Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Reader

"For every matter of offense" — general. "for an ox, for an ass, for a lamb, for a garment" — particular. General-particular (The rule is:) There is subsumed in the general only what obtains in the particular. "for every lost object about which he will say" — reversion to the general. But perhaps (the idea is) to revert to the original generalization? Would you say that? We have here an instance of general-particular-general, (where the rule is:) The general is understood to be of the nature of the particular, viz. (In this instance,) Just as the particular are explicitly only movable, non-mortgaged possessions, so, the general (must be of that nature).

R. Yitzchak says: What is the intent of "toshav and sachir"? Is it not already written "No stranger may eat of it"? (For if it were not written), I would think that a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Giveonite, (not being strangers to the land) may eat of the Pesach. It is, therefore, written "No stranger may eat of it."

Variantly: "for an ox, for an ass": Why is this stated? Because it is written (earlier [6]) "If a man give to his neighbor money or vessels, etc." and (later 9]) "If a man give to his neighbor an ox or a lamb, etc.", Scripture comes here [8] to discriminate between (the first) watcher, (an unpaid watcher), and the second, (a paid watcher). But perhaps Scripture comes to differentiate between [6] "money or vessels" and [9] "beast"? It is, therefore, written [8] "for an ox, for an ass," (indicating that this is not its purpose, but, rather to discriminate between watcher and watcher.)

(Exodus 12:46) "In one house shall it be eaten": R. Shimon b. Yochai says: In one group. You say in one group, but perhaps (the intent is) "in one house," literally? (This is not so, for) from (Ibid. 12:7) "of the houses where they eat it" I learn that it may be eaten in many houses." How, then, am I to understand "In one house shall it be eaten"? In one group — whence he ruled: The Pesach may be eaten in two places, but not in two groups.

"about which he will say that it is this": i.e., the first says, it is this, and the second, it is not (exactly) this — whence they ruled: (The oath is administered) only where there is admission to part of the claim.

R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "in two places" — How so? If they were in one house and the roof fell in, they (as one group) go outside. If they were in the yard and it started to rain, they go into the house — so they are found to eat (as one group) in two places.

(22:7) "then the master of the house shall draw near to elohim (judge) — one, (Ibid. 8) "until elohim shall come the matter of both" — two. (Ibid.) "Whom elohim shall incriminate" — three. From here they ruled: Monetary litigations are (judged) by three. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.

(Ibid. 46) "Do not take from the house outside": outside of the group. But perhaps (the intent is) outside of the house? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. "of the flesh) outside" — outside (the group) where it is eaten. But if he did take it out, I would understand that though he transgresses a mitzvah, it is still kasher. (No,) Since peace-offerings are kodshim kalim (lower-order offerings) and the Pesach is kodshim kalim, then if we have learned about peace-offerings that if he takes them outside (of Jerusalem) he renders them unfit, so, the Pesach, if he takes it outside, he renders it unfit.

R. Yonathan says: The first was stated in the beginning, and "beginnings are not expounded." "until elohim shall come the matter of both" — one. "Whom elohim shall incriminate" — two. And "there is no evenly balanced beth-din," wherefore one is added to them — so that we have three.

"you shall not take out of the house": Scripture speaks of the flesh. You say it speaks of the flesh, but perhaps it speaks both of flesh and bone? It is, therefore, written "you shall not take out of the house, of the flesh." Scripture speaks of the flesh.

Rebbi says: "until elohim shall come the matter of both. Scripture speaks of two. You say this, but perhaps it speaks of one" — It is not written "Whom elohim shall incriminate ("yarshiyen," with a vav, [which would signify two]), but "yarshian," (without the vav, which signifies one), so that, (all together) Scripture speaks of two. And "there is no equally balanced beth-din," wherefore one is added to them — so that we have three. From here they ruled: Monetary litigations are (judged) by three.

(Exodus 12:46) "And a bone shall you not break in it": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 8) "And they shall eat the flesh on this night"? (They are to eat) the flesh that is outside the bone. But perhaps (they are to eat) the flesh (i.e., the marrow) that is inside the bone? And how am I to fulfill "And a bone shall you not break in it"? With a bone that has no flesh inside it? It is, therefore, written "And a bone you shall not break" — whether or not it has flesh.

Variantly: "in it," (i.e., the interdict applies to the Pesach) and not to other offerings. For (without the verse it would follow otherwise, viz.:) If with Pesach, of lesser stringency, he transgresses "And a bone shall you not break in it," how much more so with offerings of greater stringency! It is, therefore, (to indicate otherwise) written "in it," but not in other offerings.

"he shall pay double to his neighbor": R. Shimon says: I read here "he shall pay double to his neighbor," and elsewhere, (Leviticus 5:24) "and he shall pay it (the principal) at its head (and its fifth shall he add to it)!" How are these two verses to be reconciled? One who pays (only) the principal must pay the fifth, and one who pays kefel is exempt from the fifth. "to his neighbor," and not to the Temple; "to his neighbor," and not to others (i.e., idolators).

(Exodus 12:47) "The entire congregation of Israel shall offer it": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 21) "Draw forth and take for yourselves sheep for your families," I might think that just as the Pesach of Egypt is kasher only (if eaten) by families, so, the Pesach for future generations. It is, therefore, written "the entire congregation of Israel," whereby we are apprised that the Pesach of future generations may be eaten in all kinds of groups, (and not just in family groups).

(Exodus 12:48) "And if there live with you a stranger (i.e., a proselyte), etc." I might think that as soon as he becomes a proselyte he offers the Pesach; it is, therefore, written (Exodus 12:48) "and he shall be as the citizen of the land." Just as the latter (offers the Pesach) on the fourteenth (of Nissan), so the proselyte.

R. Shimon says: If one became a proselyte between the two Pesachs (Pesach rishon and Pesach sheni), I might think he offers the second Pesach; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be as the citizen of the land." Just as the first, who did not offer the first (though normally being obliged to do so), offers the second, so, a proselyte, who did not offer the first offers the second, (to exclude one who became a proselyte between the two Pesachs, who was never obliged to offer the first Pesach.)

"let all of his males be circumcised": We are hereby apprised that (non) circumcision of his males prevents him from offering the Pesach. Whence do we derive the same for (non) circumcision of his servants? It follows inductively, viz.: It is written here "then" ("and then he shall draw near to offer it"), and elsewhere (in relation to one's servant [Ibid. 44]), "then." Just as there, circumcision of his servants is referred to, so, here. And just as there, circumcision of his males (is required), so, here, circumcision of his males. These are the words of R. Yishmael.

R. Yonathan says: The (non) circumcision of his males does not prevent him from eating the Pesach. What, then, is the intent of "let all of his males be circumcised, etc."? If one had before him two mitzvoth — that of Pesach and that of circumcision — I would not know which one should take precedence. "Let all his males be circumcised" tells us that circumcision takes precedence to Pesach.

R. Nathan says: "Let all of his males be circumcised, etc.": to exclude (from preventing his master from eating the Pesach) a servant who immersed (for proselytization) before his master and (thereby) became free of him.

It happened with Beluria the proselytess that some of her maid-servants immersed (for proselytization) before her, and some, after her, and when the matter came before the sages, they ruled that those who immersed before here were free, and those who immersed after her, were bound to her — in spite of which they (i.e., even the latter) served her until the day of her death.

"And every uncircumcised one shall not eat of it": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 43) "No stranger may eat of it"? I might think that an uncircumcised Israelite may eat of it; it is, therefore, written "and every uncircumcised one shall not eat of it."

(Exodus 12:49) "One Torah shall there be for the citizen, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 48) "And he shall be as the citizen of the land"? From "And if there live with you a stranger and he would offer a Pesach to the L–rd," I would think that the proselyte is equated with the citizen only in respect to the Pesach. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah? From "One Torah shall there be for the citizen and for the stranger."

(Exodus 13:1-2) "And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Sanctify unto Me every first-born": This is one of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded — a generic (statement) requiring a specific and a specific requiring a generic.

(Exodus 22:9) "If a man give to his neighbor an ass or an ox or a lamb, etc." 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.

"Sanctify unto Me every first-born" — generic (implying both males and females). (Devarim 15:19) "the male" — specific, (excluding females). If I have the generic, why do I need the specific? For if I read the generic without the specific, I would assume that anything born first is a "bechor," whether male or female. It is, therefore, written "… the male" — males, but not females.

If I have the specific, why do I need the generic? For if I read the specific without the generic, I would assume that any male, whether or not he opens the womb (first) is a "bechor." It is, therefore, written "Sanctify unto Me every bechor, the opener of the womb" — he must be both male and the opener of the womb, as it is written (Exodus 34:19) "All firstlings of the womb are Mine, and (of) all of your kine that bears a male, etc."

"an ass or an ox or a lamb": This tells me only of these. Whence am I to derive all beasts (as included)? From all beasts to watch." For wherever the general adds to the particular, all are included. Then let only that (the general) be stated. Why need the others be specified? In that case I would say that he is not liable until he deposits all of them with him. It is, therefore, written "an ass or an ox or a lamb," to make him liable for each individually.

(Exodus 13:2) "in man and beast he is Mine": Whatever obtains with the man obtains with his beast. This excludes (from the law of bechor) the Levites, i.e., since it does not obtain with the man, it does not obtain with his beast.

"and it die": at the hands of Heaven. "or be broken": by an animal. "or be seized": by robbers. I might think "or be broken," "or be seized," (that he is not liable) whether or not he could rescue it; it is, therefore, written "and it die." Just as death is characterized by insusceptibility to rescue, so, (only) in all such instances he is not liable. These are the words of R. Eliezer.

Variantly: The bechor of a man is likened to the bechor of a beast, and the bechor of a beast to the bechor of a man. Just as with a beast, a miscarriage (of the first pregnancy) exempts (the second fetus) from (the law of) the bechor, so, with men. And just as with the bechor of a man, one may give it to the Cohein wherever he wishes, so, with the bechor of a beast. From (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices, etc.", I might think that even if he was far away he must bring it (his first-born) to the Temple.

It is, therefore, written "in man and beast he is Mine." The bechor of a man is hereby likened to the bechor of a beast. Just as the latter may be given to a Cohein wherever he wishes, so, the former. And just as the bechor of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before being given to the Cohein), so, the bechor of a beast.

R. Akiva said to him: You are deriving what is possible from what is impossible. For it is impossible for (natural) death not to be at the hands of Heaven; but breaking and seizing may be either at the hands of Heaven or at the hands of man — whereupon R. Eliezer reversed himself and derived them from stealing (i.e., According to the parameters whereby he [a hired watcher] is liable for stealing, he is liable for them.)

"he is Mine": What is the intent of this? It is written (Devarim 15:19) "the male shall you sanctify to the L–rd your G–d." (How am I to understand this?) As sanctify it so that you receive reward, or if you sanctify it, it is sanctified, and, if not, it is not sanctified? It is, therefore, written "he is Mine" — in any event. What is the intent, then, of "the male shall you sanctify"? Sanctify it (i.e., dedicate it to the L–rd) for the sake of receiving reward.

Similarly, (Leviticus 6:5) "And the Cohein shall burn wood upon it every morning, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not written (Isaiah 40:16) "and (the whole forest of Levanon is not sufficient to burn, etc."? What, then, is the intent of "And the Cohein shall burn wood upon it"? For the sake of receiving reward.

(22:9) "no one seeing": Scripture here speaks of (the absence of) witnesses. "no one seeing, (10) the oath of the L–rd shall be between the two of them (that he did not send his hand against the deposit of his neighbor.") But if there are witnesses (that he is speaking the truth), the watcher is exempt from all (payment).

Similarly, (Numbers 28:4) "the one lamb shall you offer, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not written (Isaiah, Ibid.) "nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt-offering"? What, then, is the intent of "The one lamb, etc."? For the sake of receiving reward.

"the oath of the L–rd (Yod-Keh) shall be between the two of them": by Yod-Keh. From here you derive the same for all "oaths" in the Torah. Since all the "oaths in the Torah are unqualified (as to the formula for the oath), and the Torah qualified an oath in one instance as being "Yod-Keh," so all the oaths in the Torah must be by "Yod-Keh."

Similarly, (Exodus 25:8) "and they shall make for Me a sanctuary, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not written (Jeremiah 23:24) "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" What, then, is the intent of "And they shall make for Me a sanctuary"? For the sake of receiving reward for making it.

(22:10) ("The oath of the L–rd shall be) between the two of them": to exclude the heirs. "between the two of them": to include an oath (obtaining) in an instance in which the other is suspect (i.e., if one is suspect, the other swears and takes.) "between the two of them": to exclude the judge — that he not make him swear against his will. R. Nathan says: "between the two of them": We are hereby apprised that the oath devolves upon the two of them.

Once, the disciples spent a Sabbath in Yavneh, R. Yehoshua not among them. When they returned to him he asked them: "What novelty did you hear in Yavneh?" They answered: "After you, our master" (i.e., there is no one to do so after you). R. Yehoshua: "Who spent the Sabbath there?"

They: "R. Elazar b. Azaryah." R. Yehoshua: "Is it possible that R. Elazar b. Azaryah spent the Sabbath there without telling you something novel?" They: He expounded this principle (Devarim 31:12) "Gather the people — the men, the women, and the children." Now do little children know the difference between good and evil?

But (He did so) in order to bestow reward upon their bringers, to increase the reward of the doers of His will, as it is written (Isaiah 42:21) "The L–rd desires for the sake of His righteousness to magnify Torah and to exalt it." At this, he said to them: "What can be more novel than this? I am seventy years old, and I never merited hearing such a thing until this day! Happy are you, father Abraham, from whose loins Elazar b. Azaryah emerged! The generation is not an orphan in whose midst R. Elazar b. Azaryah resides!"

"that he did not send his hand against the deposit of his neighbor": (See Section 15) "and its owner shall accept, and he (the watcher) shall not pay": From here it is derived that all who swear (by Torah mandate), swear and do not pay.