Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

(Exodus 13:1-2) "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Consecrate to Me every firstborn." This is one of the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded: a general statement that requires a particular, and a particular that requires a general. "Consecrate to Me every firstborn" is a general statement; both males and females are implied, as it is said, "Every firstborn that is born…" (Deuteronomy 15:19). "The male" is the particular; females are excluded. From the implication, I might read the general statement — so what does the particular come to teach? For if I read the general statement but not the particular, I would understand that whatever is born first, whether male or female, would be a firstborn. Therefore Scripture teaches, "Every firstborn… the male" — males but not females. And if I read the particular but not the general statement, I would understand that any male that is born, whether it opens the womb or does not open the womb, would be a firstborn. Therefore Scripture teaches, "Consecrate to Me every firstborn" — until it is both male and opening the womb, to fulfill what is said, "Every one that opens the womb" (Exodus 13:12). Rabbi Ishmael says: one verse says "you shall sanctify" (Deuteronomy 15:19), and another verse says "he shall not sanctify" (Leviticus 27:26). You may sanctify it with a sanctification of valuation, but you may not sanctify it with a sanctification for the altar. "Among man and among beast" — that which applies to man applies to beast; the Levites are excluded, for since they have no firstborn obligation among man, they have none among beast.

Another interpretation: He compared the firstborn of man to the firstborn of beast, and the firstborn of beast to the firstborn of man. Just as with the firstborn of a beast, stillbirths exempt it from the law of the firstborn [a prior non-viable birth means the next is not counted as firstborn], so too with the firstborn of man, stillbirths exempt from the firstborn status. Just as a firstborn of man you are permitted to give to the priest in any place you wish, so too a firstborn of beast you are permitted to give to the priest in any place you wish.

Because it says, "And you shall bring there your burnt offerings… and the firstborn of your herd and your flock" (Deuteronomy 12:6), I might understand that even if he is in a distant place it would be an obligation upon him to bring it to the chosen house [the Temple]. Therefore Scripture teaches, "among man and among beast" — He compared the firstborn of beast to the firstborn of man: just as a firstborn of man you are permitted to give to the priest in any place you wish, so too a firstborn of beast you are permitted to give to the priest in any place you wish; and just as with a firstborn of man you tend to him thirty days, so too with a firstborn of beast you tend to it thirty days. "It is Mine" — why is this said? Because it says, "The male you shall sanctify to the LORD your God" (Deuteronomy 15:19): sanctify it so that you may receive reward. Or perhaps if you sanctified it, it is sanctified, and if not, it is not sanctified? Therefore Scripture teaches, "It is Mine" — in any case. So what does "you shall sanctify" teach? That you may receive reward. Likewise you say, "And the priest shall burn wood upon it every morning" (Leviticus 6:5). Why is this said? Has it not already been said, "And Lebanon is not sufficient fuel" (Isaiah 40:16)? So what does "the priest shall burn upon it" teach? So that you may receive reward.

Likewise you say, "The one lamb you shall offer in the morning" (Numbers 28:4). Why is this said? Has it not already been said, "and its beasts are not sufficient for a burnt offering" (Isaiah 40:16)? So what does "the one lamb" teach? That you may receive reward. Likewise, "And they shall make Me a sanctuary" (Exodus 25:8) — to receive reward. Once the disciples spent the Sabbath at Yavneh, but Rabbi Joshua did not spend the Sabbath there. When the disciples came to him, he said to them: What new matter was there for you at Yavneh? They said to him: We are your disciples, Rabbi, and we drink your waters. He said to them: Even so, it is impossible that there was no new matter at the assembly. Whose week was it [to teach]? They said: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah's. He said to them: It is impossible that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah presided and did not teach you something new. They said to him: Rabbi, he expounded this general principle: "You are standing this day, all of you… your little ones, your wives" (Deuteronomy 29:9-10). Now does a little child know to discern between good and evil? Rather, it is to give reward to the children for the sake of the fathers, to increase the reward of those who do His will, to fulfill what is said, "The LORD desired, for the sake of His righteousness, to make the Torah great and glorious" (Isaiah 42:21). He said to them: This is no new matter. Behold, I am about eighty years old, and I did not merit this teaching until today. Happy are you, Abraham our father, that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah came forth from your loins. The generation is not orphaned in which Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah dwells. They said to him: He expounded another principle: "Therefore, behold, days are coming, says the LORD, when they shall no longer say, As the LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel" (Jeremiah 23:7). They told a parable: to what is the matter like? To one who longed for sons. A daughter was born to him, and he would vow by the life of the daughter. A son was born to him; he set aside the daughter and would vow by the life of the son. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: to what is the matter like? To one who was walking on the road and a wolf met him; he was saved from it and would recount the miracles done for him with the wolf. He went on and a lion met him; he set aside the miracles done with the wolf and would recount the miracles done with the lion. Likewise he expounded: "And he called the name of that place Bethel" (Genesis 28:19) — the first name passed away and the second name endured.

Likewise he expounded: "Your name shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham" (Genesis 17:5) — the first name passed away and the second name endured. Likewise he expounded: "And God said to Abraham, As for Sarai your wife…" (Genesis 17:15) — the first name passed away and the second name endured. Likewise he expounded: "And He said, Your name shall no longer be called Jacob" (Genesis 32:28) — the first endured for him and the second was added to him. Isaac's name was not changed, for he was named by the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He. Three were named by the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He: Isaac, Solomon, and Josiah. Of Isaac, what does it say? "But Sarah your wife…" (Genesis 17:19). Of Solomon, what does it say? "Behold, a son is born to you… Solomon shall be his name" (1 Chronicles 22:9). Of Josiah, what does it say? "Behold, a son is born to the house of David, Josiah by name" (1 Kings 13:2). And some say also Ishmael among the nations. We find that the names of the righteous and their deeds are revealed before the Omnipresent before they are created, as it is said, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Thus we have learned that the names of the righteous are revealed. From where the wicked? Scripture teaches, "The wicked are estranged from the womb" (Psalms 58:4). [There follows a halakhic discussion of the firstborn of an animal received from or shared with a gentile, its exemption from the firstborn law, and related rulings of Rabbi Judah, the Sages, Rabbi Yochanan, Rav Huna, Rav Chisda, Rava, Rav Papa, Mar bar Rav Ashi, Rav Mari bar Rachel, Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, and Rav Ada bar Ahavah.]

(Exodus 13:3-4) "And Moses said to the people: Remember…" I would know only that one mentions the exodus from Egypt by day; from where by night? Scripture teaches, "that you may remember the day of your going out from the land of Egypt all the days of your life" (Deuteronomy 16:3). "The days of your life" means the days; "all the days of your life" includes the nights — these are the words of Ben Zoma. But the Sages say: "the days of your life" means this world; "all the days of your life" comes to include the days of the Messiah. Ben Zoma said to them: Will Israel in the time to come still mention the exodus from Egypt? For it is said, "Therefore, behold, days are coming… but rather, As the LORD lives who brought up and who led the seed of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 23:7-8) — this tells that they will not mention the exodus from Egypt in the time to come. [The Sages held that even then the Exodus will be mentioned, only secondary to the future redemption.]

From where do we know that one says, "Blessed are You, the LORD our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob"? As it is said (Exodus 3:15), "And God said further to Moses: Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And from where do we know that one blesses over food? As it is said (Deuteronomy 8:10), "And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless." This refers to the first blessing. "For the land" - this is the second blessing. "The good" - this is "who builds Jerusalem," as it is said, "this good mountain and the Lebanon." "Which He has given you" - that He has bestowed upon us all good. Rabbi Hiyya bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: Behold, it says, "And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless for the good" - whatever the verse lacks, "which He has given you" supplies, whether the measure of good or the measure of punishment. I have learned only that food requires a blessing after it. From where do we know it requires one before it? Rabbi Ishmael used to say: It is an argument from the lesser to the greater. If when a person has already eaten and is satisfied he must bless, all the more so when he is craving to eat. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] says: This is not needed. Behold, it says, "And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless" - this is the blessing "who feeds." "For the land" - this is the blessing of the land. "The good" - this is "who builds Jerusalem," and likewise it says (Deuteronomy 3:25), "the good mountain." "Which He has given you" - this is "who is good and does good." I have learned only the blessing after; from where do we know the blessing before? Scripture teaches "which He has given you" - from the moment it is given to you. Rabbi Isaac says: Behold, it says, "And you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread" - when is it your bread? Before you have eaten it. I have learned only that food requires a blessing before and after; from where do we know that Torah does? Rabbi Ishmael used to say: You may state an argument from the lesser to the greater. If food, which is a need of the life of this world, requires a blessing before and after, then Torah, which is the life of the world to come, surely requires a blessing before and after. Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says: Behold, it says, "And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless"; what is "the good"? This is Torah, as it is said (Proverbs 4:2), "For I have given you a good teaching." Rabbi Hanina, the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua's son, says: Behold, it says (Deuteronomy 32:3), "When I call upon the name of the LORD" - this is the one who blesses; "ascribe greatness to our God" - these are those who respond after him. And what do they respond after the one who blesses? "Blessed is the LORD, the blessed One." And when he calls upon His name, they respond after him, "Blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever." And likewise David says, "Magnify the LORD with me." Rabbi [Judah the Prince] says: (Proverbs 10:7) "The memory of the righteous is for a blessing" - when one mentions the Life of the worlds, as it is said (Psalms 145:17), "The LORD is righteous in all His ways," give Him a blessing. "And leaven shall not be eaten" - this is to make the one who feeds it like the one who eats it. Or is it rather to forbid deriving benefit from it? When it says (Deuteronomy 16:3), "You shall eat no leaven with it," from there we learn that it is forbidden to derive benefit. What then does Scripture teach by "leaven shall not be eaten"? To make the one who feeds it like the one who eats it - these are the words of Rabbi Josiah. Rabbi Isaac says: This is not needed. If with regard to creeping things, which are a lighter matter, Scripture made the one who feeds like the one who eats, then leaven, which is a stricter matter, surely should be treated so. What then does Scripture teach by "leaven shall not be eaten"? The verse comes only to forbid deriving benefit from it. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: "Leaven shall not be eaten this day" - this teaches that Israel ate unleavened bread in Egypt for one day only.

Hezekiah said: From where do we know that leaven on Passover is forbidden for deriving benefit throughout the seven days? As it is said, "And leaven shall not be eaten" - it shall have no permitted manner of eating. The reason is that the Merciful One wrote "shall not be eaten"; had the Merciful One not written "shall not be eaten," it would have implied a prohibition of eating but not a prohibition of benefit. And this differs with Rabbi Abbahu, who said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Wherever it is said "it shall not be eaten," "you shall not eat," or "you shall not eat (plural)," both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, unless Scripture explicitly specifies for you, as it specified in the case of a carcass - to the resident alien by giving and to the foreigner by selling. But consider leaven, concerning which the Merciful One said "leaven shall not be eaten," and it was taught: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, be astonished at yourself - how is leaven forbidden for benefit all seven days? It is different there, for it is written, "It shall not be seen belonging to you" - that which is yours it shall be. And the Rabbis hold: that which is yours you may not see, but you may see that which belongs to others and that which is consecrated to the Most High. And the other [Rabbi Yose]: "belonging to you" is written twice. And the other: one refers to a gentile whom you have subjugated and one to a gentile whom you have not subjugated. And the other: "belonging to you" is written three times. And the other: one refers to sourdough and one to leaven, and both are necessary.

It was taught: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, from where do we know that the leaven prohibition of the Egyptian Passover applied for one day only? Scripture teaches, "Leaven shall not be eaten this day you are going out." Rabbi Benayah says: Had Israel merited even one more day, they would have entered the land, as it is said, "This day you are going out," and "It shall be when the LORD brings you in" - immediately. "This day you are going out in the month of spring": Scripture need not say "in the month of spring" except to teach a month that is fit for you - neither harsh heat nor rains. Rabbi Jonathan says: (Psalms 68:7) "He brings out prisoners in fit times (kosharot)" - these weep and these sing. The Egyptians weep, as it is said, "And the Egyptians were burying those whom He had struck." Israel sings, as it is said (Psalms 118:15), "A voice of glad song and salvation is in the tents of the righteous," for the Omnipresent exalts Himself over the Egyptians. Rabbi Nathan says: "in fit times (kosharot)" - by the worthy deeds (kesherot) that they did, and likewise it says (Exodus 38:8), "with the mirrors of the women who massed at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting." Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: By the merit of Abraham their father the Omnipresent brought Israel out of Egypt, as it is said (Psalms 105:42-43), "For He remembered His holy word to Abraham His servant, and He brought out His people in gladness." Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: By the merit of circumcision the Omnipresent brought Israel out of Egypt, as it is said (Ezekiel 16:6), "And I passed over you and saw you" and so forth. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] says: With haste Israel went out of Egypt, as it is said, "For with a strong hand the LORD brought out."

Another interpretation: With their own eagerness Israel went out of Egypt, as it is said (Exodus 12:11), "And thus shall you eat it: your loins girded" and so forth. Rabbi [Judah the Prince] says: ["He brings out prisoners in fit times (kosharot)"] - they were rebellious, yet He dealt with them with worthiness (be-hekhsherut), and likewise it says, "And I said: Let each cast away the detestable things of his eyes, and so forth, and I acted for the sake of My name, that it not be profaned." Indeed they were rebellious, yet He dealt with them with worthiness. "This day you are going out" and so forth: Scripture need not say "the month of spring" except to teach that the year in which Israel went out did not need to be intercalated. (It is written in remez 187.)

"And it shall be when the LORD brings you to the land of the Canaanite" and so forth. Scripture speaks of the land of the five nations, which are seven in another place. Or does it speak only of the land of five nations? You may reason it out: "coming" is stated here and "coming" is stated elsewhere; just as the "coming" stated elsewhere refers to the land of five nations that are seven in another place, so too the "coming" stated here refers to the land of five nations that are seven in another place. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: "which He swore to your fathers" - why is it stated? Because it says (Deuteronomy 26:2), "And you shall take from the first of all the fruit of the ground," I might hear that all lands are included. You may reason it out: "oath" is stated here and "oath" is stated elsewhere; just as the oaths stated elsewhere refer to the land of five nations that are seven in another place, so too here it refers to the land of five nations that are seven in another place. Rabbi Josiah says: "a land flowing with milk and honey" is stated here and "a land flowing with milk and honey" is stated elsewhere; just as the "land flowing with milk and honey" stated elsewhere refers to the land of five nations that are seven in another place, so too and so forth. "which He swore to your fathers": Where did He swear? With Abraham He says (Genesis 15:18), "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying" and so forth. With Isaac He says (Genesis 26:3), "Sojourn in this land" and so forth. With Jacob, what does He say? (Genesis 28:13) "The land on which you lie, to you I will give it." "And you shall perform this service in this month": as the service you performed in Egypt, so do for the generations - the words of Rabbi Jonathan. (Exodus 13:6-7) "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a festival to the LORD." It is written in the verse "and you shall celebrate it" - whenever there is a festival offering there is matzah; if there is no festival offering there is no matzah. Scripture teaches "unleavened bread shall be eaten." "The seven days" - why is it stated? Because we had not learned that leaven is forbidden from the sixth hour onward. From where do we know it is forbidden from the sixth hour onward? Scripture teaches "unleavened bread shall be eaten the seven days." From here Rabbi Judah ben Beteira used to say: At three times one searches for leaven - the eve of the fourteenth, the morning of the fourteenth, and at the time of the removal. "There shall not be seen belonging to you leaven" (it is written in remez 202).

(Exodus 13:8) "And you shall tell your child on that day." I might think from the New Moon; Scripture teaches "on that day." I might think while it is still day; Scripture teaches "because of this" - at the time when matzah and bitter herb are set before you on the table. "Because of this the LORD did for me": why is it stated? Because it says, "What is this service to you?" - this is the wicked son who has removed himself from the community. Just as he has removed himself from the community, so you remove him: say to him, "Because of this the LORD did for me" - for me and not for him; had he been there he would not have been redeemed. In every generation a person is obligated to see himself as though he himself went out of Egypt, as it is said, "And you shall tell your child on that day, saying: Because of this the LORD did for me when I went out of Egypt." Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: A blind person is exempt from reciting the Haggadah. It is written here "because of this" and it is written elsewhere (Deuteronomy 21:20), "this son of ours"; just as there it excludes the blind, so here it excludes the blind. But Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef hold he is obligated. There it is sound, since Scripture could have written "this son of ours is" and instead wrote "this," excluding the blind; but here "because of this" means "on account of the matzah and bitter herb that have come" before you.

"And it shall be a sign for you upon your hand": one scroll of four passages. And logic would dictate otherwise: since the Torah said put tefillin on the head with four compartments, so too on your hand four compartments. Scripture teaches "and it shall be a sign for you upon your hand" - one scroll of four passages. One might think that just as on the hand there is one scroll, so on the head there is one scroll. And logic would dictate: since the Torah said put tefillin on the hand and put tefillin on the head, just as on the hand one scroll, so on the head one scroll. Scripture teaches "for frontlets, frontlets" - thus four frontlets are stated. Or one might make four pouches of four passages; Scripture teaches "and for a remembrance between your eyes" - one pouch of four passages. "Upon your hand": upon the raised part of the arm. Or "your hand" in its plain sense? And logic would dictate: since the Torah said put tefillin on the head and put tefillin on the hand, just as on the head it is on the high part of the head, so on the hand it is on the high part of the hand. Rabbi Eleazar says: on the raised part of the hand. Or "upon your hand" in its plain sense? Scripture teaches "and it shall be a sign for you" - a sign for you and not a sign for others. Rabbi Isaac said: on the raised part of the arm. Or "upon the hand" in its plain sense? Scripture teaches (Deuteronomy 11:18), "And you shall place these My words upon your heart" - I have spoken only of something aligned opposite the heart, which is the raised part of the arm. "Upon your hand": this is the left. Or is it not rather the right? Although there is no proof of the matter, there is a hint of the matter: "My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens," and it says (Judges 5:26), "Her hand she put forth to the tent peg." Thus "hand" everywhere refers only to the left.

Rabbi Nathan says: (Deuteronomy 6:8) "And you shall bind them and you shall write them" - just as writing is with the right hand, so binding is with the right hand. Rabbi Yose the snub-nosed says: We have found that the right is called "hand," though there is no proof of the matter there is a hint of the matter, as it is said, "For his father set his right hand" and so forth; and what does Scripture teach by "upon your hand"? To include the one without a left hand, that he places it on the right. "And it shall be a sign for you upon your hand": whenever the hand tefillin is on the hand, place the head one on the head. From here they said: the mitzvah of tefillin is that when one puts them on, he puts on the hand one and afterward the head one; and when he removes them, he removes the head one and afterward the hand one. "Between your eyes": on the high part of the head. You say on the high part of the head, or "between your eyes" in its plain sense? Scripture teaches (Deuteronomy 14:1), "You are children to the LORD your God, you shall not gash yourselves" and so forth; just as "between your eyes" stated elsewhere is on the high part of the head, so "between your eyes" stated here is on the high part of the head. The Rabbis taught: "frontlets, frontlets, frontlets" - here are four, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: it is not needed; "tat" in Coptic means two, "pat" in African means two. Tanna of the school of Menasheh: "upon your hand" - this is the upper arm; "between your eyes" - this is the crown of the head. Where? The school of Rabbi Yannai said: the place where an infant's brain is soft. Rav Ashi said: "from your hand (mi-yadkhah)" - the weak hand. And say it means the hand of strength? He said to him: is "strength (koach)" written with a het? The Rabbis taught: a left-handed person places tefillin on his right, which is his left. But it was taught he places it on his left, which is the left of every person. Abaye said: that teaching refers to one who is ambidextrous. "And it shall be a sign for you upon your hand and for a remembrance between your eyes, so that the Torah of the LORD shall be in your mouth": the whole Torah is compared to tefillin - just as tefillin is a positive commandment bound by time and women are exempt, so all commandments and so forth. Rabbi Eleazar said: Israel said before the Omnipresent, "We wish to labor in the Torah day and night, but we have no leisure." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, "Fulfill the commandment of tefillin and I will account it to you as though you labored day and night." Rabbi Yohanan said: it is an explicit verse, "And it shall be a sign upon your hand, so that the Torah of the LORD shall be in your mouth." Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: what Rabbi Eleazar said is only to exclude the nights, for the commandment of tefillin is fulfilled only by day, as it is said, "And you shall keep this statute" and so forth. And how do you fulfill (Psalms 1:2), "and in His Torah he meditates day and night"? This is the recitation of the Shema that a person reads morning and evening; it is accounted to him as though he labored in the Torah day and night.

"So that the LORD's Torah may be in your mouth" (Exodus 13:9). Why is this said? Because Scripture says, "And it shall be for a sign upon your hand" (Exodus 13:9), I might understand that women and small children are included. And there is reason to argue so: since the mezuzah is a positive commandment and tefillin is a positive commandment, if you have learned about the mezuzah that it applies to women as to men, perhaps tefillin too applies to women as to men. Therefore Scripture teaches, "So that the LORD's Torah may be in your mouth" [the verse limits the obligation]; I have spoken only of one who is obligated in the study of Torah. From here they said: all are obligated in tefillin (another version: in Torah study) except women and slaves. Michal daughter of Saul used to lay tefillin; the wife of Jonah used to go up for the festival pilgrimage; Tabi the slave of Rabban Gamliel used to lay tefillin. "And for a remembrance between your eyes, so that the LORD's Torah may be in your mouth" (Exodus 13:9). From here they said: whoever lays tefillin is as one who reads in the Torah, and whoever reads in the Torah is exempt from tefillin. A Torah scroll sewn with flax thread: Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir [disagreed]. One said it is invalid, for it is written, "So that the LORD's Torah may be in your mouth" [comparing] all the Torah to tefillin: just as tefillin, by a law given to Moses at Sinai, must be sewn with sinews, so all the Torah must be sewn with sinews. And one said it is valid: the comparison is only to "that which is permitted in your mouth" [the parchment of clean animals], but it was not compared regarding its [other] laws.

"And you shall keep this ordinance in its season, from days to days" (Exodus 13:10). "Days" and not nights; "from days" and not all days, excluding Sabbaths and festivals; these are the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: this ordinance is stated only with regard to the Passover offering alone. Rabbi Akiva says: one might think a person should lay tefillin on the Sabbath and festivals; therefore Scripture teaches, "And it shall be for a sign" (Exodus 13:9), [tefillin is] for those who need a sign; this excludes Sabbaths and festivals, which are themselves a sign. Rabbi Elazar said: whoever lays tefillin after sunset transgresses a positive commandment. And Rabbi Yochanan said: he transgresses a negative commandment. All agree with what Rabbi [Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilai], who said: wherever it says "take heed," "lest," or "do not," it is nothing but a negative commandment. And here they differ in this: one master holds that "take heed" in a negative context is a negative, while "take heed" in a positive context is a positive; and the other master holds that "take heed" in a positive context is also a negative. And Rabbi Elazar said: if it is to guard them, it is permitted. "And you shall keep the ordinance" [is fulfilled] when they recite a blessing after removing their tefillin, to keep His ordinances.

"And you shall keep this ordinance in its season" (Exodus 13:10). Why is this said? Because Scripture says, "And it shall be for a sign upon your hand" (Exodus 13:9), I might understand that minors too are included. And there is reason to argue so: since the mezuzah is a positive commandment and tefillin is a positive commandment, if you have learned about the mezuzah that it applies to minors and adults, perhaps tefillin too applies to minors and adults. Therefore Scripture teaches, "And you shall keep this ordinance"; I have spoken only of one who knows how to guard his tefillin. From here the sages said: every minor who knows how to guard his tefillin, his father makes him tefillin. "And you shall keep this ordinance" (Exodus 13:10). This is the commandment of tefillin. Or is it nothing but the ordinance of all the commandments? You say: about what is the passage speaking? About tefillin.

"From days to days" (Exodus 13:10). Why is this said? Because Scripture says, "And it shall be for a sign" (Exodus 13:9), I might understand that the nights too are included. And there is reason to argue so: since the mezuzah is a positive commandment and tefillin is a positive commandment, if you have learned about the mezuzah that it applies at night as by day, perhaps tefillin too applies at night as by day. Therefore Scripture teaches, "From days to days": by day you put them on, and you do not put them on at night. Another interpretation: "From days to days," why is this said? Because Scripture says, "And it shall be for a sign," I might understand that Sabbaths and festivals too are included. And there is reason to argue so, as above with the mezuzah; therefore Scripture teaches, "From days to days," excluding Sabbaths and festivals. Rabbi Yoshiyah says: "from days"—there are days when you put them on and days when you do not put them on; this excludes Sabbaths and festivals. Rabbi Yitzchak says: since the Sabbath is called a sign and tefillin are called a sign, one does not place a sign within a sign. Or should one place a sign within a sign? You say: the Sabbath, which is called a sign and a covenant, shall not be set aside for tefillin, which are called only a sign and not a covenant. Rabbi Azaryah says: since the Sabbath is called a sign and tefillin are called a sign, one does not place a sign within a sign. Or should one place a sign within a sign? You say: the Sabbath, for which one is liable to karet [excision] and death by the court, shall not be set aside for tefillin, for which one is liable neither to karet nor to death by the court.

Another interpretation: "From days to days" (Exodus 13:10) tells that a person must examine his tefillin once every twelve months. It says here "from days," and it says elsewhere, "days shall be the time of its redemption" (Leviticus 25:29); just as "days" stated there means no less than twelve months, so "days" stated here means no less than twelve months—the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say: he need never examine them. Shammai the Elder says: these are the tefillin of my mother's father. "And it shall be when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanite" (Exodus 13:11). Canaan merited that the land was called by his name. And what did Canaan do? Only this: when he heard that Israel was entering the land, he arose and cleared out before them. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: you cleared out before My people, so I too will call the land by your name, and I will give you a land as fair as your land—and which is it? This is Africa. And so it says, "And Canaan begot Sidon his firstborn, and Heth" (Genesis 10:15), and it is written, "And the sons of Heth answered Abraham, saying to him, Hear us, my lord" (Genesis 23:5–6). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: you honored My beloved, so I too will call the land by your name and give you a land as fair as your land—this is Africa. "As He swore to your fathers" (Exodus 13:11). And where did He swear to the fathers? Of Abraham He says, "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying" (Genesis 15:18). Of Isaac, what does He say? "Sojourn in this land" (Genesis 26:3). Of Jacob, what does He say? "The land on which you lie, to you I will give it" (Genesis 28:13). "And He will give it to you" (Exodus 13:11)—that it should not be in your eyes like an inheritance from the fathers, but be in your eyes as though that very day He gave it to you.

"And you shall set apart" (Exodus 13:12)—"setting apart" means nothing but separation, and so it says, "And you shall pass on his inheritance to his daughter" (Numbers 27:8). Shimon ben Azzai says: "And you shall set apart every one that opens the womb"—what does this teach? Because it says, "All that pass under the rod" (Leviticus 27:32), I might understand that even the orphaned animal is included; and there is reason to argue so: if a blemished animal, which is unfit upon the altar, nonetheless enters the pen to be tithed, an orphaned animal, which is fit upon the altar, surely should enter the pen to be tithed. But a purchased animal, which is fit upon the altar yet does not enter the pen to be tithed, refutes this for the orphaned one. [The argument is balanced:] you cannot draw the orphan in by reasoning alone. It says "passing" here and "passing" elsewhere: just as the "passing" stated here means sanctity takes hold only during its mother's lifetime, so the "passing" stated elsewhere means sanctity takes hold only during its mother's lifetime. If here only males, perhaps elsewhere only males? Scripture teaches, "All that pass under the rod" (Leviticus 27:32)—both males and females are included. "And every firstling that comes of a beast" (Exodus 13:12)—a firstling "sent forth" by its mother. [If the firstborn miscarried,] it is exempt from the law of the firstborn, and the one that comes after it is not a firstborn. "Which you shall have" (Exodus 13:12)—to exclude one who sells the fetus of his animal to a gentile [the partial gentile share exempts it]. I might think to exclude one who sells his fetus to a gentile yet to include one who buys the fetus of a gentile's animal; Scripture teaches, "Whatever is born among your herd and your flock, the males" (Deuteronomy 15:19), to exclude one who buys the fetus of a gentile's animal. "The males shall be the LORD's" (Exodus 13:12). From here Rabbi Yose the Galilean used to say: a ewe that had not given birth before and bore two males, and the two heads emerged as one, both belong to the priest, as it says, "The males shall be the LORD's." But the sages say: it is impossible to be so exact; rather, one is his and one is the priest's.

"And every firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb" (Exodus 13:13). Not with a calf, not with a wild animal, not with a slaughtered animal, not with a torn animal, and not with a hybrid. "And the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb" - why is this said? Because Scripture says "yet you shall surely redeem" (the firstborn), I might hear that every firstborn of an unclean animal is included. Therefore the verse teaches, "and the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb": you redeem the firstborn donkey, but you do not redeem the rest of the firstborn of an unclean animal. Or perhaps "the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb" means you may redeem the rest of the firstborn of an unclean animal with garments and vessels? The verse teaches in another place (Exodus 34:20), "the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb": the firstling of a donkey you redeem, but you do not redeem the firstborn of the rest of an unclean animal. If so, what does "yet you shall surely redeem" teach? Rather, if it does not refer to the matter of redeeming the firstborn of an unclean animal, apply it to the matter that one may consecrate an unclean animal for Temple upkeep and redeem it from that consecration. They raised a question: may one redeem with a ben pekua [an animal removed alive from its slaughtered mother's womb]? According to Rabbi Meir there is no question for you, since he says a ben pekua requires its own slaughtering, so it is a fully valid lamb. The question is according to the Sages, who say the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted: what then? Since the Sages said the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted, is it like mere meat in a basket? Or perhaps, since it runs about, we may still call it a lamb? Mar Zutra said: one may not redeem with it. Rav Ashi said: one may redeem with it. Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: what is your reasoning - that you derive "lamb, lamb" from the Passover offering? If so, just as there it must be a male, unblemished, and a year old, so too here it must be a male, unblemished, and a year old. And "you shall redeem, you shall redeem" comes to include more. But if "you shall redeem, you shall redeem" includes more, then even all kinds of things should be valid! If so, what purpose does "lamb, lamb" serve for you?

"And if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck" (Exodus 13:13). From here they said: the commandment of redemption takes precedence over the commandment of breaking the neck. The commandment of designating [a Hebrew maidservant as a wife] takes precedence over the commandment of redeeming her, as it says, "who has not designated her, then he shall let her be redeemed" (Exodus 21:8). The commandment of levirate marriage took precedence over the commandment of chalitzah in earlier times, when they intended it for the sake of the commandment; now that they do not intend it for the sake of the commandment, they said the commandment of chalitzah takes precedence over the commandment of levirate marriage. The commandment of redemption by the [original] owner takes precedence over redemption by any other person, as it says, "And if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold at your valuation" (Leviticus 27:27). "And every firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb" (Exodus 13:13). Rabbi Chanina said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer in the great house of study, why are the firstlings of donkeys different from the firstlings of horses and camels? He said to me: it is a decree of Scripture; and furthermore, because they assisted Israel at the time they went out of Egypt, for there was not a single one of Israel who did not have ninety Libyan donkeys laden with the silver and gold of Egypt.

"And if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck" (Exodus 13:13). From here they said: if a man does not redeem the firstling donkey, he must break its neck, for since he has destroyed the property of the priest [by withholding the lamb owed as redemption], let his own property be destroyed as well. And from where do we learn that the carcass is forbidden in benefit [that one may derive no use or profit from it]? "Breaking of the neck" is stated here, and "breaking of the neck" is stated elsewhere [regarding the heifer whose neck is broken in the case of an unsolved killing, Deuteronomy 21]. Just as the breaking of the neck stated there renders the animal forbidden in benefit, so too the breaking of the neck stated here renders the animal forbidden in benefit.

"And every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem" (Exodus 13:13). Why is this stated? Because elsewhere it says, "And those to be redeemed, from a month old you shall redeem" (Numbers 18:16), which is a general statement, and "according to your valuation, five shekels of silver," which is a particular specification. In a case of a general statement followed by a particular, the general statement includes only what is in the particular. When it then says, "And every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem," it returns and states a general rule again. Should we then say it has gathered everything back into the first general statement? You say: no. Rather, in a case of general, particular, and general, you may infer only according to the character of the particular. Just as the particular speaks explicitly of property and movable goods that carry no real-estate liability, so too the general rule applies only to such. From here they said: a firstborn son may be redeemed with anything except slaves, deeds, land, and consecrated property. Rabbi says: a firstborn son may be redeemed with anything.

Another interpretation of "And every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem" (Exodus 13:13): if a man had five firstborn sons from five wives, he is obligated to redeem all of them.

Another Explanation "And first born of your children you shall redeem" (Exodus 13:13) Where [is this law sourced:] If his father did not redeem him, he should redeem himself. [We are] taught to say: "And all first born of my sons I will redeem" (Exodus 13:15). Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says since the Torah said "Redeem your sons" and "Teach your sons Torah", if you learn regarding the study of Torah that if his father did not teach him he teaches himself. So to if [his father] did not redeem him he is obligated to redeem himself. [This is] not [so] if you said regarding the study of Torah that it is equal in weight to everything such that if his father did not teach him [Torah] he teaches himself. You should say regarding redemption that it is not equal in weight to everything therefore if his father did not redeem him he should not redeem himself. Behold circumcision will prove that it is not equal in weight to everything for if his father did not circumcise him he circumcises himself. So to if his father did not redeem him he should redeem himself. [This is] not [so] if you said regarding circumcision [that one who is not circumcised] is cut off [from the Jewish people] that if his father did not circumcise him he circumcises himself. You should say regarding redemption that [one who is not redeemed] is cut off [from the Jewish people] therefore if he was not redeemed he should not redeem himself. You said explain. [From] a general principal all three can be understood. Circumcision is not like Torah study and Torah study is not like circumcision and neither of them are like redemption and redemption is like neither of them. The common element between them is that they are all a command for the father to do for his son [but] if the father did not do for his son the son shall do for himself. Accordingly anything that is a command for the father to do for his son [but] if the father did not do for his son the son shall do for himself. From here they said a person is obligated from the Torah to circumcise his son, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a craft and to marry him off. Rabbi Akiva says even to teach him to swim. Rebbi says even manners. "It will be when your son will ask you tomorrow saying" (Exodus 13:14) there is 'tomorrow' now [literally the next day] and there is 'tomorrow' after a [long] time. "Tomorrow the sign shall come to pass" (Exodus 8:19) this is tomorrow now. "Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill" (Exodus 17:9) This is 'tomorrow' now. "Tomorrow your children will say to our children" (Joshua 22:24) This is 'tomorrow' after a [long] time. "What mean the decrees, laws and rules" (Deuteronomy 6:20) is found to be saying they are four sons: one wise, one simple, one wicked, and one who does not know to ask. The wise one what does he say? "What are the decrees, laws and rules etc." Accordingly you say to him about the laws of Passover and say to him "We do not have desert after the Passover sacrifice" (Mishna Pesachim 10:8). The simple one What does he say? "What is this?" You shall say to him "With a strong hand he took us out" (Exodus 13:14). The wicked one What does he say? What is this work for you? For you and not for him and because he takes himself out of the collective his is a heretic Accordingly you take him out of the collective and say to him "It is because of what the LORD did for me when I went free from Egypt." (Exodus 13:8) for me and not for him if he was there [in Egypt] he would not have been freed. And the one who does not know to ask you open for him as it says "You shall tell your son on that day" (ibid).

"What are the testimonies, the statutes, and the ordinances?" (Deuteronomy 6:20). You find yourself saying: there are four sons, one wise and one foolish and one wicked and one who does not know how to ask. What does the wise one say? "What are the testimonies, the statutes, and the ordinances?" and so on. You too should tell him, in accord with the laws of the Passover, that one does not conclude after the Passover offering with an afikoman [a festive dessert or revelry that breaks up the gathering]. What does the foolish one say? "What is this?" (Exodus 13:14). And you shall say to him, "With a strong hand the LORD brought us out." What does the wicked one say? "What is this service to you?" (Exodus 12:26). "To you" and not to himself. And because he removed himself from the community, he denied the essential principle. You too should remove him from the community and say to him, "Because of this the LORD did for me when I went out of Egypt" (Exodus 13:8): "for me" and not for him; had he been there, he would not have been redeemed. And the one who does not know how to ask, you must open for him, as it is said, "And you shall tell your child on that day" (Exodus 13:8). Another interpretation of "What are the testimonies and the statutes": Rabbi Eliezer says, from where do you say that if a company of Torah scholars was gathered, they are required to sit and occupy themselves with the laws of the Passover until midnight? For this reason it is said, "What are the testimonies, the statutes, and the ordinances," and so on.

"And it came to pass, when Pharaoh stubbornly refused" (Exodus 13:15). I might understand this to mean of his own accord; therefore the text teaches, "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh." "And the LORD slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt," and so on. From here the sages said: we sacrifice the firstborn of cattle corresponding to the firstborn of cattle [that died in Egypt], and we redeem the firstborn of man corresponding to the firstborn of man. "And it shall be for a sign upon your hand" (Exodus 13:16). In four places the passage of the tefillin is mentioned: "Sanctify to Me every firstborn," "And it shall be when the LORD brings you," "Hear, O Israel," and "And it shall be if you hearken." From here they said: the commandment of tefillin consists of four passages, which are the four compartments of the headpiece, and these are they: "Sanctify to Me every firstborn," "And it shall be when He brings you," "Hear," and "And it shall be if you hearken." One writes them in their proper order, and if one wrote them out of their order, they must be hidden away [as unfit for use].

This is what Scripture said: "Wise of heart and mighty in strength, who has hardened himself against Him and remained whole?" (Job 9:4). The generation of the Flood hardened themselves against Him; He swept them away in the waters. The generation of the Dispersion hardened themselves against Him; He scattered them throughout the whole world. The men of Sodom hardened themselves against Him; what was their end? "And the LORD rained down upon Sodom" (Genesis 19:24). Pharaoh said, "I do not know the LORD" (Exodus 5:2), and the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Send out My people" (Exodus 5:1). And Pharaoh hardened himself against Him, as it says, "And it came to pass when Pharaoh stubbornly refused." Once the plague of the firstborn came, immediately he sent them out. Therefore it is said, "And it came to pass when Pharaoh sent out" (Exodus 13:17).

"Say to God, How awesome are Your deeds" (Psalms 66:3). Say to the good Worker, well done. "How awesome are Your deeds," how fearsome are these contrivances of Yours: those who are slain slay their slayers, those who are hanged hang their hangers, and those sunk in the sea sink those who sank them. "Through the greatness of Your strength Your enemies come cringing to You" (Psalms 66:3): they shall lie and be made into cringing, fawning enemies. Nebuchadnezzar said, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego" (Daniel 3:28). Sennacherib said, "Who among all the gods of the lands" and so on (II Kings 18:35); he did not move from there until he was made to recant, as it says, "And he returned in shame of face to his own land" (II Chronicles 32:21). Pharaoh said, "I do not know the LORD" (Exodus 5:2), and he was made into one who recants, as it says, "The LORD is the righteous one" (Exodus 9:27). He said, "And also Israel I will not send out" (Exodus 5:2), yet he himself sent them out, as it says, "And it came to pass when Pharaoh sent out the people." "When the LORD favors a man's ways" (Proverbs 16:7), these are Israel, of whom it is written, "every man of Israel" (Deuteronomy 29:9). "He makes even his enemies be at peace with him," this is Pharaoh, of whom it is written, "The enemy said" (Exodus 15:9). Therefore it is said, "And it came to pass when Pharaoh sent out the people."

Who cried "Woe"? The Holy One, blessed be He, cried "Woe." To what may the matter be compared? To a king whose son was taken captive. He clothed himself in garments of vengeance against his enemies, and he went and brought him back. He took the captor and hung him on the gallows and began to torment him, saying to him, "Why did you do such a thing to my son?" While he was tormenting him, the captor began to confess and acknowledge [the king]. The king said, "Woe, that this one has acknowledged me! I was seeking to torment him much, and now he has confessed." Immediately he granted him a discharge. So too Pharaoh enslaved Israel in Egypt, and the plagues began to come upon him. And when he sent them out, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Woe, that Pharaoh has sent them out," as it is said, "And it came to pass when Pharaoh sent out the people."

Another interpretation: Who cried "Woe"? Pharaoh cried "Woe." To what may this be compared? To a man who owned tracts of land and sold them for a trifling price. The buyer went and built upon them chests and towers and many fine things. When the seller saw this, he said, "Woe to that man! What did he sell away!" So it was with Pharaoh. Israel had been enslaved to him with mortar and bricks, and they were not recognized as being a nation. But once Israel left Egypt and came and were arrayed as tribal banners at the sea, Pharaoh went out and saw them formed into banners, and he began to cry "Woe!" Thus it is written, "And it came to pass when Pharaoh let the people go" (Exodus 13:17).

Another interpretation: Who cried "Woe"? The Egyptians cried "Woe." To what may this be compared? To a physician who lived in a city, and when a man was wounded he would heal him. When the physician left the city, the city's residents began to cry "Woe." So it was in Egypt: when a plague came upon Egypt, the people would come to Moses and beg of him, and he would pray and heal the plague. When Israel left Egypt, the Egyptians said, "Woe, that Pharaoh sent them away." Another interpretation: The Canaanites cried "Woe." To what may this be compared? To a king who had a young son and owned an estate, and he wished to set out for a country across the sea. He told a certain tenant-farmer to guard it and to eat of its produce until his son came of age. When the king's son grew up, he demanded the estate, and immediately the tenant-farmer began to cry "Woe." So it was: Israel were in Egypt, and the Canaanites were dwelling in and guarding the Land of Israel and eating of its fruits. Once they heard that Israel had left Egypt, they began to cry "Woe." "And it came to pass when Pharaoh let the people go" (Exodus 13:17).

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught a parable: of a man who inherited property in a country across the sea. He had a lazy heir who rose up and sold it for a trifle. The buyer went and dug and found a hidden treasure in it and built a palace upon it, and he would walk through the marketplace with attendants before him and attendants behind him. The seller began to choke with grief. Rabbi Yose the Galilean said: To what may this be compared? To a man who inherited a field of a kor's measure and sold it for a trifle. The buyer went and opened springs in it and planted gardens and trees and orchards, and the seller began to choke. So it happened to the Egyptians, who sent Israel away and did not know what they were sending. Concerning them it is stated explicitly in tradition, "Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates" (Song of Songs 4:13). Rabbi Yishmael taught a parable: To what may this be compared? To a king who said to his servant, "Go and bring me a fish from the market." He went and brought him a rotten fish. The king said to him, "By your life, one of three things you shall not escape: either you eat it, or you receive a hundred lashes, or you pay a fine." He said, "I will eat it." He had not finished eating before he gagged and said, "I will take the lashes." He had not finished fifty before he said, "I will pay the fine." Thus he was found eating the fish, and being lashed, and paying the fine. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Pharaoh: "Wicked one, by your life, ten beatings you shall receive"; these are the ten plagues; "and a fine you shall pay," "and they despoiled Egypt" (Exodus 12:36); "and Israel you shall send forth." Therefore it is said, "And it came to pass when Pharaoh let the people go."

"Did He strike him as He struck those who struck him?" (Isaiah 27:7). Rabbi Yehuda says: with the very stick by which the Egyptians struck Israel, they were themselves struck. Rabbi Nechemiah says: with the very sword by which they struck Israel, they were struck. "In full measure, by sending her away, You contend with her" (Isaiah 27:8). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: by the measure with which a person measures, it is measured out to him. "By sending her away You contend with her": he was first stricken and afterward sent them away. Therefore it is said, "And it came to pass when Pharaoh let go." This is what Scripture says: "Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates" (Song of Songs 4:13). A parable of a king who had grown daughters and did not get around to marrying them off, and he went to a country across the sea and stayed many years. The daughters arose and took matters into their own hands and married honorable men, and each one took her husband's seal and his signet. After some time the king returned and heard people slandering his daughters, saying that the king's daughters had been unchaste. What did he do? He issued a proclamation and said, "Let all the people go out to the assembly square." He called his first son-in-law and said, "Who are you?" He said, "Your son-in-law." He brought out his seal. The king said, "Whose is this?" He said, "Mine." He brought out his signet. "Whose is this?" "Mine." And so with the second, and so with the third. The king said, "My daughters took matters into their own hands and married, and you say my daughters were unchaste!" So it was: because the nations of the world taunted Israel, saying they were the children of the Egyptians, and saying, "If the Egyptians ruled over the lives of Israel, how much more over their wives," Rabbi Oshaya said: at that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, called to the angel appointed over conception and said, "Form the features of the child in the likeness of its fathers." This is what is written, "To Reuben, the family of the Reubenites; to Simeon, the family of the Simeonites" (see Numbers 26:7,14). Rabbi Marinus son of Rabbi Oshaya said: like a man who says, "my son, my image, my likeness." Rav Idi said: the letter that begins the word [heh] and the letter that ends it [yod] spell "Yah," testifying about them that they are the children of their fathers. The rabbis said: "a locked garden" (Song of Songs 4:12) refers to the unmarried women; "a locked spring" refers to the married women; "a sealed fountain" refers to the males. It was taught in the name of Rabbi Natan: "a locked garden, a locked spring" twice, meaning kept pure in the natural way and against the unnatural way. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Chiyya: Sarah came down to Egypt and fenced herself off from immorality, and all the women were kept pure by her merit. Abraham went down to Egypt and fenced himself off from immorality, and all the men were kept pure by his merit. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said: the fencing-off from immorality was worthy enough that Israel should be redeemed from Egypt by its merit. Rav Huna in the name of Bar Kappara: by the merit of four things Israel was redeemed from Egypt. They did not change their names: Reuben and Simeon went down, and Reuben and Simeon came up. They did not change their language, "for it is my mouth that speaks to you" (Genesis 45:12), in the holy tongue he was speaking. They were not given to slander, "Speak now in the ears of the people, and let them ask" (Exodus 11:2); you find that the matter was entrusted to them for twelve months and not one of them was found who informed against his fellow. And they were not loose in matters of immorality; know this, for there was a single woman and Scripture publicized her, as it is said, "and his mother's name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan" (Leviticus 24:11). Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Chiyya: by the merit that they fenced themselves off from immorality, by that merit "your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates," [read it as] "those you send forth." Therefore it is said, "And it came to pass when [Pharaoh] sent forth." The word "sending" everywhere means escorting, as it is said, "and Abraham went with them to escort them" (Genesis 18:16), "and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace" (Genesis 26:31). The mouth that said, "I will not send Israel away either," is the mouth that said, "I will send you away" (Exodus 8:24); and what reward did they take for this? "You shall not abhor an Egyptian" (Deuteronomy 23:8). The mouth that said, "I do not know the LORD" (Exodus 5:2), is the mouth that said, "Let me flee from before Israel" (Exodus 14:25); and what reward did they take for this? "On that day there shall be an altar to the LORD" (Isaiah 19:19). The mouth that said, "Who is the LORD that I should heed His voice" (Exodus 5:2), is the mouth that said, "The LORD is righteous" (Exodus 9:27); and what reward did they take, that they were given a place of burial, as it is said, "You stretched out Your right hand" (Exodus 15:12). "And God did not lead them": "leading" everywhere means guiding, as it is said, "You led Your people like a flock" (Psalms 77:21), and it is written, "He guided them with a cloud by day and all the night with the light of fire" (Psalms 78:14).

Another interpretation: "And God did not let them be comforted." Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the prophet, "Son of man, wail over the multitude of Egypt and bring it down" (Ezekiel 32:18), Pharaoh began to boast, saying, "I will go down to be among them." He said to him, "Whom do you surpass in pleasantness?" (Ezekiel 32:19) "From whom are you more beautiful? Are you better than the king of Assyria, or than the king of Tyre and Sidon?" "Go down and be laid with the uncircumcised... There is Assyria and all her assembly... there is Elam and all her multitude... there is Meshech, Tubal, and all her multitude... there Edom, her kings and all her princes... there the princes of the north" (Ezekiel 32:21-30). At that hour Pharaoh would see them and be consoled, as it is said, "Pharaoh shall see them and be comforted" (Ezekiel 32:31). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Pharaoh, you are comforted, but I am not comforted over what you did to My children." "And God did not let them be comforted."

Another interpretation: "And God did not let them be comforted." Even though Israel had left Egypt, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not accept consolation over the sons of Ephraim who were killed, who calculated the appointed end and erred and went out thirty years before the end. For they reckoned it from the covenant between the pieces, but the end was from when Isaac was born. A parable of a king who was marrying off his son, and in the midst of the wedding canopy one of his sons died. He said, "It is impossible for me to rejoice, because of my dead son, and it is impossible for me to mourn, because of the joy of my living son." What did he do? He began to dance with one hand and lament with the other. Thus, "and He did not let them be comforted."

Another interpretation: "And God did not lead them" in the way of all the earth. The way of the world is that a servant carries his master; does a master carry his servant? But the Holy One, blessed be He, did not deal with them so, rather "in the wilderness which you saw, where the LORD your God carried you" (Deuteronomy 1:31), and it says, "I bore you on eagles' wings" (Exodus 19:4). The way of the world is that water comes from above and bread from below; but here the bread was from above and the water from below. The bread from above: "Behold, I will rain down for you bread from heaven" (Exodus 16:4). And the water from below: "Then Israel sang this song: Spring up, O well" (Numbers 21:17). The way of the world is that a student carries the lamp and walks before the master; but here, "the pillar of cloud did not depart by day" (Exodus 13:22). The way of the world is that a student clothes the master; but here, "I clothed you with embroidery" (Ezekiel 16:10); Rabbi Simon says: with royal purple. The way of the world is that a student puts shoes on the master; but here, "I shod you with fine leather" (Ezekiel 16:10). The way of the world is that the master sleeps while the student stands over him; but here, "Behold, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps" (Psalms 121:4). And why all this? "Because it was near" (Exodus 13:17), as it is said, "to the children of Israel, a people near to Him" (Psalms 148:14). The way of the Philistines: "because it was near" (Exodus 13:17) the matter that the Omnipresent had said to Moses, "When you bring the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God" (Exodus 3:12).

Another interpretation: "because it was near" (Exodus 13:17): the road for returning to Egypt was near, as it is said, "a journey of three days" (Exodus 5:3).

Another interpretation: "for it was near" (Exodus 13:17). Near was the oath that Abraham our father swore to Abimelech, "now therefore swear to me here by God" (Genesis 21:23) and so forth, and his grandson was still alive. [Therefore Israel could not yet pass through the land of the Philistines, since the oath of nonaggression had not yet expired.]