(Bamidbar 15:2) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land of your settlings which I give to you, etc.": Scripture comes to teach us that Israel were obligated to bring libations (with their offerings) only after inheritance and settlement (of the land [viz. Ibid. 15:5]). You say after inheritance and settlement, but perhaps immediately upon their entry to the land. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 17:14) "When you come to the land that the L-rd your G-d gives to you, and you inherit it and you settle in it, etc." Since "comings" are mentioned in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance (above) it is specified, after inheritance and settlement, so all ("comings" are understood as) after inheritance and settlement, which teaches us that wherever "settlings" is written, after inheritance and settling is understood. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva queried him: But in respect to Shabbath it is written "settlings" (viz. Vayikra 23:3), and it obtains both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of it! R. Yishmael replied: If "lighter" mitzvoth obtain both in the land and outside it, how much more so, Shabbath, the "graver." And it ("settlings") comes to teach that in an individual altar ("bamah") there is no obligation to bring libations. R. Akiva says: Scripture comes to teach us that libations are to be offered on a bamah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this ("When you come to the land") written? For it would follow, since we find that the vessels of the Temple were more than those of the tent of meeting (viz. I Kings 7:27), so, the libations of the Temple were more than those of the tent of meeting; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 15:2) "When you come … (3) and you shall offer, etc." to teach that even though there were more vessels in the Temple than in the tent of meeting, there were not more libations. (Ibid. 3) "and you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd": This implies that all that is offered for the fire requires libations, even a meal-offering. It is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering." This tells me only of a burnt-offering (that it requires libations). Whence do I derive (the same for) peace-offerings? From "a sacrifice." Whence do I derive (the same for) a thank-offering? From "or a sacrifice." This would imply (that libations are required) for these as well as for first-born, tithe, Pesach and guilt-offering. It is, therefore, written "for an expressed vow or as a guilt-offering." Scripture speaks only of offerings that are brought as vow and gift. — But this would imply that I exclude them (from libations) as well as mandatory festival offerings! — It is, therefore, written "or in your festivals," to include these (as requiring libations). — But this would imply (that libations are required for) burnt-offerings and mandatory peace-offerings that are brought on festivals, and for a mandatory sin-offering that is brought on festivals! — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15;8) "And if you offer a bullock as a burnt-offering or as a sacrifice." "Bullock" was included in the general category (of offerings) and departed from it (for specific mention) to teach about the category, viz.: Just as "bullock," which is brought for vow or gift (requires libations, so, all (offerings) that are brought for vow or gift require libations) — to exclude sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, which are not brought for vow or gift.
(Bamidbar 15:3) "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock": What is the intent of this? Because it is written "and you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd, a burnt-offering or a sacrifice," I might think that a burnt-offering of fowl (also) requires libations; it is, therefore, written "of the herd or of the flock" — to exclude a burnt-offering of fowl as not requiring libations. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yochanan says: This is not needed, for it is already written "or a sacrifice." Just as "a sacrifice" is a beast, so, a burnt-offering. What is the intent, then, of "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock"? Because it is written (Vayikra 1:2) "A man if he offers of you an offering to the L-rd … from the herd and from the flock," I might think that if he said: I take it upon myself to bring a burnt-offering he must bring one of each; it is, therefore, written (here) "of the herd or of the flock," that he brings either one by itself. It is written in respect to the Pesach offering (Shemot 12:5) "from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it." Either one by itself? Or, one of each? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:10) "And if of the flock is his offering, of the sheep or of the goats for a beast-offering." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a burnt-offering, the "graver" may be brought from one kind, then Pesach, the "lighter," how much more so may it be brought from one kind! What, then, is the intent of "from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it"? Either one by itself. Issi b. Akiva says: "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd (of the herd or of the flock"): either one by itself. You say either one by itself, but perhaps (the intent is that he brings) one of each. Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the atzereth (Shavuoth) lambs, of which two must be brought (viz. Vayikra 23:19), may come of one kind, then a burnt-offering, two of which need not be brought, how much more so may it come of one kind! — No, this may be true of the two atzereth lambs, Scripture limiting their bringing (to atzereth), for which reason they may come of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing — wherefore it must be brought from two kinds! — This is refuted by the he-goats of Yom Kippur, Scripture "expanding" their bringing (to two) and yet being brought from one kind. (And they will refute "burnt-offering" — that even though Scripture "expands" its bringing, it may be brought of one kind.) — No, this may be true of the Yom Kippur he-goats, Scripture limiting their bringing, for they are not brought the whole year, wherefore they may be brought of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing in that it may be brought the entire year — wherefore it should be permitted only of two kinds. This is refuted by a sin-offering, which, even though Scripture "expands" its bringing to all the days of the year, may be brought of one kind — so that a burnt-offering, too, should be able to come from one kind. — No, this may be true of a sin-offering, Scripture limiting its bringing, in that it may not be brought as vow or gift, wherefore it is permitted to bring it of one kind, as opposed to burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing in that it may be brought as vow or gift — wherefore it should be permitted to bring it only of two kinds. It must, therefore, be written (15:3) "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock" — either one by itself. (15:4) "Then the offerer shall offer": Because it is written (Vayikra 22:18) "A man, a man … who offers, etc.", this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "Then the offerer shall offer" — in any event. "Then the offerer shall offer his offering to the L-rd, a meal-offering, an issaron of flour." R. Nathan says: This is a prototype for all who donate a meal-offering not to give less than an issaron. "mixed with a revi'ith of a hin of oil. (5) And wine for libations, a revi'ith of a hin": oil for mixing and wine for libations. "shall you present with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice": What is the intent of this? From (3) "And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd," I might think that if he said "I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings" that he may bring one libation for both; it is, therefore, written "the burnt-offering or the sacrifice (of peace-offerings)" — he brings one for each in itself. I might think if he said ("I vow) five lambs for a burnt-offering, five lambs for peace-offerings," that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written "with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice for each lamb" — he brings for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of this ("with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice")? For I would think: If where the rule for an ox burnt-offering is the same as that for a lamb burnt-offering (i.e., that they are both burned), they are not similar in libations, (an ox requiring a half hin, and a lamb, a quarter hin,) then where the rule for a lamb burnt-offering is not the same as that of a lamb of peace-offerings, (the first being burned and the second eaten,) how much more so should they not be similar in libations! It is, therefore, written "shall you present with the brunt-offering or the sacrifice" — Even though the rule (for the offering) is not the same, the libations are. R. Nathan says: "shall you present with the burnt-offering": This is the burnt-offering of a leper (i.e., even though it is mandatory and not vow or gift, it requires libations). "or the sacrifice": This is his (the leper's) sin-offering. "or the sacrifice": This is his guilt-offering. "for each lamb": to include the burnt-offering of a woman after birth as requiring libations. "for each lamb": to include (as requiring libations) the eleventh (which one erroneously designated as the first-born beast-tithe (instead of the tenth). For we nowhere find in the entire Torah that the secondary (the eleventh in this instance, which requires libations,) is severer than the primary (the tenth, which does not). "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering (two esronim of flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil": Scripture here comes to differentiate between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: cattle require libations and sheep require libations. If Scripture did not differentiate between the libations for a calf, and those for an ox, so, it would not differentiate between those for a lamb and those for a ram. It is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc." Scripture differentiates between the libations for a lamb, ("a quarter of a hin") and those of a ram ("a third of a hin"). Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then where libations (in general) were decreased, how much more so should no differentiation be made between a lamb and a ram! It is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a lamb and a ram. (Ibid.) "mixed with oil, a third of a hin": For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the lamb of the omer requires two esronim (viz. Vayikra 23:13), and the ram of a burnt-offering requires two esronim, then just as I learned about the lamb of the omer that even though its esronim were doubled, its libations were not doubled (viz. Ibid.), so, the ram of the burnt-offering, even though its esronim were doubled, its libations should not be doubled; it is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering, etc., mixed with oil, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that just as its esronim were doubled, so, its libations were doubled (i.e., increased). "with oil a third of a hin and wine for libations": oil for mixing; wine, for libations. "shall you offer, a sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 8) "And if you offer a bullock as a burnt-offering or as a sacrifice for an expressed vow, etc.": "Bullock" was included in the general category and it departed from that category (for special mention) to teach about the category that just as a bullock comes for a vow or a gift and requires libations, so, all that come for a vow or a gift require libations. (Ibid. 9) "Then he shall present with the bullock a meal-offering": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3) "And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd," I might think that if he said "I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings," he brings one libation for both; it is, therefore, written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings)," whereby we are taught that he brings one for each in itself. Or (I might think that) even if he said "I vow to bring five oxen for a burnt-offering; five oxen for peace-offerings," I might think that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering or a sacrifice," whereby we are taught he brings one for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of "or a sacrifice"? For it would follow: If (even though) what transpires with a lamb burnt-offering is the same as that which transpires with an ox burnt-offering (i.e., that they are entirely burnt), still, they are not equivalent for libations, then, where what transpires with an ox burnt-offering is not the same as that which transpires with ox peace-offerings, (which are eaten), how much more so should they not be equivalent in libations; it is, therefore, written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings)," to teach that even though they are not equivalent in what transpires with them, they are equivalent for libations. (Ibid. 10) "And wine shall you offer for libations": oil for mixing; wine, for libations — on bowls. You say "on bowls," but perhaps (the intent is) on the fire. If you say this, you will put out the fire, and the Torah writes (Vayikra 6:6) "A perpetual fire is to be kept burning on the altar, not to go out." How, then, am I to understand "for libations"? As meaning "on bowls." "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done." (Ibid. 11) "Thus shall it be done for the one ox": Scripture here tells us that the Torah did not differentiate between the libations for a calf and those for an ox. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Sheep require libations and cattle require libations. If I have learned that the Torah differentiates between libations for a lamb and those for a ram, then so should it differentiate between those for a calf and those for an ox. It is, therefore, written "Thus shall it be done for the one ox," (big or small), the Torah not differentiating between the libations for a calf and those for an ox. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If where libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then, where libations (in general) were increased, how much more so should a differentiation be made between a calf and an ox! It is, therefore, written "Thus shall it be done for the one ox." Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox. (Ibid.) "or for the one ram": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations of a one-year old ("a lamb") and the libations of a two-year old ("a ram"), so it should differentiate between the libations of a two-year old and those of a three-year old. Scripture hereby apprises us (by "the one ram") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or for the lamb among the sheep": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a sheep and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between the libations for a ewe (female)-lamb and those for a (ewe-) sheep. We are hereby apprised (by "the [female] lamb [one year old] among the sheep [two years old]") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or among the goats": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between those for a kid and those for a (full-grown) he-goat; it is, therefore, written "or among the goats." The largest of the goats is hereby equated with the youngest of the lambs. Just as the latter, three logs (i.e., a quarter of a hin), so, the former, three logs. (Ibid. 12) "Thus shall you do for (each) one": This tells me only of these (i.e., the original sacrifices). Whence do I derive (the same for) their exchanges? From "Thus shall you do for each one." (Ibid. "According to the number (of animals) that you offer": He may not decrease (the number of libations). — But perhaps if he wishes to increase (the number) he may do so. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "According (i.e., strictly according) to their number." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonah says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 15) "All the native-born shall do (precisely) thus, these things" — neither to decrease nor to increase. What, then, is the intent of "According to the number that you offer"? I might think that if he wishes to double (the original number as a gift) he may do so. It is, therefore, written "Thus shall you offer (libations) for (each) one, according to their number." From here they ruled: It is permitted to intermix the libations for bullocks with those of rams; the libations of lambs with the libation of (other) lambs; the libations of individuals with those of the congregation; the libations of the day with those of the preceding evening (— their numbers being the same.) But it is not permitted to intermix the libations of lambs with those of bullocks and rams (— their numbers not being the same).
(Ibid. 13) "All the native-born shall thus do, etc.": From here we learn that libations can be donated. How much? Three logs, (which suffice for a lamb). And whence is it derived that if he wishes to add he may do so? From "shall do." I might think he can decrease; it is, therefore, written "thus." From here it was derived: One is not to donate two or five, (which do not [exactly] suffice for anything), but he may donate three or four or six or above, (which do [exactly] suffice for something). Variantly: What is the intent of "All the native-born, etc."? Because it is written (Vayikra 22:25) "And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present (as a sacrifice) the bread of your G-d of all these (blemished animals)" — These you do not accept (from gentiles), but you do accept unblemished animals. After we have learned that a gentile may bring a burnt-offering, I can now conclude: An Israelite brings a burnt-offering and a gentile brings a burnt-offering. Can I also conclude: Just as an Israelite brings libations, so, a gentile brings libations? It is, therefore, written "All the native-born shall thus do these (libations)" — An Israelite brings libations, but a gentile does not. I might, then, think that his burnt-offering does not require libations; it is, therefore, written "shall thus do" (to bring libations) — whence they ruled: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad and sent libations along with it, his own are used; and if not they are to be brought by the congregation.
(Bamidbar 15:14) "And if a stranger sojourn among you": This tells me (as being likened to an Israelite in this regard) only of a proselyte who had converted before (i.e., one who had left Egypt with them). Whence do I derive (the same for) one who converts now? From "and who shall be in your midst throughout your generations." "and he shall offer a fire-offering": kinds of blood (i.e., animal sacrifices involving blood). You say sacrifices involving blood, but perhaps only a meal-offering (which is entirely burned)! — It is, therefore, written "Thus shall he do." Just as you (in the desert offered) kinds of (sacrifices involving) blood, so, converts offer kinds of blood. — (In that case,) why should we not say: Just as Israel (in the desert offered) blood of a beast ([and not of a fowl] viz. Shemot 24:5), so, converts (are inducted only) through the blood of a beast. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) ("One Torah and one judgment shall there be) for you (and for the stranger who sojourns with you") — To you (in general, as requiring blood for induction into Israel) have I likened him and not to (the specifics [i.e., beast versus fowl] of) your offerings. Rebbi says: Just as Israel entered the covenant only with three things — circumcision, immersion, and acceptance of the offering — so, the proselytes, like them. — But perhaps just as Israel through peace-offerings, so, proselytes, through peace-offerings. It is, therefore, written "And he shall offer a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L-rd." Come and see: Which kind of blood (sacrifice) is relegated entirely to the fire, nothing remaining of it? Only a fowl burnt-offering ([but in a beast burnt-offering, the skin reverts to the Cohanim]). I might think (that the induction of the proselyte can be satisfied) even with a meal-offering; it is, therefore, written ("As you are) thus (shall the stranger be"). To bring one bird (as a fowl burnt-offering) is impossible. For we do not find a single bird serving as an offering in the entire Torah — whence it was stated: All the bird couples in the Torah — half is a burnt-offering; half a sin-offering, except for that of a proselyte, which is entirely (relegated) to the fire. Variantly: "As you do, thus shall he do": What is the intent of this? For it would follow (otherwise), that since we find the Torah to have differentiated his offering, (Israel bringing [beast] burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and a proselyte, a fowl burnt-offering), it is, therefore, written "Just as you do (with libations), thus shall he do" — Just as you, six (logs) for a bullock, four for a ram, and three for a lamb, thus the proselytes."
(Bamidbar 15:15) "The congregation (— one statute shall there be for you, etc."): This (Ibid. 2, "the sons of Israel") tells one only of the men (as bringing libations). Whence do I derive (the same for) the women? From "the congregation." "One statute shall there be for you and for the stranger that sojourns (among you"): Because this speaks of Israel, the proselytes must be (specially) included. "an everlasting statute unto your generations": that this (the libations) obtain in all the generations. "As you, thus shall the stranger be before the L-rd": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 28:38) "And it (the head-plate) shall be on his (Aaron's) forehead always for acceptance for them before the L-rd," I might think that this applied only to (native-born) Israelites. Whence do I derive (the same for) proselytes? From "As you, thus shall the stranger be before the L-rd." (Ibid. 16) "One Torah and one judgment shall there be for you and for the stranger who sojourns among you": Scripture hereby likens the proselyte to the native-born in respect to all the mitzvoth of the Torah.
(Bamidbar 15:15-17) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: … upon your coming to the land whither I bring you there": R. Yishmael says: Scripture varied (linguistically) this "coming" from all the other "comings" in the Torah. For in all the other instances it is written "And it shall be, when you come to the land"; "And it shall be when the L-rd shall bring you" (all such expressions connoting permanent settlement), whereas here it is written "upon your coming" (connoting the moment of arrival), to teach that the mitzvah of challah (the Cohein's share of the dough) devolved upon them immediately upon their entering the land "whither I bring you there": From here you derive that produce grown outside the land which enters the land is subject to challah. It is from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there that R. Eliezer ruled it subject to challah, and R. Akiva exempts it. R. Yehudah says: Produce grown outside the land which entered the land — R. Eliezer exempts it, it being written (Ibid. 19) "and it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land," and R. Akiva rules it subject to challah, it being written "there" (i.e., in Eretz Yisrael). What is the intent of "when you eat of the bread of the land"? From (Ibid 20) "the first of your dough," I would understand even other produce (as being subject to challah). You, therefore, reason: It is written here "bread" and elsewhere (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there is of the five species: wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt, so, "bread" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "that you shall separate an offering (terumah)": This speaks of the "great terumah" (taken from one's produce [viz. Devarim 18:4]) — But perhaps it speaks of the challah offering! — (This cannot be, for) (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) "challah, you shall offer up an offering" already speaks of challah. How, then, is "you shall offer up an offering to the L-rd to be understood? As referring to the "great terumah," (which is taken before the challah is separated). (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him" (the Cohein). This is mandatory. You say that it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional (i.e., if you separate it, you must give it to him, but you need not separate it.) It is, therefore, written "You shall separate terumah" — It is mandatory and not optional. I might think that flours, too, are subject to challah; it is, therefore, written "the first of your dough" — when it has become dough. [From here they ruled: One may eat a chance meal of started dough of wheat before it has been rolled out, or of barley before it had been well kneaded, (after which it becomes subject to challah). If one ate of it — of wheat flour, after it had been rolled out, or of barley flour after it had been well kneaded, (without taking challah) — he is liable to the death penalty. Once she had added the water, she must remove her challah, so long as there not remain there (in the kneading-trough) five quarter-kavs or more of flour that had not been mixed with water, (for if there did, they are subject to challah.)] For challah is not taken from (unprocessed) flour. If one had not taken challah from the dough, I might think he may not take it from the bread; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall separate, etc." R. Akiva says: All (vis-à-vis the separation of challah) is contingent upon its forming a crust in the oven. (Ibid. 24) "As terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it" (the challah). Just as with terumah, (the designated separation is) one (part) to a thousand, so, challah. And just as terumah of the threshing floor is "raised" (if it became intermixed) with one hundred and one times (its amount of non-terumah — which may then be eaten by non-Cohanim); and it creates a forbidden admixture for non-Cohanim if it fell into (only) a hundred of non-terumah; and it creates liability to the death penalty and to the one-fifth (chomesh) restitution penalty (viz. Vayikra 5:16) — so, with challah. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan "whispered" to him: You liken it to terumah of the threshing floor, (the percentage of) which is unspecified (in the Torah)? I will liken it to terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26), (the percentage of) which is explicit (in the Torah) — and one-tenth should be taken (as challah). He responded: It is written "As the terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it." It is likened to terumah of the threshing floor, and not to terumath ma'aser.
(Bamidbar 15:21) "Of the first of your dough": Why is this written? (i.e., It is already written in the preceding verse.) From (the preceding verse) "The first of your dough," I might understand it to mean the first of (all) your doughs. It is, therefore, written "Of the first of your dough" — part of it and not all of it. (Ibid. 20) "The first of your dough": To include leket (Vayikra 19:9), shikchah (Devarim 24:19), and peah (Vayikra 19:9) as subject to challah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If other produce (i.e., rice and millet), which is subject to ma'aser, is exempt from challah, then leket, shikchah, and peah, which are not subject to ma'aser, how much more so should they be exempt from challah! It is, therefore, written "the first of your dough," to include leket, shikchah, and peah as subject to challah. Or, let other produce be subject to challah, viz.: If leket, shikchah, and peah, which are exempt from ma'aser, are subject to challah, then other produce, which is subject to ma'aser, how much more so should it be subject to challah! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there, is of the five species, so, "bread" here (which is subject to challah) is of the five species. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "The first of your dough": I would understand this to include the dough of terumah and the dough of second-tithe. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "challah shall you separate as an offering": (The connotation is:) What is separated is holy and what remains is mundane, and not (as in the above instance) where both are holy. But they said: The dough of second-tithe in Jerusalem is subject to challah, (for second-tithe may be eaten by the owner in Jerusalem, so that it is not "holy" there). (Ibid. 21) "shall you give to the L-rd as an offering": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (20) "challah shall you separate as an offering," but we have not been apprised of the amount of the challah, it is, therefore, written "shall you give to the L-rd as an offering" — so that it comprises a "gift" to the Cohein. From here we derive: The amount of challah for a private person — one (part) out of twenty-four; for a baker; one out of forty-eight. For the dough of a private person is little, and it (less than one twenty-fourth) does not constitute a "gift" to the Cohein, whereas the dough of a baker is (relatively) large and it (one forty-eighth) constitutes a "gift" to the Cohein. R. Yehudah says: This is not the reason; but a private person is generous with his dough and a baker is sparing of his dough, and when he minimizes, he should not minimize less than one forty-eighth. From here it was ruled: A private person who makes a feast for his sons — one twenty-fourth; and a woman who bakes and sells in the marketplace — one forty-eighth. If her dough became tamei unwittingly or under constraint — one forty-eighth. If it became tamei willfully (i.e., if she deliberately made it tamei in order to give less challah), she takes one twenty-fourth (even though the challah is to be burned), so that "the sinner not profit." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Even if it came out to one-sixtieth, it is valid, so long as there was no (original) intent (for that amount). (Ibid. 21) "throughout your generations": to include the aftergrowths of shevi'ith (the sabbatical year) as being subject to challah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If other produce, which is subject to the tithe is exempt from challah, then the after-growths of shevi'ith, which are exempt from the tithe, how much more so should it be exempt from challah! — (No,) this is refuted by leket, shikchah, and peah, which, though exempt from the tithe are subject to challah. — No, this may be true of leket, shikchah, and peah, whose kind (i.e., other produce, which is not leket, etc.) is subject to the tithe — for which reason they are subject to challah, as opposed to the dough of shevi'ith, whose kind is exempt from the tithe, (ownerless produce [hefker] being exempt from the tithe) — wherefore it (the dough) should be exempt from challah. It is, therefore, written "throughout your generations," to include the aftergrowths of shevi'ith as being subject to challah. From here they ruled: If one eats of the aftergrowths of shevi'ith before its challah has been taken, he is liable to the death penalty.
(Bamidbar 15:22) "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth for (unwitting transgression of) which the congregation (i.e., beth-din) brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 4:14), and Scripture here removed it from its category (for special mention), that the congregation bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, for which reason this section was stated. "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": Scripture here speaks of idolatry. You say idolatry, but perhaps (it speaks of his transgressing) all of the mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 24) "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error" — Scripture hereby singles out one mitzvah. And which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. You say it is idolatry, but perhaps it is (any) one of all the mitzvoth stated in the Torah. It is, therefore, written "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": This comes to define "the one mitzvah." Just as one who transgresses all of the mitzvoth divests himself of the Yoke, and breaks the covenant, and perverts the Torah, so, he who transgresses one mitzvah does the same, as it is written (Devarim 17:2-3) "to destroy His covenant (— turning to the worship of other gods.") And "the covenant" is nothing other than Torah, as it is written (Ibid. 28:69) "These are the words of the covenant, etc." Rebbi says "all" is written here (Bamidbar 15:22), and "all" is written elsewhere, (Devarim 5:8) "all likenesses." Just as "all" there speaks of idolatry, so, "all" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "which the L-rd spoke to Moses": Whence is it derived that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments? It is written (here, in respect to idolatry) "which the L-rd spoke to Moses," and there, (in respect to the ten commandments, Shemot 20:1) "And G-d spoke all these words, saying." (Psalms 62:12) "One thing has G-d spoken; (two things ['I am the L-rd your G-d, etc.' and 'There shall not be unto you other gods, etc.'] have I heard.") (Jeremiah 23:29) "Is My word not like fire, says the L-rd (and like a hammer shattering rock?") Whence do I derive (the same, i.e., that one who acknowledges idolatry denies [not only what we heard from G-d,]) but also what Moses was commanded (and relayed to us)? From (Ibid. 23) "All that the L-rd commanded you by the hand of Moses." And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the forefathers? From (Ibid.) "from the day that the L-rd commanded." And from when did the L-rd begin to command? From Adam, viz. (Bereshit 2:15) "And the L-rd G-d commanded the man, etc." And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the prophets? From (Ibid.) "and onwards throughout your generations." We are hereby apprised that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments, and what was commanded to Moses, and what was commanded to the forefathers, and what was commanded to the prophets. And one who denies idolatry acknowledges the entire Torah.
(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error": This mitzvah was allotted a special section in itself. Which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. "then all the congregation shall offer one young bullock as a burnt-offering." Why mention "one"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering it brings a bullock for a sin-offering, (viz. Vayikra 4:14), then here, where the congregation does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring a bullock for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written "then all the congregation shall offer (only) one young bullock." "with its meal-offering and its libation": that of the burnt-offering. — But perhaps also that of the sin-offering (is intended). It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "as ordained" (and no libation is ordained for a sin-offering). "and one kid of goats as a sin-offering": Why mention "one"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (on Yom Kippur), where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, it brings two he-goats for a sin-offering, then here, where it does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring two he-goats for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written "and one kid of goats as a sin-offering."
(Ibid. 25) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the entire congregation of the children of Israel": Whence is it derived that if one of the tribes did not bring (its offering) atonement is withheld? From "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the entire congregation of the children of Israel." (Ibid.) "and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unwitting": I might understand (that they are forgiven) whether unwitting or witting; it is, therefore, written "for it was unwitting." From (24) "by the eyes of the congregation (i.e., beth-din) it were done in error," I would understand that the ruling of beth-din was in error and not willful; but as to the doing (i.e., the transgression) of the congregation, willful was equated with unwitting; it is, therefore, written "the children of Israel … for it was unwitting." If some were willful, I might think that it were considered (collectively) unwitting; it is, therefore, written "for the entire congregation of the children of Israel … for it was unwitting." (Ibid.) "and they have brought their offering": R. Meir says: If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of its beth-din, I might think they bring (the offerings); it is, therefore, written "and they (i.e., all of the tribes) have brought their offering." R. Yoshiyah says: If one tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din, whence is it derived that the other tribes bring (the offerings) because of it? From "and they (connoting all of the tribes) have brought their offering, a fire-offering to the L-rd." For R. Yoshiyah says: A tribe that transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din is liable, and the other tribes are exempt. If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of the great beth-din (i.e., the Sanhedrin), then that tribe brings a bullock, and the other tribes bring because of it. And what do they bring because of it? Twelve bullocks. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din, it is exempt. If it transgressed according to the ruling of the great beth-din, they bring two bullocks: one for the tribe and one for the beth-din. When is this so? With other mitzvoth; but with idolatry, they bring two bullocks and two he-goats: one bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering for that tribe, and the same for the beth-din. The majority of the congregation is reckoned as all of the congregation. "and they have brought their offering: a fire-offering to the L-rd": this is the burnt-offering; "and their sin-offering": this is the sin-offering for idolatry; "their error": this is the bullock of "concealment" of the congregation (viz. Vayikra 4:13-14). "their sin-offering … for their error": their sin-offering (i.e., the he-goats [offered] for idolatry) is like their error" the bullock of "concealment" of the congregation, in all of the procedures (of the offering). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 26) "And it shall be forgiven to the entire congregation of the sons of Israel": This tells me only of the men. Whence do I derive (the same for) the women? From "the entire congregation of the children of Israel." "and to the stranger who sojourns in their midst": Because this section is addressed to the Israelites (viz. 15:12), proselytes had to be (specifically) included. (Ibid.) "for to all the people it was in error": to exclude the high-priest, (who offers a she-goat, as an individual (viz. Ibid. 27). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (transgression of) all the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for all the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring it for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) just as he brings a bullock for all the mitzvoth should bring a bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service) where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 16:3), here, (in respect to idolatry) where the congregation brings a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written "for to all the people it was in error" — to exclude the high-priest.
(Bamidbar 15:27) "And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth — for which the individual brings a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; the leader (nassi), a he-goat; and the high-priest and beth-din, a bullock. And here (in respect to idolatry) Scripture removes them from their category, to have an individual, a Nassi, and the high-priest bring "a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering" — for which reason this section was stated. You say that it speaks of idolatry, but perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! Would you say that? What is the subject under discussion? Idolatry! R. Yitzchak says: Scripture (here) speaks of idolatry. — But perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! — You reason as follows: The congregation was in the general category (of all of the mitzvoth, to bring a bullock), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed (to bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering.) And the individual was in the general category (of all the mitzvoth, etc.), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed, etc. Just as there (in respect to the congregation) Scripture speaks of idolatry; here, too, it is understood to be speaking of idolatry. "And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error": to exclude (from the offering) one who sins willfully (without witnesses or warning). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If "light" mitzvoth are liable (for an offering), willful (transgression) as unwitting, how much more the "grave" (transgression of idolatry)! It is, therefore, written "in error" — to exclude willful (transgression). "he shall bring a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering." This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "goat" is written, it must be of the first year. (Ibid. 28) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the soul that is unwitting in sinning": It is the sins that he has done (willfully), which have caused him to err. "unwitting in sinning": to exclude unwittingness of (its being) idolatry, (e.g., mistaking a church for a synagogue and bowing down to it.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he is liable (to bring an offering) for unwitting transgression of other mitzvoth, how much more so for the "grave" transgression of idolatry! It is, therefore, written "unwitting in sinning," but not unwitting as to (its being) idolatry. "to atone for him": to exclude an instance of doubt (as to whether or not he had sinned). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he must bring an offering for an instance of possible transgression of "light" mitzvoth, how much more so for an instance of possible transgression of idolatry (e.g., if there is a possibility of his having bowed down to an asheirah [a tree devoted to idolatry])! It is, therefore, written "And he shall atone" (implying that there has been a sin), to exclude (an instance of) doubt (as to whether a sin has been committed.) "and he shall be forgiven": absolute forgiveness, as with all of the other "forgivings" in the Torah, (even though the sin of idolatry [though unwitting] has been committed). (Ibid. 15:29) "The native-born among the children of Israel, etc." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 24:22) "All of the native-born in Israel shall sit in succoth," I might think that only Israelites are intended. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? It is, therefore, written "the native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger that sojourns among them." This is a prototype: wherever "native-born" is written, proselytes are also included. Variantly: What is the intent of "the native-born among the children of Israel"? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Israelites are commanded against idolatry, and gentiles are commanded against idolatry. If I have learned that Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, so, gentiles should bring an offering for unwitting idolatry. It is, therefore, written "the native-born among the children of Israel": Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, but not gentiles. (Ibid.) "One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. For I would think (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (unwitting transgression of) all of the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for transgression of all of the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring a bullock for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) who brings a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, should bring a bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service), where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest does bring a bullock, then here, (in unwitting transgression of idolatry), where the congregation does bring a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written "One Torah (a she-goat of the first year) shall there be for you": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. "for him who acts unwittingly": R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: One who acts unwittingly (re idolatry) is (in principle) like one who serves idolatry, viz.: Just as serving idolatry is distinct in that it is an act in which deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off [viz. Vayikra 20:3]), and unwitting transgression, by a sin-offering (viz. Bamidbar 16:27) so, (the act of) all who act unwittingly, (in order to be liable to a sin-offering), must be an act where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering.
(Bamidbar 15:30) "And the soul who acts with a high hand": This is one who perverts the Torah, like Menasheh ben Chezkiah, who would sit and cast ridicule in the face of the L-rd, saying (for example): He should not have written in the Torah (Bereshit 30:14) "And Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest." And He should not have written (Ibid. 36:22) "And the sister of Lotan was Timna." Of one such as he it is written in the Tradition (Psalms 50:20) "You sit and speak against your brother; you cast ridicule against your mother. These you have done and I have kept silent. You thought I was one such as you": (i.e.), you thought that perhaps as the ways of flesh and blood are the ways of the L-rd. (Ibid.) "I will reprove you and set (them) forth before your eyes." And of one such as he, Isaiah writes in the tradition (Isaiah 5:18) "Woe unto those who pull transgressions to themselves with strands of deceit, and sin as with the ropes of a wagon": In the beginning, sin is like the strands of a spider's web, and, in the end, sin is as ("stout" as) wagon ropes. Rebbi says: If a man does one mitzvah lishmah (for the sake of Heaven), let him rejoice not only in that mitzvah alone; for in the end, it will "pull along" many mitzvoth. And if a man commits one transgression, let him not despond over it alone, for in the end, it will pull along many transgressions. For mitzvah "tows" mitzvah, and transgression, transgression. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes (megadef)." R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: As a man would say to his neighbor: "You have scraped out the dish (of food) and 'scraped' ('megaref,' similar to 'megadef') the 'dish' itself." (i.e., this is the ultimate insult). Issi b. Akiva says: As one would say to his neighbor: "You have scraped out the entire dish and left nothing in it." (Ibid.) "and that soul will be cut off": "cutting-off" connotes cessation (of the family line, i.e., he will be childless). "that soul": who acts deliberately. "from the midst of its people": but its people will remain at peace. (Ibid. 31) "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is a Sadducee. "and His commandment he has broken": This is a heretic. Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is one who distorts the Torah. "and His commandment he has broken": This is one who breaks the covenant of the flesh (circumcision, i.e., one who does not circumcise his sons.) From here R. Elazar Hamodai said: One who desecrates the offerings, and cheapens the festivals, and breaks the covenant (of circumcision) of our father Abraham — even if he has performed many mitzvoth, it were best to "thrust" him from the world! Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": this is one who says there is no Torah from Heaven. And even if he says: The entire Torah is from the mouth of the Holy One (except for) this thing that Moses said on his own — And even if he said: The entire Torah I accept, except for this inference, this kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) — this is "For the word of the L-rd he has despised." Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is one who learns, but does not teach others. R. Nechemiah says: This is one who is able to learn but does not. R. Nathan said: This is one who paid no heed at all to words of Torah. R. Yishmael says: The verse speaks of idolatry, as it is written "For the word of the L-rd he has despised" — the first commandment of the Omnipotent One — (Shemot 20:2-3) "I am the L-rd your G-d … There shall be unto you no other gods before Me." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "cut off shall be cut off": "cut off" — in this world; "shall be cut off" — in the world to come. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: But is it not already written (Ibid. 30) "It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes; and that soul shall be cut off'? Are there three worlds? Rather, "and that soul shall be cut off" — in this world. "cut off" — in the world to come. "cut off shall be cut off" — Torah speaks in the language of man. (Ibid. 31) "its transgression is in it": All who die are atoned for by death; but this one, "its transgression is in it." As it is written (Ezekiel 32:27) "And their transgressions shall be upon their bones." — Even if they have repented? — It is, therefore, written (when) "its transgression is in it," and not when he has repented. Similarly, (Devarim 32:5) "They have corrupted themselves — not His children — their blemish" — When their blemish is in them, they are not His children. When their blemish is not in them, they are His children. R. Yishmael says: "its transgression is in it": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemot 20:5) "He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon sons," I might think that (the father's sin of) idolatry, too, is visited upon sons "until the third and fourth generation"; it is, therefore, written (here, in respect to idolatry) "its transgression is in it" — in it (the soul of the doer) the transgression inheres, and it is not visited upon the sons, and not on the third and on the fourth generation. R. Nathan says: This ("its transgression is in it") is a good sign for a man, (indicating) that his transgressions are exacted of him after his death, (so that he may merit life in the world to come.) If a dead one is not eulogized or buried, or if he is eaten by an animal, or if rain descended upon it — this is a good sign, (indicating that his transgressions are being exacted of him after his death.) And even though there is no (Scriptural) proof for this, it is intimated in (Jeremiah 8:1-2) "At that time, says the L-rd, they will remove the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its officers … And they will spread them out under the sun and the moon, etc." R. Shimon b. Elazar said: From here ("its transgression is in it") I have exposed (as false) the books of the Samaritans. For they say: The dead do not live — whereupon I said to them: But it is written "That soul shall be cut off; its transgression is in it." Let this not be stated (i.e., What purpose does it serve?) — It indicates that it (the soul) is destined to give an accounting on the day of judgment.
(Bamidbar 15:32) "And the children of Israel were in the desert, etc.": Scripture here speaks in disparagement of Israel, that they had observed only the first Shabbath, when they desecrated the second. "and they found a man mekoshesh wood on the Sabbath day." (mekoshesh" =) pulling (wood) up from the ground. You say that, but perhaps (the reference is to) a man himself, whose name was "Mekoshesh," (who was carrying wood). It is, therefore, written (in negation of this assumption, Ibid. 33) "And they brought him near, those who found him mekoshesh wood." How, then, must I understand (Ibid. 32) "mekoshesh wood"? As pulling up wood from the ground. And who was that man? Tzelafchad. It is written here (32) "desert," and elsewhere (27:23) ("Our father died in the) desert." Just as there, Tzelafchad; here, too, Tzelafchad. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said to him: In either case, you are destined to give an accounting if it is as you say — He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him, and you bring it to light! And you are libeling that tzaddik! But who was it? It was one of "the bold ones," viz. (Ibid. 14:44) "And they made bold to go up to the top of the mountain." (Ibid. 15:32) "And they found a man pulling up wood.": We are hereby apprised that Moses appointed watchers (to this end), and they found him pulling up wood. (Ibid. 33) "And they brought him near — those who found him pulling up wood.": Why is this mentioned again? Is not already written "And they found a man, etc."? We are hereby taught that they warned him (after finding him) and he continued doing so. R. Yitzchak says: This (repetition) is not necessary (to teach that prior warning is a prerequisite for the administration of the death penalty), viz.: If idolatry, the gravest (of all transgressions) is not liable (to the death penalty) without prior warning, how much more so does this hold for all the mitzvoth of the Torah. What is the intent, then, of "those who found him"? We are hereby apprised that they forewarned him, specifying the forbidden labor — whence it is derived that in the instance of all the proto-labors (avoth melachoth) in the Torah, there must be forewarning, specifying the forbidden labor. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) ("And they brought him near to Moses and to Aaron and to the entire congregation": If Moses did not know, would Aaron know? — Reverse the verse (i.e., "they brought him near to Aaron [who did not know] and to Moses," and expound it. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Channan says in the name of R. Elazar: They (Moses and Aaron) were sitting in the house of study, and they came and stood before them.
(Bamidbar 15:34) "And they placed him in ward": We are hereby apprised that all who are liable to krithuth ("cutting off") are put in ward (pending judgment). "for it was not made clear what should be done with him": But is it not written (Shemot 31:14) "He who profanes it shall be put to death"? What, then, is the intent of "For it was not made clear"? He did not know with what specific type of death until it was told to Him by the Holy One. (Ibid. 35) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Die, shall die the man": (i.e., this is the judgment) for all the generations (and not just in this particular instance.) "stone him with stones": in this particular instance. "the entire congregation": in the presence of the entire congregation. You say this, but perhaps it is to be understood literally (i.e., that the entire congregation is to stone him.) It is, therefore, written (Devarim 17:7) "The hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death." How, then, am I to understand "the entire congregation"? As in the presence of the entire congregation. (15:36) "And the entire congregation took him outside the camp": We are hereby taught that all those who are liable to the death penalty are put to death outside of beth-din. "And they stoned him with stones": One verse states "with stones," and another, (Vayikra 24:23) "with a stone." How are these two verses to be reconciled? The stoning site was two stories high. One of the witnesses pushes him on his thighs. If he turns over on his heart, he is turned over on his thighs. If he dies thereby, it is sufficient. If not, the second witness takes a stone and places it on his heart. If he dies thereby, it is sufficient. If not, all of Israel stone him with stones, in fulfillment of "the hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death, and the hand of all the people thereafter." There are thus reconciled "stone him with stones" and "and they stoned him with a stone." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "as the L-rd commanded Moses": He said to them "Stone him," and they stoned him; "Hang him up," and they hung him up. But we have not (yet) heard that they were to hang him up (after he had been killed.) It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:22) "If there be in a man a sin punishable by death, then he is to be put to death and you shall (thereafter) hang him on a tree." These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Chidka said: Shimon Hashikmoni was a friend of mine, of the disciples of R. Akiva, and he said: Moses knew that the mekoshesh was to be put to death, but he did not know with which specific kind of death. It were fitting that the section of the mekoshesh be stated (entirely) through Moses but the mekoshesh, being liable had it stated through him. For "merit resolves itself through the meritorious, and liability through the liable."
(Bamidbar 15:37-38) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying … and they shall make for themselves tzitzith": Women, too, are included (in the mitzvah of tzitzith.) R. Shimon exempts women from tzitzith, it being a time-based (only in the daytime) positive commandment, from which women are exempt, this being the principle: R. Shimon said: Women are exempt from all time-based positive commandments. R. Yehudah b. Bava said: Of a certainty, the sages exempted a woman's veil from tzitzith, and they are required in a wrap only because sometimes her husband covers himself with it. "tzitzith": "tzitzith" is something which "protrudes" ("yotzeh") somewhat. And the elders of Beth Shammai and those of Beth Hillel have already entered the upper chamber of Yonathan b. Betheira and declared: Tzitzith have no prescribed size. And they declared, similarly: A lulav has no prescribed size. "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith." I might think that one string suffices; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 22:12) "Fringes (shall you make for yourself.") How many fringes? Not fewer than three. These are the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai say: Three of wool and the fourth of tcheleth (blue linen). And the halachah is in accordance with Beth Shammai. When is this so (that a minimum size is required)? In the beginning (of its attachment). But for what is left over or lopped off any size (is sufficient). (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith." I might think that all of it shall be tzitzith; it is, therefore, written "fringes." If "fringes," I might think all of it shall be fringes. It is, therefore, written "tzitzith." How is this (to be implemented)? That its fringes protrude from the corner (of the garment), and tzitzith from the fringes. "in the corners of their garments": I might think, even garments that are three-cornered, five-cornered, six-cornered, seven-cornered, and eight-cornered; it is, therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid.) "on the four corners of your garment," to exclude the aforementioned. And whence is it derived that pillows and covers are (also) excluded (from tzitzith)? From (Ibid.) "wherewith you cover yourself." If from there, I would think that night-clothes are also included (as requiring tzitzith). It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "and you shall see it" — in the daytime and not at night. And if it were intended both for day and night, it requires tzitzith. I might think that this excludes both the above and the garment of a blind man; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "And it shall be for you for tzitzith" — in any event (i.e., to include a blind man). (Ibid. 38) "and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner a strand of tcheleth": spun and doubled. This tells me only of the tcheleth, that it is to be spun and doubled. Whence do I derive (the same for) the white (i.e., the wool)? You derive it by induction, viz.: Since the Torah said: "place" tcheleth and "place" white, just as tcheleth is spun and doubled, so, white is spun and doubled. "and they shall place": on the place of the weaving (i.e., the corner of the garment), and not on the place of the "growing" (i.e., the strands at the corner of the garment). If he did place it on the site of the "growing," it is (nonetheless) kasher. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov includes it both on the "growing" and on the very edge of the garment, it being written "on the corners of their garments." "and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner": What is the intent of this? From "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith, I might think that he should weave it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment; it is, therefore, written "and they shall place." How so? He ties it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment). (Ibid. 39) "And it shall be to you for tzitzith": The four tzitzith are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one there is no mitzvah), the four being one mitzvah. R. Yishmael says: They are four mitzvoth. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: Why is it called "tcheleth"? Because the Egyptians were "bereaved" ("nitkelu" [like "tcheleth"]) of their first-born, viz. (Shemot 12:29) "And it was in the middle of the night, that the L-rd smote every first-born, etc." Variantly: Because the Egyptians were "destroyed" ("kalu") in the Red Sea. Why is it called "tzitzith"? Because the L-rd "looked" ("hetzith") over our fathers' houses in Egypt, as it is written (Song of Songs 2:9) "The voice of My Beloved, behold, it is coming … My Beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart … Behold, He stands behind our wall, looking through the windows, peering through the lattices." R. Chanina b. Antignos says: One who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, what is said of him? (Zechariah 8:23) "In these days it will happen that ten men, of all the languages of the nations will take hold of the corner (i.e., of the tzitzith) of a Jewish man, saying 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you!'" And one who nullifies the mitzvah of "the corner," what is said of him? (Iyyov 38:13) "to take hold of the corners of the earth and to shake the wicked from it!" R. Meir says: It is not written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) "And you shall see them" (the tzitzith), but "And you shall see Him." Scripture hereby apprises us that if one fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, it is reckoned unto him as if he beheld the face of the Shechinah. For tcheleth is reminiscent of (the color of) the sea; the sea, of the firmament; and the firmament, of the Throne of Glory, as it is written (Ezekiel 1:26) "And above the firmament that was over their heads … (28) the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the L-rd." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and you shall see and you shall remember": See this mitzvah and remember another mitzvah, (which is contingent upon it.) Which is that? The recitation of the Shema — But perhaps (the reference is to) one of all the other mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, written (in the section of tzitzith, Ibid. 41) "I am the L-rd your G-d," which you find to be written only in (the section of) the recitation of the Shema. "and you shall remember": Remember (i.e., recite) the section with your mouth. I might think that the section "vehaya im shamoa" (Devarim 11:13-21) should precede all of the sections. — Would you say that? The section of Shema (Devarim 6:4-9), which contains acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven should precede "vehaya im shamoa," which contains acceptance of the yoke of mitzvoth, and "vehaya im shamoa," which obtains both in the daytime and at night, should precede the section of tzitzith ("vayomer" [Bamidbar 15:37-41]), which obtains only in the daytime. And perhaps he should recite three (sections) in the evening as he does in the daytime. It is, therefore, written (of tzitzith [Bamidbar 15:39]) "and you shall see it" — in the daytime and not at night. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: The section of Shema, which contains (the mitzvah of) learning (Torah), should precede "vehaya im shamoa," which speaks only of teaching. And "vehaya im shamoa" should precede the section of tzitzith, which is only to do (i.e., the final stage). For thus was Torah given: to learn and to teach, to keep and to do: "And you shall see it, and you shall remember (all the mitzvoth of the L-rd, and you shall do them."): Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, (which is only a sign and a remembrance towards the doing of mitzvoth,) is accounted as one who has fulfilled all of the mitzvoth, how much more so (is this true of) one who (actively) performs (any one of) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! "And you shall not go astray after your hearts": This is heresy, as it is written (Koheleth 7:26) "And I find more bitter than death 'the woman' (heresy), whose heart is snares and nets. Her hands are bonds. The good before G-d shall escape her." "and after your eyes": This is harlotry, as it is written (Judges 14:3) "Take her for me, for she is just in my eyes." "after which you go astray": This is idolatry, as it is written (Ibid. 8:33) "and they went astray after the ba'alim." R. Nathan says: that one not "drink" in this "cup" (i.e., his own wife), and cast his gaze at the "cup" of another. Variantly: "And you shall not go astray after your hearts and after your eyes": This teaches us that the eyes follow the heart. — But perhaps the heart follows the eyes! Would you say that? Are there not blind men who commit all the abominations in the world? What, then, is the intent of "And you shall not go astray after your hearts, etc."? That the eyes follow the heart. R. Yishmael says: "And you shall not go astray after your hearts": What is the intent of this? From (Koheleth 11:9) "Rejoice young man in your youth (… and walk in the ways of your heart"), (I would not know whether) in a way that is straight or in (any) way that you like; it is, therefore, written "And you shall not go astray after your hearts." (Ibid. 40) "So that you remember and you do (all of My mitzvoth): This equates remembering with doing. "and you shall be holy to your G-d": This refers to the holiness of all of the mitzvoth. You say the holiness of (all the) mitzvoth, but perhaps the holiness of tzitzith (is intended). — Would you say that? What is the (general) context? The holiness of all the mitzvoth. Rebbi says: The reference is to the holiness of tzitzith. You say the holiness of tzitzith, but perhaps the holiness of all the mitzvoth is intended. — (Vayikra 19:2) "Holy shall you be" already refers to the holiness of all the mitzvoth. How, then, am I to understand "and you shall be holy to your G-d"? As referring to the holiness of tzitzith — whence it is seen that tzitzith add holiness to Israel. (Ibid. 41) "I am the L-rd your G-d, who took you out of the land of Egypt.": Why is this mentioned here? So that one not say: I will take imitation-dyed threads (and attach them to my garment) as tcheleth, and who will know the difference? If (within the framework of) the measure of punishment, the lesser measure (of the L-rd) — if one sins in secret, He exposes him in public, (as He did in Egypt), then, (within the framework of) the measure of good, the greater measure (of the L-rd) — how much more so (does this hold true)! Variantly: Why is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in connection with every mitzvah? An analogy: The son of a king's loved one was taken captive. When he (the king) redeems him, he redeems him not as a son, but as a servant, so that if he (the son) does not accept his decree, he can say to him "You are my servant!" When they enter the province, he (the king) says to him: Put on my sandals and carry my things before me to the bath-house. The son begins to object, whereupon the king presents him with his writ (of servitude) and says to him: "You are my servant!" Thus, when the Holy One Blessed be He redeemed the seed of His loved one, He did not redeem them as "sons," but as servants, so that if they reject His decree He says to them: "You are My servants!" When they went to the desert, He began to decree upon them some "light" mitzvoth and some formidable ones, such as Shabbath, illicit relations, tzitzith, and tefillin, and Israel began to object — whereupon He said to them: "You are My servants! On that condition I redeemed you; on condition that I decree and you fulfill!" "I am the L-rd your G-d": Why is this stated again? Is it not already written (Shemot 20:2) "I am the L-rd your G-d who took you out of the land of Egypt"? Why state it again? So that Israel not say: Why did the L-rd command us (to do mitzvoth)? Is it not so that we do them and receive reward? We shall not do them and we shall not receive reward! As Israel said (Ezekiel 20:1) "There came to me (Ezekiel) men of the elders of Israel to make inquiry of the L-rd, and they sat before me." They said to him: A servant whose Master has sold him, does he not leave His domain? Ezekiel: Yes. They: Since the L-rd has sold us to the nations, we have left His domain. Ezekiel: A servant whose Master has sold him in order to return, does he leave His domain? (Ibid. 32-33) "And what enters your minds, it shall not be, your saying: We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone. As I live, says the L-rd G-d. I swear to you that I will rule over you with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath!" "with a strong hand": pestilence, as it is written (in that regard, Shemot 9:3) "Behold, the hand of the L-rd is in your cattle, etc." "with an outstretched arm": the sword, as it is written (I Chronicles 21:16) "with his (the angel's) sword drawn in his hand, stretched over Jerusalem." "and with outpoured wrath": famine. After I bring these three calamities upon you, one after the other, I will rule over you perforce!
R. Nathan said: There is no mitzvah in the Torah whose reward is not "at its side." Go and learn this from the mitzvah of tzitzith. There was once a certain man who was particularly diligent in the mitzvah of tzitzith. Once, hearing of a ("famed") harlot in the cities of the sea, who took four hundred gold coins as her hire, he sent her that sum, and she set a time for him. When the appointed time came, he went there and sat at the door of her house. Her maid-servant went in and said to her: That man whom you appointed a time for is sitting at the door of the house. The harlot: Let him come in. When he came in, she spread seven beds for him, six of silver and one of gold, and she was on the uppermost. Between each one was a silver ladder, and the uppermost, of gold. When he came to the act, his four tzitzith came and struck him across his face. They seemed to him like four men. He immediately left off and sat upon the ground. She, too, left off and sat upon the ground. She said to him "'Gapa of Rome' (an idolatrous oath), I shall not let you go until you tell me what blemish you have seen in me!" He: I swear, I have seen no blemish in you. There is no beauty like yours in all the world, but there is one mitzvah (tzitzith) concerning which it is written two times (Bamidbar 15:41) "I am the L-rd your G-d." "I am the L-rd your G-d" — I am destined to reward; "I am the L-rd your G-d" — I am destined to punish. And now they appeared to me as four witnesses (testifying to the above). At this, she said: I swear that I will not let you go until you write for me your name, the name of your city, and the name of the place where you study Torah. He wrote for her his name, the name of his city, the name of his master, and the name of the place where he studied Torah — whereupon she arose and divided all of her wealth: a third to the authorities (for permission to convert), a third to the poor, and a third which she took with her, in addition to those spreads. When she came to R. Meir's house of study, she said to him: My master, convert me. R. Meir: Is it possible that you have "cast your eyes" upon one of my disciples! At this, she took out the note that she had with her, and he said to her: "Go and claim your purchase!" Those spreads which she had spread for him unlawfully, she now spread for him lawfully, This was her reward in this world. As to the world to come, I do not know how much.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario