ותדבר מרים, “Miriam spoke out.” She spoke and that is why she was punished; Aaron remained silent or agreed with her and we find that he was punished also. This is the meaning of verse 9 ויחר אף ה' בם, “G’d was angry at them.” Wherever the Torah reports that G’d became angry at someone this is followed by a noticeable phenomenon. Seeing that Miriam had commen-ced speaking לשון הרע, “unseemly comments,” the Torah spelled out her punishment. In Aaron’s case the Torah did not spell out his punishment out of regard for him.

על אודות האשה הכושית, “on account of the woman of Cushite origin.” The woman in question was Tzipporah who was a Midianite. Midianites were descendants of the Ishmaelites, nomads, dwelling in tents. We base this on Chabakuk 3,7: “the tents of Cushan, shaken at the pavilions of the land of Midian.” There were no white-skinned people among the Midianites due to the sun being very hot in that country. The reason Miriam spoke out was because Moses had married a “black-skinned woman.” Miriam thought that the reason Moses had separated from Tzipporah was because he did not consider her attractive looking on account of the colour of her skin. If Onkelos translates the word כושית as שפירתא, “beautiful,” this is not to be taken at face value but is meant to save her embarrassment much as we call a blind person “as possessed of a good eyesight,” in order to save that person embarrassment. When the Torah writes immediately that Moses was very humble, this is the answer to Miriam’s suspicion, i.e. that Moses did not even know whether Tzipporah was beautiful or not. It is similar to Avraham who did not become aware of Sarah’s being physically attractive until they were at the boundary of Egypt (Genesis 12,11) [when he had been married to her for decades already. Ed.]

Rashi, on the other hand, considers that Tzipporah was indeed beautiful but that the term כושית which implies the opposite was meant to ward off the evil eye, to make sure people would not be jealous of her beauty and want to harm her. Now Moses had divorced her. Incidentally, the numerical value of the word כושית (736) is the same as יפת מראה, “of beautiful appearance.”

הרק אך במשה, “was it only to Moses?” Miriam meant that if Moses separated from his wife because of G’d communicating with him, there was no such law pertaining to prophets. The word הרק אך are a double negative, each word meaning a diminution of something. The expression Miriam used was meant sarcastically, just as when the Israelites had said to Moses in Exodus 14,11: “are there not enough graves in Egypt that you had to take us to the desert to die?” The word במשה must be understood as parallel to גם בנו “also with us” (Miriam and Aaron). The preposition ב instead of אל or something similar is in order, seeing that the prophet views himself as G’d’s vessel. The word במשה may therefore more accurately be translated as “within Moses,” and the words גם בנו as “within us.” One of the clearest examples of such a construction is found in Genesis 6,3 לא ידון רוחי באדם לעולם, “My spirit will not rule within man forever.” In that verse G’d made it plain that man’s body is to be perceived as a vessel for his spirituality. The word ידון is related also to the word נדנה which occurs in Daniel 7,15 where it means “sheath.” The body is the sheath of the spirit.

וישמע ה', “the Lord heard.” Our sages in Sifri Behaalotcha 100 state that Miriam and Aaron said what they said even in the presence of Moses as we should read the words וישמע ה' והאיש משה, together, i.e. “G’d and the man Moses heard.” Due to Moses’ extreme modesty he remained silent; this is why G’d had to react to such talk.

והאיש משה ענו, “and the man Moses was humble, etc.” The word ענו is written defectively, i.e. the letter י being missing. This seems extraordinary seeing Moses is described as possessing the virtue of humility in its full dimension. The reason that the letter י is missing here is because on a different occasion Moses left out the letter י when it would have given honor to Hashem. In Numbers 20,10, at the rock which Moses was supposed to have spoken to but struck instead, he said to the Jewish people: המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “are we supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” He should have said: המן הסלע הזה יוציא לכם מים, “is HE supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” Seeing Moses had been remiss on that occasion, the Torah omitted the letter י when describing him as the most humble man on earth on this occasion. This is a fine interpretation. We read the word as if it had been spelled with the letter י in its appropriate position. Why did the Torah add the adverb מאד, “very” to the description of Moses’ humility? We have been taught concerning all other virtues, attributes, that we must not practice them excessively but must strive to tread the path called דרך הממוצע, striving not to veer to the right or to the left. The attribute of humility, modesty, by contrast is one which one should practice in the extreme. The Torah alludes to this by complimenting Moses on doing just that (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Deiot 2,3). This consideration prompted the sages in Avot 4,4 to say מאד מאד הוה שפל רוח, “be exceedingly humble in spirit.” The additional words “of any man on earth,” have been added to remind us that only amongst human beings did Moses qualify for this title. Had the Torah written על פני הארץ, instead of על פני האדמה it would have included the creatures in the celestial regions as the word ארץ is often used as a term describing the universe. It is comparable to Genesis 6,6 where the Torah writes וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ, “G’d had second thoughts about having made man on ‘earth.’” There was no real need for the word בארץ, but it was introduced as an overall term for the world. When G’d speaks about precisely what He is going to do, the Torah uses the word אדמה in Genesis 6,7 אמחה את האדם אשר בראתי מעל פני האדמה, “I will wipe out man whom I have created from the face of the earth.” I have elaborated on that difference in connection with that verse. האדם, “Man” as a concept will not be wiped out from the universe, only “man” whom G’d placed on terrestrial earth will be wiped out at that time. When David (Psalms 145,12) speaks of להודיע לבני האדם גבורותיו וכבוד הדר מלכותו, “to make His mighty acts known amongst man and the majestic glory of His kingship,” these words which are the only time in the hymn that the author does not use direct speech, i.e. address G’d, we need to understand why the sequence commences with individual acts instead of with G’d’s overall majesty. David means that in order to comprehend the overall majesty of G’d one must first learn to appreciate individual mighty acts He has performed. Before addressing G’d directly one needs to acquire knowledge of Him indirectly.

פתאם, “suddenly.” Rashi explains that G’d surprised them in state of ritual impurity occasioned due to their having had marital relations with their respective spouses. They then exclaimed: “water, water,” implying the need to purify themselves as well as recognition that Moses had been correct in separating from his wife so as not to be ritually impure when G’d would choose to address him. Seeing that there were no fixed periods of time when G’d would appear, Moses had to be in constant readiness for such a communication.

Some commentators understand the word פתאם as meaning that the suddenness of G’d’s reaction was designed to prevent Miriam and Aaron from repenting on what they had said at that time. Their sin included desecration of the name of the Lord, a sin which is so severe that people guilty of it are not presented with opportunities to repent. Miriam and Aaron had to know that speaking out against G’d’s prophets was considered as on a level with speaking out against the Shechinah. The author appears to attribute this comment to his grandfather a Rabbi Nathan. It reflects the statement in Kidushin 40 that “no credit is extended in matters pertaining to desecration of the Lord’s name.”

אם יהיה נביאכם ה', The meaning is similar to Chronicles II 15,8: והנבואה עודד הנביא, “the prophecy was that of Oded the prophet.” The meaning of our verse is: “even if someone amongst you is a prophet of the Lord he does not prophesy using My Ineffable Name, but through mediums such as mirrors, riddles, etc.” Your prophetic inspirations are transmitted by what is known as רוח הקדש, “Holy Spirit.” We find a reference to this level of prophecy in Samuel II 23,2 רוח ה' דבר בי, “the spirit of the Lord spoke through me” (David speaking). This was also the same as the יד ה' which the prophet Ezekiel describes as speaking to him (on occasion). [We know that Ezekiel had also attained a higher level of prophecy when he had visions. Ed.] The fact that the Torah writes במראה אליו אתודע, “I will be known to him by means of a mirror,” instead of writing במראה אליו אראה, “I will be visible to him by means of a mirror,” may be compared to Exodus 63, where the Torah did not write as we could have expected ואתודע אל אברהם ואל יצחק, but wrote וארא אל אברהם ואל יצחק instead. The emphasis in both verses is on the fact that neither category of prophet experienced that בשמי הגדול אתודע, “that I revealed Myself to him directly my means of My Ineffable Name.” When G’d said that communications with prophets on a lower level than Moses took place in a dream, He meant that seeing Moses was familiar with all of G’d’s attributes, he did not need to be addressed in a dream in order to lower the impact of such a revelation on his psychological equilibrium as he was already נאמן בכל ביתי, “fully trusted i.e. “at home,” in “My entire House.” Basically, G’d taught Miriam and Aaron a lesson in the difference between the prophetic stature of Moses and that of other prophets including themselves.

במראה אליו אתודע, “in a vision do I make Myself known to him.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reference is to a nocturnal vision; this is why G’d elaborated: “in a dream I speak with him.”

A kabbalistic approach: the expression במראה refers to the emanations which are known as נצח, הוד or sometimes צבאות. G’d explained the limit of perceptions other prophets could attain in terms of the respective emanations. These prophets are perceived as entering through a “gate” of perceptional ascents assigned to prophets. There is an upper limit where these prophets cannot expand their perceptional powers further. Perhaps we may best describe this limit in terms of במראות הצובאות, “the mirrors which were piling up in heaps” in Exodus 38,8. These mirrors “piled up” at the entrance to the Tabernacle.

It is appropriate for you the reader to appreciate that when G’d sums up here the various levels of prophecy from Moses down to “minor” prophets, that He spelled the word מראה, generally translated as “mirror” with the vowel kametz instead of the vowel segol with which it is familiar to us. G’d contrasts His appearances to Moses by spelling the word מראה as a masculine in connection with him, whereas in connection with the other prophets the same word is spelled as if it were a feminine noun. Using the feminine is a hint that visions experienced by other prophets were weaker, i.e. more confused, the message not being totally clear.

G’d may have wanted to illustrate the limitations of other prophets by the comparison with seeing things by means of a mirror instead of seeing things directly with one’s eyes without any intermediaries. Perhaps we can understand this better when we recall the halachah that on the Sabbath one must not look in the mirror (Shabbat 149). [If the mirror is made of metal, enabling the viewer to use its sharp edges to trim unwanted hair. Ed.] The author speaks of a mirror (with the vowel kametz) made of glass whose polished surface reflects images which have no substance but appear so real that though they are but reflections they are apt to deceive the viewer into believing that they are alive, real. When Moses looked at such a “mirror” he realised that what he saw was abstract, i.e. that he was shown a concept as opposed to a two-dimensional reflection of something material, “real.” This is the meaning of the words ותמונת ה' יביט, “he looks at a divine image.” in other words, the difference between different levels of prophecy is in the prophet’s perspective. If G’d attributes the “image” of G’d to Himself, this must not be misunderstood anymore than the expression that man was created בצלם אלו-הים in “the image of the divine” (Genesis 1,27). None of these words mean that there is something “physical” or “physical image” in connection with G’d the totally abstract. The prophet Hoseah 12,11 had also spoken about providing His prophets with “images” when he said of G’d וביד הנביאים אדמה, “by means of the prophets I provide images.” [If a “parable” is an abstract image, then a mirror reflection is a quasi material image. Ed.] Our sages in Yevamot 49 phrased it thus: “all the prophets experienced murky visions whereas Moses experienced a clear vision.” They brought proof for their statement from Ezekiel where many different visions of G’d are reported by the prophet. The fact that Ezekiel experienced different levels of images and visions (Ezekiel 1,1 - 1,27, etc.), is proof of the distinction between what a prophet of his caliber (high) experienced and what Moses experienced. This is what G‘d meant when He emphasized looking at a mirror with the vowel segol as opposed to viewing things through a mirror with the vowel kametz.

בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “In all My house he is trusted as loyal.” According to the plain meaning of the text this means that just as a member of the family has access to all parts of his father’s house and can speak without asking for permission to do so, so Moses had the right to address G’d at all times without having to make an “appointment.”

A kabbalistic approach: when the Torah speaks about “in all My house,” this is a reference to the house known as בית אל, recalling the time G’d had identified Himself to Yaakov (Genesis 31,13) as אנכי האל בית אל, “I am the G’d whom you have encountered when you called the monument you built for Me בית אל.” The word “My house” was also a reference to “all My goodness “ of which G’d had spoken when He had told Moses (on the Mountain) “I will let all My goodness pass before you” (Exodus 33,19). It is also reminiscent of the place where Adam had sinned, i.e. had proven that he was not trustworthy in “My house.” Seeing that there had once been a human being who had been given free rein in “G’d’s house” i.e. Gan Eden, and had to be expelled, G’d contrasts Moses’ stature by saying that he is trusted in all parts of “G’d’s house. We may perceive the word הוא, “he,” in our verse as a contrast to Moses’ “father” Adam who had not proved trustworthy.”

Some Kabbalists understand the expression בכל ביתי as a reference to the ב in בראשית, i.e. the house of prayer, such as in ושמחתים בבית תפלתי, “I will make them rejoice in the House of My prayer,” (Isaiah 57,7) The meaning of the word תפלתי in that verse is similar to כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא, ”for my House is known as a House of prayer” (same verse). This is what Hillel had in mind when he said: “G’d meant that “if you come to My house, I will come to your house.”

פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak to him mouth to mouth, etc.” The meaning of these words is that G’d communicates with Moses without an angel as an intermediary. The word ומראה means: “I show him matters as they are in reality.” Just as G’d had shown Moses an illustration of the Tabernacle and it served as his blueprint, so whenever G’d speaks to Moses He illustrates matters for him in an unmistakable manner. Of the illustration (in the sky) of the Tabernacle the Torah had told us in Exodus 25,40: וראה ועשה בתבניתם, “see and make according to their form.”

בעבדי במשה, “against My servant, against Moses.” Our sages in Tanchuma Tzav 13 comment on the emphasis on both these words that even if My servant were not Moses you have no right to speak against him. Seeing that he is of the stature of Moses you have even less right to speak against him.

והענן סר מעל האהל, “and the cloud departed from above the Tent.” If the Torah referred to the cloud which had descended onto the entrance of the Tabernacle in verse 5, the Torah would now have had to describe it as “the cloud departed from the entrance of the Tent.” Seeing that the word מפתח is missing, we must assume that the cloud the Torah speaks of is the one which always signaled that the people should either move or make camp. Seeing the cloud departed the Israelites thought that they were meant to break camp and start moving. However, G’d commanded them to wait for seven days. This is the meaning of the words תסגר שבעת ימים, “let her be quarantined for seven days” (verse 14). When the Torah reported afterwards that the people did not journey this is equivalent to saying that the cloud had not actually traveled away from the Tabernacle any distance at all. It only departed to show that ordinarily, if not for Miriam’s quarantine, the people would have been on the way already. In other words, the Torah made it clear to everyone that the entire people’s progress toward the Holy Land had been delayed for seven days in honor of Miriam.

אשר נואלנו, “for we have been foolish” vis-a-vis you (Moses) ואשר חטאנו, “and we have sinned“ (against You G’d). The reason for the unusual expression נואלנו, is that raising this whole subject by speaking about it was an act of foolishness on the part of who spoke about it.

Zevachim 101 raises the question of who quarantined Miriam. If you were to say it was Moses, how could he do this seeing he was not a priest? Only priests are allowed to inspect such skin afflictions and pronounce them as purified or not. If you were to say that Aaron quarantined her, how could he do that seeing that he was related to Miriam and therefore biased in his judgment? We have a clear rule that no blood relation is allowed to inspect the status of such skin afflictions and to pronounce them as healed, etc. G’d showed Miriam respect by announcing that seeing that He was a Priest, He could determine the length of her quarantine.

אל תהי נא כמת, “do not let her be like a dead person!” Aaron told Moses: “I am not qualified to rule on when her affliction is healed seeing that I am her relative. There is no other priest in the world at this time who is qualified to rule on this; therefore, unless you pray on her behalf she will remain thus afflicted indefinitively” (compare Tanchuma Tzav 13). This is why Aaron used the words: “like one who leaves his mother’s womb with half his flesh consumed.” Aaron meant that people born in a state of tzoraat are not subject to being healed ever. Aaron concluded that due to such considerations Moses had to pray on Miriam’s behalf so that his sister would not suffer from the same status as a baby born with this affliction.

ויצעק משה אל ה', “Moses cried out to the Lord:” he expressed his pain over Miriam’s fate and prayed for her. The reason the Torah continues with the word לאמור, was to tell us that this prayer by Moses was not merely in his heart but that he verbalized it. This is the meaning of Berachot 31 “if someone prays he must move his lips and enunciate the words of his prayer.” The reason is that by moving one’s lips the letters one says assume a certain shape (in the atmosphere) through the use of voice, breath, and verbalising them. When such a prayer has assumed a certain shape it ascends to the celestial regions and arrives in the presence of the Lord.

אל נא רפא נא לה, “O Lord, please heal her.” The attribute El which Moses prayed to is the one with the power to heal; it is part of the attribute of Justice “wrapped” in Mercy. In most instances when this attribute is mentioned it represents חסד, “G’d’s loving kindness." Examples are: Psalms 22,2 אלי אלי למה עזבתני, “My G’d, My G’d why did You forsake me?” or Psalms 50,1 אל אלוהים דבר וירא ארץ, “G’d the Lord G’d spoke, and summoned forth the earth.” The sequence of these attributes is חסד-דין-רחמים, the attributes which were employed by G’d when He created the universe. We also have a verse in Psalms 99,8 where G’d is described as relating to the Jewish people as אל נושא היית להם “You related to them as a G’d who forgives.” If, in apparent contradiction to the aforementioned, we find a verse in Psalms 7,12 which describes ואל זועם בכל יום, “a G’d who pronounces doom each day,” the meaning is that only on such days as the attribute of Justice is manifest does G’d pronounce doom. There are many days when that attribute is not in evidence seeing that the attribute of חסד has displaced it as we know from Genesis 18,23. (where Avraham prayed for the good people in Sodom).

ואביה ירק ירק בפניה, “were her father to spit in her face, etc.” If her father were angry at her so that he would spit in her face, would she not be banned from his presence for at least a week? Is it not only logical that she deserves to be banned from G’d’s presence for at least as long a period seeing she has incurred G’d’s displeasure! She should by rights be quarantined seven days for angering G’d and seven days for speaking out against G’d’s prophet. However, seeing that we do not impose a greater penalty based on mere logic, she will be quarantined only for seven days. This is what the Talmud Baba Kama 25 writes. From the description in the Talmud it seems clear that the “spitting out” does not describe the sin involved but is merely an example of the anger expressed by the party who has been insulted. Were it to refer to the sin committed, the Torah should have written: “if she had spat out in the face of her father, etc.” After all, Miriam was the sinner in this episode.

Actually, the sin consisted of unseemly speech, similar to someone spitting out, a form of unseemly use of his mouth. We have encountered the example of spitting out in connection with חליצה when the widow who has been rejected by the brother of her deceased husband spits out in front of him to show her disdain for his conduct (Deut. 25,9). We must understand the fact that G’d punished Miriam with tzoraat as parallel to spitting out in front of her as a response to the insult He had endured. G’d’s reply to Moses therefore was that seeing He had already demonstrated His reaction to her insult by afflicting her with this skin eczema, He could not heal her immediately, but she had to remain quarantined for at least as long as she would have been banned form the presence of her biological father had she insulted him. Our sages (Moed Katan 16) describe the incident with Miriam as one called נזיפה, “rebuke.” There are three degrees of such rebukes. The mildest form of such rebuke results in one’s being an outcast for a single day; a more severe case of such a ”rebuke” involves in one being an outcast for seven days. The most severe case of such a “rebuke” involves that the guilty party is an outcast or 30 days. The Talmud reports that two students who had discussed matters which should have been treated as confidential in public incurred the anger of their teacher and were banned from his presence for a day. When someone has caused grief to a Torah scholar and he knows that the Torah scholar is aware of this he has to impose such a “rebuke” upon himself for a full 24 hour period. Having done so he does not need a “release” from another rabbi or tribunal to readmit him to the presence of that scholar. The self-inflicted rebuke only served to assuage the hurt feelings of the injured party. If someone spoke out against a prophet or a leading personality of his generation he must inflict seven days of such “rebuke” upon himself. This is based on what happened to Miriam. We do not treat the seventh day of this period as we do the seventh day of mourning, i.e. that partial observance of such ostracism is accounted as a whole day. Finally, if someone speaks out against the president or head of the Jewish community he deserves to be ostracized in this manner for 30 days. Again, the last of these 30 days is also to be observed in full. To help remember this the sages used the words האבן האזל in Samuel I 20,19 as a reminder. In the word האזל the letter א symbolizes the Torah scholar, the letter ז represents the prophet, whereas the letter ל represents the head of the community. Insulting such a person results in one’s being ostracized for 30 days. The Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan 3 does not recognize a “rebuke” of less than seven days. It bases itself on the example of Miriam who was quarantined for seven days and treated very mildly. At the same time the sages there do not allow for someone being outcast, נדוי, for a period of less than 30 days. They base this on what happened with the quails in 11,20 where the Torah describes G’d’s disgust with the people’s reaction to meat as extending for up to thirty days.

The reason that G’d’s response to Moses’ prayer commences with the conjunctive letter ו, i.e. ואביה, instead of אביה, is merely an indication that this is the beginning of a verbal communication. It is not an isolated occurrence. The author quotes Numbers 18,8, Genesis 27,28, Number 9,2, Kings II 2,9 as examples of such constructions in the Bible. No doubt in each such instance there is a compelling reason why the author chose to commence a sentence with a conjunctive letter ו.

Seeing the principle called קל וחומר, an inference arrived at by means of simple logic, is one of the thirteen methods of valid exegesis and it is the first one mentioned in the famous list by Rabbi Yishmael which we recite in our prayers daily, I have decided to list all thirteen principles at this point. The principle of the קל וחומר is derived from our verse here as well as from Exodus 23,5 where the Torah commands us to assist our enemy whose beast has collapsed under its load in unloading it. If we are to do this for our enemy, the Torah implies that we most certainly have to do this when the animal in question is the property of a friend of ours. The second principle which is a legitimate vehicle for arriving at a valid interpretation of Torah legislation is called גזרה שוה, and is almost the precise opposite of the former, seeing that it is based on similar expressions in matters which have no conceptual relation to each other; the words used for comparison are words which the text could have done without, hence they are perceived as alerting our attention to such legislation. In Leviticus 18,10 the Torah writes ערות בת בנך או בת בתך לא תגלה ערותן כי ערותך הנה; “do not uncover the nakedness of either the daughter of your son or the nakedness of the daughter of your daughter, for they are the same as your own nakedness. There is a pointed absence of mentioning that uncovering the nakedness of your daughter is prohibited. In Leviticus 18,17 the Torah writes: ערות אשה ובתה לא תגלה, את בת בנה ואת בת בתה לא תקח לגלות ערותה שארה הנה זמה היא, “you must not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you must not marry either the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter as they are close relatives, it is a depraved plot to do so.” In either instance no mention is made of not sleeping with, i.e. marrying one’s daughter. The words הנה “they are,” are superfluous in each verse. The sages therefore derive the prohibition of marrying or sleeping with one’s daughter from these superfluous identical words. These two words made it unnecessary for the Torah to write a verse prohibiting marrying one’s daughter (or one’s son). The third category of valid exegetical tools is called בנין אב and implies that if the Torah permitted a particular procedure or prohibited it, say on one festival, then, unless there was a verse disallowing such a conclusion the rule applying to the first procedure mentioned also applies to similar procedures on other festivals. If, say, the Torah permitted using fire on the Passover in order to prepare food, then it is presumed that on other festivals where a general work prohibition exists also the preparation of food is excluded from such a prohibition. An example of such an exegetical tool is Exodus 12,16 אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם, “except that which must be eaten by any person-- only that may be done for you.” Our sages considered this verse as a precedent, בנין אב, for all the festivals. Another example for something similar is Leviticus 20,9 where the Torah discusses the penalty for cursing father and mother, concluding with the words דמיו בו, “his blood is upon himself.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 54 state that wherever this wording appears either in the singular or in the plural, i.e. דמיהם בם, this means that the applicable death penalty is סקילה, “stoning to death of the guilty party.” They use as the precedent the word in Leviticus 20,27 (where sorcery etc. is discussed) מות ימותו באבן ירגמו אותם דמיהם בם, “they shall die by execution, they shall pelt them with stones, their blood is upon themselves.” This method of exegesis is known as בנין אב מכתוב אחד, “a textural precedent based on a single verse.” There is a similar principle where the same rule is derived by the Torah having employed two verses to teach us the precedent, a sub-category of what we just explained. The example is found in connection with blemishes of human beings which disqualify a priest afflicted by them from functioning in the Temple or Tabernacle. In Leviticus 21,20 the Torah lists או גבן או דק או תלול בעינו או גרב או ילפת או מרוח אשך, “or who has abnormally long eyebrows, or a membrane in his eye, or a blemish in his eye, or a dry skin eruption, or a moist skin eruption, or has crushed testicles.” In that context a blemish known as יבלת (split eyelid) is omitted although that blemish is listed as disqualifying a sacrificial animal from being offered on the altar (compare Leviticus 22,22). Our sages concluded that wherever a blemish is mentioned in the Torah, be it in connection with an animal or a human being, such blemish is disqualifying regardless of whether it is written in connection with animals or humans. This exegetical method is known as a בנין אב משני כתובים, ”precedent based on two verses.” A fourth exegetical method in the list by Rabbi Yishmael is called כלל ופרט, a general rule mentioned in the Torah followed by an example illustrating that rule. The Torah writes in Deut. 22,11: לא תלבש שעטנז, “do not wear a garment made of two different kinds of materials.” It proceeds to give an example, i.e. a mixture of wool and linen. The reason the Torah gave us this example is that this is the only combination of the principle not to wear a mixture which is forbidden, i.e. subject to the principle enunciated in the general rule. Whenever the Torah first writes a general rule followed by such a detailed example, the rule applies only when it also corresponds to what is mentioned in the detailed example which followed the rule. The fifth exegetical rule is the reverse of that which we just described, i.e. the Torah lists a specific item as being either forbidden or permitted, and then follows that example by a general rule. We find this rule illustrated in connection with the legislation to restore lost property (which one has found) to its owner. In that connection the Torah writes in Deut. 22,3: “thus you shall do to all the lost property of your brother.” It is understood, based on the wording of this verse, that only items which correspond to the example mentioned by the Torah first are subject to the general rule of restoring lost property to the owner. The words: “thus you shall do to all” are understood as the general rule, whereas the words: “lost property of your brother,” are the specific detail. In all such instances the general rule determines the application of the legislation contained in the detailed example. A sixth rule is known as כלל ופרט וכלל, “a legislation couched in general terms, followed by an example, followed by a reiteration of the general principle mentioned first. In such instances the general rule is applicable only when it corresponds to the main features present in the detailed example mentioned by the Torah. We read in Exodus 22,8: על כל דבר פשע, “concerning all matters involving misappropriation, etc.” This is a general principle involving any wrongdoing. The Torah follows this by citing examples such as oxen, sheep, etc., which are the subject of theft or other kinds of misappropriation. The Torah concludes by repeating once more ”concerning any lost object, etc.,” that disputes like this must be adjudged before a judge. The examples cited all have the following common denominators: they are portable, are chattels. This excludes a slave and landed property both of which are not considered as chattels from the legislation described in that paragraph. We have a special verse in the Torah comparing the status of slaves to that of landed property (compare Leviticus 25,46) “you may bequeath them to your children” (the slaves) [just like you bequeath property]. Due to such considerations documents which though they declare that something belongs to someone are not comparable to chattels as the documents have no inherent value other than the paper they are written on. Another instance of the principle of כלל ופרט וכלל, occurs in Deut. 14,27 in connection with מעשר שני, the second tithe. Concerning what may be done with the money which was realized in redeeming the produce of the second tithe which was too bulky to transport to Jerusalem, the Torah wrote in verse 26 that “you may spend this money (in Jerusalem) for all that your heart desires.” It proceeds to give examples of what your heart desires such as “beef, sheep, wine, alcoholic drink,” repeating once more “and all that your heart desires.” In such a situation where the general rule is followed by examples only to be followed again by the general rule, the substance of the items cited as the examples is the guideline for what is included in the general rule. In this case, the examples are all edibles, produce of the ground (animals which feed on produce of the ground are considered as in the same class). It follows that any other edibles which are produce of the ground are included in the general rule though they have not been enumerated here in detail. Synthetic foods might not qualify as matters for which money from the proceeds of the second tithe may be spent. The seventh rule is known as כלל שצריך לפרט, “a general rule which is indispensable for understanding the detailed examples.” We find an example of this principle in Numbers 3,40 פקוד כל בכור זכר לבני ישראל, “count every male firstborn of the Children of Israel.” Had the Torah written the word “male” without also writing the word “firstborn” would have assumed that all the males whether firstborn or not have to be included in that census. Had the Torah only written the word “firstborn”, I would have thought that female firstborn are also included in that legislation. Therefore the word בכור in that verse is a general rule which is indispensable for understanding what is included in the detailed example. Rule number eight is described as כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא, “any matter which was included in a general rule but is singled out to teach something pertaining to this legislation does not teach only regarding this specific example but teaches something regarding the general rule from which it was singled out.” In connection with the prohibition of sacrificing children to the Moloch cult the Torah writes in Leviticus 20,2 “if any man (person) from among the Children of Israel or from a resident stranger (proselyte) hand over any of his children to that idol, such a man shall be executed. The common people shall pelt him to death with stones.” Up until the appearance of this verse the Moloch cult was just one of many forms of idolatry and the death penalty had already been provided for anyone serving idols. In this verse this particular form of idolatry (abomination) was singled out by the Torah. Why was the penalty spelled out in detail here? [the kind of death penalty]. Rabbi Yishmael teaches that the Torah did not mean that only this particular form of abomination qualifies for the most severe death penalty; rather, it was singled out as an example of the kind of death penalty applicable to people guilty of performing other abominations. Rule number nine: כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון טען אחר שלא כענינו יצא להקל ולהחמיר, “any matter which had already been included in a general rule but was singled out in order to teach something out of the context in which it had appeared, does so in order to either reveal an advantage or a disadvantage as the case may be.” In Exodus 21,2 the Torah writes: כי תקנה עבד עברי שש שנים יעבד ובשביעית יצא לחפשי חנם, “when you purchase the services (labor) of a Jewish servant he will serve with you for six years and will leave in the seventh year free of charge.” It is clear that a female Jewish servant was not included in this legislation as the Torah details rules applicable to the release of female Jewish servants when it writes in verse seven of the same chapter what the rules are when a father sold the labor of his daughter while she was a minor. Why was the word אמה mentioned in verse 7 seeing that a Jewish girl was already included in the general legislation mentioned in Deut. 5,12 when the Torah spoke about a Jewish servant with these words: “if your brother a Jewish man or Jewish woman is sold to you, etc. etc.?” The only reason the Jewish maid servant was singled out from the general rule governing both male and female Jewish servants is to legislate certain advantages she enjoys vis-a-vis her male counterpart. Whereas a male Jewish servant does not leave the service of his master merely by displaying signs of puberty, his counterpart the female Jewish servant does so. A male Jewish servant does not leave the employ of his master when the master dies but only at the end of six years service. In other words, one reason the Torah singled out the female once more was to reveal certain advantages she enjoys as compared to the general rules pertaining to the service of Jews who have been acquired by Jewish masters. At the same time there is also an aspect which is to the disadvantage of such a maid servant in that her master can marry her against her consent while she is in his service, seeing that at the time she was sold this was the understanding with her father. Rule number 10. כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון דבר אחר שהוא כענינו יצא להקל ולא להחמיר, “any legislation which was part of a general rule and has been singled out to describe an example pertaining to the context of that legislation, has been singled out only in order to introduce an ameliorating circumstance, not the reverse.” In Deut. 19,5 where the Torah discusses the law about involuntary manslaughter, we read: “or who will come with his fellow into the forest to chop down trees and his hand swings the ax to cut the tree and the iron slips from the handle, etc.,” such a person has to seek refuge in the city of refuge to protect him from the avenger of the slain party. Nonetheless, the Torah makes it clear that such involuntary manslaughter is under the general heading of “murderer,” seeing the Torah wrote in Leviticus 24,21 (without mentioning an exception) ‘anyone striking dead a human being is to be executed.’” The example cited in Deut. 19 then teaches that there are exceptions to the death penalty, namely when the killing was under the heading of involuntary manslaughter. Both verses speak of the same subject, i.e. killing; however the involuntary killer is exempt from the death penalty seeing his situation was singled out by the Torah which provided cities of refuge. Rule number 11: When a matter which had been subject to legislation of a general rule had been singled out by the Torah to provide a totally new perspective, it will not again become part of the original general rule unless the Torah writes so specifically. An example is Leviticus 22,11: “when a priest acquires a slave who becomes his physical property he may eat (terumah) just as may someone born in his house, etc.” In the verse following the Torah writes that such a priest’s daughter cannot eat such terumah anymore once she marries a husband who is not a priest. Seeing that up until her marriage she had been part of her father’s household, the Torah had to inform us that her status changes drastically upon her marriage. Once she has forfeited the right to eat terumah there is no way she can regain this right unless the Torah legislates so specifically. This is why in verse 13 the Torah writes that if this daughter who had forfeited her right to eat terumah through marriage to a non-priest had become widowed or divorced she may again eat terumah in her father’s house. Rule number 12. דבר הלמד מענינו ודבר הלמד מסופו, “A legislative matter derived through study of its context or from its subsequent passage.” We find an illustration of this principle in connection with the laws of the Sabbath. The Torah writes (Exodus 16,29) שבו איש תחתיו, “let every man remain in his place;” this does not mean that one is not to move for the entire period of the Sabbath but that one must not distance himself from one’s home (starting from the city’s boundary) for a distance of more than 2,000 cubits (1300 yards approx.) in any one direction. This is an example of deriving something from the context in which the passage is written. Seeing that the Israelites had to walk up to that distance to collect the manna during the week days and there was no manna on the Sabbath, it is reasonable to interpret the word ממקומו, “from his place,” as meaning the distance he had to move in a certain direction on days other than the Sabbath. We now have to show an example of deriving legislation by studying a passage in conjunction with the passage following it. In Leviticus 18,6 the Torah writes: איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, “any man shall not approach his close relative to uncover nakedness;” on the face of it this is a prohibition against sexual contact with any blood relative. Later on, in verses 7-18, the Torah spells out the list of blood-relations which are covered by the general statement in verse 6. This list enables us to derive which blood-relations are permitted as marriage partners, i.e. any not included in the verses 7-18. This is an example of what Rabbi Yishmael means when he says that deriving something from the end of a passage is a legitimate exegetical tool. Rule number 13 deals with two verses in the Torah which appear to contradict each other and which require a third verse for clarification. The Torah writes in Genesis 1,1 that “G’d created heaven and earth.” From this verse it appears as if the creation of the heaven preceded the creation of the earth. On the other hand, we read in Genesis 2,4: “these are the products of ....on the day the Lord G’d created earth and heaven.” This verse creates the impression that earth preceded heaven at the time of creation. We therefore need a third verse in Scripture which resolves this apparent contradiction. This verse is found in Isaiah 48,13: ”My own hand founded the earth, My right hand spread out the skies. I call upon them, let them stand up.” Another example of apparently contradictory statements in the Torah occurs in Exodus 20,22: “You have seen that I spoke to you out of the heaven.” This verse gives the impression that G’d’s voice at that time did not emanate from Mount Sinai but from the celestial regions. On the other hand, in Deut. 5,4 the Torah writes: “face to face the Lord spoke to you at the Mountain out of the fire.” The third verse which resolves the apparent contradiction is found in Deut. 4,36: “From the heaven He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on earth He let you see His great fire; and from amidst that fire you heard His words.” A third example of such a need for a third verse reconciling two apparently contradictory ones is the subject of consumption of fat and blood. In Leviticus 3,17 the Torah writes: “you must not eat any fat or blood.” This verse gives the impression that the prohibition applies equally to free-roaming beasts and to domesticated animals. On the other hand, in Deut 12,22 we read that the free-roaming beasts may be consumed (apparently without restriction). In Leviticus 7,23 the Torah writes that “all the fat of ox sheep or goat you must not eat.” This verse indicates that it is in order to consume the fat of free-roaming animals.

והעם לא נסע, ”And the people did not journey.” The reason was that the cloud had not risen. It was a great compliment for Miriam that both the cloud and the people waited for seven days until Miriam was cured. Our sages in Sotah 8 state that a person is “measured,” i.e. treated, in accordance with the way he treats others. Shimshon was in the habit of judging matters based on what his eyes saw, as we know from Judges 9,2 where he told his parents that he insisted that they arrange for his marriage to a Philistine girl seeing “she seems right in my eyes.” As a result of the yardsticks he applied, the Philistines in due course gouged out these very eyes which had misled him (Judges 14,3). Avshalom was very proud of his hair. As a result, when he was punished for rebelling against his father David and sleeping with 10 of his father’s concubines he was hung up by his hair (Samuel II 18,15). The same “measure for measure” principle works also in reverse, i.e. positive character traits displayed by individuals usually are rewarded by G’d in kind. Joseph who had taken a great deal of trouble to bring his father’s bones to burial in the Holy Land, was rewarded in Moses securing his casket and the people taking it with them to the Holy Land during their 40 year trek through the desert (compare Genesis 50,7 and Exodus 13,19). The most illustrious Israelite ever personally looked after keeping the promise made to Joseph by his brothers in this regard. Seeing Moses had taken so much trouble, he was rewarded by G’d Himself burying him (compare Deut. 34,6). We must not be surprised therefore that Miriam experienced the same kind of treatment. When her brother Moses had been lying in a basket in the reeds alongside the river Nile, she had kept watch from a distance in order to see what would develop (Exodus 2,4). Having kept watch for an hour or so at the time, she was now rewarded by the entire Jewish people waiting for seven days with their journey until she could rejoin the main body of the nation. In this connection our sages in Sotah 8 have said that although in practice the four kinds of death penalty in the Torah can no longer be applied seeing we do not have a Temple and our judges do not have that authority while we are in exile, the principle of such kinds of deaths has not been abrogated. When certain people die violent deaths this may reflect the fact that had there been a chance to convict them of the death penalty they would have been executed by a method parallel to that which caused their death. This is an ongoing miracle proving that what we call השגחה פרטית, “G’d’s individual supervision of each of our fates” is still very much in evidence. This is the meaning of Isaiah 30,18: ”for the Lord is a G’d of Justice; happy are all who wait for Him.”