Parshat Pinchas – How to be Completely Peaceful

(1) While Israel was staying at Shittim, the people profaned themselves by whoring with the Moabite women, (2) who invited the people to the sacrifices for their god. The people partook of them and worshiped that god. (3) Thus Israel attached itself to Baal-peor, and the LORD was incensed with Israel. (4) The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the ringleaders and have them publicly impaled before the LORD, so that the LORD’s wrath may turn away from Israel.” (5) So Moses said to Israel’s officials, “Each of you slay those of his men who attached themselves to Baal-peor.” (6) Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman over to his companions, in the sight of Moses and of the whole Israelite community who were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. (7) When Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, (8) he followed the Israelite into the chamber and stabbed both of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. Then the plague against the Israelites was checked. (9) Those who died of the plague numbered twenty-four thousand. (10) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (11) “Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion. (12) Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship. (13) It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time, because he took impassioned action for his God, thus making expiation for the Israelites.’” (14) The name of the Israelite who was killed, the one who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, chieftain of a Simeonite ancestral house. (15) The name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur; he was the tribal head of an ancestral house in Midian. (16) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (17) “Assail the Midianites and defeat them— (18) for they assailed you by the trickery they practiced against you—because of the affair of Peor and because of the affair of their kinswoman Cozbi, daughter of the Midianite chieftain, who was killed at the time of the plague on account of Peor.”

(2) ‎ברית כהנת עולם A COVENANT OF AN EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD — for although the priesthood had already been given to Aaron’s descendants (cf. Exodus 28:40-41), it was given only to Aaron and his sons who had been anointed together with him and to their offspring whom they might beget after they had been anointed. But Phineas who had been born prior to that and had not been anointed, had not as yet attained the status of priesthood until now. So, too, do we read in Zevachim 101b: Phineas did not become a priest until he had slain Zimri.

(1) The LORD said to Moses: Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall defile himself for any [dead] person among his kin, (2) except for the relatives that are closest to him: his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, and his brother; (3) also for a virgin sister, close to him because she has not married, for her he may defile himself. (4) But he shall not defile himself as a kinsman by marriage, and so profane himself. (5) They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads, or cut the side-growth of their beards, or make gashes in their flesh. (6) They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God; for they offer the LORD’s offerings by fire, the food of their God, and so must be holy. (7) They shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry, nor shall they marry one divorced from her husband. For they are holy to their God (8) and you must treat them as holy, since they offer the food of your God; they shall be holy to you, for I the LORD who sanctify you am holy. (9) When the daughter of a priest defiles herself through harlotry, it is her father whom she defiles; she shall be put to the fire. (10) The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not bare his head or rend his vestments. (11) He shall not go in where there is any dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother. (12) He shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his God, for upon him is the distinction of the anointing oil of his God, Mine the LORD’s. (13) He may marry only a woman who is a virgin. (14) A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry—such he may not marry. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife— (15) that he may not profane his offspring among his kin, for I the LORD have sanctified him. (16) The LORD spoke further to Moses: (17) Speak to Aaron and say: No man of your offspring throughout the ages who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the food of his God. (18) No one at all who has a defect shall be qualified: no man who is blind, or lame, or has a limb too short or too long; (19) no man who has a broken leg or a broken arm; (20) or who is a hunchback, or a dwarf, or who has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy, or crushed testes. (21) No man among the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the LORD’s offering by fire; having a defect, he shall not be qualified to offer the food of his God. (22) He may eat of the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy; (23) but he shall not enter behind the curtain or come near the altar, for he has a defect. He shall not profane these places sacred to Me, for I the LORD have sanctified them. (24) Thus Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.

From where do I say my claim that one does not rely on a lone witness in matters of forbidden relations? As we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: An incident occurred with regard to a water reservoir of Diskim in Yavne, which had the presumptive status of being complete, i.e., they thought it contained forty se’a, the requisite amount for a ritual bath, and they measured it after a time and it was found to be deficient, as it contained less than that amount. With regard to all immersions of ritual purification performed in the reservoir before it was measured, Rabbi Tarfon would render them ritually pure, and Rabbi Akiva would render them ritually impure. The two Sages discussed the matter. Rabbi Tarfon said: This ritual bath retained the presumptive status of being whole throughout this period, and you are coming to declare it deficient in the past out of uncertainty. Do not deem it deficient out of uncertainty. Rabbi Akiva said in response: This person who immersed himself in that ritual bath retained the presumptive status of being ritually impure before he immersed. You are coming to purify him out of uncertainty. Do not deem him ritually pure out of uncertainty. Rabbi Tarfon said in response: There is a parable that illustrates this. A priest was standing and sacrificing offerings on the altar, and it became known that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza. The halakha is that his earlier service before this discovery remains valid. Rabbi Akiva said: A more accurate parable is that of a priest who was standing and sacrificing on the altar, and it became known that he is blemished. In this case, the halakha is that his earlier service is disqualified. Rabbi Tarfon said: You compared the case of a ritual bath found to be deficient to that of a blemished priest, whereas I compared it to the case of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza. Let us see to which case it is similar. If this case is similar to that of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, let us treat it like the case of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza; if it is similar to the case of a blemished priest, let us treat it like that of a blemished priest. Rabbi Akiva began to analyze the matter: The disqualification of a ritual bath is by the testimony of an individual, as witnesses are not required to establish that a ritual bath is deficient, and likewise the disqualification of a blemished priest with regard to performing the Temple service is by the testimony of an individual. And do not let the halakha of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza prove otherwise, as his disqualification is by the testimony of two witnesses. Two witnesses are required to testify about one’s mother to disqualify him from performing the Temple service; one is insufficient. Alternatively, one can say: The disqualification of a ritual bath is due to the bath itself, and similarly, the disqualification of a blemished priest is due to the priest himself. And do not let the halakha of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza prove otherwise, as his disqualification is due to others, i.e., through his mother. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Akiva, anyone who separates from you, it is as though he has separated from life itself. Rabbi Tarfon was impressed by Rabbi Akiva’s explanation and accepted it. This concludes the baraita. The Gemara returns to the topic at hand: What are the circumstances with regard to this blemished priest whose disqualification is by means of an individual witness? If the priest denies his claim, maintaining that he is not blemished, is a lone witness deemed credible? Rather, it must be that the priest remains silent and therefore is considered to have admitted to the accusation. And similarly with regard to the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, it must also be referring to one who is silent, and yet the baraita teaches: The disqualification of a ritual bath is by the testimony of an individual, and likewise the disqualification of a blemished priest with regard to performing the Temple service is by the testimony of an individual. And do not let the halakha of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza prove otherwise, as his disqualification is by the testimony of two witnesses. This indicates that if the person under scrutiny himself remains silent, one witness is insufficient to disqualify him. And Abaye could have said in response to this proof: Actually, both cases deal with an individual who denies the witness’s testimony, and that which you said: Why is the witness deemed credible when he says that this priest is blemished, it is referring to a case where the witness said to him: Remove your clothes and show us that you are not blemished. Since this is a matter that can be investigated, the witness is deemed credible, because if he were lying the priest could prove it. And this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches: The disqualification of a ritual bath is due to the bath itself, and similarly, the disqualification of a blemished priest is due to the priest himself, as he himself can be examined. And do not let the halakha of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza prove otherwise, as his disqualification is due to others. The Gemara asks a question with regard to the halakha of the baraita: And from where do we derive that the service of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza is valid after the fact? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: As the verse states with regard to Pinehas the priest: “And it shall be for him and his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13), which includes both fit seed and unfit seed. This teaches that the service of a priest is valid after the fact even if he was disqualified. Shmuel’s father said that the proof text is from here: It states in the blessing of the tribe of Levi: “Bless, Lord, his substance [ḥeilo], and accept the work of his hands” (Deuteronomy 33:11). The word ḥeilo is expounded as including even the service of his profane ones [ḥullin], which God will accept after the fact. Rabbi Yannai said: The source is from here, a verse stated with regard to first fruits: “And you shall come to the priest who shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 26:3). But can it enter your mind that a person can come to a priest who is not alive in his days? What then is the meaning of the phrase “in those days”? Rather, this is referring to a fit priest who later became established as a ḥalal. All his previous days of service are considered those of a fit priest. The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. From where do we derive that the service of a blemished priest is retroactively invalid? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: As the verse states with regard to Pinehas: “Wherefore say: Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace [shalom]” (Numbers 25:12), which means that he receives the covenant when he is whole [shalem], but not when he is blemished and lacking a limb. The Gemara comments: But shalom is written, rather than shalem. Rav Naḥman says: The letter vav in the word shalom is severed. According to tradition, this letter is written with a break in it, and therefore the word can be read as though the vav were missing. MISHNA: There is a principle with regard to the hala-khot of lineage: Any case where there is betrothal, i.e., where the betrothal takes effect, and the marriage involves no transgression by Torah law, the lineage of the offspring follows the male, his father. And in which case is this applicable? For example, this is the case with regard to the daughter of a priest; or the daughter of a Levite; or the daughter of an Israelite, who married a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite. In all these cases the child’s lineage is established by his father’s family. And any case where there is a valid betrothal and yet there is a transgression, the offspring follows the flawed parent. And in which case is this applicable? For example, this is the case of a widow who is married to a High Priest, or a divorced woman or a ḥalutza who is married to a common priest, or a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman who is married to an Israelite, or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer or to a Gibeonite. In these situations the child inherits the status of the blemished parent. And in any case where a woman cannot join in betrothal with a particular man, as the betrothal does not take effect, but she can join in betrothal with others, i.e., the woman is considered a member of the Jewish people and can marry other Jews, in these cases the offspring is a mamzer. And in which case is this applicable? This is one who engages in intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden that are written in the Torah. And in any case where a woman cannot join in betrothal with him or with others, the offspring is like her. He is not considered his father’s son at all, but has the same status as his mother. And in which case is this applicable? This is the offspring of a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman, as her child is a slave or a gentile like her. If he converts, he is not a mamzer. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that any case where there is betrothal and the marriage involves no transgression, the lineage of the offspring follows the male. Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Is it an established principle that any case where there is betrothal and there is no transgression the offspring invariably follows the male? But

(1) Now, when King Amraphel of Shinar, King Arioch of Ellasar, King Chedorlaomer of Elam, and King Tidal of Goiim (2) made war on King Bera of Sodom, King Birsha of Gomorrah, King Shinab of Admah, King Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar, (3) all the latter joined forces at the Valley of Siddim, now the Dead Sea. (4) Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. (5) In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim at Ham, the Emim at Shaveh-kiriathaim, (6) and the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El-paran, which is by the wilderness. (7) On their way back they came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and subdued all the territory of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazazon-tamar. (8) Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar, went forth and engaged them in battle in the Valley of Siddim: (9) King Chedorlaomer of Elam, King Tidal of Goiim, King Amraphel of Shinar, and King Arioch of Ellasar—four kings against those five. (10) Now the Valley of Siddim was dotted with bitumen pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, in their flight, threw themselves into them, while the rest escaped to the hill country. (11) [The invaders] seized all the wealth of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their provisions, and went their way. (12) They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, and his possessions, and departed; for he had settled in Sodom. (13) A fugitive brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was dwelling at the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, kinsman of Eshkol and Aner, these being Abram’s allies. (14) When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he mustered his retainers, born into his household, numbering three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. (15) At night, he and his servants deployed against them and defeated them; and he pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. (16) He brought back all the possessions; he also brought back his kinsman Lot and his possessions, and the women and the rest of the people. (17) When he returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh, which is the Valley of the King. (18) And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. (19) He blessed him, saying, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. (20) And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your foes into your hand.” And [Abram] gave him a tenth of everything. (21) Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the possessions for yourself.” (22) But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I swear to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth: (23) I will not take so much as a thread or a sandal strap of what is yours; you shall not say, ‘It is I who made Abram rich.’ (24) For me, nothing but what my servants have used up; as for the share of the men who went with me—Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre—let them take their share.”

(1) When King Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem learned that Joshua had captured Ai and proscribed it, treating Ai and its king as he had treated Jericho and its king, and that, moreover, the people of Gibeon had come to terms with Israel and remained among them, (2) he was very frightened. For Gibeon was a large city, like one of the royal cities—in fact, larger than Ai—and all its men were warriors. (3) So King Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem sent this message to King Hoham of Hebron, King Piram of Jarmuth, King Japhia of Lachish, and King Debir of Eglon: (4) “Come up and help me defeat Gibeon; for it has come to terms with Joshua and the Israelites.” (5) The five Amorite kings—the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon, with all their armies—joined forces and marched on Gibeon, and encamped against it and attacked it. (6) The people of Gibeon thereupon sent this message to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal: “Do not fail your servants; come up quickly and aid us and deliver us, for all the Amorite kings of the hill country have gathered against us.” (7) So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his whole fighting force, all the trained warriors. (8) The LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them, for I will deliver them into your hands; not one of them shall withstand you.” (9) Joshua took them by surprise, marching all night from Gilgal. (10) The LORD threw them into a panic before Israel: [Joshua] inflicted a crushing defeat on them at Gibeon, pursued them in the direction of the Beth-horon ascent, and harried them all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. (11) While they were fleeing before Israel down the descent from Beth-horon, the LORD hurled huge stones on them from the sky, all the way to Azekah, and they perished; more perished from the hailstones than were killed by the Israelite weapons. (12) On that occasion, when the LORD routed the Amorites before the Israelites, Joshua addressed the LORD; he said in the presence of the Israelites: “Stand still, O sun, at Gibeon, O moon, in the Valley of Aijalon!” (13) And the sun stood still And the moon halted, While a nation wreaked judgment on its foes —as is written in the Book of Jashar. Thus the sun halted in midheaven, and did not press on to set, for a whole day; (14) for the LORD fought for Israel. Neither before nor since has there ever been such a day, when the LORD acted on words spoken by a man. (15) Then Joshua together with all Israel returned to the camp at Gilgal. (16) Meanwhile, those five kings fled and hid in a cave at Makkedah. (17) When it was reported to Joshua that the five kings had been found hiding in a cave at Makkedah, (18) Joshua ordered, “Roll large stones up against the mouth of the cave, and post men over it to keep guard over them. (19) But as for the rest of you, don’t stop, but press on the heels of your enemies and harass them from the rear. Don’t let them reach their towns, for the LORD your God has delivered them into your hands.” (20) When Joshua and the Israelites had finished dealing them a deadly blow, they were wiped out, except for some fugitives who escaped into the fortified towns. (21) The whole army returned in safety to Joshua in the camp at Makkedah; no one so much as snarled at the Israelites. (22) And now Joshua ordered, “Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out of the cave to me.” (23) This was done. Those five kings—the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon—were brought out to him from the cave. (24) And when the kings were brought out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the men of Israel and ordered the army officers who had accompanied him, “Come forward and place your feet on the necks of these kings.” They came forward and placed their feet on their necks. (25) Joshua said to them, “Do not be frightened or dismayed; be firm and resolute. For this is what the LORD is going to do to all the enemies with whom you are at war.” (26) After that, Joshua had them put to death and impaled on five stakes, and they remained impaled on the stakes until evening. (27) At sunset Joshua ordered them taken down from the poles and thrown into the cave in which they had hidden. Large stones were placed over the mouth of the cave, [and there they are] to this very day. (28) At that time Joshua captured Makkedah and put it and its king to the sword, proscribing it and every person in it and leaving none that escaped. And he treated the king of Makkedah as he had treated the king of Jericho. (29) From Makkedah, Joshua proceeded with all Israel to Libnah, and he attacked it. (30) The LORD delivered it and its king into the hands of Israel; they put it and all the people in it to the sword, letting none escape. And he treated its king as he had treated the king of Jericho. (31) From Libnah, Joshua proceeded with all Israel to Lachish; he encamped against it and attacked it. (32) The LORD delivered Lachish into the hands of Israel. They captured it on the second day and put it and all the people in it to the sword, just as they had done to Libnah. (33) At that time King Horam of Gezer marched to the help of Lachish; but Joshua defeated him and his army, letting none of them escape. (34) From Lachish, Joshua proceeded with all Israel to Eglon; they encamped against it and attacked it. (35) They captured it on the same day and put it to the sword, proscribing all the people that were in it, as they had done to Lachish. (36) From Eglon, Joshua marched with all Israel to Hebron and attacked it. (37) They captured it and put it, its king, and all its towns, and all the people that were in it, to the sword. He let none escape, proscribing it and all the people in it, just as he had done in the case of Eglon. (38) Joshua and all Israel with him then turned back to Debir and attacked it. (39) He captured it and its king and all its towns. They put them to the sword and proscribed all the people in it. They let none escape; just as they had done to Hebron, and as they had done to Libnah and its king, so they did to Debir and its king. (40) Thus Joshua conquered the whole country: the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes, with all their kings; he let none escape, but proscribed everything that breathed—as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. (41) Joshua conquered them from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon. (42) All those kings and their lands were conquered by Joshua at a single stroke, for the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel. (43) Then Joshua, with all Israel, returned to the camp at Gilgal.

(4) The LORD has sworn and will not relent, “You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree.”

The letters of the term the Satan [haSatan] in numerical value is 364, which equals the number of days of the year, except for Yom Kippur, during which he has no power. And Rami bar Abba said: It is written “Abram,” and after he was commanded to perform circumcision it is written “Abraham” (Genesis 17:5). Initially the Holy One, Blessed be He, enthroned him as ruler over 243 limbs, which is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the word Abram. And in the end, after he was circumcised, He enthroned him as ruler over 248 limbs, which is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the word Abraham. These are the additional limbs: Two eyes, and two ears, and the tip of the sex organ. Following his circumcision, he had total control over them, and they performed only according to his will. And Rami bar Abba said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “There was a little city and few men in it, and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a man poor and wise, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man” (Ecclesiastes 9:14–15)? “A little city,” this is referring to the body; “and few men in it,” this is referring to the limbs; “and there came a great king against it and besieged it,” this is referring to the evil inclination; “and built great bulwarks against it,” these are sins. The Gemara expounds on the next section of the verse: “Now there was found in it a man poor and wise,” this is referring to the good inclination; “and he by his wisdom delivered the city,” this is referring to repentance and good deeds that are cause by the good inclination. “Yet no man remembered that same poor man” means that when the evil inclination overcomes the good inclination no one remembers the good inclination. The Gemara interprets the following verse in a similar homiletical manner: “Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city” (Ecclesiastes 7:19). “Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man,” this is referring to repentance and good deeds. “More than ten rulers,” these are the two eyes, and two ears, and two hands, and two legs, and the tip of the sex organ, and the mouth, which are the limbs that are used by a person to interact with the world. Rabbi Zekharya said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted the priesthood to emerge from Shem, so that his children would be priests, as it is stated: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Once Melchizedek, traditionally identified as Shem, placed the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of the Omnipresent, He had the priesthood emerge from Abraham in particular, and not from any other descendant of Shem. As it is stated: “And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God the Most High” (Genesis 14:19–20). Abraham said to him: And does one place the blessing of the servant before the blessing of his master? You should have blessed God first. Immediately the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave the priesthood to Abraham, as it is stated: “The Lord says to my lord: Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalms 110:1), and afterward it is written: “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: you shall be a priest forever, because you are a king of righteousness [al divrati malki tzedek]” (Psalms 110:4), which is explained homiletically to mean: Due to the improper words [divrati] of Melchizedek, the offspring of Abraham shall be priests of God forever. The Gemara comments: And this is as it is written: “And he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18), which emphasizes that he, Melchizedek, is a priest, but his children will not be priests. MISHNA: The difference between one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow [hamuddar hana’a meḥaveiro] and one for whom benefit from his food is forbidden by vow concerns only setting foot on the other person’s property and borrowing from that person utensils that one does not use in preparation of food but for other purposes. Those two benefits are forbidden to the former but permitted to the latter. Therefore, with regard to one for whom benefit from another’s food is forbidden by vow, that person may not lend him utensils used in the preparation of food, e.g., a sieve, or a strainer, or a millstone, or an oven. However, he may lend him a garment, or a finger ring, or a cloak, or nose rings, as these are not used in the preparation of food. However, he may not lend them to one for whom benefit from him is forbidden by vow. GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: Even overlooking [vittur] a matter for which one is typically indifferent to the actions of others, e.g., people setting foot on one’s property, is prohibited in the case of one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another. § We learned in the mishna: With regard to one for whom benefit from another’s food is forbidden by vow, that person may not lend him utensils used in the preparation of food.

And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth (Gen. 9:18). Was Shem the eldest of Noah’s sons, that his name is mentioned first? Is it not written that Japheth was the eldest? Why then was Shem mentioned first? Because he was considered to be more righteous and perfect by his Creator.

(Deut. 3:23:) “I besought the Lord.” This text is related (to Job 9:22), “It is all one; therefore, I say, ‘He destroys the innocent and the wicked.’” Moses said, “Master of the world, everything is equal before you. There is one determination for the righteous and for the wicked.” Similarly also Solomon says (in Eccl. 9:2), “Since everything [happens] to everyone, the same lot [falls] to the righteous and to the wicked, [to the good, to the clean and to the unclean, to the one who sacrifices and to the one who does not sacrifice; as it is with the good, so it is with the sinner; the one who takes an oath is like one who fears an oath].” (Eccl. 9:2:) “To the righteous” refers to Noah.¹Lev. R. 20:1; Eccl. R. 9:2:1; PRK 26:1; cf. Tanh., Lev. 6:1; above, Lev. 6:1. R. Phinehas [said] in the name of R. Johanan, [who spoke] in the name of R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose the Galilean, “When Noah came out of the ark, the lion bit him and maimed him so that he became unfit to offer sacrifice; so his son Shem offered sacrifice in his place.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “And to the wicked” refers to Pharaoh Necho. When he wanted to sit on Solomon's throne [and] did not know its mechanism,²Gk.: manganon. a lion which was on the throne³I Kings 10:19-20 = II Chron. 9:18-19. bit him and maimed him. The former died with a limp, and the latter died with a limp. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “To the good” refers to Moses, as stated (in Exod. 2:2), “And when she saw that he was good,” in that he was born circumcised.⁴Sot. 12a; Exod. R. 1:20. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “To the clean” refers to Aaron, who would cleanse the sins of Israel. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “And to the unclean,” refers to the spies. The one group (i.e., the spies) uttered slander against the land of Israel, while the other (i.e., Moses and Aaron) uttered praise for the land of Israel; [still] the former did not enter [the land], nor did the latter enter it. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “To the one who sacrifices” refers to Josiah, as stated (in II Chron. 35:7), “Then Josiah donated to the lay people a flock of lambs and kids, all for Passover sacrifices.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “And to the one who does not sacrifice” refers to Ahab, who abolished the sacrifices from upon the altar, since this is what is written (in II Chron. 18:2), “where Ahab slaughtered sheep and cattle for him (i.e., for Jehoshaphat).” “For him” he slaughtered, but for sacrifices he did not slaughter. [Nevertheless] the former died by arrows, as written (in II Chron. 35:23), “Then the archers shot King Josiah,”⁵Cf. yQid. 1:7 (61a); Ta‘an 23b; MQ 28b; Sanh. 48b. and the latter died by arrows, as written (in I Kings 22:34 = II Chron. 18:33), “But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel….” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “As it is for the good refers to David, of whom it is stated (in I Sam. 16:12), “And they sent and they brought him, and he was ruddy with beautiful eyes and a good appearance.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “So it is with the sinner” refers to Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is written (in Dan. 4:24), “atone for your sinning through righteousness.” The former built the Temple and reigned forty years. The latter destroyed the Temple and reigned forty years. (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “The one who takes an oath (without keeping it)” refers to Zedekiah, of whom it is written (in II Chron. 36:13), “And he also rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar who had made him take an oath by God.” What was his rebellion?⁶Ned. 65a. Zedekiah discovered Nebuchadnezzar as he was eating a live rabbit. Nebuchadnezzar said to Zedekiah, “Swear to me that you will not reveal it.” He swore to him. In the end he was inwardly sorry, and he had his oath absolved. When the other kings heard [what Nebuchadnezzar did], they disparaged him. [Moreover] they were saying against him, “Be aware of who is ruling the earth, one who eats live rabbit!” When Nebuchadnezzar heard [what they were saying], he sent to have the Sanhedrin⁷Gk.: Synedrion. and Zedekiah come to him. He said to them, “Have you seen what Zedekiah has done to me; did he not swear to me?” [Zedekiah] said to him, “I had my oath absolved.” He (Nebuchadnezzar) said to the Sanhedrin, “Can an oath be absolved?” They said to him, “One absolves [an oath, if there is] danger to one's life.” He said to them, “When?” They said to him, “On the same day.” He said to them, “In the presence of him [to whom the oath was sworn] or not in his presence?” They said to him, “In his presence.” He said to them, “And what was the reason you did not say [so] to Zedekiah?” Immediately (in the words of Lam. 2:10), “The elders of the Daughters of Zion sit on the ground in silence.” R. Isaac said, “[This teaches that] they removed the pillows and cushions from beneath them.” (Eccl. 9:2, cont.:) “Like one who fears an oath.” This refers to Samson, [as stated (in Jud. 15:12),] “then Samson said to them, ‘Swear to me that you yourselves will not attack me.’” From here [we know] that he feared an oath. [The former died with his eyes gouged out, and the latter died with his eyes gouged out.] The former died with his eyes gouged out according to what is stated (in II Kings 25:7 = Jer. 39:7 = Jer. 52:11), “then he put out Zedekiah's eyes.” This was one of seven who were like the first Adam [in one feature.⁸Cf. Sot. 10a. In the case of] Zedekiah [it was] because of his eyes. So they thrust iron lances⁹Gk.: logchai. into his eyes, but his eyes were not put out until they slaughtered his children before his eyes, and then they put out his eyes. It is so stated (II Kings 25:7), “And they slaughtered the children of Zedekiah before his eyes and then he put out Zedekiah's eyes.” Samson also [died with his eyes gouged out, as stated (in Jud. 16:21), “] “So the Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes.” Another interpretation (of Eccl. 9:2), “Since everything [happens] to everyone.” Moses said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, everything is the same for You; You destroy (according to Job 9:22) ‘the innocent and the wicked.’ The spies provoked You with anger by slandering the land, as stated (in Numbers 13:32), ‘And they put out slander against the land,’ while I have served your children forty years in the wilderness. [Yet] the same lot is [in store] for me as for them.” A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a king who wanted to take a wife. He sent emissaries¹⁰Shulahin. The word represents the Hebrew concept behind the Greek and Latin words translated “apostles” and denotes people having the ancient equivalent of a power of attorney. to see whether she was beautiful or not. They went to see her. [Then] they came [back] and said to him, “We have seen her and there is no one more desolate and ugly than she.” When her sponsor heard, he said, “My Lord, there is no one in the world more beautiful than she.” He came to marry her. The father of the young woman said to the king's emissaries, “I swear by the life of the king that not one of you shall come to [the wedding feast], seeing that you humiliated her before the king.” When the sponsor came to enter, he said to him, “You also may not come in.” The sponsor said to him, “I did not see her and [yet] I told the king that there was no one more beautiful than she, while those said, ‘There is no one more ugly than she.’ And now allow me [to enter] and I shall see whether [she is] like my report or like their report.” Similarly Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “My master, the spies uttered slander, [in describing the land (in Numb. 13:32) as] ‘a land that eats up its inhabitants.’ I, however, have not seen it, but I have praised it before Your children (in Deut. 8:7), ‘For the Lord your God is bringing you unto a good land.’ And now I shall see whether [it is] like my report or like their report.” Thus it is stated (in Deut. 3:25), “Please let me cross over and see the good land […].” He said to him (in Deut. 3:27), “For you shall not cross over [this Jordan].” Moshe said to him, “If so, everything is the same for You. You destroy (in accordance with Job 9:22) ‘the innocent and the wicked.’”