Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Reader

They: Our master, he also expounded this principle: (Jeremiah 23:7) "Therefore, behold, days are coming, says the L–rd, when it will no more be said: 'As the L–rd lives, who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, etc.'" To what may this be compared? A man desired children and had a daughter — whereupon (when he made a vow) he vowed upon her life. Thereafter, he had a son, and (in vowing) he left off (vowing by) his daughter and vowed upon the life of his son.

R. Shimon b. Yochai says: To what may this be compared? A man was journeying and was accosted by a wolf, from which he was rescued — whereupon he would (always) talk about his encounter with the wolf. He was later accosted by a lion, from which he was rescued — whereupon he left off talking about his encounter with the wolf and spoke about his encounter with the lion.

(Exodus 22:11) "And if it were stolen from him, he shall pay its owner": This speaks of a hired watcher, and the above (Ibid. 9-10), of a non-paid watcher. But perhaps the reverse is the case? It follows (otherwise), viz.: A watcher (here) is liable (for theft) and a hirer (of a beast) is liable (viz. Ibid. 14). Just as a hirer (is liable) because he derives benefit (from the beast), so it is a hired watcher, who derives benefit (i.e., payment) — to exclude a non-paid watcher, who does not derive benefit.

"And if stolen it shall be stolen from him": This tells me only of stealing. Whence do we derive the same for loss (of the beast)? It follows, viz.: Its being stolen involves a lapse in watching, and its being lost involves a lapse in watching. If you have learned that he is liable for the first, so, should he be liable for the second.

"if stolen it shall be stolen": R. Yossi says: By this (redundancy) loss is included. "from him": to exclude (liability for the watcher if he, in turn, give it to) his shepherd-boy (from who it was stolen), and to include (such liability for) a grown shepherd (whom he hired as a keeper).

(Exodus 22:12) "If it were torn (by a wild beast), let him bring ed." This ("ed") is its hide. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Even though there is no proof for this (interpretation), there is support for it in (Amos 3:12) "Just as a shepherd can rescue from the mouth of a lion (just) two legs or the cartilage of an ear, etc." R. Yochanan b. Yoshiyah says: "If it were torn, let him bring ed." — Let him bring witnesses ("edim") that it was torn, and he will be exempt from paying.

The name of Yitzchak was not changed, for he was thus (originally) called by the Holy One Blessed be He. There are three who were named by the Holy One Blessed be He — Yitzchak, Shlomoh, and Yoshiyahu. Yitzchak — (Ibid. 17:19) "But Sarah your wife will bear a son for you and you shall call his name Yitzchak." Shlomoh (I Chronicles 22:9) "for Shlomoh will be his name." Yoshiyahu (I Kings 13:2) "A son will be born to the house of David. Yoshiyahu will be his name." Others say: Also Yishmael among the gentiles.

We find the names of righteous ones and their deeds to be revealed to the L–rd before their creation, viz. (Jeremiah 1:5) "Before I created you in the womb, I knew you." Where do we find (the same for) the names of wicked ones? It is written (Psalms 58:4) "The wicked are estranged from the womb, etc."

(Exodus 13:3) "And Moses said to the people: Remember this day when you went out of Egypt, etc." I know only that the exodus from Egypt is mentioned in the daytime. Whence do I derive (the same for) the evenings? From (Devarim 16:3) "… so that you remember the day of your going out of Egypt all the days of your life": "the days of your life" — the days; "all the days of your life" — (to include) the nights, as per Ben Zoma.

The sages say: "the days of your life" — in this world; "all the days of your life" — to include the days of the Messiah. Ben Zoma said to them: Israel is destined not to mention the exodus from Egypt in time to come, it being written (Jeremiah 23:7-8) "Therefore, behold, days are coming, says the L–rd, when it will no more be said: 'As the L–rd lives, who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, but as the L–rd lives, who brought up and who brought the seed of the house of Israel from the land of the north.'"

R. Nathan says: "who brought up and who brought": The exodus from Egypt is mentioned in time to come. And whence is it derived that we say "Blessed are You, O L–rd our G–d, and the G–d of our fathers, the G–d of Abraham, the G–d of Isaac, and the G–d of Jacob"? From (Exodus 3:15) "and G–d said further to Moses: Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: The L–rd, the G–d of your fathers, the G–d of Abraham, the G–d of Isaac, and the G–d of Jacob, sent me to you."

And which is a torn beast for which he does not pay? A beast torn by a wolf, a lion, a bear, a tiger, a leopard, or a snake. Since the Torah writes (9) "and it die, just as he is not liable to pay in an instance of (natural) death, so, in all instances where he cannot rescue the beast, he is not liable to pay. Thus, "For the torn beast he shall not pay."

And whence is grace over meals derived? From (Devarim 8:10) "and you shall eat and you shall be sated" — this is the first blessing. "for the land" — this is the second blessing. "the good" — this is "who builds Jerusalem," viz. (Ibid. 3:25) "the good land … and the Levanon." "that he gave you" — who gave all good to us (this is the blessing of "hatov vehametiv").

(Exodus 22:13) "And if a man borrow from his neighbor": Scripture "cuts off" a borrower from the class of "watcher," and treats it (as a class) in itself. "from his neighbor": We are hereby taught that he (the borrower) is not liable until he removes it from the lender's domain.

R. Chiyya b. Nachmani said in the name of R. Yishmael: It is already written (Ibid. 8:10) "and you shall eat and you shall be sated, etc." What would be lacking if it were not written "that He gave to you"? (It is written to signify that you must thank Him) both for His measure of good and for His measure of punishment.

"and it be broken or die": This tells me only of (a borrower's liability for) breaking or death. Whence do I derive (the same for) seizure? "death" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (9). Just as seizure there is juxtaposed with death, so, here (seizure is understood to be juxtaposed with death.)

This tells me that a blessing is required after eating. Whence do I derive that it is required (also) before eating? R. Yishmael says: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If one who has eaten to satiety requires a blessing, how much more so, one who is hungry!

Whence do I derive (the same for) theft and loss? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a hired watcher, who is not liable for death, is liable for theft and loss, then a borrower, who is liable for death, how much more so should he be liable for theft and loss!

R. Nathan says: It is written (I Samuel 9:13) "As soon as you enter the town, you will find him before he ascends the mount to eat; for the people will not eat until he comes, for he will first bless the offering, etc."

(13) "if its owner were not with him, pay shall he pay. (14) If its owner were with him, he (the borrower) shall not pay": From the first (13), do I not know the second (14)? (Why, then, need it be written?)

R. Yitzchak says: It is written (Exodus 23:25) "And you shall serve the L–rd your G–d, and He will bless your bread and your water." When is it "your bread"? Before you have eaten it. This tells me only of food as requiring a blessing before it and after it. Whence do I derive (the same for) Torah? R. Yishmael says: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If food, which is only temporal, requires a blessing before and after it, how much more so Torah, which is eternal!

To teach that if it went from the domain of the lender to that of the borrower even for one moment, then (if the beast were) with the owner, he (the borrower) is not liable; if it were not with the owner, he is liable.

R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: It is written (Devarim 8:10) "and you shall eat and you shall be sated and you shall bless … for the good land." What is lacking that "good" supplies? This ("good") is Torah, as it is written (Mishlei 4:2) "for a taking of 'good' have I given to you."

"If it (the beast) were hired, it came by its hire (into the hands of the hirer"): I might think that if he swears (viz. Ibid. 10), he is exempt from all payment, you, therefore, reason: Since a paid watcher gives benefit (to the owner) and a hirer gives benefit, and we have learned about a paid watcher, who swears (to exempt himself from liability) for accident, that he pays for theft and loss — then a hirer, too, pays for theft and loss.

R. Chanina, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: It is written (Devarim 32:3) "When I call upon the name of the L–rd" — the blesser; "give grandeur to our G–d" — the answerers. And what do they answer? "Blessed is the L–rd who is blessed forever." And when he mentions His name, they respond "Blessed is the name of the glory of His kingdom forever." And thus did David say (Psalms 34:4) "Exalt the L–rd with me, and let us extol His name forever."

Rebbi says (Mishlei 10:7) "the remembrance of the Tzaddik is for blessing": When he mentions the Tzaddik, "the Life of the worlds" — (Psalms 145:17) "the L–rd is a tzaddik in all of His ways — let it be for blessing "Amen!"

Would you say that? There is a crucial difference (between a paid and an unpaid watcher), viz.: Since a paid watcher both derives benefit and gives benefit, and a hirer derives benefit and gives benefit, then the second is to be compared to the first, who swears (for exemption from liability) for accident and pays for theft and loss, and this is not to be refuted by an unpaid watcher, who gives benefit but does not derive it. This is the intent of "If it were hired, it came by its hire" (i.e., it is to be compared to a hired watcher and not to an unhired one.)

(Exodus 13:3) "and chametz shall not be eaten": (The intent of the verse is) to equate the feeder (of chametz to minors) with the eater. But perhaps (the intent is) to forbid derivation of benefit from it? From (Devarim 16:3) "You shall not eat chametz upon it" we learn that benefit may be derived from it. How, then, am I to understand "chametz shall not be eaten"? To equate the feeder with the eater. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.

R. Yitzchak says: It is not needed (for this derivation). If with sheratzim, (creeping things), the less stringent, the feeder is equated with the eater, how much more so with chametz, the more stringent! How, then, am I to understand "chametz shall not be eaten"? To forbid derivation of benefit from it.

(Exodus 13:3) "This day you go out in the month of Aviv (spring)": Let this not be written (i.e., Why is it needed?) (To signify) a month that is kasher — neither burning sun nor (heavy) rains. And thus is it written (Psalms 68:7) "G–d settles the solitary in their homes. He takes out the bound bakosharoth." What is the intent of "bakosharoth"? A month that is kasher for you. Neither burning sun nor (heavy) rains.

R. Nathan says "bakosharoth": These (the Egyptians) crying ("bacho"); the others (Israel) singing ("meshorerim"). The Egyptians crying, viz. (Numbers 33:4) "And the Egyptians were burying, etc." And Israel singing, viz. (Psalms 118:15) "A sound of song and salvation in the tents of the righteous." (Ibid.) "The right hand of the L–rd is uplifted" — over Egypt.

R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: In the merit of our father Abraham He took them out of Egypt, viz. (Psalms 105: 42-43) "For He remembered His sacred word to Abraham His servant, and He took out His people in gladness, His chosen ones, in song." R.

Variantly (Psalms 68:7) "G–d settles the solitary in their homes. He takes out the bound bakosharoth. But rebels dwelling in dryness, etc.": They were rebels, in spite of which He dealt with them with "kashruth." And thus is it written (Ezekiel 20:7-9) "And I said to them: Let each of you cast away the abominations of his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt … and they rebelled against Me and would not listen to Me.

They did not cast away the abominations of their eyes and they did not abandon the idols of Egypt … But I wrought for the sake of My name, that it not be profaned in the eyes of nations in whose midst they were, having made Myself known to them before their eyes to take them out of the land of Egypt." They were rebels — but He dealt with them with "kashruth."

(Exodus 13:3) "This day you go out in the month of Aviv": Let this not be written (i.e., it seems superfluous). We are hereby apprised that the year in which Israel left Egypt did not require intercalation.

(Exodus 13:5) "And it shall be, when the L–rd brings you to the land of Canaan": Scripture here speaks of seven nations. You say seven nations, but perhaps five nations (are intended)? It is written here "bringing," and elsewhere (Devarim 7:1) "bringing." Just as there, the land of seven nations; here, too, the land of seven nations....

(Exodus 22:15) "And if a man entice a virgin, etc.": Scripture comes to teach about an enticed girl that knass (penalty [viz. 16]) is paid for her. (But why is the verse needed?) Can it not be derived by reason, viz. "A ravished girl is in her father's jurisdiction, and an enticed girl is in her father's jurisdiction. If we have learned that knass is paid for the first (viz. Devarim 22:28-29) then knass should also be paid for the second.

R. Yoshiyah says: What is the intent of (Ibid.) "which He swore to your forefathers to give to you": From (Devarim 26:2) "then you shall take of all the fruits of the earth," I might think that all of the land is intended; you, therefore, reason thus: It is written here (Exodus) "swearing," and there (Devarim, Ibid. 3) "swearing." Just as here, the land of five nations (is intended); there, too, the land of five nations.

No, this may be true of a ravished girl, where he violates her will and the will of her father, as opposed to an enticed girl, where he violates her father's will alone — wherefore he should not pay knass. Since it could not be derived by reason, the verse must be adduced.

"who is not betrothed": to exclude one who was widowed or divorced in betrothal. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Even one who was divorced or widowed. And this follows by reason, viz. Since he can annul her vows and he can accept her knass, then just as the first obtains if she were widowed or divorced, so, the second.

(Exodus 13:5) "which He swore to your forefathers": Where did He swear it to your forefathers? Abraham — (Genesis 15:18) "On that day the L–rd made a covenant with Abraham." Isaac — (Ibid. 26:3) "Live in this land." Jacob — (Ibid. 28:13) "the land on which you are lying, etc."... "Then you shall perform this service": As the service that you performed in Egypt so shall you perform in all the generations. These are the words of R. Nathan.