Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Ben Yochai Reader

"But if the ox was a gorer" (Exodus 21:29) — I know only of an ox that gored while still harmless; from where that it must be testified against? Scripture teaches "if the ox was a gorer." "It" — certainly, and not in doubt. "Yesterday" — that is two; "the day before" — that is three: this teaches that it does not become a forewarned ox until they testify against it three days, one after another. "And it was warned in its owner" — there is no warning except before the owner. From where even in court? Scripture teaches "or it was known that the ox was a gorer" (verse 36) — or it became known in court. "And its owner did not keep it in" — I know only of the owner; from where do I include a borrower, an unpaid bailee, a hirer, and a paid bailee? Scripture teaches "and did not keep it in" — whoever has the duty to guard it. Then what does "its owner did not keep it in" exclude? A borrower who borrowed it presumed harmless and it turned out forewarned. "Did not keep it in" — but if he kept it, he is exempt from the ransom. "Did not keep it in" — one who has the sense to guard, so that they are exempt from the ransom. "And it killed a man or a woman" — why do I need this? It was already said "and if an ox gores a man or a woman and he dies." Rather, since it says "if the ox was a gorer from yesterday and the day before," I might think he is liable even if it did not kill; Scripture teaches "and it killed a man or a woman." "A man or a woman" — just as a man's damages go to his children, so a woman's damages go to her children; the husband does not inherit her ransom, for a husband does not inherit his wife when he is in the grave. "The ox shall be stoned" — why do I need this? It was already said "the ox shall surely be stoned." Rather, since it says "and also its owner," I might think that just as the ox is stoned so its owner is stoned; Scripture teaches "the ox shall be stoned" — the ox is stoned and its owner is not stoned. Then what does "the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death" teach? By the death of the owner, so is the death of the ox: just as the owner's death is by pushing, by stoning, and by twenty-three judges, so the ox's death is by pushing, by stoning, and by twenty-three judges. Another interpretation: "the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death" — as the death of the ox, so the death of the owner. From this they said: an ox that is terminally injured, or one belonging to a terminally injured person, that killed a soul, is not stoned. Another interpretation: the judgment of the ox is completed only before its owner. Or might it be that if it has no owner it is not stoned? Scripture teaches "the ox shall be stoned" — in any case. Another interpretation: "and also its owner shall be put to death" — might it mean actual death? This is learned from its context: "if a ransom is laid upon him." If it meant actual death, how do I uphold "you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer" (Numbers 35:31)? Rather, death at the hand of Heaven; and if he gives a ransom, atonement is made for him.

"If a ransom is laid upon him" (Exodus 21:30). Might one think the ransom is optional? Scripture teaches, "then he shall give the redemption of his life": it is an obligation, not a matter of choice. "A ransom shall be laid upon him": might one think that if the court said a maneh he gives a maneh, and if it said a hundred maneh he gives a hundred maneh? It is said here "shall be laid upon him," and it is said elsewhere (Exodus 21:22) "he shall be made to pay." Just as the "made to pay" stated there is set by the court, so the "laid upon him" stated here is set by the court. "Then he shall give the redemption of his life." Might one think it is the redemption of the life of the one harmed? Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: since you have made the owner liable to death yet exempted him through ransom, say from now on that it is the redemption of the life of the one who caused the harm. From here they said: an ox belonging to partners that killed [a person], each of the partners pays a full ransom, for each of them requires complete atonement. "That shall be laid upon him" comes to include the son and the daughter. "According to all that shall be laid upon him" comes to include the unpaid bailee, the borrower, the hired worker, and the paid bailee.

"Whether it gores a son or gores a daughter" (Exodus 21:31). Why do I need this? Has it not already been said (Exodus 21:28), "If an ox gores a man or a woman so that he dies"? What does "whether it gores a son or gores a daughter" come to teach? To treat minors like adults. And this could be argued by reasoning: a person is liable for [killing] a person, and an ox is liable for [killing] a person. Just as we find that for a person killing a person no distinction was drawn between minors and adults regarding death, so here too no distinction is drawn between minors and adults regarding death. And further, an argument from the lighter to the heavier: if in a case where one is not made liable for minors as for adults, one is nonetheless liable for minors as for adults, then here, where one is made liable for minors as for adults, is it not right that we hold liable for minors as for adults? No: if you say so of a person killing a person, who pays for the shame, would you say so of this case, where one does not pay for the shame? Therefore Scripture teaches, "whether it gores a son or gores a daughter." I know this only of a forewarned ox; from where do I learn an innocent ox? It can be argued: one is liable for a son and a daughter, and one is liable for a man and a woman. Just as for a man and a woman no distinction was drawn between an innocent ox and a forewarned one regarding death, so for a son and a daughter let no distinction be drawn between innocent and forewarned regarding death. And further, an argument from the lighter to the heavier: if for a man and a woman, whose claim in damages is weaker, no distinction was drawn between innocent and forewarned regarding death, then for a son and a daughter, whose claim in damages is stronger, is it not right that we draw no distinction between innocent and forewarned regarding death? You say: thus we reason. But we reason from the heavier to the lighter so as to be stringent, and if the law was stringent with the forewarned ox we would be stringent with the innocent. Therefore Scripture teaches, "whether it gores a son or gores a daughter": two gorings here, a goring for the forewarned and a goring for the innocent. I know this only of the whole [body]; from where do I learn its limbs? Scripture teaches, "whether it gores a son or gores a daughter": two gorings here, a goring for death and a goring for damages. "According to this judgment it shall be done to it": as the judgment of the forewarned ox, so the judgment of the innocent ox. And five kinds of beast are forewarned from the beginning of their creation and require no testimony: the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the bardelas [hyena or panther].

"If the ox gores a male slave or a female slave" (Exodus 21:32). Might one think Scripture speaks of a Hebrew male and female slave? Scripture says "a male slave and a female slave": a male and female slave whose law is the same for both. This excludes the Hebrew male and female slave, whose law is not the same for both. Thus Scripture speaks of Canaanite [slaves]. "Silver." Might one think a dinar? Scripture says "thirty." Might one think thirty dinar? Scripture says "shekels." "Silver." Might one think of any province's coinage? It is said here "shekels," and it is said elsewhere (Leviticus 27:25) "shekels." Just as the shekels stated there are by the sacred shekel, so the shekels stated here are by the sacred shekel. "He shall give to his master": whether the master is a man or a woman. "He shall give to his master": whether the master is a minor or an adult. "He shall give to his master." Might one think both in court and outside of court? Scripture says "he shall give to his master" and "the ox shall be stoned": just as its stoning is in court, so the giving is in court. "And the ox shall be stoned." Why do I need this? Has it not already been said (Exodus 21:28), "the ox shall surely be stoned"? What does "the ox shall be stoned" come to teach? Since it says "if the ox gores a slave," one might think that once it gored, even if it did not kill, it is liable. Scripture says "the ox shall be stoned," "the ox shall be stoned," for a verbal analogy: just as the "ox shall be stoned" stated elsewhere refers to when it killed, so the "ox shall be stoned" stated here refers to when it killed; and just as there it is the forewarned and not the innocent, so here the forewarned and not the innocent. Another interpretation: because the slave was included in the general rule and then singled out to be judged anew, Scripture returns it to its general category.

"If a man opens a pit" (Exodus 21:33). I know only of a man; from where a woman? Scripture says "the owner of the pit shall pay," whether a man or a woman. If so, why is "a man" stated? To exclude a minor; "a man" to exclude the Sanctuary. "If he opens." I know only of one who opens; from where one who digs? Scripture says "or if he digs." Let it say "the one who opens," who needs no digging, and if the one who opens is liable, all the more so the one who digs. Were it stated only thus I would have said the one who opens need only cover it, but the one who digs is not liable until he fills it in completely; therefore both "opens" and "digs" are stated. Might one think one who digs and opens on his own property is liable? Scripture says (Exodus 22:4) "and it feeds in another's field": just as that is outside his own domain, so all is outside his domain. Thus he is not liable until he digs in the public domain, or digs in his own domain and opens it onto the public domain. I know only of the one who opens and the one who digs; from where to include one who bought or was given [the pit] as a gift? Scripture says "the owner of the pit shall pay," in any case. Might one think that if he dug and opened and handed it over to the public he is liable? Scripture says "the owner of the pit shall pay": this excludes the one that has no owner. "Pit." I know only of a pit; from where ditches, trenches, cavities, and caves? Scripture says "and there falls into it": anything into which there can be a fall. If so, why is "pit" stated? Just as a pit is deep enough to kill, so all must be deep enough to kill. And how much is enough to kill? Ten handbreadths. "And does not cover it." Thus if he covered it he is exempt. "And there falls into it": only by way of falling, excluding an ox that recoiled at the sound of digging, turned backward, and fell. "An ox or a donkey." Why do I need this? "An ox" and not its equipment, "a donkey" and not its equipment. From here you say: if an ox and its equipment fell in and the equipment broke, or a donkey and its equipment fell in and the equipment tore, he is liable for the animal's damage and exempt for the equipment. The sages of Rabbi Ishmael said: it is stated here "an ox or a donkey," and stated elsewhere regarding the Sabbath (Exodus 23:12) "your ox and your donkey." Just as there other beasts, wild animals, and birds are treated like the ox, so here regarding damages other beasts, wild animals, and birds are treated like the ox.

"The owner of the pit shall pay" (Exodus 21:34). This is what we said, whether a man or a woman. Another interpretation: "the owner of the pit shall pay" comes to include every hazard that is a derivative of the pit; and if a person is injured by it he is liable, and for vessels he is exempt. "He shall restore silver to its owner." This is what we said, to include the damages. "And the dead animal shall be his," belonging to the one harmed. From here they said: we assess for damages by seeing how much the value has depreciated, and he pays him the depreciation. "And the dead animal shall be his." This teaches that he is obligated to take the trouble over the carcass until he hands it to him. "And the dead animal shall be his." This excludes the ox of disqualified consecrated animals, which has no owner.

"If a man's ox strikes" (Exodus 21:35). I know only of striking; from where to treat goring, biting, lying upon, and kicking like striking? It can be argued: an ox is liable [for harm] to a person, and an ox is liable [for harm] to an ox. Just as we find for an ox harming a person that goring, biting, lying upon, and kicking are treated like striking, so here too. And further a fortiori. But you might object, so Scripture teaches "and it dies," to treat goring, biting, lying upon, and kicking like striking. "If it strikes": Scripture speaks of [striking] with the horn. "A man": to exclude a minor; "a man": to exclude the Sanctuary. "His fellow's": to exclude others. "His fellow's": to exclude the resident alien. Might one think he does not pay for [harm caused by] a gentile's [ox] and a gentile does not pay through his? Scripture says "he shall surely pay," to include [the oxen] of gentiles and of the resident alien. Of these it says, "He shone forth from Mount Paran" (Deuteronomy 33:2): He showed His face toward all who come into the world. "And they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, and also the dead one they shall divide." This teaches that he pays only half the damage, and only from its body; therefore if it is worth nothing, he says, "Here, the one that injured you is before you." Rabbi Yehuda says: an ox worth two hundred that gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth fifty zuz, this one takes half the living and half the dead, and that one takes half the living and half the dead, as it says, "they shall sell the live ox and divide its price, and also the dead they shall divide." Rabbi Meir said to him: the Torah did not speak of that case, but of where the carcass is worth nothing. Then what does "and also the dead they shall divide" teach? That they divide also the depreciation; he pays him half the depreciation.

"Or it was known" (Exodus 21:36): from where [do we learn] in court and in the presence of the owner? Scripture says (Exodus 21:29) "and it was testified to its owner." Thus there is no [valid] testimony except before the court and in the presence of the owner. "It had gored": that is one [day]. "In time past": that is two. "And the day before": that is three. Thus there is no forewarned status until it is testified about over three days, and not [merely] three occasions. "And its owner did not guard it." Thus if he guarded it properly and it got out and caused damage, he is exempt. "And he did not guard it": to include the borrower, the unpaid bailee, the paid bailee, and the renter, like the one above. Another interpretation: "and he did not guard it," one who has the awareness [to guard], excluding the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the minor, who have no awareness to guard. "He shall surely pay": to include [the ox] of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. How so? We appoint guardians for them, and testimony is given before the guardians, and if [their oxen] cause damage the guardians are liable to pay. "An ox in place of the ox": this teaches that he pays full damage. "And the dead shall be his," belonging to the one harmed. Might one think he may say to him, "Give me a hundred maneh in place of the ox," while the other says, "Take an ox worth five selas in place of your ox"? Scripture says "an ox in place of the ox": just as the "in place of" stated elsewhere means money, so here it means money. "And the dead shall be his": he tends to the carcass until he delivers it to him.

"If a man steals" (Exodus 21:37). I know only of a man; from where a woman? Scripture says "he shall pay," whether a man or a woman. If so, why is "a man" stated? For the matter below: the man is sold for his theft, but the woman is not sold for her theft. "An ox or a sheep." I know only of a specific ox and sheep; from where to include hybrids? Scripture says "or a sheep." Might one think I should include the koy [an animal of uncertain species]? Scripture says "five cattle he shall pay in place of the ox," for that which is wholly sheep; this excludes one that is not wholly sheep. "And slaughters it." Since an unclean animal, which has no [ritual] slaughter, is excluded, this implies it excludes an unclean animal and includes a clean wild animal, which has slaughter. Scripture says "ox" and not a wild animal. "Sheep" and not birds. "And slaughters it or sells it." I know only of himself; from where his agent? Scripture says "and slaughters it or sells it." I know only of one who steals and sells; from where one who steals and gives as a gift, who pledges, who exchanges, who pays a debt with it? Scripture says "or sells it." Might one think one who stole and [then] inherited and afterward slaughtered, or stole and consecrated and afterward slaughtered, pays fourfold and fivefold? Scripture says "if a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it": just as the theft is of what is not his, so the slaughter and sale are of what is not his, excluding this, which is his. "And slaughters it or sells it." From here, regarding partners who stole, they are not liable until both sell or both slaughter, as it says "and slaughters it or sells it." "Five cattle he shall pay in place of the ox and four sheep in place of the sheep": a decree of the King. Might one think he may say, "Give me a hundred maneh in place of my ox," while the other says, "Take five oxen worth five selas each in place of your ox"? It is said "in place of" here and "in place of" elsewhere; just as there he pays only money, so here he pays only money.

"If a thief is found breaking in" (Exodus 22:1). From this I know only the case of breaking in by tunneling. How do I know to include his courtyard, his garden, and his roofed enclosure? Scripture teaches, "the thief is found" (Exodus 22:1) in any place at all. If so, why is "breaking in" stated? Rather, in the case of breaking in, if the householder struck him and he died, there is no blood guilt for him; but if the thief had already gone out beyond the breach, there is blood guilt for him. One might think witnesses are required. Scripture teaches "breaking in" [the act of] breaking in is itself his testimony. If so, why is "is found" stated? It refers to the matter above, "he shall pay five oxen" (Exodus 21:37). One might think he may pay on his own admission. Scripture teaches "is found" there is no "found" except in any place through witnesses. "And he is struck" by any person. "And dies" by any means. "There is no blood" no blood guilt for him, whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath. [And further on it says "there is blood for him" blood guilt, whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath.]

"If the sun has risen upon him" (Exodus 22:2). Does the sun rise upon him alone? Surely it rises upon the whole world! Rather, just as the rising of the sun is something open and revealed, so this applies to any case that is open and revealed; and just as the rising of the sun means peace for him, so any case where there is peace for him [where the thief comes with no intent to kill]. "There is blood for him" blood guilt, whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath. [Further on it says (Deuteronomy 22:26), "For as when a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this matter" this is like that: just as that is a matter of possible loss of life, so this is a matter of possible loss of life; just as in that case, if one can prevent him by other means he must do so before killing him, so here, if one can prevent him from killing, one must do so before killing him.] "He shall surely pay" therefore if there is no blood guilt against him, he does not pay [restitution, having instead been liable to death]. [Just as in the case of one struck while breaking in, an unintended act is treated as intended: he is judged for his life and exempt from monetary payment, so in any such case the unintended is treated as intended, judged for his life and exempt from payment.] "If he has nothing" this teaches that we do not assess his property the way we assess for one who is established in possession; we do not assess movable goods. "If he has nothing" this teaches that we do not wait for him until his father dies or until his ship comes in from across the sea. "He shall be sold for his theft" he is sold for his theft, not for the value he must pay double; he is sold for his theft, not for the added penalty; he is sold for his theft once and not sold again and again. Rabbi Elazar says he is sold only when his value is equal to his theft. "He shall be sold for his theft" the man is sold for his theft, but the woman is not sold for her theft.

"If the theft is actually found in his hand" (Exodus 22:3) if they saw him enter but did not find the theft in his hand, or found the theft in his hand but did not see him enter, he is exempt until they both see him enter and find the theft in his hand. From what is stated further on, "and it is stolen from the man's house" (Exodus 22:6), Scripture tells that he is not liable until he removes it from the owner's domain. One might think this case is likewise. From where do you derive that if he lifted it up within the owner's domain he is liable? Scripture teaches, "if the theft is actually found in his hand." "From ox" since we find regarding the fourfold and fivefold payment that one who steals in partnership, or a partner who steals from his fellow, is exempt, one might think this case is likewise; Scripture teaches "from ox" even part of an ox [to include partners who stole]. "To sheep" even part of a sheep. "From ox to donkey to sheep, alive" had Scripture said "ox" and "theft" alone, I might have reasoned that just as the ox has a firstborn offering for the altar, I include only what has a firstborn offering for the altar; what is that? A sheep. Therefore Scripture says "sheep" plainly. Then why say "theft"? To include something else. Had it said "ox and sheep," I might have included only what has a firstborn given to the priests, namely the donkey; therefore Scripture says "donkey," and "theft" comes to include something else. Had it said "ox and sheep and donkey," I might have included only what has the breath of life; therefore Scripture says "alive," and "theft" comes to include something else. One might think that one who steals his own son and sells him pays double. And it would follow by reasoning: if these, for whose sale one is not liable to death, require double payment, then his son, for whose sale one is liable to death, surely requires double. Scripture teaches "from ox to donkey to sheep" just as these are things one is permitted to sell, this excludes his son, whom one is not permitted to sell. I would exclude his son, whom one may never sell, but would I not still include his daughter, whom one may sell? Scripture teaches "from ox to donkey to sheep" just as these may be sold forever, this excludes his daughter, who may not be sold forever. And it likewise excludes land, which has no breakage, captivity, or death; and slaves, whose safekeeping is not upon you; and bonds of debt, which give you only proof of a claim and not the thing itself. "Alive he shall pay double" even without an oath. [The full argument by reasoning is rejected by:] Scripture teaches "alive he shall pay double" even without an oath. And one might think it is on his own admission; Scripture teaches "if it is found" there is no "found" anywhere except through witnesses.

"If a man causes a field or vineyard to be consumed" (Exodus 22:4) the one who causes the consuming is liable to pay. From here you say: thieves who opened a pen or opened a secured place so that an animal went out and caused damage the thieves are exempt and the householder is exempt, for it says "and he lets loose his beast" this one did not let it loose. If the thieves drove it out, the thieves are liable and the householder is exempt, for it says "if he causes consuming, the one who causes the consuming is liable to pay." If he locked it properly and tied it properly [and made a partition ten handbreadths high and entrusted it to an elder or an invalid who has understanding] and the animal went out and caused damage, he is exempt, for it says "and he lets loose his beast" this one did not let it loose. If he locked it improperly and tied it improperly [and made a partition not ten handbreadths high] and entrusted it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor [who have no understanding], and the animal went out and caused damage, he is liable, for it says "if he causes consuming, the one who causes the consuming is liable to pay." "A field or a vineyard" I know only a field and vineyard specifically; from where to include anything else? Scripture teaches "or a vineyard." One might think I include even an animal that tore clothing or consumed vessels; Scripture teaches "vineyard" just as a vineyard yields produce, so anything that is produce. Rabbi Shimon says: a vineyard is included in "field"; why then say "field or vineyard"? To teach that if the animal ate unripe figs or unripe grapes, we view them as though they were fully ripened produce. "And he lets loose his beast" an animal that was walking its usual way in the public domain and fell into a garden and benefited: if not by its own doing, it pays for what it benefited; if by its own doing, it pays for what it damaged. We do not assess a single small plot, because that inflates the value, nor a vast field, because that lowers it; rather we assess a seah's measure of land within that field, how much it was worth and how much it is now worth. "And he lets loose his beast" I know only the tooth, eating what is fit for it; from where the foot, breaking things along its path? Scripture teaches "and he lets loose his beast." As Isaiah says (Isaiah 5:5), "I will remove its hedge and it shall be consumed, I will break down its wall and it shall be trampled." These cause damage in their normal manner, and pay full damages; so too anything that damages in its normal manner pays full damages. "And it consumes in another's field" not in the householder's own field, and not where the owner gave permission to stack. "The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay" this teaches that we assess for him only from the best land, and only from movable goods. This is the precedent for all who pay a penalty: they pay only from the best, and only from movable goods, and we do not assess potential property as we assess established property.

"If fire breaks out" (Exodus 22:5) treating the unintended as the intended: one who kindles within his own property and fire goes out and consumes within his neighbor's property is liable. One might think that even if it crossed a stream, or a channel, or a private road, or a public road sixteen cubits wide, or a wall four cubits high, he would still be liable; Scripture teaches "and it finds" only where it is readily available to it. "Thorns" just as thorns grow of themselves, one might think I include only what grows of itself; Scripture teaches "a stack." Just as a stack is detached from the ground, one might think only what is detached; Scripture teaches "standing grain." These are things fit to burn; from where to include that it scorched plowed fields, or licked up monuments of marble or of flax, or stones prepared for a kiln? Scripture teaches "field." From where if it consumed lime-kilns or potters' kilns? Scripture teaches "the one who kindled the blaze." One who kindles within his own property and fire goes out and consumes his neighbor's stack is liable. If there were vessels in it and they burned: Rabbi Yehudah says he is liable for the stack and liable for the vessels. The Sages say we view the place of the vessels as though it were full of grain, and he pays only the value of the stack. Rabbi Yehudah agrees with the Sages in the case of one who lends a place to his fellow to stack and the fellow hid vessels in it and it burned that he pays only the value of the stack. If an ox was tied to the stack and burned with it, or a donkey tied to the stack and burned with it, he is liable; but if they were loose, he is exempt, for it says "stack and standing grain" just as these cannot flee, this excludes those that can flee. One who kindles within his own property and fire goes out and consumes within his neighbor's courtyard is liable, for it is the way of a courtyard to bring everything into it. From where also: one who strikes with a hammer and a spark flies out and causes damage, whether in private or public domain; or who placed a glowing coal on iron these things, done within his own and causing damage in what is not his, make him liable. So too anyone who acts within his own and damages in what is not his is liable. From where: if one brought the wood and another brought the fire, or one brought the fire and another the wood, that the last is liable? Scripture teaches "if fire breaks out, the one who kindles is liable to pay." And if one brought wood and another fire and another came and fanned it, the one who fanned it, if his fanning was enough to spread it, is liable. Behold, there are four primary categories of damage: the ox, the pit, the grazing beast, and the fire. The ox is not like the grazing beast, nor the grazing beast like the ox; and neither of these, which have the breath of life, is like the fire, which has no breath of life; and neither of these, whose way is to go and cause damage, is like the pit, whose way is not to go and cause damage. Therefore all four are stated.

"If a man gives to his neighbor" (Exodus 22:6) the giving of a minor counts for nothing. [I know this only when a minor gave and a minor claimed. From where that a minor gave and an adult claimed? Scripture says "the matter of both shall come before the judges" the moment of claim and the moment of giving must be equal.] "A man" this excludes the Most High [the sanctuary's property]. I know only when he gave to a layman; from where when consecrated property was given? Scripture teaches "if he has not put his hand to his neighbor's goods" his neighbor's, not the sanctuary's. [And the moment of claim and the moment of giving must be equal.] "His neighbor" excludes others; "his neighbor" excludes a resident alien. [The moment of claim and the moment of giving must be equal.] "Money" just as money grows from the land, one might think I exclude vessels of the sea, which do not grow from the land; Scripture teaches "or vessels." These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Since we find he is liable upon a claim and liable upon an admission, just as admission applies at the value of a perutah, so a claim applies at the value of a perutah; Scripture teaches "money" the value of a maah of silver, the words of the House of Shammai; and the House of Hillel say the claim must be two pieces of silver. "To keep" not to lose; "to keep" not to distribute to the poor; "to keep" not to throw away; "to keep" not to give away as a gift. "And it is stolen from the man's house" not from the top of his roof this tells that if he did not guard it in the manner of guardians, he is liable. "From the man's house" not from the thief's house: one who steals after a thief does not pay double, and one who slaughters or sells after a thief does not pay the fourfold and fivefold penalty. "If the thief is found, he shall pay double" why is this needed? It is already said "if the theft is actually found in his hand"! What then does "if the thief is found" teach? It tells that if the keeper paid the owner of the deposit and afterward the thief was found, the thief pays the double or the fourfold and fivefold penalty to the keeper. Rabbi Yishmael says: "if the thief is found" means if witnesses are found for the householder against the one who falsely pleaded the plea of a thief, that one pays double. One might think he pays on his own admission; Scripture teaches "is found" there is no "found" anywhere except through witnesses. And the oath fixes when he becomes called a wicked one only after the oath.

"If the thief is not found" (Exodus 22:7) if no witnesses are found for the householder against the one who pleaded the plea of a thief. "Then the master of the house shall draw near to the judges" for an oath. [Or one might think for payment; Scripture teaches "if he has not put his hand to his neighbor's goods." Another interpretation: "drawing near" is stated here and "drawing near" is stated further on; just as the drawing near stated further on is for an oath, so the drawing near stated here is for an oath.] "If he has not put his hand to his neighbor's goods" why is this needed? Surely it was in his hand! What does "if he has not put his hand to his neighbor's goods" teach? If he took vessels out of a closed container, or led out an animal and rode upon it, he is liable, for it says "if he has not put his hand to his neighbor's goods" this one put his hand to it in any case.

One who merely intended to put his hand to his fellow's deposit: the House of Shammai declare him liable and the House of Hillel exempt him. The House of Shammai say, regarding "any matter of trespass" (Exodus 22:8), that intention is treated as the deed; the House of Hillel say, "if he has not put his hand to his neighbor's goods" tells that he is not liable until he actually puts his hand to it. If so, why is "any matter of trespass" stated? Because one might think it applies only to himself; from where to include his slave and his agent? Scripture teaches "any matter of trespass." If he tilted the jar and took from it and it broke, he pays only for the quarter he took, for it says "trespass" for what he trespassed. If he uprooted it entirely, he pays its full value, for it says "any matter of trespass" for all that he trespassed. If he moved it from place to place and it broke in his hand: for his own purpose he is liable, for its owner's purpose he is exempt, for it says "trespass" this excludes one who did not trespass. "For ox, for donkey, for sheep" had it said "ox" and "trespass," I might have included only what has a firstborn for the altar, namely a sheep; therefore Scripture says "sheep," and "trespass" includes something else. Had it said "ox and sheep," I might have included only what has a firstborn for the priests, namely the donkey; therefore Scripture says "donkey," and "trespass" includes something else. Had it said ox and sheep and donkey, I might have included only what has the breath of life; therefore Scripture says "a garment," and this excludes land, slaves, and bonds of debt, which give only proof. One might think he is liable for less than the value of a perutah; Scripture teaches "a garment" just as a garment is worth at least a perutah. If one claimed of him an ox, a donkey, and a sheep, and he admitted to one of them, he is liable, for it says "for ox and for every lost thing of which he says, This is it," and likewise for donkey and for sheep. If one claimed an ox and he admitted a sheep, or claimed a sheep and admitted an ox, he is exempt: I bring in the one who admitted part of the claim and exclude the one who did not admit part of the claim. "Of which he says, This is it" one might think that just as the denial must be of two pieces of silver, so the admission; Scripture teaches "This is it" even the value of a perutah. "The matter of both shall come before the judges" if one claimed in private and the other admitted, then came to court and denied: if there are witnesses that he admitted before them, he is liable; if not, he is exempt, for it says "the matter of both" what the two of them spoke outside. "The matter of both shall come before the judges" this is an oath. "Both" is stated here and "both" further on; just as there it means an oath, so here. From here they said: three swear by Torah law the keeper, one who admits part of a claim, and one made liable by a single witness. From where that we do not incline a verdict to liability on the word of one judge? Scripture teaches "whom the judges condemn," in the plural. This excludes one who condemns himself: from here they said no one pays a penalty on his own admission. "He shall pay double to his neighbor" to his neighbor, not to the sanctuary; to his neighbor, not to others.

"If a man delivers to his neighbor" (Exodus 22:9). One might think both passages [this one and the next] deal with a single matter. But is it written "and if"? It says only "if" [marking a new case], teaching that this is one distinct matter. Thus the first passage speaks of the unpaid guardian, and the second of the paid bailee and the renter. The unpaid guardian takes an oath about everything and is exempt; the paid bailee sometimes takes an oath and sometimes must pay. "If a man delivers." I know only of a man; from where do I learn a woman? Scripture says "he shall pay" (Exodus 22:8), whether man or woman. If so, why is "a man" stated? To exclude a minor. "To his neighbor" excludes others [non-Israelites]; "his neighbor" excludes the resident alien; "his neighbor" excludes consecrated property, for one is not liable to an oath concerning these. "A donkey or an ox or a sheep." I know only of these specified animals. From where do I include other livestock? Scripture says "any animal." From where do I include other movable goods? Scripture says "to keep." One might think I should include bonds, slaves, and land; Scripture says "a donkey or an ox or a sheep": just as these are movable goods, so I have only movable goods. "And it dies or is injured or is driven away." Let it say "dies": why must it also state "driven away" and "injured"? Had it said only death, I would have said that death is unique in that there is no breath of life left, excluding the injured and the captured beast, which still have breath of life. So Scripture must state death, injury, and capture. Were it to say only "injured," I would have reasoned that injury is unique in being before you, excluding the captured and the dead which are not before you. Were it to say only "captured," I would have reasoned that capture is unique in that the beast still has breath of life, excluding the injured and dead which do not. Therefore Scripture states all three. From where do I include all other forced losses? Scripture says "dies or is injured or is driven away." "And it dies" by the hand of Heaven. "Or is injured" by a wild beast. "Or is driven away" by raiders. I might still say this applies whether or not he could have rescued it; Scripture says "and it dies": just as in death he could not rescue it, so too the injury and capture must be such that he could not rescue. "With no one seeing" (Exodus 22:9). Scripture speaks of witnesses. "Seeing" is said here, and "or has seen" is said elsewhere (Leviticus 5:1). Just as the seeing mentioned there means two witnesses, so the seeing here means two witnesses. "With no one seeing, an oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them." Thus if there are witnesses, the householder is exempt from everything. Issi ben Yehudah says: "With no one seeing, an oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them" means that if there is one who saw, the guardian must bring proof and be exempt; if not, he is liable to pay. "An oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them" while holding a sacred object. "Between the two of them" excludes the heir. "The two of them" excludes the one opposing him who is suspect regarding oaths. "Between the two of them" means the judge may not impose the oath upon him against his will. Rabbi Natan says: "between the two of them" teaches that the oath falls upon both of them.

"An oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them" (Exodus 22:10). It does not depart from between the two of them: if the one swearing swears falsely, it will in the end come back upon him; if the one imposing the oath does so falsely, it will in the end come back upon him. This is what people say: whether innocent or guilty, do not come near to an oath. "That he has not laid his hand" upon it for his own use. You say for his own use; or is it whether or not for his own use? You may reason: "laying of the hand" is said here, and "laying of the hand" is said elsewhere; just as there it means for his own use, so here it means for his own use. "And its owner shall accept" (Exodus 22:10): he accepts the oath from him. "And he shall not pay." From here they said: the owner of the carcass tends to his own carcass [the guardian returns the dead animal to the owner]. Another interpretation: "and its owner shall accept and he shall not pay" teaches that all who swear in the Torah swear and do not pay. Another interpretation: when it says "an oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them," we do not yet know which of them swears and is released; Scripture says "and its owner shall accept and he shall not pay": once the owners have accepted the oath, he is exempt from paying. One might think the same is true for the hired worker, the robbed, and the wounded; Scripture says "between the two of them": sometimes this one swears and sometimes that one swears. Another interpretation: "and its owner shall accept and he shall not pay": if a man borrowed an ox and the ox gored a person, or borrowed an ox that itself gored a person, if the borrower returned it to its owner before its sentence was completed he is exempt, but if after the sentence was completed he returned it, he is liable, as it says "and its owner shall accept and he shall not pay": something the owner would normally accept back, excluding this ox which an owner would not normally take back. Say from now on that this applies to movable goods.

"And if it is indeed stolen" (Exodus 22:11). I know only of theft; from where do I learn loss? You may reason: since theft is a failure of safekeeping and loss is a failure of safekeeping, if you have learned regarding theft that he must pay for it, so too for loss he must pay. "From him": anything that is with him. If one said, "Lend me your cow," and the owner sent it by the hand of his son, his servant, or his agent, and it was stolen on the way, one might think the borrower is liable; Scripture says "from him," meaning from the domain of the guardian. "He shall pay to its owner," whether man or woman, whether minor or adult. Another interpretation: "he shall pay to its owner." If not, what could enter my mind, that he pays to someone who is not the owner? If you say it is a correction of the text, it has already been said "the best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay" (Exodus 22:4). Yet it is not the owner there. So what does "he shall pay to its owner" teach? To its owner and not to a creditor; to its owner and not to one harmed and not to the holder of a deposit. From here you say: if a man held a deposit or a loan in the hands of others, to whom should they be given? Rabbi Tarfon says: they should be given to the weaker of the claimants. Rabbi Akiva says: they should be given to the heirs, for the heirs are exempt from swearing.

"If it is indeed torn" (Exodus 22:12): this refers to the herd, the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Although there is no proof for the matter, there is a hint of it: "Thus says the LORD: as the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion two legs or a piece of an ear" (Amos 3:12). "Let him bring it as evidence." Rabbi Yochanan son of Rabbi Yoshiyah says: "let him bring it as evidence" means let him bring witnesses that it was torn by unavoidable accident. Abba Shaul says: let him bring its testimony to the court, and so it says "as the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion." "Let him bring it as evidence, the torn beast": let the bailee lead the owner to the torn carcass and he shall be exempt from paying. Or perhaps even so he is liable to pay; reason would suggest it, since loss is a failure of safekeeping and a tearing is a failure of safekeeping; if you have learned regarding loss that he must pay, so too for a tearing he should pay. Scripture says "the torn beast he shall not pay." One might think he does not pay for any torn beast; Scripture says "if it is indeed torn," speaking of two kinds of tearing. "The torn beast he shall not pay." There is a tearing for which he pays and a tearing for which he does not pay. Which tearing is he liable to pay for? For example, the tearing by a cat or a fox. And which tearing is he exempt from? For example, the tearing by a lion or a wolf. Whatever comes by the way of unavoidable accident, he is exempt; whatever does not come by unavoidable accident, he is liable. Just as the Torah distinguished between one tearing and another, and between one accident and another, so distinguish between one death and another, between one injury and another, and between one capture and another. Between one death and another, how? If the beast was grazing before him and fell and died, he is exempt. If he afflicted it, starved it, or shut the door before it so that it fell and died, he is liable. Between one injury and another, how? If it was grazing before him at the entrance of the city gate and fell and was injured, he is exempt. If he led it up to the tops of cliffs, drove them along one path and shoved one against another so that it fell and was injured, he is liable. Between one capture and another: if it was grazing before him at the entrance of the city and a troop came and took it, he is exempt. If he walked it to a place of marauders and bandits, and a troop came and took it, he is liable.

"And if a man borrows" (Exodus 22:13): Scripture detached the borrower from the category of paid bailee and made him a matter unto himself. "A man." I know only of a man; from where do I learn a woman? Scripture says "he shall surely pay," whether man or woman. If so, why is "a man" stated? To exclude a minor. "From his neighbor" excludes others; "from his neighbor" excludes the resident alien; "from his neighbor" teaches that he is not liable until he takes it out of the owner's domain. "And it is injured or dies." I know only of the injured and the dead; from where do I learn the lost and the stolen? Reason gives it, and he is liable, for it is so with the paid bailee: just as we find the paid bailee pays for loss and theft, so too this one shall pay for loss and theft. And further, an a fortiori argument: if the paid bailee, who does not pay for unavoidable accidents, pays for loss and theft, then this borrower, who does pay for unavoidable accidents, surely should pay for loss and theft. This is an a fortiori argument that cannot be refuted. From where do I learn the captured beast? It is derived: "injured or dead" is said here, and "injured or dead" is said earlier (Exodus 22:9). Just as the injured and dead mentioned earlier include the captured, so the injured and dead mentioned here include the captured; and just as there it excludes slaves, bonds, and land, so here it excludes slaves, bonds, and land. "Its owner not being with it, he shall surely pay; if its owner is with it, he shall not pay." Do we not already know that if the owner is not with it he pays, and if the owner is with it he does not pay? Rather, there are times when the owner is with it and he is liable, and times when the owner is not with it and he is exempt. How so? One who borrows the cow and borrows its owner along with it, one who rents the cow and rents its owner along with it, who borrows the cow and rents its owner, or rents the cow and borrows its owner, even if the owner is standing and plowing elsewhere, if it fell and died he is exempt, as it says "if its owner is with it he shall not pay." But if he borrowed the cow and only afterward borrowed the owner, or rented and afterward rented the owner, or borrowed and afterward rented the owner, or rented and afterward borrowed the owner, even if the owner is standing and plowing right over it, if it fell and died he is liable, as it says "its owner not being with it, he shall surely pay." I know this only of the borrower, that if he borrowed with the owner he is exempt. From where do I learn the unpaid guardian, the paid bailee, and the renter? You say an a fortiori argument: if the borrower, who pays for everything, is freed by borrowing-with-the-owner, then the unpaid guardian who is exempt from everything, and the paid bailee and renter who are exempt from accidents, surely are freed when the safekeeping is done together with the owner. "Its owner not being with it, he shall surely pay." From here they said: the borrower pays for everything except a beast that died in the course of its work, provided he did not deviate.

"If its owner is with it" (Exodus 22:14). One might think that if a man said to another, "Go out and be borrowed along with my cow," and he went out and was borrowed with it, the borrower should be exempt; Scripture says "its owner is with it," its owner and not his agent. Thus there are three passages for three laws: the first for the unpaid guardian, the second for the paid bailee, the third for the borrower. The unpaid guardian swears and is exempt from everything. The paid bailee swears regarding accidents and pays for what are not accidents. The borrower pays for everything except death in the course of work. And in all of them, if the safekeeping was done together with the owner, even if they were negligent, they are exempt. "If he is a hired worker, it comes for his hire" (Exodus 22:14): Scripture speaks of the renter. Do not read "hired" (sakhir) but "rented" (sakhur). "It comes for his hire." I might understand that he swears and is exempt from everything. You may reason: since the paid bailee derives benefit and the renter derives benefit, if you have learned regarding the paid bailee that he swears about accidents and pays for theft and loss, so too the renter swears about accidents and pays for theft and loss. But behold the unpaid guardian, who provides benefit and is exempt from paying; let him prove regarding the renter, that although he provides benefit he should be exempt from paying. You answer: there is a difference. The paid bailee derives benefit and provides benefit, and the renter derives benefit and provides benefit; do not bring in the unpaid guardian, who provides benefit but derives none. Therefore, if you have learned regarding the paid bailee that he swears about accidents and pays for loss and theft, so too the renter swears about accidents and pays for loss and theft.

"And if a man seduces a virgin" (Exodus 22:15). It is the way of a woman to be seduced by a man, and not the way of a man to be seduced by a woman. When Rabbi Eliezer reached this verse he would say: woe for this one. It is the way of the world that a woman is seduced by a man and the lesser by the greater. So Jeremiah said, "You seduced me, O LORD, and I was seduced" (Jeremiah 20:7). But of our ancestors what does it say? "They seduced Him with their mouths" (Psalms 78:36). Is it the way of the world that the greater is seduced by the lesser? "And with their tongues they lied to Him" (Psalms 78:36). Is it the way of the world that the greater accepts words of falsehood? Rather, they deceived themselves and lied to themselves; and even so, "He saved them for His name's sake" (Psalms 106:8). "A virgin" excludes one already bedded and one whose hymen was lost by accident; "a virgin" excludes a mature woman and one incapable of childbearing. "Who is not betrothed" excludes one who was betrothed and then divorced from the betrothal. "And lies with her" with her knowledge and by her consent; "and lies with her" until he has relations with her in the usual manner and with witnesses. One might think she becomes acquired to him through his seduction; Scripture says "he shall surely endow her to him as a wife," teaching that she requires betrothal from him. One might think this is so even though she is not fit for him in marriage; Scripture says "he shall endow her to him as a wife," one who is fit for him in marriage, excluding a widow to a high priest, a divorcee or a chalutzah to an ordinary priest, a mamzeret or netinah to an Israelite, an Israelite woman to a mamzer or natin. One might think, since she is fit for him in marriage, he is liable for her fine; Scripture says...

"If her father utterly refuses" (Exodus 22:16): this teaches that the father has the authority to refuse. When she has no father, from where do we learn that the authority is in her own hand? Scripture says "utterly refuses" [the doubled verb including her]. From where do we learn that even the husband-to-be may refuse? Scripture says "utterly refuses," in any case. "To give her to him." If one man betrothed one woman, she is betrothed; if two men betrothed one woman, she is not betrothed. Another interpretation: "to give her to him" teaches that the father has the right to receive the betrothal of his minor daughter. "He shall weigh out silver." But we have not heard how much. You may reason: "silver" is said here, and "silver" is said regarding the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:29). Just as the silver stated regarding the rapist is fifty, so the silver stated here is fifty, "according to the bride-price of virgins." And what have we learned from the bride-price of virgins until now? This verse comes to teach and turns out itself to be taught: just as there it is fifty, so here it is fifty.

"A sorcerer" (Exodus 22:17): the word implies the masculine, and "a sorceress" implies the feminine. Or, why are acts of sorcery called by the name of women? Because most sorcery is found among women. "You shall not let live" (Exodus 22:17): this is a warning to the court that it must not let the sorcerer live. "You shall not let live." Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: it is stated here "you shall not let live," and it is stated elsewhere, "you shall not let any soul live" (Deuteronomy 20:16). Just as there [the killing is] by the sword, so here [it is] by the sword. But Rabbi Akiva says: it is stated here "you shall not let live," and it is stated elsewhere, "whether beast or man, it shall not live" (Exodus 19:13). Just as there [the death is] by stoning, so here [it is] by stoning. Rabbi Yose the Galilean said to him: Akiva, I derive "you shall not let live" from "you shall not let live" [the identical phrase], whereas you derive "you shall not let live" from "it shall not live" [a different phrase]. He said to him: I derive it from the nations, who have no form of execution except by the sword, while you derive it from Israel, who have many forms of execution. Ben Azzai says: "Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 22:18). They placed this matter next to it: just as that one is by stoning, so this one [the sorcerer] is by stoning.

"Whoever lies with a beast" (Exodus 22:18): why do I need this? If [it speaks of] a man who comes upon a beast, that has already been stated. And if [it speaks of] a woman who brings the beast upon herself, that too has already been stated. What, then, does Scripture teach by saying "whoever lies with a beast"? This refers to the male who brings the beast upon himself. I have only [a domestic] beast; from where do I learn [that the same applies to] a wild animal? Scripture teaches, "whoever lies with a beast" [the inclusive phrasing]. "Shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 22:18): by stoning.

"One who sacrifices to other gods shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:19). Could it be that Scripture speaks of one who slaughters consecrated offerings outside [the Temple]? Scripture teaches, "one who sacrifices to gods shall be destroyed" — this is one who sacrifices to the idol itself. I have only the one who slaughters; from where [do I include] one who burns incense or pours a libation? Scripture teaches, "except to the LORD alone" — [this excludes] all the rites that belong to the Unique Name. Just as this [slaughtering] is an act performed on its own and one is liable for it in idolatry whether one habitually worships [that idol] or not, so too any act performed on its own renders one liable in idolatry whether one worships [it] or not. "One who sacrifices to gods shall be destroyed." One might think that the property of the idolater becomes forbidden for benefit, while the idol itself would not be forbidden for benefit. Scripture teaches, "you shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a banned thing" (Deuteronomy 7:26): the idol itself is forbidden for benefit, but the property of the idolater is not forbidden for benefit. "Except to the LORD alone": to include the one who associates [another name with God]. From here they said: whoever associates the name of another [deity] with the Holy One, blessed be He, is uprooted from the world.

"And you shall not wrong a stranger" (Exodus 22:20): [this forbids] two kinds of wronging in one matter — one is wronging in money, and one is wronging in words. "Nor oppress him": [this forbids] two kinds of oppression in one matter — one is oppression in money, and one is oppression in words. "For you were strangers" (Exodus 22:20): He said to them, if you reproach him with being a stranger, the stranger can reproach you in turn, "for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." So it says, "lest I strip her naked and set her forth" (Hosea 2:5).

"A widow or a fatherless child" (Exodus 22:21): I have only a widow and a fatherless child. From where do I include every person? Scripture teaches, "you shall not afflict" [in the plural and absolute]. If so, why is it stated, "a widow or a fatherless child"? [Because the Holy One, blessed be He, says:] I am quick to exact punishment on account of the widow and the fatherless child more than on account of any other person. For a wife can complain to her husband, and a son can complain to his father, but these have no one to whom they can complain except Me alone. Another interpretation: "any widow" — even the widow of a king; "and a fatherless child" — whether fatherless from the father or fatherless from the mother. And until when are they called orphans? Until they can stand on their own. "You shall not afflict." Since it says, "if you afflict him" (Exodus 22:22), one might think a person is not liable until he afflicts and afflicts [repeatedly]; Scripture teaches, "you shall not afflict" — even a single affliction. If so, why is it stated, "if you afflict him"? To make one liable for each and every affliction.

"If you afflict, afflict them" (Exodus 22:22): this includes both one who afflicts their bodies with labor, or [afflicts] their property with words. Or might one think it includes even [the master] teaching them Torah or teaching them a craft? Scripture teaches, "if you afflict" [only true affliction is meant]. "If he cries out, cries out to Me" (Exodus 22:22): one might think a person is not liable until [the victim] cries out and cries out [repeatedly]; Scripture teaches, "his cry" — even a single cry. If so, why is it stated, "if he cries out, cries out"? To make one liable for each and every cry. "I will surely hear his cry" (Exodus 22:22): it is not that, just as I hear from this one, [so] I hear from that one [— rather, I hear the cry of the oppressed especially].

"And My anger shall burn" (Exodus 22:23): it is stated here "and anger shall burn," and it is stated elsewhere "the burning of anger." Just as the burning of anger stated here means the sword, so the burning of anger stated elsewhere means the sword; and just as the burning of anger stated elsewhere means the withholding of rain and exile, so the burning of anger stated here means the withholding of rain and exile. Another interpretation: it is stated here "anger" and it is stated elsewhere "anger." Just as the anger stated elsewhere means pestilence and wild beasts, so the anger stated here means pestilence and wild beasts. We find that we have learned that wherever "the burning of anger" is stated, there are five kinds of calamity: pestilence, the sword, wild beasts, the withholding of rain, and exile. "And I will kill you with the sword" (Exodus 22:23): does the Omnipresent kill them with the sword? Rather, He brings upon them one who kills them with the sword. "And your wives shall be widows and your children fatherless." From what is stated, "and your wives shall be widows," do I not already know that their children are fatherless? Rather: their wives will sit as widows, guarding [their status] like captives, unable to remarry [since the husbands' deaths are unconfirmed]; and their children will sit guarding like captives, unable to come into their inheritance. Another interpretation: if you pervert justice, in the end their wives will be afflicted in other courts and their children will be afflicted in other courts. Abba Yudan, a man of Sidon, says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: from where do we learn that a person should not say, "I am not worthy to pray for the Temple and for the Land of Israel"? Scripture teaches, "I will surely hear his cry." And which measure is greater, the measure of good or the measure of calamity? You must say: the measure of good. Now if regarding the lesser measure of calamity an individual prays and the Omnipresent hears his prayer, then regarding the greater measure of good it is only right that an individual should pray and the Omnipresent hears his prayer.

"If you lend money" (Exodus 22:24): one might think this is optional; Scripture teaches, "you shall surely lend him" (Deuteronomy 15:8) — it is an obligation, not optional. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said: every "if" in the Torah is optional except for three that are obligatory, and this is one of them. "Money": I have only money. From where do I include a beast, produce, and vessels? Scripture teaches, "lend." I have only a loan. From where do I include [obligations such as] damages, half-damages, the double payment, and the fourfold and fivefold payments? Scripture teaches, "if money." If so, why is it stated, "lend"? From here you say: one may add to the rental price but may not add to the sale price. How so? If one rents out his house or his field and says, "if you pay me now, one maneh; if later, one hundred and fifty," it is permitted and not [forbidden as] interest. But if one sells his house or his field and says, "if you pay me now, one maneh; if later, one hundred and fifty," it is forbidden as interest. As it says, "if you lend money to My people, to the poor among you": just as a loan is distinctive in that you do not take back from him more than what you give him, so this excludes [the sale, where] what you give him you do take back from him [with the price already fixed]. "The poor among you": I have only the poor. From where [do I include] the rich? Scripture teaches, "among you." From where [do I include] a woman? Scripture teaches, "My people." If so, why is it stated, "the poor"? [Because the Holy One, blessed be He, says:] I am quick to exact punishment on account of the poor more than on account of the rich. "You shall not be to him as a creditor" (Exodus 22:24): if you have lent him, do not press him; do not provoke him over his field or over his donkey. "You shall not be to him as a creditor": he should not press him or demand from him when he knows the man has nothing. "You shall not be to him as a creditor": if the lender was not accustomed to greet him, let him not [suddenly] greet him; if he was not accustomed to send him a gift, let him not send him a gift. "You shall not lay upon him interest": what is interest [neshekh]? This is one who takes a se'ah and returns it diminished, and a sela diminished from it. And interest [neshekh] is biting interest. Harsh is interest, for whoever lends at interest has no portion in the world to come, as it is written, "he has given on interest and taken increase; shall he then live? He shall not live" (Ezekiel 18:13). "And he shall live" — he lives in this world; "he shall not live" — [he shall not live] for the life of the world to come. The whole matter is spoken in the singular: "if you lend money," "you shall not be to him as a creditor"; here [it shifts] to the plural: "you shall not lay upon him interest." This teaches that many are bound up in a single loan. From here you say: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses — all of them are liable.

"If you take a pledge" (Exodus 22:25). One might think a creditor has free license to seize a pledge himself. Scripture therefore teaches, "You shall not enter his house to take his pledge" (Deuteronomy 24:10). If so, why does it say "if you take a pledge"? Scripture speaks of one who has license to take a pledge through the agency of the court. "You take a pledge" [the doubled verb] comes to make one liable for each and every act of pledging. "Until the sun comes" (Exodus 22:25). It is impossible to say "until the sun comes in [the evening]" alone, for it already says elsewhere "when the sun comes" (Deuteronomy 24:13). And it is impossible to say only "as the sun comes," for it already says "until the sun comes." What then does "until the sun comes" teach, and what does "as the sun comes" teach? This teaches that one returns a day-garment by day and a night-garment by night: he returns to him the pillow [text uncertain] at night and the plow by day, but he does not return the pillow [text uncertain] by day nor the plow by night. "You shall return it to him" (Exodus 22:25). To him you return it, but you do not return it to his heirs.

"His covering" (Exodus 22:26) is his shirt. "His garment" is his cloak. "His skin" is his hide-covering. "In what shall he sleep?" comes to include the pillow, the cushion, and the sheet. I know only these; from where do I learn to include the other vessels? Scripture says "his covering, his garment, his skin, in what shall he sleep," [extending the law]. One might think this applies even if he had two such items and did not need one of them. Scripture says "it is his covering, it is his garment, it is his skin, in what shall he sleep" [only what he truly needs]. Ben Azzai says: "his skin" means that with which his skin has contact, excluding what is folded and stored away in a chest. "And it shall be" (Exodus 22:26). "And it shall be" means immediately. "When he cries out to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious" (Exodus 22:26). Even though I exact payment from you for this, I am the One who gives reward through this. Rabbi Shimon used to say: Lovers of money love one another, robbers love one another, the violent love one another, and usurers love one another. Whom is it fitting to exact payment from all these? I am the One who has none of all these traits.

"You shall not curse God [the judge]" (Exodus 22:27). One might think that if he merely said to him "you are cursed" he is liable. Scripture says "you shall not curse God," telling us he is not liable until he specifies the Divine Name or a substitute title. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: "You shall not curse God" comes to give the warning against blaspheming the Name. One might think that if he cursed them after their death he is liable. And this would follow by reasoning: if for the lesser offense [of injury] one is liable after death, then for the greater offense [of cursing] is it not logical that one should be liable after death? Scripture says, "You shall not curse the deaf" (Leviticus 19:14). Just as the deaf person is distinct in that he is alive, so all the law concerns one who is alive; and one who curses the dead is exempt. "You shall not curse God." This teaches that one who curses the judge transgresses on two counts: on account of the judge and on account of his fellow. "And you shall not curse a leader among your people" (Exodus 22:27). This teaches that one who curses the leader transgresses on three counts: on account of the judge, on account of his fellow, and on account of the leader. "A leader among your people you shall not curse": one who follows the custom of your people, excluding one who has departed from the ways of the community, like Jeroboam son of Nebat.

"Your fullness and your tithe-offering" (Exodus 22:28). "Your fullness" refers to the first fruits, which are taken from the fullness of the produce. "Your tithe-offering" refers to the priestly portion (terumah), which is called "a tithe-offering." "You shall not delay." Do not delay a thing that is fitting to put first. This teaches that whoever puts the priestly portion before the first fruits, or the first tithe before the priestly portion, or the second tithe before the first, transgresses a negative commandment. Rather, he separates them in their order: first fruits, and after them the priestly portion, and after them the first tithe, and after it the second tithe. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: "You shall not delay" means that you shall not delay them at the time of the threshing-floor from giving them to their owners [the priests and Levites]. "The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me" (Exodus 22:28). One might think he must literally give them to Me. Scripture says, "And Moses gave the redemption money to Aaron and his sons" (Numbers 3:51). I know this only for that time; from where do I learn it for the generations? Scripture says, "by the mouth of the LORD, as the LORD commanded Moses" (Numbers 3:51). If so, why does it say "the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me"? As long as you give him according to His commandment, I credit it to you as though you had given him to Me; and if not, I credit it to you as though you had robbed Me.

"The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me; so shall you do with your ox and your sheep" (Exodus 22:29). Just as the human firstborn is redeemed within the borders [of the land, anywhere], so the firstborn animal is treated within the borders; except that they are not brought up to Jerusalem, but are eaten in their blemish in any place. The expounders of hidden meanings say: "You shall not curse God" is joined to "your fullness and your tithe you shall not delay" to teach that if you curse a judge, your produce becomes accursed. And so you find that when they corrupted justice, the produce was diminished, as it is written, "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged" (Ruth 1:1), when the one being judged would judge his judges, "that there was a famine in the land," because they perverted justice. But if you are meritorious in judgment, your produce will be whole: "your fullness and your tithe you shall not delay." And if you do so, you will have male children: "the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me." If you do so, then your ox and your sheep and blessing will be present in every place. Because it says "on the eighth day you shall give it to Me" (Exodus 22:29), one might think Israel gives the firstborn animal to the priest when it is eight days old. Scripture says, "the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me; so shall you do with your ox and your sheep." Just as the human firstborn is not redeemed until thirty days, so the firstborn animal is given at thirty days. From here you say: how long is Israel obligated to care for a firstborn of the small cattle? Thirty days. One might think for the large cattle also thirty days. Scripture says "so shall you do with your ox," adding for it another act of tending: a firstborn of the small cattle, thirty days, and of the large cattle, fifty days. "Seven days it shall be with its mother, and on the eighth day" (Exodus 22:29). One might think the firstborn is fit on the eighth day but unfit from the eighth day onward. Scripture says regarding consecrated animals, "from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted" (Leviticus 22:27). One might think they are fit from the eighth day onward but unfit on the eighth day itself. Scripture says "on the eighth day you shall give it to Me." From where do we apply what is said of the one to the other? Scripture says "its mother"; "its mother" is stated for a verbal analogy (gezeira shava): just as "its mother" stated elsewhere means a consecrated animal may suckle from a non-consecrated one, so "its mother" stated here means the same. From here they said: consecrated animals may not suckle one another. "You shall give it to Me." This teaches that all the offerings are fit from the eighth day; even so, from the thirtieth day and upward it is more cherished.

"And you shall be holy people to Me" (Exodus 22:30). Issi ben Yehudah says: whenever the Holy One, blessed be He, adds a commandment to Israel, He adds holiness to them. "And men": I know only men; from where do I learn women? Scripture says "you shall be to Me" [including all]. "And flesh in the field" (Exodus 22:30). I know only an animal torn in the field; from where do I learn one torn on a roof, in a courtyard, or in a ruin? Scripture says "torn flesh you shall not eat." One might think that if it was injured in its ear or its leg it would be forbidden. Scripture says "to the dog you shall throw it," meaning flesh that has been torn so as to be fit only for a dog. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: "torn flesh you shall not eat" comes to give a warning concerning the torn animal. I know only one that was torn; from where do I learn that flesh separated from a living animal is under the warning? Scripture says "and flesh in the field you shall not eat." From where do I learn that a limb of a fetus that emerged, after which its mother was slaughtered, is under a negative commandment? Scripture says "and flesh in the field, torn": once it emerged to a place that is to it like a field, I apply "torn" to it. From where do I learn that the flesh of consecrated offerings that went outside the hangings, and the flesh of lesser holy things that went outside the wall of Jerusalem, and the flesh of the Passover offering that went outside its company, are under a negative commandment? Scripture says "and flesh in the field, torn": whatever went outside its boundary, I apply "flesh in the field, torn" to it. "You shall not eat": there is no eating of less than an olive's bulk. "To the dog you shall throw it" teaches that one is permitted to benefit from it. "It": it you throw to the dog, but you do not throw the carcass of a consecrated animal that died to the dog.

"You shall not carry a false report" (Exodus 23:1): that he should not speak as an advocate before them [the judges]. From where do we learn that a judge should not hear the claim of one of the litigants before his fellow arrives? Scripture says, "You shall not carry a false report." And from where do we learn that a person should not make a false claim? Scripture says, "You shall not carry a false report." From where do we learn that a person should not present his words to the judge first [privately]? Scripture says, "You shall not carry a false report" — read it also "you shall not cause a false report to be carried." And from where comes the warning to one who speaks slander and to one who accepts slander? Scripture says, "You shall not carry a false report" — "you shall not cause it to be carried." "Do not put your hand with a wicked man" (Exodus 23:1): this is a warning that a wicked man should not be made a witness. And from where do we learn that one witness who knows of his fellow that he is wicked should not testify together with him? Scripture says, "Do not put your hand with a wicked man" — do not join with him in testimony. "To be a witness of violence": do not make a violent man a witness. From here they said: shepherds, robbers, the violent, and all who are suspected concerning money are disqualified from testimony.