Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Ben Yochai Reader

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth" (Exodus 20:11): were they created in six days? Is it not already said, "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made" (Psalms 33:6)? If so, why does it say "for in six days the LORD made the heavens"? Rather, to exact punishment from the wicked who destroy a world created in six days, and to grant good reward to the righteous who sustain a world created in six days. Another interpretation: "for in six days the LORD made" — for three reasons the Sabbath was given to Israel: on account of the exodus from Egypt, as it is written, "and you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt" (Deuteronomy 5:15); and on account of "for in six days the LORD made"; and on account of "and He rested on the seventh day." "The sea and all that is in them": the sea was included in the work of creation, yet Scripture tells that there is praise in the sea equal to all the works of creation. Similarly you say, "this Leviathan You formed to play with" (Psalms 104:26) — was Leviathan not included in the works of the sea? Rather, Scripture tells that there is praise in Leviathan equal to all the works of the sea. "And He rested on the seventh day": this teaches that rest was not created until the seventh day. Another interpretation: "and He rested on the seventh day" — is there toil and weariness before Him? Is it not already said, "He does not faint nor grow weary" (Isaiah 40:28)? If so, why does it say "and He rested"? Rather, to exact punishment from the wicked who destroy a world created with toil and weariness. Another interpretation: "and He rested" — is this not a matter of lighter-to-heavier reasoning? If He who spoke and the world came to be, before whom there is no toil and weariness, wrote of Himself "and He rested," then a human being, of whom it is written, "man is born to toil" (Job 5:7), how much more is he obligated to rest on the seventh. "Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy": with what did He bless it and make it holy? He blessed it with the manna and made it holy with the manna. He blessed it with the manna: on every day it says, "an omer per head" (Exodus 16:16), but on the Sabbath it says, "two omers for each" (Exodus 16:22); on every day it says, "it bred worms and stank" (Exodus 16:20), but on the Sabbath it says, "it did not stink, nor was there any worm in it" (Exodus 16:24). Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah, a man of the village of Akkos, says: He blessed it with luminaries and made it holy with luminaries. He blessed it with the light of a person's face and made it holy with the light of a person's face; and even though the luminaries were impaired from the eve of the Sabbath, they were not struck until the conclusion of the Sabbath. And even though the light of a person's face was impaired from the eve of the Sabbath, it was not struck until the conclusion of the Sabbath, as it says, "the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of the seven days" (Isaiah 30:26). Rabbi Yose said to him: why do I need this? Is it not already said, "man in his splendor does not abide" (Psalms 49:13) — his glory did not abide with him, but his glory was nullified and he became like the beasts that perish? He said to him: no; the decree was passed on the eve of the Sabbath, yet it did not take hold until the decree was passed upon him, and he was not struck until the conclusion of the Sabbath.

"You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). From the verse "the murderer shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35:16) we learned the penalty. From where do we learn the prohibition? Scripture teaches: "You shall not murder." From where do we know that if a man says, "Behold, I am committing murder even on condition of being put to death," he has thereby been forewarned? Scripture teaches: "You shall not murder." From where do we know that one being led out to be executed who says, "Behold, I am committing murder," has thereby been forewarned? Scripture teaches: "You shall not murder." Another interpretation: "You shall not murder" [is also read] do not permit the blood of a murderer [to go unpunished]. "You shall not murder" [is also read] do not act so that the blood cries out against you. Grievous is the shedding of blood, for it has no atonement except by the death of the murderer, as it is said, "and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that was shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it" (Numbers 35:33). And so you find when Saul killed Nob, the city of priests, and destroyed the Gibeonites who were there. What does it say? "And there was a famine in the days of David for three years" (2 Samuel 21:1), and David inquired of the LORD. And why did he not inquire until after three years? Because in the first year he said to them: Go out and see, perhaps there is among you a worshiper of idols, for the rains are withheld on account of idolatry, as it is said, "Take heed lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods... and the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He shut up the heavens, and there be no rain" (Deuteronomy 11:16-17). They went out and examined and found none. In the second year he said to them: Go out and see, perhaps there are among you those who commit incest, for the rains are withheld on account of forbidden unions, as it is said, "the showers have been withheld and there has been no latter rain; yet you had a harlot's brow" (Jeremiah 3:3). They went out and examined and found none. In the third year he said to them: Go out and see, perhaps there is among you one who pledges charity publicly and does not pay it, for the rains are withheld on account of one who pledges charity and does not pay, as it is said, "clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift falsely given" (Proverbs 25:14). They went out and examined and found none. From this point on it must be bloodshed alone. Immediately he inquired by the Urim and Thummim, "And the LORD said: It is for Saul and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites" (2 Samuel 21:1). If this is so for killing a sojourner, how much more for one of Israel. "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13). From the verse "the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10) we learned the penalty. From where the prohibition? Scripture teaches: "You shall not commit adultery." From where do we know that if one says, "Behold, I am committing adultery even on condition of being put to death," he has been forewarned? Scripture teaches: "You shall not commit adultery." From where do we know that one who eats from his own bowl while imagining he is eating from his fellow's bowl, and drinks from his own cup while imagining he is drinking from his fellow's cup, has been forewarned? Scripture teaches: "You shall not commit adultery." Another interpretation: "You shall not commit adultery" [read also] you shall not make yourself foul through anger; from here [they said] it is forbidden to smell the perfume that is upon one of the forbidden women. Another interpretation: "You shall not commit adultery" [read also] do not bring anger into the world. Another interpretation: "You shall not commit adultery" [is fourfold], that one shall not commit adultery neither with the hand, nor with the foot, nor with the eye, nor with the heart. And from where that the hand commits adultery? As it is written, "your hands are full of blood" (Isaiah 1:15). And from where that the feet commit adultery? As it is written, "and he who hastens with his feet sins" (Proverbs 19:2). And from where that the eyes and the heart commit adultery? As it is written, "and you shall not go about after your own heart and after your own eyes, after which you go astray" (Numbers 15:39). Grievous is unchastity, for the twenty-four ornaments [of the daughters of Zion] were taken away only on account of it, as it is written, "And the LORD said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes" (Isaiah 3:16). "With outstretched necks" means they would walk, a short one among tall ones and a tall one between two short ones [to show themselves off]. "And wanton eyes" means they would paint their eyes with red dye. "Walking and mincing as they go" means with their hands [gesturing]. "And making a tinkling with their feet" means they would place bladders full of balsam under their heels so that their scent would waft. What does it say there? "On that day the LORD will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; the pendants, the bracelets, and the veils; the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; the rings and the nose rings" (Isaiah 3:18-21), which are thirteen ornaments of gold and silver; "the festive robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; the gauze garments, the linen vests, the turbans, and the shawls. And it shall come to pass that instead of perfume there shall be rottenness, and instead of a girdle, a rope; and instead of well-set hair, baldness; and instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth; branding instead of beauty" (Isaiah 3:22-24), which are eleven ornaments of clothing. Grievous is unchastity, for the Holy One, blessed be He, was long-suffering with the false prophets concerning everything except this. And who were these? Ahab son of Kolaiah and Zedekiah son of Maaseiah, as it is said, "because they have committed villainy in Israel and have committed adultery with their neighbors' wives" (Jeremiah 29:23). What would they do? Ahab would say to a woman, "Listen to Zedekiah and you will bear a prophet," and Zedekiah would say to her, "Thus says the LORD: Listen to Ahab and you will bear a prophet." "When he is in the fullness of his sufficiency, distress shall come upon him" (Job 20:22): when their hour arrived, they did likewise with the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. When he perceived them, he said, "The God of these men hates lewdness." Immediately he recognized that they were false prophets. He sent and brought them. They said to him, "Our words are true and we are true prophets." He said to them, "I have a way to test true prophets, for I cast some of them into the fire and they were saved, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. I too will test you." They said, "They were three and we are two." He said to them, "Choose for yourselves whomever you wish." They said, "Joshua son of Jehozadak the priest." He made for them a great frying pan and placed them within it and lit a fire beneath them, and they were burned, as it is said, "and from them shall be taken up a curse for all the exiles of Judah who are in Babylon, saying: May the LORD make you like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire" (Jeremiah 29:22). But Joshua was saved, as it is written, "is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" (Zechariah 3:2). Grievous is unchastity, for it is one of three things concerning which Scripture explicitly speaks of Gehinnom: one who comes upon another man's wife, the master of slander, and the wicked kingdom. "One who comes upon another man's wife," as it is said, "can a man take fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned? So is he who goes in to his neighbor's wife; none who touches her shall go unpunished" (Proverbs 6:27, 29). "The master of slander," as it is written, "what shall be given to you and what more shall be done to you, you deceitful tongue? Sharp arrows of the warrior, with coals of broom" (Psalms 120:3-4). "The wicked kingdom," as it is written, "you are wearied with your many counsels; let them stand now and save you, the astrologers of the heavens; behold, they are as stubble, the fire has consumed them" (Isaiah 47:13-14). "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:13). From the verse "and he who steals a man and sells him, and he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:16) we have heard the penalty. From where the prohibition? Scripture teaches: "You shall not steal"; this is the prohibition against kidnapping a person. Whether one kidnaps a man or a woman, an adult or a minor, even a one-day-old child, he is liable. And concerning property it says, "you shall not steal" (Leviticus 19:11); this is the prohibition against stealing property. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:13). "False" means only that which is fabricated. How so? If one deposited gold with him, he must not say to him "a pearl"; if a pearl, he must not say to him "gold." From the verse "and you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother" (Deuteronomy 19:19) [we learn the penalty]: if money, money; if blows, blows; if penalties, penalties. We have heard the penalty. From where the prohibition? Scripture teaches: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

"You shall not covet" (Exodus 20:14), and further on it says "you shall not desire" (Deuteronomy 5:18), to make one liable for desire on its own and for coveting on its own. From where do we know that a man who desires will in the end covet? As it is said, "you shall not desire" and "you shall not covet." From where that a man who covets will in the end rob? As it is said, "and they covet fields and seize them" (Micah 2:2). Desire is in the heart, and so it says, "when your soul desires" (Deuteronomy 12:20); and coveting is in deed, and so it says, "you shall not covet the silver and gold that is on them and take it for yourself" (Deuteronomy 7:25). One might think a man may not even desire his own daughter so as to take her [in marriage]; Scripture teaches "your neighbor's wife": just as your neighbor's wife is forbidden to you, so too any matter that is forbidden to you. If so, just as your neighbor's wife is something for which one is liable to death at the hands of the court, perhaps I have only that for which one is liable to court-imposed death; Scripture teaches "his house and his field" (Deuteronomy 5:18). Or just as these are distinguished in that they are acquired by money, by deed, and by possession, perhaps I have only what is acquired by money, deed, and possession; Scripture teaches "his manservant and his maidservant." Or just as these are distinguished as things attached to the land, perhaps I have only what is attached to the land; Scripture teaches "his ox and his donkey." Or just as these are distinguished in that their safekeeping is upon you, perhaps I have only what its safekeeping is upon you. From where that he may not covet his staff, nor his shoe, nor his money-belt? Scripture teaches "and all that belongs to your neighbor." One might think a man may not say, "Would that my eye were like his eye, would that my hair were like his hair"; Scripture teaches "his ox and his donkey, his manservant and his maidservant, his house and his field": just as these are distinguished as things that could come under your hand while your fellow is left lacking, so too I have only what could come under your hand while your fellow is left lacking. Another interpretation: "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, and all that belongs to your neighbor." Is there a man who covets all these things at once? Rather, because he comes upon his fellow's wife and she bears a male child, the husband supposes the child is his, and it turns out that the man bequeaths to that child his house, his field, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, and all that belongs to your neighbor. These are the Ten Commandments: "I am," "You shall have no," "You shall not take," "Remember," "Honor," "You shall not murder," "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet"; five on this tablet and five on that tablet, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel. And the Sages say: ten on this tablet and ten on that tablet [each tablet bearing all ten], five corresponding to five. "You shall not murder" corresponds to "I am," teaching that whoever sheds blood, it is as if he diminishes the divine likeness. "You shall not commit adultery" corresponds to "You shall have no [other gods]," teaching that idolatry is weighed equal to adultery, and so it says, "and through the lightness of her harlotry she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and with wood" (Jeremiah 3:9). "You shall not steal" corresponds to "You shall not take [the name in vain]," for whoever steals will in the end swear falsely. "You shall not bear false witness" corresponds to "Remember," for so to speak the Holy One, blessed be He, said: if you bear false witness against your fellow, I reckon it to you as though you testified that I did not create My world in six days and did not rest on the seventh. "You shall not covet" corresponds to "Honor," for whoever covets his fellow's wife will in the end have a son by her who honors one who is not his father and curses his own mother. One might think a man is not liable until he transgresses all of them; Scripture teaches "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not covet," to make one liable for each and every one on its own. If so, why is it said further on, "You shall not murder, and you shall not commit adultery, and you shall not steal, and you shall not bear false witness, and you shall not covet" (Deuteronomy 5:17)? This tells you that they are all bound up with one another: when a man breaks through one of them, he will in the end break through all of them. From where that a man who murders will in the end commit adultery? As it is written, "my son, if sinners entice you, do not consent. If they say, Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood, let us lurk for the innocent without cause... cast in your lot among us, let us all have one purse" (Proverbs 1:10-14). And from where that an adulterer will in the end steal? As it is written, "when you saw a thief, you joined with him, and your portion was with adulterers" (Psalms 50:18). From where that a thief will in the end come to false swearing? As it is written, "he who shares with a thief hates his own soul; he hears the adjuration but discloses nothing" (Proverbs 29:24).

"And all the people saw" (Exodus 20:15) teaches that there were no blind among them. From the verse "you have been shown, that you might know" (Deuteronomy 4:35) it teaches that there were no fools among them. From the verse "and all the people answered together" (Exodus 19:8) it teaches that there were no mute among them. From the verse "out of heaven He made you hear His voice" (Deuteronomy 4:36) it teaches that there were no deaf among them. From the verse "you are standing" (Deuteronomy 29:9) it teaches that there were no lame among them. And from where that not one of them had a headache or a toothache? Scripture teaches, "and there was none stumbling among His tribes" (Psalms 105:37). "The thunderings" (Exodus 20:15). As is the way of the world, it is impossible to see sound; but here they saw the sounds and the torches. Just as they saw the torches, so they saw the sounds. "And the people saw" (Exodus 20:15): what did they see? They saw a great glory. Rabbi Eliezer says: From where that a maidservant at the Sea of Israel saw what even the greatest of the prophets did not see? As it is said, "and the people saw"; what did they see? They saw a great glory. "And they trembled" (Exodus 20:15). The word "trembling" means only reeling, and so it says, "the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard" (Isaiah 24:19), and it says, "and his heart trembled, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest tremble before the wind" (Isaiah 7:2). "And they stood at a distance" (Exodus 20:15). Why do I need this? Has it not already been said, "and the people stood at a distance" (Exodus 20:18)? It teaches that they would go back twelve mil and return twelve mil for each and every word.

"And they said to Moses: You speak with us, and we will hear" (Exodus 20:16). By this they merited that prophets would arise for them, and so it says, "the LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet from your midst, from your brothers, like me" (Deuteronomy 18:15). But when they mocked the messengers of God, the holy spirit ceased from among them, as it says, "but they mocked the messengers of God" (2 Chronicles 36:16). "But let not God speak with us, lest we die" (Exodus 20:16): if even one more thing had been added to them, they would have died. And what did they see, that they spoke this to Moses after the commandments? Had they not already been spoken? Rather, it teaches that they supposed something else was about to be said.

"And Moses said to the people: Do not fear" (Exodus 20:17). He said to them: He gave you the Torah and performed for you signs and mighty acts only in order to test you, to make you great above all who enter the world, as in the matter that is said, "[Evil-merodach] lifted up [the head of Jehoiachin]" (2 Kings 25:27). Another interpretation: "For it is in order to test you" means to make you great through the commandments, as in the matter that is said, "for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon His land" (Zechariah 9:16), and it says, "You have given a banner to those who fear You, to be raised on high" (Psalms 60:6). Another interpretation: "For it is in order to test you" means: assuredly, in the past you were unwitting [in sin], now you are deliberate; in the past you did not know the giving of the reward of the righteous and the smiting of the punishment of the wicked in the time to come, now you do know the giving of the reward of the righteous and the smiting of the punishment of the wicked in the time to come. "And that His fear may be upon your faces, so that you do not sin" (Exodus 20:17): whoever has shame upon his face does not quickly come to sin.

"And the people stood at a distance" (Exodus 20:18). Why do I need this? Has it not already been said, "and they stood at a distance" (Exodus 20:15)? Rather, it teaches that Israel would go back twelve mil and return twelve mil for each and every word. "And Moses drew near to the thick darkness" (Exodus 20:18). One might think to the inner darkness, or to the outer darkness; Scripture teaches "where God was." Say from now on that there were two walls of thick darkness, and Moses would walk between them until he reached the inner thick darkness. And so Solomon says, "the LORD has said that He would dwell in thick darkness" (1 Kings 8:12). From here they said: All the prophets prophesied only from behind a glass that does not shine, but Moses our teacher from behind a single glass that shines.

"And the LORD said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the children of Israel" (Exodus 20:19). "Thus" in the holy tongue; "thus" in this very manner; "thus" in this order; "thus" with these pauses; "thus" in these very sections; "according to all that the LORD has commanded" (Exodus 19:8), neither subtracting nor adding. "You yourselves have seen" (Exodus 20:19): not from the mouth of witnesses and not from a written document. "That I have spoken with you from heaven" (Exodus 20:19). Behold, two verses contradict and balance one another. One verse says, "and the LORD came down upon Mount Sinai" (Exodus 19:20), and one verse says, "you yourselves have seen that I have spoken with you from heaven." It is impossible to say "He came down," for it has already been said "from heaven I spoke with you"; and it is impossible to say "from heaven," for it has already been said "He came down." The verse, "out of heaven He made you hear His voice, to discipline you, and upon earth He showed you His great fire" (Deuteronomy 4:36), decides between them: it teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, bent the upper heavens down upon the top of the mountain and spoke with them from heaven upon the top of the mountain. And so it says, "He bowed the heavens also and came down, and thick darkness was under His feet" (2 Samuel 22:10).

"You shall not make [gods] with Me" (Exodus 20:20): that a man shall not make an altar corresponding to the altar, or a table after the pattern of the table, or a lampstand after the pattern of the lampstand; the words of Rabbi Meir. "Gods of silver and gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves" (Exodus 20:20). Why do I need this? Has it not already been said, "you shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness" (Exodus 20:4)? What does Scripture teach by saying "gods of silver and gods of gold"? Since one might think: because it was permitted as an exception in the Sanctuary [the cherubim], it might be permitted in general in the provinces; Scripture teaches, "you shall not make for yourselves." Rabbi Ishmael says: We have heard the prohibition, but we have not heard the penalty. From the verse "and you shall make two cherubim of gold" (Exodus 25:18), one might think: since it was permitted of its kind in the Sanctuary, if they transgressed in the provinces they would not be liable; Scripture teaches "gods of silver and gods of gold," comparing gods of silver to gods of gold: just as gods of gold are included in the prohibition and included in the penalty, so too gods of silver are included in the prohibition and included in the penalty. Another interpretation: "You shall not make with Me gods of silver" means you shall not make any likeness of the ministering servants who minister before Me on high.

"An altar of earth you shall make for Me" (Exodus 20:21). One might think it must be literally of earth. Scripture therefore teaches, "You shall build the altar of the LORD your God of whole stones" (Deuteronomy 27:6); when you enter the land, make Me an altar that is joined to the earth. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: beneath the courtyards there was a hollow space, and the altar was joined to the earth. "You shall make for Me" - and not one that has been given as another's tithe, nor one that has been made loathsome through worship of others. From here the sons of the Hasmoneans hid away the altar stones that the kings of Greece had defiled. "You shall make for Me" - wherever it says "for Me," it endures forever. Great is the sacrificial service, for Scripture opened with it alone: "An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall sacrifice upon it." So too you find with the Tent of Meeting, that it opened for him only with the service first, as it says, "And the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying: When any person of you brings an offering to the LORD" (Leviticus 1:1). And so you find at their entry into the land, that they opened only with the service first, as it says, "Then Joshua built an altar" (Joshua 8:31). So too in the time to come, they will open only with the service first, as it says, "I will come into Your house with burnt offerings" (Psalms 66:13). And so you find at their going up from the exile, that they opened only with the service first, as it says, "And they set the altar upon its bases" (Ezra 3:3). "And you shall sacrifice upon it" - one might think the slaughtering should be on top of the altar. Scripture therefore teaches, "You shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD your God" (Deuteronomy 12:27) - the flesh and blood upon the altar, but the slaughtering is not upon the altar. If so, why does it say "upon it"? It means close beside it, like the matter where it says, "and beside him [literally: upon him] the tribe of Manasseh" (Numbers 2:20). "Your burnt offerings and your peace offerings." I know only burnt offerings and peace offerings; from where do I include firstlings, tithes, sin offerings, and guilt offerings? Scripture teaches "and... and..." From where the handful of meal, the frankincense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering of libations? Scripture teaches "and... and..." From where the prohibited portions of the sin offering, the guilt offering, the most holy offerings, and the lesser holy offerings? Scripture teaches "and... and..." "In every place where I cause My name to be remembered" (Exodus 20:21). Since it says, "to set His name there" (Deuteronomy 12:5), and it says, "so shall they put My name upon the children of Israel" (Numbers 6:27), one might think the priestly blessing applies only in the Sanctuary. From where do we learn it applies in the outlying regions? Scripture teaches, "in every place where I cause My name to be remembered." Or one might think one may pronounce the Name in the outlying regions; Scripture teaches, "I will come to you and bless you." Invert and turn this verse: in every place where I come to you, there shall you cause My name to be remembered in your blessing. From here they said: in the Sanctuary one pronounces the Name as it is written, but in the country by its substitute reading. Another interpretation of "in every place where I cause My name to be remembered": Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion says, from where do we learn that when three sit and occupy themselves with Torah the Divine Presence is among them? As it says, "God stands in the assembly of God, in the midst of the judges He judges" (Psalms 82:1). Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hanania says in his name: from where do we learn it for two? As it says, "Then those who feared the LORD spoke to one another, and the LORD hearkened and heard" (Malachi 3:16). From where for one? As it says, "in every place where I cause My name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you."

"And if you make Me an altar of stones" (Exodus 20:22) - this is an obligation. You say it is an obligation, but perhaps it is only optional? Scripture teaches, "You shall build the altar of the LORD your God of whole stones" (Deuteronomy 27:6) - an obligation and not optional. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said: every "if" in the Torah is optional except for three: "And if you make Me an altar of stones"; "And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits" (Leviticus 2:14); "If you lend money to My people" (Exodus 22:24). "You shall make for Me" - that their hewing, their bringing, and their building be for My name. "You shall not build them of cut stone" (Exodus 20:22) - that they not be sawn with a saw nor worked with a chisel. And from where do they bring them? They dig the virgin ground until they reach a recognizable place that has not been a place of labor and building, and they extract the stones from there; or they bring them from the sea, from the riverbed. Since it says, "for you have lifted your sword upon it and profaned it," one might think they are disqualified only if they were hewn with a sword. Scripture teaches, "you shall not lift iron upon them" - behold, iron is like a sword. If we are in any case to treat iron like a sword, what does "for you have lifted your sword upon it" teach? This is what Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai says: why was iron singled out to be disqualified from all the kinds of metal? Because the sword is made from it, and the sword is a sign of calamity, while the altar is a sign of atonement. One removes that which is a sign of calamity from before that which is a sign of atonement. And are these things not a matter of inference? If of stones, which neither see nor hear nor speak, the Holy One, blessed be He, said "you shall not lift iron upon them" because they bring atonement between Israel and their Father in heaven, then how much more so the children of Torah, who are atonement for the world - that no harmful thing among all the destroyers in the world should touch them. "You shall not build them of cut stone" - them you do not build of cut stone, but you do build the Sanctuary and the courtyards of cut stone. One might think that if a single stone above was chipped the whole altar is profaned; Scripture teaches, "and you profaned it" - it is profaned, but the altar is not profaned. From here they said: any stone that iron touched, or that was chipped enough that a fingernail catches on it like a slaughtering knife, is disqualified for the altar and for the ramp. Another interpretation of "and you profaned it": from where do we learn that all the rites performed when the altar is disqualified are themselves disqualified? Scripture teaches, "and you profaned it."

"And you shall not go up by steps upon My altar" (Exodus 20:23). One might think one may not go up, but it is permitted to come down. Scripture teaches, "that your nakedness be not exposed upon it." One might say this, but then I would have thought the altar should be small and stand on the ground and one would burn the offering there; Scripture teaches, "And the priest shall offer up the burnt offering and the meal offering on the altar" (Leviticus 14:20). If so, why does it say "you shall not go up by steps"? That one shall not make steps for it, but rather they build a ramp like a mound on the south of the altar, narrowing and descending from the top of the altar to the ground. And one who goes up by steps onto the altar incurs lashes, even by a single step, for it is written "you shall not go up by steps" - "by a step" it is written. "That your nakedness be not exposed upon it" - what need have I of this, since it already says, "And you shall make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of nakedness" (Exodus 28:42)? What does "that your nakedness be not exposed upon it" teach? That when one goes up to the altar he shall not take a wide stride, but walk heel beside toe. I know only the altar; from where the courtyards? Scripture teaches, "you shall not go up by steps upon My altar," and "upon it" is said - "upon it" means only close beside it, and so it says, "In the house of God we walked in the throng" (Psalms 55:15). One might think one may not make steps for the Sanctuary and the courtyards; Scripture teaches, "you shall not go up by steps upon My altar" - for the altar you make no steps, but you do make steps for the Sanctuary and the courtyards. Another interpretation of "you shall not go up by steps upon My altar": since it says, "and you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings," one might think a person should intend to sin in order to bring an offering; Scripture teaches, "you shall not go up by steps" - read it not "by steps" (ma'alot) but "by trespasses" (me'ilot) [a play reading the word as acts of sacrilege]. So that a person shall not say, "which trespass has a stringent offering, that I might go and commit it and offer up a great burnt offering." And so it says, "For I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt offering" (Isaiah 61:8).

"And these are the rules" (Exodus 21:1). Rabbi Yehudah says: the rules were given to Israel at Marah, before the giving of the Torah, as it says, "there He set for them a statute and a rule" (Exodus 15:25). One might think they were not repeated at Sinai; Scripture teaches, "And these are the rules." Rabbi Yishmael says: wherever it says "these," it cuts off from what preceded; and wherever it says "and these," it adds to what preceded. Here it says "and these," adding to the commandments above: just as the commandments above were from Sinai, so too the rules were from Sinai. And so it says, "Remember the Torah of Moses My servant, which I commanded him at Horeb... statutes and rules" (Malachi 3:22), and it says, "And on Mount Sinai You came down and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them upright rules and true teachings, good statutes and commandments" (Nehemiah 9:13). Rabbi Akiva says: "which you shall set before them" - why is this said? Because it says, "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them," how do we know a person is obligated to teach his student a second, third, and fourth time? Scripture teaches, "and teach it to the children of Israel" (Deuteronomy 31:19). And from where that he must teach until it is ordered in his mouth? Scripture teaches, "put it in their mouths" (ibid.). And from where that he is obligated to show him the reasoning within it? Scripture teaches, "which you shall set before them" - arrange them before them like a set table. Another interpretation of "which you shall set before them": it does not say "before the children of Israel" but "before them" - before those among them who are within, teaching that one does not teach the laws of civil matters to an ignoramus. Another interpretation of "And these are the rules which you shall set before them": Rabbi Yishmael says these are the thirteen rules by which the Torah is expounded, which were handed to Moses at Sinai, and these are they: from a lighter to a heavier case; from a verbal analogy; from a governing principle drawn from one verse, and from a governing principle drawn from two verses; from a general statement and a particular; from a particular and a general; from a general, a particular, and a general, where you judge only according to the nature of the particular; from a general that requires a particular and a particular that requires a general; from a matter included in a general statement that was singled out to teach - it was singled out to teach not about itself alone but about the whole general category; from a matter included in a general statement that was singled out to argue a different argument consistent with its subject, singled out to be lenient and not stringent; from a matter included in a general statement that was singled out to argue a different argument inconsistent with its subject, singled out both to be lenient and stringent; from a matter included in a general statement that was singled out to be treated as a new case, and you cannot return it to its general category until Scripture explicitly returns it; a matter learned from its context; a matter learned from its conclusion; and two verses that contradict each other until a third verse comes and decides between them. Another interpretation of "which you shall set before them" - and not before gentiles; "before them" - and not before unqualified laymen.

"When you acquire a Hebrew servant" (Exodus 21:2). Now it ought not to have been placed next to "And these are the rules," but rather "When men strive" or "When one strikes a man," which are matters of judgment. The expounders of hidden meanings say: because they were commanded at Marah concerning the laws, and He gave them the Ten Commandments, Moses said, "Master of the world, perhaps the evil inclination will lead Your children astray and they will transgress the commandments, and You will exile them from before You and sell them as servants" - therefore He opened with "When you acquire a Hebrew servant." When you provoke them under the kingdoms, let no kingdom subjugate them for more than six kingdoms. "Six years shall he serve" - Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece, Assyria, and Rome. "And in the seventh he shall go free without payment." He said before Him: "Master of the world, let them not be sunk forever in the hand of Rome; rather, by merit deal with them - free of charge - and in the seventh he shall go free without payment." "If he comes in by himself" (literally "with his wing") - Scripture should have said "if he comes in alone, alone he shall go out"; what is "by his wing"? He said: God forbid that, if sins cause it, enemies should come upon them on wings like eagles that fly in the heavens, as it is written, "Our pursuers were swifter than the eagles of heaven" (Lamentations 4:19). Master of the world, give them wings of trust, like these, "Who are these that fly like a cloud, and like doves to their cotes" (Isaiah 60:8). ...[text uncertain] Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was expounding until fire blazed all around him. When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai saw that the fire blazed all around him, he descended from his donkey and kissed him and said to him, "Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh, happy is she who bore you, happy are you, Abraham our father, that this one came forth from your loins." He used to say: if all the sages of Israel were in one pan of a balance and Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh in the other, he would outweigh them all. Chapter on "When you acquire a Hebrew servant." From where that when you acquire, you may acquire only a Hebrew servant in this manner? Scripture teaches, "When you acquire a Hebrew servant." And from where that when he is sold, he is sold only to you? Scripture teaches, "and he is sold to you" (Leviticus 25:39). And from where that when the court sells him, they sell him only to you? Scripture teaches, "when your Hebrew brother is sold to you" (Deuteronomy 15:12). "When you acquire a Hebrew servant" - you acquire him from himself, but you do not acquire a Hebrew bondwoman from herself. For it would follow by reasoning: if a Hebrew servant, whose father may not sell him, may sell himself, then a Hebrew bondwoman, whom her father may sell, should surely be able to sell herself. Scripture teaches, "When you acquire a Hebrew servant" - a Hebrew servant you acquire from himself, but you do not acquire a Hebrew bondwoman from herself. "Hebrew" (Ivri) - these commandments were stated regarding the Hebrew servant in the merit of Eber. Another interpretation: in the merit of Abraham, who was from across the river (me-ever ha-nahar). Another interpretation: in the merit of Israel, who spoke in the Hebrew tongue, as it says, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us" (Exodus 3:18). "Six years he shall serve" - so too the son. One might think also the heir? Scripture teaches, "and he shall serve you six years" (Deuteronomy 15:12). "And in the seventh he shall go free" - one might think at the beginning of the year or at its end? You may reason: the seventh year releases servants and the Jubilee releases servants; just as we find the Jubilee acts at its beginning and not at its end, so this acts at its beginning and not at its end. "He shall go free without payment" - since it says, "And when you send him free from you" (Deuteronomy 15:13), it teaches that it is a commandment to say to him, "Go out." "Without payment" - one might think there is no severance gift? Scripture teaches, "you shall not send him away empty; you shall surely furnish him" (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). From here they said: a Hebrew servant is acquired by money and by document, and acquires his freedom in five ways: by years, by Jubilee, by deduction of money, by a document of release, and by the death of the master without a son.

"If he comes in by himself, by himself he shall go out" (Exodus 21:3). One might think this is a decree; Scripture teaches "if" - it is only permission. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: "if he comes in by himself, by himself he shall go out" - you have a claim upon him only for labor. "If he is the husband of a wife" - just as the master is obligated for his sustenance, so too the master is obligated for the sustenance of his wife and his children. I might still say: a wife and children he had before the master acquired him, the master is not obligated for their sustenance. Or perhaps one says rather: a wife and children he had after the master acquired him, the master is obligated for their sustenance, since the master is already obligated for the servant's own sustenance; but a wife and children he had before the master acquired him, the master is not obligated for their sustenance. Scripture teaches, "if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him" - the two wives are here: one before the master acquired him and one after the master acquired him. One might think this applies even to a betrothed wife or a widow awaiting levirate marriage; Scripture teaches, "then his wife shall go out with him" - one who is with him goes out; this one, who is not with him, does not. One might think it applies even if his wife is forbidden to him, such as a widow married to a high priest, or a divorcee or a woman released from levirate marriage married to an ordinary priest; Scripture teaches, "then his wife shall go out with him" - a wife who is fit to remain with him, excluding one who is not fit to remain with him. One might think it applies even if he married a wife without his master's knowledge; Scripture teaches, "he" (hu) - just as he himself acted with his master's knowledge, so too his wife must be with his master's knowledge. One might think the labor of his wife, sons, and daughters belongs to the master. And it would follow by reasoning: if a Canaanite slave, for whose sustenance the master is not obligated, yet the labor of his sons and daughters belongs to the master, then this one, for whose sustenance the master is obligated, surely the labor of his sons and daughters should belong to the master. Scripture teaches, "he" - his own labor belongs to the master, but not the labor of his sons and daughters. One might think his found objects and inheritance belong to the master; Scripture teaches, "and he shall serve you" (Deuteronomy 15:12) - you have a claim upon him only for labor. One might think that because he goes out to court within the month he should not be entitled to his wife's found objects and inheritance; Scripture teaches, "if he is the husband of a wife" - Scripture explicitly returned him to his general category: he is like any husband; just as a husband is entitled to his wife's found objects and inheritance, so too this one is entitled to his wife's found objects and inheritance. Another interpretation of "then his wife shall go out with him": do not separate him from his wife. And elsewhere it says, "and he shall go out from you, he and his children with him" (Leviticus 25:41): do not separate him from his children.

"His master shall give him a wife" (Exodus 21:4). One might think he vowed it; Scripture teaches "if" - it is only permission. "His master shall give him a wife" - to include the son. "He shall give him a wife" - Scripture speaks of a Canaanite bondwoman. You say it speaks of a Canaanite bondwoman, but perhaps it speaks only of a freewoman? Scripture teaches, "the wife and her children shall belong to her master" - if she were a freewoman, how could the offspring belong to the master? Another interpretation of "he shall give him": he compels him and he comes to her, and even if he is a priest, who is forbidden a harlot, he gives him a Canaanite bondwoman and he comes to her, and the children are his slaves. Or one might think that even if he has no Israelite wife and children, he is permitted the Canaanite bondwoman; Scripture teaches, "then his wife shall go out with him" - when he has a wife and children with him, the master gives him the bondwoman, but if not, he may not. Another interpretation of "he shall give him a wife": one he gives, but he does not give him two wives. One might think he may not give a freeman two wives; Scripture teaches, "his master shall give him a wife" - to him he does not give two wives, but to a freeman he may give two wives. One might think he may give one wife to two; Scripture teaches, "his master shall give him a wife" - one wife he gives him, but not one wife to two. One might think he may not give his Canaanite slaves one bondwoman for two; Scripture teaches, "his master shall give him a wife" - to him he does not give one bondwoman for two, but to his Canaanite slaves he may give one bondwoman for two. "And she bears him sons or daughters" - it likens son to daughter: just as the daughter has no betrothal upon a freeman and does not leave him by a writ of divorce, so too the son has no betrothal upon a freewoman and does not leave her by a writ of divorce. "The wife and her children" - all the children she bears, whether from him or from another place, are slaves. "Shall belong to her master" - teaching that she goes out without a writ of divorce. Another interpretation of "the wife and her children shall belong to her master": one might think that if the master wished to sell his wife and children while he is still under him, he could prevent it by his own hand; Scripture teaches, "the wife and her children shall belong to her master." "And he shall go out by himself" - to include for him many forms of going out: by years, by Jubilee, by deduction of money, by document, and by the death of the master without a son.

"And if the servant shall plainly say" (Exodus 21:5) - until he says it and repeats it and says it a third time. "The servant" - and not the bondwoman. Since it says, "and so shall you do to your bondwoman" (Deuteronomy 15:17), regarding the severance gift, one might think it applies to the piercing of the ear as well; Scripture teaches, "the servant" - and not the bondwoman. Another interpretation of "the servant": until he says it while he is still a servant. One might think that if he said it within the six years he would be pierced; Scripture teaches, "I will not go free" - until he says it at the time of his going out. Thus he says it only at the end of the six years. "I love my master, my wife, and my children" - Rabbi Shimon said: if not, what would have entered my mind? For if he does not love, how would he be pierced? From here you say: if he loved his master but his master did not love him, or his master loved him but he did not love his master, he is not pierced, as it says, "because he loves you" (Deuteronomy 15:16). If he has a wife and children but his master has no wife and children, he is not pierced, as it says, "I love my master, my wife, and my children." Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: if the servant was ill while with his master, or the master was ill while with him, he is not pierced, as it says, "because it is good for him with you" (Deuteronomy 15:16).

"And his master shall bring him to the judges" (Exodus 21:6): the master brings him before three judges and states his words in their presence. "And he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost." One might think he pierces him at the doorpost, and it would follow logically: if a door, which has no commandment of the mezuzah, has the commandment of piercing, then a doorpost, which does have the commandment of the mezuzah, surely should have the commandment of piercing. Scripture therefore teaches (Deuteronomy 15:17), "and you shall put it through his ear and into the door": into the door, and not into the doorpost. One might think into a standing door or into an uprooted door; Scripture says "or to the doorpost": just as the doorpost is upright, so too the door must be upright. I know only of a door that has a doorpost; from where do I learn of a door that has no doorpost? Scripture says "and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost" the first time [mentioned], whatever it was, even a door that has no doorpost. "And his master shall pierce" (Exodus 21:6): this is an inclusion, and an inclusion after an inclusion comes only to limit. "His master" and not his son; "his master" and not his slave; "his master" and not his master's agent. "[His ear]": it is said here "his ear," and it is said elsewhere (Leviticus 14:14) "his ear." Just as "his ear" stated there means the right one, at the top of the ear, so too "his ear" stated here means the right one, at the top of the ear. Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Yudan used to say, he pierces him in the soft part of the ear, lest he be a priest and one would thereby disqualify him from the Temple service. But I say: a priest is not pierced at all. "An awl" (Exodus 21:6): I know only of an awl. From where do I include the needle, the borer, the scribe's stylus, and the thorn? Scripture says (Deuteronomy 15:17) "and you shall take" the words of Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: an awl just as the awl is distinct in being of metal, so I include only that which is of metals. "And he shall serve him forever" (Exodus 21:6): one might think even the son. Scripture says "and he shall serve him" and not his son; and elsewhere (Deuteronomy 15:17) it says "and he shall be to you" and not to a son. For it would have followed logically: if money, which does not acquire beyond six years, acquires for the son, then the piercing, which acquires beyond six years, surely should acquire for the son; Scripture says "and he shall be to you" and not to a son. And a fortiori for the piercing, that it should not acquire beyond six: if money, which acquires for the son, does not acquire beyond six, then the piercing, which does not acquire for the son, surely should not acquire beyond six Scripture says "and he shall serve him forever." One might think the piercing does not lapse at the Jubilee, and it would follow logically: if money, which acquires for the son, lapses at the Jubilee, then the piercing, which does not acquire for the son, surely should lapse at the Jubilee no, for if you said it of money, which does not acquire beyond six, will you say it of the piercing, which does acquire beyond six? Scripture says (Leviticus 25:10), "and you shall return every man to his holding, and every man to his family shall you return" this is the pierced slave, whom the Jubilee releases. Then what does "and he shall serve him forever" teach? All the days of the lifetime of the one who pierced him. Even if he was sold thirty or forty years before the Jubilee from where [do we learn he goes free]? Scripture teaches by a gezeira shava [verbal analogy] of "forever" and "forever," to apply what is said here to there and what is said there to here.

"And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant" (Exodus 21:7): from the general rule, as it is said (Exodus 22:2), "and if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft," one might think a woman is sold for her theft. Scripture says (Exodus 22:1) "if a man steals" the man is sold for his theft, but the woman is not sold for her theft. One might think she is not sold for her own theft, but she is sold for her father's theft you say: indeed? If she is not sold for her own theft, shall she be sold for her father's theft? Why is she not sold for her own theft? Because she does not sell herself. Shall she then be sold for her father's theft, since her father does sell her? Scripture says "if a man steals" the man is sold, but the court does not sell. "His daughter" (Exodus 21:7): a man sells his daughter, but he does not sell his son. For I would have said: if a Hebrew maidservant, who does not sell herself of her own will, her father sells her, then a Hebrew slave, who does sell himself of his own will, surely his father should sell him; Scripture says "and if a man sells his daughter" his daughter and not his son. Another interpretation: "his daughter" this means a minor. One might think even a young woman [na'arah]; Scripture says "his daughter" a daughter and not a mother, excluding a na'arah, who is fit to become a mother. From here they said: a father is permitted to sell his daughter until she brings forth signs [of maturity], but once she brings forth signs he is not permitted to sell her. "As a maidservant" (Exodus 21:7): for servitude. Another interpretation: "as a maidservant" [le'amah] read it as "for one who would be disqualified to him" [le'fosla] such as a widow to a high priest, or a divorcee or a chalutzah to an ordinary priest since betrothal takes effect on her. For a man is not permitted to sell his daughter unless he has become poor and has found nothing to eat; and when he sells her, he sells her only to one to whom betrothal of her would take effect. "She shall not go out as the menservants go out" (Exodus 21:7): that she should not carry after him buckets and bath-vessels to the bathhouse the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva said to him: what need have I of this? Is it not already said (Leviticus 25:39), "you shall not make him serve as a slave serves"? Then what does "she shall not go out as the menservants go out" teach? That she does not go out for [the loss of] a tooth or an eye as slaves do. For it would have followed logically: if a Canaanite slave, who does not go out after years or at the Jubilee or by deduction of money, nonetheless goes out for a tooth or an eye, then this one, who does go out after years and at the Jubilee and by deduction of money, surely should go out for a tooth or an eye; Scripture says "she shall not go out as the menservants go out."

"If she is displeasing" (Exodus 21:8): I know only of an ugly one; from where the comely one? Scripture says "in the eyes of her master." From where his son? Scripture says "displeasing." Rabbi Eliezer says: "if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master" to include the disqualified ones. "Who has not designated her" (Exodus 21:8): from the negative you infer the positive that if he wished to designate her, he may designate her. "Designated her" with her consent; this teaches that he betroths her only with her consent. And the same applies to all women, who are betrothed only with their consent and by their will. And is this not an a fortiori argument? If a Hebrew maidservant, who is held under his hand, the Torah says he designates her only with her consent, then other women all the more so. And how does he designate her? He says to her before two witnesses, "behold, you are betrothed to me," and he need not give her betrothal-money. Another interpretation: "designated her" this teaches that he does not designate two at once. "He designated her and let her be redeemed" (Exodus 21:8): this teaches that the commandment of designation precedes the commandment of redemption. "And let her be redeemed": this teaches that she goes out by deduction of money. Another interpretation: "and let her be redeemed" this teaches that the court redeems her against his will. Another interpretation: "he designated her and let her be redeemed" there is no designation except within the period of redemption, so that if he designated her within the six years, even at the end of the very last perutah, this is a valid designation; but if he designated her after the six years, there is no designation here. "To a foreign people he has no right to sell her" (Exodus 21:8): one might think he may not sell her but may give her as a gift; Scripture says "he shall have no dominion." One might think he may not sell her to others but may sell her to relatives; Scripture says "to a people he shall not sell." One might think he may not sell her but may give her as a gift; Scripture says "to a people he shall have no dominion." Let it speak of others why must it speak of relatives? For had it said "others" and not "relatives," I would have said he may not sell her to others but may sell her to relatives. Let it speak of relatives why must it speak of others? For had it said "relatives" and not "others," I would have said: to relatives forbidden to her he may not sell her, but to others permitted to her he may sell her. Therefore it must say "others" and must say "relatives." I know only of a Hebrew maidservant; from where a Hebrew slave? You say an a fortiori argument: if a Hebrew maidservant, whom he is permitted to designate for himself or for his son, he may not sell, then a Hebrew slave, over whom he has no such right at all, surely he may not sell him. And if he sold him, he has accomplished nothing, and he is not flogged. "Since he has dealt deceitfully with her" (Exodus 21:8): once he has spread his cloak over her, he can no longer sell her. Another interpretation: "he shall have no dominion to sell her, since he has dealt deceitfully with her" Rabbi Shimon says: the first man who broke faith with her and sent her away you have no right to enslave her further. From here they said: a man does not sell his daughter into servitude after marriage.

"He shall designate her for his son" (Exodus 21:9): one might think it is an obligatory decree; Scripture says "and if" it is only optional. "For his son": and not for his brother. For it would have followed logically: if for the son, for whom the Torah did not acquire a levirate widow, designation is acquired, then for the brother, for whom the Torah did acquire a levirate widow, surely designation should be acquired; Scripture says "for his son" and not for his brother. "He shall designate her for his son": he designates her during his father's lifetime, but he does not designate her after his father's death. "He shall deal with her according to the law of daughters" (Exodus 21:9): now what have we learned about the law of daughters until now? Rather, this is a case of a verse that teaches and turns out itself to be taught. Just as the designated Hebrew maidservant one does not withhold from her food, clothing, and conjugal rights, so too all daughters [wives]. Another interpretation: "according to the law of daughters" just as a daughter whom her father has betrothed one is liable for her by the death penalty of the court [for adultery], and she goes out only by a bill of divorce, [so too a Hebrew maidservant once he has designated her one is liable for her by the death penalty of the court, and she goes out only by a bill of divorce].

"He takes another" (Exodus 21:10): one might think it is an obligatory decree; Scripture says "if" it is only optional. "He takes another": and not an ownerless one. "He takes another for her": this teaches that he is permitted to take for himself another woman for the sake of marriage. "He takes another for her" behold, the other is to him like this one: just as this one is acquired by a document, so too the other is acquired by a document. "Her food [she'erah]" (Exodus 21:10): this is sustenance, as in the matter of which it is said (Micah 3:3), "who ate the flesh [she'er] of my people." "Her clothing [kesutah]": this is her clothing. "And her conjugal rights [onatah]": this is the way of the world [marital relations], as in the matter of which it is said (Genesis 31:50), "if you afflict my daughters." Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: "her food, her clothing" give clothing according to the food, that he not clothe her in a young woman's garments in old age or an old woman's garments in youth. "Her clothing and her conjugal rights" give her clothing according to her season, that he not give her summer garments in the rainy days or rainy-season garments in the days of summer heat. "He shall not diminish" (Exodus 21:10): this teaches that he transgresses a negative commandment. What is "her conjugal time"? Each man according to his occupation. How so? Men of leisure, every night; craftsmen, twice a week; donkey-drivers, once a week; camel-drivers, once a month; sailors, once in six months; scholars of Torah, from one Sabbath eve to the next Sabbath eve. "He shall not diminish": this teaches that the wife rises with her husband and does not descend.

"And if he does not do these three for her" (Exodus 21:11): Rabbi Eliezer says: this is food, clothing, and conjugal rights. Rabbi Akiva said to him: what need have I of this? Is it not already said, "her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights he shall not diminish"? Then what does "these three" teach? Say from now on: he did not designate her neither he nor his son and he did not redeem her. "Then she shall go out free" (Exodus 21:11): what need have I of this? If it is to teach that she goes out at the end of six years, is it not already said (Deuteronomy 15:12), "if your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years"? Then what does "she shall go out free" teach? Scripture granted her an additional release. "And she shall go out free" these are the days of full maturity [bagrut]; "without money" these are the days of young womanhood [na'arut]. From here they said: the Hebrew maidservant has an advantage over the Hebrew slave, in that she goes out by [the appearance of] signs.

"One who strikes a man" (Exodus 21:12): I know only of one who strikes a man. From where one who strikes a woman or a minor? Scripture says (Leviticus 24:17), "if he strikes down any human life" whether man, woman, or minor. I know only of a man who strikes; from where a woman who strikes? Scripture says "one who strikes" whether man or woman. If so, why is "a man" said? Because one might think that even if he struck a non-viable infant or an eight-month child he would be liable; Scripture says "a man" just as a "man" is distinct in being viable, so are excluded the non-viable infants and the eight-month child, who are not viable. "And he dies" (Exodus 21:12): this tells that he is not liable until the victim dies. From here you say: if one struck him and another came and finished him off, the latter is liable. "He shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12): we do not know by what means this one's death shall be. Behold, it says (Exodus 21:20), "he shall surely be avenged," and it says elsewhere (Leviticus 26:25), "and I will bring upon you a sword avenging the vengeance of the covenant" just as the "vengeance" stated there is by the sword, so too the "vengeance" stated here is by the sword.

"And one who did not lie in wait" (Exodus 21:13): he was included in the general rule and went out to be treated as a special case; once a matter goes out from the general rule to teach, it teaches something of its own kind, going out to be lenient and not to be stringent. "And one who did not lie in wait": "who did not lie in wait" means only one who did not intend it, as it says (Numbers 35:22), "or threw upon him any object without lying in wait." "But God brought it to his hand" (Exodus 21:13): "brought" [innah] means only that He sets it up for him, as it says (2 Kings 5:7), "only consider and see how he is seeking a pretext [mit'aneh] against me," and as it says of Samson (Judges 14:4), "for he was seeking a pretext [to'anah] against the Philistines." "But God brought it to his hand": merit is brought about through the worthy, and guilt through the guilty. This is what Trajan asked of Pappus and his brother Lulianus when he decreed death upon them. He said to them: if you are of the people of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hand as He saved them from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. They said to him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were wholly righteous, and Nebuchadnezzar was a king worthy that a miracle be done through him. But you are a wicked king, and not worthy that a miracle be done through you. And we are deserving of death before the Omnipresent, and if you do not put us to death, the Omnipresent has many executioners many bears, many lions, many leopards, many serpents and scorpions to harm us. Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, has handed us over into your hand only so that He may exact our punishment from your hand in the future. Even so, he killed them. They say that he had not stirred from there before dispatches came from Rome and they split his skull with clubs. "And I will appoint for you" (Exodus 21:13): in your lifetime this teaches that the cities of refuge are revealed [to him]. "A place": it is said here "a place" and it is said elsewhere "a place"; just as the "place" stated elsewhere refers to the Levite cities that give refuge, so too the "place" stated here refers to a Levite camp that gives refuge. "To which he may flee": there shall be his dwelling, there shall be his burial.

"But if a man comes presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile" (Exodus 21:14). "Presumptuously" means nothing other than with deliberate intent, as it says, "the prophet has spoken it presumptuously" (Deuteronomy 18:22). "A man" excludes a minor. "Upon his neighbor" excludes others; "his neighbor" excludes a resident alien. I might have excluded the others, who have no commandments within Israel, but not yet excluded the resident alien, who does have commandments within Israel; therefore Scripture says "his neighbor" to exclude others, and "his neighbor" to exclude the resident alien. "To slay him with guile" excludes one who intended to kill this person and killed that one. "To slay him with guile" refers to one who comes against him by stratagems, like Joab, who killed Abner, as it is written, "And Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly" (II Samuel 3:27). "From My altar." Thus, had he been an unintentional killer, the altar would have given him refuge. And only the roof of the altar of the eternal House gives refuge, and it gives refuge only to the unintentional killer; but the deliberate killer, even a priest with the service in his hand, is pushed away from it and put to death. Rabbi Yose said: This is an argument from the lesser to the greater. If the Temple service, which overrides the Sabbath, may be set aside in order to put a person to death, life for life, then the Sabbath, which the service overrides, should by right be set aside in order to save a person whose life is in doubt. "You shall take him." From this I know only of the murderer; how do I include the others who are to be put to death? Scripture says "you shall take, you shall take him." "That he may die" and not be exiled, and not be flogged; "that he may die" and not be otherwise penalized. Another interpretation of "from My altar": how do we know that the Sanhedrin must sit near the altar? Scripture says, "from My altar you shall take him that he may die." And how do we know that capital sentences are carried out only while the House stands? Scripture says, "from My altar you shall take him that he may die" [that is, only if there is an altar do you execute]. From here they said: forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, capital jurisdiction was removed from Israel, because the Sanhedrin went into exile and were not in their place in the Sanctuary.

"And he that strikes his father" (Exodus 21:15), but not his father's father; "his mother," but not his mother's mother; "his father," but not one in doubt; "his mother," but not one in doubt. "He that strikes his father and his mother shall surely be put to death." One might think he is not liable until he strikes both of them at once; therefore Scripture says, "and he that strikes any man shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:21), meaning even one of them. Then why does it say "his father and his mother"? One might think a convert woman, whose conception was not in holiness but whose birth was in holiness, would make her child liable for striking his mother; therefore Scripture says "his father and his mother": the one who is liable for striking his father is liable for striking his mother, and the one who is not liable for striking his father is not liable for striking his mother. One might think that if he struck them after their death he would be liable. And it would follow logically: if cursing, which does not apply to all, makes one liable even after death, then striking, which applies to all, should surely make one liable after death. Therefore Scripture says, "he that strikes a beast... and he that strikes a man" (Leviticus 24:21): just as one who strikes a beast is not liable after its death, so one who strikes his father and mother is not liable after their death. One might think that if he struck them but made no wound in them he would be liable; therefore Scripture says, "he that strikes a beast and he that strikes a man": just as one who strikes a beast is not liable until he makes a wound, so one who strikes his father and mother is not liable until he makes a wound. From here they said: he is not liable until he draws a drop of blood or until the blood clots beneath the skin. One might think that if he struck them unintentionally he would be liable to pay damages; therefore Scripture says, "he that strikes a beast and he that strikes a man": just as with one who strikes a beast no distinction is made between unintentional and deliberate in making him liable to pay, so with one who strikes his father and mother no distinction is made between unintentional and deliberate to free him from payment. And the same applies to every transgression that carries a death penalty, in which there is no monetary payment. "He shall surely be put to death." We do not know by what death this one is to die; therefore Scripture says, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) [choose for him a fitting death]. Choose for him an easy death, and which is that? Strangulation. Rabbi says: not because it is easy, but because it is the unspecified death, and every death stated in the Torah without specification is strangulation. How do we know that if you could not put him to death by strangulation you may put him to death by any of the deaths, whether lighter or more severe? Scripture says, "he shall surely be put to death," in any case.

"And he that steals a man" (Exodus 21:16). From this I know only of one who steals a man; how do I know of one who steals a woman or a minor? Scripture says, "if a man be found stealing a soul" (Deuteronomy 24:7), whether woman or minor. From this I know only of a man who steals; how do I know of a woman who steals? Scripture says "stealing," whether man or woman. If so, why does it say "a man"? One might think that even if he stole stillborn children or an eight-month infant he would be liable; therefore Scripture says "a man": just as a man is distinct in being viable, so are excluded stillborns and the eight-month infant, who are not viable. How do we know that he is not liable until he steals in the presence of witnesses? Scripture says, "if a man be found stealing." And how do we know that he is not liable until he sells in the presence of witnesses? Scripture says, "and he sells him." "And he be found in his hand." "And he be found" excludes one who is regularly found in his hand: this excludes the father who steals his son, the schoolteacher who steals one of his pupils, and the guardian of orphans who steals one of the orphans, since these are always found in their charge. One might think that if he sold the person to one of his relatives he would be liable; therefore Scripture says, "if a man be found stealing a soul of his brethren" (Deuteronomy 24:7), meaning until he separates him from his brethren. Or, since we find regarding a Canaanite slave that once one has paid money for him he acquires him, one might think the same applies here; therefore Scripture says, "and he sells him and he be found in his hand," teaching that he is not liable until he brings the victim into his own domain. Rabbi Yehuda says: from the moment he brings him into his domain and uses him, as it says, "and he deals with him as a slave and sells him" (Deuteronomy 24:7). "He shall surely be put to death," by the unspecified death stated in the Torah, which is strangulation. And the wicked are called dead before the Omnipresent. How do we know that once a person has committed a transgression he is as one dead before the Omnipresent? Scripture says, "the dead shall be put to death" (Deuteronomy 17:6). Another interpretation: how do we know that if you could not put him to death by strangulation you may put him to death by any of the deaths, whether lighter or more severe? Scripture says, "he shall surely be put to death," in any case.

"And he that curses his father" (Exodus 21:17), but not his father's father; "his mother," but not his mother's mother; "his father," but not one in doubt; "his mother," but not one in doubt. "He that curses his father and his mother shall surely be put to death." One might think he is not liable until he curses both of them together; therefore Scripture says, "who curses his father or his mother" (Leviticus 20:9), even one of them. Then why does it say "and he that curses his father and his mother"? One might think a convert woman, whose conception was not in holiness but whose birth was in holiness, would make her child liable for cursing his mother; therefore Scripture says "he that curses his father and his mother": the one who is liable for cursing his father is liable for cursing his mother, and the one who is not liable for cursing his father is not liable for cursing his mother. One might think that if he cursed them after death he would not be liable. And it would follow logically: if striking, which applies to all, does not make one liable after death, then cursing, which does not apply to all, surely should not make one liable after death. Therefore Scripture says, "his father and his mother he has cursed, his blood is upon him" (Leviticus 20:9), even after death. One might think that even if he cursed them by a substitute name he would be liable. It says here "and he that curses his father and his mother," and it says there, "a man who curses his God" (Leviticus 24:15): just as there it is by the Name, so here it is by the Name. "He shall surely be put to death." We do not know by what death this one is to die; therefore Scripture says, "his blood is upon him" (Leviticus 20:9), and elsewhere it says, "they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:27): just as "their blood" stated there is by stoning, so "his blood" stated here is by stoning. Thus we find a stringency in speech beyond deed, for the one who strikes is put to death by strangulation, while the one who curses is put to death by stoning. How do we know that if you could not put him to death by stoning you may put him to death by any of the deaths, whether lighter or more severe? Scripture says, "he shall surely be put to death," in any case.

"And if men quarrel" (Exodus 21:18). Nothing good comes out of a quarrel. So it says, "and there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle" (Genesis 13:7); what caused Lot to part from that righteous man? You must say it was this quarrel. And it says, "if there be a dispute between men" (Deuteronomy 25:1); what caused them to be flogged? You must say it was this quarrel. "If men quarrel": at first they come to a matter of money, and afterward they come to blows, and afterward they come to penalties. "If men quarrel." From this I know only of men; how do I include two women, or a man and a woman? Scripture says, "then the one who struck shall be cleared" (Exodus 21:19), whether man or woman. Then why does it say "men"? "Men" and not oxen, for it would have followed logically: if in a case where a man is exempt for damage to himself he is liable for damage caused by his ox and his donkey, then where he is liable for damage to himself, should he not surely be liable for damage caused by his ox and his donkey? Therefore Scripture says "men," and not oxen. "And one strikes the other." "And one strikes" excludes a minor; "the other" excludes others; "the other" excludes the resident alien. "With a stone or with the fist." From this I know only of the particular stone and fist; how do I include any object? Scripture says, "then the one who struck shall be cleared," with any object. Then why does it say "with a stone or with the fist"? Shimon the Temanite says: just as a fist is distinct in that it can be assessed by witnesses and the court, so any object that can be assessed by witnesses and the court. "And he does not die but keeps to his bed... he shall pay for his loss of time." Thus, if the victim died, the striker is exempt [from these payments].

"If he rises again and walks about" (Exodus 21:19). One might think from this bed to that bed; therefore Scripture says "outside." From this I know only of outside; how do I include his courtyard and his garden? Scripture says, "if he rises again and walks about." If the blow severed his hand or his foot, I might hear that this is not included; therefore Scripture says, "if he rises again and walks about outside upon his staff." Then what does "upon his staff" teach? Scripture is speaking of one restored to health; it calls his own body his support. "Then the one who struck shall be cleared." Rabbi Nehemiah said: were it not so, what would have entered my mind, that this one walks about in the marketplace while the other comes and is put to death for him? Rather, even if the victim was wrenched loose and died from the original blow, the striker is exempt. "Then the one who struck shall be cleared." One might think, cleared of everything; therefore Scripture says, "only he shall pay for his loss of time." "His loss of time" means his idleness, as it says, "and on the seventh day He rested and ceased" (Exodus 31:17). From this I know only of loss of time; how do I include damage, pain, shame, and healing? Scripture says, "he shall pay" [the extra word includes them]. "Only his loss of time." One might think they view him as though he produces a sela a day, or as though he produces two selas; therefore Scripture says, "the one who struck shall be cleared, only he shall pay for his loss of time," his later loss of time, not his earlier loss of time. Rather, they view him as a lame man guarding cucumber and gourd fields. And if you say the measure of justice has suffered, it has not suffered, for he has already been paid the value of his hand and the value of his foot. But if he struck him and his hand withered, or struck him and his foot withered, even if the man would produce ten selas a day, the striker pays him only as an idle laborer of that craft. "Only he shall pay for his loss of time, and shall surely heal him." If sores arose because of the blow, the striker is obligated to heal him and to pay his loss of time; if not because of the blow, he is obligated to heal him but exempt from paying his loss of time, as it is written, "only he shall pay for his loss of time," his loss of time and not the loss of time of his loss of time. "And shall surely heal him." He heals and heals again. Or one might think that even if the victim violated the physician's orders and ate honey or sweets, since honey and sweets are bad for a wound and his wound festered into a fistula, the striker would be liable; therefore Scripture says, "only he shall pay for his loss of time, and shall surely heal him." Another interpretation: "and shall surely heal him," the Torah gave permission to the physician to heal.

"And if a man strikes his slave or his maidservant" (Exodus 21:20). One might think Scripture speaks of the Hebrew slave and maidservant; therefore it says "slave and maidservant," a slave and maidservant whose law is the same for both, excluding the Hebrew slave and maidservant, whose law is not the same for both, the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: behold, it says, "for he is his money" (Exodus 21:21), excluding the Hebrew slave and maidservant, in whom he has no money. "And if a man strikes." From this I know only of a man; how do I include a woman? Scripture says, "he shall surely be avenged," whether man or woman. Then why does it say "a man"? To exclude a minor. "With a rod." From this I know only of a rod; how do I include any object? Scripture says, "he shall surely be avenged," with any object. [Then what does "with a rod" teach? To tell you: with a rod is the case subject to the law of "a day or two days"; but if he struck him with a knife or sword or the like and they assessed him as likely to die, it is not subject to the law of "a day or two days"; rather, even if he dies after a year, the master is executed for him.] "And he dies under his hand." What need have I of this, since even if he dies after ten hours the master is liable? What then does "and he dies under his hand" teach? If it does not apply to the matter of death, apply it to the matter of acquisition. From here you say: one who tells his fellow, "this slave is sold to you after thirty days," Rabbi Eliezer says both are liable under the law of "a day or two days," this one because the slave is not his, and that one because the slave is not yet in his domain. "He shall surely be avenged." Vengeance is stated here and vengeance is stated elsewhere, "and I will bring upon you a sword that avenges" (Leviticus 26:25): just as there it is the sword, so here it is by the sword. One might think he made a blow not sufficient to kill as though it were a blow sufficient to kill; and it would follow logically: he is liable for the slave and liable for the free man, just as for the free man only if the blow was sufficient to kill, so for the slave only if the blow was sufficient to kill.

"A day" (Exodus 21:21). One might think a single day; therefore Scripture says "two days." Or "two days," one might think two full days; therefore Scripture says "a day." Say from now on: a day that is like two days, that is, from one time to the corresponding time [a full twenty-four hours]. "He shall not be avenged, for he stands." He is not put to death by the sword. "For he is his money." This excludes the Hebrew slave and maidservant, in whom he has no money. "His money" excludes a slave held in partnership. "His" excludes one who is half slave and half free. "For he is his money."

"When men strive together" (Exodus 21:22) — does this make one who acts without intent like one who acts with intent? "When men strive and they strike a pregnant woman": the men are quarreling and they strike a pregnant woman. I know this only from "when men strive," where Scripture treats one who acts without intent like one who acts with intent. From where do I learn that even in "when men contend" we treat one who acts without intent like one who acts with intent? Scripture teaches "when men strive" and "when men contend" — striving is contending and contending is striving: just as in "when men strive" we treat the unintending like the intending, so in "when men contend" we treat the unintending like the intending. Here Scripture assigns damage and pain; elsewhere it assigns loss of livelihood and healing. From where do I learn to apply what is said of the one case to the other? Scripture teaches "when men strive" and "when men contend" — yet striving is contending and contending is striving. Rather, this is to apply what is said here to there and what is said there to here. "When men strive" — I know only of men. From where do I include two women, a woman and a man? Scripture teaches "he shall surely be punished," whether man or woman. Then why does Scripture say "men"? Men and not oxen. From this they said: an ox that struck the woman is exempt from the value of the offspring. Had it said only "they strike a woman and her child comes out," I might have said she must have two children and a husband. From where do I learn that even if she has a husband and no children, or children and no husband? Scripture teaches "they strike a pregnant woman" — in any case. Might I think the whole matter speaks only of a free woman? From where do I include the convert and the freed maidservant? Scripture teaches "they strike a pregnant woman" — in any case. "And no harm follows" — I might understand harm to the woman or harm to the offspring. Scripture teaches "he who smites a man" (verse 12), excluding the offspring. So what does "and no harm follows" mean? No harm to the woman and none to the offspring. "And no harm follows — he shall be punished": thus if there is harm there, he is not punished by fine. "He shall surely be punished": whether man or woman, he shall be punished with money or money's worth. "As the woman's husband shall lay upon him" — might he say a maneh and pay a maneh, or say a hundred maneh and pay a hundred maneh? Scripture teaches "and he shall give by the judges." If so, why is it said "as the woman's husband shall lay upon him"? It teaches that the value of the offspring belongs to the husband; and if she has no husband, it is hers.

"But if harm follows, then you shall give life" (Exodus 21:23). I might think that one who killed a person and an animal at once, or severed this one's head and that one's finger as one act, would be liable to death and to monetary payment together. Scripture teaches "life for life" — and not life for life and an animal, and not life for life and an eye. But if he killed a person and afterward killed an animal, or severed this one's head and afterward severed that one's finger, he is liable, as it is said "life for life, [eye] life for life and eye." This is the rule: in any case where there is a capital offense and a monetary liability together, he is judged with death and exempt from payment.

"Eye for eye" (Exodus 21:24) — he pays damage, the value of his eye. Ben Azzai says: Scripture says "a wound for a wound," and elsewhere it says "and if a man smites his fellow with a stone or with a fist" (verse 18). A wound is spoken of there. Just as the wound mentioned there means he gives loss of livelihood and provides healing, so here he gives loss of livelihood and provides healing. "Wound" was included in the general rule and went out to teach: not to teach about itself, but to teach about the general rule. Just as a "wound," in which "for" is said, means payment, so everything in which "for" is said means payment. Or might I think even "life for life" means payment? Scripture teaches "you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer" (Numbers 35:31) — for the life of a murderer you take no ransom, but you do take ransom for limbs.

"A burn for a burn" (Exodus 21:25). If it were a wound, it has already been stated. Rather, this applies even where there is no wound — for example, where he burned him with a spit or a nail upon his fingernail, in a place that produces no wound. From this you say: one who deprives his fellow of a limb pays five things — damage, pain, loss of livelihood, healing, and humiliation. Damage and pain are stated here; loss of livelihood and healing are stated above; and humiliation is stated elsewhere, as it is said "and she put out her hand and seized his private parts" (Deuteronomy 25:11). Damage: they assess how much he was worth whole and how much he is worth after he was deprived of the limb. Pain: they estimate how much a person would give to have his hand cut off with a drug rather than cut off with a knife. Loss of livelihood: they regard him as if he were a watchman. Healing: they say in how many days he will be healed and how much he needs. Humiliation: all is according to the one who shames and the one shamed. If he did not deprive him of a limb, he is exempt from damage. If there is no pain in it, he is exempt from pain. If there is no loss of livelihood in it, he is exempt from loss of livelihood. If there is no healing in it, he is exempt from healing. If there is no humiliation in it, he is exempt from humiliation.

"And if a man smites the eye of his slave" (Exodus 21:26). Might Scripture be speaking of a Hebrew manservant and maidservant? Scripture teaches "manservant and maidservant" — a manservant and maidservant whose law is the same for one another, excluding the Hebrew manservant and maidservant whose law is not the same for one another. "And if a man smites" — I know only of a man; from where do I learn of a woman? Scripture teaches "he shall send him free" — whether man or woman. Then what does "a man" teach? To exclude a minor. "His slave" — only if he intends to strike him. "The eye" — might it be that as soon as he struck him on his eye he goes free? Scripture teaches "and destroys it," excluding one who did not destroy it. Might it be that even if he struck him opposite his eye and he cannot see, or opposite his ear and he cannot hear? Scripture teaches "the eye" — only if he strikes him upon his eye.

"And if he knocks out his manservant's tooth or his maidservant's tooth" (Exodus 21:27). Might it be that as soon as he struck him on his tooth he goes free? Scripture teaches "he knocks out" — only when he knocks it to the ground. From where do you say that if he struck him on his tooth and it was loosened so he cannot use it, he goes free? Scripture teaches "tooth and eye": just as an eye that is destroyed, so a tooth that is destroyed. Might it be even if he knocked out a milk tooth? Scripture teaches "eye and tooth": just as an eye does not grow back, so a tooth that does not grow back. "He knocks out" — only if he intends to strike him. If his master was a physician and he said, "Paint my eye," and he blinded it, or "Lance my tooth," and he knocked it out, he has made sport of the master and goes free; for even though he did not intend to injure, he did intend to touch the slave's limb. I know only of tooth and eye. From where do I include if he severed the tip of his ear, the tip of his nose, the tip of his finger, or a woman's nipples? Scripture teaches "he shall send him free" — an inclusion. Might it be even if he cut from him a litra of flesh? Scripture teaches "eye and tooth": just as eye and tooth are distinct in being tips of limbs, visible blemishes that do not grow back, so I include only tips of limbs that are visible and do not grow back. From this they said: for twenty-four tips of limbs the slave goes free, namely the tips of the fingers of the hands and the feet, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the male organ, and a woman's nipples. From this they said: a Canaanite slave is acquired by five things — by money, by document, by possession, by drawing, and by lifting — and he acquires himself by three things: by money, or by document, or by the tips of limbs.

"And if an ox gores" (Exodus 21:28) — excluding one that was incited to gore. From this they said: an arena ox is exempt, because it acts only because it was made to. "An ox" — I know only of an ox; from where do I learn of other animals, beasts, and birds? Scripture teaches "if it gores" — in any case. "If it gores" — I know only of goring; from where do I learn of pushing, biting, lying upon, kicking? Here it says "if an ox gores," and below it says "and if an ox strikes" (verse 35): just as below it treats striking like goring, so here we treat goring like striking. "A man" — only if it intended him. "Or a woman" — only if it intended her. "A man and a woman" — I know only of a man and a woman; from where do I include a male minor and female minor, one of doubtful sex and one of double sex? Scripture teaches "a man or a woman." "And it dies, the ox shall surely be stoned" — to make other animals like the ox. I know only of these whose judgment is complete; from where do I include their young and their mixtures? Scripture teaches "it shall surely be stoned." "And its flesh shall not be eaten" — why do I need this? Do we not know it is carrion, and carrion is forbidden to eat? What then does "its flesh shall not be eaten" teach? It tells you that if he slaughtered it after its judgment was complete, its flesh is forbidden to eat. Might it be that if he slaughtered it before its judgment was complete it is forbidden? Scripture teaches "it shall surely be stoned": what is included in stoning, its flesh is forbidden; what is not included in stoning, its flesh is permitted. "Its flesh shall not be eaten" — I know only of flesh; from where do I learn that sinews, bones, horns, and hooves are like flesh? Scripture teaches "its flesh," to include. "Its flesh shall not be eaten" — even by dogs; this comes to forbid benefit from it. "And the owner of the ox shall be clear" (verse 28). Ben Azzai says: clear of its whole value, as a man says, "So-and-so went out clear of his property," having no benefit from it at all. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: clear of the value of the offspring. Rabbi Eliezer says: clear of half the damage.