Read Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael in source order, passage by passage, with the close English translation where available and the original source text for checking.
An analogy: Robbers enter a king's palace. They despoil it and kill the king's courtiers and raze his palace. After some time, the king sits in judgment over them. He seizes some of them. Some he kills; some he impales, and he returns to his palace — after which his reign endures forever. This is the thrust of "The sanctuary, O L–rd, did Your hands establish. The L–rd will reign for ever and ever."
R. Yonathan says: Beloved are afflictions. Just as a covenant is forged with the land (viz. Genesis 15:18), a covenant is forged with afflictions, viz. "the L–rd your G–d chastises you … (7) for the L–rd your G–d brings you to a good land."
This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive that it is even forbidden to derive benefit from it? — Do you ask? If follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, (viz. Devarim 21:1-9) which atones for the spilling of blood, how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is itself a spiller of blood! — But reverse it, viz.: If it were permitted to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is a spiller of blood, how much more so would it be permitted to derive benefit from an eglah arufah, which atones for the spiller of blood! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:4) "and they shall break there the neck of the heifer in the river-bed" (from which it is derived [hermeneutically] that benefit may not be derived from it.)
(Exodus 12:20) "All leavening you shall not eat": What is the intent of this? (Ibid. 15) "Whoever eats chametz, that soul shall be cut off" tells me of the punishment. Whence do I derive the exhortation? From "All leavening you shall not eat." This tells me only of them (i.e., chametz and leavening). Whence do I derive (the same for) their admixtures? From "All."
R. Yossi Haglili says: Had Israel at the sea said: "The L–rd reigns for ever and ever" no people or tongue could ever dominate them. But they said "The L–rd will reign for ever and ever" — in time to come. (You will reign) over Your people, the flock of Your grazing, the seed of Abraham Your loved one, the children of Israel, Your only one, the congregation of Jacob, Your first-born son, the vine that You have nurtured from Egypt, the plant which Your right hand planted.
R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Beloved are afflictions, for three goodly gifts were given to Israel and are desired by the nations of the world, and they were given to them only through afflictions — Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the world to come. Torah, (Mishlei 1:2) "to know wisdom and chastisement, to comprehend words of understanding," and (Psalms 94:12) "Happy is the man whom you chastise, O L–rd, and whom you teach from Your Torah." Eretz Yisrael, (Devarim 8:5) "… the L–rd your G–d chastises you … (7) for the L–rd your G–d brings you to a good land." The world to come, (Mishlei 6:23) "For a mitzvah is a lamp, and Torah, light, and the way of life, the chastisements of mussar." Which is the way which leads a man to life in the world to come? Afflictions.
I have reasoned and reversed. The reversal has been nullified and I have returned to the original a fortiori deduction, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, which atones for the spiller of blood, how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from a stoned ox, which is itself a spiller of blood.
"In all of your habitations shall you eat matzoth": What is the intent of this? From (Devarim 14:23) "And you shall eat before the L–rd your G–d the tithe of your grain and wine and oil," I might think that if one brought up his second tithe to Jerusalem (and ate it there), he has fulfilled his obligation (of eating matzoh). It is, therefore, written "in all of your habitations" — to exclude this (tithe), which is not eaten in all places (but only in Jerusalem).
And whence is it derived that he does not fulfill his obligation, neither with the show-bread, nor with the left-overs of meal-offerings, nor with the thanksgiving challoth, nor with the wafers of the Nazirite, nor with first-fruits? From "in all of your habitations shall you eat matzoth" — to exclude those, which are not eaten in all of your habitations.
(Ibid.) "The L–rd will reign for ever and ever": Why? (Ibid. 19) "For the horse of Pharaoh came with its chariot and its riders into the sea, and the L–rd turned back upon them the waters of the sea, etc."
R. Nechemiah says: Beloved are afflictions. Just as offerings conciliate, so, afflictions conciliate. What is written of offerings? (Leviticus 1:5) "and it shall conciliate for him to atone for him." What is written of afflictions? (Ibid. 26:43) "… and they shall conciliate for their sin." And, what is more, afflictions conciliate more than offerings do. For offerings are (effected) with one's money, and afflictions, with one's body.
Rebbi says: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which do not come to atone for the world (viz. Leviticus 26:27), how much more so is it forbidden to derive benefit from eglah arufah, which does come to atone for the world! This tells me only of its flesh (i.e., that benefit may not be derived from the flesh of an ox that killed, which was slaughtered after judgment had been passed upon it.)
Whence do I derive (the same for) its skin? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the skin of a sin-offering, whose flesh is permitted in its slaughtering, is forbidden (in the derivation of benefit) in its death, then an ox to be stoned, whose flesh is forbidden in its slaughtering, how much more so should its skin be forbidden in its death! — (No,) this is refuted by an ox which has become tamei, which, although its flesh is forbidden in its slaughtering, its skin is permitted in its death.
It would follow that I exclude the aforementioned, but I include spongy dough, honey dough, pasty dough, pan-cakes, and pressed-cake. It is, therefore (to negate this) written (Devarim 16:3) "bread of affliction." These are the words of R. Yishmael.
(Ibid. 20) "Then Miriam the prophetess took": Where do we find that Miriam was a prophetess? She said to her father (Amram): In the end, you will beget a son who will be the savior of Israel from Egypt — (Ibid. 2:1) "And there went a man (Amram) from the house of Levi and took the daughter of Levi, (Yocheved — after he had separated from her because of Pharaoh's decree to drown the males) (2) "And she conceived and bore a son … (3) and could conceal him no longer…" — whereupon her father rebuked her, saying: My daughter, where is your prophecy?
But she stood fast to her prophecy, viz. (4) "And his sister stood from afar to know what would be done with him," "standing" ("yetzivah") signifying prophecy, viz. (Amos 9:1) "I saw the L–rd standing on the altar", and (I Samuel 3:10) "And the L–rd came and He stood, etc.", and (Devarim 31:19) "Call Joshua and stand, etc." (Exodus, Ibid.) "from afar": "from afar" everywhere signifies the Holy Spirit, viz. (Jeremiah 31:2) "From afar the L–rd appeared to me." (Exodus, Ibid.) "to know": "Knowing" signifies the Holy Spirit, viz. (Isaiah 11:9) "for the earth will be filled with knowing of the L–rd, etc." (Exodus, Ibid.) "what would be done with him": "Doing signifies the Holy Spirit, viz. (Amos 3:7) "For the L–rd G–d will not do a thing unless He has revealed His secret to His servants the prophets."
Once, R. Eliezer was sick, and four elders came to visit him: R. Tarfon, R. Yehoshua, R. Elazar b. Azaryah, and R. Akiva … R. Tarfon responded: "You are more beloved by Israel than the solar orb" … whence we derive that afflictions are beloved (see Sanhedrin 107b)
One of the disciples of R. Yishmael said: This may be true of an ox which has become tamei, from which benefit may be derived, for which reason its skin is permitted in its death, as opposed to an ox to be stoned, which, since benefit is forbidden to be derived therefrom, its skin is to be forbidden in its death.
The sages say: He fulfills his obligation with them and with second-tithe. And what is the intent of "bread of affliction"? That they are not to be kneaded with wine or oil or other liquids, but he may form it (the matzoh) with all of them.
(Exodus 15:20) "Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron": Was she not (also) the sister of Moses? Why, then, "the sister of Aaron"? — Because Aaron risked his life for his sister (viz. Numbers 12:2), she was called by his name.
R. Eliezer says: He fulfills his obligation with all of them and with second-tithe. And what is the intent of "bread of affliction"? Just as with the bread of a poor man, his wife kneads it and he heats it in the oven, so, here.
Similarly, (Genesis 34:25) "Shimon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah." Now was she not the sister of all of the tribes? Why, then, "the brothers of Dinah"? — Because they risked their lives for her, she was called their sister.
(Exodus, Ibid.) "gods of silver and gods of gold": What is the intent of this? Though it is written (Exodus 25:18) "And you shall make two golden cherubs," one should not say I shall make four. To this end it is written "gods of gold." If you make more than two, they are considered "gods of gold."
"and the owner of the ox is absolved": R. Yehudah says: He is absolved by Heaven. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a mued is stoned and a tam is stoned, then if we have learned about mued that even though the owner satisfied (the demands of) a beth-din of flesh and blood, he did not satisfy Heaven, (having to pay kofer), then there (in the instance of tam), too, even though he satisfied a beth-din of flesh and blood, he did not satisfy Heaven. It is, therefore, written "and the owner of the ox (a tam) is absolved" — by Heaven.
R. Yossi says: From "Seven days shall you eat matzoth" I understand, even (matzoth of) second-tithe. It is, therefore, written "bread of affliction," to exclude this (second-tithe), which is eaten only in joy.
Similarly, (Numbers 25:18) "Kazbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister." Now was she their (Midian's) sister? Was he (Tzur, her father,) not "the head of the peoples of a father's house in Midian" (viz. (Numbers 25:15)? Why, then, "their (Midian's) sister'? — Because she risked her life for her people, they were called by her name.
"gods of silver": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written "gods of gold"? Why, then, add "gods of silver"? Because we find with all the implements of the Temple, if there is no gold they are to be made of silver, the same obtains with the cherubs, it is, therefore, written "gods of silver" — If gold is not used, they are considered "gods of silver."
Shimon b. Azzai says: "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — from half-kofer. For it would follow: Since an ox who killed an ox must pay, and an ox that killed a man must pay, then just as there, (in the first instance) a mued pays full damages and a tam, half-damages; here, too, (in the instance of an ox that kills) a man, it is so. And what is the intent of "the owner of the ox is absolved"? Of half-kofer.
(Exodus, Ibid.) "the timbrel in her hand": Whence did they have timbrels and dance (instruments) in the desert? — Being tzaddikim, and knowing for a certainty that the Holy One Blessed be He would perform miracles and mighty acts for them when they left Egypt, they readied timbrels and (dance) instruments for themselves.
(Exodus 20:20) "you shall not make for yourselves": Do not say: Since the Torah permitted this (the making of cherubs) in the Temple, I shall do the same in synagogues and in houses of study; it is, therefore, written "You shall not make for yourselves.
R. Gamliel says: "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of a man-servant. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since both a mued and a tam are stoned (for killing a man), then if we have learned about mued that he (the owner) pays for the worth of a man-servant, then it should be the same with a tam. It is, therefore, written (in the instance of a tam) "the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of a man-servant.
(Ibid. 21) "And Miriam answered to them: Sing to the L–rd, for He is exalted (over all the) exalted: horse and its rider He cast into the sea": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Moses chanted song to the men, so did Miriam chant song to the women.
R. Akiva says: "the owner of the ox is absolved" — from the worth of fetuses. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since both man and ox are liable for injury, then if we have learned about a man who intended to strike his fellow and struck a woman and caused her to miscarry that he is liable to pay for her fetuses, then the same obtains with an ox; it is, therefore, written "and the owner of the ox is absolved" — of payment for the fetuses.
(Exodus 21:29) "And if it were a goring ox": Scripture comes to distinguish between a tam and a mued: A mued requires (that the owner be warned before) witnesses; not a tam. A mued pays kofer; not a tam. A mued pays thirty sela (viz. Ibid. 32); not a tam. A mued pays full damages; a tam, half-damages. A mued pays from the aliyah (the owner's choicest property); a tam, from (sale of) its body.
R. Meir says: A mued — one whose owner was warned three times (even in one day). A tam — one whom the children play with without (fear of) being gored. And what is the intent of "mitmol shilshom"? If he was warned three non consecutive days, it is regarded as a tam (and not as a mued).
"and the owner were warned": We are hereby apprised that he is not liable unless he was warned. "and he did not guard it": to bring (even) a non-paid watcher. Variantly: "and he did not watch it": as befits it — whence they ruled: If he watched it as befits it, he is not liable; if not as befits it, he is liable. If he tied it with a harness and it freed itself and damaged, he is liable for both a tam and a mued, it being written (Ibid. 36) "and its owner did not guard it" — and this is not considered guarding. These are the words of R. Meir.
"And it killed a man or a woman": This is "extra," towards comparison and the formulation of a gezeirah shavah (identity) (as above). "the ox shall be stoned": Why is this stated? It follows a fortiori, viz.:If a tam is to be stoned, how much more so a mued! — No, this may be so with a tam, for which he does not pay kofer, but not with a mued, for which he does pay kofer. It must, therefore, be written "the ox shall be stoned."
R. Akiva says: "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner, too, shall die." The death of the owner is being likened to the death of the ox, viz.: Just as the death of the owner (requires a beth-din of) twenty-three, so, the death of the ox.
"and its owner, too, shall die": at the hands of Heaven. You say at the hands of Heaven, but perhaps at the hands of man? It is written (Numbers 35:31) "You shall not take kofer (ransom) for the soul of a murderer, who is liable to death" — Redemption is not given for those who are put to death at the hands of man, but (only) to those who are liable to death at the hands of Heaven.
R. Akiva says: the value of the killer (i.e., the owner of the ox). And thus do we find that redemption is not given for those who are put to death. In all places, those who are liable to death at the hands of man are not redeemed, as it is written (Leviticus 27:24) "Any cherem that is devoted from a man (going out to be executed) shall not be redeemed, (for) he is going to be put to death" (and has no valuation). But here "he shall give the redemption of his soul."
R. Yishmael says: Come and see the mercies of the One who spoke and brought the world into being, for flesh and blood. For a man acquires himself with money from the hands of Heaven, as it is written (Numbers 30:12) "When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their number, then each man shall give the ransom of his soul to the L–rd, etc.", and (II Kings 12:5) "each man, the money for the valuation of his soul," and (Mishlei 13:8) "A man's wealth may redeem his soul," and (Daniel 4:24) "But, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you.
Redeem your soul through charity," and (Job 33:23-24) "If there will be for him but a single defending angel from a thousand to declare a man's uprightness for him, then He will be gracious to him and He will say: Redeem him from descending to the grave I have found kofer for Him!"
We find that certain consecrated objects can be redeemed and others cannot be redeemed; certain things that may not be eaten may be redeemed; things from which benefit may not be derived may not be redeemed. The nations of the world cannot be redeemed, as it is written (Psalms 49:8) "A man cannot redeem his brother; he cannot give his kofer to G–d. Too costly is their soul's redemption and unattainable forever."
Beloved is Israel for whose souls the Holy One Blessed be He has given the nations as kofer, as it is written (Isaiah 43:3) "I gave Egypt as kofer for you." Why? (Ibid. 4) "Because you were honored in My eyes, you were honored and I loved you, and I placed a man in your place and nations in place of your souls."
