Read Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael in source order, passage by passage, with the close English translation where available and the original source text for checking.
If so, why is it written "who is not betrothed"? It is "extra" for purposes of comparison and towards the formulation of a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: It is written here "who is not betrothed" and there (Devarim 22:28) "who is not betrothed": Just as there, fifty, so, here, fifty. Just as here, shekalim, so, there shekalim.
(Exodus 13:6) "And on the seventh day, a festival to the L–rd": Perhaps wherever chagigah (the festival offering) obtains, (the mitzvah of) matzoh obtains, but when chagigah does not obtain (i.e., when there is no Temple), there is no matzoh? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) "Matzoth shall be eaten the seven days" (in any event).
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": What is the intent of this? From (Devarim 22:29) "then the man who lay with her shall give," I might think that just as when he ravishes her he gives (knass) immediately, so, when he entices her. We are, therefore, apprised that he (the father) imposes it (the fine) upon him as mohar,"
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": a wife that is permitted to him — to exclude (from marriage, but not from knass) a widow to a high-priest; a divorcée and a chalutzah (one who had undergone the ceremony dissolving the levirate marriage obligation) to a regular priest; a mamzereth (a bastard [halachically] and a Nathinah (a descendent of the Givonites) to an Israelite, and the daughter of an Israelite to a Nathin or a mamzer.
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": I might think whether or not the father consents. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15) "If her father refuse, refuse, to give her to him, then money shall he pay according to the price of the virgins," whereby Scripture apprises us that if the father consents he may take her, and if he does not consent, he may not take her.
This tells me only of one who was enticed. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who was ravished? It follows thus: Since a ravished one is under her father's jurisdiction and an enticed one is under her father's jurisdiction, then if we have learned about an enticed one that if the father consents, he may take her, and if not, not, the same obtains with a ravished one.
Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If with an enticed one, where he did not violate her father's will, the father may abrogate or sustain the marriage, then with a ravished one, where he violated both her will and that of her father, how much more so may the father abrogate or sustain as he wills!
"if her father refuse, refuse": This tells me only of one who has a father. Whence do I derive the same for one who does not have a father (i.e., that she herself may refuse)? It is, therefore, written "If refuse, refuse" — in any event.
"money shall he pay": R. Yossi Haglili says: We have not heard how much. I, therefore, reason as follows: It is written here "money," and elsewhere (re one who was ravished, Devarim 22:29), "money." Just as there, fifty, so, here, fifty.
"according to the mohar of the virgins": What do we learn from "the mohar of the virgins." This (seemingly) comes to teach, but it emerges as learning, i.e., just as there, (Devarim 22:29) fifty silver, so, here, fifty silver.
What is the intent of "Matzoth shall be eaten, etc."? Because we have learned about chametz that it is forbidden from the sixth hour on, I might think that (the mitzvah of) eating matzoh is likewise from the sixth hour on. It is, therefore, written "Matzoth shall be eaten the seven days and chametz shall not be seen unto you, etc."
(Exodus 22:17) "A witch you shall not allow to live": Both a man and a woman. R. Yishmael says: It is written here "You shall not allow to live," and elsewhere (Devarim 20:16) "You shall not allow to live. Just as there, (the death is) by the sword, so, here, by the sword.
"and chametz shall not be seen unto you, and se'or shall not be seen unto you": chametz is likened to se'or, and se'or to chametz. Just as the one may not be seen, so, the other. Just as the one may not be found, so, the other. Just as the one is of the five species (of grain), so, the other. "in all of your boundaries": What is the intent of this? From (12:19) "seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses," I might think, "houses," literally; it is, therefore, written "in all of your boundaries." If the latter alone were written, I would think, "boundaries," literally. It is, therefore, written "in your houses." Just as "your houses" implies your possession, so, "your boundaries"
R. Yishmael rejoined: I derive "You shall not allow to live" from "You shall not allow to live," and you answer me from "You shall not allow to live" to "it shall not live!" R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written here "A witch you shall not allow to live," and (Ibid. 18) "Whoever lives with a beast shall be put to death." They are juxtaposed to teach that just as the second (is killed) by stoning, so, the first.
— to exclude the chametz of an Israelite in the domain of a gentile. Even though he (the Jew) can burn it, it is not in his domain; and to exclude the chametz of a gentile in the domain of a Jew, and chametz on which debris has fallen. Even though it is in his domain, he cannot burn it.
R. Yehudah says: It is written (Leviticus 20:27) "And a man or a woman, if there be in them an ov or a yidoni" (shall be stoned). Now "ov" and "yidoni" are types of witchcraft. Why were they singled out for special mention? To teach that just as these are (killed) by stoning, so all (types of) witches are (killed) by stoning. We have heard the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, a diviner, a soothsayer an enchanter or a witch."
You say that this is its intent. But perhaps the intent is (that it shall not be found) in your houses for seven days, and in your boundaries for all time? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 13:7) "and se'or shall not be seen in all of your boundaries for seven days." Just as in your houses, for seven days, so, in your boundaries.
(Exodus 22:18) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death": What is the intent of this? It is written (Leviticus 20:15) "And a man who cohabits with a beast shall be put to death" — by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps, by one of the other death penalties in Scripture? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the beast shall you kill."
It is written here "kill," and elsewhere (Devarim 13:10) "kill." Just as there, stoning (is indicated), so, here, stoning. We have heard the penalty. Whence is the exhortation (derived)?
From (Leviticus 18:23) "And you shall not cohabit with any beast." This tells me only of the punishment and the exhortation for the active agent. Whence do we derive the punishment for the passive agent? From (our verse) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death."
Scripture (hereby) equated the passive agent with the active one. Just as the second is to be stoned, so, the first. We have heard the punishment. Whence the exhortation (for the passive agent)?
It is, therefore, written (Devarim 23:18) "and there shall not be a (male) harlot among the children of Israel," and (I Kings 14:24) "And there was also a (male) harlot in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the L–rd drove out."
And you shall tell your son. I [would] understand from Rosh Chodesh [that one would have to observe Pesach. However] we learn [otherwise, since] it is stated, "on that day." If it is [written] "on that day," it could be from while it is still day [before the night of the fifteenth of Nissan. However] we learn [otherwise, since] it is stated, "for the sake of this;" when [this] matsa and maror are resting in front of you [meaning, on the night of the fifteenth].
(Exodus 22:19) "One who sacrifices to idolatry shall be put to death": We have heard the punishment. Whence the exhortation? It is written (Exodus 20:5) "You shall not bow down to them and you shall not serve them." Sacrifice was included (in serving), and it was singled out to teach that just as sacrificing is distinctive in that it is an inner Temple service and one is liable for it (if done for an idol) whether or not it is its conventional mode of worship, so, one is liable for all such modes of service (in the worship of idolatry.)
"Because of this": What is the intent of this? Because he — the wicked son, who removed himself from the community — says (Ibid. 12:26) "What is this work to you?", you remove him in kind, by telling him "Because of this the L-rd wrought for me," and not for you. Had you been there, you would not have been redeemed.
(Exodus 13:9) "And it (the account of the exodus from Egypt) shall be to you as a sign, etc." — one parchment containing four sections (of the Torah). It would follow (otherwise),viz.: Since the Torah prescribes tefillin for both the hand and for the head, then just as there are four (distinct) sections in the headpiece, so, there should be four (distinct) sections in the armpiece. It is, therefore, written "and it shall be to you as a sign" — one parchment containing four sections.
"only to the L–rd alone": Because others say: If the Israelites had not joined the name of the Holy One Blessed be He, with that of idolatry (i.e., the golden calf), they would have gone lost from the world, it is written "One who sacrifices to idolatry shall be put to death — only to the L–rd alone!" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Are not all who join the name of the Holy One Blessed be He to the name of idolatry liable to destruction! As it is written (II Kings 17:33) "They feared the L–rd and served their (the nations') gods, according to the custom of the nations that exiled them from there."
I might think that just as in the armpiece there is one parchment, so, should there be in the headpiece. And this would follow, viz.: Since the Torah prescribes tefillin for both the hand and for the head, then just as in the handpiece there is one parchment, so, should there be in the headpiece. It is, therefore, written four times (in respect to the headpiece) "letotafoth." But in that case perhaps one should make four headpieces of four sections each? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and as a memorial between your eyes." One compartment for four sections.
Others say: Torah was given with its signs (i.e., with its warnings), so that Israel not say: Though we are commanded against idolatry, it will not be held against us if we secrete the idols in the recesses of the earth. It is, therefore, written (Isaiah 2:14) "On all the high mountains and on all the lofty hills" (and in the recesses of the earth) — whether revealed or hidden, (idolatry is forbidden) — "only to the L–rd alone" (with no admixtures of idolatry)!
"upon your hand": upon the upper arm. But perhaps the hand (i.e., the palm) literally? It follows (that the upper arm is meant), viz.: The Torah prescribes tefillin for both the hand and the head. Just as the head (connotes) the height of the head, so, the hand (connotes) the height of the hand (i.e., the upper arm).
R. Yitzchak says: On the upper arm or on your hand (i.e., your palm), literally? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 11:18) "And you shall place these words upon your heart" — what is aligned with your heart, i.e., the upper arm.
"upon your hand": This is the left hand. You say this, but perhaps it is the right? Though there is no proof for this, it is intimated in (Isaiah 48:3) "My hand has also founded on earth, and My right hand has spanned the heavens," and (Judges 5:26) "Her hand reached for the tent pin, her right for the workmen's hammer," indicating that "hand," unqualified, is the left hand.
R. Yonathan says (Devarim 6:8-9) "and you shall tie them … and you shall write them": Just as the writing (of the mezuzah) is with the right hand, so, the tying of the tefillin (on the left hand). Abba Yossi says: We find the right to be called "hand," and even though there is no proof (for its application here), it is intimated in (Genesis 48:17) "that his father placed his right hand." And what is the intent of "upon your hand"? To include an amputee (of the left hand), that his tefillin are placed on his right arm.
"and it shall be to you as a sign upon your hand and as a memorial between your eyes": When the hand tefillin are on your hand, place the head tefillin on your head — whence they ruled: The mitzvah of tefillin: When he puts them on, he puts on the hand tefillin and then the head tefillin. When he takes them off, he takes off the head tefillin and then the hand tefillin.
"between your eyes": on top of the head. You say on top of the head, but perhaps (the intent is) literally, "between your eyes"? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:1) "Sons are you to the L–rd your G–d. You shall not gash yourselves, and you shall not make a bald spot between your eyes for the dead." Just as there, the top of the head is meant, so, here.
R. Yehudah says: Since the Torah prescribes tefillin for the hand and for the head, then just as the hand is susceptible to tumah of one kind (a white hair), so, the head must be susceptible to tumah of one kind (a yellow hair), (as opposed to the area between the eyes, which is susceptible to tumah of two kinds of hair).
"so that the Torah of the L–rd be in your mouth": What is the intent of this? From "And it shall be to you as a sign," I would assume that women, too, are included (in the mitzvah of tefillin). And this would follow, viz.: Since both mezuzah and tefillin are positive commandments, then if we have learned that (the mitzvah of) mezuzah obtains with women as well as with men, the same is true of (the mitzvah of) tefillin. It is, therefore, written (in respect to tefillin) "so that the mitzvah of tefillin be in your mouth." (the mitzvah of tefillin obtains) only with one who is commanded to study Torah. From here they derived: All are commanded to put on tefillin except women and bondsmen.
"and as a remembrance between your eyes, so that the Torah of the L–rd be in your mouth": From here they ruled: If one wears tefillin, it is as if he is reading in the Torah; and one who reads in the Torah is exempt from tefillin.
(Exodus 13:10) "And you shall keep this statute in its time": What is the intent of this? From "And it shall be to you as a sign upon your hand," I might think that (the mitzvah of tefillin) obtains with minors, too. And it also follows, viz.: Since Torah (study) and tefillin are both positive commandments, then if we have learned about Torah (study) that it obtains with minors as well as with adults, the same is true of tefillin. It is, therefore, written "And you shall keep this statute" — (The mitzvah of tefillin obtains) only with one who can keep his tefillin (in a state of cleanliness). From here they ruled: If a minor is capable of keeping his tefillin (in a state of cleanliness), his father makes him tefillin.
"And you shall keep this statute": This is the statute of tefillin. You say this is the statute of tefillin, but perhaps it is the statute of the mitzvoth (collectively)? Would you say that? What is the subject (under discussion)? Tefillin.
(13:10) "from day to day": What is the intent of this? From "and it shall be to you as a sign," I would think that the nights, too, are included. And this would follow, viz.: Since mezuzah is a positive commandment and tefillin are a positive commandment, then just as we have learned that just as mezuzah obtains both in the daytime and at night; so tefillin, it is, therefore written "from day to day" — it obtains in the daytime and not at night.
Variantly: What is the intent of "from day to day"? From "and it shall be to you as a sign," I might think, even on Sabbaths and festivals. And this would follow, viz.: Since both mezuzah and tefillin are positive commandments, then if you have learned about mezuzah that it obtains on Sabbaths and festival, so tefillin. It is, therefore, written "from day to day" — to exclude Sabbaths and festivals.
R. Yoshiyah says: "from day to day": Since both mezuzah and tefillin are positive commandments, if we have learned that mezuzah obtains on Sabbaths and festivals, so, tefillin. It is, therefore, written "from day to day." Variantly: "from day to day": There are days that you wear (tefillin) and there are days that you do not wear (tefillin) — to exclude Sabbaths and festivals. These are the words of R. Oshiyah.
R. Yitzchak says: Since Sabbath is called a sign and tefillin are called a sign, one sign is not to be superimposed upon another. But perhaps one sign is to be superimposed upon another? Would you say that? Sabbath, which is called both "sign" and "covenant," overrides tefillin, which are called only "sign."
