1 V. 2.
2 As I commanded you to count, not as you
counted. Moshe had not yet counted Kehos, until later, v. 34. (M. )
3 Those aged thirty to fifty.
4 Ten tapestries were sewn
together to form the Sanctuary's ceiling (Shemos, 26:1--6. See 3:25).
5 The upper tapestry is mentioned later in our passage. (M.,
G.A.)
6 Shemos, 26;7 states, "Make goats' hair tapestries as a
tent over the Mishkon." (M.)
7 Our passage is understood as "...the Tent of
Meeting and its covering...," referring to Shemos, 26:14,
"Make a covering for the tent out of red dyed rams' skins." (M)
Scripture previously (3:25) included both the rams' skins and
tachash-skins in a single word, {Hebrew Ref} , "its
covering." Here, however, the two covers are mentioned separately, ".
..its ram skin covering, and the tachash covering
over it..." The difference is, that chapter 3 lists the
parts of the Mishkon according to their functions. Since both
skins served as coverings, they are mentioned together. Our verse
records the Mishkon parts carried by the Gershonites. The skins
were carried separately, and are, therefore, listed separately. (G.A.)
8 The special curtain which screened the entrance (Shemos,
26:33), but not the folded drape which hung before it (Shemos, 26:9).
The drape was part of the tapestry already mentioned above in our
passage. (G.A.)
9 {Hebrew Ref} , literally, "which
are above the Mishkon," is understood as "which guard over the
Mishkon." (M.)
10 But not the golden altar, which was
inside the Sanctuary itself, and, thus, protected by its walls, rather
than the curtains and screen. (M.)
11 According to the literal translation, "all that will be
made for them," the reference would be to other, subordinate vessels
made "for them," i.e., for the Mishkon parts mentioned in
verses 25 and 26. However, no such vessels were made. (M) Also, all of
the Mishkon vessels had already been made, while {Hebrew Ref} is
in the future tense. (G.A.) This indicates the propriety of Onkelos'
rendition, "all that will be given to them"---to the sons of
Gershon. (M.,G.A.)
12 The plural {Hebrew Ref} may be
understood as "one of his sons," referring to a single son. See
Bereishis, 46:23. The Gershonites were supervised by only one of
Aharon's sons, Isamar, as specified in verse 28. They followed Aharon's
instructions as well, but only Isamar's name is mentioned in verse 28,
to identify him, among his brothers, as the supervisor. (M.)
13 V. 26. See 3:26.
14 The Gershonites carried these
stakes and ropes along with the tapestries and curtains. (M.)
15
The sons of Merori carried these stakes and ropes along with the
pillars. (M.)
16 The curtain ends were fastened around the rods
with ropes, and the rods, referred to here as stakes, hung from the
pillars. (M.,G.A., from Shemos, 27:10, Rashi there)
17 Beraysa
d'Meleches Hamishkon, 85.
18 The Levites played their instruments while the kohanim
performed the sacrificial services. Thus, the music was a service
for another service---that of offering the sacrifices. (M., from
Arachin, 11a)
19 The previous phrase, {Hebrew Ref} ,
referred to a service performed to enhance another service---the songs
for the sacrifices. Here, however, the reference is to a single,
independent service, that of carrying, as the phrase {Hebrew Ref}
plainly indicates. (S.C.)
20 In Moshe's counting were those whom G-d commanded him to
count. "...whom G-d commanded Moshe" is understood as ".
..whom G-d commanded him." (M.)
21 Everyone counted
was actually between the ages of thirty and fifty, without a single
error. This is significant, because any service performed by a Levite
of improper age, would have been invalid. (G.A.)
22 Vs. 1--4.
23 By G-d to Moshe, who then inscribed it on parchment and gave
it to Bnei Yisroel. (Rashi to Gittin, 60a)
24 The first day of
the first month [Nisan]. (Shemos, 40:2)
25 The camps of the
Shechinah, Levites, and Israelites were then established (although
the Israelites were not stationed according to tribal identification
until they were counted a month later (M.)), requiring the immediate
discharge of those ritually unclean. (M., G.A., from Rashi to Gittin
60a)
26 Our parshah is separate from the parshah
(Shemos, 40) which recounts the establishment of the Mishkon,
but this is not unusual. Indeed, all of the eight parshiyos given
on that day appear in sections of the Torah other than the chapter
discussing the Mishkon. (G.A. See Pesachim 6b, Gilyon Hashas,
there)
27 All eight portions are relevant to the establishment
of the Mishkon. They deal with the Sanctuary obligations of the
kohanim and Levites, laws of ritual cleanliness, and other
Mishkon-related matters. (Rashi to Gittin, 60a)
28 60a.
29 "...they (the Levites) shall camp around the
Mishkon." (1:50)
30 The camp in the desert was
paralleled later by the "camp" in Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem
itself, up to the Temple mount, was the camp of the Israelites. The
Temple mount up until the gate of the Temple courtyard constituted the
camp of the Levites. From the courtyard and within, was the camp of the
Shechinah. (Zevachim, 116b, Rambam, Beis Hamikdash, 3:2,3)
31 The metzoro symptoms and all the relevant laws are
detailed in Vayikra, 13,14.
32 The zav is rendered
ritually unclean by a discharge from his body. See Vayikra, 15:1--15.
33 The laws of defilement through contact with a corpse appear
in chapters 9:6--14 and 19.
34 67a. These are the derivations:
a) The Torah stipulates that the metzoro "...shall
remain isolated..." (Vayikra, 13:46), indicating that he
must be ostracized from all three camps. b) Moshe brought Yosef's
remains out of Egypt (Shemos, 13:19), and kept them in the Levite camp.
If the very remains of the dead were permitted in the camp of the
Levites, then those made unclean by contact with the dead were
certainly permitted there. Those defiled by the dead, then, were
excluded only from the camp of the Shechinah. c) Verse 3
admonishes the zav and the temei meis not to "..
.defile their camps..." The plural usage, "camps,"
teaches that each belonged in his respective camp. Since the temei
meis was permitted in the Levite camp [above, "b"], it follows
that the zav was forbidden there, and was permitted only in the
camp of the Israelites. (S.C., from Pesachim, there).
35 " {Hebrew Ref} " used by Onkelos to translate " {Hebrew Ref} ." The word " {Hebrew Ref} " in the Scriptural text, however,
means "defiled," as indicated by Onkelos' rendition " {Hebrew Ref}
," "who were defiled." Targum here and in chapter 9 (vs. 6,7)
renders " {Hebrew Ref} " as " {Hebrew Ref} ," "by
the bones of a human soul," since both texts refer to Yoseif, whose
remains, since his death over a century earlier, consisted of his
bones. In Vayikra (21:1), however, where the Torah refers to contact
with a body immediately after death, Targum translates " {Hebrew Ref}
" simply as " {Hebrew Ref} ," "to a corpse." (D.D.) Or, the
prefix " {Hebrew Ref} ," "to," which appears in the word " {Hebrew Ref} " indicates that contact was not made with the body itself, but
with an attachment "to" it, i.e., its bones. (M.)
36 Ch.78.
37 May his memory be blotted out.
38 5:21.
39 V. 7.
40 V. 8, Vayikra, 5:25.
41 V. 8.
42
i.e., restitution for the stolen property (Rashi v.6) itself, but not
the additional fifth, which cannot be entitled the "original" debt
(G.A.) Also, the fifth is mentioned separately in our passage. (M. from
Bava Kama, 110a)
43 The oath concerned the principal payment,
but not the fifth thereof. That is a surcharge for having taken the
oath. (S.C.)
44 Bava Kama, 110a.
45 Why does Rashi add
this? To teach that when the plaintiff (A) owes money to (B) payment is
made directly to (B), rather than the plaintiff (A) himself. Rashi
means "to the one to whom 'he'---the plaintiff (A)---is liable"---to
the plaintiff's creditor. (B) This is derived from Scripture's choice
of the phrase "to the one to whom he is indebted," instead of "to
the one whose property was stolen." (M. from Kesubos, 19a)
46 A person's heir is referred to as his "redeemer." See
Rashi to Ruth, 3:9,12.
47 Like restitution to the plaintiff
(Rashi, v.6), payment to the kohein is contingent on the thief's
confession.
48 Upon conversion, a proselyte's kinship with his
gentile relatives is no longer recognized legally. Thus a proselyte who
dies without issue has no heirs.
49 Bava Kama, 109a. See
Vayikra, 25:26,27, "If your brother ... sells part of his
ancestral estate, his redeemer ... may ... redeem [the
property of] his sale. But if a man does not have a redeemer..
." Rashi there remarks, "Is there anyone in Israel without a
redeemer? But [this refers to the lack of] a redeemer with the
resources to redeem the [property of] sale." Rashi does not suggest
the proselyte case there, nor does he mention the redeemer without
resources here. Because the ownership of the ancestral estate in
Vayikra is channeled through hereditary lines originating with the
Israelites who conquered Canaan, the proselyte's gentile ancestry
obviously excludes him from such ownership. The passage describing the
brother who "...sells part of his ancestral estate"
cannot refer to him. The redeemer in Vayikra, who buys back the
property, must naturally have the necessary resources. So the lack of a
redeemer, Rashi explains, refers merely to the lack of a redeemer with
sufficient resources. In our chapter, the redeemer-relative is to be
paid after the robbery-victim's death. Any relative, rich or poor, is
certainly qualified to receive payment, and the victim may well have
been a proselyte. Hence, Rashi produces the only viable solution to our
problem of the person in Israel without a redeemer---the proselyte who
died without heirs. (M.)
50 "The debt" refers to the
principal, "being returned" alludes to the fifth thereof (Bava Kama,
110a). The first part of our passage, "But if the man has no redeemer
to whom the debt may be returned," mentions the debt, but omits the
allusion to the fifth. There, Scripture relies on v. 7, where the fifth
is mentioned explicitly. (M.)
51 Scripture mentions both G-d and
the kohein. Rashi does not accept a different option: Give the
money to G-d and the kohein in partnership, by buying a
sacrifice [part of which is burned on the altar, and part eaten by the
kohanim]. If this were the intention, our verse would read "To
G-d 'and' the kohein," rather than "To G-d, to the kohein
." (M)
52 Other gifts given by the Israelites to the kohanim,
such as terumah (18:8), may be given to any kohein of the
Israelite's choice. Here, however, G-d gives the gift to the kohein.
Thus, it is to be given only to a kohein actually serving
G-d at that time, by participating in the current watch. (G.A.) Also,
our passage adds that the payment should be given to the kohein
"...besides the ram of forgiveness," indicating that both
gifts are in the same category. Like all offerings (Devorim, 18:8), the
ram is given to a member of the current watch, and the payment follows
suit. (S.C.)
53 The kohanim were organized into 24
service groups, or "watches." Each watch performed the Temple
services for one week, on a rotating basis. (Rambam, K'lei
Hamikdash, 4:3)
54 Instead of commanding that the ram be
brought, Scripture merely adds "besides the ram...,"
indicating that the obligation to bring it was mentioned previously.
(G.A.)
55 5:25.
56 I.e., the restitution payment to the
robbery victim, and, in addition, the ram for forgiveness. In our
parshah, where the victim has died without leaving heirs, payment
is made to the kohein in lieu of restitution. Perhaps this
payment provides forgiveness as well? By adding "... besides
the ram of forgiveness ...," our passage teaches that this is
not the case. Here, too, the ram is required for forgiveness. (S.C.)
57 "Terumah" generally refers to the first portion
taken from the grains, oils, and wines harvested in Eretz Yisroel, and
given to the kohein. See Devorim, 18:4, Rambam, Terumos, 2:1.
58 The kohein is obliged to appear at the Israelite's
granary. However, the gift must be presented to him with the utmost
deference, and no solicitation of any kind is permitted on his part.
(Rambam, Terumos, 12:17, 19)
59 The first to ripen of seven
species of grain and fruit (Devorim, 8:8) are brought as the bikurim
-gift.
60 Shemos, 23:19.
61 The Temple.
62 Sifri 5:30.
63 The "sacred objects" are the
terumah, bikurim, tithes, and other gifts which the Torah mandates
Israelites to set aside for the kohanim and Levites.
64 The
Israelite is empowered to bestow his gift upon the kohein or
levi of his choice, but only as a gift. The recipient is not
permitted to offer remuneration of any kind. However, a fellow
Israelite concerned with a particular kohein's welfare---a
relative through marriage, for example---may pay the owner for favoring
his relation with the gift. This is the benefit which our passage
entitles to the Israelite as executor of his "sacred object." (M.,
G.A., Rambam, Terumos, 12:15--20.)
65 5:34.
66 Tanchuma,
R'eih.
67 This is the homiletic interpretation of {Hebrew Ref} , literally 'his' sacred objects, inferring that he keeps them
himself.
68 {Hebrew Ref} , literally "they shall be
his," is understood as a description of his punishment. His entire
yield will equal no more than the tithe.
69 Berachos, 63a. The phrase "shall be his" is homiletically
applied to the giver, teaching that he will be the owner of great
riches.
70 The two subjects seem to be totally unrelated. Why,
then, does the Torah place them together? This implies that, If you
withhold etc. (M.) Or, the opening phrase of our chapter, {Hebrew Ref} , "If any man's wife goes astray," seems
inappropriate. The sotah is described as a "man's wife," as if
the man whose wife strayed was a principal in her downfall. Why not
simply say, "If any married woman goes astray"? This implies that, if
you withhold etc. (G.A.)
71 This is homiletically understood to
allude to a man who withholds his sacred objects, and refuses to give
them. See Rashi to v. 10 from Midrash Aggadah.
72 Berachos, 63a.
73 In heaven. "G-d is a man of warfare." (Shemos, 15:3)
74
Tanchuma, 5.
75 Sotah. 3a. {Hebrew Ref} , without the
letter ' {Hebrew Ref} ', is translated "goes astray." The addition of
the ' {Hebrew Ref} ', reading {Hebrew Ref} , conveys the concept
of foolishness, as in {Hebrew Ref} , "fool." (Maharsha there,
Midrash Rabbah, 6)
76 Mishlei, 6:32.
77 Modesty is normative, hence licentiousness constitutes
"turning aside." (G.A.)
78 But not from the commandment of the
Torah. That would mean that she definitely had intimate relations with
the stranger, but v.14 [see Rashi there] indicates that actual adultery
is suspected, but was not ascertained. (M.)
79 She and the
stranger embraced, or indulged in other licentious acts. (S.C.)
80
It is not the "turning aside" itself which is relevant to our
parshah, but the suspicion it arouses, which leads to the warning
and, ultimately, the trial of the sotah. (M.)
81 Mishlei,
4:15.
82 Ibid, 7:25.
83 Verse 12 does not identify the
treacherous act. Obviously, it refers to the adultery mentioned in
verse 13. (G.A.)
84 Her husband suspects this, but it was not
verified. The sotah trial in our parshah, culminating in
the test of the bitter waters, applies only when actual adultery is
suspected but was not confirmed. (M.) Hence, our passage should be read
in conjunction with verse 12. "If any man's wife goes astray, and [he
suspects that] she acted treacherously, and a man laid with her.
.." (G.A.)
85 Below the age of nine. Intimate relations
with a male below that age are not recognized as intercourse. (Sotah,
24a, Rambam, Sotah, 1:6)
86 An animal. (Sotah, 26b) Although
intercourse with an animal is an abomination and a capital crime,
(Vayikra, 18:32, Rambam, Isurei Biah, 1:16), it does not offend the
marriage contract, and does not constitute adultery.
87 From
further relations with her husband. See Rashi to v. 31.
88 The
phrase "as in the incident of the two sisters who resembled one
another" appears here in most editions, but this is a printer's error,
bearing no relevance to Rashi's remarks here. [The incident is cited by
Midrash Rabbah, 9, in the context of "...and acted
teacherously towards him" (v.12). A woman was suspected of infidelity,
and was requested to submit to the test of the bitter waters. As she
was actually guilty of adultery, she asked her sister to impersonate
her and drink the water. The sister complied, and emerged unscathed
from the test. When the two women met afterward, they embraced and
kissed. The sotah smelled the odor of the water on her sister's
breath, and died. G-d says to the adulteress, "Your treachery towards
'him' (your husband) may be effective, but not your treachery towards
Me." Rashi's reference is to someone who had intimate relations with
his wife's sister. Despite the gravity of the transgression, the couple
is permitted to continue having marital relations. (G.A. from Yevamos.
85a)
89 The phrase, "her husband's eyes." He was capable of
seeing, if her activities had been revealed. (G.A.)
90 From the
sotah trial. (Sotah, 27a) Although excluded from the trial, a
blind man's wife is subject to all the restrictions against adultery
and immoral behavior.
91 Sifri 5:40. The phrase "but it was
hidden," indicates that the wife's activities were actually hidden
from her husband. (M., G.A.)
92 After "but it was hidden from
her husband's eyes," why reiterate "she was concealed"? To teach
that she was concealed long enough to have been defiled. (G.A.) Or,
from the following phrase {Hebrew Ref} , "and was defiled,"
which seems redundant, as the passage begins with "and a man laid with
her." Evidently, the extra phrase teaches that she was concealed long
enough to have been defiled, and the proper rendition is "[she was
concealed] long enough to have been defiled." (M.)
93 Sotah,
4a.
94 Rashi seems to interpret "witness" as a single witness.
Thus, "there is no witness" refers to a situation when there was
literally no witness at all, and he places our phrase in the context of
the trial process described in the Parashoh, making the
no-witness situation a precondition for the minchah-offering
(v.15), the oath (v.21), and, finally, the bitter water test (v.27).
The sense of the passage flow (vs. 13--27) is: 'If there is no witness
at all, then the following steps are taken, culminating in the water
test.' Thus, Rashi states that if even one witness testified, she did
not drink the water.
95 From the word {Hebrew Ref} , "against
her," referring specifically to the adulterous act. This however does
to apply to the concealment (M.) or the warning (v. 14). (G.A., from
Sotah, 2;b.)
96 This is related to the preceding commentary,
where Rashi noted that we accept even a single witness' testimony that
adultery was committed, although such testimony is normally rejected as
indecisive. Rashi now adds that this applies only when two witnesses
testified that the suspects were concealed together, and that the woman
had been warned against consorting with her paramour. Once regular
testimony has established beyond question, that a warning was issued
and the suspects were concealed together, and one witness has testified
that adultery was committed, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence
is considered decisive. (S.C. from Sotah, 2b)
97 If she was ravished, she is not "defiled" and may
continue relations with her husband. (Yevamos, 56b)
98 Devorim,
22:8.
99 This is evident from the rest of this passage.
100
Sotah, 3a.
101 But if she is known to have been defiled, as our
passage seems to imply, the water test would not be in effect, since
the condition stated above (v. 13) "...it was hidden from
her husband's eyes..." would not be fulfilled. (M., GA.)
102 Sifri 5:45.
103 By mating indiscriminately. (Rashi to Sotah, 15b)
104
Sotah, 15a.
105 Olive oil is called {Hebrew Ref} (18:12),
from {Hebrew Ref} , "light." (M.)
106 Bamidbar Rabbah, 9:13.
107 Shir Hashirim, 4:6. The matriarchs' great saintliness was as
pleasing as the fragrant aroma of frankincense.
108 Bamidbar
Rabbah, ibid.
109 {Hebrew Ref} seems incongruous,
since {Hebrew Ref} is feminine, while {Hebrew Ref} is masculine.
Rashi explains that {Hebrew Ref} is not the subject of {Hebrew Ref}
, but of {Hebrew Ref} , "meal"; which is masculine:
110 Rashi
to 25:11 translates {Hebrew Ref} as vengeance.
111 Sifri,
5:50.
112 The wash basin was a sacred Temple vessel used by the
kohanim for their ablutions before entering the Sanctuary
(Shemos, 30:18). Because it was sacred, any water it contained became
sanctified, and was no longer permitted for mundane use. (Rambam, Beis
Habechirah, 4:18)
113 Mirrors of burnished copper used by the virtuous women in
Egypt to produce the multitudes which comprised the Jewish nation. By
displaying their image in the mirrors, the women enticed their husbands
into having relations, despite their exhaustion from the slave labor.
Because G-d cherished their virtue, the wash basin was fashioned from
the mirrors. (See Rashi to Shemos, 38:8) for complete text.
114 From
"beneath the apple tree I aroused you." (Shir Hashirim, 8:5)
115
Bamidbar Rabbah, 9:14. See Rashi to Shemos, 38:8.
116 Sotah, 9a.
117 Up and down the Temple area. (Sotah, 8a)
118 To
adultery, thus avoiding the erasure of the Sacred Name, (v. 23). A
sotah who confesses does not undergo the bitter water trial.
(Sotah, 7a, 8a. See Rashi to "and place on her palm")
119 From
{Hebrew Ref} , "the woman's head," rather than {Hebrew Ref} ,
"her head," or from {Hebrew Ref} . (G.A.) The superfluous word
teaches that her hair should be disentangled. But {Hebrew Ref} itself
means "expose." (M. based on Rashi to Shemos, 32:25)
120 Sifri 5:56. See Kesubos, 72a.
121 The gate's doors
were donated by Nikanor, a man of great virtue. In the merit of his
self sacrifice, the doors were miraculously saved from an ocean storm.
(Yoma, 38a)
122 Sotah, 7a. The gateway area itself was not sacred
territory, but served as the entrance to the Sanctuary grounds. By
standing there, the sotah was stationed before G-d. (M. from
Rashi to Sotah, 7a.)
123 Rashi comments first to "expose," then
to "before G-d," digressing from the order of the passage. Because
"expose" instructs the kohein to inflict public
humiliation on the sotah by baring her head, inferring that she
must stand in a public place, this teaches that "before G-d" refers
to the Nikanor thoroughfare, rather than some less visible spot within
the Temple area proper. Rashi comments to "expose" first, since it
provides the basis for the interpretation of "before G-d." (L.H.)
124 Shemos 29:24 specifies that the Mishkon
dedication-offerings be placed on the palms of Aharon and his sons, so
that they may perform the tenufah-waving ceremony. Here,
however, no mention is made of the ceremony until later (v.25). Indeed,
the waving did not take place until after the kohein administered
the oath (v.21). (G.A.) Clearly, the placing on her palms was not for
waving purposes, but to exhaust her. (M.)
125 "...
her abdomen will swell and her thigh collapse, and the woman will be a
curse among her people." (v.27)
126 Sifri 5:58. The Gemara
(Sotah, 20a), however, explains that a caustic substance was placed
into the water, rendering it immediately bitter. Why does Rashi omit
this? Because Rashi favors the simpler reading of our text which offers
no indication that there were additives to the water, while the
Gemara's innovative explanation is derived homiletically from the
letter ' {Hebrew Ref} ' in {Hebrew Ref} , which seems superfluous.
(D.D)
127 Yechezkel, 28:24.
128 Reflexive, indicating that the
waters themselves are cursed.
129 Causative.
130 "..
.and say to the woman" does not refer to a different
statement, but to the oath itself. (M., G.A.)
131 The negative
statement here is: 'If no man laid with you, be absolved.' Its positive
converse is: 'But if he laid with you, you are not absolved.' This
implies guilt if adultery was committed, but not necessarily
punishment. The punishment derivation is from {Hebrew Ref} , "be
absolved', which is understood homiletically as {Hebrew Ref} , "may
you choke," and is read in conjunction with verse 20: "May you
choke" from these bitter, lethal waters if you went astray outside of
your husband and were defiled. (Kidushin, 62a, Rashi there.)
132 Why
not begin by stating: "If a man laid with you, may you choke!"?
Because we are commanded to open with innocence. (G.A.)
133
Sanhedrin, 33a.
134 ...you were defiled, but not "since ..
. you were defiled," which would assume her guilt, as yet
unproven. (M., G.A.)
135 Instead of "G-d will curse you," our
passage states "G-d will make a curse of you." You will be used as a
tool for cursing. (M.)
136 Yeshayah, 65:15. The names of the
wicked will be invoked by the righteous, as examples of punishment.
137 Bereishis, 12:3. A man will say to his son, "May you be like
Avraham." (Rashi there)
138 Bereishis, 48:20. Ephraim and
Menasheh will be used as examples of blessings.
139 Sifri, 5:73.
140 However, the waters' destructive powers took effect
against the abdomen first. (Rashi to v.26)
141 Sotah, 8b. Her
enjoyment of the illicit intercourse began there. (Rashi to Sotah)
142 The {Hebrew Ref} denotes the causative. When it is dropped, its
{Hebrew Ref} vowel transfers to the {Hebrew Ref} .
143 Shemos
13:21.
144 Shemos, 13:21.
145 Devorim, 1:33.
146 V.
21.
147 Sotah, 28a.
148 Sotah, 18a. The oath applies only
after the husband's warning (v.14) and the illicit couple's concealment
(v. 13). Once administered, however, the oath may be extended to all
possible adulterous acts; even without previous warning and
concealment. Thus, the sotah must also swear that she
149
This is derived from the repetition of "Amein." The first "Amein"
includes everything mentioned in our parshah---the curse and
oath (vs. 19, 21), her present and previous husband (v. 20. "your
husband" implies any husband).
150 The second "Amein" adds the
other options---betrothal, levirate attachment. (M., from Tosefos to
Kidushin, 27b.)
151 If a man dies without children, his surviving
brother is required to marry the widow (Devorim, 25:5-10). The levirate
engagement is effective immediately, to be culminated by marriage. In
the event of the widow's intimate relations with a stranger, the
sotah status applies. (Sotah, 18b)
152 This is one Mishnaic
opinion (Sotah, 19a), based on verse 26, "...after
[bringing] the offering, he shall have her drink the waters." Rashi
favors this as the simple interpretation of the verse. The prevailing
interpretation [there], however, reconciles verse 26, and concludes
that the offering followed the drinking. (G.A., M. citing Rashi to
Bereishis, 3:8)
153 Verse 22 has already stated that the waters
will penetrate her. Why is this repeated here? To teach that the entire
body is affected. (S.C.)
154 Anything harmful is bitter. (G.A.)
155 Sifri, 5:71.
156 Our passage does not mention her role in the waving. Sotah,
19a derives this from Vayikra, 7:30. (M., G.A.)
157 But not to
bringing it up to the altar to be burned. This took place later, after
the handful was extracted (v.26). (G.A.) Furthermore, only the handful
itself was burned on the altar, while our passage refers to the entire
offering. (M.)
158 Zevachim, 63b from Vayikra, 2:8.
159
Scripture has already instructed the kohein to give her the
water. Why the repetition? (Sotah, 19b).
160 But before the erasure, she may refuse to drink without
admitting defilement. (S.C. from Sotah, 20a)
161 We force-feed
her. (Rashi to Sotah, Ibid)
162 Sotah, Ibid.
163 V. 21. See
Rashi there.
164 Verse 22 mentions the abdomen first, but only in
reference to the adulterer. (M. Rashi there.)
165 Abdomen first.
166 V 21.
167 Sifri, 5:64.
168 This is obvious. Rashi
mentions it as a preface to his next comment. (M.)
169 During her
betrothal, or her marriage to someone else, when there was no known
concealment. See fn 149.
170 The waters are not intrinsically harmful. An innocent woman
will emerge unscathed. (G.A.)
171 The phrase "She will be
cleansed and will bear seed" is not a single concept, meaning that she
will be cleansed of fertility problems and thus bear children; our
phrase consists of two separate ideas. 1) She will be cleansed of the
lethal effect of the waters. 2) Her labor will be painless. (M.)
172
Sotah, 26a.
173 Shemos, 21:36. There and in our passage, {Hebrew Ref} , generally "or," is rendered "if."
174 Verse 30 in its
entirety is read as a preface to verse 31. V. 30: "If the man is
vengeful, warns his wife and has her stand, and the kohein does
all this [and she dies], then---V. 31: The man is cleansed of sin."
175 He is no longer subject to the sin of having relations with
her. Hence, he is cleansed of that sin. (M.)
176 Sotah, 28a.
177 The two seem totally unrelated. (M.) Indeed, they follow opposite
directions. The sotah has succumbed to temptation, whereas the
nazir renounces worldly pleasure. (G.A.)
178 Public
humiliation. See 7b. (Rashi to Sotah, 2a)
179 Sotah, 2a.
180
Sifri, 6:87. See Rashi to Vayikra, 25:5.
181 Shabbos, 17a.
182 Nazir, 34b.
183 The
grapeseeds resemble the tongue, or inner part of the bell, the
grapeskin is similar to the outer bell which surrounds and holds the
tongue.
184 Nazir, 34b. Our Rashi follows R' Yosi's opinion
there. R' Yehudah, however, renders {Hebrew Ref} "skin" and {Hebrew Ref} "seeds." (M.)
185 The reference here is not to his person, but to his hair.
This follows the context of the rest of our passage, which forbids his
use of the razor and mandates the unrestrained growth of his hair. The
nazir's personal sanctity is mentioned later (v.8), "..
.he shall be sacred to G-d." (M., G.A.)
186 Rashi adds ' {Hebrew Ref} ', "for," to indicate that the text itself defines the meaning
of the hairs' sanctity. The hair is consecrated for unrestrained, uncut
growth. (M.)
187 Sifri, 6:101.
188 Vayikra, 21:10.
189
Nazir, 6b. The Torah forbids the {Hebrew Ref} growth of the
kohein gadol's hair as a sign of mourning (fn. 12.). Since the
mourning period lasts for thirty days, we may deduce that the time span
for the {Hebrew Ref} growth is the same. (G.A.) Or, from the phrase
{Hebrew Ref} , "He (his hair) shall be sacred [for]
growing the growth of hair." The numerical value of {Hebrew Ref} ,
"shall be," is thirty. (S.C. from Rosh to Nazir, 6b.)
190 Unlike
"he shall be sacred" (v.5), which refers to his hair (M.)
191
Sifri, 6:108.
192 But avoidable, with greater precaution.
193 Both
words mean "sudden" (as in {Hebrew Ref} (Doniel, 12:2), where
both words mean "earth"), from {Hebrew Ref} , "fool." The fool
acts without forethought, "suddenly." (M.)
194 Unavoidable.
(G.A.)
195 The defiled nazirite is not permitted to eat sacred
food, such as Terumah [if he is a kohein] or the owner's
portion of the sacrificial offerings (Vayikra, 19:6) until he brings
the offerings mandated on the eighth day (v. 10). His purification is
then completed. (Emek Hanetziv)
196 A person defiled by contact
with the dead becomes purified when the kohein sprinkles him
with parah adumah ashes on the third and seventh day following
his defilement (19:12,19).
197 After the sprinkling. Sifri,
6:113.
198 No animal is accepted as a sacrificial offering before the
age of eight days, from the passage in Vayikra (22:27), "When an ox,
sheep, or goat is born ... from the eighth day and onward it
may be accepted as an offering." (S.C.)
199 The defiled nazirite
in our passage, who cannot bring his sacrifices until the eighth day.
200 Sifri, 6:117.
201 Every nazir is guilty of this,
but the Torah mentions the sin specifically in the case of the defiled
nazir because he is doubly guilty. Through his negligence, he
must discount the nazirite days he already fulfilled and begin anew
(Rashi to v. 12). Thus, he has aggravated the original offense by
afflicting himself with an extended period of abstention. (Nazir, 19a)
202 The nazirite vow is recommended as a deterrent to promiscuity
(Rashi v. 2), yet R' Elazar considers it sinful. It is both virtuous as
a deterrent, and sinful, as an infliction of suffering. Since the
virtue overweighs the offense, the vow is recommended, but the sin
requires forgiveness. (Tosafos to Bava Kama, 91b.) Or, the nazir's
abstention is justified by the merit of his sanctity. However, the
hand of Providence behind the "accidental" defilement, causing the
lapse of the first nazirite days, indicates Divine displeasure with the
nazir's efforts. Thus, his abstention, now proven meritless,
remains sinful. (L.H.)
203 The non-kohanim who eat terumah will burden
themselves with sin. (Vayikra, 22:16)
204 Devorim, 34:6.
205
Sifri, 6:124.
206 But not the sin-offering, as indicated by the repetition of
"its meal-offering and libation" in v. 17, in reference to the
peace-offering mentioned in that passage. This teaches that only the
sacrifices which may be brought voluntarily, such as the peace and
burnt are accompanied by the libations, but not the sin-offering. (M.,
G.A., from Menachos, 91b)
207 Of all peace and burnt-offerings,
which are accompanied by meal-offerings and libations. (ch.15)
208
The nazir's sacrifices are distinguished from the other peace
and burnt-offerings in the Torah by the innovative command that they be
accompanied by "a basket of matzos [made] of fine flour, etc."
(v.15)
209 Because of the distinctive bread command, we may no
longer presume that the nazir's sacrifices are categorized with
the other peace and burnt korbanos. Thus, the general rule that
all peace and burnt sacrifices require accompanying meal and
libation-offerings (ch. 15) cannot be automatically applied to the
nazir. This follows R' Yishmael's axiom: anything Scripturally
included in a group, but then distinguished innovatively, cannot be
reinstated into the group unless specifically reinstated by Scripture.
(Beraysa D'R' Yishmael, preface to Toras Kohanim, axiom 11)
210 Sifri, 6:127.
211 {Hebrew Ref} , literally "he
shall make," is translated as "he shall slaughter." The sacrifice is
acceptable only when slaughtered with the proper intent. Thus, the
slaughter "makes" the sacrifice. (M.)
212 Not literally "on the basket," but with the intent that
the bread in the basket be sanctified. (G.A. from Menachos, 46b)
213
Not the nazir's. He was not directly commanded to bring the meal
and libation-offerings; but to bring the ram as a peace-offering. The
meal and libation were part of the peace-offering. (G.A.)
214 The
entrance to the tent was in the courtyard.
215 Scripture warns
against even inadvertant disrespect, "do not go up to My altar with
steps, so that your nakedness is not revealed on it" (Shemos, 20:23).
(M., G.A. from Nazir, 45a)
216 Vayikra, 3:2.
217 Nazir,
45a. The sense of our passage is: "The nazir shall shave [after
the slaughter of the peace-offering] at the entrance to the Tent of
Meeting." (M.)
218 Not literally underneath the flesh of the
peace-offering but underneath the pot.
219 The peace-offering may
be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem, and was presumably cooked somewhere in
the city over a private fire. (M) Why does the Torah attach
significance to an apparently random fire? Because the nazir's
peace-offering was not cooked randomly, but on a sacred spot, within
the confines of the Sanctuary courtyard. (G.A.)
220 Vs. 19, 20.
221 Nazir, 45b.
222 Fully. Although
{Hebrew Ref} , rather than {Hebrew Ref} , seems to indicate
partial cooking, the foreleg had to be fully cooked. {Hebrew Ref}
teaches that it was intact, not disintegrated by overcooking. (G.A.,
Chulin, 98b)
223 Although {Hebrew Ref} , "it," is singular,
it includes all three. "It" refers to {Hebrew Ref} , "a
wave-offering," also singular, but including the three gifts, which
were waved together. (G.A., M.)
224 {Hebrew Ref} is not
literally "sanctified" for Divine use, but consecrated as a gift to
the kohein. (Ibid.)
225 {Hebrew Ref} , literally
"on," means "besides," as in 28:10. (M.)
226 "...
the breast ... and the shoulder ... I have ..
. given ... to Aharon the kohein and his sons."
(Vayikra, 7:34)
227 If the breast and shoulder are indigenous to
all peace-offerings, why is it necessary that they be mentioned here?
Because the nazirite offerings were included but then
distinguished.(G.A.)
228 Of peace-offerings, whose breast and
shoulder are given to the kohein.
229 Only the nazirite peace-offering requires the foreleg. The
loaf and wafer, also distinctively nazirite, are inconsequential here,
as they are not part of the animal itself. (M.)
230 This follows
R' Yishmael's axiom that whatever was in a group but was then
distinguished, must be reinstated specifically. (Preface to Toras
Kohanim, axiom 11.)
231 And inform us that they apply. (Sifri,
6:134)
232 But not a hundred sin-offerings. "What he can
afford" infers that the additional offerings may be brought
voluntarily, depending only on the nazir's financial resources.
The sin-offering is not acceptable as a donation. (G.A. from Sifri)
233 The addition of the word {Hebrew Ref} , "so" [shall he
do], teaches that the last phrases of the passage are read together.
"...so shall he do in addition to the laws of his
nazirite." In addition to, but not less, than the law. (G.A.)
234
Sifri, 6:137.
235 Shemos, 20:8. The imperative is generally
vocalized with a {Hebrew Ref} under the {Hebrew Ref} . Here the {Hebrew Ref} has a {Hebrew Ref} . In our verse too, the {Hebrew Ref} in {Hebrew Ref} is vocalized with a {Hebrew Ref} rather than a {Hebrew Ref} .
236 Devorim, 5:12. Instead of the usual {Hebrew Ref} ,
the {Hebrew Ref} has a {Hebrew Ref} .
237 The ongoing action
usage.
238 Why not {Hebrew Ref} , "bless them"? Because
that would not require them to hear. {Hebrew Ref} , "saying to
them," indicates that they must hear. (G.A)
239 Sifri, 6:143.
240 Not {Hebrew Ref} , but {Hebrew Ref} .
241 Bamidbar
Rabbah, 11:4.
242 Bamidbar Rabbah, 11:5.
243 Bamidbar Rabbah, 11:6.
244 Bamidbar Rabbah, 11:7.
245 Sifri, 6;144.
246 Chulin, 49a. The first interpretation is
more compatible with the flow of the text. But {Hebrew Ref} would
then be sufficient. The addition of [ {Hebrew Ref} ] " {Hebrew Ref}
," "I" [will bless them], indicates a new blessing---of the
kohanim. (G.A.)
247 The text should have read {Hebrew Ref} ,
with the {Hebrew Ref} vocalization of the {Hebrew Ref} . Instead,
it reads " {Hebrew Ref} ," with the {Hebrew Ref} vocalization of
the {Hebrew Ref} . This is similar to {Hebrew Ref} , "bride," also
vocalized with a {Hebrew Ref} under the {Hebrew Ref} .
248
Tanchuma, 20. The Mishkon was the place where G-d and the
Israelites joined in sacred communion like a bride and groom meeting
under the wedding canopy. (G.A.)
249 Scripture mentions only Moshe's erection of the Mishkon,
and this was indeed performed by Moshe alone (Rashi to Shemos,
39:33). Still, Scripture should not have omitted the names of those who
built the Mishkon proper with all its vessels, while specifying
the one who merely set up what they had constructed. Evidently, the
intention is to accredit the construction itself to Moshe. (G.A.)
250 Shemos, 25:40, 26:30, 27:8.
251 Not to rest until he would
find a site for the Temple. (Tehillim, 132)
252 Melachim 1,
12:16.
253 Tanchuma, 13.
254 But {Hebrew Ref} , [on the
day he] 'finished' erecting. Although {Hebrew Ref} alludes
homiletically to {Hebrew Ref} , "bride" (Rashi above), in the
simple reading of the passage, the word seems redundant. (S.C.)
255
This explains why the Mishkon was not anointed during the days
of installment, for then it was only temporary. But the Mitzvah
to anoint follows the Torah's command, stated on the first of Nisan, to
erect the Mishkon permanently (Shemos, 40:1--11. "Set up" [the
Mishkon] there means "permanently"). On Rosh Chodesh, when the
Mishkon was permanent, Moshe anointed it. (G.A.)
256 The ashes of the red cow were sprinkled on those defiled by
contact with the dead, to purify them (ch. 19). As the rites also
included sprinkling the blood of the cow in the direction of the
Mishkon (19:4), the procedure could not begin until the Mishkon
was set up. On the second day of Nisan, when the Mishkon
stood in place, the {Hebrew Ref} was burned, so that those defiled
could be purified in time for the Korban Pesach on the
fourteenth of the month. (Rashi to Gittin, 60b)
257 The Levites
were consecrated after they were sprinkled with the ashes of the {Hebrew Ref} , and after shaving. (8:7)
258 Sifri, 7:145.
259 Because
the Israelites did not produce enough bricks. (Shemos, 5:14.) Sifri,
7:147.
260 The leader of each tribe. (1:4) The counting took
place on the first of Iyar (1:1). Our passage, describing the offerings
brought a month earlier, on the first of Nisan, refers to the counting
which would take place later. (M.)
261 Yeshayahu, 66:20.
262 Sifri, 7:148.
263 King
Shaul. (Shmuel 2, 1:19)
264 "They placed them before the
Mishkon"---but not in Moshe's hands. (M., G.A.)
265 Shemos,
36:7.
266 Sifri, 7:150.
267 3:36.
268 3:31.
269 Sifri, 7:152. This is derived from "before the altar,"
but not before Moshe, and from G-d's acceptance of the offerings in v.
11. (M.)
270 But how was Moshe aware of the order of traveling
before it was revealed a month later (1;1, 2:9)? He derived it from the
sequence by which Yaakov's children carried his remains to Canaan. This
pattern was followed by the tribes in their desert travels. (G.A.,
citing Rashi to 2:2)
271 Sifri, ibid. Sifri's source is unclear. Emek Hanetziv
(there) explains that the derivation is from the repetition in verse
11, "one leader each day, one leader each day." The second leader
refers to a {Hebrew Ref} nearby the first, according to the order
by which the tribes camped and traveled. Thus, the leaders' offerings
followed the order of travel.
272 The day was exalted in ten
ways. This is derived from "on the first day." Why emphasize the day,
when "the first to bring his offering" would would have sufficed? To
indicate the special significance of the day. (G.A.)
273 First
for the kehunah, first for the [Sanctuary] services, first for
the descent of the heavenly fire, first for eating the sacred
offerings, first for the visitation of the Divine Presence on the
Israelites, first for [the Kohein] blessing of the Israelites,
first for prohibiting private altars, first of the months.
274 Ch.
7.
275 The prefix {Hebrew Ref} may be interpreted as "of,"
meaning Nachshon was of the tribe, or as "for," meaning he brought
the offering as the agent for the tribe, who were the actual owners.
(M.)
276 Sifri, 7:153.
277 Vayikra, 2:1. But not as the obligatory libation, {Hebrew Ref} , which must accompany the burnt or peace-offering (15:4). This
is derived by comparing Nachshon's meal-offering to his
incense-offering (v. 14), which was voluntary (M.)
278 The bowl's
weight was equivalent to ten coins. (Minchas Yehudah) Rashi supports
this from Targum's translation, {Hebrew Ref} , "weighing
ten shekolim." (D.T.)
279 The Sanctuary coins were double
the weight of the common coins (Rashi to Shemos, 38:24).
280 But
as a communal-offering.
281 In the Sanctuary courtyard, but on
the inner altar. (Shemos 30,6--8)
282 Menachos, 50a.
283 Sifri
7:156. From {Hebrew Ref} rather than {Hebrew Ref} , as in 28:11. (D.D.)
284 An unknown, unsuspected grave is figuratively entitled the
grave of the abyss, as if it were lost in the abyss. (M.)
285
Perhaps someone defiled by passing over an unsuspected grave entered
the Sanctuary grounds, violating the prohibition forbidding a {Hebrew Ref} from entering the Mishkon.
286 But what was
accomplished by this atonement? Everyone who entered the Sanctuary was,
in any case, definitely defiled by previous contact with the dead, and
the Parah Adumah purifying process was not yet in effect (Rashi
to v.1)? (M.) Previously acquired {Hebrew Ref} did not injure the
sanctity of the Sanctuary, since there was no prohibition against
entering the Mishkon at the time of defilement. It was only the
possible defilement acquired after the prohibition was in effect which
required atonement. (G.A.)
287 Reuven was the patriarch Yaakov's
firstborn.
288 The spelling is {Hebrew Ref} , meaning "you shall
bring." In the context of the passage, however, the meaning is "he
brought," as if the spelling were " {Hebrew Ref} ."
289 Divrei
Hayamim 1, 12:33.
290 Sifri, 7:158.
291 Although generally
following the plain meaning of the text, Rashi here (vs. 19--23)
includes R' Moshe Hadarshan's symbolic interpretation. Because all
twelve Nesi'im offered precisely the same animals, and brought the same
vessels with identical weights, this indicates, even at the simple
level, that the offerings were of great symbolic value. (M.) Or, R'
Moshe Hadarshan's interpretation shows why Nesanel's advice (v. 18) was
so deeply significant. (G.A.)
292 Bamidbar Rabbah, 14:12. The
Mishkon symbolized the universe, the tapestries corresponding to
the heavens; the clasps, the stars; the planks, the forests, etc.
(Bamidbar Rabbah, 12:13.) Thus it followed that the inaugural-offerings
would represent the historical highlights which sustained the
world---Adam and his progeny, Noach, the seventy nations, the Torah,
ten commandments, etc. (G.A.)
293 Bereishis Rabbah, 5:5.
294 Bereishis, 5:3.
295 Bereishis, 5:32.
296 Ibid,
6:3. Rashi there explains that the decree was issued 120 years before
the flood took place. Noach was 500 years old when his first son was
born, and 600 at the time of the flood. (7:6)
297 {Hebrew Ref} .
298 Devorim, 32:8, Rashi there.
299 Bamidbar
Rabbah, 14:12.
300 Bamidbar Rabbah, 13:16.
301 Ibid.
302 This is a numeric device by which the first and last
letters of the alphabet are interchangeable with one another, in
continuous order. Thus, the first letter, {Hebrew Ref} , is
interchanged with the last, {Hebrew Ref} [ {Hebrew Ref} ]; the
second letter, {Hebrew Ref} , is interchanged with the second from
last, {Hebrew Ref} [ {Hebrew Ref} ]; the third, {Hebrew Ref} , with
the third from last, {Hebrew Ref} [ {Hebrew Ref} ]; the fourth, {Hebrew Ref} , with the fourth from last, {Hebrew Ref} [ {Hebrew Ref} ].
Thus the {Hebrew Ref} may be converted into a {Hebrew Ref} .
303 Ibid.
304 For his guests. (Bereishis, 18:7)
305 Bamidbar
Rabbah, 13:14.
306 As a sacrifice in place of Yitzchok.
(Bereishis, 22:13, Ibid.)
307 When taking payment from Lavan.
(Ibid, 30:40, Ibid.)
308 Yosef's brothers sold him as a slave.
They slaughtered a goat, dipped his cloak in its blood, and showed it
to their father to make him believe that Yoseif had been devoured by a
wild animal. (Ibid, 37:31, Ibid.)
309 Bamidbar Rabbah, 14:10.
310 Except for Yisachar,
Scripture always begins by mentioning the tribe of that day, making it
appropriate to follow by identifying the tribe's leader. With Yisachar,
however, Nesanel's name is mentioned first. Hence, the appropriate
follow-up is to identify his tribe. (G.A.)
311 The other leaders
brought their offerings in the merit of their tribes. Thus, the tribe
is mentioned first. Yisachar, however, was second because of Nesanel's
advice (Rashi v. 18). Since his merit gave the tribe its pe-eminence,
his name is first.
312 V. 88.
313 And not at night.
314 Vayikra, 7:36.
This refers to the anointing of the kohanim. Sifsei Chachamim
feels that this passage was inserted erroneously, and that Rashi's
intent was "on the day it (the altar) was anointed" (v.10).
315
Sifri, 7:159.
316 What is the need for recording the total, when Scripture
has already mentioned that each of the twelve gave one tray? To
indicate that none were disqualified. (M.) Even the trays, which were
not mandatory, were given special Providential protection from
disqualification. (G.A.)
317 Ibid, 160.
318 V. 13.
319
The bowls are identified by the sacred standard (v. 13), but not the
other vessels. (M.)
320 Sifri, Ibid.
321 Even the slightest
variation from the prescribed weight, virtually unnoticed in a single
vessel, would produce a significant digression when magnified
twelvefold. Yet the weight of each vessel, whether by exquisite
workmanship or miraculous intervention, was so accurate that there was
absolutely no deviation from the prescribed collective total. This was
meaningful, as the total weight of the vessels was also supremely
symbolic. (G.A.) Or, the miracle indicated that G-d was equally
satisfied with each tribe's offering. (D.D.)
322 Sifri, ibid.
323 V. 14.
324 "Gold" modifies "spoon." The reading
is "one spoon [weighing] ten [silver] shekolim, [of] gold. (M.)
325 Accordingly, "gold" would modify "ten," and the reading
would be "one [silver] spoon, [weighing] ten golden shekolim.
(M.)
326 It would thus be relevant that the spoon was weighed by
the gold shekel, rather than the silver shekel standard.
327 The derivation is from the repetition of {Hebrew Ref}
(see v. 84. G.A.), and the proximity of {Hebrew Ref} to {Hebrew Ref} . (M.)
328 The weight, undefined in the text, was by the
usual silver shekel standard. (G.A.)
329 Sifri, 7:161. But
why not clarify this easily by writing originally (v. 14) {Hebrew Ref} , "one golden spoon, ten [shekolim]," rather
than the ambiguous {Hebrew Ref} , "one spoon ten gold"?
Because of the verse's metaphoric interpretation (Rashi to v. 20),
whereby {Hebrew Ref} , lit. "hand," alludes to the hand of G-d, and
{Hebrew Ref} , "ten," symbolizes the Ten Commandments. In this
sense, "gold" is not descriptive of the hand of G-d, but of the
commandments, which are "more desirable than gold" (Tehillim, 19:11).
(G.A.)
330 B'raysa D'R' Yishmael, preface to Safra, axiom 13.
331
Vayikra 1:1.
332 The paroches separated the Holy of
Holies, where the ark stood, from the Holy.
333 Behind the
paroches. (Shemos, 25:22)
334 Sifri, 7:162.
335 The
prefix {Hebrew Ref} denotes special significance.
336 Everyone
heard the Ten Commandments.
337 Sifri, 7:164.
338 Sifri, 7:163.
Chapter 04 - Text Notes
Chapter 05 - Text Notes
Chapter 06 - Text Notes
Chapter 07 - Text Notes
Return to Main Search Form
Sources