פרשת נשא — שלישי (Aliyah 3)
Parashat Naso | Numbers 5:1–5:10 | Aliyah 3 of 7
קלאוד על הפרשה
The third aliyah (5:1-10) pivots sharply from the Levitical-organizational concerns of the previous parasha to the integrity of the camp. With the census complete and the Mishkan at the center surrounded by its three Levite rings and four tribal banners, the Torah now turns to: what must the camp itself look like for the Shechinah to remain among us? Two answers emerge, juxtaposed in striking contiguity — physical purity, then moral purity.
The first section (5:1-4) commands the removal from the camp of three categories of ritually impure persons: the metzora (one afflicted with the skin-condition tzara’at), the zav (one with a discharge from the reproductive area), and one tamei la-nefesh (defiled through contact with a human corpse). Each is sent to a different zone — Rashi (citing the gemara, Pesachim 67a) details the three-fold camp structure: the metzora is sent outside all three camps (Israel, Levi, and Shechinah); the zav remains in the camp of Israel but is barred from the camps of Levi and Shechinah; the tamei le-nefesh is barred only from the camp of Shechinah. The expulsion is therefore graded by severity of impurity, and the geography of the camp itself encodes the gradations of holiness radiating outward from the Mishkan. The Torah’s stated rationale: ve-lo yetam’u et machaneihem asher ani shochen be-tocham — and they shall not defile their camps, in the midst of which I dwell (5:3). The Shechinah’s residence in the camp is conditional on its purity.
The second section (5:5-10) turns from physical purity to moral purity: the law of me’ilah be-Hashem through swearing falsely about a financial obligation owed to another Israelite (denying a pikadon — a deposit, a loan, or a stolen item — and then taking a false oath about it). When the wrongdoer confesses, he must restore the stolen principal plus a fifth (chomesh), and bring an asham offering. Rashi reads the contiguity with the camp-purification passage theologically: theft itself is a form of impurity. Just as physical impurities are expelled from the camp to preserve the Shechinah’s residence, so financial dishonesty must be confessed and restored — for sin against another human being is also sin against God (ki-me’ol ma’al ba-Hashem, 5:6) and therefore defiles the camp. The aliyah closes with the principle that terumah u-ma’aser given to the kohen become the kohen’s property — and so too the asham restitution-money, when there are no heirs to whom the theft can be returned, goes to the kohen as well. The aliyah is brief but it establishes a comprehensive theology: the camp’s holiness depends not only on bodily purity but on financial integrity. Both must be preserved.
Numbers 5:1–5:10 · במדבר ה:א–ה:י
פסוק ה:א · 5:1
Hebrew:
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
English:
יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:
פסוק ה:ב · 5:2
Hebrew:
צַ֚ו אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וִֽישַׁלְּחוּ֙ מִן־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה כׇּל־צָר֖וּעַ וְכׇל־זָ֑ב וְכֹ֖ל טָמֵ֥א לָנָֽפֶשׁ׃
English:
Instruct the Israelites to remove from camp anyone with an eruption or a discharge*an eruption or a discharge See Leviticus chapters 13 and 15, respectively. and anyone defiled by a corpse.
Hashem commands Moshe to send three categories of ritually impure persons out of the camp: the metzora (skin-affliction sufferer), the zav (genital discharge), and one defiled by corpse-contact (tamei la-nefesh). Rashi (citing Pesachim 67a) explains the graded expulsion: the metzora is barred from all three camps (Israel, Levi, Shechinah); the zav remains in the Israel-camp but is excluded from Levi and Shechinah; the tamei le-nefesh is barred only from the Shechinah-camp.
רש״יRashi
צו את בני ישראל וגו'. פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ נֶאֶמְרָה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן, וּשְׁמוֹנֶה פָרָשִׁיּוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם, כִּדְאִיתָא בְּמַסֶּכֶת גִּטִּין בְּפֶרֶק הַנִּזָּקִין (גיטין דף ס'): וישלחו מן המחנה. שָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם בִּשְׁעַת חֲנִיָּתָן, תּוֹךְ הַקְּלָעִים הִיא מַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה, חֲנִיַּת הַלְוִיִּם סָבִיב כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בְּפָרָשַׁת בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, הִיא מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה, וּמִשָּׁם וְעַד סוֹף מַחֲנֵה הַדְּגָלִים לְכָל אַרְבַּע הָרוּחוֹת הִיא מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל; הַצָּרוּעַ נִשְׁתַּלַּח חוּץ לְכֻלָּן, הַזָּב מֻתָּר בְּמַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְשֻׁלָּח מִן הַשְּׁתַיִם, וְטָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ מֻתָּר אַף בְּשֶׁל לְוִיָּה, וְאֵינוֹ מְשֻׁלָּח אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁל שְׁכִינָה, וְכָל זֶה דָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ מִן הַמִּקְרָאוֹת בְּמַסֶּ' פְּסָחִים (דף ס"ז): טמא לנפש. "דִּמְסָאָב לִטְמֵי נַפְשָׁא דֶאֱנָשָׁא", אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן עַצְמוֹת אָדָם בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי. וְהַרְבֵּה יֵשׁ בִּבְ"רַ, "אַדְרִיאָנוּס שְׁחִיק טַמְיָא", שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת:
צו את בני ישראל וגו׳ COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL etc. — This section was spoken on the day when the Tabernacle was erected; there were eight sections spoken on that day, as is related in Treatise Gittin 60a, in the chapter beginning with the word הנזקין. וישלחו מן המחנה [COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] THAT THEY SEND AWAY FROM THE CAMP [EVERY LEPER etc.] — There were three camps one within the other whenever they encamped: the area within the hangings was the "camp of the Shechinah", the encampment of the Levites round about this, as is described in the Sedrah במדבר סיני (Numbers 1:53), was the "camp of the Levites", and from there outward up to the end of the encampment of the divisions in all the four directions was the "camp of the Israelites". The leper was sent out from all of them; the person suffering from a flux was allowed to stay in the "camp of the Israelites", but was sent out from the two inner camps, whilst a person who had become unclean by reason of a corpse was allowed to stay in the "camp of the Levites" also, and was sent out only from that of the Shechinah. All this have our Rabbis deduced in Treatise Pesachim 67a from the verses of our text. טמא לנפש — Onkelos translates this by דמסאב לטמי נפשא דאנשא. I say that it (the word טמי in this rendering) is an expression in Aramaic for human bones, so that the Targum means: "whosoever is unclean by reason of the bones of a human being''. There are many examples of the use of this word in Genesis Rabbah, as e.g. (Genesis Rabbah 78:1): Hadrian, שחיק טמיא, which means, "Hadrian may his bones be crushed!"
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש. אלה הם מטומאת שבעה והם מטמאים אחרים על כן לא יצא בעל קרי מחוץ למחנה ואין יד במחנה לצאת חוץ רק כל אחד חופר באהלו כמנהג כל המחנות כלן כי תינוקים יש ביניהם. ופרשת כי תצא מחנה על מחנה קטן ידבר שאין שם אשה והארון ביניהם ואין (ס"א והם) סובבים כי במחנה ישראל השכינה באמצע ועוד אפרשנו במקומו:
EVERY LEPER, AND EVERY ONE THAT HATH AN ISSUE,1Hebrew, zav. A zav or a zavah is a person who has an abnormal discharge from the genital organs. AND WHOSOEVER IS UNCLEAN BY THE DEAD. These are states of uncleanliness that last for seven days. They also render others unclean.2For the uncleanliness of the zav and the zavah, see Lev. 15:1-28. For the uncleanliness of those who come into contact with the dead, see Num. 19:1- 22. Therefore a person who had a seminal omission does not leave the camp.3The camp discussed in our chapter, i.e., the camp of the entire people of Israel. I.E. comments thus because one who has a seminal mission is obligated to leave a camp of soldiers who go to war. See Deut. 23:10-14. Similarly, no place was setaside outside the camp4See note 3. for the performing of bodily functions.5As there was in the case of a camp of soldiers. See Deut. 23:10-14. On the contrary, each person dug in his own tent6Dug a pit for his bodily excretions. as is the custom with all the camps, for there were children among them.7It would be very difficult to take children outside of the camp every time they had to relieve themselves. Now the section which opens with When thou goest forth in camp against thine enemies (Deut. 23:10) speaks of a small camp wherein there are no women, and the ark is among them and they do not surround the ark.8With a fence as they do in a large camp (see I.E. on Deut. 23:10). Thus in a small camp, or a war camp, the ark is exposed. Some manuscripts read, and they surround the ark; i.e., they are in close proximity to the ark. [They have to leave the camp],9A war camp. for God's presence is in the center of any Israelite camp. I will explain this in its proper place.10See I.E. on Deut. 23:10. For another interpretation, see Weiser.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
צו את בני ישראל וישלחו וגו'. טעם סמיכות פרשה זו לשלפניה, לצד שצוה ה' על הרחקת הלוים מדברים המקודשים ומינה עליהם הכהנים כאמור בסמוך, הטיל גם על ישראל הרחקת את שאינם ראוים ליכנס למחניהם הקדוש:
צו את בני ישראל וישלחו מן המחנה, "Command the Israelites to expel from the camp, etc." The reason the Torah wrote this paragraph immediately after the appointment of the Levites to their respective tasks was because G'd had commanded the Levites themselves to keep away from areas possessing a certain degree of sanctity, areas reserved for priests alone. This is why the Torah added that also the Israelites were forbidden to enter areas normally available to them if they had become afflicted with ritual impurity, for instance.
פסוק ה:ג · 5:3
Hebrew:
מִזָּכָ֤ר עַד־נְקֵבָה֙ תְּשַׁלֵּ֔חוּ אֶל־מִח֥וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה תְּשַׁלְּח֑וּם וְלֹ֤א יְטַמְּאוּ֙ אֶת־מַ֣חֲנֵיהֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י שֹׁכֵ֥ן בְּתוֹכָֽם׃
English:
Remove male and female alike; put them outside the camp so that they do not defile the camp of those in whose midst I dwell.
The expulsion applies equally to male and female, and the Torah supplies the theological rationale: 'so that they do not defile their camps, in the midst of which I dwell.' The Shechinah's residence among Israel is conditional on the camp's purity. Or HaChaim notes that this requirement applied only while the Shechinah resided in the Mishkan; once the curtains were rolled up for travel, even those afflicted with tzara'at could re-enter the camps (Menachot 95).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
נקבה. זבה או נדה או מצורעת או טמאת מת:
FEMALE. A woman who has an irregular menstrual flow,11See Lev. 15:25-28. a normal menstrual flow,12Lev. 15:19-24. a woman who is a leper13See Lev. 13:1-46. or who was made unclean by a dead body.14Num. 19:11-22.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
אשר אני שוכן. פירוש דוקא כל עוד שהוא שוכן, אבל הוגללו הפרוכות מותרים מצורעים ליכנס למחנות (מנחות צה.):
אשר אני שכן בתוכם, "that I dwell amongst." This rule applied only as long as G'd's presence was still in the Tabernacle. Once the Tabernacle had been dismantled so that the שכינה had moved, even people afflicted with צרעת were allowed in the camp (Menachot 95).
פסוק ה:ד · 5:4
Hebrew:
וַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ־כֵן֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיְשַׁלְּח֣וּ אוֹתָ֔ם אֶל־מִח֖וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֑ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֵּ֥ן עָשׂ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ {פ}
English:
The Israelites did so, putting them outside the camp; as יהוה had spoken to Moses, so the Israelites did.
Israel complies promptly and fully: they expel the metzora, zav, and tamei la-nefesh from their respective camps, exactly as Hashem commanded. Ibn Ezra notes that the compliance was immediate — before they journeyed — and that during travel the impure walked between the standard of Ephraim and the standard of Dan. Ibn Ezra also links this section to the following (5:5-10): tzara'at and zav-discharge are themselves punishments for me'ilah (trespass against Hashem), making the juxtaposition pointed.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ויעשו כן. מיד קודם שנסעו והטמאים בנסעם יסעו בין דגל אפרים לדגל דן על דרך סברא כי לא פורש. ונסמכה פרשת איש או אשה כי הצרעת והזוב יבואו בעבור מעל. וטעם להזכיר זאת הפרשה פעם אחרת להזכיר ואם אין לאיש גואל:
AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID SO. Immediately, before they journeyed. When the unclean journeyed, they journeyed between the standard of Ephraim15The standard of Ephraim journeyed in front of the standard of Dan. and the standard of Dan.16The standard of Dan journeyed at the rear. See Num. 10:25. The aforementioned is based on logic,17For it is hard to believe that the unclean traveled outside of the standards and were thus exposed to danger. for this is not explained in Scripture. The section that begins with When a man or woman [shall commit any sin that men commit, to commit a trespass against the Lord]18Verses 6-10. follows the previous chapter19Verses 1-4. because leprosy and unclean issue20Hebrew, zav. are brought about by trespassing against the Lord.21They are punishments for sin. See Arakin 16b. The reason this section is repeated22The material in verses 5-10 repeats what has already been stated in Lev. 5:20-26. is that the Torah wants to mention but if the man have no kinsman (v. 8).23This law is not mentioned in Lev 5:20-26.
פסוק ה:ה · 5:5
Hebrew:
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
English:
יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:
פסוק ה:ו · 5:6
Hebrew:
דַּבֵּר֮ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ אִ֣ישׁ אֽוֹ־אִשָּׁ֗ה כִּ֤י יַעֲשׂוּ֙ מִכׇּל־חַטֹּ֣את הָֽאָדָ֔ם לִמְעֹ֥ל מַ֖עַל בַּיהֹוָ֑ה וְאָֽשְׁמָ֖ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִֽוא׃
English:
Speak to the Israelites: When men or women individually commit any wrong toward a fellow human being, thus breaking faith with יהוה, and they realize their guilt,
The Torah introduces a new legal unit: when a man or woman commits any sin against another person such that it constitutes 'breaking faith with Hashem' (lim'ol ma'al ba-Hashem) — specifically, denying a financial obligation and confirming the denial with a false oath. Rashi explains that although this case was already legislated in Vayikra (Lev. 5:21), it is repeated here because of two new points: that confession (and not merely witnesses) is required for liability to chomesh and asham, and the law of gezel ha-ger (theft from a convert with no heirs). Sforno (citing Chazal) reads the verse as referring specifically to gezel ha-ger, where the robber profanes Hashem's name in the eyes of the convert who had come to take refuge under His wings.
רש״יRashi
למעל מעל בה'. הֲרֵי חָזַר וְכָתַב כָּאן פָּרָשַׁת גּוֹזֵל וְנִשְׁבָּע עַל שֶׁקֶר, הִיא הָאֲמוּרָה בְפָרָשַׁת וַיִּקְרָא "וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה' וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ וְגוֹ'", וְנִשְׁנֵית כָּאן בִּשְׁבִיל שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים שֶׁנִּתְחַדְּשׁוּ בָהּ, הָאֶחָד שֶׁכָּתַב "וְהִתְוַדּוּ", לִמֵּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב חֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם עַ"פִּ עֵדִים עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בַדָּבָר, וְהַשֵּׁנִי עַל גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן לַכֹּהֲנִים (עי' ספרי):
למעל מעל בה׳ [WHEN A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL DO ANY OF THE SINS AGAINST MAN,] TO ACT DECEITFULLY AGAINST THE LORD — Here, you see, Scripture writes down again the section dealing with a person who robs by violence from another, and swears falsely regarding it, — it is the same section that has already been stated in the Sedrah ויקרא (Lev 5:21), "[If a soul sin], and commits a trespass against the Lord, and deny unto his neighbour etc." The reason why it is repeated here is because of two new points which are contained in it. The one is that it (Scripture) writes here, "and if they confess" which teaches that one is not liable to payment of the fifth (in addition to the capital; cf. Leviticus 5:24), nor to bring a guilt offering (cf. Leviticus 5:25) if he is convicted by the evidence of witnesses, but only when he himself confesses the matter (his guilt). The second new point is about something stolen from a proselyte (cf. Rashi on v. 8) — that it has to be handed over to the priests (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 2).
ספורנוSforno
למעול מעל בה'. כבר באר הקבלה שזה נאמר על גזל הגר כי אמנם הגוזל אותו מחלל שם אלהיו בעיני הגר אשר בא לחסות תחת כנפיו ולכן יקרא מועל בקודש וחייב אשם כמשפט כל מועל בו:
'למעול מעל בה, our traditional sources already told us that the subject is robbery from a proselyte who dies intestate before the robber confessed and made restitution. The robber had committed an act of desecrating the name of G'd in the eyes of the proselyte who must be appalled that a natural born Jew could be guilty of such a deed. This is why the sin of the robber in this verse is described as a "transgression against something sacred."
אור החייםOr HaChaim
איש וגו' כי יעשו מכל וגו'. אמר למעול ולא אמר ומעלו מעל, יתבאר על פי דבריהם ז"ל (ספרי פסיקתא ב' ב"ק קי.) שאמרו שהכתוב מדבר במשקר בממון חברו ונשבע לו לשקר, והגם שכבר נאמר הדבר בפרשת ויקרא, חזר ונשנה לפרטי הדינים שנתחדשו בו, כפי זה יעיר הכתוב כי משעת מעשה החטא שהוא הגזל וכפירת ממון יחשוב הוא למעול מעל בה' לישבע בשמו כשיתבעוהו לדין, שאם לא כן הרי הוא בהשבון, והוא אומרו כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם שהוא גזילת ממון חברו משעת מעשה הנה הוא מסכים למעול מעל בה': ואשמה הנפש ההוא. לצד שהוא חטא בשבועה בה' יפעיל הגרעון בנפש, ושינה ה' לומר לשון יחיד וכל מה שלפניו ומה שלאחריו לשון רבים, מלפניו אמר כי יעשו וגו', מלאחריו והתודו, ותמצא שאמרו בגמרא כי כשירגישך הכתוב בכגון זה הוא הרגש גדול, ועיין מה שכתבנו מזה בפרשת ויקרא (ז' כ"א). גם דקדק לומר תיבת ההוא ללא צורך, יעורר הכתוב שהפגם הלז יעשה רושם למקור נפשות עם בני ישראל שתקרא נפש, וכדי שלא תבין שעל המועל הוא מדבר לזה אמר ההוא ולא אמר ואשמה נפשו, ועיין מה שכתוב בזוהר (אחרי ס"ז.) בפירוש פסוק נפשי אויתיך בלילה בדיוק נכון:
איש ..כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, "anyone committing any of the sins people are liable to commit, etc." The Torah uses the expression למעול instead of the customary ומעלו מעל, "and have committed a trespass;" this is explained in Baba Kama 110 where the sages say that the verse speaks about a case of someone who perjured himself after having denied being in possession of money belonging to his neighbour. Although the Torah had already dealt with such a situation in Parshat Vayikra it repeats it here as there are numerous details of this legislation which had not yet been revealed. Amongst other details, our verse informs us that the person in question is deemed to have committed his sin at the time when he first denied being in possession of that money, not at the time when he denied it on oath. The very denial is considered sinful as it leads to the person having to swear an oath if his accuser takes him to court. If the accused is not taken to court he is able to make amends for his denial at any time. The verse says: כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם to inform us that the moment one does so one is considered as about to also trespass against G'd, i.e. to render a false oath. ואשמה הנפש ההיא, and that soul will be considered guilty. Inasmuch as that person is guilty of perjury he has caused damage to his very soul. The Torah suddenly switched to the use of the singular although previously it had spoken about people (pl) committing sins. Afterwards, when the Torah discusses the sinner confessing his sin it again uses the plural, i.e. והתודו. You will note that the Torah did not write that the soul of the sinner i.e. נפשו is guilty, but it writes הנפש ההיא. This is a reference to the collective soul of the Jewish people which has become tarnished through one of its members committing perjury. You may do well to read what we have written in our commentary on Leviticus 7,20-21 about similar constructions. Inasmuch as the word ההיא is superfluous this is a hint that the Torah speaks about a soul other than merely that of the sinner in question. It is worth reading what the Zohar on Parshat Acharey Mot 67 has to say about Isaiah 26,9.
פסוק ה:ז · 5:7
Hebrew:
וְהִתְוַדּ֗וּ אֶֽת־חַטָּאתָם֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשׂוּ֒ וְהֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ֙ בְּרֹאשׁ֔וֹ וַחֲמִישִׁת֖וֹ יֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֑יו וְנָתַ֕ן לַאֲשֶׁ֖ר אָשַׁ֥ם לֽוֹ׃
English:
they shall confess the wrong that they have done. They shall make restitution in the principal amount and add one-fifth to it, giving it to the one who was wronged.
Restitution has three components: the wrongdoer must confess the sin, restore the principal (be-rosho — the original keren about which he swore falsely), and add a fifth (chomesh) — all given to the victim he wronged. Rashi clarifies that 'be-rosho' means the principal sum that was the subject of the false oath, and 'la-asher asham lo' designates the person to whom the money is owed. Ibn Ezra adds that the chomesh applies when the wrongdoer confesses on his own; if witnesses convict him, the Talmudic tradition obligates additional fifths (chomesh of chomesh, per Bava Kamma 108a).
רש״יRashi
את אשמו בראשו. הוּא הַקֶּרֶן שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּע עָלָיו (ב"ק ק"י): לאשר אשם לו. לְמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב לוֹ (כתובות י"ט):
את אשמו בראשו [HE SHALL RESTORE] THAT WHEREIN HE IS GUILTY, AS BEING THE CHIEF SUM — This means, he shall restore the principal about which he has sworn falsely (Bava Kamma 110a). לאשר אשם לו [AND HE SHALL RESTORE THE PRINCIPAL … AND GIVE UNTO HIM] TO WHOM HE IS GUILTY — i.e. unto him to whom he (the claimant) owes money (Ketubot 19a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
והתודו. איזה מהם שיהיה איש או אשה: בראשו. כאשר הוא. לא פחות ממנו: וחמישתו יוסף עליו. אם הוא מתודה מעצמו ואם יש עדים עליו יוסף שני חמישיות ומעתיקי הדת אמרו חומש החומש ודעתם רחבה מדעתנו:
THEN THEY SHALL CONFESS. Whichever one it be, a man or a woman. IN FULL. Be-rosho (in full) means as it is, not less than it is.24Be-rosho literally means at its head, or at first. Hence I.E.'s comment. AND ADD UNTO IT THE FIFTH PART. If he confesses on his own. However, if there are witnesses then he shall add two fifths. Those who transmitted the law25The Talmudic sages. say a fifth of a fifth.26See Baba Kamma 108a. See Rashi on Lev. 5:24, "If he denies the fifth (i.e., he asserts that he has repaid both capital and fifth, but has not really paid the latter, for which a claim is now made against him) and takes an oath that he has paid it but afterwards admits the claim, then he must now bring (pay) a fifth in addition to this fifth (a fifth of the original fifth which now become the keren (capital) in addition to it)." (Rosenbaum and Silbermann translation). Their minds are greater than ours.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
והשיב את אשמו. שינה לדבר לשון יחיד הגם שהתחיל לדבר לשון רבים והתודו, לצד שהוידוי שוים הם בו, מה שאין כן האשם אינו בהשואה, לצד שהוא בעולה ויורד כאמור בפרשת ויקרא, וגמר הכתוב לדבר בשיעור זה לשון יחיד, כי אין צורך לשנות לכתוב בענין אחר:
והשיב את אשמו, and he shall make restitution for his guilt, etc. The Torah again switched to use of the singular although the verse had commenced by speaking about sinners in the plural confessing their guilt. The reason is that when it comes to having to confess one's guilt all sinners are in a similar situation. When it comes to making restitution, however, this is not so as the Torah makes allowances for poor people whose sin-offering consists of lower priced birds or even a meal-offering only. We have learned this in Leviticus 5,7-5,13.
פסוק ה:ח · 5:8
Hebrew:
וְאִם־אֵ֨ין לָאִ֜ישׁ גֹּאֵ֗ל לְהָשִׁ֤יב הָאָשָׁם֙ אֵלָ֔יו הָאָשָׁ֛ם הַמּוּשָׁ֥ב לַיהֹוָ֖ה לַכֹּהֵ֑ן מִלְּבַ֗ד אֵ֚יל הַכִּפֻּרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְכַפֶּר־בּ֖וֹ עָלָֽיו׃
English:
If that party [is deceased and] has no kin*kin Lit. “redeemer.” to whom restitution can be made, the amount repaid shall go to יהוה for the priest—in addition to the ram of expiation with which expiation is made on their behalf.*in addition to … on their behalf Cf. Lev. 5.15 f.
If the victim has died with no go'el (kinsman-redeemer) to receive the restitution, the principal-plus-chomesh goes to the kohen — in addition to the ram of expiation (eil ha-kippurim, the asham offering). Rashi (citing Bava Kamma 109a) explains that the only Jew without any kinsman is a ger (convert) who died with no heirs, since a native Israelite traces ancestry back to Yaakov and always has some relative; thus this is the classic case of gezel ha-ger. Sforno adds the underlying logic: when the original owner is gone, restitution is made to his 'master' — and the ultimate master of all property is Hashem, who delegates the kohen to receive it on His behalf.
רש״יRashi
ואם אין לאיש גאל. שֶׁמֵּת הַתּוֹבֵעַ שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁים: להשיב האשם אליו. כְּשֶׁנִּמְלַךְ זֶה לְהִתְוַדּוֹת עַל עֲוֹנוֹ; וְאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ וְכִי יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גּוֹאֲלִים, אוֹ בֵן, אוֹ אָח, אוֹ שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר הַקָּרוֹב מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת אָבִיו לְמַעְלָה עַד יַעֲקֹב? אֶלָּא זֶה הַגֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁים (סנהדרין ס"ח): האשם המושב. זֶה הַקֶּרֶן וְהַחֹמֶשׁ (בבא קמא ק"י): לה' לכהן. קְנָאוֹ הַשֵּׁם וּנְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר (ספרי): מלבד איל הכפרים. הָאָמוּר בְּוַיִּקְרָא שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא:
ואם אין לאיש גאל BUT IF THE MAN HAS NO KINSMAN — This means that the claimant who put him to the oath, died and has left no heirs, להשיב האשם אליו TO WHOM THAT WHEREIN HE IS GUILTY COULD BE RESTORED, when he decided at a later period to confess his sin. — Our Rabbis asked (Sifrei Bamidbar 4:1; Bava Kamma 109a): But can you find anyone in Israel who has no kinsman whatsoever, neither a son nor a brother nor other relative near akin to him from his father's family, going back as far as Jacob? But this person referred to is a proselyte who died and has no heirs (his heathen relatives not being entitled to succeed to his property) (Sifrei Bamidbar 4:1; Bava Kamma 109a). האשם המושב THAT WHEREIN HE IS GUILTY AND WHICH HATH TO BE RESTORED — i.e. the principal (האשם) and the fifth thereof (המושב) (cf. Bava Kamma 110a), לה' לכהן BELONGS TO THE LORD, FOR THE PRIEST — This means the Lord becomes its owner and gives it to the priest of that Mishmar (shift) (Bava Kamma 109b). מלבד איל הכפרים BESIDES THE RAM OF EXPIATION which is mentioned in the Sedrah ויקרא (Leviticus 5:25), as being incumbent upon him to offer.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
המושב לה'. בעבור יראת השם השיבו:
THE RESTITUTION…SHALL BE THE LORDS. For he made restitution because of his fear of the Lord.27He confessed because of his fear of the Lord.
ספורנוSforno
המושב לה'. כי כשאין הבעלים קיימים ראוי להשיב הגזל לבעלי בעליו והוא האל יתברך כענין שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל (מציעא פרק המפקיד) מת העבד יחזיר לרבו:
'המושב לה, when the original owner of the stolen property no longer exists, it is proper to make restitution to the "boss" of the person from whom it has been taken, his "boss" being none other than G'd. [The author considers any property owned by any one on earth as only "on loan" from the real owner, from G'd. Ed.] Our sages phrase this as "when the servant dies he has to return it to the master." (Baba Batra 51)
פסוק ה:ט · 5:9
Hebrew:
וְכׇל־תְּרוּמָ֞ה לְכׇל־קׇדְשֵׁ֧י בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יַקְרִ֥יבוּ לַכֹּהֵ֖ן ל֥וֹ יִהְיֶֽה׃
English:
So, too, any gift among the sacred donations that the Israelites offer shall be the priest’s.
The Torah pivots to a broader principle: every terumah (priestly gift) from the holy donations of Israel that is brought to the kohen belongs to him. Rashi (citing R. Yishmael in Sifrei) asks why the verse describes terumah as being 'brought to the kohen' when in practice the kohen has to make the rounds of the granaries to collect it; the answer is that 'asher yakrivu la-kohen' is teaching specifically about bikkurim (first-fruits) — they too are given to the kohen. Sforno develops this: just as gezel ha-ger 'returned to Hashem' winds up in the kohen's hand, so too bikkurim — offered to Hashem — are assigned by Him to the kohen of the serving mishmar.
רש״יRashi
וכל תרומה וגו'. אָמַר רַ' יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְכִי תְרוּמָה מַקְרִיבִין לַכֹּהֵן? וַהֲלֹא הוּא הַמְחַזֵּר אַחֲרֶיהָ לְבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת, וּמַה תַּ"ל אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַכֹּהֵן? אֵלּוּ הַבִּכּוּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶם (שמות כ"ג), "תָּבִיא בֵּית ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ", וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה יֵּעָשֶׂה בָהֶם, תַּ"ל "לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה", בָּא הַכָּתוּב וְלִמֵּד עַל הַבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִתָּנִין לַכֹּהֵן (ספרי):
וכל תרומה וגו׳ AND EVERY HEAVE OFFERING … WHICH THEY BRING UNTO THE PRIEST] — R. Ishmael asked, "Do they then have to bring the heave-offering to the priest; does he not have to go around the granaries begging for it? What, then, is the meaning of 'which they bring unto the priest'? It refers to the first fruits of which it is said, (Exodus 23:19) '[The first of the first fruits of thy ground] thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord they God', but I do not know what is to be done with them, (i.e., this is nowhere stated). Scripture therefore states here, '[and every heave-offering, …which they bring] unto the priest, shall be his' — Scripture comes and teaches you with respect to the first fruits that they must be given to the priest" (Sifrei Bamidbar 5).
ספורנוSforno
וכל תרומה. כבר באה הקבלה שהתרומה האמורה בזה המקום היא הבכורים הנקרבים לאל יתברך כמו שמנהג להקריב בכורים לבעל הקרקע כאמרו הגדתי היום לה' אלהיך כי באתי אל הארץ אשר נשבע ה' ואמר כאן שכמו שגזל הגר המושב לה' הוא נותנו לכהן של משמר כמו כן הבכורים הנקרבים לאל יתברך הוא נותנם לכהן של משמר:
וכל תרומה, according to Sifrey 5 the t'rumah of which the Torah speaks here are the first fruit which have to be offered to G'd, as it is customary for the owner of fields or orchards to present these first fruit of each year's produce (seven species) and to recite the appropriate benediction when presenting same in the Temple. (compare Deuteronomy 26,3). Here the Torah tells us that just as property stolen from a proselyte who died intestate, which was described as "being returned to G'd," winds up in the hands of the priest, i.e. G'd's agent, so the bikkurim, the farmer's gift to G'd has also been assigned by G'd to the priest of the respective roster on His behalf.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
וכל תרומה וגו' לו יהיה וגו'. צריך לדעת למה כפל הכתוב ענין אחד ג' פעמים וכל תרומה וגו' לו יהיה, ואיש את קדשיו וגו', איש אשר יתן וגו'. עוד למה כפל לומר ג' פעמים לו יהיה, ורז"ל בספרי פירשו לו יהיה בא לתת הבכורים שנקראו ראשית כתרומה המובאים בית ה' שיהיו לו לכהן נתונים. לו יהיו שאמר בפסוק ב' לומר שאם הכהן הקריב קדשיו אפילו במשמרה שאינה שלו הרי הם שלו, ואומרו ואשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה אם נתן לו פדיון בכור בנו ומת אחר ל' יום לכהן לו יהיה ולא יחזירם, והרבה דרשות כיוצא בזה, אבל צריכין אנו ליישב המקרא על פי פשוטו. ונראה לפדש ג' כתובים הבאים כאחד שהם מלמדים כללות כ"ד מתנות אשר חלק ה' לכהנים, וכתבם רמב"ם בפרק א' מהלכות בכורים וזה לשונו כ"ד מתנות שנתן לכהנים נחלקים לה' חלקים, שהם ג'. הא' הם קדשים שזוכים מן המקדש ואלו הם. בשר חטאת. בשר אשם. שלמי ציבור. מותר העומר. שירי מנחות. שתי הלחם. לחם הפנים. שמן מצורע. עורות קדשים. חזה ושוק של שלמים. המורם מן התודה. המורם מאיל נזיר. בכור בהמה טהורה. והבכורים. הרי אלו י"ד מתנות שכולן צריכין הבעלים להביאם וליתנם לכהן וכולן קדש. חלוקה ב' הם התרומה. ותרומת מעשר. והחלה. והג' הם המתנות. וראשית הגז. שדה אחוזה. פדיון הבן. פדיון פטר חמור. גזל הגר. והחרמים. שהם חולין ועל הכהן לחזר אחריהם עד כאן: ואלה הם דברי הכתובים, כנגד חלוקה ראשונה שהם י"ד מתנות שיש בהם ב' הדרגות שהם קודש וצריכין ישראל להביאם וליתנם לכהן אמר וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל הרי הזכיר עליהם שם קודש, אשר יקריבו לה' הרי הזכיר הבאתם שהם יקריבו אותם למקום המקודש. וכנגד חלוקה ב' שהם תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה אמר ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, הזכיר לשון הקדש לומר כי מדבר במתנות המקודשים, ולא הזכיר בהם הקרבה כי הכהן יחזר אחריהם. וכנגד ז' מתנות אמר איש אשר יתן לכהן לא הזכיר שם קדושה לצד שהם חולין גמורים, ודקדק לומר אשר יתן שאין לכהן זכות בהם אלא משעת נתינה כדין המתנות עד שיגיע ליד המקבל, ועיין מה שכתבתי בהלכות. מתנות כהונה (פרי תואר סי' ס"א), ואמר לו יהיה שאין הכהן יכול למאן שלא ליקחם כאמור בדבריהם (יו"ד ש"ו ד'). ומעתה יש טעם נכון במה שחלקם הכתוב לג' הדרגות לומר על כל אחת ואחת מג' חלוקות לו יהיה, שצריך לקחת כל הבא לו מהם, ולא היה נשמע אם היה אומר על חלוקה אחת מהם לבד:
וכל תרומה…לו יהיה, "and every heave-offering…..shall be his." Why did the Torah repeat the same subject three times (verses 9 and 10)? Furthermore, why did the Torah repeat the same words, i.e. לו יהיה? Our sages in the Sifri explain that the apparently superfluous words "they shall be his" refer to the offering of the first ripe fruit which are normally called ראשית. They too are to be treated in the same way as the heave-offerings, תרומה. They become the priest's personal property. The second time the Torah repeats this expression it refers to priests who performed Temple service at a time which had not been allocated to them. If such a priest offered his own offering i.e. קדשיו, it remained his although his presence in the Temple at the time had not been authorised. The words אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה refer to a situation when a father had given to the priest money to redeem his firstborn son and that baby had died after 30 days. The Torah legislates that the priest does not need to return this redemption money to the father. There are numerous other halachic Midrashim in this vein. All of this does not suffice to explain the plain meaning of these verses. I believe that we may approach these verses in accordance with the principle that when the Torah repeats something three times it is intended to show that we may not use the information contained in those statements exegetically by applying them to other commandments. The three statements teach us rules applying to the 24 types of gifts the Torah has allocated to the priests. In the first chapter of his treatise on the laws of בכורים, first ripe fruits, Maimonides writes that the 24 gifts G'd allocated to the priests were divided into five categories, which in reality are only three basic categories. 1) the portions of the sacrifices which they receive from animals which have been offered on the altar. These included: the meat of the sin-offering; the meat of the guilt-offering; the meat of the peace-offerings paid for by the public purse; the remainder of the Omer, i.e. the barley offering on the second day of the Passover festival; most of the meal-offerings except the fistful offered on the altar; the showbreads; the two loaves offered on Shavuot from the new wheat harvest; the oil of the person undergoing purification rites after having been afflicted with Tzoraat; the skins of any animal offered on the altar; the breast and right flank of all private peace-offerings; left-overs of the thanksgiving offerings; the part of the ram of the Nazirite not presented on the altar; the firstborn male of the pure animals. The first ripe fruit (of the seven species Israel is blessed with). These are 14 gifts allocated to the priests. The common denominateor of all the above is that the owner is obligated to offer them on the altar or bring them to the priest. They are all inherently sacred. The second category are such things as the Terumah, a tithe from the grain-harvest, olive trees or vineyard's produce; the Terumat Maasser i.e. the portion of his tithes the Levite has to give to the priest; Challah, i.e. 1/48th of a dough of certain proportions which the Israelite has to give to the priest. The third category are the gifts such as the tithe of the animals when they are shorn (1 tenth); certain fields which were sold by an Israelite and not redeemed within a specified time; the redemption money paid by a father for retaining his firstborn son; redemption money for the firstborn donkey; properties set aside for use by the priest. Property of an intestate convert stolen from him which is inherited by the priests by decree of the Torah. All the latter are not inherently sacred. They are not handed to the priest but he has to claim them by himself. Let us now approach our verses. Concerning the first 14 items mentioned by Maimonides all of which are sacred by definition and which the Israelite is obligated to hand to the priests, the Torah wrote וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל. The Torah gives notice that these gifts are sacred by definition. It goes on: אשר יקריבו which they offer as a sacrifice; the Torah mentions that all these items have to be brought to a site which has been sanctified. Concerning the second category the Torah writes that איש את קדשיו לו יהיו. In this instance the Torah does refer to the sacred nature of the gifts but makes no mention of their qualifying as an offering on the altar, seeing the priest himself has to go after these gifts in order to secure his share. Concerning the final seven items the Torah writes איש אשר יתן לכהן, "that which a person has to give to the priest." Nothing is mentioned about any of these things being sacred as they are of an ordinary secular status, i.e. חולין. The word יתן, "he will give, or he may give" alerts us to the fact that a priest may not claim such gifts from the person whose duty it is to dispense them to a priest of his choosing. Once he has become the recipient of the gift, however, it is not reversible, i.e. לו יהיה, it remains his. Please read what I have written in my book Pri Toar item 61 concerning gifts to the priests. The word לו יהיה implies that a priest is cannot refuse to accept such gifts when they are offered to him (compare Yore Deyah 306,4). Having explained all this we see that the Torah had adequate reason to divide the priestly gifts into three categories so that it had to use the word לו יהיה separately for each category. Had the Torah not done so, I would not have known that the priest is obligated to accept these gifts.
פסוק ה:י · 5:10
Hebrew:
וְאִ֥ישׁ אֶת־קֳדָשָׁ֖יו ל֣וֹ יִהְי֑וּ אִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִתֵּ֥ן לַכֹּהֵ֖ן ל֥וֹ יִהְיֶֽה׃ {פ}
English:
And each shall retain his sacred donations: each priest shall keep what is given to him.
The aliyah closes with two principles: each Israelite retains 'tovat hana'ah' over his sacred gifts — he chooses which kohen receives them, since kohanim and Leviim cannot seize the gifts by force — and once a person gives a gift to a particular kohen, it becomes that kohen's exclusive property. Rashi adds an aggadic reading: whoever withholds his tithes will find his field producing only a tenth of what it once yielded ('lo yihyu ha-ma'asrot' — only the tithes will remain to him), while one who gives generously to the kohen will be rewarded with great wealth (Berakhot 63a). Ibn Ezra and Sforno emphasize the donor's right to choose his recipient.
רש״יRashi
ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ מַתְּנוֹת כְּהֻנָּה וּלְוִיָּה, יָכוֹל יָבוֹאוּ וְיִטְּלוּם בִּזְרוֹעַ, תַּ"ל "וְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ", מַגִּיד שֶׁטּוֹבַת הֲנָאָתָן לַבְּעָלִים, וְעוֹד מִדְרָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה דָרְשׁוּ בוֹ בְּסִפְרֵי; וּמִ"אַ וְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ, מִי שֶׁמְּעַכֵּב מַעַשְׂרוֹתָיו וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנָן, לוֹ יִהְיוּ הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת — סוֹף שֶׁאֵין שָׂדֵהוּ עוֹשֶׂה אֶלָּא אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה שֶׁהָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לַעֲשׂוֹת (תנחומא ראה): איש אשר יתן לכהן. מַתָּנוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לוֹ: לו יהיה. מָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה (ברכות סג.):
ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו AND EVERY MAN'S HOLY THINGS SHALL BE HIS — Because the gifts due to the priests and the Levites are merely mentioned in the Torah (Deuteronomy 18:1—8) (without any statement as to how they are to come into possession of them), therefore one might think they may come and take them by force. On this account, it states here, ''and every man's holy things shall be his" — in some respect — thus it teaches us that the טובת הנאה, the gratification of using them in this respect as he wishes, belongs to the owner. — Many other Halachic rules have they (the Rabbis) deduced about it (this statement) in Sifrei Bamidbar 6:2. — An Agadic explanation of ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו is the following: Whosoever retains the tithes and does not give them to the Levite, only the tithes will be his, i.e., his field will ultimately yield no more than a tithe of what it was accustomed to yield (so that his whole possession will not exceed the gifts he should have given to the priests and the Levites; cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Re'eh 10). איש אשר יתן לכהן, A MAN, HOWEVER, WHO GIVES TO THE PRIEST the gifts that are due to him, לו יהיה HE SHALL HAVE great riches (Berakhot 63a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו. טעמו ברשות המקדיש הם שיתנם לאיזה כהן שירצה והזכיר זה בעבור מתנות כהונה:
AND EVERY MAN'S HALLOWED THINGS SHALL BE HIS. Its meaning is that they belong to the one who hallows them. He may give them to any kohen that he wants to. This is noted because Scripture mentions the gifts given to the kohanim.28In verse 9.
ספורנוSforno
ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו. אבל שאר קדשים והם תרומות ומעשרות אף על פי שהם מוקדשים לה' אינם לשום כהן מיוחד אלא לאותו כהן שיתנום אליו הבעלים: איש אשר יתן לכהן. אבל כשהאחד מהבעלים יתן לכהן איזה קדש לא יהיה עוד בכלל קדשיו אבל לו יהיה לכהן המקבל ולא יוכלו הבעלים ולא שאר הכהנים להפקיעו ממנו:
ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, however other kinds of "holy" gifts, namely ordinary tithes and trumot, may be given by the owner to whichever Levite or priest he chooses, not necessarily the priest officiating in the Temple at the time the gift is presented. איש אשר יתן לכהן, once the owner has given "his" holy portion to the priest it becomes secular, mundane, not encumbered with any restrictions. Rather, לו יהיה, it is exclusively "his," neither the previous owners nor other priests can legally deprive him of it.
Navigation
Last updated on