Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Reader

"and the L–rd will skip over the blood": Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If of the blood (on the door) of the Pesach of Egypt, the less "formidable," which obtains only for a circumscribed time, and which did not obtain (both) in the daytime and at night, (but only at night), and which does not obtain for future generations, it is written (Ibid.) "and He will not permit the destroyer, etc.", then (the mitzvah of) mezuzah, the more formidable, containing (in Scripture) ten citations (of the name of the L–rd), and which obtains (both) in the daytime and at night, and which obtains for all generations, how much more so should He not permit the destroyer, etc."!

But why is this not the case? Our sins have prevented it. As it is written (Isaiah 59:2) "But your transgressions have separated between you and your G–d, and your sins have hidden His face from you against hearing."

"as a statute for you and for your sons": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 7) "And they shall take from the blood, etc.", I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "as a statute for you and for your sons."

(Exodus 12:25) "And it shall be, when you come to the land": The service is contingent upon their entering the land and thereafter. (In the desert they were obliged to observe only one Pesach, in the second year, by Divine command.) "as He has spoken":

(21:35) "And if the ox of a man butt": Included in "goring" is butting, pushing, lying upon, kicking, and biting. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Goring, butting, pushing, lying upon and kicking. Whence is biting derived? It is written (36) "and its owner did not guard it." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If when he guards it he is liable, how much more so when he does not guard it! What, then, is the intent of "and its owner not guard it"? Scripture makes him liable for an additional guarding. And which is that? (Guarding against biting.)

(21:35) "And if the ox of a man strike" to exclude the ox of a minor. "the ox of a man": to include the ox of others (i.e., gentiles). "the ox of his neighbor": to include the ox of a minor. "his neighbor": to exclude the ox of a Cuthite, the ox of a gentile, the ox of a sojourning proselyte (ger toshav).

"then they shall sell the living ox": Scripture speaks of oxen of equal value (one of which gored the other). But perhaps it speaks of oxen of unequal value? Would you say that? What is the way of the damagers? To profit or to lose" — To lose. And what is the way of the damaged? To take (the amount of) their damage or more than their damage? — Not more than their damage. (So that to avert this possibility, the first assumption [equal value] must be posited.)

Similarly, (Leviticus 10:3) "This is as the L–rd spoke: With My near ones I will be sanctified." And where did He speak it? (Exodus 29:43) "And I will be appointed there for the children of Israel and it (the mishkan) will be sanctified by My glory" (i.e., by My glorifiers).

Rebbi says: "Halving" is written in respect to the living ox, and "halving" is written in respect to the dead ox" — so it must be oxen of equal value of which Scripture speaks, (the halved shares of the dead ox, perforce being equal.)

Similarly, (Devarim 11:25) "The L–rd your G–d will put the dread and fear of you over the whole land … as He spoke to you." And where did He speak it? (Exodus 23:27) "My fright shall I send before you, and I shall confound all the people, etc."

"and also the carcass shall they halve": whence they ruled: An ox worth a hundred which gored an ox worth a hundred, or an ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred — he (the owner of the dead ox) takes half (of the value of the living ox.) An ox worth a hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred — he takes (the value of) all of it. An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth a hundred — he takes a quarter of it.

(Devarim 12:20) "When the L–rd your G–d broadens your boundary, as he spoke to you, etc." And where did He speak it? (Exodus 34:24) "for I shall drive out nations from before you and I shall broaden your boundary," (Ibid. 23:31) "And I shall set your boundary from the Red Sea, etc."

An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth nothing — R. Meir said: Of this it is written "then they shall sell the living ox, etc." R. Yehudah said to him: Read all of this verse, viz. "and also the (value of the) carcass shall they halve." What is being spoken of? An ox worth two hundred which gored an ox worth two hundred, and the carcass is worth one hundred, (in which instance) the living ox is sold, the (value of the) dead ox is divided equally, and the owner of the carcass deals with it. Of such an instance it is written "and also the carcass shall they halve."

Similarly (Ibid. 26:18) "and the L–rd has affirmed this day to make you His chosen people as He spoke to you." And where did He speak it? (Exodus 19:5) "then you shall be to Me chosen above all the peoples."

Similarly, (Isaiah 1:2) "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, as the L–rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Devarim 32:1) "Hear, O heavens, and I shall speak."

Similarly, (Isaiah 40:5) "The glory of the L–rd shall appear, and all flesh will behold as one, for the mouth of the L–rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Devarim 32:39) "See, now, that I — I am He, and there is no god beside Me."

Similarly, (Isaiah 1:19-20) "If you acquiesce and pay heed, the good of the earth will you eat. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword will devour you; for the mouth of the L–rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Leviticus 26:25) "… I will bring against you an avenging sword, etc."

"pay shall he pay an ox for an ox": This tells me only (that he pays) a beast. Whence do I derive (that he can also pay) money? It follows, viz.: It is written here "and the carcass shall belong to him," and elsewhere (21:34) "and the carcass shall belong to him." Just as here, (he can pay) with a beast, so, there, with a beast. Just as there, (he can pay) with money, so, here, (he can pay) with money.

Similarly, (Isaiah 58:14) "then you will rejoice in the L–rd, and I will 'ride' you on the heights of the earth, etc." And where did He speak it? (Devarim 32:13) "He will 'ride' him on the heights of the earth, etc."

Similarly, (Ezekiel 39:8) "Behold, it has come; it has arrived, says the L–rd G–d. This is the day of which I spoke." And where did He speak of it? (Devarim 32:42) "I will make My arrows drunk with blood, etc."

(Exodus 21:37) "If a man steal an ox or a lamb": Both the slaughterer and the seller were in the (general) class (of thieves), viz. (Ibid. 22:6) "if the thief is found, he shall pay double," and Scripture removed them from that class to make them liable for the more severe "four and five" payment, wherefore this section was stated.

Similarly, (Michah 4:4) "and each man will sit under his grapevine … for the mouth of the L–rd of hosts has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Leviticus 26:6) "And I will place peace in the land, etc."

Similarly, (Ovadiah 1:18) "And there will be no survivor of the house of Esav, for the mouth of the L–rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Numbers 24:18-19) "And Edom (Esav) will become an inheritance … and a victor will issue from Jacob and will destroy all trace of Ir."

Variantly: Slaughtering is being likened to selling, and selling, to slaughtering. Just as selling is outside his (the owner's) domain, so, slaughtering (to make him liable for "four and five" payment) must be outside his domain. Just as (he is liable for "four and five") by selling (only) when the animal may be eaten, so, by slaughtering. Just as by selling, (only) when benefit may be derived from it, so by slaughtering. Just as by slaughtering, (only) when he (the thief) cannot revoke (his theft), so, by selling, (when the owner has despaired of the return of the theft, so that the thief has "acquired" the beast.) Just as with slaughtering, all (of the animal is involved), so, with selling.

Similarly, (Ibid. 21:1) "And the L–rd did for Sarah as He had spoken." And where did He speak it? (Ibid. 15:4) "And the 'speaking' of the L–rd was to him. This one (Ishmail) will not inherit you, etc."

Variantly: "If a man steal": Consecrated animals were also included in the general class, that if he stole them and slaughtered them outside (the azarah) he would pay "four and five." It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 17:2) "This is the thing that the L–rd has commanded, etc." — They (consecrated animals slaughtered outside the azarah) have been singled out for kareth (cutting off, for the desecrator) and not for payment (of "four and five").

Similarly, (Yoel 4:8) "and I will sell your sons and your daughters, etc." And where did he speak it? (Genesis 9:25) "And he (Noach) said: Cursed is Canaan. A servant of servants will he be to his brothers."

Similarly, (Devarim 17:16) "And the L–rd said to you: You will not go back this way (to Egypt) again." And where did He say it? (Exodus 14:13) "For your seeing Egypt is (only) this day. You will see them no more forever."

R. Meir said: Come and see how beloved is work by Him who spoke and brought the world into being. (For) an ox, which he took from its work, he pays five-fold. (For) a lamb which he did not take from its work he pays (only) four-fold.

R. Yochanan b. Zakkai says: The Holy One Blessed be He is solicitous of human dignity. (For) an ox, which walks on his feet, (and need not be carried by the thief,) he pays five-fold. (For) a lamb, which he must carry on his back, he pays (only) four-fold, (having already made a kind of partial payment in the sacrificing of his dignity.)

R. Akiva says: "tachath ('in place of') the ox; "tachath the sheep" — to exclude (from "four and five" payment an animal [as opposed to a beast]). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since he (the thief) must pay (money) for stealing a beast, and he must pay (money) for stealing an animal, then if you have learned about a beast that he pays "four and five," so, he should be similarly liable for an animal. No, this may be so with a beast, which is sacrificed on the altar, as opposed to an animal, which is not — wherefore it does not pay "four and five."

But this is refuted by (the theft of) a blemished beast, which, although it is not sacrificed on the altar, does pay "four and five." — No, this may be so with a blemished beast, whose "kind" (i.e., "beast") is sacrificed upon the altar, as opposed to an animal, whose "kind" is not sacrificed upon the altar — wherefore it is written "tachath ('in place of') the ox"; "tachath ('in place of') the sheep" — to exclude an animal.

Similarly, (Yoel 3:5) "And all who call in the name of the L–rd … as the L–rd said." And where did He say it? (Devarim 28:10) "And all the peoples of the earth will see that the L–rd's name is called upon you, etc."

Similarly, (Isaiah 66:20-21) "And they will bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the L–rd … And also from them will I take Cohanim and Levites, the L–rd said." And where did He say this? (Devarim 29:28) "What is concealed (from us [e.g., who is a Cohein and who, a Levite]) is known to the L–rd our G–d."

Here, too, (Exodus 12:25) "And it shall be, when you come to the land that the L–rd will give you, as He has spoken, etc." And where did He speak it? (Ibid. 6:8) "And I shall bring you to the land, etc."

(Exodus 12:26) "And it shall be, when your sons say to you, etc.": At that time, Israel was receiving bad tidings, that the Torah was destined to be forgotten. Others say they were receiving good tidings, that they were destined to see sons and sons of sons. (Exodus 12:27) "And the people bowed down and prostrated themselves": Why did they bow down? For it is written (Ibid. 13:18) "And the children of Israel went out of Egypt chamushim" — one out of five ("chamishah"). Others say one out of fifty ("chamishim"). And others say one out of five hundred ("chamesh me'oth").

R. Nehorai says; Upon my oath, not one in five hundred went out. For it is written (Ezekiel 16:7) "Numerous as the spouts of the field did I make you" (in Egypt), and (Exodus 1:7) "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and teemed" — One woman would bear six in one womb. And you say one in five hundred went out? And when did they die? In the three days of darkness, of which it is written (Exodus 10:23) "One man could not see another." The Jews buried their dead, and they were thankful and praised (the L–rd) that their foes could not see (the dead) and rejoice in their downfall.

(Ibid. 12:27) "Then you shall say that it is a Paschal sacrifice to the L–rd.": R. Yossi Haglili said: The Jews would have deserved to die in Egypt (if not for the merit of the Paschal sacrifice) whereby the last of them consummated his sacrifice (and lived.) "Then you shall say that it is a Paschal sacrifice." We are hereby apprised that all who hear of or see the miracles that the Holy One Blessed be He wrought in Egypt must give praise. And thus is it written (Exodus 18:8-9) "And Moses related to his father-in-law all that the L–rd did to Pharaoh and to Egypt. And Yithro rejoiced, etc."

"and they did": Now did they already do? — Their taking it upon themselves to do is regarded as their doing. "as the L–rd commanded": We are hereby apprised of their eminence. Exactly as Moses and Aaron commanded them thus did they do.

(Exodus 12:29) "And it was in the middle of the night": Its Creator divided it. What is the intent of this? It is written (Ibid. 11:4) "And Moses said (to Pharaoh): Thus said the L–rd: When the night is divided (i.e., at midnight) I shall go out into the midst of Egypt." Now is it possible for flesh and blood to ascertain the middle of the night? It must be, then, that its Creator divided it.

(Exodus 22:1) "If the thief be found breaking in": This speaks of a doubt (in the owner's mind) as to whether he is breaking in to steal or to kill. You say this, but perhaps the doubt is as to whether he is breaking in to steal or not to steal. Would you say that? If he (broke in) to steal of a certainty and he killed him, he would be liable (for murder), how much more so if there is a doubt as to whether he came to steal! We must thus perforce accept not the second supposition, but the first.