Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Reader

"and he send his beast": From here they ruled: If he gave his sheep to his son, his messenger, or his servant, he is not liable (for the damage it causes.) (If he gave it) to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, he is liable.

R. Akiva says: "succoth" refers to the clouds of glory, as in (Isaiah 4:5) "And the L–rd will create on the entire base of Mount Zion and on all of its branchings a cloud by day and smoke with a glow of flaming fire by night, on all the glory, a canopy." This tells me only of the past. Whence do I derive (the same for) the time to come? From (Ibid. 6) "And it shall be a succah to shade the day", (Ibid. 35:10) "And the redeemed of the L–rd will return, etc." And the sages say: Succoth is a place, as in (Exodus 13:20) "And they journeyed from Succoth and they encamped in Etham." Just as Etham is a place, so, Succoth.

"and it eat in another's field": R. Nathan says: If one were stacking grain in another's field without permission, and the owner's beast came out and damaged it, (I might think that) he is subsumed in "and he send his beast, etc." It is, therefore, written "and it eat in another's field." And this is not "another's."

Exodus 12:37) "six hundred thousand men": sixty ten thousands, as in (Song of Songs 3:7) "Behold, the couch of Shlomoh, (acronymically, 'He who spoke and brought the world into being') sixty (ten thousands) of the warriors of Israel" (who left Egypt.) (Ibid. 8) "all of them holding the sword, taught in war," viz. (Numbers 21:14) "whereof it is written in the book of the wars of the L–rd, etc." And it is written (Psalms 149:5-7) "Let the saintly exult in glory, let them sing upon their couches, the glory of G–d in their throats," and (8) "to bind their kings with shackles," and (9) "to execute upon them the written judgment — glory to all of His saints, Hallelukah!" (Exodus, Ibid.) "aside from the children": aside from the women and children, (another six hundred thousand). These are the words of R. Yishmael.

(Exodus 22:5) "If fire go out and it find thorns … pay shall pay he that lights the fire": Why need this be written? It is derivable a fortiori, viz. If he is liable (if the fire proceeds) through thorns, how much more so if he himself lights it (directly)! If it is derivable a fortiori, why need the verse be stated? Scripture (thus) comes to equate (for liability) (damaging) perforce with (damaging) wilfully, (damaging) non-intentionally with (damaging) intentionally, and (to equate) a woman with a man for all the damaging in the Torah.

(Exodus 12:38) "and also a great multitude": a hundred and twenty ten thousands. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: Two hundred and forty ten thousands. R. Nathan says: Three hundred and sixty ten thousands.

"If fire go out and it find thorns": "thorns" are mentioned only to assign a limit (for his liability). If thorns are present (and carry the fire), there is a limit (for his liability). If they are not present (and he lights it directly) there is no limit.

"And flocks and herds, a great crush of cattle": Of this the Holy One Blessed be He had said to Abraham (Genesis 15:14) "And after this, they will go out with great wealth." At the exodus, I will fill them with silver and gold.

From here they ruled: If it crossed a river or a (public) way or a fence ten cubits high and caused damage, he is not liable. How is he perceived? He is perceived as standing in the midst of a beth-kor and damaging, (liability obtaining up to about 137 cubits on all sides.)

R. Eliezer says: Sixteen cubits, as (the distance of) the public way. R. Akiva says: Fifty cubits. R. Shimon says: "Pay shall he pay, he that lights the fire" — all according to the fire (i.e., according to the height of the fire and its mass. The bigger it is, the farther it travels.)

(Exodus, Ibid.) "ugoth matzoth": "ugoth" are wafers as in (Ezekiel 4:12) "As barley wafers (ugoth) shall you eat it," and (I Kings 17:13) "Make me from them a small uggah." A great miracle was performed for them through the wafers. They ate from them for thirty days until the manna descended.

"and there be consumed sheaves": All things are included: a pile of reeds and beams, a mound of stones, and of pebbles for the processing of lime. "or the standing corn": trees also are included. "or the field": even if it singed the ground. But perhaps even if there were vessels hidden in his stack and they were burned? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "or the standing corn or the field." Just as the field is in the open, so must (what is found) in the standing corn be in the open (for liability to obtain).

"and provisions, too, they could not make for themselves": to apprise us of the eminence of Israel. They did not say to Moses: How can we venture into the desert with no provisions for the road, but they believed and went after Moses. Of them it is stated in the Tradition (Jeremiah 2:2) "Go and call out in the ears of Jerusalem, etc." What reward did they receive for this? (Ibid. 3) "Holy is Israel to the L–rd, etc."

"Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire": Why is this written? From (22:4) "a man," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire" — in any event. This tells me only of beast and fire. Whence do I derive the same for all of the other damagers in the Torah? It follows inductively from both. Beast is not like fire, and fire is not like beast. What is common to both is that it is their nature to damage, that they are your property, that it is your obligation to guard them, and that when they cause damage, you must pay for the damage with the best (produce) of the land.

(One verse (Exodus 12:40) states "And the habitation of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt was four hundred and thirty years," and another, (Genesis 15:13) "and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them four hundred years." How are these two verses to be reconciled? Thirty years before the birth of Isaac, the covenant between the pieces (at which the above was said) was made, (and after his birth until the exodus four hundred years elapsed.)

Four general rules were stated by R. Yishmael in the name of R. Meir in respect to damages. Wherever the mazik ("the damager") has permission (to be), but not the nizak ("the damaged"), he (the mazik) is not liable. Wherever the nizak has permission, but not the mazik, he (the mazik) is liable for everything. Where neither the nizak nor the mazik have permission (to be), such as property which belongs to neither of them, he (the mazik) is liable for (damage of) "tooth" and "foot," and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages. Wherever both have permission (to be), such as property owned in common, open land, the public domain, and the like, for "tooth" and "foot" he is not liable and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages.

Rebbi says: One verse states: "and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them four hundred years," and another, (Ibid. 16) "and the fourth generation will return here." How are these two verses to be reconciled? If they repent, I will redeem them by generations (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes). If not, I will redeem them by years.

"And the habitation of the children of Israel in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred and thirty years." This is one of the verses that they (the seventy-two elders changed) in transcribing (the Torah) for King Ptolemy, viz. (Megillah 9a): Once King Ptolemy assembled seventy-two elders and placed each in a separate house (without telling them why he was doing so), and he said to each of them: "Transcribe for me [into Greek] the Torah of Moses your teacher."

The Holy One Blessed be He placed goodly counsel in the heart of each, and they all wrote as one (Genesis 1:1): "G–d created in the beginning" [so that Ptolemy could not structure the words as: "In the beginning, god was created."] [They wrote] (Ibid. 1:26): "I will make a man in image and form" [and not, literally: "Let us make a man, etc.", so that he would not be able to argue for a plurality of gods]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 2:2): "And He finished on the sixth day, and He rested on the seventh day" [and not, literally: "And G–d finished His work on the seventh day," so that he could not argue that G–d worked on the seventh day]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 5:2): "Male and female He created him" [and not, literally: "Male and female He created them" (which Ptolemy could use as an argument for the creation of two separate bodies)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 11:7): "Let Me go down and confound their tongue" [and not, literally: "Let us go down", so that he would not find support for his polytheistic views]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 18:12): "And Sarah laughed bikrovehah" ["among her neighbors", and not, literally: "bekirbah" ("within her"), so that Ptolemy would not question why Sarah should be punished for laughing, and not Abraham, if they both laughed inwardly]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 49:7): "For in their wrath they killed an ox" [instead of: "a man" (so as not to give Ptolemy a pretext to call Jews murderers)], "and in their willfulness they razed a manger" [instead of: "an ox"]. [They wrote] (Exodus 4:20): "And Moses took his wife and his sons and he rode them on the bearer of men" [instead of "on the ass" (so that he not say that Moses lacked a horse or a camel)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 12:40): "And the sojourning of the Jews, their dwelling in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred years." [(and not just: "their dwelling in Egypt," as per the verse, which would be open to dispute by Ptolemy's reckoning)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 24:5): "And he sent the dignitaries of the children of Israel" [lest "youths" be taken demeaningly]; (Ibid. 11): "And to the dignitaries of the children of Israel, He did not stretch forth His hand." [They wrote] (Numbers 16:15): "Not one desirable object of theirs" [(instead of, literally: "Not one ass of theirs")] have I taken" [thus preventing Ptolemy from contending that it was only an ass that Moses had not taken]. [They wrote] (Deuteronomy 4:19): ["all the host of heaven …] which the L–rd your G–d bequeathed for illumination to all the peoples under the heavens" [and not, as in the verse: "which the L–rd your G–d bequeathed to all the peoples under the heavens," thus preventing him from construing this verse as a license for idolatry]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 17:3): "and he go and serve other gods … which I did not command to serve" [instead of, as per the verse: "which I did not command", lest he misconstrue it as: "which I did not command to exist" (and which "forced themselves" into creation against My will)].

And instead of (Leviticus 11:6): "And the arneveth (hare) […it is unclean to you"], they wrote: "the slender-legged"; for Ptolemy's wife was called "Arneveth", and Ptolemy would [otherwise] say: "The Jews have poked fun at me and put my wife's name in the Torah!" (Megillah 9a)

(Exodus 12:41) "and it was at the end of four hundred and thirty years": We are hereby apprised that when the time arrived, the L–rd did not delay them for one moment. On the fifteenth of Nissan the ministering angels came to Abraham to apprise him (that Isaac would be born); (on the fifteenth of Nissan he was born) and on the fifteenth of Nissan the decree went forth (in the covenant) between the pieces, it being written "And it was at the end" — there was one end for all of them. "and it was on this very same day that all the hosts of the L–rd went forth": (The Shechinah, too, went forth with them.)

And thus do you find, that whenever Israel is in bondage, the Shechinah is with them, viz. (Exodus 24:10) "And they saw the G��d of Israel, and under His feet, as the work of a sapphire brick" (the sign of that bondage). And what is written of their redemption? (Ibid.) "and as the appearance of the heavens in brightness." And it is written (Isaiah 63:9) "In all of their sorrows, He sorrowed." This tells me only of communal sorrows.

Whence do I derive (the same for) those of the individual? From (Psalms 91:15) "He will call upon Me and I will answer Him; I am with him in sorrow," and (Genesis 39:20-21) "And Joseph's master took him and placed him in the prison house … and the L–rd was with Joseph, etc.", and (II Samuel 7:23) "… before Your people whom You have redeemed from Egypt, a nation and its G–d."

And thus do you find, that wherever they were exiled, the Shechinah was with them. They were exiled to Egypt — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (I Samuel 2:27) "Did I not reveal Myself to your father's house when they were in Egypt? They were exiled to Bavel — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 43:14) "For your sake I was exiled to Bavel." They were exiled to Eilam — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Jeremiah 49:38) "and I set My throne in Eilam." They were exiled to Edom — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 63:1) "Who is This coming from Edom, His garments crimsoned, from Batzrah?"

And when they return in the future, the Shechinah will be with them, viz. (Devarim 30:3) "And veshav the L–rd your G–d." It is not written "veheshiv" ("He will return" [you]), but "veshav" ("He [Himself] will return.") and it is written (Song of Songs 4:8) "With Me from Levanon (the Temple), My bride (Israel); with Me from Levanon come." Now is she (Israel) coming from Levanon? Is she not ascending to Levanon? (The intent is: You and I were exiled from Levanon) and we will ascend) together) to Levanon.

R. Eliezer says: On it they were redeemed; but they are destined to be redeemed only on Tishrei, as it is written (Psalms 81:4) "Blow the shofar (of redemption) on the month (of Tishrei), (when the moon) is covered, on the day of our festival" (Rosh Hashanah). Why? (Ibid.) "for it is a statute for Israel, etc." And what is the intent of (Exodus, Ibid.) "It is this night for the L–rd"? It is this night on which the Holy One Blessed be He said to our father Abraham: "On this night I will redeem your children," and when the time arrived, the Holy One Blessed be He did not delay (to redeem them) even for an instant. "guarded for all the children of Israel": We are hereby taught that all of Israel are destined to be "guarded" upon it (in halachic observance of the Pesach.)

(Exodus 12:43) "And the L–rd said to Moses and Aaron": There are some sections (in the Torah) which are generic in the beginning and specific after, and some which are specific in the beginning and generic after. (Exodus 19:6) "And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of lords and a holy nation" — specific; (Ibid.) "these are the things that you shall speak" — generic. (Numbers 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — generic; (Ibid.) "They shall take to you a red heifer" — specific. (Exodus 12:43) "This is the statute of the Paschal offering" — generic; (Ibid.) "No stranger may eat of it" — specific. There is subsumed in the generic only what is in the specific.

(Exodus 22:6) "If a man give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch": R. Yishmael says: He must deposit it with him, explicitly, saying "Here, watch this for me"; but if he just says "Keep an eye on it," he is not liable.

"This is the statute of the Paschal offering." Scripture speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. These are the words of R. Oshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks of the Pesach of Egypt. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Pesach of all the generations? From (Numbers 9:3) "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances." R. Yoshiyah said to him: Scripture (here) speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. What is the intent of "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances"? Scripture (there) comes to speak of details which are lacking here. R. Issi b. Akiva says: "statutes" (in Numbers 9:3) applies only (directly) to the body of the Paschal offering.

"money or vessels": Just as money tends to be counted, so, vessels that tend to be counted — whence it was ruled: Any claim which is not susceptible of measurement, weighing and counting is not a claim.

"No stranger may eat of it": Both a heretical Jew and a non-Jew are herein subsumed, viz. (Ezekiel 44:9) "And every stranger, uncircumcised of flesh and uncircumcised of heart shall not enter My sanctuary.

R. Nathan says: "money": to include money of (second-) tithe, (which, unlike first-tithe, reverts not to the Temple, but to the owner.) "vessels": to include any vessel. This tells me only of money and vessels. Whence do I derive (the same for) all things? From "to watch": to include any thing which requires watching.

"and it be stolen from the house of the man": to exempt (from kefel) one who steals from the thief. But perhaps the meaning is "and it be stolen from the house of the man, he pays double," but if it be found in his (the watcher's) possession, then even though he swore (that it was stolen), he is not liable (for kefel). It is, therefore, written (22:3) "If the theft be found in his hand, double shall he pay" — in any event (i.e., even if it were found in the watcher's possession. It is not the second assumption, then, which is to be posited, but the first, viz.: "and it be stolen from the hand of the man" — to exempt (from kefel) one who steals from the thief.

"and you shall circumcise him; then shall he eat of it": his master. We are hereby apprised that (non-) circumcision of his servants prevents him from eating the Pesach offering. This tells me only of the circumcision of his servants. Whence do I derive (the same for) the circumcision of his (own) males? It is derived by analogy, viz.: It is written here "then," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 48, in respect to a proselyte), "then." Just as there, the circumcision of his (the proselyte's) males is referred to, here, too, the circumcision of one's males is understood (as a prerequisite for his offering of the Pesach.) And just as here, the (non-) circumcision of his servants (prevents him from eating the Pesach), so, there, (in respect to a proselyte, the same obtains.)

"if the thief is found, he pays double": A thief (one who steals by stealth) pays kefel, but not a robber (one who steals openly). Why did Scripture see fit to be more severe with a thief than with a robber? R. Yochanan says: A robber likens the honor of a servant to the honor of his Master, (not fearing both). A thief accords more honor to a servant than to His Master, (fearing the first, but not the second).

A thief makes the Eye on high, unseeing, as it were, and the Ear, unhearing. As it is written (Isaiah 29:15) "Woe unto those who would probe deeper than the L–rd, to conceal (their) counsel, doing their work in the dark; saying: 'Who sees us? Who notices us?'" And (Psalms 94:7) "They say 'The L–rd does not see; the G–d of Jacob does not understand.'" And (Ezekiel 9:9) "For they said 'The L–rd has forsaken the land; the eye of the L–rd does not see.'"

R. Eliezer says: The (non-) circumcision of one's servants does not prevent him from eating the Pesach. And what is the intent of "and you shall circumcise him, etc."? If one had uncircumcised servants, whence is it derived that if he wished to circumcise them and feed them (of the Pesach offering) he may do so? From "you shall circumcise him; then he may eat of it" — the servant. And thus do we find that he is permitted to have uncircumcised man-servants, it being written (Exodus 23:12) "and there be refreshed (on the Sabbath) the son of your maid-servant and the stranger" (a ger toshav).

(Exodus 22:7) "If the thief not be found": What is the intent of this? From "If the thief is found, he shall pay double," I understand that if the thief is found and he has (what to pay) the watcher is not liable for anything. Whence do I derive that if the thief is found and does not have what to pay, the owner of the stolen objects may not say to the watcher: "Come and swear to me that it did not enter your heart to sell them"? From "If the thief not be found," implying that if the thief were found, the watcher is not liable for anything (even if the thief does not have what to pay.)

R. Akiva says: One may not keep uncircumcised men-servants. If so, what is the intent of "and there be refreshed the son of your maid-servant and the stranger"? To teach that if his master acquired him on Sabbath eve before it got dark and he had no chance to circumcise him before the onset of the Sabbath — in such an instance, "and there be refreshed the son of your maid-servant and the stranger."...

"then the master of the house shall draw near": I might think, to inquire of the urim vetumim (on the breast-plate of the high-priest.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 8) "whom elohim incriminate." Elohim who incriminate (i.e., judges) are intended.

Variantly: "and you shall circumcise him; then he shall eat of it": to include one in whom the mitzvah of circumcision was fulfilled for even a short time — Even if the flesh returned and covered the corona, this does not prevent him from eating either the Pesach or terumah. Our teachers in Lod took a consensus on this and ruled: There is no "interposition" ("chatzitzah," in this regard) in respect to (certain halachoth of) terumah.

"then the master of the house (i.e., the watcher) shall draw near to the judges": For an oath. You say, for an oath. But, perhaps for an oath or not for an oath? It follows (that it is for an oath), viz.: "sending forth of the hand" is stated here, and it is stated elsewhere (viz. Ibid. 10). "Just as there, with an oath, so, here, with an oath. Just as there, with "Yod-Keh" (the Name of the L–rd), so, here, with "Yod-Keh." Just as here, in beth-din, so, there, in beth-din. Just as there, (he must swear that he did not use it for) his own need, so, here, for his own need. Just as there, (Ibid. 8) "For every matter of offense," so, here, "for every matter of offense."

(Ibid. 7) "that he did not send his hand against his neighbor's deposit": for his need. You say, for his need. But perhaps for his need or not for his need (but for the animal's)? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "For every matter of offense." Variantly: "For every matter of offense": (As per the difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel,) Beth Shammai saying: One is liable (even) for negative intent vis-à-vis "sending forth the hand." It being written "For every matter of offense," ("offense" subsuming negative intent). And Beth Hillel say: One is not liable until he actually sends forth his hand, this being the thrust of "that he did not send forth his hand."

R. Eliezer says: What is the intent of "toshav and sachir"? (i.e., Is it not already written [Exodus 12:43] "No stranger may eat of it"?) To reason from Pesach to terumah to forbid it to one who is uncircumcised. But even if it were not written, would I not know it a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, of lesser stringency, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, how much more so, terumah, of greater stringency! — No, this may be true of Pesach, whose permitted time of eating is limited, wherefore it is forbidden to the uncircumcised, as opposed to terumah, whose permitted time of eating is extended.

It is, therefore, written "toshav and sachir" in respect to Pesach and an extra "toshav and sachir" in respect to terumah towards the formulation of a gezeirah shavah. Just as here, (the Pesach offering) is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so, there, terumah is forbidden to the uncircumcised.