said, “It was implied (in Numb. 19:2) was that all heifers perish, but [Moses’] lasts forever.” R. Aha said in the name of R. Jose bar Hanina, “When Moses ascended into the firmament, he heard the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He, sitting and being occupied with the parashah of the [red heifer], and he was reciting a halakhah (i.e., a passage of oral Torah) in the name of its author (from Parah 1:1), ‘My son, Eliezer says, “The calf [whose neck is to be broken]⁹⁰See Deut. 21:3-4. is to be one year old, but the [red] heifer is to be two years old.”’⁹¹See Braude’s translation of PR, 14:13 p. 290, n. 91, which records a suggestion of Mordecai Margulies, who notes that R. Eliezer would have begun his instruction with this mishnah. Moses said, ‘Master of the world, do not the realms above and below belong to you? Now you are citing a halakhah in the name of flesh and blood?’ He said to him, ‘A righteous man is going to arise in my world and is first going to begin [his teaching] with the parashah of the [red] heifer, R. Eliezer says, “The calf [whose neck is to be broken] is to be one year old, but the [red] heifer is to be two years old.”’ He told Him, ‘Master of the universe, may it be [Your] will that he come from my loins.’ He said to him, ‘By your life, he is to be from your loins.’ Thus it is stated (of Moses' offspring in Exod. 18:4), ‘And the name of the one⁹²So literally. In the biblical context the translation would normally read: AND THE NAME OF THE OTHER WAS ELIEZER. was Eliezer,’ [i.e.,] the name of that particular one [who would begin his teaching with Tractate Parah] was Eliezer. A certain stranger questioned Rabban Johanan ben Zakkay, “These things which you do seem like a kind of sorcery.⁹³Numb. R. 19:8; PRK 4:7; PR 14:14. You bring a heifer, burn it, pound it, and take its ashes. Then [when] one of you is defiled by a corpse, they sprinkle two or three drops on him, and you say to him, ‘You are clean.’” He said to him, “Have you ever had a bad spirit of madness enter you?” He told him, “No.” He said to him, “Perhaps you have seen someone into whom a bad spirit has entered?” He told him, “Yes.” He said to him, “So what did you do for him?” He said to him, “They bring roots and burn them beneath him. Then they sprinkle water on [the spirit], and it flees.” He said to him, “Let your ears hear what you are uttering with your mouth. Similarly is this spirit an unclean spirit. Thus it is stated (in Zech. 13:2), ‘and I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land.’ They sprinkle the purifying water upon him, and he flees.” After the gentile had left, [R. Johanan's] disciples said to him, “Our master, you repelled this one with a [mere] reed [of an answer]. What have you to say to us?” He said to them, “By your lives, a corpse does not defile, nor does a heifer purify, nor does water purify. Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, has said, ‘I have enacted a statute for you. I have issued a decree, [and] you are not allowed to transgress against my decree.’” Thus it is written (in Numb. 19:2), “This is the statute of the Torah.” And for what reason are all the sacrifices male and female, while that one is [only] female?⁹⁴PRK 4:8. R. Ayyevu said, “It is comparable to the son of a female slave who defiled a king's palace.⁹⁵Lat.: praetorium Gk.: praitoriom. The king said, ‘Let his mother come and clean up the excrement.’ Similarly has the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Let a heifer come and atone for the incident of the [golden] calf.’”

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).

On the second day, brought (hikriv) Netanel, etc.: Why does it state, "brought" [only with Netanel]? Because Reuven came and appealed: He said, “It is enough that Yehudah should precede me with the encampments; I should bring [next] based on the order of birth! Moshe rebuked him and said to him, “It is from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, that it was told to me – bring (hakrev, which is the ketiv – the way the word is spelled in the Torah) from the [order of the] encampments!” Another explanation: Hikriv (which also means ‘he put him forward’) – Moshe put him forward against the will of Reuven. Another explanation: As if he brought first (even before Yehudah). Why is this so? Since he merited to have the counsel of the princes [to offer wagons], the verse counts it as if he were the first one to bring [it] up. Abba Chanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, “Since he merited to have the counsel, he merited to have understanding given to his tribe, as it is stated (I Chronicles 12:33), ‘And from the children of Yissachar, who know understanding of times.’” And it is stated (Judges 5:15), “And Yissachar’s chiefs were with Deborah, etc.” And so does the verse recount his praise in the courts in Egypt, as it is stated (Numbers 26:24), “To Yashuv was the Yashuvite family” – and Yashuv is always [referring to] courts, as it is stated (Ezekiel 33:31), “They will come to you in crowds and sit (yeshvu) before you, etc.”; “and Yaakov was a simple man who sits (yoshev) in tents” (Genesis 25:27), and it states (Deuteronomy 33:18), “and Yissachar in his tents.” Brought his sacrifice, etc. – Rabbi Pinchas be Yair said, “Why did it add [the word,] hikriv and remove [the letter,] yod? Rather it is corresponding to the red heifer that they made that day. Therefore, it added [the word,] hikriv missing yod, and left the word with four letters – corresponding to the four things that the heifer required: red, complete, without a blemish, without the carrying of a yoke. As you would say (Numbers 19:2), ‘and they shall take to you a red heifer that is complete, etc.’” One silver bowl – the prince of Yissachar came and brought the offering for the sake of the Torah; as they love the Torah more than the other tribes, as it is stated (I Chronicles 12:33), “And from the children of Yissachar, who know understanding of times, etc.” What is “of times?” Rabbi Tanchuma said, “ Of holidays.” Rabbi Yose said, “Of intercalations.” [This verse in Chronicles continues,] “to know what Israel shall do” – on which day they shall make the holidays. [And further in the verse,] “their heads are two hundred” – these are the two hundred leaders of the Sanhedrin groomed by the tribe of Yissachar. [Still in the verse,] “and all of their brothers according to their mouths” – that they would agree to the law based on their mouths. And it states (Genesis 49:15), “bent his shoulder to haul” – since they would haul the yoke of Torah. [The verse in Genesis continues] "and he will be a conscripted worker" - as anyone who was mistaken in the law would ask it to the tribe of Yissachar and they would clarify it for them. A silver bowl – corresponding to the Torah that is called ‘bread,’ as it stated (Proverbs 19:5), “Come repast on my bread.” And it is said about the showbread (Exodus 25:29), “And you shall make its bowls and its ladles”; and we learned, “its bowls” - these are the molds, as they would make the showbread in molds. One hundred and thirty was its weight – go out and calculate: twenty-four books of the written Torah and eighty from the Mishnah; which begins with [the letter,] mem (which has a numerical equivalent of forty), “me’imatai korin et haShema, etc. and ends with mem, “Hashem yivarech et amo be’shalom”. Mem is forty and [another] mem is forty; behold eighty, [so] one hundred and four, as this is the count that the written Torah and the oral Torah come to. Another explanation: The beginnings of the six Orders of the Mishnah – the first letters come to eighty. Go out and calculate: Mem (forty) from “me’imatai” from the Order of Seeds; yod (ten) from “yitziot haShabbat” from the Order of Appointed Time; chet (eight) from “chamesh-esreh nashim” from the Order of Women; one (alef) from “arbaah avot nezikin” from the Order of Salvations (Damages); caf (twenty) from “kol haZevachim” from the Order of Holy Things; one (alef) from “avot haTumaot ” from the Order of Purities - behold eighty, [so] from here [you see that] the count of the written Torah and the oral Torah come to one hundred and four. And it was given in twenty-six generations which were from Adam to Moshe, through whom the Torah was given – behold, one hundred and thirty. Hence the weight of the bowl was one hundred and thirty.

Our rabbis taught: An incident once took place with a Jewish man who had one cow [which he used] for ploughing. [Then], his hand [fortune] was diminished and he sold her [the cow] to a non-Jewish man and it ploughed with him [for the] six day of the week. On Shabbat he took her out to plough with him and she laid down under the yoke. He then walked [to the cow] and hit her, and she did not move from her place. Since he saw it was so, he walked and said to the Jewish man who sold her to him: "Come [and] take your cow, perhaps she has some [debilitating] pain since [no matter] how many times I hit her and she [still] does not move from her place." The Jewish man understood [the cause of the cow's action], saying [to himself] this is for the sake of Shabbat, [for] she has learned to rest on Shabbat. He [the Jew] said to him [the non-Jew]: "Come, I will make her stand up." When he neared [the cow], he spoke into the cow's ear: "Cow, you know that when you were in my possession you would plough during the days of the week and on Shabbat you would rest. [But] now that I have been afflicted by suffering, and you are in the hands of a non-Jew I am asking you to stand up and plough." Immediately, she stood up and ploughed. The non-Jew said to him: "I had not asked you to take the cow until now, and I did not come to you to address any matter apart from this. And I will not let you go until you tell me what you did to her in her ear, [for] I struggled with her and I hit her and she did not stand up." The Jewish man began to appease him and said: "I did no magic or sorcery, rather in this specific manner did I divert her." Immediately, the non-Jew was awestruck, saying [to himself]: If a cow which does not have [the ability of] speech nor understanding can recognize her Creator, then how can I - who was formed in His image, and who was given understanding - not walk and recognize my Creator. Immediately, he went and converted. And he studied and became worthy of [teaching] Torah. And they called his name "Yochanan be Tortah" and [even] until today, our Rabbis have reported Halacha in his name. And if you will wonder how it came to be that a cow led one man to be gathered under the wings of the Divine Presence, in fact, on the account of a cow all of Israel became pure as we read concerning [the Red Heifer] "This is the statute of the Torah" (Numbers 19:2)....

(Lev. 23:40:) “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day [beautiful tree fruit, branches of palm trees, boughs of dense trees and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days].” This text is related (to Prov. 4:10), “Heed, my child, and take in (rt.: lqh) my words,” and (in Prov. 2:1), “treasure my commandments.” I have charged you with many takings (rt.: lqh) in order to benefit you.⁸¹Lev. R. 30:13. I told you (in Numb. 19:2), “’And let them bring (rt.: lqh) you a red cow.’ Was it possibly for My sake? No. I only did it in order to cleanse you. Is it not so written (in vs. 19), ‘And the clean person shall sprinkle it [upon the unclean person]?’ I told you (in Exod. 25:2), ‘And let them take (rt.: lqh) for Me a priestly share,’ so that I might dwell among you.” It is so stated (in vs. 8), “And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.’” He, as it were, spoke a difficult thing to them, “Take Me that I may dwell among you.” “And take a priestly share” is not written here, but “And let them take (for)⁸²Since “for Me” can sometimes be understood as a direct object, the midrash is understanding the verse to mean: LET THEM TAKE ME AS A PRIESTLY SHARE. Me a priestly share.” [It is] I, [whom] you are taking.” “I said to you (in Exod. 27:20), ‘And let them bring unto you pure olive oil.’ Do I need your light? It is simply to preserve your souls, since the soul is likened to a lamp, where it is stated (in Prov. 20:27), ‘A person's soul is a lamp of the Lord.’ And now when it says (in Lev. 23:40), ‘And you shall take for yourselves on the first day,’ it is not because it is necessary for Me, but in order to benefit you.” (Lev. 23:40:) “A beautiful tree fruit, branches of palm trees, boughs of dense trees and willows of the brook.” What is the nature of these four species?⁸³Lev. R. 30:12. Some of them produce fruit and some of them do not produce fruit. “A beautiful tree fruit, the branches of the palm trees.” These are the righteous, [because they have good works, which are like these plants that have fruit]. “Boughs of dense trees and willows of the brook.” These are the average Israelites. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “All of you join together to become a single group, so that there not be leftovers among my children. If you have done so, I will be exalted upon you.” And so the prophet says (in Amos 9:6), “Who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and founds His celestial vault upon earth.” Now when is He exalted? When they become a single group (agudah), as stated (ibid., cont.), “and founds His celestial vault (agudah) upon earth.”

This is the ordinance - As it is said verse (Job:14): Who gave (brought forth) purity to one who is impure? , such as Abraham from Terah, Hezekiah from Achaz, etc , Israel from the nations of the world, the world to come from this world. Who did so, who commanded so, who decreed it so, if not The One! (the world's only!) ....! There we learned (Parah 4:4): those who occupy themselves with the Parah from beginning to end, impurify their clothes, but it makes clothes Pure. God said: I carved a law (into the fabric of creation), a decree i made, you have no ability to transgress (override) My law!

... Another opinion "may my heart be complete in Your laws", this is concerning the law of Pesach and the law of the Red Cow. Why? Because the two of them are similar one to the other, regarding one it is stated "these are the laws of the Pesach" and regarding the other is it stated "these are the laws of the Torah". And you can't know which one is more important than the other. It is like the parable of two distinguished ladies that were walking, and they looked similar. How would you know which one is more distinguished? The one whom the other accompanies to her house and walks after her. So too, regarding Pesach it is written "law" and regarding the Red Cow it is written "law", and which one is more important? The Cow, since Pesach needs it, as it says "And they will take for the ritually impure from the ashes of the burnt sacrifice" (Numbers 19:17)...

This is the ordinance of the Torah - (Psalms 12:6) The sayings of G-d are pure (purify). R. Hanan Ben Pazzi elucidated this verse [of psalms with the parsha of Parah] Parah- which has seven seven sevens; seven cows, seven fires, seven sprinkling, seven washes, seven unclean, seven pure, seven priests. And if someone tells you they are five, tell him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is said: And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the Torah:

3 (Numb. 19:2) “This is the statute of the Torah”: R. Isaac began [his discourse] (with Eccl. 7:23), “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.” It is written (in I Kings 5:9), “So God gave Solomon wisdom [...].” What is the meaning of (I Kings 5:9, cont.,) “As vast as the sand of the sea.” The rabbis say, “[This] teaches that He gave him as much wisdom as all Israel, who are compared to the sand, as stated (in Hos. 2:1), ‘The number of the Children of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea. R. Levi said, “Just as sand is a wall and a fence for [the sea], that it not go out and flood the world; so was wisdom a fence for Solomon.” The proverb says, “If you lack knowledge, what have you gained? If you have gained knowledge, what do you lack?” Like (in Prov. 25:28) “A city broken into with no walls,” so “is a person who does not restrain his spirit.” (I Kings 5:10) “Now Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the East”: And what was the wisdom of the peoples of the East?²⁹Above, Gen. 7:24; PR 14:9. [In that] they were astute at divination (from birds). Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, “I like three things, etc.” (I Kings 5:10, cont.) “From all the wisdom of Egypt”: What was the wisdom of Egypt? You find that when Solomon wanted to build the Temple, he sent to Pharaoh Necho and said to him, “Send me craftsmen [to work] for a wage, for I want to build the Temple.” What did Pharaoh do? He gathered all his astrologers³⁰Gk.: astrologoi. and said to them, “Foresee which people are going to die this year and send them to him.” When they came to Solomon, he foresaw through the holy spirit that they would die during that year. He [therefore] gave them shrouds and sent them [back] to [Pharaoh]. He sent to him, saying, “Do you not have shrouds to bury your dead? Here they are for you with their shrouds.” (I Kings 5:11) “And he was wiser than any man (literally, than all of Adam),” than the first Adam. And what was his wisdom? You find that, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the first Adam, He consulted with the ministering angels. He said to them (in Gen. 1:26), “Let us make humankind (Adam) in Our image.” They said to him (in Ps. 8:5), “What is a human that You are mindful of him?” He said to them, “This Adam that I want to create Adam shall have wisdom greater than yours.” What did He do? He gathered all cattle, wild beasts, and fowl to pass before them. He said to them, “What are the names of these [beings]?” They, however, did not know. When He had created Adam, He made them pass before him. He said to him, “What are the names of these [beings]?” He said, “It is fitting to call this one an ox, this one a lion, this one a horse, [...]” and so on for all of them. It is so stated (in Gen. 2:20), “So Adam recited names”³¹The understanding of the midrash is that the creatures implicitly already possessed names. He said to him, “And you, what is your name?” Adam said to him, “Adam, because I was created out of the ground (adamah).” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “I, what is My name?” He said to him, “The Lord, because you are Lord over all creatures,” namely as written (in Is. 42:8), “I am the Lord, that is My name,” which the first Adam gave me. It is the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and Myself; it is the one which I have agreed to [for use] between Me and My creatures. (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “[Wiser] than Ethan the Ezrahite”: This is Abraham, of whom it is stated (in Ps. 89:1), “A maskil (a psalm of erudition) of Ethan the Ezrahite.”³²It is assumed, of course that Abraham wrote the Psalm, an assumption based on a comparison of Ps. 89:1 and Is. 41:2: WHO HAS RAISED UP RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM THE EAST?. See BB 15a. The Ezrahite (‘ezrahi) of Ps. 89:1 is understood in the sense of “Easterner,” and Ethan (which means “steadfast”) is regarded as equivalent to “righteous.” For another argument identifying Ethan and Abraham, see PR 6:5. (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “And Heman (rt.: 'mn)”: This is Moses, of whom it is stated (in Numb. 12:7 with reference to Moses), “[… he is trusted (rt.: 'mn) in all My house].” (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “Calcol (klkl)”: This is Joseph, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 47:12), “And joseph sustained (rt.: klkl) [his father and his brothers].” The Egyptians said, “Has this slave come to rule over us for any reason but because of his wisdom?” What did they do to him? They brought seventy tablets³³Gk.: piyyakia; Lat.: pittacia. and wrote on them in seventy tongues. Then when they cast them before him, he read each and every one in its own tongue. And not only that, but he spoke in the holy tongue, which they did not have the ability to understand, as stated (in Ps. 81:6), “He made it a statute upon Joseph, when he went out over the land of Egypt. I hear a language I had not known.” (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “Darda (drd')]:” This is the generation (dor) of the desert, which had knowledge (de'ah). (I Kings 5:11, cont.) “The children of Mahol,” i.e., the Children of Israel whom the Divine Presence forgave (rt.: mhl) for the deed of the calf. (I Kings 5:12) “Moreover he composed three thousand proverbs”: R. Samuel bar Nahmani said, “We have gone over all of the scriptures and have found that Solomon only uttered prophetically close to eight hundred verses.³⁴See Cant. R. 1:1:11. Then what is meant by three thousand? [This number] teaches that each and every verse that he spoke contains two [or] three interpretations, just as it says (in Prov. 25:12), ‘Like an earring of gold, a necklace of fine gold, [so is a wise reprover to a listening ear].’”³⁵The midrash understands the WISE REPROVER TO BE Solomon himself, who is likened to both a golden earring and a golden necklace. But the rabbis say, “Every verse has three thousand proverbs, while each and every proverb has a thousand and five interpretations.” [(I Kings 5:12, cont.) “And his song numbered a thousand and five”:] “His songs” is not written here, but “his song,” the song of the proverb. (I Kings 5:13) “And he spoke with/concerning ('al)³⁶The point of the midrash in this and in the following chapter concerns whether to understand ‘al as “with” or “concerning.” the trees”: Is it possible that a person would speak with the trees? Solomon merely said, “For what reason is a leper cleansed through the tallest among the trees (the cedar) and through the lowest of the low (the hyssop); through (according to Lev. 14:4) cedar wood, [crimson stuff,] and hyssop?’ It is simply because he had exalted himself like the cedar, that he was stricken with leprosy. As soon as he humbled himself like the hyssop, he was therefore cured through hyssop”. (I Kings 5:13, cont.) “He also spoke with/concerning ('al) the cattle and the fowl”: Is it possible that [a person] would speak with cattle and with fowl? Rather [the passage is concerned with] why the cattle are permitted [as food] with [the cutting of] two organs³⁷Gk.: semeia (“signs,” “omens”). (the gullet and the windpipe); but the fowl, with [the cutting of] one organ (i.e., the gullet or the windpipe).³⁸See Hul. 2:1; Hul. 27b. Because cattle were created from the dry land. But in regard to fowl, one text says [they came] from the dry land, while another text says [they came] from the sea. [The text stating fowls came] from the dry land is what is written (in Gen. 2:19), “So from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens.” The other text says (in Gen. 1:20), “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and the fowl fly above the earth.”³⁹This unusual translation of Gen. 1:20 is required by the midrash. Bar Qappara said, “They were created from the mud which is in the sea.” R. Abbin said the name of R. Jose the Galilean said, “Nevertheless, the feet of the cock resemble the scaly skin⁴⁰Reading HSPNYT’ with the parallel in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Kings, 178, for Buber’s HRTsPYTYH. of the fish.”⁴¹A fish of the genus anthias. (I Kings 5:13, cont.) “And with/concerning ('al) the creeping things”: Is it possible that one would speak with a creeping thing? Solomon simply said, “What is the reason that in the case of the eight swarming creatures which are in the Torah, one is culpable for hunting or injuring them (on the Sabbath)⁴²Shab. 14:1.; but in the case of the rest of the swarming creatures, one is exempt?⁴³Shab. 14:1. For the reason that they (i.e. the former) have skins.”⁴⁴Shab. 107ab, explains that in the case of skin, as distinct from the flesh, a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar. Thus part of the animal’s life is lost. See yShab. 14:1 (14b); also Hul. 9:2. Cf. Rashi on Shab. 14:1, according to whom cutting the skin causes blood to color it in a form of dying, an act forbidden on the Sabbath. (I Kings 5:13 cont.) “And with/concerning ('al) the fish”: Is it possible that one would so speak? Solomon merely said, “For what reason do cattle, beasts, and birds require ritual slaughtering, while fish do not require ritual slaughtering?” Rather it is from this verse (in Numb. 11:22), “Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; [are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them]?” Jacob the man of Kefar Nibburayya taught in Tyre with respect to fish, that they do require ritual slaughtering. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis did you decide this?” He said to him, “From here (in Gen. 1:20), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the fowl fly.’ Just as fowl require ritual slaughtering, so do the fish require ritual slaughtering.” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “On what basis?” He said to him, “From here (in Numb. 11:22), ‘Are there enough flocks and herds to slaughter for them; are there enough fish in the sea to gather for them?’ The former require ritual slaughtering, while the latter [is taken] through gathering.” He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” And again did Jacob the man of Kefar Nibburayya teach in Tyre, [this time] with respect to an Israelite man, who came upon a foreign woman and had her bear him a son, that he should be circumcised on the Sabbath. When R. Haggai heard, he sent for him to come. He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him, “[From this which is written] (in Numb. 1:18) ‘then they registered their lineages according to their families according to the house of their fathers.’” He said to them (i.e., those standing by), “Lay him down to receive lashes.” He said to him, “Shall a person who speaks words of Torah be lashed?” He said to him, “You did not decide [the law] well.” He said to him, “From where can you show me?” He said to him, “If one of the gentiles came to you in order to become a proselyte on condition that you circumcise him on the Sabbath day or on the Day of Atonement, would you profane the Sabbath on account of him or not? Is it not true that one does not profane the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement for him but only for the son of an Israelite woman.” He said to him, “On what basis do you hold this?” He said to him (in Ezra 10:3), “So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all (foreign) wives and (anyone] born of them […].” He said to him, “Would you lash me on the basis of [a non-Mosaic text]?” He said to him, “It is written (ibid.), ‘let it be done [according to] the Torah.’” He said to him, “From which [piece of] Torah?” He said to him, “From that of R. Johanan, when he said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, ‘It is written (in Deut. 7:3), “You shall not intermarry with them; do not give your daughters to their sons.” Why? (As in Deut. 7:4,) “Because they will turn your children away from following me.” Your child that comes from an Israelite woman is called "your child"; but that which comes from a foreign woman is called, not "your child," but "her child,” as stated (in Gen. 21:13), “And I will also make the son of the maidservant into a nation.”’" He said to him, “Give [me] your beating, as it is good for retention.” Solomon said, “About all these things I have knowledge; but in the case of the parashah on the red heifer, I have investigated it, inquired into it, and examined it. [Still] (at the end of the verse in Eccl. 7:23), ‘I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.’”

5 R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “There are four things that the evil drive would refute [as irrational], and for each of them is written [the word,] huqqah (i.e., an unquestioned statute).⁴⁷Although Huqqah is normally translated simply as “statute,” the word more fully denotes a command that demands implicit and unquestioned obedience. Huqqah is therefore translated “unquestioned statute” throughout this section. Now these concern the following: (1) the nakedness of a brother's wife, (2) diverse kinds, (3) the scapegoat, and (4) the red heifer.”⁴⁸PR 14:12; see Yoma 67b. In regard to the nakedness of a brother's wife, it is written (in Lev. 18:16), “[You shall not uncover] the nakedness of your brother's wife”; [yet if the brother dies] without children [it is written] (in Deut. 25:5), “her brother-in-law shall have sexual intercourse with her [and take her for a wife].” And it is written about the sexual prohibitions (in Lev. 18:5), “And you shall keep [all] My unquestioned statutes [...].” In regard to diverse kinds, it is written (in Deut. 22:11), “You shall not wear interwoven stuff, [wool and flax together]”; yet a linen cloak⁴⁹Gk.: sindon. with [wool] tassels is permitted.⁵⁰See Numb. 15:37-38. And for [this commandment also] it is written, [that it is] an unquestioned statute. [Thus it is written (in Lev. 19:19),] “You shall keep My unquestioned statute. [You shall not mate your cattle with a different kind…, nor shall you wear a garment with diverse kinds of interwoven stuff].” In regard to the scapegoat, it is written (in Lev. 16:26), “And the one who sets the azazel-goat free shall wash his clothes”; yet it is [the goat] itself that atones for others. And for [this commandment also] it is written (in Lev. 16:34), “And this shall be to you an unquestioned statute forever.” In regard to the red heifer, where is it shown? Since we are taught (in Parah 4:4), “All engaged with the [rite of the red] heifer from beginning to end render [their] garments unclean”; yet it is [the heifer] itself that purifies garments. And for [this commandment also] it is written, [that it is] an unquestioned statute. Thus it is written (in Numb. 19:2), “This is an unquestioned statute of the Torah.”

...And they will take for you a red cow - Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Hanina says, The Holy One blessed be he said to Moses: "to you I will reveal the reason for the red cow, but for others it will be a decree (without reason)", as Rav Huna says, "it is written (Psalms 75:3) "At the time I choose, I will give judgment righteously/equitably", and it is written (Zechariah 14:6), "And it will come to pass on that day there will not be light, yeqarot and qippa'on. The written [tradition of orthography in scrolls] version is "yiqpa'un" {future tense = they will float}, [meaning] things which are hidden/covered from you in this world, in the future will float up [to the surface] in the world to come."

A gentile asked Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, "These rituals you do, they seem like witchcraft! You bring a heifer, burn it, crush it up, and take its ashes. [If] one of you is impure by the dead [the highest type impurity], 2 or 3 drops are sprinkled on him, and you declare him pure?!" He said to him, "Has a restless spirit ever entered you?" He said to him, "No!" "Have you ever seen a man where a restless spirit entered him?" He said to him, "Yes!" [Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai] said to him, "And what did you do for him?" He sad to him, "We brought roots and made them smoke beneath him, and pour water and it flees." He said to him, "Your ears should hear what leaves from your mouth! The same thing is true for this spirit, the spirit of impurity, as it is written, (Zachariah 13:2) "Even the prophets and the spirit of impurity will I remove from the land." They sprinkle upon him purifying waters, and it [the spirit of impurity] flees." After he left, our rabbi's students said, "You pushed him off with a reed. What will you say to us?" He said to them, "By your lives, a dead person doesn't make things impure, and the water doesn't make things pure. Rather, God said, 'I have engraved a rule, I have decreed a decree (chukah chakakti, gezeira gazarti), and you have no permission to transgress what I decreed, as it says "This is a chok (rule) of the Torah."

(Numb. 19:2, cont:) THAT THEY BRING UNTO YOU <A RED HEIFER WITHOUT BLEMISH>. R. Jose bar Hanina said: the Holy One said to Moses. To you I am revealing the reason for the heifer, but to others it is an unquestioned statute.¹²⁰Tanh., Numb. 6:8; PRK 4:7; PR 14:13; Numb. R. 19:6.

(Numb. 19:2:) <A RED HEIFER WITHOUT BLEMISH, IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT, ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO YOKE>. (Ibid.:) HEIFER. This is Egypt, as stated (in Jer. 46:20): EGYPT IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL YOUNG COW.¹³²PRK 4:9; PR 14:15. (Numb. 19:2:) RED. This is Babylon, as stated (in Dan. 2:38): YOU ARE THE HEAD OF <RED> GOLD. (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) WITHOUT BLEMISH (temimah). This is Media, of which R. Hiyya bar Abba has said: The kings of Media are blameless (temimim); and the Holy One had nothing against them, for they only served the idols which they had received from their ancestors. (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT. This is Greece. When Alexander of Macedon saw Simeon the Just, he stood on his feet and said: Blessed is the God of Simeon the Just. The people of his palace¹³³Lat.: palatium; Gk.: palation. said to him: Do you stand in the presence of a Jew? He said to them: When I go down to battle, I see his image, and I am victorious.

[Another interpretation (of Numb. 19:2): <A RED HEIFER WITHOUT BLEMISH, IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT, ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO YOKE>. (Ibid.:) HEIFER. This is Israel, since it is written (in Hos. 4:16): ISRAEL HAS BALKED LIKE A BALKY HEIFER.¹³⁸PRK 4:10; PR 14:15. (Numb. 19:2:) RED. This is Israel, of whom it is written (in Lam. 4:7): THEIR LIMBS WERE REDDER THAN CORAL. (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) WITHOUT BLEMISH (rt.:TMM). This is Israel, of whom it is written (in Cant. 6:9): <ONLY ONE IS> MY DOVE, MY PERFECT ONE (rt.: TMM). (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) IN WHICH THERE IS NO DEFECT. This is Israel, of whom it is written (in Cant. 4:7): AND THERE IS NO BLEMISH IN YOU. (Numb. 19:2, cont.:) ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO YOKE. This is the generation of Jeremiah, which did not take the yoke of the Holy One upon themselves. (Numb. 19:3:) THEN YOU SHALL GIVE IT UNTO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST. This is Jeremiah, of whom it is written (in Jer. 1:1): ONE OF THE PRIESTS THAT WERE IN ANATHOTH.¹³⁹According to Josh. 21:13–19 and I Chron. 6:35–45 [50–60], Anathoth is part of the heritage of the children of Aaron, and Anathoth was also the home of Abiathar the descendant of Eli (I Kings 2:26–27), who in turn was descended from Eleazar, according to 4 Ezra 1:2–3. see Exod. 6:23–25. Against this view, cf. Josephus, Ant. 5:361–362; also I Chron 24:3, according to whom Eli was descended from Ithamar. So also TDER 12 (11), p. 58 (Friedmann); TDEZ, p. 191 (Friedmann). (Numb. 19:3, cont.:) AND HE SHALL TAKE IT OUTSIDE THE CAMP. (Ezra 5:12:) AND HE DEPORTED THE PEOPLE TO BABYLON. (Numb. 19:3, cont.:) AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT IN HIS PRESENCE. (II Kings 25:7:) THEY SLEW THE CHILDREN OF ZEDEKIAH BEFORE HIS EYES. (Numb. 19:5:) AND HE SHALL BURN THE HEIFER <BEFORE HIS EYES>. (II Kings 25:9 = Jer. 52:13:) HE ALSO BURNED THE HOUSE OF THE LORD AND THE HOUSE OF THE KING. (Numb. 19:5, cont.:) TOGETHER WITH ITS SKIN, <ITS FLESH, AND ITS BLOOD>. (II Kings 25:9, cont. = Jer. 52:13, cont:) AND ALL THE HOUSES OF JERUSALEM, EVEN {THE GREAT HOUSE} [ALL THE GREAT ONE'S HOUSE] DID HE BURN WITH FIRE. Now why does <Scripture> call <the heifer> a GREAT ONE'S HOUSE? It is simply that this was the house of study (bet midrash) that belonged to R. Johanan ben Zakkay, for there they taught the greatness of the Holy One.¹⁴⁰Rabbinic tradition tended to regard the Temple destruction under Nebuchadnezzar as closely paralleling the destruction under Titus. It is therefore possible to understand a description of the first destruction as a prophecy of the second, when R. Johanan ben Zakkay was teaching. (Numb. 19:6:) <AND THE PRIEST SHALL TAKE CEDAR WOOD, HYSSOP, AND CRIMSON STUFF, AND CAST THEM INTO THE MIDST OF THE BURNING HEIFER.> (Ibid.:) AND <HE> SHALL TAKE. This refers to Nebuchadnezzar. [(Ibid.:) THE PRIEST. This is Jeremiah, of whom it is stated (in Jer. 39:12, where Nebuchadnezzar gave the order): TAKE HIM AND LOOK AFTER HIM.] (Numb. 19:6, cont.:) CEDAR WOOD, HYSSOP, AND CRIMSON STUFF. These are Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. (Ibid., cont.:) AND CAST THEM INTO THE MIDST OF THE BURNING HEIFER. (Dan. 3:22): THE FLAME OF THE FIRE SLEW THEM (i.e., their executioners). (Numb. 19:9:) THEN <SOMEONE CLEAN> SHALL GATHER <THE ASHES OF THE HEIFER>. This refers to the Holy One, of whom it is stated (in Is. 11:12): SO HE SHALL RAISE UP A SIGNAL FOR THE NATIONS AND GATHER THE OUTCASTS OF ISRAEL. (Numb. 19:9:) SOMEONE (ish). This is the Holy One, of whom it is stated (in Exod. 15:3): THE LORD IS A MAN (ish) OF WAR. (Numb. 19:9, cont.:) CLEAN (rt.: THR). This is the Holy One, of whom it is stated (in Hab. 1:13): YOUR EYES ARE TOO PURE (rt.: THR) <TO BEHOLD EVIL>. (Numb. 19:9, cont.:) THE ASHES OF THE HEIFER. These are the dispersed people of Israel. (Ibid., cont.:) AND DEPOSIT THEM OUTSIDE THE CAMP IN A CLEAN (rt.: thr) PLACE. This <place> is Jerusalem, in that it is clean. (Ibid., cont.:) AND IT SHALL BE KEPT FOR THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, because in this world things are <pronounced> unclean and clean from the mouth of a priest; however, in the world to come it shall not be so. Rather the Holy One is going to do the cleansing (rt.: THR), as stated (in Ezek. 36:25): I WILL SPRINKLE PURE (rt.: THR) WATER UPON YOU, AND YOU SHALL BE PURE (rt.: THR); I WILL PURIFY (rt.: THR) YOU FROM ALL YOUR UNCLEANNESSES AND FROM ALL YOUR IDOLS.

Rabbi Yehuda opened in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, "'Listen my son and take my words' (Proverbs 4:10). Many takings have I commanded you in order to give you merit. I said to you (Numbers 19:2), 'and you will take to you a pure red cow.' [Was it] maybe for My sake? But rather it was for your sake, to purify you, as it is written (Numbers 19:19), 'And the pure one will sprinkle on the impure one.' I said to you (Exodus 25:2), 'and they shall take an offering for Me' in order that I will dwell among you: 'And make for Me a sanctuary' (Ibid., verse 8). As if it were possible, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'take Me and I will dwell among you' - it does not say, 'and they shall take an offering,' but rather, 'and they shall take (for) Me:' they are taking Me. I said to you (Leviticus 24:2), 'and they shall take to you pure olive oil.' And do I need your light - behold, it is written (Daniel 2:22), 'and light dwells with Him?' But rather to give you merit and to atone for your souls which is compared to a candle, as it is stated (Proverbs 20:27), 'The candle of God is the soul of a man, it searches all of the chambers of the innards.' And now that I have said to you, 'And you shall take for yourselves on the first day,' it is to give you merit, so that I will bring down the rain for you. Hence Moshe warned Israel, 'And you shall take for yourselves on the first day.'"

(Exodus 12:43) "And the L rd said to Moses and Aaron": There are some sections (in the Torah) which are generic in the beginning and specific after, and some which are specific in the beginning and generic after. (Exodus 19:6) "And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of lords and a holy nation" — specific; (Ibid.) "these are the things that you shall speak" — generic. (Numbers 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — generic; (Ibid.) "They shall take to you a red heifer" — specific. (Exodus 12:43) "This is the statute of the Paschal offering" — generic; (Ibid.) "No stranger may eat of it" — specific. There is subsumed in the generic only what is in the specific. "This is the statute of the Paschal offering." Scripture speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. These are the words of R. Oshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks of the Pesach of Egypt. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Pesach of all the generations? From (Numbers 9:3) "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances." R. Yoshiyah said to him: Scripture (here) speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. What is the intent of "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances"? Scripture (there) comes to speak of details which are lacking here. R. Issi b. Akiva says: "statutes" (in Numbers 9:3) applies only (directly) to the body of the Paschal offering.

(Bamidbar 19:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Aaron and to Moses saying: This is the statute of the Torah, which the L-rd has commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and let them take unto you a red heifer, complete, which does not have a blemish, upon which a yoke has not come." There are sections (of the Torah), which are general in the beginning and particular at the end, and (others), which are particular in the beginning and general at the end: (Shemot 19:3) "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel" — particular; (Ibid. 6) "These are the things, etc." — general. (Ibid. 12:43) "This is the statute of the Pesach" — general; (Ibid.) "Every stranger shall not eat of it" — particular. (Bamidbar 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — general; (Ibid.) "and let them take for you a red heifer, complete" — particular. General-Particular. (The rule is:) There exists in the general only what is found in the particular. R. Eliezer says: It is written here "statute" and (relative to the Yom Kippur service, Vayikra 16:34) "statute." Just as there, (the Cohein ministers) in the white vestments; here, too, in the white vestments. R. Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his disciples: In which vestments was the red heifer processed? He: In the golden vestments. They: But did our master not teach us (that it was processed) in the white vestments? He: If I have forgotten what my eyes have seen and what my hands have ministered, how much more so, what I have taught! And why all this? To strengthen the disciples (in application to their learning). Others say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not being a Cohein), he could not have said "what my hands have ministered." "and let them take": from the Temple treasury. "unto you": that you be appointed over it. And just as Moses was appointed over it, so, was Aaron. Similarly, in respect to the oil for lighting, (Shemot 21:20) "and let them take unto you" — that you be appointed over it. "a red heifer (parah)": R. Eliezer says: "eglah" signifies of the first year; "parah" signifies of the second year. The sages say: "eglah" — of the second year; "parah" — of the third or fourth year. R. Meir says: One of the fifth year, too, is valid. An old one is valid, but it is not waited for lest it sprout black hairs and become unfit. "parah": I understand black or white; it is, therefore, written "red." "whole": in redness or in (absence of) blemishes? "which does not have a blemish" accounts for blemishes. How, then, am I to understand "whole"? That it be "whole" in redness. "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work (having been done with them), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! — No, this may be true of offerings, which must be processed (by the Cohein) in a state of cleanliness, wherefore a blemish invalidates them, as opposed to the heifer, which may be processed in a state of tumah (i.e., when the Cohein is a tvul yom), wherefore a blemish would not invalidate it. (So that the verse is needed to tell us otherwise.) — (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) the Paschal lamb, which though it may be processed in a state of tumah, a blemish invalidates it, and this would indicate of the heifer that even though it is processed in tumah, a blemish invalidates it. (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, this may be true of the Paschal lamb, which must be sacrificed at a fixed time, wherefore it is invalidated by a blemish, as opposed to the heifer, which, not having a fixed time (for its processing), should not be invalidated by a blemish. It must, therefore, (to tell us otherwise) be written "which does not have a blemish." Issi b. Akiva says: "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by black or white (hairs), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by black or white, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish"! If I know this a fortiori, why need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? To exclude (from invalidation by a blemish) the heifer of the broken neck (eglah arufah [viz. Devarim 21:4]). For it would follow (if not for this verse) that blemishes should invalidate the eglah arufah, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work, are invalidated by a blemish, then eglah arufah, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! It is, therefore, written (in respect to the red heifer), "which does not have a blemish" — It (the red heifer) is invalidated by a blemish, but the eglah arufah is not invalidated by a blemish. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: If the sin-offering of a bird, whose offerers must be tahor, is not invalidated by a blemish, then the red heifer, whose processors may be tamei (tvul yom), how much more so should it not be invalidated by a blemish! (The verse, then, is needed to tell us that it is invalidated by a blemish.) — No, this may be true of the sin-offering of a bird, which is valid if either male or female, as opposed to a heifer, (where only a female is valid.) Why, then, need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? (lit., "when there is no blemish in it") When the blemish is in it (it is invalid), but when it has passed, it is valid. R. Yoshiyah Numithi asked before R. Yehudah b. Betheira: What is a blemish which has passed, in which instance it is valid? And he showed me between his two fingers — when(flesh) protrudes or when it has two tails. "upon which a yoke has not come": Scripture speaks of a yoke not in (the time of its) working. And if you would say, a yoke in (the time of its working), would you say that? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, is invalidated by a yoke (in its time of working), then the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should it be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working!) — (No,) this is refuted by the offerings, which are invalidated by a blemish, but not by a yoke (in the time of working), and they would indicate about the red heifer that even though it is invalidated by a blemish, it should not be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working). — No, this may be true of offerings, which are not invalidated by black and white hairs, wherefore a yoke does not invalidate them, as opposed to the red heifer, which is invalidated by black and white, wherefore a yoke (in the time of its working) should invalidate them. What, then, is the intent of "upon which a yoke has not come"? A yoke not in the time of its working. Whence is it derived that other labors are equated with a yoke (to invalidate the red heifer)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, (viz. Devarim 21:3 "which has never been worked, which has never pulled under a yoke"), then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke! — But perhaps it should be transposed, viz.: If (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, other labors were not equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors not be equated with a yoke! It is, therefore, written "which has never been worked." I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been refuted and I have emerged with the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If (in the instance of) the eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke!