1,517 texts · Page 27 of 32
The Mekhilta records the same logical challenge yet again, applying it to a slightly different aspect of the tam-mued comparison. The mued's owner pays kofer — ransom money. This i...
R. Shimon b. Yochai said: Why was this (gezeirah shavah ) stated? Even without it, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If in a "place"—killing others—where minors are not equated with adu...
(Exodus 21:28) states: "The ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten." The Mekhilta asks: why is the prohibition against eating the flesh necessary? If the ox has been s...
This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive that it is even forbidden to derive benefit from it?—Do you ask? If follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit ...
The Mekhilta presents a logical reversal. It initially attempted to compare a stoned ox to an eglah arufah — the heifer whose neck is broken in the ceremony for an unsolved murder ...
Rebbi says: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which do not come to atone for the world (viz. (Leviticus 26:2)7), how much more so...
One of Rabbi Yishmael's disciples raised a distinction between different categories of oxen. An ox that has become ritually impure (tamei) is still permitted for deriving benefit —...
"and the owner of the ox is absolved": R. Yehudah says: He is absolved by Heaven. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a mued is stoned and a tam is stoned, then if we have...
Shimon ben Azzai interpreted the phrase "and the owner of the ox is absolved" (Exodus 21:28) as absolution from paying half-kofer — half of the ransom payment owed when an ox kills...
Rabban Gamliel offered a different interpretation of "the owner of the ox is absolved." He argued the tam's owner is absolved from paying the monetary value of a bondservant who is...
Rabbi Akiva offered his own reading of "the owner of the ox is absolved." He argued that the tam's owner is absolved from paying for the value of fetuses. His reasoning: both a man...
(Exodus 21:29) introduces the mued — the habitual goring ox: "And if it were a goring ox." The Mekhilta explains that this verse exists to draw clear distinctions between the tam (...
Rabbi Meir tackled one of the trickiest problems in the Torah's laws of damages: how do you classify a dangerous ox? The Torah distinguishes between a tam — an ox with no history o...
"and the owner were warned": We are hereby apprised that he is not liable unless he was warned. "and he did not guard it": to bring (even) a non-paid watcher. Variantly: "and he di...
"And it killed a man or a woman" — this phrase appears in the mued section, but the Mekhilta says it is "extra." Its legal content is already known from other verses. So why is it ...
Rabbi Akiva found a striking legal principle hidden inside a single verse about a goring ox. The Torah states that when an ox kills a person after its owner was warned, "the ox sha...
"And its owner, too, shall die" — the Torah pronounces a death sentence on the owner of a mued ox that kills a person. But the Mekhilta specifies: this death is "at the hands of He...
Rabbi Akiva specified that when the Torah requires the mued's owner to pay kofer — ransom — the amount is calculated based on the value of the ox owner, not the value of the victim...
R. Yishmael says: Come and see the mercies of the One who spoke and brought the world into being, for flesh and blood. For a man acquires himself with money from the hands of Heave...
The Mekhilta explores a fascinating taxonomy of what can and cannot be redeemed in Jewish law. Certain consecrated objects can be redeemed — returned to ordinary status through a m...
Beloved is Israel — so beloved that God gave entire nations as kofer, as ransom, for the souls of His people. The proof is (Isaiah 43:3): "I gave Egypt as kofer for you, Ethiopia a...
(Exodus 21:31) "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter": Why is this stated? (Ibid. 29) "and it kill a man or a woman" tells me only of adults. Whence do I derive (the same for...
(Exodus 21:32) addresses the case of an ox that gores a bondservant: "If the ox gore a man-servant or a maid-servant." The Mekhilta explains that bondservants were already included...
The Torah says the ox gored "a man-servant or a maid-servant." The Mekhilta asks: which kind of servant? This must refer to a Canaanite bondservant, not an Israelite one. The proof...
"and the ox shall be stoned": Why is this stated? (i.e., it was stated already.) For if it were not stated, I would say (otherwise), viz.: Since he is put to death for killing his ...
(Exodus 21:33) "And if a man open a pit": Why is this stated? It can be derived by reason, viz.: Since the ox is his possession and the pit is his possession, then if you have lear...
"And if a man open a pit" — the Torah addresses the liability of someone who uncovers or creates an open pit in a public area. But the Mekhilta notices that the verse mentions only...
The Torah discusses two ways a dangerous pit might come into existence: someone might open an existing pit that was previously covered, or someone might dig a brand-new one. In (Ex...
R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Opening (a pit) is not like digging, or digging, like opening. What is common to them is that wherever one is liable for guarding it, he is liable for ...
"And he not cover it" — the Torah addresses liability for an uncovered pit. The Mekhilta adds a crucial qualifier: "and he not cover it properly." This distinction between proper a...
"and there fall there an ox or an ass": He is liable for each in itself. "an ox": and not an ox and its trappings. "an ass": and not an ass and its trapping. For it would follow (o...
"And there fall there" — the Torah describes an animal falling into an uncovered pit. The Mekhilta specifies: this must happen "in the normal mode of falling." The animal must fall...
"Money shall he restore to its owner" — when someone's animal falls into another person's uncovered pit and dies, the pit-digger must pay compensation. The Torah specifies "money."...
"and the carcass shall belong to him": to him who sustained the loss. You say this, but perhaps it belongs to him who caused the loss? (This cannot be, for) if so, why need it be m...
(21:35) "And if the ox of a man butt": Included in "goring" is butting, pushing, lying upon, kicking, and biting. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name ...
(Exodus 21:35) says: "And if the ox of a man strike" — the Mekhilta immediately draws a legal boundary. The phrase "of a man" excludes the ox of a minor. A child who owns an ox tha...
"Then they shall sell the living ox" — when one person's ox kills another person's ox, the Torah prescribes a specific remedy. But the Mekhilta specifies: this verse assumes the tw...
Rebbi — the title given to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, the compiler of the Mishnah (the earliest code of rabbinic law) — examines a case in the Torah's laws of damages involving two oxen...
"And also the carcass shall they halve" — the Mekhilta derives practical rulings about how damages are calculated when one ox kills another. The rule depends on the relative values...
An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing—R. Meir said: Of this it is written "then they shall sell the living ox, etc." R. Yehu...
"Pay shall he pay an ox for an ox" — the Torah prescribes the remedy when a mued (habitual goring ox) kills another person's ox. The payment is a beast for a beast. But the Mekhilt...
(Exodus 21:37) introduces the severe penalty for livestock theft: "If a man steal an ox or a lamb and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for ...
Variantly: Slaughtering is being likened to selling, and selling, to slaughtering. Just as selling is outside his (the owner's) domain, so, slaughtering (to make him liable for "fo...
The Mekhilta addresses whether the four-and-five payment applies to consecrated animals — those dedicated to the Temple. If someone steals a consecrated animal and slaughters it ou...
Rabbi Meir draws a remarkable theological lesson from one of the most unlikely sources: the Torah's laws of livestock theft. His observation reveals how deeply God values honest la...
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai asked a beautiful question: why does the Torah require a five-fold payment for stealing an ox but only a four-fold payment for stealing a lamb? His answer...
R. Akiva says: "tachath ('in place of') the ox; "tachath the sheep"—to exclude (from "four and five" payment an animal [as opposed to a beast]). For it would follow (otherwise), vi...
The Mekhilta raises an objection to the theory that the four-and-five payment applies only to animals that are sacrificed on the altar. If that were the rule, then a blemished anim...
