Bamidbar
Book 4: Numbers

---

NASO - NOTES ON RASHI COMMENTARY

---

Chapter 04 - Text Notes

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.)

---

Chapter 05 - Text Notes

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 did not commit adultery during her betrothal, against a previous husband, and during levirate attachment. (Rashi to Sotah, 18a)

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.

---

Chapter 06 - Text Notes

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.)

---

Chapter 07 - Text Notes

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.

---

Return to Main Search Form

Sources