Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Reader

(Exodus 21:31) "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter": Why is this stated? (Ibid. 29) "and it kill a man or a woman" tells me only of adults. Whence do I derive (the same for) minors? From "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter." This tells me only of a distinct son or daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) or a hermaphrodite? From "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter." This tells me only of another's son or daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) his own son or daughter? From "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter" — in any event. This tells me only of (its goring) an Israelite. Whence do I derive the same for a proselyte? From (Ibid. 12:49) "One Torah shall there be for the citizen and for the proselyte."

R. Yishmael says: "an altar of earth": fixed upon the earth, and not upon domes or pillars.

(Exodus 21:31) "If the ox gore a man-servant or a maid-servant." These, too, were in the class of "and it kill a man or a woman," and Scripture singled them out for both lenity and severity. For lenity — If he were worth a hundred maneh, he pays thirty selaim. For severity — If he were worth only a dinar, he pays thirty selaim.

R. Yoshiyah said to him: Why is this different from all of the "sayings" in the Torah, which were from Moses to say to Israel? Here, too, from Moses to say to Israel. Why, then, is it written (here) "And Moses called to all the elders of Israel and he said to them (to Israel)"? (to show that) he accorded (special) honor to the elders. And thus did the Holy One Blessed be He say to Moses: "Moses, accord honor to the elders," viz. (Exodus 3:16) "Go and gather the elders of Israel, etc." And it is written (Ibid. 4:29) "And Moses and Aaron went and they gathered together the elders of Israel."

Issi b. Akiva says: an altar of copper filled with earth. As it is written (I Kings 8:64) "For the copper altar before the L–rd was too small to contain the burnt-offerings, etc." Now was it too small? Is it not written (Ibid. 3:4) "A thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon sacrifice on that altar"? What is the intent of "small"? As people speak, "He is a dwarf" — i.e., he is unfit for the service. On the day that the new altar was built, the other was secreted.

Variantly: "If the ox gore a man-servant or a maid-servant": Scripture speaks of a Canaanite (man-servant or maid-servant). But perhaps it speaks of an Israelite? (This cannot be, for) "silver, thirty shekels, shall he give to his master" indicates that a Canaanite is intended, (for if it were an Israelite, the money would go to his heirs.)

"Draw forth and take for yourselves": "Draw forth" — he who possesses his own; "and take" (i.e., acquire) — he who does not possess his own. R. Yossi Haglili says (The meaning is:) "Draw away from idol worship and cleave to mitzvoth." R. Yishmael says: Scripture here comes to apprise us that one may number himself for (the eating of) the Paschal lamb, and he may "depart" from it, until it is slaughtered, so long as it is not left as is (i.e., without any owners.)

R. Yitzchak says: Scripture (here) comes to teach us that a small beast is acquired by (the act of) "drawing forth." "and slaughter the Pesach: It is a mitzvah to slaughter it as a Pesach offering. If he does not offer it as such, he transgresses the mitzvah. I might think that in the above instance) it is, nevertheless kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 27) "It is a Paschal sacrifice to the L–rd."

Scripture repeats it to render it unfit (in the above instance.) From here it was ruled: All sacrifices which were slaughtered not "as such" are kasher, but they are not accounted to the owners as the fulfillment of an obligation — except for the Pesach and the sin-offering, (which are not kasher.)

(Exodus 20:21) "And you shall slaughter thereon": alongside it (i.e., alongside the top). You say "alongside it, but perhaps it is to be understood literally, i.e., "upon it"? And this would follow, viz.: If the north of the altar, which is not kasher for atonement (i.e., for the sprinkling of the blood [viz. Leviticus 1:5]), is kasher for slaughtering, then the top of the altar, which is kasher for atonement, how much more so should it be kasher for slaughtering!

This (a fortiori argument) is refuted by the inner altar, which, though it is kasher for atonement, (the blood of the bullocks for burning being sprinkling upon it) is not kasher for slaughtering, (which is to be performed at the entrance of the tent of meeting.) And this would indicate of the outer altar that though it is kasher for atonement, is not kasher for slaughtering. No, this may be true of the inner altar, which does not render (a leper) kasher (to eat of the offerings) and does not render (an offering) permitted (to be eaten), and does not consummate the atonement, (for after the blood was sprinkled on the inner altar, the remnant had to be spilled on the outer altar) — wherefore it is not kasher for slaughtering.

It is, therefore, written (Devarim 12;27) "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings — the flesh and the blood — upon the altar': "the flesh and the blood upon (i.e., on top of) the altar," and not slaughtering on top of the altar, (but alongside it).

"and slaughter the Pesach: It is a mitzvah to slaughter it as a Pesach offering. If he does not offer it as such, he transgresses the mitzvah. I might think that in the above instance) it is, nevertheless kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 27) "It is a Paschal sacrifice to the L–rd." Scripture repeats it to render it unfit (in the above instance.) From here it was ruled: All sacrifices which were slaughtered not "as such" are kasher, but they are not accounted to the owners as the fulfillment of an obligation — except for the Pesach and the sin-offering, (which are not kasher.)

R. Assi says: Slaughtering also is on top of the altar. And Scripture supports him, viz. "An altar of earth shall you make for Me and you shall slaughter therein, etc." One verse states "your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings," and, another "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings — the flesh and the blood, etc." How are these two verses to be reconciled?

(Exodus 12:22) "And you shall take a bunch of hyssop": From here you learn that all the "takings" in the Torah are with "bunches," viz.: Since all the "takings" in the Torah are unqualified, and in one instance "bunch" is specified, (it is derived that) all the "takings" in the Torah are with bunches. "hyssop": and not Greek hyssop and not Roman hyssop, and not Cochalite hyssop, and not desert hyssop — (in fine,) no hyssop which is qualified by an epithet.

R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: From half the altar northwards is regarded as north, and from half the altar southwards is regarded as south. And this tells me only that the north of the altar is kasher for slaughtering. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the north of the azarah (the Temple court)? From (Leviticus 14:13) "And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he shall slaughter the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the holy place." Let this not be written. (Why is it written?) To render kasher the entire northern side (of the azarah)?

"and the ox shall be stoned": Why is this stated? (i.e., it was stated already.) For if it were not stated, I would say (otherwise), viz.: Since he is put to death for killing his man-servant or his maid-servant, and another is put to death for killing his man-servant or his maid-servant, and his ox is put to death for killing his man-servant or his maid-servant, and the ox of another is put to death for killing his man-servant or his maid-servant — then if you have learned to make a distinction between his or another's killing his man-servant or his maid-servant (viz. Ibid. 21:21), then we should also make a distinction between his or another's ox killing his man-servant or his maid-servant; it is, therefore, written "thirty shekalim … and the ox shall be stoned" (i.e., no such distinction is made.)

"And you shall slaughter therein your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This tells me only of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) all offerings/ This tells me (that it is permitted to slaughter on the altar only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) all offerings? From (Ibid. 20:21) "your sheep and your cattle." — But this would imply that he could slaughter there both offerings and non-offerings! Would you say that? What is the context? That of offerings (and not of non-offerings).

(Exodus 21:33) "And if a man open a pit": Why is this stated? It can be derived by reason, viz.: Since the ox is his possession and the pit is his possession, then if you have learned that he is liable for his ox, should he not be liable for his pit? No, this may be true of his ox, whose way it is to cause damage, as opposed to his pit, whose way it is not to go and cause and cause damage. It is, therefore, written "And if a man open a pit or if a man dig a pit." Because I have not been able to derive this by reason, it must be stated by itself.

"which is in the saf": Scripture (here) apprises us that he makes an indenture at the side of the threshold and slaughters (the blood) into it. "saf" is a threshold, as in (Ezekiel 43:8) "In setting their threshold ("sippam" [from "saf"]) by My threshold," and (Isaiah 6:4) "And the posts of the sippim would shake." These are the words of R. Yishmael.

(Ibid.) "Wherever I shall mention My name": where I am revealed to you, in the Temple — whence they ruled: It is forbidden to mention the explicit Name (the Tetragrammaton) in the borders (i.e., outside of the Temple).

R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: If you come to My house, I will come to your house. And if you do not come to My house, I will not come to your house. The place that My heart loves, there My feet will lead Me — whence they derived: Whenever ten men enter a synagogue, the Shechinah is with them, as it is written (Psalms 82:1) "G–d stands in the congregation of the Almighty." And whence is it derived (that the Shechinah reposes) even on three who judge?

From (Ibid.) "In the midst of the judges, (three), does He judge." And whence is it derived (that it reposes) even with two? From (Malachi 3:16) "Then there conversed, the fearers of the L–rd, one to the other, and the L–rd listened, etc." And whence is it derived (that the same obtains) even with one? From "Wherever I shall mention My name I shall come to you and I shall bless you."

"And if a man open": This tells me only of opening. Whence do I derive (the same for) digging? It is, therefore, written "if a man dig." But even if this were not stated, I could derive it a fortiori, viz.: If the opener is liable, how much more, so the digger! If you say this you have punished by an a fortiori argument. It is, therefore, written "if he dig" — to teach that punishment is not mandated by an a fortiori argument.

(Exodus, Ibid. 22) "And if an altar of stones you make for Me": R. Yishmael says: Every "if" in the Torah connotes optionality, except for three; (Leviticus 2:14) "And if you offer an offering of first-fruits" — This is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional. (This is not so, for) it is written (Ibid.) "You shall offer the offering of your first-fruits." It is mandatory, not optional.

Variantly: "if a man open a pit": Opening is being likened to digging, and digging, to opening. Just as one who opens (a pit) with permission is exempt (from liability), so, one who digs it with permission. And just as digging (a pit) entails a specific size (for liability), so, opening.

Similarly, (Exodus 22:24) "If you lend money to My people, the poor man with you, etc." This is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:8) "Lend shall you lend him." It is mandatory, not optional.

R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Opening (a pit) is not like digging, or digging, like opening. What is common to them is that wherever one is liable for guarding it, he is liable for the damage that it causes — so, in all instances, wherever one is liable for guarding, he is liable for the damage. This tells me only of opening and digging. Whence do I derive (the same for) figuring, paneling, plastering or performing any other act in it (to which the damage is attributable)? From "and he not cover it." It is not opening or digging which is the criterion (for liability), but covering (i.e., failure to cover it).

"and you shall touch the lintel" (see above) "and you shall touch the lintel and the two door-posts": I would think that if one (door-post) preceded the other (lintel) he has not fulfilled his obligation. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "and he shall place it on the two door-posts and on the lintel." In either case he has fulfilled his obligation.

Similarly, "And if an altar of stones you make for Me." This is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional. (This is not so,) for it is written (Devarim 27:6) "Of whole stones shall you build the altar of the L–rd." It is mandatory and not optional (to build an altar). And what is the intent of "if an altar of stones"? If he wishes to build it of stones, he may do so. (If he wishes to build it) of bricks, he may do so. Now does this not follow a fortiori for the other vessels, viz. If he may vary (i.e., either stones or bricks) for the altar, the more "formidable," how much more so may he do so for other vessels (of lesser formidability) (e.g., the menorah and the table, to make them of silver.)

"from the blood which is in the saf": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid.)? From (Ibid. 7) "And they shall take from the blood," I might think that there is one dipping for all (the touchings). It is, therefore, written "and you shall touch the lintel and the two door-posts from the blood which is in the saf. For each touching a (separate) dipping.

(Exodus 20:22) "Do not build them gazith": "gazith" is "gezuzoth" (hewn,) iron having been lifted upon them. R. Nathan says: I might think that if one built two stones (into the altar) upon which iron had been lifted (that) the entire altar is unfit, it is, therefore, written "Do not build them hewn" — They are unfit, but not the entire altar.

Variantly: "and he not cover it": and he not cover it properly — whence they ruled: If he covered it properly, he is exempt; if improperly, he is liable. If he covered it and another uncovered it, the second is liable. If partners covered a pit and one of them uncovered it, the second is liable. If it were uncovered and one of them knew of it, the one who knew of it is liable, and the other, exempt.

"and you shall not go out, a man from the door of his house: We are hereby taught that once permission has been given to "the destroyer" to destroy, he does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. As it is written (Isaiah 26:20) "Go, My people, enter your chambers and close your door behind you. Hide but a little moment, until the wrath passes," and (Ezekiel 21:8) "Behold, I am (coming) upon you, and I will draw My sword from its sheath, and I will cut of from you (both) righteous and wicked."

And it is written (Exodus 33:22) "And it shall be, when My glory passes by … and I shall cover you with My palm until I have passed." Variantly: (Exodus 12:22) "And you, do not go out, a man from the door of his house until morning" — to teach you that when you take to the road, enter (the house) in "ki tov" (i.e., in the morning) and leave in "ki tov" (from Genesis 1:4 "And G–d saw the light ki tov" ("that it was good").

(Ibid.) "Do not build them hewn": In it (the altar) you may not build them hewn, but you may build them hewn in the sanctuary and in the holy of holies. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the altar, the less formidable, it is forbidden to build them hewn, how much more so, in the sanctuary and the holy of holies, the more formidable. It is, therefore, written (of the altar) "Do not build them hewn." In it, you may not build them hewn, but you may build them hewn in the sanctuary and in the holy of holies. How, then, am I to understand (I Kings 6:7) "And hammers, chisels, or any iron tools were not heard in the Temple when it was being built"? In the Temple they were not heard, but outside (where they were hewn) they were heard.

"and there fall there an ox or an ass": He is liable for each in itself. "an ox": and not an ox and its trappings. "an ass": and not an ass and its trapping. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in a place (i.e., where he lit a fire), where he is not liable for a beast (that was burned), he is liable for vessels, here, where he is liable for the beast, how much more so should he be liable for vessels! It is, therefore, written "and there fall into it an ox or an ass": an ox, and not its trappings; an ass, and not its trappings.

And thus do you find with the forefathers, that they deported themselves with circumspection (in this regard), viz.: (Genesis 22:3) "And Abraham arose early in the morning," (Ibid. 28:18) "And Jacob arose early in the morning," (Exodus 34:4) "And Moses arose early in the morning," (I Samuel 15:12) "And Samuel arose early in the morning to meet Saul." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the fathers and the prophets, who were on the way to do the will of Him who spoke and brought the world into being, conducted themselves with such circumspection, how much more so (should) others (do so)!

And thus is it written (of this natural order) ((Psalms 104:20-21) "You bring on darkness and it becomes night. In it stir all the beasts of the forest. The lions roar for prey, etc." (28) "You give it (food) to them and they gather it in, etc." — (22) "When the sun rises, they return" (to their lairs) — after which (23) "Man goes out to his work, to his labor, until the evening."

(Exodus, Ibid.) "For if you lift your sword upon it": R. Shimon b. Elazar was wont to say: Iron was created to shorten a man's days, and the altar was created to lengthen them. It is not fit that the "shortener" be lifted over the "lengthener."

"and there fall there": in the (normal) mode of falling — whence they ruled: If it fell before it (the pit) because of the sound of the digging, he (the digger) is liable. (If it fell) behind it because of the sound of the digging, he is exempt. But (if he fell into) the pit itself, whether (walking) before it or (walking) behind it, he is liable.

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai says: it is said (Devarim 27:6) "Of whole (shleimoth) stones shall you build the altar of the L–rd" — stones which repose peace ("shalom"). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the stones of the altar, which do not see or hear or speak — because they repose peace between Israel and their Father in heaven, the Holy One Blessed be He says: Do not lift iron upon them, then one who reposes peace between a man and his wife, between one city and another, between one nation and another, between one government and another, between one family and another — how much more so will he not meet with adversity!

(Exodus, Ibid. 22) "And you shall not go up with steps in My altar": From here they ruled: Make a ramp for the altar. This tells me only of ascending. Whence do I derive (the same for) descending? It is, therefore, written "so that your nakedness not be revealed upon it." It is not the ascending or descending which is the determinant, but the "covering."

"Money shall he restore to its owner': This tells me only of money. Whence do I derive the same for a beast? (i.e., that he may pay with a beast.) It follows, viz.: It is written here "and the carcass shall belong to him," and elsewhere, (Exodus 21:36) "Then shall he pay an ox for an ox, and the carcass shall belong to him. Just as there (he pays) a beast, so, here (he may pay) a beast. Just as here, money; so, there, money.

R. Yishmael says: The verse is not needed (for this purpose). Is it not already written (Ibid. 28:42) "And make for them trousers of linen"? What, then, is the intent of "so that your nakedness not be revealed upon it"? That they not take broad strides, but walk heel-by-toe.

"and the carcass shall belong to him": to him who sustained the loss. You say this, but perhaps it belongs to him who caused the loss? (This cannot be, for) if so, why need it be mentioned "and the carcass shall belong to him?" (i.e., If he must compensate for the entire loss, then certainly the carcass belongs to him.) (It must be, then, that the carcass belongs to him who sustained the loss) and the intent of the verse is that the value of the carcass is deducted from the total loss (and that amount is restored in addition to the carcass.)

"Do that your nakedness not be revealed upon it": Upon it (the altar) you may not take broad strides, but you may in the sanctuary and in the holy of holies. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If on the altar, the less formidable, it is forbidden to take broad strides, how much more so in the sanctuary and the Temple, the more formidable! It is, therefore, written "So that your nakedness not be revealed upon it."

Upon it (the altar) you may not take broad strides, but you may in the sanctuary and the holy of holies. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If of stones, which have no consciousness of evil or of fear, the Holy One Blessed be He said: Do not deport yourself upon them boldly, then your friend, created in the image of Him who spoke and brought the world into being — how much more so should you not deport yourselves boldly with him!