Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Reader

From here it follows that a doubt (i.e., a possibility) of saving a life overrides the Sabbath. For if (the sin of) killing, (in this instance, the thief,) (— killing,) which defiles the land and causes the Shechinah to depart (from Israel) — is overridden by the possibility (of saving one's life, how much more so does it follow that the possibility of saving life overrides the Sabbath.)

R. Eliezer says: It is written here "And it was in the middle of the night," and elsewhere (Genesis 14:15) "And they 'divided' against them at night." Just as here the plague did not begin until the middle of the night, there, too, (their attack) occurred in the middle of the night.

(Exodus 22:2) "If the sun shone upon him": Now does the sun shine upon him alone? Does it not shine upon the whole world? But (the intent is) Just as the sun is peace for the world, so this one (the thief) — If he knows that he is at peace with him, and he killed him nonetheless, he is liable.

"and the L–rd smote every first-born": I might think through an angel or through an emissary. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 12:12) "and I shall smite every first-born, etc." — not through an angel and not through an emissary.

"and the L–rd smote every first-born in the land of Egypt": even (those first-born) from different places. And whence is the same derived for the first-born of Egypt (who were found) in different places? From (Psalms 136:10) "Who smote Egypt by their first-born" (wherever they were). Whence do I derive the same for the first-born of Cham, Kush, Put, and Lud? From (Ibid. 78:51) "He smote every first-born in Egypt, the first-fruit of their strength in the tents of Cham."

"from the first-born of Pharaoh sitting on his throne": Scripture hereby apprises us that Pharaoh (himself) was a first-born, (the throne passing in succession to the first-born). But perhaps the intent is only to teach that his son was a first-born? — "sitting on his throne" already speaks of his son. Why (the redundant) "from the first-born of Pharaoh"? To apprise us that Pharaoh himself was a first-born. He alone remained (alive) of all the first-born. Of this, Scripture states (Ibid. 9:16):But because of this I have preserved you, in order to show you My might, etc." (Likewise,) Ba'al Tzefon remained (standing) of all the Egyptian idols in order to raise their hopes. Of such as these it is written (Iyyov 12:23) "He lifts up nations and destroys them."

R. Yishmael says: You say this, but perhaps the intent is (literally) to distinguish between day and night, viz.: If he killed him in the daytime, he is liable; if at night, he is not liable. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 22:26) "and to the maiden you shall do nothing; for as a man would rise up against his neighbor and murder him, so, is this thing" (raping a maiden).

"until the captive first-born": Now what sin did the captives commit (that their first-born should be killed)? So that they not say (if they were spared) "Our god brought this catastrophe upon them ([the Egyptians] for incarcerating us). Awesome is our god, that stood up for itself! Awesome is our god, who shielded us from this punishment!"

Now what do we learn (about raping) from (murdering)? But it (the instance of murdering) apparently comes to teach (something about that of raping), and ends up "learning" (something from it), viz.: Just as in the instance of raping, there is no difference between day and night, here, too, (in the instance of murdering,) no such distinction is to be made. Just as here, if he rose up (against the thief) and killed him, he is not liable, there, too, if she rose up against him and killed him, she is not liable. And just as there, if she had helpers against him and she killed him, she is liable (viz. Devarim, Ibid. 27), so, here, if he (the owner) had helpers against him and he killed him, he is liable.

And we are hereby apprised that the captives rejoiced in all the decrees inflicted by Pharaoh upon Israel, (for which they were punished) in keeping with (Mishlei 17:5) "He who rejoices in (another's) misfortune will not be absolved," and (Psalms 24:17) "Do not rejoice in the downfall of your foe," and (Ezekiel 26:2-3) "Son of man, because Tyre said about (the besieged Jerusalem) 'Heach!' (an expression of joy) — thus said the L–rd G–d: 'Behold, Tyre, I am (coming) against you, and I will raise up many nations against you, as the sea raises its waves!'" And not only captives alone (were thus smitten), but even men-servants and maid-servants, viz. (Exodus 17:5) "… until the first-born of the maid-servant."

(Exodus, Ibid.) "If he (the thief) has blood, pay shall he pay": R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: If there were before him (the thief) pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil and he broke them, so long as he (the owner) knows that he (the thief) is at peace with him, (as in the instance of a father coming to burglarize his son, where the son knows that if he resists his father he will not be killed, [so that he may not kill him]) then (even if) he does kill him, he is liable (retroactively for what he broke), it being written "If he (the thief) has blood (i.e., if it is forbidden to kill him), pay shall he pay."

"and every first-born of the beast": Now what sin did the beasts commit? (They were smitten) so that the Egyptians not say (if they were spared) "Our god (i.e., the beasts, whom they worshipped) brought this catastrophe upon us. Awesome is our god, against whom this catastrophe did not prevail!"

(Ibid.) "If he lacks it, he is to be sold for his theft": I might think, forever; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 21:2) "Six years shall he serve, etc.", whence we are apprised that he serves for six years and goes out free on the seventh.

"then he shall be sold for his theft": not for less (than the value of the theft) and not for more. R. Yehudah says: If he stole less than what he was worth, he is not sold; more than what he is worth, the owner of the stolen article has the option of selling him or writing him a writ of emancipation.

(Exodus 22:3) "If found will be found in his hand": in his possession. Even though there is no proof for this, there is support for it, viz. (Numbers 21:26) "and he took all his land from his hand", and (Genesis 24:10) "Then the servant took … and all the good of his master in his hand," — whence we find "in his hand" in all places to connote "in his possession."

"for there was no house where no one had died": R. Nathan said: Now were there not houses without first-born? — (The resolution:) If one lost a first-born, he would make an image of him and place it in his house (thinking thereby to preserve him). And on that day the image would disintegrate and be scattered as powder. And that day was as grievous to them as the day of his burial (Thus: "there was no house where no one had died.") And, what is more, the Egyptians would bury them in their houses, and dogs would come and gnaw their way in and would remove the first-born from their crypts and mutilate the corpses. And that day was as grievous to them as the day of burial.

"living, two shall he pay": and not (the value of) dead (animals). There are seven "thefts": "stealing men's minds" (i.e., deceiving them), importuning one's neighbor to be his guest when he has no intention of inviting him; proffering gifts that he knows will not be accepted; opening one's barrels (ostensibly "for him alone") when they have already been sold to the shopkeeper; cheating in measuring; falsifying weights; mixing (other) stalks among stalks of fenugrec, sand with beans, and vinegar with oil (even though they ruled that oil is not subject to defilement (me'ilah), wherefore kings are anointed with it.)

And, what is more, they say about such a one that if he could "steal" the Higher Mind, he would do so. And thus do we find with Avshalom, that he "stole" three thefts: the heart of his father, the heart of beth-din and the heart of the house of Israel, as it is written (II Samuel 15:6) "And Avshalom stole the heart of the men of Israel."

Variantly: "And he called to Moses and to Aaron": What is the intent of this? Pharaoh had said to him (Ibid. 10:28) "Go from me." (29) "And Moses said: "True have you spoken" (and in the proper time. Indeed,) "I shall not see your face again." (11:8) "And all these servants of yours will come down to me (Moses), etc." What is the intent of "these"? You (Pharaoh) are destined to be at their head and to come down first — whereby we are taught that Moses accorded honor to the ruler, ("these" being euphemistic for "you"). And thus do we find that the Holy One Blessed be He (Himself) accorded honor to the ruler, viz. (6:13) "And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron and he charged them … to Pharaoh." He charged them to accord honor to the ruler.

And thus do we find with our fathers, that when they stood on Mount Sinai, they sought to steal the Higher Mind, as it is written (Exodus 24:7) "Everything that the L–rd has spoken, we will do and we will hear" — and it (the Higher Mind) was, as it were, "stolen" by them. As it is written (Devarim 5:26) "Would that this heart of theirs were in them to fear Me and to keep all of My mitzvoth all of the days, etc." And if you would say that not all is revealed and known to Him, it is written (Psalms 78:36-37) "And they beguiled Him (only) with their mouths, and (He knew that) their hearts were not constant with Him" — in spite of which (Ibid. 38) "And He was merciful, forgiving sin and not destroying, etc." And it is written (Mishlei 26:23) "As silver dross covering earthenware are lips running (with love) above an evil heart."

Beyond these: If one stole things from which benefit may not be derived, he need not pay. (If he stole servants, land, and consecrated articles, he pays only the principal. (If he stole) garments, vessels, beasts, animals, or birds, he pays kefel (double payment).

If he stole the first-born of an ass, he pays kefel, (for) even though benefit may not be derived from it now, it will be permitted later (when it is redeemed). For an ox he pays five-fold. For a sheep he pays four-fold, viz. "Five (head) of cattle, etc."

And thus with Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah, viz. (Daniel 3:26) "Then Nevuchadnezzar approached the door of the burning, fiery furnace and called out: 'Shadrach, Meshach, and Aved-Nego, servants of the Most High — Come out! (Only) then (at the behest of the ruler) Shadrach, Meshach, and Aved-Nego came out of the fire?"

Beyond these is a kidnapper, who pays his life. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: It is written (Mishlei 29:24) "One who divides with a thief hates his soul. (He hears the adjuration to swear and will not tell.") An analogy: One leaves his neighbor's house laden with (stolen) articles. His friend finds him and asks him "Where are you going?" The thief: "Take your share and don't tell anyone." Later, the robbed one comes and says to him "Swear to me that you did not see that man laden with articles leaving my house." The other: "I swear I know nothing." He is liable for his soul. Of him it is written "One who divides with a thief hates his soul."

But if one steals away from his friend, (who asks to be paid for teaching him), and goes (and hides behind a fence) to learn Torah (i.e., to overhear the lesson that he is teaching), though he is called a "thief," he acquires merit for himself. Of him it is written (Mishlei 6:30) "they will not shame a thief for stealing (to fill his soul that is hungry" [for Torah].) In the end, he will be appointed (as a teacher) over the congregation (and he will return the "theft" in full.) As it is written (Ibid. 31) "In the end he will repay seven-fold. All the wealth of his house will he give" — "seven-fold" signifying Torah, viz. (Psalms 12:7) "The words of the L–rd are pure words, silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined seven-fold."

"Arise go out from the midst of my people, both you (the adults) and the children of Israel." I said (Ibid. 24) "Only your flocks and herds leave in place," and you said (Ibid. 25) "You, too, shall place in our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" —

"for they said: We are all dying": They said: It is not as Moses said (11:5) "and every first-born in the land of Egypt will die." They had thought that if one had four or five sons only the first-born among them would die — not realizing that their wives were profligate and that they could have borne the first-born of different men. They (their wives) wrought in secret, and the Holy One Blessed be He exposed them! Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in His lesser measure, that of punishment, one who acts in secret is exposed, how much more so will this hold for His greater measure, that of good, (that secret acts of goodness will be blazoned forth)!

(Ibid. 34) "And the people took their dough before it leavened": We are hereby apprised that they kneaded the dough, which had not risen to (become) chametz before they were redeemed. And thus (i.e., a similar metaphor) do you find in time to come, viz. (Hoshea 7:4) "they are all adulterers, like an oven fired by a baker, their arousing (the evil inclination) ceasing, (only) from the kneading of the dough until its leavening," (when they commit the act). And (Ibid. 5) "On the day of (the ascension of) our king, the princes took sick with wine, etc."

(Exodus 12:34) "their remnants": of matzoh and maror. You say this, but perhaps (the reference is to) remnants of the Paschal lamb? (Ibid. 10) "And you shall not leave over anything of it (the Paschal lamb)" already accounts for the Paschal lamb. How, then, am I to understand "their remnants bound up in their clothes"? As referring to the remnants of matzoh and maror.

("their remnants) bound up in their clothes on their shoulders": R. Nathan says: Were there no beasts there (to carry the remnants)? Is it not written (Ibid. 38) "And also a great multitude went up with them, and flocks and herds"? Why, then, "on their shoulders"? To betoken their love of the mitzvoth.

(Exodus 12:35) "And the children of Israel did as Moses had bid them": Now what had Moses bid them do in Egypt? (Exodus 11:2) "Speak I pray you in the ears of the people that you ask of them, etc." And this is what they did.

"and they asked of Egypt vessels of silver and vessels of gold and raiment": Let raiment not be mentioned (i.e., it goes without saying). (It is mentioned) to indicate that raiment was more precious to them than silver and gold.

R. Yossi Haglili says: They trusted them, saying: If they did not do (i.e., if they did not steal from us) in the three days of darkness when they could easily have taken advantage of our blindness) should they be suspect now?

R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: The Holy Spirit reposed upon them and he (a Jew) would say: Lend me your vessel which is found in this and this place, and he (the Egyptian) would find it there and give it to him. "chen" ("favor") is the Holy Spirit, as it is written (Zechariah 12:10) "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the dwellers on Jerusalem a spirit of chen, etc."

R. Nathan says: This is not needed (to comprehend the verse). "Vayashilum" connotes that they gave them (even) what they did not ask for. If the Jew said Give me this and this thing, the Egyptian would say: Take it and anything like it.

"and they emptied out Egypt": We are hereby apprised that their idols melted and returned to their former state, (so that they were now permitted to take them.) And whence is it derived that the spoils of the (Red) Sea were (even) greater than these? From (Ezekiel 16:7) "… and you increased and grew great and attained to adi adayim" "adi" connotes (the spoils of) Egypt; "adayim" connotes the spoils of the (Red) Sea. And it is written (Psalms 68:14) "the wings of a dove sheathed in silver" — the spoils of Egypt. (Ibid.) "its pinions in fine gold" — the spoils of the (Red) Sea. And it is written (Song of Songs 1:11) "Wreaths of gold will we make for you" — the spoils of the (Red Sea); "with your spangles of silver" — the spoils of Egypt.

(Exodus 12:37) "And the children of Israel journeyed from Ramses to Succoth": From Ramses to Succoth was a distance of forty parasangs, and the voice of Moses traveled (the distance of) a forty day journey. And let this not be a cause of wonder to you. For it is written (Ibid. 9:8-9) "And the L–rd said to Moses and to Aaron: Take for yourselves your full handfuls of furnace soot … And it shall be dust over all the land of Egypt, etc." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If dust, whose nature it is not to travel, traveled a distance of forty days, how much more so a voice, whose nature it is to travel!

(Exodus 22:4) "If a man ravage a field or a vineyard, and he send his beast, etc.": Why is this written? (Even) if it were not written, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a pit is his property, and his (beast, that is) "sent" is his property, then if you have learned that he is liable for his pit, (which is stationary,) then should he not be liable for his beast, (which is sent)! If it is derivable a fortiori, why need the verse be stated? It comes to teach that the tooth is a mued (i.e., "confirmed") to eat what is appropriate for it, and a best is a mued to break (objects in its path) as it walks, (so that there is full liability even for the first instance of such damages).

He is not liable unless the "damager" leaves his domain and causes damage, in which instance the damage is assessed (to be paid) from the best of his land — a fortiori (if the damage is) to consecrated property.

"to succoth": "succoth," ("booths") literally, as in (Genesis 33:17) "And Jacob traveled to Succoth, and for his cattle he made succoth (booths), for which reason the place was named Succoth." These are the words of R. Eliezer.