num

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (Num. 15:20) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated: Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101.” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it.” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis, one said in one case there is enough to lift, in the other case there is not enough to lift; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If a cereal offering was mixed with profane flour, may [the Cohen] take a fistful and permit the remainder to be eaten? Do I read for this (Lev. 2:3): “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons?” He said to him: If ṭevel was mixed with profane, do I read (Num. 18:28) “you shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen”? He answered him, did I say to you that he cannot take from itself for itself and not from it for another place? If it is clear to you that he cannot take from it for another place then even from itself for itself he should not be able to take! The Mishnah said that he can take from itself for itself as we have stated: “Otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything”.

Rebbi Huna said: So is the Mishnah: “Between Akhzib and Euphrates, between Akhzib and Amanus.” It was stated: What is the Land and what is outside the Land? From the slopes of Taurus Amanus inwards is the Land of Israel, from Taurus Amanus to the outside is outside the Land. About the islands in the sea, one looks at them as if a string were drawn from Taurus Amanus to the brook of Egypt; from the string to the inside is the Land of Israel, from the string to the outside is outside the Land. Rebbi Jehudah said, all that lies before the Land of Israel is like the Land of Israel since it is said (Num. 34:6): “The Western border shall be for you the Great Sea as border; that shall be for you the sea border.” Assuming that a string were drawn from Cephalaria to the Ocean, from the brook of Egypt to the Ocean; inside the string is the Land of Israel, outside is outside the Land.

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings” said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18) “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same, “breaking” and “smashing” is the same, “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same, and here he takes note of a change in expression!

HALAKHAH: “Leaves and shoots.” Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, as was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: (Num. 6:4) “Anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to skin he shall not eat,” that includes leaves and shoots.

From where that they may be lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes dema‘.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Yose: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? He said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, as it is written (Num. 15:20): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.

HALAKHAH: : “The following bring but do not make the declaration”. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks of a proselyte of the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration, as it is written (Num. 10:29): “Go with us and we shall treat you well.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but: Why did they say “the guardians, the slave, the agent, the woman, the sexless and the hermaphrodite can bring but do not make the declaration,” is not the proselyte mentioned here? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, explain it by the proselyte mentioned here, by the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male desecrated one.” They all interpret the same verse (Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” But the rabbis [say], you shall let live as slaves and slave girls for yourselves.

HALAKHAH: “For heave and First Fruits,” etc. It is written (Num.18.8): “Behold, I gave to you the watch over My heaves.” Two heaves, heave and First Fruits. About heave it is written (Lev. 22:9): “They should not carry sin because of it and die if they desecrate it.” First fruits as it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There you shall bring your elevation offerings,” these are First Fruits, as it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.” Maybe we should say that the verse refers to sacrifices? Extirpation is already written in regard to sacrifices.

From where do you understand that if somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation? It is written (Num. 4:18–19): “Do not extirpate the tribe of the families of (Levi), etc. Do the following for them that they should live and not die.” Organize them that they should not enjoy seeing the holiest of holies. And it is written (Num. 4:20): “They should not come to look, when the holies are wrapped, and die.” And it is written (Num. 8:25): “At age 50, he should retire from the work force.” Rebbi Abin, the son of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Tryphon, understood it from here (Ps. 90:10): “The days of our lives here are 70 years.” Subtract from these 20 years during which the Heavenly Court does neither punish not extirpate, and you will find that one who dies at up to 50 years dies in extirpation.

From where do you understand that if somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation? It is written (Num. 4:18–19): “Do not extirpate the tribe of the families of (Levi), etc. Do the following for them that they should live and not die.” Organize them that they should not enjoy seeing the holiest of holies. And it is written (Num. 4:20): “They should not come to look, when the holies are wrapped, and die.” And it is written (Num. 8:25): “At age 50, he should retire from the work force.” Rebbi Abin, the son of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Tryphon, understood it from here (Ps. 90:10): “The days of our lives here are 70 years.” Subtract from these 20 years during which the Heavenly Court does neither punish not extirpate, and you will find that one who dies at up to 50 years dies in extirpation.

From where do you understand that if somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation? It is written (Num. 4:18–19): “Do not extirpate the tribe of the families of (Levi), etc. Do the following for them that they should live and not die.” Organize them that they should not enjoy seeing the holiest of holies. And it is written (Num. 4:20): “They should not come to look, when the holies are wrapped, and die.” And it is written (Num. 8:25): “At age 50, he should retire from the work force.” Rebbi Abin, the son of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Tryphon, understood it from here (Ps. 90:10): “The days of our lives here are 70 years.” Subtract from these 20 years during which the Heavenly Court does neither punish not extirpate, and you will find that one who dies at up to 50 years dies in extirpation.

“At 52, the death of the prophet Saul.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai in the name of Rebbi Levi; Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi (Prov. 14:23): “From all toil there will be gain but from talk of lips only want.” Hannah, because she prayed too much, shortened Samuel’s life, since she said (1S. 1:22): “He shall dwell there forever.” But the “forever” of a Levite is only 50 years, as it is written (Num. 8:25): “At the age of 50 years he shall retire from the workforce.” But this one lived 52 years? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, two years until she weaned him.

“They are the Cohen’s property.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18: 8): “To you I gave it as mošḥâ.” As mošḥâ, for importance. As mošḥâ, for anointing. As mošḥâ, as fuel. I would say, both for impure and pure. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, (Deut. 26:14) “I did not burn any of it,” but one liquidates heave in impurity. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: From where for Second Tithe proper which became impure that one may not use it as fuel? The verse says, “I did not burn any of it in impurity”. One may redeem it and you are saying this? One may only interpret it as referring to what was bought with Second Tithe money. Rebbi Jehudah said, but for First Fruits which became impure it is the opinion of everybody.

“They acquire [hallowed status] connected to the ground”, as it is written (Num. 18:13): “The First Fruits of anything on their land.”

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abin, Cahana in the name of the Rebbi Hila (Num.18:32): “You should not carry guilt because of it.” He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt, and he may give heave! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you”, (v. 26) “and you shall lift”. Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for Gentiles, and he may give heave! Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Gentiles have no “thought” whether for preparation or for heave.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abin, Cahana in the name of the Rebbi Hila (Num.18:32): “You should not carry guilt because of it.” He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt, and he may give heave! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you”, (v. 26) “and you shall lift”. Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for Gentiles, and he may give heave! Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Gentiles have no “thought” whether for preparation or for heave.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (Num.18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.” Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt. Rebbi Jehudah said he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

MISHNAH: Then he starts writing the scroll. From where does he start writing? (Num. 5:19) “If no man has lain with you, …” (v. 20) “but if you deviated from under your husband,” etc. He does not write (v. 21) “the Cohen has to administer the oath of curse to the woman,” but he writes “may the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal will make your hips diminish and your belly inflate.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines to inflate belly and diminish hips.” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.” Rebbi Yose says, he does not interrupt. Rebbi Jehudah said he does not write anything but (Num. 5:21): “May the Eternal make you a curse and a swear-word among your people when the Eternal makes your hips diminish and your belly swell.” (v. 22) “This curse-water would come into your intestines …” He does not write (v. 22) “the woman shall say, Amen, Amen.”

“Seven seas surround the Land of Israel: The ocean, lake Tiberias, lake Samkho, the salt sea, lake Ḥolata, lake Sheliat, lake Apamea.” But does there not also exist the lake of Ḥomṣ? Diocletian dammed up rivers and created it. It is written (Num. 21:20): “Looking down on the desert.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if one ascends the desert mountain one finds the likeness of a sieve in lake Tiberias, that is the well of Miryam. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Mara said, the rabbis estimated it and it is assessed opposite the middle gate of the old synagogue of Imdvtgyn.

If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened? The verse says (Lev. 23:2) “them”, “them”, “these are My holidays.” Before its time is not “My holidays.” Before its time, the 29th day, after its lengthening, the 32nd day. From where that one intercalates for the year because of the [men of the] diaspora who set out but did not yet arrive? The verse says (Num. 23:44), “Moses spoke about the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel”. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.

Jehudah from Ḥusa hid himself in a cave for three days because he wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He came to Rabbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta and said, I was hiding in a cave for three days because I wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He called his son Rebbi Abba and asked him about the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He said to him (Num. 35:15): “These [six] cities shall be”, each town shall be, and only afterwards their surroundings around them. He [R. Yose] said to him [Jehudah from Huṣa], what did cause you [this emharassment]? That you did not study with your companions!

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” Rebbi Joḥanan said “it shall not be his”. May he give them to whomever he likes?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself] except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself] except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself] except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

It was stated: A student who gave instructions about practice in front of his teacher has committed a deadly sin. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Nadab and Abihu died only because they determined practice in the presence of their teacher Moses. It happened that a student gave instructions about practice in front of his teacher Rebbi Eliezer. The latter said to his wife Imma Shalom: That one will not live out his week. The week was not completed when he died. His students said to him: Rebbi, you are a prophet. He said to them (Amos 7:14) “I am neither a prophet nor the disciple of a prophet” but I have received a tradition that any student who gives instructions about practice in front of his teacher has committed a deadly sin. It was stated: A student is forbidden to give instructions about practice during the lifetime of his teacher unless he be at a distance of at least 12 mil from him, [the breadth of] the camp of Israel. What is the reason? (Num. 33:49) “They encamped along the Jordan from Bet Hayyešimot to Abel Haššiṭṭim in the plains of Moab”; how far is this? Twelve mil. Like this: Rebbi Tanḥum ben Jeremiah was in Ḥefer; they asked him and he gave instructions about practice. They said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that a student may not give instructions about practice during the lifetime of his teacher unless he be at a distance of at least 12 mil from him, [the breadth of] the camp of Israel; and your teacher Rebbi Ḥana sits at Sepphoris! He said to them, so it should come over me that I did not know! From that moment on he did no longer give instructions.

HALAKHAH: “If orphans rely on a property owner, etc.” (Num. 18:28) “you” excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his. Did we not state (Terumot 3:3): “Partners who gave heave one after the other?” But one must be for Great Heave, the other for heave of the tithe. Did we not infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe? But one is for practice, the other for action. “You” excludes guardians; but did we not state: “Orphans dependent on a home owner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rebbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell slaves but not real estate?” But here one deals with an adult orphan, there with an underage orphan.

“Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (Lev. 23:14) “In all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? Rebbi Yose said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, not to Gentiles. What is the reason? (Num. 15:20): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. And Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Meïr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not become betrothed to a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may become betrothed to a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he becomes betrothed while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the daughter of proselytes should not marry into the priesthood unless her mother be from Israel” They all interpret the same verse (Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” How do the rabbis explain? You shall let live as slaves and slave girls for yourselves.

But how long does His anger last ? A moment. And how long is a moment? A moment is one 58,888th part of an hour ; and nobody has ever been able to fix upon just that moment with the exception of the wicked Balaam, of whom it is written, "He knoweth the knowledge of the Most High" (Num. xxiv. 16).

That is the meaning of what Balaam said to Balak, "How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed ? And how shall I execrate, whom the Lord hath not execrated?" (Num. xxiii. 8). This teaches that during all those days He did not execrate.

By virtue of "Moses hid his face" (Exod. iii. 6), he was granted the shining of his countenance (cf.ibid. xxxiv. 29 f.). By virtue of "For he was afraid" (ibid. iii. 6), he merited "And they were afraid to come nigh him" (ibid, xxxiv. 30). By virtue of "[He was afraid] to behold God" (ibid. iii. 6), he merited "The similitude of the Lord doth he behold" (Num. xii. 8).

Even "Ataroth and Dibon" (Num. xxxii. 3) — for whoever finishes his Parashah with the congregation, his days and years are prolonged.

There is a teaching to the same effect : "The Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night" (Deut. xvi. 1). Was it in the night they went out? Surely they went out during the day ; as it is said, "On the morrow after the Passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand" (Num. xxxiii. 3) ! But this teaches that the redemption began for them at even.

We have learnt elsewhere in the Mishnah : The Temple-super-intendent said [to the priests] "Utter one benediction," and they did so. They then read the Decalogue, "Hear, O Israel" etc. (Deut. vi. 4 ff.), "And it shall come to pass if ye shall hearken diligently" etc. (ibid. xi. 13 ff.), "And the Lord said" etc. (Num. xv, 37 ff.). After that they uttered with the people three benedictions, viz, "True and firm," "Accept, O Lord our God" and the Priestly Benediction. On the Sabbath they added a benediction for the outgoing guard.

On what ground [did they wish to include it] ? Was it because it is written therein, "God Who brought them forth out of Egypt" (Num. xxiii. 22) ? Then let one say the Parashah of usury or of weights which likewise contains a reference to the exodus from Egypt !

There is a teaching : "After your heart" (ibid. v. 39) means heresy; for thus the Scriptures state, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. xiv, 1). "After your own eyes" (Num. I.c.) means lustful imagination ; as it is said, "And Samson said unto his father. Get her for me, for she is pleasing in my eyes" (Judg. xiv. 3). "After which ye use to go astray" (Num. I.c.) means idolatrous longing; for thus the Scriptures state, "The children of Israel again went astray after the Baalim " (Judg. viii. 33).

There is a teaching : "After your heart" (ibid. v. 39) means heresy; for thus the Scriptures state, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. xiv, 1). "After your own eyes" (Num. I.c.) means lustful imagination ; as it is said, "And Samson said unto his father. Get her for me, for she is pleasing in my eyes" (Judg. xiv. 3). "After which ye use to go astray" (Num. I.c.) means idolatrous longing; for thus the Scriptures state, "The children of Israel again went astray after the Baalim " (Judg. viii. 33).

'Ulla said : Whoever reads the Shema' without Tefillin is as though he spoke false testimony against himself. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan : It is as though he had offered a burnt-offering without a meal-offering (cf. Num. xxviii. 5) and a sacrifice without drink-offerings (ibid. v. 14).

Raba said to him : Should one ask thee whose teaching this is, it is R. Judah's; for he stated with reference to the woman suspected of adultery : One writes the curses but not the words of the command, because in this connection it is written, "And the priests shall write these curses in a scroll" (Num. v. 23), but here [in connection with Tefillin] it is written, "And thou shalt write them," i.e. even the words of the command.

"tents" and "streams" — for it is written, "As streams stretched out, as gardens by the river-side, as tents planted by the Lord, as cedars beside the waters" (Num. xxiv. 6)? Its intention is to tell thee that as streams bring a man up from impurity to purity, so do "tents" bring a man up from the scale of guilt to the scale of merit.

[It is written,] "Or for his sister" (Num. vi. 7). What has this teaching to tell us ? Supposing he were on his way to sacrifice the Paschal lamb or circumcise his son, and he heard that one of his relatives had died, it is possible [to think] that he should turn back and render himself unclean ; say, then, he shall not make himself unclean.

Rab 'Awira expounded (sometimes he said it in the name of R. Ammi and sometimes in the name of R. Assi) : The ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Lord of the universe ! It is written of Thee in Thy Torah, 'Who regardeth not persons nor taketh reward' (Deut. x. 17); but dost Thou not regard the person of Israel, for it is written, 'The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee' (Num. vi. 26)?" He replied to them, "And should I not regard the person of Israel, for whom I wrote in the Torah, 'And thou shalt eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord thy God' (Deut. viii. 10), but they are strict with themselves [and bless] even with a quantity of food equal in size to an olive or an egg?"

How is this implied? As Rabbanai, the brother of R. Hiyya b. Abba, taught : We draw an analogy from the occurrence of the word "among." It is written here, "But I will be hallowed among the children of Israel" and it is written elsewhere "Separate yourselves from among this congregation" (Num. xvi. 21). As in the latter circumstance there were ten, so here also there must be ten.

R. Assi said : [Of him the Scriptures state], "Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity" (Is. v. 18). Rab Adda b. Ahabah said : From the following, "Because he hath despised the word of the Lord" (Num. xv. 31).

'Then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed'" (Num. v. 28).

R. Eleazar also said : Moses spoke rebelliously to the Most High; as it is said, "And Moses prayed unto the Lord" (Num. xi. 2) — read not "unto [el] the Lord" but "against ['al] the Lord";

"And Moses besought [wayyehal] the Lord his God" (ibid. v. 11). R. Eleazar said : This teaches that Moses stood in prayer before the Holy One, blessed be He, until he wore Him out [hehelehu]. Raba said : [Moses besought Him] until He annulled His vow for him ; for it is written here wayyehal "and he besought," and elsewhere it is written, "he shall not break [yahel] his word" (Num. 30:3) ; and a teacher has said : [He who makes a vow] cannot break it himself, but others can break it on his behalf.

"Because the Lord was not able [yekolet]" (Num. xiv. 16). It should have been yakol!

It again happened that a disciple who descended before the Ark in the presence of R. Eliezer unduly shortened [the prayers]. His disciples said to him, "What a shortener he is!" He replied, "Did he shorten more than Moses, our teacher ; for it is written, 'Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee'" (Num. xii. 13)?

For over bread one says : "... Who bringest forth bread from the earth." Our Rabbis have taught : What does he say ? "...Who bringest forth [hammosi'] bread from the earth." R. Nehemiah stated : It is "...Who brought forth [mosi'] bread from the earth." Raba said : Nobody disagrees about mosi that it has the meaning "brought forth" ; as it is said, "God Who brought them forth [mosiam] out of Egypt" (Num. xxiii. 22). In what do they differ? In the word hammosi'. The Rabbis hold that hammosi' means "Who brought forth," for it is written "Who brought thee forth [hammosi'] water out of the rock of flint" (Deut. viii. 15) ; and R. Nehemiah holds it means "Who bringeth forth," as it is said, "Who bringeth you out [hammosi'] from under the burden of the Egyptians" (Exod. vi. 7).

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

"Out of all your tithes ye shall set apart" (Num. xviii. 29). What, however, seest thou? The latter is corn but the other is not.

"Wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord, Et and Heb in the rear and the valleys of Arnon" etc. (Num. xxi. 14). It has been taught : "Et and Heb in the rear" were two lepers who journeyed in the rear of the camp. When the Israelites were to pass through [the valleys of Arnon], the Amorites came

It has been taught : They are stones which remained suspended [in the air] for the sake of a man and descended for the sake of a man. They remained suspended for the sake of a man, viz.: Moses; for it is written, "Now the man Moses was very meek" (Num. xii. 3), and it is written, "And the thunders and hail ceased, and the rain poured not upon the earth" (Exod. ix, 33). They descended for the sake of a man, viz. Joshua ; for it is written, "Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is spirit" (Num. xxvii. 18), and it is written, "And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones" (Josh. x. 11).

It has been taught : They are stones which remained suspended [in the air] for the sake of a man and descended for the sake of a man. They remained suspended for the sake of a man, viz.: Moses; for it is written, "Now the man Moses was very meek" (Num. xii. 3), and it is written, "And the thunders and hail ceased, and the rain poured not upon the earth" (Exod. ix, 33). They descended for the sake of a man, viz. Joshua ; for it is written, "Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is spirit" (Num. xxvii. 18), and it is written, "And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones" (Josh. x. 11).

When Samuel had a bad dream, he used to say, "The dreams speak falsely" (Zech. x. 2) ; but when he had a good dream, he used to say, "Do the dreams speak falsely? For lo, it is written, 'I [God] do speak with him in a dream' (Num. xii. 6)."

He then said, "Since a miracle was wrought for me with this verse, I will expound it." [He went to the House of Study and expounded]: "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness" — that refers to the work of Creation ; for so it is stated, "Who doeth great things past finding out" (Job ix. 10). "And the power" — that refers to the Exodus from Egypt ; as it is said, "And Israel saw the great work" etc. (Exod. xiv. 31). "And the glory" — that refers to the sun and moon which stood still for Joshua; as it is said, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" (Josh. x. 13). "And the victory" [nesah] — that refers to the overthrow of Rome; for so it is stated, "And their life-blood [nesah] is dashed against My garments" (Is. Ixiii. 3). "And the majesty" — that refers to the battle at the valleys of Arnon ; as it is said, "Wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord : Vaheb in Suphah, and the valleys of Arnon" (Num. xxi. 14). "For all that is in heaven and earth" — that refers to the war of Sisera ; as it is said, "They fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera" (Judges 5:20). "Thine is the kingdom, O Lord" — that refers to the war of Amalek ; for so it is stated, "The hand upon the throne of the Lord, the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation" (Exod. xvii. 16). "And Thou art exalted" — that refers to the war of Gog and Magog ; for so it is stated, "Behold I am against thee, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal" (Ezek. xxxviii. 3). "As head above all" — Rab Hanan b. Raba said in the name of Rab : Even the waterman is appointed by Heaven.

Hezekiah b. R. Parnak said in the name of R. Parnak in the name of R. Johanan : Why does the section of the woman suspected of adultery adjoin the section of the offerings and tithes ? To tell thee that whoever has offerings and tithes and does not hand them to the priest will in the end require the services of a priest in the matter of his wife; as it is said, "And every man's hallowed things shall be his" (Num. v. 10) and next to it is, "If any man's wife go aside" (ibid. v. 12). Not only that, but in the end he will be in need of the offerings and tithes ; as it is said, "And every man's hallowed things shall be his."

Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : Should he duly hand them over, in the end he will grow rich ; as it is said, "Whatever any man giveth the priest, it shall be his" (Num. v. 10) — i.e. much wealth shall be his.

"Attend [hasket]" — i.e. "form classes" and occupy yourselves with Torah, because Torah is only acquired in a class. This is in accord with the statement of R. Jose b. R. Hannina who said : What means that which is written, "A sword is upon the boasters [baddim] and they shall become fools" (Jer. 1. 36)? A sword is upon the enemies of the disciples of the wise who sit separately [bad wa-bad] and study Torah. Not only so, but they become foolish ; for it is written here "And they shall become fools" and in another passage it is written, "For that we have done foolishly" (Num. xii. 11). [not translated]

Another explanation of "Attend [hasket] and hear, O Israel" (Deut. xxvii. 9) — i.e. submit to blows [kattetu] on behalf of the words of Torah ; according to the statement of R. Simeon b. Lakish who said : Whence is it learnt that the words of Torah endure only with him who would suffer death on its behalf? As it is said, "This is the law : when a man dieth in a tent" (Num. xix. 14).

The question was raised: Did R. Eliezer derive his view from the lulab, or from the libation of water? If he derived it from the lulab, then just as the lulab comes into use on (the morning of) the first day of Tabernacles, so also the mentioning of the rain should begin on that day. Or, perhaps, did he derive it from the libation of water, and then, just as the latter may take place on the evening preceding the first day, so the mentioning of the rain will begin on that evening [for it has been taught (Temurah, 14a): The words: "And their meal offering and their drink offering" (Num., 29.18) should be interpreted to mean that drink offerings may be brought in the evening and even at a subsequent time]? Come and listen: R. Abahu said: R. Eliezer derived his view from the lulab exclusively.

What is R. Judah's reason? It is as stated in the following Baraita: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: In prescribing the order of sacrifices for the second day, scripture says (Num., 29.18): "and their drink-offerings" (ונסכיהם), in the order for the sixth day (ib., 29.31), the expression is: "and its drink-offerings" (ונסכיה), while in the order for the seventh day (ib., 29.33) we read: "After their ordinance" (כמשפטם), thus obtaining the letters mem, yod, mem, which put together read mayim (מים = water). Here we have a biblical allusion to the institution of water libation.

A Baraita teaches: R. Nathan says: The verse (Num., 28.7): "In the holy place shalt thou pour out a drink-offering of strong drink unto the Lord," speaks of two libations, one of water and one of wine.

R. Johanan further said: Rain is granted for the sake of an individual, means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only. That rain is granted for the sake of an individual we learn from the verse (Deut., 28.12): "The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven, to give the rain of thy land." That means of sustenance are granted for the sake of a multitude only, we learn from the verse (Exod., 16.4): "Behold I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you." But are not means of sustenance granted also for the sake of an individual? Do we not read: "R. Jose b. Judah said, three good leaders have arisen for Israel; they are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; and three precious gifts were presented to Israel for their sake. These are, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna. The well was given for the merits of Miriam, the pillar of cloud for the merits of Aaron, and the manna for the merits of Moses. When Miriam died the well was taken away, for it is said (Num., 20.1): 'And Miriam died there,' and immediately after it is written: 'And there was no water for the congregation.' Subsequently the well came back on account of the merits of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died the pillar of cloud disappeared, as it is said (ibid., 21.1): 'And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard.' What did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory were taken away from Israel, so he thought that now permission was given to wage war against them. Therefore it is written (ibid., 20.29): 'And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead,' [concerning which R. 'Abahu said that one should not read 'they saw,' but 'they were seen'—agreeing herein with what Resh Laḳish said, namely, that ki (כי) has four meanings: if, perhaps (lest), but, because]. Both (well and cloud) later came back on account of the merits of Moses, but when Moses died all three disappeared, as it is said (Zech., 11.8): 'And I cut off the three shepherds in one month.' But is it true that they died in one month? Did not Miriam die in Nisan, Aaron in Ab, and Moses in Adar? The meaning therefore can only be that the three precious gifts which had been given to Israel through them were taken away in one month." Now, does it not follow from the foregoing Baraita that means of sustenance are granted also for the sake of an individual?! Moses is an exception; since all his requests were for a multitude, he was himself regarded as a multitude.

R. Eleazar said: A prominent man is not allowed to fall upon his face in prayer unless he knows that he will be answered, as was Joshua, as it is said (Josh., 7. 10): "And the Lord said unto Joshua: 'Get thee up; wherefore, now, art thou fallen upon thy face?'" R. Eleazar further said: A prominent man is not allowed to put on sackcloth unless he knows that he will be answered, as was Jehoram, as it is said (II Kings, 6. 30): "And the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh." R. Eleazar further said: Not all were to fall upon their faces (for prayer) and not all were to rend their clothes, but Moses and Aaron were to fall upon their faces, while Joshua and Caleb were to rend their clothes. As to Moses and Aaron, it is said (Num., 14. 5-6): "Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces"; and as to Joshua and Caleb, it is said (ibidem, 14. 6): "And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were of them that spied out the land, rent their clothes." R. Zera or, as some say, R. Samuel b. Naḥamani, raised an objection: If Scripture had only the word "Joshua," it would mean what you said, but since it has "and Joshua," Scripture indicates that they (Joshua and Caleb) did both.

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

The Patriarchal house once ordered a fast (during which they prayed for rain), but rain failed to come. 'Osha'yah, the younger from Ḥabraya, therefore, quoted to them the verse (Num., 15. 24): "Then it shall be, if it be done in error by the congregation, it being hid from their eyes," and illustrated it by the following simile: As long as a bride (in her paternal house) has beautiful eyes, the rest of her body needs no examination, but if her eyes are not beautiful, her entire body must be examined. Hearing this, the servants of the Patriarch seized 'Osha'ya, put a towel (sudary) around his neck and began to choke him, but some townspeople who saw it said to them: "Let him go, for he used to harass us too, but when we saw that all his deeds were for the sake of Heaven we let him alone."

2. This is the order of the Ma'amadot [It is said (Num., 28.2): "Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in its due season." Now, how can the offering of a person be presented, if he does not stand by it? The Early Prophets have therefore instituted twenty-four divisions. (Corresponding to each division there was present in Jerusalem a post of priests, Levites and Israelites.) When the turn of a division came to go up to Jerusalem, the priests and Levites (as well as the lay representatives of the Israelites) of that division went up to Jerusalem, while the bulk of the Israelites belonging to that division assembled in the synagogues of their respective towns and read the chapter on Creation (Gen., 1. 1-31; 2. 1-3)]:

It is at all events generally admitted that a drunken priest is not allowed to raise his hands. Whence is this view derived? Said R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, who reported it in the name of Bar Ḳappara, Why is the portion dealing with the blessing priest placed (in the Bible) immediately after the portion dealing with the Nazir? In order to convey the lesson that as the Nazir is forbidden to drink wine, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing. An objection was raised against this statement by 'Ahabah, son of R. Zera, or, as some say, by Joshua b. Gizora: If this deduction is correct, we ought also to say that as the Nazir is forbidden to eat the kernel (Num 6.4), so is the blessing priest! Said R. Isaac, Scripture says (Deut., 10.8): "To minister unto Him, and to bless in His name," which indicates that as the ministering priest is allowed to eat the kernel, so is the priest who is to pronounce a blessing.

On the ninth of Ab it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Land. Whence is this known? It is written (Exod., 40. 17): "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was reared up;" and it is further written (Num., 10. 11): "And it came to pass in the second year in the second month on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony." [It was also taught that in the first year Moses had prepared the Tabernacle, but reared it up in the second year and then sent spies.] It is further written (ibid., 10. 33): "And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," which R. Ḥama b. Ḥanina interpreted to mean that on that day they turned aside from the Lord. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 4): "And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part," etc. Further it is written (ibid., 11. 20): "A whole month" (which brings it to the 22nd of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 12. 15): "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (which brings it to the 29th of Siwan). Further it is written (ibid., 13. 2): "Send thou men," and it is stated in a Baraita that Moses sent the spies on the 29th of Siwan. Further it is written (ibid., 13. 25): "And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days." ["Forty days?" It is only forty minus one! Said 'Abbayi, Tammuz of that year was made a full month, as it is written (Lament., 1. 15): "He hath called a solemn assembly against me to crush my young men."] Further it is written (Numb., 14. 1): "And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night," which verse was thus commented upon by Rabbah in the name of R. Johanan: That day was the ninth of Ab, the Holy One, blessed be He having said to the Israelites: You wept without cause, therefore I shall establish for you a weeping (on that day) that will last throughout generations.