Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Reader

(Ibid.) "And Moses entered into the mist": This (his closeness to the L–rd) was a function of his humility, viz. (Numbers 12:3) "And the man Moses was extremely humble, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that if one is (truly) humble, in the end, he will cause the Shechinah to repose upon a man upon the earth, viz. (Isaiah 57:15) "For thus said the High and Exalted, who abides forever and whose name is holy (… I dwell with the oppressed and with the lowly of spirit, etc."), and (Ibid. 61:1) "The spirit of the L–rd G–d is upon me, for the L–rd has anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, etc.", and (Ibid. 66;2) "And all of these things My hand created (… but it is to this that I look, to the poor and broken-spirited, etc."), and (Psalms 51:19) "The sacrifices of G–d are a broken spirit. A heart broken and oppressed, G–d will not despise."

(Exodus, Ibid.) "the mighty ones of Moav" (were confounded. Why so?) If you say because they (thought) they were coming to inherit their land, is it not written (Devarim 2:9) "Do not antagonize Moav, etc." and (Ibid. 19) "When you come opposite the children of Ammon, do not antagonize them, etc."? What, then, is the intent of "the mighty ones of Moav (were seized with trembling")? Because of worry (over contention.)

And all who are haughty of heart cause the land to be defiled and the Shechinah to depart, as it is written (Ibid. 101:5) "The haughty of eyes and the broad of heart, him will I not abide." And all the haughty of heart are called "abomination," as it is written (Mishlei 16:5) "The abomination of the L–rd are all the haughty of heart." And idolatry is called "abomination," as it is written (Devarim 7:26) "And you shall not bring an abomination into your house." Just as idolatry defiles the land and causes the Shechinah to depart, so do all the haughty of heart.

"And Moses entered into the mist": within the three partitions: darkness, cloud, and mist. Darkness, the outermost; cloud, within; mist, the innermost. As it is written "And Moses entered into the mist, where G–d was.

(Exodus, Ibid.) "All the inhabitants of Canaan melted ('namogu')": When the inhabitants of Canaan heard that the Holy One Blessed be He had said to Moses (Devarim 20:16-17) "But from the cities of these people … you shall utterly destroy them," they said: These and those (Edom and Moav) feared only for their money and their property, but they are coming against us to destroy us and to inherit our land — whereupon "namogu", "namogu" signifying melting, as in (Ezekiel 21:12) "and every heart will melt", and (Psalms 75:4) "The earth and all its inhabitants will melt" ("namogim"), and (Ezekiel 21:12) "In order to melt ("lamug") the heart."

(Ibid. 19) "And the L–rd said to Moses: Thus shall you say to the children of Israel" — In the language that I speak, thus shall you speak to the children of Israel — in the holy tongue. Wherever "koh" ("thus"), "kachah" ("in this wise"), "aniyah" ("answering"), and "amirah" ("Saying") are used, the holy tongue is understood.

(Exodus 15:16) "There fell upon them dread and terror": "dread" upon the distant and terror upon the near, viz. (Joshua 5:1) "And it was when all the kings of the Emori on the western side of the Jordan (the near) and all the kings of the Canaanites by the sea (the distant) heard" (Ibid. 2:11) "that the L–rd your G–d, He is G–d in the heavens, etc." And thus Rachav said to Joshua's messengers (Ibid. 10) "For we have heard that the L–rd dried up the waters of the Red Sea, etc."

(Ibid.) "You saw that from the heavens I spoke to you." There is a difference between one's seeing something (with his own eyes) and others' relating something to him. When others relate something to him, sometimes his heart is "divided" within him; but here — "You (yourselves) saw!"

(Exodus, Ibid.) "By the greatness of Your arm they were (struck) still as stone": When the Israelites emerged from the sea, the Amalekites gathered all the peoples of the world and came to fight against Israel. At that time Moses prayed, and they all were (struck) still as stone.

R. Nathan says: What is the intent of this? From (Psalms 138:4) "All the kings of earth will acknowledge you, O L–rd, for they have heard the words of Your mouth," I might think that just as they heard, so, they saw. It is, therefore, written "You saw," but the nations of the world did not see.

(Ibid.) "that from the heavens I spoke to you": One verse states "that from the heavens, etc.", and another (Ibid. 19:20) "And the L–rd went down upon Mount Sinai!" How are these two verses to be reconciled? A third verse reconciles them, viz. (Devarim 4:36) "From the heavens He made you hear His voice to exhort you, and on the earth He showed you His great fire, and His works you heard from the midst of the fire." These are the words of R. Yishmael.

Variantly: When Israel crossed the Jordan, all the kings of Canaan gathered together and came to fight against Israel, viz. (Joshua 11:1-5) "And it was when Yavin king of Chatzor heard … and to the kings who were in the north … They went out with all their camps … All of these kings gathered together" at that time. Joshua prayed and all of them were struck still as stone....

R. Akiva says: We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He bent the upper heavens over the top of the mountain, and He spoke to them from the heavens. As it is written (Psalms 18:10) "And He bent the heavens and descended, with mist between His feet."

Rebbi says: "And the L–rd went down upon Mount Sinai upon the top of the mountain. And the L–rd called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up": Is this to be understood literally? Can you say such a thing? If one of His servants (e.g., the sun) makes his presence felt in its place and outside of its place, how much more so the glory of Him who spoke and brought the world into being! (The above, then, must perforce be understood figuratively and not literally.)

Four are called "acquisitions": Israel — viz. "this people whom You have acquired." Heaven and earth — viz. (Genesis 14:22) "Acquirer of heaven and earth." The Temple — viz. (Psalms 78:54) "this mountain (the Temple mount) that He acquired." The Torah — viz. (Mishlei 8:22) "The L–rd acquired me (Torah) (in) the beginning of His way" (the creation). Let Israel come, who are called "acquisition," to the land, that is called "acquisition," and build the Temple, His "acquisition," in the merit of the Torah, which is called "acquisition." Thus — "this people whom You have acquired."

(Exodus 15:18) "You will bring them and You will plant them": The fathers prophesied without knowing what (they were prophesying). It is not written "You will bring us and You will plant us," but "You will bring them and You will plant them." The children will enter, but not the fathers (including Moses.) And thus is it written (Song of Songs 1:8) "If you do not know (where to graze), you fairest among the women, (Israel,) go out in the footsteps of the sheep, and graze your kids" — the kids will enter (the land), but not the goats.

(Ibid. 20) "You shall not make unto Me gods of silver and gods of gold": R. Yishmael says: The likeness of My servants who serve before Me on high ("you shall not make unto Me.") Neither the likeness of angels nor the likeness of ofanim (heavenly creatures), nor the likeness of cherubs.

(Exodus 21:28) "And if an ox gore": The ox, too, was included in (Ibid. 12) "the striker of a man — if he die — shall be put to death." Scripture singled it out here for severity, (that it be put to death) by stoning. Thus, the adducing of this section.

"until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening." What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 18) "Seven days shall you eat matzoth," I would know only of the days. Whence would I derive (the same for) the nights? It is, therefore, written "until the twenty-first day," to include the nights.

R. Nathan says: "You shall not make (alongside) with Me," i.e., Do not say I will make a kind of image and I will bow down to it. And thus is it written (Devarim 4:15) "And you shall take great heed to your souls. For you did not see any likeness (on the day that the L–rd spoke to you in the midst of the fire.")

"An if an ox gore": This tells me only of an ox. Whence do I derive (the same for) all beasts? It follows, viz.: It is written here "ox," and elsewhere (in the second Decalogue, Devarim 5:14) "ox." Just as the "ox" of Sinai is equated with "all of your beasts," so, here, all beasts are to be equated with ox.

(Exodus 12:19) "Seven days se'or (leavening) shall not be found in your houses": This tells me only (that the transgression) against finding (it). Whence do I derive (the same for) seeing? From (Ibid. 13:7) "And se'or shall not be seen unto you in all of your boundaries." This tells me that only se'or is subject to the injunctions against being seen and being found. Whence do we derive (the same for) chametz? It is written (Ibid.) "Chametz shall not be seen unto you, and se'or shall not be seen unto you." Se'or is likened to chametz, and chametz to se'or. Just as the first (se'or) is subject to both, so, the second. Just as the second (chametz) is of the five species (of grain [see above]), so, the first.

Variantly: "You will bring them and You will plant them" — a planting which does not uproot them, viz. (Jeremiah 24:6) "and I shall plant and not uproot," "and I shall build them and not destroy them," (Amos 9:15) "and I will plant them on their land and they will not be uprooted again."...

R. Akiva says: "You shall not do (i.e., deport yourselves) with Me" as others do with their gods. When good befalls them, they honor their gods, viz. (Habakkuk 1:16) "Therefore, he sacrifices to his "nets" (i.e., to his idols, which "net" him riches). And when evil befalls them, they curse their gods, viz. (Isaiah 8:21) "… and he will curse his king and his gods." But, as for you, if I bring good upon you, you give thanks, and when I bring afflictions upon you, you give thanks.

And thus did David say (Psalms 116:3) "the cup of salvation shall I raise, and in the name of the L-td will I call" — (Ibid. 4) "Trouble and sorrow will I find, and in the name of the L–rd shall I call." And thus, Iyyov says (Iyyov 1:21) "the L–rd has given and the L–rd has taken — Let the name of the L–rd be blessed!" Both for the good and for the evil. What does his wife say to him? (Ibid. 2:9) "Do you still hold on to your innocence? Blaspheme G–d and die!" He answers (Ibid. 10) "You speak as one of the lowly ones!

And whence is it derived that all deaths (inflicted by the beast) are equated with goring? It follows, viz.: Since a mued (an ox that gored three times) is put to death (for killing a man) by stoning (viz. Ibid. 29), and a tam (an ox that gored a man to death even the first time) is put to death by stoning — if you have learned about a mued that all deaths (inflicted by it) are equated with goring, so, all deaths (inflicted) by a tam are to be equated with goring.

(Ibid. 19) "In your houses": What is the intent of this? I might take (13:7) "in all of your boundaries," literally (i.e., even if the chametz is not yours); it is, therefore, written "in your houses." Just as your house is your domain, so "your boundaries" (applies only to chametz that is in your domain) — to exclude (from liability) the chametz of a Jew in the domain of a gentile. Even though he can remove it, it is not in his domain.

And to exclude the chametz of a gentile in the domain of a Jew, and chametz under debris, where even though it is in his domain it cannot be removed. You say this, but perhaps the intent of the verse is that chametz is forbidden for "seven days" (viz. Ibid.), in the houses, and for all time, in the boundaries. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:4) "And chametz shall not be seen unto you in all of your border for seven days."

The men of the generation of the flood, who were "ugly" in good (i.e., when good befell them), accepted distress perforce. But we, who were amiable in good, should we not be amiable in distress!" — wherefore he said "You speak as one of the lowly ones!"

No, this may be true of a mued, where he (the owner) pays kofer (viz. 21:30), as opposed to a tam, where he does not pay kofer. It is, therefore, written (29) "and it killed a man or a woman," for purposes of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here (28) "a man or a woman," and there (29) "a man or a woman." Just as there, all deaths are equated with goring, so, here, all deaths are to be equated with goring.

(Ibid. 19) "For whoever eats leavening, that soul shall be cut off": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 15) "Whoever eats chametz shall be cut off," I would know only of chametz. Whence would I derive (the same for) se'or? It is, therefore, written "For whoever eats leavening, that soul shall be cut off." — But even if it were not written, I would know it a fortiori, viz. If chametz, which does not cause other (foods) to become chametz, is liable to kareth, how much more so, se'or, which does cause other (foods) to become chametz! — No, this may be true of chametz, which is fit for eating — as opposed to se'or, which is not fit for eating, wherefore it should not be liable to kareth.

It is, therefore, written "For whoever eats leavening, that soul shall be cut off." Let the verse for se'or suffice a fortiori for chametz, viz.: If se'or, which is not fit for eating, is liable to kareth, how much more so chametz, which is fit for eating! — No, this may be true of leaven, which causes other foods to become chametz — as opposed to chametz, which does not cause other foods to become chametz. The two verses, then, must be written. Otherwise, we would not know (the two laws).

Four are called "inheritance": the Temple — viz. "in the mountain of Your inheritance." Eretz Yisrael — viz. (Devarim 15:4) "in the land which the L–rd Your G–d gives You as an inheritance." Torah — viz. (Numbers 21:19) "And from Matanah ('the gift' [of Torah]) Nachaliel ('the inheritance of the L–rd'"). Israel — viz. (Yoel 4:2) "My people and My inheritance, Israel." The Holy One Blessed be He said: Let Israel, who are called "inheritance," come to Eretz Yisrael, which is called "inheritance," and build the Temple, which is called "inheritance," in the merit of Torah, which is called "inheritance."

And, what is more, one should rejoice in affliction more than in good. For even if one were to bask in good all of his days, his transgressions would not be forgiven. Whereby are they forgiven? By afflictions.

And whence is it derived that minors (who were killed by a tam) are equated with adults? It follows, viz.: Since a tam is to be stoned and a mued is to be stoned, if you have learned about mued that minors are to be equated with adults (viz. 21:31), then there (re a tam), too, minors are to be equated with adults.

Thus — "in the mountain of Your inheritance." (Ibid.) (the sanctuary ["which You have wrought, O L–rd"]): Beloved is the Temple by Him who spoke and brought the world into being. For when the Holy One Blessed be He created the world, He did so by pronouncement, viz. (Psalms 33:6) "By the word of the L–rd the heavens were made," but the creation of the Temple was by act, viz.

R. Eliezer says: It is written (Mishlei 3:11) "The chastisement of the L–rd, my son, do not despise … (12) "For whom the L-=rd loves He chastises, as a father, the son whom he favors. What caused this son to conciliate his father? Afflictions.

No, this may be true of a mued, where he (the owner) pays kofer, wherefore minors are equated with adults, as opposed to a tam, where he does not pay kofer. It is, therefore, written (31) "Or if it gore a son (a minor), or if it gore a daughter (a minor). It ("gore") is extra for purposes of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah). It is written here (re tam [28]) "gore," and there (re mued) "gore." Just as there, minors are equated with adults, so, here.

"You have wrought, O L–rd." Woe unto the peoples of the world! What are they hearing with their ears? That they have arisen and destroyed the Temple, which He (Himself) has wrought! They have said (Psalms 137:7) "Destroy, destroy — to its very foundation!" What is written thereof? (Jeremiah 25:30) "From the heights will He roar!"

R. Shimon b. Yochai said: Why was this (gezeirah shavah) stated? Even without it, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If in a "place" — killing others — where minors are not equated with adults (— adults being liable; minors not —) — (If in such a place) minors are equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed — then in a place where "minors" are equated with "adults," (a young ox as well as a grown ox being stoned for killing a man) — how much more so should minors be equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed! — No, this may be true there, where intent (to damage) was equated with non-intent relative to (payment for) damages, wherefore minors were equated with adults in being killed, as opposed to our instance, where non-intent is not equated with intent, (the "horn" of the ox imposing liability only where the ox butts intentionally), wherefore we would say that minors are not equated with adults (to impose liability) for their being killed.

It must, therefore, be written "Or if it gore a son or if it gore a daughter," "gore" being extra for purposes of formulating an identity, as above.

(Exodus, Ibid.) "The sanctuary, O L–rd, did Your hands establish": Beloved is the Temple by the Holy One Blessed be He. For when the Holy One Blessed be He created the world, He did so with only one hand, viz. (Isaiah 48:13) "My hand, too, laid the foundation of the earth." But He built the Temple, as it were, with His two hands, viz. "The sanctuary, O L–rd, did Your hands establish." When will it be rebuilt with Your two hands?

(Exodus 21:28) "the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten": Why is this stated? From "the ox shall be stoned," do I not know that its flesh is forbidden? (It is neveilah [carcass].) But (the meaning is that) if the ox were taken out to be stoned, and its owner intervened and slaughtered it, its flesh may not be eaten.

(Exodus, Ibid. 19) "whether he be a proselyte or a citizen of the land": Because the act (i.e., the exodus) transpired only with Israel, proselytes had to be specially mentioned (for inclusion). The same applies with all acts which transpired only with Israel.