Read Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael in source order, passage by passage, with the close English translation where available and the original source text for checking.
(Exodus 21:22) "And if men fight, etc." What is the intent of this section? From (Ibid. 14) "And if a man be bent against his neighbor to kill him," we hear only that one who intends to smite his foe and does so is to be put to death; but we do not hear the same for one who intends to smite his foe and smites his friend. It is, therefore, written (to this effect) "And if men fight … and if there be death (in his friend) then you shall give a life for a life."
And not only did Israel alone break out in song. But all the peoples — When they heard that Pharaoh and his hosts had been lost in the sea and their rule had been abolished, and their idolatry had been castigated — all of them rejected their idolatry and opened their mouths and said "Who is like you among the mighty, etc."
Variantly: "Honor your father and your mother': (Leviticus 19:3) "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman/ Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one of indeterminate six) or a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "Honor your father and your mother," — in any event. Just as with honor (of parents) there is no distinction between a man or a woman, so, with fear.
"Seven days (shall you eat matzoth"): including the first day of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) excluding the first day? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18) "until the twenty-first day" (i.e., since the seven days end on the twenty-first day of Nissan, the first day [i.e., the fourteenth of Nissan] must be included in the count). And if (it were written only) "until the twenty-first day" (and it were not written "Seven days"), I would exclude (the twenty-first day, which is) close to the twentieth (and I would read it as "until [but not including] the twenty-first day.")
And thus do you find to be the lot of idolatry — that the peoples of the world are destined to reject it, viz. (Jeremiah 16:19) "The L–rd is my strength and my stronghold and my refuge on the day of affliction … (20) Can a man make gods for himself, etc.", (Isaiah 2:20) "On that day a man will throw away his false gods … (21) to enter the clefts of rocks (in fear of retribution), etc.", (Ibid. 18) "and the false gods will perish completely."
R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: It is written: "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear and My Sabbaths shall you keep." Just as with (keeping of) Sabbath, there is no distinction between a man or a woman, so, with honor (of parents), there is no distinction between man or woman, tumtum or hermaphrodite.
Rebbi says: If one intends to smite this foe and smites a different foe it follows that he should be liable; but if one intends to smite his foe and smites his friend, should he not be exempt? The verse, rather, comes to teach that payment for a wife's injury belongs to the husband, and payment for (the death of) fetuses belongs to the husband.
It must, therefore, be written "Seven [and not six] days shall you eat matzoth." (Ibid. 15) "Only on the first day": This makes (the eating of matzoth on) the first day mandatory and the others optional. You say this, but perhaps (the intent is) to make the first optional and the others mandator? It is, therefore, written (18) "On the first day, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening shall you eat matzoth," whereby Scripture fixes the first day as mandatory. It is not the second assumption, then, which is to be accepted, but the first.
Variantly: "Who is like You among the mighty, O L–rd": Who is like You in the miracles and wonders that You wrought for us upon the sea, viz. (Psalms 106:22) "… awesome deeds upon the Red Sea" — (Ibid. 9) "He roared at the Red Sea and it dried up."
Rebbi says: Beloved is the honoring of parents by Him who spoke and brought the world into being, His having equated their honor and fear to His honor, and their curse (i.e., their being cursed) to His. It is written "Honor your father and your mother" and, correspondingly, "Honor the L–rd from your wealth" — their honor being equated. It is written "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear" and (Devarim 6:13) "The L–rd your G–d shall you fear" — their fear being equated. I is written (Exodus 21:17) "And one who curses his father and his mother" and "A man, if he curse his G–d" — their cursing (i.e., their being cursed) being equated.
R. Yitzchak says: Even a man who intends to smite one and smites another is not liable — until he makes it clear that it is this man that he wishes to smite, as it is written (Devarim 19:11) "and he rise up against him and he smite him, etc." What, then, is the intent of "and if men fight, etc."? From (Leviticus 24:17) "And if a man smite any soul of man" I would understand even an eight-month birth, (who is destined to die); it is, therefore, written ("and if men fight," to indicate that) he is not liable unless he kills one who is (otherwise) destined to live.
One verse (15) states "Seven days shall you eat matzoth," and a second (Devarim 16:8) "Six days shall you eat matzoth." How are these two verses to be reconciled? The seventh day was in the general category (of eating matzoth), and it left that category (in verse 15) to teach about the entire category, viz.: Just as the seventh is optional, so all are optional. But perhaps (the meaning is) Just as the seventh is optional, so the first night is optional? It is, therefore, written (18) "On the first day, on the fourteenth day of the month shall you eat matzoth." Scripture established it as mandatory. It is not the second assumption, then, which is to be accepted, but the first.
Variantly: "Who is like You bailmim" ("among the mute"). You hear the defamation of Your children and You remain silent, viz. (Isaiah 42:14) "I have ever been silent; I have been still; I have restrained Myself. (But now) I will scream as a woman giving birth. I will throb and lust (to destroy all My foes) together." In the past I was silent and restrained. From now on I will scream. (Ibid. 15-16) "I will lay waste the mountains and the hills, and I will dry up all their grass, and I will render the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools. And I shall lead the blind in a way they did not know. In roads they did not know shall I lead them. I shall make the darkness into light before them, and the crooked paths into straight paths."
Come and see their reward. It is written "Honor the L–rd from your wealth" and, correspondingly, (Ibid. 10) "And your bread will be filled with grain"; Honor your father and your mother" and correspondingly, (Ibid.) "so that your days be prolonged." The L–rd your G–d shall you fear" — (Malachi 3:20) "And there shall shine for you, who fear My name, a sun of bounty."
Variantly: One verse states "Six," and another "Seven." How are these two verses to be reconciled? Six from the new crop; seven from the old. (i.e., If he wishes to eat matzoth from the new crop, he can do so only for six days, it being forbidden on the first day, until after the offering of the omer [viz. Leviticus 23:15]).
Variantly: "Who is like You among the mighty": Who is like You among those who minister before You on high, viz. (Psalms 89:7) "Who in the heavens can be likened to the L–rd?" (Ibid. 8) "a G–d who is dreaded in the great council of the holy ones (the angels) … (9) O L–rd, G–d of hosts, who is like You? Mighty is the L–rd."
"A man, his mother and his father shall you fear and My Sabbaths shall you keep." It (fear of mother and father) is likened to Sabbath. What is written of Sabbath? (Isaiah 58:13) "If you keep your feet from (dishonoring) the Sabbath … (14) then you will find pleasure in the L–rd and I will set you on the heights of the earth, etc."
(Ibid. 15) "Only on the first day you shall eliminate leaven from your houses": before the eve of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) on the day of the festival itself? (This cannot be, for) it is written (Ibid. 34:25) "Do not slaughter with chametz the blood of My sacrifice" — Do not slaughter the Paschal lamb when chametz is still found, (whence it is derived that chametz is forbidden from the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nissan [when the Paschal lamb is slaughtered]). These are the words of R. Yishmael.
Variantly: Who is like You ("ba'eilim") among those who call themselves gods? Pharaoh called himself a god, viz. (Ezekiel 29:3) "Mine is my river (the Nile), and I have made it." And thus, Sancherev, viz. (II Kings 18:35) "Who among all the gods of the lands (saved their land from my hand, etc.")? And thus Nevuchadnezzar, viz. (Isaiah 14:14) "I shall mount the heights of a cloud; I shall liken myself to the Most High!" And thus, Negid Tzor, viz. (Ezekiel 28:2-3) "Say to Negid Tzor: Because your heart has grown proud and you have said: I am a god, etc."
R. Eliezer says; It is revealed and known to Him who spoke and brought the world into being that a man honors his mother more than he does his father because she cajoles him with words — wherefore he placed father before mother vis-à-vis honor (i.e., "Honor your father and your mother"). And it is revealed and known to Him who spoke and brought the world into being that a man fears his father more than he does his mother because he teaches him Torah — wherefore he placed mother before father vis-à-vis fear (i.e., "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear"), "compensating," as it were, for the lack.
But perhaps whoever comes first in Scripture takes precedence in practice? (This is not so,) for it is written "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," (the Hebrew phrasing implying that) they are equivalent vis-à-vis practice.
R. Akiva says: This (derivation) is not needed. It is already written (Ibid. 16) "No labor shall be done in them," and burning is a kind of labor. And what is the intent of "you shall eliminate leaven"? Before the eve of the festival.
Variantly: Who is like You among those whom others call "gods" and who are without substance, those of whom it is written (Psalms 115:5) "hey have a mouth but cannot speak, etc." But the Holy One Blessed be He says two things in one pronouncement, something that a man cannot do, viz. (Ibid. 62:12) "One (pronouncement) has G–d spoken; these two (things) have I heard." (Jeremiah 23:29) "Is My word not like fire, says the L–rd, and like a hammer shattering rock?" And it is written (Iyyov 37:2) "And a word shall come forth from His mouth, etc."
"Honor your father and your mother, etc.": If you honor them, "so that your days be prolonged." If not, so that they be shortened. For the words of Torah are terse, the positive implying the negative and the negative, the positive.
"and they hit a pregnant woman, and her fetuses miscarry": Abba Chanin said in the name of R. Eliezer: Why "a pregnant woman"? From "and her fetuses miscarry" it is obvious that she is pregnant! — I might think that if he struck her head or one of her limbs (and she miscarried) he is liable; it is, therefore, written "pregnant." To apprise us that he is not liable unless he strikes the region of her pregnancy.
R. Yossi Haglili says: "You shall eliminate leaven from your house" — before the eve of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) on the festival itself? "Ach" (i.e., "No labor shall be done in them ach ['only']" divides (the day into "permitted" [for the retention of chametz (i.e., until the sixth hour)] and "forbidden" [after the sixth hour]).
"on the earth, etc." And beth-din is not exhorted to this end (i.e., to force one to honor his parents), ad they stated: Any mitzvah whose reward is alongside it (e.g., "so that your days be prolonged"), the terrestrial beth-din is not exhorted to that end.
Variantly: What is the intent of "and they hit a pregnant woman"? From "as the woman of the husband imposes upon him" I might think, even if the pregnancy is not his; it is, therefore, written "pregnant," to teach that he is liable only to the impregnator.
R. Yehudah says: "shall you eliminate leaven from your houses": by burning. You say this, but perhaps in any manner? You reason as follows: Nothar (left-overs of the Paschal lamb) may not be eaten, and chametz may not be eaten. If you have learned of chametz (that it is eliminated) only by burning (viz. 29:34), so, chametz, only by burning. (No,) this is refuted by neveilah (carcass) which may not be eaten, yet need not be burned.
The measure of flesh and blood — A man cannot speak two things at the same time. But the measure of the Holy One Blessed be He — He said (all) of the ten commandments as one, viz. (Exodus 20:1) "And the L–rd spoke all of these things, saying." The measure of flesh and blood — A man cannot hear (what is said by) two men shouting (at the same time). But the Holy One Blessed be He — Even if all the men in the world cry out before Him (at the same time) He hears (distinctly) their outcry, viz. (Psalms 65:3) "You hearken to prayer; to You all flesh comes."
Would you say that? There is a difference (between neveilah, [from which benefit may be derived] and chametz, [from which benefit may not be derived,], so that the resultant equation is:) Benefit may not be derived from nothar, and benefit may not be derived from chametz. If you have learned of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz only by burning. (No,) this is refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, need not be burned — Then say the same for chametz!
(Ibid.) "You shall not commit adultery": (Leviticus 20:10) "The adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death" tells us of the punishment. Whence the exhortation? "You shall not commit adultery."
"and there be no death": in the woman. "then he shall be punished": for the fetuses (i.e., payment for the fetuses shall be exacted of him.) You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is that there be no) death in the fetuses, then he shall be punished for the woman? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And if there be death, then you shall give a life for a life" (which, perforce, refers to the life of the woman) — But perhaps (the meaning is) if there be no death either in the woman or in the fetuses, (then he must pay; but if there is death in either, he is put to death and there is no payment.) — But if you say this, he (the father) must pay the midwife (for delivery of the fetuses). (How, then, is "he shall be punished" to be understood?)
How, then, must the verse be understood? "and there be no death" — in the woman; "then he shall be punished" — for the fetuses.
Would you say that? There is a difference, viz.: (Eating) nothar is subject to kareth ("cutting-off") and chametz is subject to kareth. If you have learned of nothar (that it is to be eliminated) only by burning, so should you learn of chametz. (No,) this is refuted by (eating of the) fats of a stoned ox, which, though (the eating is) subject to kareth, the ox need not be burned. Would you say this?
Variantly: "awesome in praise": The measure of flesh and blood — A man's awe is more upon those who are distant from him than upon those who are near him. Not so, the Holy One Blessed be He. His awe is more upon those near to Him than upon those distant from Him, viz. (Leviticus 10:3) "Among those near to Me will I be sanctified", and (Psalms 50:3) "and those around Him were greatly shaken", and (Ibid. 89:8) "He is awesome upon all around Him", and (Ibid. 9) "O L–rd, G–d of hosts, who, like You, is mighty, O L–rd? Your faith is (upon all) who surround You."
(Ibid.) "You shall not steal": (Exodus 21:14) "One who steals a man and sells him, etc." tells us of the punishment. Whence the exhortation? "You shall not steal." This is an exhortation against stealing a soul (i.e., kidnapping). You say this, but perhaps it is an exhortation against stealing money. (Leviticus 19:11) "You shall not steal" is an exhortation against stealing money. What, then, must be the meaning of "You shall not steal" (here)? You shall not steal a soul.
"then he shall be punished": (by payment of) money. You say this, but perhaps death is meant? It follows, inductively. It is written here "punish," and, elsewhere (Devarim 22:19) "and they shall punish (i.e., fine) him a hundred (shekels of) silver." Just as there, money; so, here, money.
I will derive four determinants from four like determinants. Nothar is forbidden in eating, and in derivation of benefit, and it is subject to kareth, and it is time (i.e., Pesach)-conditioned, as is chametz. And this is not to be refuted by neveilah, which, though forbidden to be eaten, is not forbidden in derivation of benefit. Nor is it to be refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not subject to kareth.
Nor is it to be refuted by (eating) the fats of a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not time-conditioned. But I will learn a thing from a (like) thing, and I will judge a thing from a (like) thing. And I will not learn a four-faceted thing from another which is not like it in one way or two ways or three ways. If you have learned, then, of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz (is to be eliminated only by burning).
The measure of flesh and blood — When one man works for another — plowing with him, sowing with him, weeding with him, hoeing with him — the other gives him a single coin and he goes on his way. Not so, the Holy One Blessed be He. If a man desires children, He gives him children, viz. (Psalms 127:3) "The inheritance of the L–rd is children." If he desires wisdom, He gives it to him, viz. (Mishlei 2:6) "for the L–rd gives wisdom." If he desires attainments, He gives them to him, viz. (I Chronicles 29:12) "Wealth and honor (come) from before You."
But perhaps this, (and not the other) is an exhortation against stealing money, and not an exhortation against stealing a soul? Would you say that? Go out and learn from the thirteen principles (by which the Torah is expounded, one of which is learning a thing from its context),
