Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Reader

When Israel do His will, He wars for them, viz. (Exodus 14:14) "The L–rd will war for you." And when they do not do His will, He wars against them, viz. (Isaiah 63:10) "And He turned into a foe of theirs; He warred against them."

R. Elazar Hamodai says: If you merit observing the Sabbath, the Holy One Blessed be He is destined to confer upon you six goodly "measures": Eretz Yisrael, the world to come, the new world, the kingdom of the house of David, the Kehunah and the Leviyah. Thus, "Eat it today, etc."

(Then) "If a man be found to have stolen a soul" would also connote an eight-month birth. It is, therefore, written "And one who steals a man and sells him," which implies that he is not liable until he steals one who is destined to reach man's estate.

R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written "You shall not eat all carrion … You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." I might think that what is forbidden as carrion may not be cooked in milk, so that a bird which is forbidden as carrion, may not be cooked in milk. It is, therefore, written "in its mother's milk" — to exclude a bird, where "mother's milk" does not obtain.

"And they shall slaughter it": whether on a weekday or on a Sabbath. And how would I satisfy (Exodus 31:14) "Its (Sabbath's) profaners shall be put to death"? With other labors, aside from the slaughtering of the Pesach. But perhaps (the meaning is) even with the slaughtering of the Pesach. And how would I satisfy "And they shall slaughter it"? On other days, aside from Sabbath. It is, therefore, written (Numbers 9:2) "And the children of Israel shall offer the Pesach in its appointed time" — even on the Sabbath. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.

And thus do you find that the Holy One Blessed be He is destined to exact punishment of the wicked in Gehinnom with the east wind, viz. (Isaiah 30:33) "For Tafteh (Gehinnom) is ready from yesterday. It is readied for the king (Sancheriv). He has deepened and widened it. Its pyre has much fire and wood. The breath of the L–rd, as a stream of sulfur, burns in it." And it is written (Ibid. 27:8) "He spoke His stern words on the day of the east wind." Here, too, "And the L–rd drove the sea with a strong east wind": the strongest of the winds, the east wind.

(Exodus 15:6) "Your right hand, O L–rd, will break the foe": It is not written "broke the foe," but "will break the foe," in the future, viz. (Habakkuk 3:12) "In fury You will tread the earth; in wrath You will trample nations."

"and sells him": and not half of him. "and he is found": "finding" is only with witnesses. "in his hand": "in his hand" always connotes "his domain." And though there is no proof for this, it is intimated in (Numbers 21:26) "And he took all his land from his hand", and (Genesis 24:10) "And the servant took ten camels … and all the good of his master in his hand," — whence we infer that "in his hand" always connotes "his domain."

R. Yonathan said to him: But we still have not heard! R. Yoshiyah: It is written (Ibid. 28:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread … shall you observe to offer to Me in its appointed time, etc." (What is the purpose of this?) If to teach that the (offering of the) tamid overrides the Sabbath, is it not already written (Ibid. 9) "And on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the first year, etc." What, then, is the import of "in its appointed time"? It is "extra" for purposes of formulating a gezeirah shavah (an identity), viz.: It is written here "in its appointed time," and elsewhere, (Numbers 9:2) "in its appointed time." Just as the tamid overrides the Sabbath, so, here (the Pesach) overrides the Sabbath.

(Exodus 16:26) "Six days shall you gather it, etc.": We are hereby apprised that the manna does not descend on Sabbath. Whence do we derive (the same for) a festival? From (the superfluous) "Sabbath there will not be (manna) on it." R. Elazar Hamodai says: We are hereby apprised that it does not descend on Sabbath. Whence do we derive that it does not descend on Yom Kippur? (From the fact that) Yom Kippur is referred to as "Sabbath" (viz. Leviticus 23:32). (Exodus 16:27) "And it was on the seventh day that there went of the people to gather, and they did not find": These were the faithless of Israel.

"he shall be put to death": by strangulation. You say by strangulation, but perhaps by one of the (other) deaths mentioned in the Torah? Would you say that? This is a principle in the Torah: Any unqualified death mentioned in the Torah — You are not permitted to incline it to severity, but to lenity. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Not because it is of lesser severity, but because all "death" unqualified is strangulation.

"You shall not cook": This tells me only that cooking it is forbidden. Whence to I derive (the same for) eating it? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so may they not be eaten!

(Exodus 12:6) "And the entire assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it": Whence do you derive that if Israel has only one Pesach, it suffices for all of them? From "And the entire congregation, etc."

And whence do you derive (the same for) waters in pits, and in cavities, and in caves and in pitchers and in cups and in casks and in glasses? From "and the waters were split." Is it not already written "and He made the sea into dry land"? We are hereby apprised that all the waters in the world were split.

Rebbi says: There is "death" at the hands of heaven and "death" at the hands of man. Just as the first leaves no outward sign, so, the second.

No, this may be true of the Pesach offering, which may not be cooked in any liquid — wherefore it may not be eaten. Would you say the same for meat and milk, which (meat) is not forbidden, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten?

And whence do you derive (the same for) the upper and the lower waters and the depths? From (Psalms 77:17) "The waters saw You, O G–d; the waters saw You and quaked. The depths quaked as well." "The waters saw You" — These are the waters crossed by Israel, which dried up at the word of the Holy One Blessed be He, viz. (Ibid. 114:3) "The sea saw and fled." "the waters saw You and quaked" — These are the upper waters.

"The depths quaked as well" — These are the lower waters. And thus is it written (Ibid. 77:18) "Clouds streamed water; the heavens rumbled" — These are the upper waters. (Ibid.) "Your gravels, too, went out" — These are the lower waters. And it is written (Habakkuk 3:10) "The depths have raised their voice, etc." And when they (the waters of the Red Sea) returned to their place, all the waters of the world followed suit, as it is written (Exodus 14:28) "And the waters returned" — All of the waters in the world returned to their places.

R. Akiva says: It need not be written (that eating meat and milk is forbidden), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh), which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, then meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so should it be forbidden to be eaten!

No, this may be true of the thigh sinew, which was forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it is forbidden to be eaten, as opposed to meat and milk, which was not forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten.

It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:6) "There shall you slaughter the Pesach in the evening." I might think that this is to be taken literally. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "at the time that you departed from Egypt." When was that? At midday, viz. (Exodus 12:41) "And it was in the middle of the day … that they left Egypt."

— an exhortation against stealing a soul (i.e., kidnapping). You say it is an exhortation against stealing a soul, but perhaps it is an exhortation against stealing money? (Leviticus 19:4) "You shall not steal and you shall not deal falsely, etc." is already an exhortation against stealing money. What, then, is the intent of "Thou shalt not steal"? It is an exhortation against stealing souls.

R. Nathan says: Whence is it derived that "ben ha'arbayim" signifies midday? Even though there is no proof for this, it is intimated in (Jeremiah 6:4) "Prepare for battle against her. Arise and let us go up at noon (midday). Woe unto us for the day is declining, for the shadows of evening go forth!"

But perhaps the first is an exhortation against stealing money, and the second an exhortation against stealing souls? Would you say that? Three mitzvoth are mentioned in this section (Exodus — "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal." (the first) two are explicit, and the third unqualified. We learn the unqualified from the explicit. Just as the explicit are mitzvoth which are liable to judicial death penalty, so, the unqualified. You must perforce adopt not the second assumption, but the first — This (Exodus) is an exhortation against stealing souls, and the other (Leviticus) is an exhortation against stealing money.

R. Shimon b. Yochai says: The verse comes to apply the first (activity) to the last (time mentioned in the verse) and the last, to the first, viz.: "the time of your departing," to its slaughtering; "at sundown," to its roasting; "in the evening," to its eating.

(Exodus 21:7) "And if one curses his father and his mother, etc.": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 20:9) "Every man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "if one curses his father or his mother."

This is refuted by the instance of fats and blood, which, though they do not confer tumah by being carried are forbidden to be eaten, so that meat and milk, likewise, though it does not confer tumah by being carried, should be forbidden to be eaten.

Ben Betheira says (Exodus 12:6) "ben ha'arbayim" [lit., "between the evenings"]: Slaughter it between the two evenings, (the "evening" of the day [i.e., after midday] and the "evening" preceding the night).

"And if one curses his father and his mother": This ("and") tells me (that he is liable) for cursing only his father and his mother (together). Whence do I derive the same for (cursing) his father and not his mother, or his mother and not his father? From (Leviticus, Ibid.) "His father or his mother he has cursed" — in any event (i.e., either one.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.

No, this (that they may not be eaten) may be true of fats and blood, which are liable to kareth, as opposed to meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 12:24) "You shall not eat it," to include meat and milk as forbidden to be eaten.

Issi b. Guria says: "Holiness" is mentioned here (in respect to meat and milk [Devarim 14:21]), and "holiness" is mentioned elsewhere (Exodus 22:30) "And men of holiness shall you be unto Me, and flesh in the field, treifah (torn) you shall not eat." Just as there, eating is forbidden, so, here.

And what is the intent of "And if one curses his father and his mother"? From (Leviticus, Ibid.) "Every man" I would think that only a man (who cursed) is liable. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of doubtful sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "if one curses his father and his mother."

This tells me only of the prohibition against eating. Whence do I derive the prohibition against the derivation of benefit? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from arlah (the fruit of trees of the first three years), with which no transgression has been done, how much more so from meat cooked in milk, with which a transgression (the cooking) has been done!

This tells me (that he is liable if he curses them) only when they are alive. Whence do I derive (the same for cursing) the dead? From "And if one curses his father and his mother" — in any event, (alive or dead).

"And if one curses his father and his mother": with the explicit Name (i.e., the Tetragrammaton). But perhaps an epithet is intended? Let it not be written redundantly, (Leviticus 24:16) "When he blasphemes the Name he shall be put to death." (It is written thus) to include one who curses his father and mother. He is not liable until he curses them with the explicit Name. These are the words of R. Achai.

R. Chanina b. Iddi says: Since Scripture states "Swear" and "Do not swear," "Curse" and "Do not curse," since swearing is by the Name, so, not swearing is by the Name (i.e., "Do not swear by the Name of"); just as cursing is by the Name, so not cursing is by the Name. "he shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning; but perhaps by one of the other "deaths" of the Torah? It follows thus: It is written here (in respect to cursing father and mother, Leviticus 2:9) "his blood is in him," and elsewhere (Ibid. 27) "their blood is in them." Just as there, (he is killed) by stoning, so, here, by stoning. We have heard the punishment, but whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Exodus 22:27) "Elohim you shall not curse."

If your father is a judge, he is included in "Elohim you shall not curse." And if he is a Nassi ("president"), he is included in (Ibid.) "and a Nassi in your people you shall not curse." If he is neither, it follows by induction from both, viz.: A judge is not like a Nassi, and a Nassi is not like a judge. The common element between them is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him.

But perhaps the common element between them is that they are dignitaries, and it is their eminence that accounts for this, wherefore you are exhorted against cursing them — as opposed to (the status of) your father! It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 19:14) "You shall not curse a deaf-mute," the most abject of men, and you reason by induction among the three, viz.: A judge is not like a Nassi, and a Nassi is not like a judge, and neither is like a deaf-mute, and a deaf-mute is not like either. The common element among them is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him.

Rebbi says: It is written (Devarim 14:21) "… or sell it to the gentile. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Scripture hereby tells us: If you sell it, do not cook it and sell it — whence it is derived that it is forbidden in the derivation of benefit.

"You shall not cook a kid, etc.": This tells me only of its mother's milk. Whence do I derive (the same for) its older sister's milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to cook it in the milk of its mother, who does not enter the shed alone with it to be tithed, how much more so is it forbidden in the milk of its sister, who does enter the shed along with it to be tithed!

Whence is (the same derived for cooking) its flesh in its own milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If re shechitah (slaughtering), where "fruit" with "fruit" is permitted (i.e., it is permitted to slaughter two siblings on the same day), "fruit" (child) with mother is forbidden, then here (re cooking) where "fruit" (child) with "fruit" (milk) is forbidden, how much more so is it forbidden to cook "fruit" (milk) with mother! " so here (these are intended).