Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

All those who swear by Torah law swear and do not pay. From where do we know this? For the verse says, "and its owner shall accept it and he shall not make restitution" (Exodus 22:10) - the one upon whom it falls to pay, to him belongs the oath. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: if one says "I have a maneh in your hand," and the other says "you have nothing in my hand," and he swore, and then witnesses came, he is exempt, for it says "and its owner shall accept it and he shall not make restitution" - once the owner has accepted an oath, they no longer pay money. Rava said: Rav Huna's statement stands to reason in the case of a loan, which is given to be spent, but a deposit stands in the domain of its owner. And Rav said: even in the case of a deposit, for when the verse was written, it was written about a deposit. But Rav cited a verse! The verse comes to teach the rule that all who swear by Torah law swear and do not pay.

"If it is indeed stolen from him" (Exodus 22:11). There are four guardians: the unpaid guardian, the borrower, the paid bailee, and the renter. The unpaid guardian swears for everything. The borrower pays for everything. The paid bailee and the renter swear concerning what was broken, what was captured, and what died, and they pay for theft and loss. From where are these matters derived? For the rabbis taught: the first passage was stated regarding an unpaid guardian, the second regarding a paid guardian, the third regarding a borrower. Granted that the third concerns a borrower, since it is written "and if a man borrows from his neighbor" (Exodus 22:13). But that the first concerns an unpaid guardian and the second a paid guardian - let me reverse it! It stands to reason that the second concerns a paid guardian, since he is liable for theft and loss. On the contrary, the first concerns a paid guardian, since he pays double payment in the case of one who pleads the claim of a thief. Even so, principal without an oath is preferable to double payment with an oath. Know this, for the borrower has all the benefit and yet pays only the principal. And the borrower has all the benefit - but he must provide its food! In a case where it stands in the marsh. But it requires guarding! In a case where one guards the town. And if you wish, say most of the benefit is his. And if you wish, say it concerns the borrowing of vessels. "The paid bailee and the renter pay for theft and loss": granted theft, since it is written "if it is indeed stolen," but loss, from where? For it was taught: "if it is indeed stolen" - I would know only theft; loss, from where? Scripture says "if it is indeed stolen" - in any case. This works well for the one who says we do not say the Torah spoke in human language, but for the one who says the Torah spoke in human language, what is there to say? They say in the West: it is a kal vachomer - if for theft, which is close to accident, he pays, then for loss, which is close to negligence, all the more so. And the other holds: a matter that comes through a kal vachomer, Scripture nonetheless took the trouble to write it. "And the borrower pays for everything": granted the broken and the dead, since it is written "and if a man borrows... and it is hurt or dies" (Exodus 22:13); from where do we know a captured animal regarding a borrower? And if you say let us learn it from the broken and dead - what is special about the broken and dead is that they are an accident that comes to mind, whereas you might say of the captured that it is an accident that does not come to mind. Rather, "broken and dead" are stated regarding a borrower and "broken and dead" are stated regarding a paid guardian; just as there a captured animal is included with him, so too here. This can be refuted: what is special about a paid guardian is that it is for exemption, whereas you might say of a borrower it is for liability. Rabbi Natan taught: the word "or" (Exodus 22:13) comes to include the captured. But this "or" is needed to separate the cases, for you might have thought he is not liable until it is both broken and dead! This works well for Rabbi Yonatan, but for Rabbi Yoshiya what is there to say? For it was taught regarding "any man who curses his father" (Leviticus 20:9) and so forth. Even according to Rabbi Yoshiya, here no verse is needed to separate the cases - it is logic: what difference is there to me whether he killed all of it or half of it? As for theft and loss regarding a borrower, from where do we know it? And if you say let us learn from the broken and dead - what is special about the broken and dead is that it was impossible to make the effort to bring it, whereas with theft and loss it is possible to make the effort to bring it. Rather, it is from what was taught: "and it is hurt or dies" - I would know only the broken and dead; theft and loss, from where? You say a kal vachomer: if a paid guardian, who is exempt for the broken and dead, is liable for theft and loss, then a borrower, who is liable for the broken and dead, is it not logical that he is liable for theft and loss? And this is a kal vachomer to which there is no rebuttal. And if you say there is room to refute - what is special about a paid guardian is that he pays double payment when he pleads the claim of brigands - either say principal without an oath is preferable, or hold that an armed brigand is a robber. We have found liability; from where do we know exemption? The verse says "and if a man borrows": the vav adds to the earlier matter, so that the upper case is learned from the lower and the lower from the upper.

"If it is indeed torn, let him bring it as evidence; he shall not pay for that which was torn" (Exodus 22:12). It was taught: "if it is indeed torn, let him bring it as evidence" - let him bring witnesses that it was torn by accident, and he is exempt. Abba Shaul says: let him bring the torn carcass to the court, and so forth. All agree that the depreciation of the carcass belongs to the injured party; here they differ about the labor of handling the carcass. But was it not taught: Others say, from where do we know that the owner of the pit must raise the ox from his pit? Scripture says, "he shall return money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his" (Exodus 21:34). Abaye said to Rava: what is the case? If we say the carcass in the pit is worth a zuz and bound up out of the pit it is worth four, then when he labors he labors for his own benefit! He said to him: no, it is necessary in a case where the carcass in the pit is worth a zuz and bound up it is also worth only a zuz. But is there such a case? Yes, for people say: an ox in the town goes for a zuz, an ox in the field goes for a zuz.

"And if a man borrows" (Exodus 22:13). Rava said: it goes without saying that if the flesh wasted away through labor he is exempt; but even if it died through labor he is exempt, for he did not borrow it merely to set it in a canopy. Rava said: one who wishes to borrow something and be exempt should say to the lender, "Give me a drink of water," so the owner is engaged in his service. And if the other is clever, he should say to him, "First pull the object into your possession." If one borrows the cow and borrows its owner along with it, or rents the cow and rents its owner along with it, or borrows the owner or rents him and afterward borrows the cow and it dies, he is exempt, as it says, "if its owner is with it, he shall not make restitution" (Exodus 22:14). But if he borrowed the cow and afterward borrowed the owner or rented him, and it died, he is liable, as it says, "its owner is not with it, he shall surely pay." Since the latter clause teaches "and afterward," it follows that the first clause, which teaches "with it," means literally with it. How can you find such a case - the cow acquired by pulling and the owner engaged by mere speech? If you wish, say it is where the cow stands in the borrower's courtyard, so that no act of pulling is lacking. And if you wish, say it is where the owner said to him, "You yourself are not borrowed to me until the moment you pull my cow." It was stated: regarding negligence in a case where the owner is engaged, Rav Acha and Ravina disagree; one says he is liable and one says he is exempt. The one who says liable holds that a verse is expounded together with what precedes it but not with what precedes that. The one who says exempt holds that a verse is expounded together with what precedes it and what precedes that, and so forth. From the implication of what is said, "if its owner is with it he shall not make restitution," I do not yet know that "its owner is not with it, he shall surely pay"; rather it comes to tell you that if he was with him at the time of the breaking and death, he needed to be with him at the time of borrowing. And another teaching: from "its owner is not with it, he shall surely pay" I do not yet know that "if its owner is with it he shall not make restitution"; rather it comes to tell you that if he left the lender's domain even one hour while in the owner's service and it died, he is exempt - for even though the owner is doing work with him in another place and it died, he is exempt. Abaye holds like Rabbi Yoshiya and resolves the verses accordingly; Rava holds like Rabbi Yonatan and resolves the verses accordingly. And should I reverse it? It stands to reason that borrowing is the stricter case, since the borrower is liable even for its food. Rav Ashi said: the verse says "and if a man borrows from his neighbor" - and not while his neighbor is with him - "he shall surely pay"; but if his neighbor is with him, he is exempt. If so, why do I need "its owner with him" and "its owner not with him"? Were it not for those clauses I would have said this is simply the manner of Scripture.

"The owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution" (Exodus 22:10). From here the Sages said: the owner of the carcass must deal with his own carcass. Regarding the verse above, "If it be stolen" (Exodus 22:11), this speaks of the paid keeper, and the earlier verse speaks of the unpaid keeper. Or perhaps this is the unpaid keeper and the earlier verse is the paid keeper? You may reason it out: since the hired worker is liable and the keeper is liable, just as the hired worker is one who derives benefit, so too the keeper of whom Scripture speaks here is one who derives benefit; this excludes the unpaid keeper, who derives no benefit. "If it be stolen" (Exodus 22:11) tells me only of theft; from where do I learn loss? You may reason it out: since theft is a failure of guarding and loss is a failure of guarding, if you have learned about theft that he must make restitution, so too for loss he must make restitution. "If it be stolen" - Rabbi Yose the Galilean says this comes to include the lost item. "From him" (Exodus 22:11) excludes the herdsman's helper; "from him" comes to include the chief herdsman. "If it be torn in pieces" (Exodus 22:12) - this refers to a beast mauled while still alive [eduro], the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. And although there is no proof for the matter, there is a reminder of it: "Thus said the LORD: As the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion" and so on (Amos 3:12). Rav Acha bar Yoshiyah says: "If it be torn in pieces" - let him bring witnesses that it was torn and he shall be exempt. Rabbi Yonatan says: "let him bring it as a witness, the torn beast" (Exodus 22:12) - let him bring the owner to the torn carcass, and he shall be exempt from paying. Or perhaps even so he should be liable? And reason would support it: since loss is a failure of guarding and a tearing is a failure of guarding, if you have learned about loss that he must make restitution, so too for a tearing he must make restitution. No. You may say: from the implication of what is stated, "the torn beast he shall not make restitution" (Exodus 22:12), there is a tearing for which he does pay and a tearing for which he does not pay. And which is the tearing for which he is liable to pay? Such as a tearing by a cat, a fox, or a marten. And since the Torah said "if it be torn," just as the specified tearing is one from which he could have rescued it and he is liable to pay, so too for anything he could have rescued he is liable to pay. And which is the tearing for which he is exempt from paying? Such as a tearing by a wolf, a lion, a bear, a leopard, a snake, or a hyena. And since the Torah said "and it die," just as the specified death is one from which it was impossible for him to rescue it and he is exempt, so too for anything from which it is impossible to rescue it he is exempt from paying.

"And if a man borrow from his neighbor" (Exodus 22:13). Scripture has detached the borrower from the general category of keeper and made him a matter unto himself. "From his neighbor" teaches that he is not liable until he removes it from the owner's domain. "If it be a hired thing, it came for its hire" (Exodus 22:14). I might hear that he swears and is exempt. You may reason it out: since the bailee for hire derives benefit and the hired worker derives benefit, if you have learned about the bailee for hire that he swears regarding cases of compulsion but pays for theft and loss, so too the hired worker swears regarding cases of compulsion and pays for theft and loss. But let the unpaid keeper serve as proof: he provides benefit yet is exempt from paying; let him prove the case of the hirer, that even though he provides benefit he should be exempt. You may answer: there is a distinction. Since the bailee for hire both derives benefit and provides benefit, and the hired worker both derives benefit and provides benefit, if you have learned about the bailee for hire that he swears regarding cases of compulsion and pays for theft and loss, so too the hired worker swears regarding cases of compulsion and pays for theft and loss. And let the unpaid keeper not serve as proof, for he provides benefit but does not derive benefit, whereas the hirer both derives benefit and provides benefit. Therefore it is stated, "if it be a hired thing, it came for its hire."

"And if a man seduce a virgin" (Exodus 22:15-16). Scripture comes to teach about the seduced woman, that he pays a fine on her account. And reason would support this on its own: since the woman who was seized is in her father's domain, and the seduced woman is in her father's domain, if you have learned about the seized woman that he pays a fine on her account, so too for the seduced woman he should pay a fine on her account. No. If you have said this about the seized woman, where the offender acted against her will and against her father's will, and therefore he pays a fine on her account, would you say the same about the seduced woman, where he acted only against her father's will, and therefore he should not pay a fine on her account? Thus, because I could not derive it from reasoning, Scripture had to come and state it explicitly.

"Who is not betrothed" (Exodus 22:15) excludes a young woman who was betrothed and then divorced, who has no fine; the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says she does have a fine, and her fine goes to her father. And reason supports it: since her father is entitled to the money of her betrothal and her father is entitled to the money of her fine, just as the money of her betrothal goes to her father even though she was betrothed and divorced, so too the money of her fine. If so, what does Scripture teach by saying "who is not betrothed"? It is left available to derive from it a gezeira shava [a verbal analogy]. It says here "who is not betrothed," and it says there "who is not betrothed" (Deuteronomy 22:28); just as here the sum is fifty, so there it is fifty, and just as there the coin is shekels, so here it is shekels. And as for Rabbi Akiva: what did you see to make "who is not betrothed" the source of the analogy and "virgin" the term that excludes a non-virgin? Say rather that "virgin" is the source of the analogy and "who is not betrothed" excludes the young woman who was betrothed and divorced. The answer: this one had her body altered [the divorced woman], and that one did not have her body altered. And Rabbi Yose the Galilean derives the sum from "he shall weigh out silver," that this should be like the bride-price of virgins and the bride-price of virgins like this. Abaye said: if he came upon her and she died, he is exempt, for it is stated, "and he shall give to the father of the young woman" (Deuteronomy 22:29), and not to the father of a dead woman. Rava asked Abaye: if he came upon her and she then became betrothed, what is the law? He said to him: is it written, "and he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not betrothed"? But by your reasoning, what of the teaching that if he came upon her and she married, her fine goes to herself; is it written, "and he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not married"? It is different there: since reaching maturity removes her from her father's domain and marriage removes her from her father's domain, just as with maturity, if he came upon her and she matured, the fine goes to herself, so too with marriage, if he came upon her and she married, it goes to herself. But betrothal does not remove her entirely from her father's domain, as we learned: regarding the betrothed young woman, her father and her husband annul her vows. Whether in the case of the rapist or the seducer, both she and her father can withhold consent. Granted the seducer, for it is written, "if her father utterly refuse" (Exodus 22:16) - I have only her father; from where do I learn that she herself may refuse? Scripture states "refuse, he refuse," implying in any case. But as for the rapist, granted that she may withhold, for it is written, "and she shall be his wife" (Deuteronomy 22:29), by her consent; but from where do we learn that her father may withhold? Abaye said: so that the sinner not be rewarded. Rava said: by an a fortiori argument. If the seducer, who acted only against the father's will, can be blocked by both her and her father, then the rapist, who acted against both her father's will and her own, all the more so. Rava did not say as Abaye, because since the rapist pays, he is not a sinner who is rewarded. Abaye did not say as Rava, for in the case of the seducer, who himself may withhold, her father too may withhold; whereas the rapist, who himself may not withhold, perhaps her father too may not withhold. The rapist drinks from his cracked pot [must keep her]; but the seducer, if he wishes to send her away, may send her away. Rava of Pirzakya said to Rav Ashi: since they are derived one from another, let them be derived one from another for this matter too. He answered: the verse states, "he shall surely endow her to be his wife" (Exodus 22:15), by his own consent. How does he drink from his cracked pot? Even if she is lame, even if she is blind, even if she is stricken with boils. But if something indecent is found in her, or she is unfit to enter the congregation, [he does not keep her]. Where do we say a positive commandment comes and overrides a negative one? Such as circumcision in a case of leprosy, where it is impossible to fulfill the positive commandment otherwise. But here, if she says "I do not want him," is there any positive commandment at all?

"If he utterly refuse" (Exodus 22:16) comes to include the orphan girl for the fine, in a case where he came upon her and afterward she was orphaned. "He shall weigh out silver according to the bride-price of virgins" (Exodus 22:16) - that this should be like the bride-price of virgins, and the bride-price of virgins like this. From here they supported the marriage contract of a woman as deriving from the Torah; the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. But the Sages say: the marriage contract of a woman is not from the words of the Torah but from the words of the Scribes. Rabbi Akiva says: from where do we learn that the fine applies even if she was widowed, even if she was divorced? Reason supports it: since he is entitled to annul her vows and entitled to the money of her fine, and so on. "He shall surely endow her to be his wife" - why is this stated? Because it says, "and the man who lay with her shall give" (Deuteronomy 22:29). I might hear that just as with the seized woman he gives at once, so with the seduced woman he gives at once. Scripture states, "he shall surely endow her to be his wife," teaching that he establishes for her a bride-price, and a bride-price is nothing other than a marriage contract, as it is stated, "increase upon me greatly the bride-price and the gift" (Genesis 34:12). "He shall surely endow her to be his wife" - Scripture speaks of a woman fit for him, to exclude a widow to a high priest, a divorcee or a chalutzah to an ordinary priest, a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman to an Israelite, an Israelite woman to a mamzer or a Gibeonite. "If he utterly refuse" teaches that if the father wishes, he may uphold the marriage, and if the father wishes, he may send her out. From where do I learn the seized woman? You may reason it out: since the seized woman is in her father's domain, and so on. If you have learned about the seduced woman that if the father wishes he upholds and if the father wishes he sends out, so too the seized woman: if the father wishes he upholds, if the father wishes he sends out. And further, by an a fortiori argument: if the seduced woman, where he acted only against her father's will, and so on. "He shall weigh out silver" - but we have not heard how much. I will reason: it says here "silver" and it says there "silver" (Deuteronomy 22:29); just as there it is fifty pieces of silver, so here it is fifty pieces of silver. "According to the bride-price of virgins" - this comes to teach and turns out to be itself taught: just as there it is fifty, and so on. "You shall not allow a sorceress to live" (Exodus 22:17) - this is written in remez 24 and in remez 182.

"A sorceress" (Exodus 22:17) - the same law applies to a man and to a woman. If so, why does Scripture state "a sorceress"? Because women are most often found practicing sorcery. By what death are they put to death? Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: it is stated here "you shall not allow a sorceress to live," and it is stated elsewhere "you shall not let any soul live" (Deuteronomy 20:16); just as there the death is by the sword, so here it is by the sword. Rabbi Akiva says: it is stated here "you shall not let live," and it is stated elsewhere, "whether beast or man, it shall not live" (Exodus 19:13); just as there the death is by stoning, so here it is by stoning. Rabbi Yose the Galilean said to him: I derived "you shall not let live" from "you shall not let live," while you derived "you shall not let live" from "it shall not live." Rabbi Akiva said to him: I derived an Israelite case from an Israelite case, where Scripture multiplied many forms of death among them; you derived an Israelite case from a gentile case, where Scripture multiplied only a single death among them. Ben Azzai says: it is stated, "you shall not allow a sorceress to live," and it is stated, "whoever lies with a beast" (Exodus 22:18); they placed the subjects next to one another: just as one who lies with a beast is put to death by stoning, so too the sorceress is put to death by stoning. Rabbi Yehudah said to him: shall we, merely because they placed the subjects side by side, take this one out to be stoned? Rather, the medium and the wizard were included in the general category of all sorcerers, and why were they singled out? To draw an analogy to them and tell you: just as the medium and the wizard are put to death by stoning, so the sorcerer is put to death by stoning. And according to Rabbi Yehudah as well, let the medium and the wizard be two verses that come as one, which do not teach. This says that Rabbi Yehudah holds two verses that come as one do teach.

"Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 22:18). Our Rabbis taught: "a man" excludes a minor. "Who gives his lying with a beast" - whether large or small. "He shall surely be put to death" - by stoning. Or perhaps it is by one of all the deaths stated in the Torah? It is stated here "you shall kill," and it is stated elsewhere "you shall surely kill him"; just as there it is by stoning, so here it is by stoning. We have learned the penalty for the active party; from where do we learn the penalty for the passive party? Scripture states, "whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death" - if it does not apply to the active party, apply it to the passive party. And we have learned the penalty both for the active and the passive party; from where the warning? Scripture states, "and you shall not give your lying to any beast" (Leviticus 18:23). We have learned the warning for the active party; from where the warning for the passive party? Scripture states, "there shall be no cult prostitute" (Deuteronomy 23:18), and it says, "and there was also a cult prostitute in the land" and so on (I Kings 14:24); the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: this is unnecessary, for it says, "you shall not give your lying [shekhavtekha]," read it as "you shall not give your being lain with [shekhivatekha]." And how does Rabbi Yishmael derive the warning for the one lain with by a beast? He derives it from "whoever lies with a beast": if it does not apply to the active party, apply it to the passive party; and the Merciful One expressed the passive party in the language of the active party, so that just as the active party was penalized and warned, so too the passive party was penalized and warned. Capital cases are tried before twenty-three judges. The one who has relations with a beast and the one with whom a beast has relations are tried before twenty-three, as it is stated, "and you shall kill the woman and the beast" (Leviticus 20:16), and it says, "and the beast you shall kill" (Leviticus 20:15). It is taught without distinction, whether the offender is male or female. Granted the female, as it is written, "and you shall kill the woman and the beast." But the male - from where do we learn it? As it is written, "whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death": if it does not apply to the active party, apply it to the passive party, and the Merciful One expressed it in the language of the active party; just as the active party and his beast are tried before twenty-three, so the passive party and his beast are tried before twenty-three.

Rabbi Yochanan said: Were it not for the letter vav in the word "heeluukha" ["who brought you up," plural] in the verse (Exodus 32:4), the enemies of Israel [a euphemism for Israel itself] would have been liable to utter destruction. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said to him: But surely anyone who joins the name of Heaven together with something else is uprooted from the world, as it is said, "except to the LORD alone" (Exodus 22:19). Rather, what does Scripture come to teach by saying "who brought you up" [in the plural]? That they craved many deities.

"He who sacrifices to the gods shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:19). The punishment we have heard, but the warning we have not heard. Therefore Scripture teaches, "You shall not bow down to them nor serve them" (Exodus 20:5). Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: But surely anyone who joins the name of the Omnipresent together with idol worship is liable to destruction, as it is said, "They feared the LORD and served their own gods" (2 Kings 17:33), and so forth. Some say: The Torah was given with its own letters [exactly as written], so that Israel should not say, "Since we are commanded concerning idol worship, let the idols be hidden away in pits, in trenches, and in caves [out of sight]." Therefore Scripture teaches, "upon the high mountains" and so forth (Deuteronomy 12:2) [naming where idols are destroyed], meaning upon the revealed things and not upon the hidden things.

"You shall not wrong a convert nor oppress him" (Exodus 22:20). Our Rabbis taught: One who wrongs a convert transgresses three negative commandments, as it is written, "You shall not wrong a convert," and "You shall not wrong him" (Leviticus 19:33), and "You shall not wrong one another," and a convert is included in "one another." And one who oppresses him transgresses three negative commandments, as it is written, "nor oppress him," and "You shall not oppress a convert" (Exodus 23:9), and "You shall not be to him as a creditor" (Exodus 22:24). It is taught: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says, Why did the Torah warn concerning the convert in thirty-six places? Because his inclination is prone to wrong. "For you were converts in the land of Egypt." It is taught: Rabbi Natan says, A defect that is in you, do not ascribe to your fellow. And this is what people say: One who has a hanged man in his family, let him not say to another, "Hang up the fish for me." Our Rabbis taught: "You shall not wrong one another" (Leviticus 25:17) speaks of wronging with words. Or perhaps it speaks only of wronging in money? When it says, "And if you make a sale" (Leviticus 25:14), wronging in money is already stated. How then do I fulfill "You shall not wrong one another"? It speaks of wronging with words. How so? If a man was a penitent, one must not say to him, "Remember your earlier deeds." If he was a child of converts, one must not say to him, "Remember the deeds of your fathers." If he was a convert who came to study Torah, one must not say to him, "Shall the mouth that ate carrion and torn flesh, vermin and creeping things, come to study the Torah that issued from the mouth of the Divine Presence?" If sufferings came upon him, or he was burying his children, one must not say to him as Job's companions said to Job, "Is not your fear of God your foolishness? Recall now, who that was innocent ever perished?" (Job 4:6-7). If donkey drivers were seeking grain, one must not say to them, "Go to so-and-so," knowing that he has never sold any. Rabbi Yehuda says: One must not even make a show of pricing goods when he has no money to buy, for the matter is given over to the heart, and concerning it Scripture says, "and you shall fear" (Leviticus 25:17). Rabbi Yochanan said: Wronging with words is greater than wronging in money, for of this it is said "and you shall fear your God," and of that it is not said "and you shall fear." Rabbi Elazar says: This [words] affects his very person, and that [money] affects his property. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said: This [money] can be repaid, and that [words] cannot be repaid. A reciter taught before Rav Nachman: One who whitens his fellow's face in public, it is as though he sheds his blood. He said to him: You have spoken well, for one can see how the red departs and the white comes. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West [the Land of Israel], what are they most careful about? He said to him: About whitening faces. Rav Chanan said: All who descend to Gehinnom come up again, except three who descend and do not come up: one who gives his fellow a bad name, one who whitens his fellow's face in public, and one who consorts with a married woman. Is the one who gives a bad name not the same as one who whitens the face? Even so, since he is habituated to it [the slander persists]. A man should always be careful about wronging his wife, for since her tears are ready, wronging her is grave.

"You shall not wrong a convert" (Exodus 22:20) with words; "nor oppress him" with money. And do not say to him, "Yesterday you were worshiping Bel, Koros, and Nebo, and until now there is pig's flesh between your teeth, and you stand and speak against me!" And from where do we learn that if you wronged him, he too can wrong you? As it is said, "For you were converts." Beloved are the converts, for in every place He warns concerning them: "You shall not wrong a convert," "You shall not oppress a convert" (Exodus 23:9), "You shall love the convert," "for you know the soul of the convert" (Exodus 23:9). Rabbi Eliezer says: A convert, since his inclination is prone to wrong, therefore He warns concerning him in many places. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Behold it says, "And those who love Him are like the sun going forth in its might." Now who is greater, one who loves the king or one whom the king loves? You must say, the one whom the king loves. And it says, "and He loves the convert, giving him" (Deuteronomy 10:18). Beloved are the converts, for in every place He calls them by the same names as Israel. Israel are called servants, as it is said, "For to Me the children of Israel are servants" (Leviticus 25:55), and the converts are called servants: "and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants." Israel are called ministers, as it is said, "And you shall be called the priests of the LORD, the ministers of our God," and the converts are called ministers: "and the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD to minister to Him" (Isaiah 56:6). Israel are called beloved, "But you, Israel, My servant," and the converts are called beloved, as it is said, "and He loves the convert, giving him bread and clothing." A covenant is stated regarding Israel, "And My covenant shall be in your flesh" (Genesis 17:13), and a covenant is stated regarding the converts, "and hold fast to My covenant." Acceptance is stated regarding Israel, "to be accepted for them" (Exodus 28:38), and acceptance is stated regarding the converts, "their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted" (Isaiah 56:7). Guarding is stated regarding Israel, "Behold, He who guards Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps," and guarding is stated regarding the converts, "The LORD guards the converts" (Psalms 146:9). Abraham called himself a convert, as it is said, "I am a convert and a resident among you" (Genesis 23:4). David called himself a convert, as it is said, "For I am a convert with You" (Psalms 39:13). Beloved are the converts: our father Abraham was not circumcised until he was ninety-nine years old, for had he been circumcised at thirty or twenty, a convert could only have converted up to the age of thirty. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, bore patiently with him until he reached ninety-nine years, so as not to lock the door before converts who would come, and to give reward for days and years, to increase the reward of those who do His will, to fulfill what is said, "The LORD desired for the sake of His righteousness." And so you find regarding four groups who ascend and declare before the One who spoke and the world came to be: "This one shall say, I am the LORD's" (Isaiah 44:5), "I am the LORD's," let no sin mingle in me; "And this one shall call himself by the name of Jacob," these are the righteous converts; "And this one shall write with his hand, To the LORD," these are the penitents; "and shall surname himself by the name of Israel," these are those who fear Heaven.

"You shall not afflict any widow or orphan" (Exodus 22:21). From this I know only of a widow and an orphan; from where do I learn that the same applies to every other person? Scripture teaches, "You shall not afflict." These are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: "Any widow or orphan," those whose way it is to be afflicted [being weak and unprotected], it is of them that Scripture speaks. "If you afflict him at all" (Exodus 22:22) [the doubled verb teaches]: one who afflicts much and one who afflicts a little [are both included].

Another interpretation: "If you afflict him at all" (Exodus 22:22) tells that one is not liable until he afflicts and repeats [the affliction]. Now Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael were once being taken out to be killed. Rabban Shimon said to Rabbi Yishmael: "Rabbi, my heart fails me, for I do not know why I am being put to death." Rabbi Yishmael said to him: "Did it never happen in your life that a man came to you for judgment or for a question, and you kept him waiting until you had finished your cup, or until you had fastened your sandal, or until you had wrapped yourself in your cloak? And the Torah said, 'If you afflict him at all,' one who afflicts much and one who afflicts a little." And at this he said to him, "You have comforted me." When Rabban Shimon and Rabbi Yishmael were killed, Rabbi Akiva said to his disciples: "Prepare yourselves for calamity, for had good been destined to come upon us in our generation, none would have received it before Rabban Shimon and Rabbi Yishmael. But now it is revealed and known before the One who spoke and the world came to be that a great calamity is destined to come upon us in our generation, and these have been taken from among us," to fulfill what is said, "The righteous man perishes, and no one takes it to heart; he is gathered away, that he may enter into peace; they shall rest; draw near here, you children of the sorceress."

"For if he cries out at all to Me" (Exodus 22:22). One might think that as long as he cries out I hear, but if he does not cry out I do not hear. Scripture teaches, "I will surely hear his cry" (Exodus 22:22), in any case. If so, what does Scripture teach by saying "if he cries out at all to Me"? That I am quick to exact punishment by means of one who cries out, more than for one who does not cry out. And the matter follows by an inference from minor to major: if when an individual cries out against the many the Omnipresent hears his cry, how much more so when the many cry out against an individual. And the matter follows by a further inference: if the measure of punishment is the lesser measure, and yet when an individual cries out against the many the Omnipresent hears his cry, how much more so the measure of goodness, which is the greater measure, when the many pray on behalf of an individual.

"And My wrath will burn" (Exodus 22:23). Rabbi Yishmael says: "burning of wrath" is stated here, and "burning of wrath" is stated elsewhere. Just as there it means withholding of rains and exile, as it is said, "and the wrath of the LORD will burn against you" (Deuteronomy 11:17) and so forth, so here it means withholding of rains and exile. And just as here it is by the sword, so there too it is by the sword. "And your wives shall be widows." From the implication of what is said, "And My wrath will burn and I will kill," we already learn that your wives will be widows; so what does Scripture teach by saying "and your wives shall be widows"? Rather, widows yet not widows, as in the matter of which it is said, "and they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood" (2 Samuel 20:3) [their husbands missing but not confirmed dead, so they could not remarry]. "And your children orphans," yet not actual orphans, but that the court will not let them sell their father's property, holding it on the presumption that the fathers are still alive [as captives]. From the implication of what is said, "And My wrath will burn," do I not know that their wives are widows and their children orphans? Rather, it teaches that their wives will seek to remarry and are not permitted, and their children will seek to claim their property and are not permitted. And learn from this that one does not put a relative in possession of a captive's property. And the matter follows by an inference from minor to major: if when you do not pervert justice your wives will not be widows nor your children orphans, how much more so when you do pervert justice. And so it says, "Execute true judgment" (Zechariah 7:9), and it says, "Judge truth and the judgment of peace in your gates," and it says, "Thus says the LORD, Keep justice and do righteousness" (Isaiah 56:1). How much the more, then, that your wives shall not be widows; and so it says, "that you may fear the LORD your God, to keep" and so forth (Deuteronomy 11:21), "that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children," and it says, "They shall not labor in vain" (Isaiah 65:23), and it says, "and your seed shall be as the sand," and it says, "And their heart shall be," and it says, "As the new heavens" (Isaiah 66:22), and it says, "And a redeemer shall come to Zion" (Isaiah 59:20), and it says, "And as for Me, this is My covenant" and so forth. How much the more, then, that you shall lengthen your days in this world and see children and children's children.

(Exodus 22:24) "If you lend money to My people." Rabbi Ishmael says: Every "if" in the Torah denotes something optional, except for "if you lend money," which is an obligation. Or is it perhaps optional? Scripture teaches, "You shall surely open your hand to him" [literally: lend, lend to him] (Deuteronomy 15:8), indicating an obligation and not an optional matter. "If you lend money" teaches that you lend him money for money, but you do not lend him produce for produce. You lend him money for money, but you do not lend him money to be repaid in produce, nor produce to be repaid in money [to avoid hidden interest through price changes].

"If you lend money to My people." Between My people and a gentile, My people comes first. Between a poor man and a rich man, the poor comes first, as it says "the poor." Between the poor of your city and the poor of another city, the poor of your city come first, as it says "with you." That My people comes before a gentile is obvious. Rav Nachman said in the name of Rav Huna: It was necessary to state it for the case where the gentile would pay interest and the Israelite would borrow at no charge [yet the Israelite still comes first]. These transgress a negative commandment: the lender, the borrower, the witnesses, and the guarantor. And the Sages say: also the scribe. They transgress "You shall not give him" and "Do not take interest from him" (Leviticus 25:36) and "You shall not be to him as a creditor" and "You shall not lay interest upon him" and "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). Abaye said: The lender transgresses all of them. The borrower transgresses on account of "You shall not cause to take interest" and "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind." The guarantor and the witnesses transgress only on account of "You shall not lay interest upon him." It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Those who lend at interest lose more than they gain. And more than that, they cast our teacher Moses as a fool and his Torah as untrue, saying, "Had Moses known there was profit in this, he would not have written it down." When Rav Dimi came he said: From where do we know that one who is owed a hundred by his fellow and knows the debtor cannot pay is forbidden to press him? Scripture teaches, "You shall not be to him as a creditor." Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi both said: It is as though he judged him with two judgments, as it says, "You have made men ride over our heads" (Psalms 66:12). Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Anyone who has money and lends it without witnesses transgresses "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). Reish Lakish said: He brings a curse upon himself, as it says, "Let lying lips be silenced" (Psalms 31:19). Our Rabbis taught: Three cry out and are not answered: one who has money and lends it without witnesses, one who acquires a master over himself, and one whose wife rules over him. What is acquiring a master over oneself? If you wish, say: he places his money in a gentile's name. And if you wish, say: he deeds his property to his children in his lifetime. And if you wish, say: things go badly for him in this town and he does not move to another.

"You shall not be to him as a creditor" — to the poor man who is with you you shall not be as a creditor. "You shall not be to him as a creditor" — that you should not show yourself to him at all times [pressing for payment]. "You shall not lay interest upon him." Why does Scripture state this? Because it says, "You shall not give your money to him at interest," which is a warning to the lender not to lend at interest. Or is it only a warning to the borrower? When it says, "Do not take interest from him" (Leviticus 25:36), that is the warning to the borrower; so what does "your money" teach? It is a warning to the lender. I have only a warning for the lender and the borrower; from where do I include the guarantor, the witnesses, and the scribe? Scripture teaches, "You shall not lay interest upon him," in any case. Rabbi Yehudah permits the scribe. Rabbi Meir says: One who lends at interest and tells the scribe, "Write," and the witnesses, "Sign," has no portion in the One who commanded concerning interest.

"The poor man with you" — the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Know that I am the One who made him poor and you rich, and I am able to turn you back and make you poor. Rav Nachman said: What is written? "You shall surely give to him," and it does not say here "because for the sake of," but rather "because on account of this thing" (Deuteronomy 15:10). It is a wheel: I made you rich and him poor; do not cause Me to turn the wheel back and make you poor. See what is written: "You shall not harden your heart from your brother, the needy one" — it does not say here "from the poor man" but "from your brother," for the two of you are equal.

(Exodus 22:25) "If you take a pledge." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: You — how much you owe Me! You sin before Me, and I am patient with you. Your soul ascends to Me every single night and renders an account, and it is liable, yet I restore your soul to you. So you too, even though he owes you, until the sun sets you shall return it to him.

"If you take a pledge." I would know only of one who takes a pledge with permission [of the court]; from where do I include one who takes a pledge without permission? Scripture teaches, "you take a pledge" [the doubled verb], in any case. "You shall surely restore it to him" (Deuteronomy 24:13) — I would know only of one who took a pledge with permission; from where the one without permission? Scripture teaches, "surely restore," in any case. And why do I need two verses? One for a daytime garment and one for a nighttime garment. "Restore" implies even a hundred times. "You shall restore them" (Deuteronomy 22:1) — I would know only of returning a lost item to his house; from where to his garden or his ruin? Scripture teaches, "you shall restore them," in any case, and this accords with Rabbi Elazar, that all returns require the owner's knowledge except the return of a lost object, for the Torah multiplied returns many times. "Send" (Deuteronomy 22:7) — even a hundred times. "You shall send" — I would know only the case of an optional matter; from where a matter of mitzvah? Scripture teaches "surely send," in any case. "Rebuke" (Leviticus 19:17) — even a hundred times. "You shall rebuke" — I would know only a teacher rebuking a student; from where a student rebuking a teacher? Scripture teaches "you shall rebuke," in any case. "You shall surely help" (Exodus 23:5) — I would know only when the owner is with him; from where when the owner is not with him? Scripture teaches "you shall help," in any case. "You shall surely raise up" (Deuteronomy 22:4) — I would know only when the owner is with him; from where when the owner is not with him? Scripture teaches "you shall raise up," in any case. Why state the law for unloading and also for loading? It is necessary. For had the Merciful One written only of unloading, one might think it applies because there is animal suffering and monetary loss, but loading, where there is no animal suffering, does not apply. And had it taught only loading, one might think it applies because it is for payment, but unloading, done for free, does not. Therefore both are necessary. And as for Rabbi Shimon, who says both are done for free, what is there to say? For Rabbi Shimon the verses are not decisive. Why teach both these and also the lost object? It is necessary. For had it taught these two, one might think they apply because there is distress both to the animal and to its owner, but a lost object, where there is distress to the owner but not to the object, does not apply. And had it taught the lost object, one might think it applies because the owner is not present with it, but these two, where the owner is present, do not. Therefore both are necessary. "The one who strikes shall surely be put to death" — I would know only the death written concerning him; from where that if you cannot put him to death by the death written concerning him, you may put him to death by any death you can? Scripture teaches "shall surely be put to death," in any case. "You shall surely strike" (Deuteronomy 13:16) — I would know only the striking written concerning him, and so forth. "You shall surely open" (Deuteronomy 15:8, 11) — I would know only the poor of your city; from where the poor of another city? Scripture teaches "surely open," in any case. "You shall surely give to him" (Deuteronomy 15:10) — I would know only a large gift; from where a small gift? Scripture teaches "surely give," in any case. "You shall surely furnish him" — I would know only a case where the house was blessed on his account; from where if the house was not blessed on his account? Scripture teaches "surely furnish," in any case. And according to Rabbi Elazar who says the words are to be taken as written, if the house was blessed on his account we furnish him and if not we do not, what is there to say? The Torah spoke in the language of human beings. "You shall surely lend him" (Deuteronomy 15:8) — I would know only one who has nothing and does not wish to support himself, for the Merciful One said give to him by way of a loan; from where one who has but does not wish to support himself? Scripture teaches "you shall lend him," in any case. And according to Rabbi Shimon who says we do not attend to one who has but refuses to support himself, why state "you shall lend him"? The Torah spoke in the language of human beings.

"Until the sun sets you shall restore it to him" — this is the nighttime garment, which is given to be taken as a pledge by day. "You shall surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goes down" (Deuteronomy 24:13) — this is the daytime garment, which is given to be taken as a pledge by night. It was taught: Rabbi says: Since one must return it, why take it as a pledge at all from the start? So that the Sabbatical year should not come and cancel the debt, and so that if he dies it should not become movable property in the hands of his children [beyond the creditor's reach].

"If you take a pledge." Rabbi Ishmael says: Scripture comes to teach you that you may perform a mitzvah and still take what is yours. "Until the sun sets" — this is the daytime garment, which you return to him for the whole day; the nighttime garment, which you return for the whole night, from where? Scripture teaches, "You shall surely restore to him the pledge" and so forth. From here they said: We take as a pledge a daytime garment at night and a nighttime garment by day, and we return a daytime garment by day and a nighttime garment by night. (Exodus 22:26) "For it is his only covering" — this is the cloak. "It is his garment for his skin" — this is the tunic. "In what shall he sleep?" — to include a hide for bedding. Rabbi Natan says: If a man is found liable to his fellow for a hundred in court, and he has a garment worth two hundred, one does not say to him, "Sell your garment, clothe yourself with a hundred, and give me a hundred." Therefore it says, "For it is his only covering"; you are not permitted to deny him a garment that befits his station. "And I will hear, for I am gracious" — for I created My world with mercy.

"You shall not revile God (Exodus 22:27)" - this word serves both the sacred and the ordinary. As for all the secular names whose letters are like the letters of the Divine Name, behold, these may be erased. "For God knows that on the day you eat of it you shall be as God [or: as gods] (Genesis 3:5)" - the first is sacred and the second is ordinary. "For therefore I have seen your face, as one sees the face of God (Genesis 33:10)" - this is ordinary. "This is God's camp (Genesis 32:2)" - this is sacred. "You are a prince of God [among us] (Genesis 23:6)" - sacred. Whoever has a son from any source, including a mamzer [a child of forbidden union], is liable for striking him and for cursing him. Why? We read here "A ruler among your people you shall not curse (Exodus 22:27)" as applying to one who acts as your people do, that is, when he has repented. But is such a one capable of repentance? Have we not learned, "That which is crooked cannot be made straight (Ecclesiastes 1:15)" - this refers to one who comes upon a forbidden woman and begets a mamzer from her? At all events, right now he does act as your people do. If one gave money but did not draw the produce from the seller, he may retract, but the Sages said: He who exacted punishment from the generation of the Flood and so forth, He is destined to exact punishment from one who does not stand by his word. How do we deal with such a person? Abaye said: We give him formal notice, as it is written, "A ruler among your people you shall not curse." Rava said: We may even pronounce a curse upon him, for he no longer acts as your people do. "You shall not revile God" - why is this said? Because Scripture says, "He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death (Leviticus 24:16)." We have heard the penalty, but we have not heard the prohibition; therefore the verse teaches, "You shall not revile God." These are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: Scripture speaks of judges, as it is said, "The matter of them both shall come before the judges (Exodus 22:8)." "You shall not revile God" - I know only the judge; from where do I learn the ruler? The verse teaches, "A ruler among your people you shall not curse." I might read "A ruler among your people you shall not curse" as including both a judge and a ruler. Then what does "You shall not revile God" teach? To render one liable for this on its own account and for that on its own account. From here they said: There is one who utters a single statement and is liable for it on four counts. The son of a ruler who cursed his father is liable for it on four counts: as father, as judge, as ruler, and as "among your people you shall not curse." Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: "You shall not revile God" - I might hear that he is not liable unless the man is both judge and ruler; the verse teaches, "You shall not revile God," to make him liable both as judge and as ruler. If a ruler - even one like Ahab and his fellows? The verse teaches, "among your people" - I said this only at a time when they behave according to the custom of your people. "You shall not revile God" - I know only judge and ruler; from where do I learn every other person? The verse teaches, "among your people" - from any source.

"Your fullness and your tithe-offering you shall not delay (Exodus 22:28)." "Your fullness" - these are the firstfruits, which are taken from the full produce. "And your tithe-offering [dim'akha]" - this is the priestly portion [terumah]. "You shall not delay" - that you should not bring forward the second before the first, nor the first before the priestly portion, nor the priestly portion before the firstfruits. But I do not know which of them takes precedence, whether terumah before firstfruits or firstfruits before terumah. You say: Let the firstfruits come first, for they are called by four names - "beginning," "firstfruits," "offering," and "fullness" - before terumah, which is called by only three names. Let terumah, which is called by three names - "beginning," "offering," and "that which is mingled" - take precedence before the first tithe, which is called by only two names. Let the first tithe, which is called by two names - "offering" and "tithe" - take precedence before the second tithe, which is called by only one name. From here they said: Anyone who brings the terumah before the firstfruits, the first tithe before the terumah, and the second tithe before the first - even though he transgresses a negative commandment, what he has done is done [and remains valid].

"So you shall do with your ox (Exodus 22:29)." Scripture 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, so too with the firstborn of man, stillbirths exempt him from the law of the firstborn. And just as with the firstborn of man you are permitted to give him to any priest you wish, so too with the firstborn of a beast, and so forth. Because Scripture says, "And you shall bring there your burnt-offerings (Deuteronomy 12:6)," I might hear that there is an obligation to bring the firstborn to the chosen House; the verse teaches "among man and among beast (Exodus 13:2)," comparing the firstborn of man to the firstborn of beast. Just as with the firstborn of man one attends to him for thirty days, so too with the firstborn of a beast one attends to it for thirty days. "Seven days it shall be with its mother" - why is this said? Because Scripture says, "It shall be seven days under its mother (Leviticus 22:27)" - "with its mother." Or does it mean literally "under its mother"? The verse teaches, "Seven days it shall be with its mother": just as here it means "with its mother," so too there it means "with its mother." Rabbi Natan says: "under its mother" is stated only to be expounded - "under its mother" means "after its mother." Or does "under its mother" mean as it plainly sounds? You may reason thus: it says "its mother" here and "its mother" there; just as there it means close to it, so too here it means close to it. "Seven days it shall be with its mother" - just as the firstborn, being sacred, nurses only from non-sacred animals, so too all of them nurse only from non-sacred animals. From here they said: All consecrated animals may not nurse their young, and a lightly-tithed animal may not nurse its young. And all of these are derived only from the firstborn: just as the firstborn, being sacred, nurses only from non-sacred animals, so too all of them nurse only from non-sacred animals. How do they do it? They take money from the sanctuary, buy a non-sacred animal, and the consecrated ones have compassion upon the young and nurse them. Even though they said this, others were donating on this condition. "And on the eighth day you shall give it to Me" - I know only the eighth; from where do I learn from the eighth onward? You may reason thus: it says "eighth" here and it says "from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted (Leviticus 22:27)." Just as the "eighth" stated there fits both the eighth and from the eighth onward, so too the "eighth" stated here fits from the eighth onward. "On the eighth day you shall give it to Me" - to exclude one whose time is lacking. We learned there: For how long are Israelites obligated to attend to the firstborn? For small cattle, thirty days; for large cattle, fifty days. Rabbi Yose says: For small cattle, three months. If the priest said, "Give it to me within that time," he should not give it to him. And if it had a blemish and the priest said, "Give it to me that I may eat it," it is permitted. From where do we know these things? Rav Kahana said: Scripture says, "The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me; so you shall do with your flock"; "Your fullness and your tithe-offering you shall not delay; so you shall do with your ox." Rava said: "You shall do" - Scripture added for you another act of attendance with your ox. And say sixty days? Scripture entrusted these matters only to the Sages. Rabbi Yose says: For small cattle, three months, because tending it is greater. It was taught: because its teeth are small. If the priest said, "Give it to me within that time," he should not give it, for he appears like a priest who assists at the threshing floors.

Brothers and partners are exempt from the tithe of cattle. Our Rabbis taught: "It shall be yours (Exodus 13:12)" - and not that which is held in partnership. But this is written concerning the firstborn! If it does not apply to the matter of the firstborn - since the firstborn does apply even in partnership, as it is written, "And the firstborn of your herds and your flocks (Deuteronomy 12:6)" - apply it to the matter of the tithe of cattle. Rabbi Yochanan said: Even if they divided nine against nine, or ten against ten, we do not say, "This is the portion that reached him from the first moment." What is the reason? It is by analogy to "your sons": just as your sons are clearly identified as yours, so too your flock must be clearly identified as yours.

"And men of holiness shall you be to Me (Exodus 22:30)." Rabbi Ishmael says: When you are holy, you are Mine. Issi ben Akiva says: When the Omnipresent renews a commandment for Israel, He adds holiness to them. Issi ben Guryon says: Holiness is stated here and holiness is stated elsewhere; just as the holiness stated elsewhere is forbidden to be eaten, so too the holiness stated here shall be forbidden to be eaten.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Meat cooked in milk is forbidden to be eaten but permitted for benefit, as it is said, "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; you shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21)." And elsewhere it says, "And men of holiness shall you be to Me, and flesh torn in the field you shall not eat (Exodus 22:30)." Just as there it is forbidden to be eaten but permitted for benefit, so too here it is forbidden to be eaten but permitted for benefit. "And flesh torn in the field you shall not eat" - once it has gone outside its boundary, it becomes forbidden. "And flesh torn in the field" - what does the verse teach? Because we find with the second tithe and the firstfruits that even though they went outside their boundary and returned, they are permitted, I might think this too is so; the verse teaches "torn [tereifah]." What is the textual derivation? Rava said: "like a tereifah" - just as a tereifah, once it has been torn, has no further means of becoming permitted, so too the flesh, once it has gone outside its boundary, has no means of becoming permitted.

Rabbi Yochanan said: "You shall not eat the life with the flesh (Deuteronomy 12:23)" - this is a limb taken from a living animal. "And flesh torn in the field you shall not eat (Exodus 22:30)" - this is flesh from a living animal and flesh from a torn animal. And Reish Lakish said: "You shall not eat the life with the flesh" - this is a limb from the living and flesh from the living; "And flesh torn in the field you shall not eat" - this is flesh from a torn animal. If one ate a limb from the living and flesh from the living: according to Rabbi Yochanan he is liable twice; according to Reish Lakish he is liable only once. If one ate flesh from the living and flesh from a torn animal: according to Reish Lakish he is liable twice; according to Rabbi Yochanan he is liable only once. If one ate a limb from the living and flesh from a torn animal: by all opinions he is liable twice. Rava said: A non-priest who ate a burnt-offering before its blood was sprinkled, outside the wall, is flogged five times according to Rabbi Shimon. And let him also be flogged on account of "and flesh torn in the field," since once the flesh has gone outside the hangings it becomes forbidden. Wherever it would be fit if inside, we apply to it "and flesh torn in the field"; and wherever it would not be fit even inside, we do not apply to it "and flesh torn in the field."

"And flesh torn in the field (Exodus 22:30)" - I know only in the field; from where do I learn in the house? The verse teaches, "a carcass and a torn animal (Leviticus 22:8)" - it compared the torn animal to the carcass: just as with a carcass no distinction was made between in the house and in the field, so too with a torn animal you should make no distinction between in the house and in the field. Then what does "and flesh torn in the field" teach? Scripture spoke of the usual case. Similarly, "For he found her in the field (Deuteronomy 22:27)" - I know only in the field; from where do I learn in the house? Scripture spoke of the usual case. Similarly, "When there is among you a man [who is not pure from a nocturnal occurrence] (Deuteronomy 23:11)" - I know only a nocturnal occurrence; from where do I learn a daytime occurrence? Scripture spoke of the usual case. Similarly, "And the man who has planted a vineyard (Deuteronomy 20:6)" - I know only a vineyard; from where do I learn all other trees? Scripture spoke of the usual case. Similarly, "You shall not cook a kid (Exodus 23:19)" - I know only a kid; from where do I learn every other animal? Scripture spoke of the usual case. And so you say here: "and flesh torn in the field" - Scripture spoke of the usual case, the place where it is the way of an animal to be torn. Similarly, "Do not rob the poor (Proverbs 22:22)" - I know only the poor; from where do I learn the rich? The verse teaches, "So are the ways of everyone greedy for gain (Proverbs 1:19)" - rather, Scripture spoke of the usual case, since it is the way of the poor to be robbed.

Rabbi Aibu said: There was once a butcher in Tzippori who fed Israel carrion and torn flesh [meat from animals not properly slaughtered]. One time, on the eve of the Day of Atonement, he drank and became drunk, climbed to the top of the roof, fell, and died. The dogs began to lick at him. People came and asked Rabbi Hanina: what is the law concerning moving him out of their way [removing the corpse from before the dogs]? He said to them: It is written, "You shall be holy people to Me; you shall not eat flesh torn in the field by beasts" (Exodus 22:30), and continues. And this man, who used to rob the dogs and feed Israel carrion and torn flesh, leave them be, for it [the carcass] is rightly theirs.

"You shall throw it to the dog" (Exodus 22:30). According to Rabbi Yehudah: it you throw to the dog, but you do not throw to the dog every forbidden thing in the Torah. According to Rabbi Meir: it you throw to the dog, but you do not throw to the dog ordinary [non-sacred] animals that were slaughtered in the Temple court. "You shall throw it to the dog" means like a dog. Or does "to the dog" mean according to its plain sense? Scripture teaches, "You shall not eat any carrion" (Deuteronomy 14:21). And here is an argument from the lighter to the heavier case: if carrion, which conveys impurity by carrying, is permitted for benefit, then torn flesh, which does not convey impurity by carrying, surely should be permitted for benefit. So what does Scripture teach by "you shall throw it to the dog"? Both to the dog and like the dog. This is to teach you that the Omnipresent does not withhold the reward of any creature, as it is said, "But against the children of Israel not a dog shall sharpen its tongue" (Exodus 11:7). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Give it [the dog] its reward. And here is an argument from the lighter to the heavier case: if the Omnipresent did not withhold the reward of an animal, how much more so the reward of a human being. And so it says, "The partridge that gathers but does not give birth" (Jeremiah 17:11). And it says, "A throne of glory, exalted from the first" (Jeremiah 17:12), and continues. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: anyone who speaks slander, and anyone who accepts slander, and anyone who gives false testimony against his fellow, deserves to be thrown to the dogs, as it is said, "You shall throw it to the dog," and it is written right after it, "You shall not carry a false report" (Exodus 23:1) — read it instead, "You shall not cause others to carry [a false report]." This is a warning to the court not to hear the words of one litigant before the other litigant arrives — read it instead, "Hear out the disputes between your brothers" (Deuteronomy 1:16). Rav Kahana said: from "you shall not carry," derive "you shall not cause to carry."

"You shall not carry a false report" (Exodus 23:1) — this is a warning to the one who receives slander.

Another interpretation: this is a warning to the judge not to hear from one litigant until his opposing litigant comes with him, as it is said, "Then both men shall stand" (Deuteronomy 19:17). Abba Hanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: it comes to include the oath imposed by the judge, that it be answered with "Amen," for if you answer "Amen" after him [falsely] you commit a false oath. "Do not join your hand with a wicked man" (Exodus 23:1) — one says to another: So-and-so owes me two hundred zuz and I have one witness; come and join with him so that I may collect what is mine, and you take a maneh and I a maneh; therefore it is said, "Do not join your hand." Or one says: You know about me that even if a man gave me all the money in the world I would not lie; now, So-and-so owes me and I have one witness; come and join with him so that I may collect what is mine; therefore it is said, "Do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a witness of violence." Thus the scrupulous people of Jerusalem would act: none of them would go to a banquet until he knew who was going with him, and none would sign a divorce document until he knew who was signing with him. Rabbi Natan says: "Do not set a wicked man as a witness, do not set a violent man as a witness" — to exclude the violent and the robbers, who are disqualified from testimony, as it is said of the witness of violence, "He shall not stand" [a violent witness]. Abbaye said: a witness proven false [by alibi] is disqualified retroactively; from the moment he testified he was wicked, and the Torah said, "Do not set a wicked man as a witness." Rava said: he is disqualified only from that point onward, for the conspiring witness is a novel ruling [hiddush], since here are two against two — what did you see to make you believe these rather than those? And you have nothing in it except from the time of its novelty onward. And the law is according to Abbaye in [the cases summarized by the mnemonic] ya'al kegam.

"You shall not follow a majority to do evil" (Exodus 23:2). From where do we know that a lesser Sanhedrin consists of twenty-three? As it is said, "And the congregation shall judge" (Numbers 35:24), "and the congregation shall deliver" (Numbers 35:25) — a congregation that judges and a congregation that delivers, that makes twenty. And from where that a congregation is ten? As it is said, "How long shall this evil congregation" (Numbers 14:27) — excluding Joshua and Caleb. And from where the additional three? From the implication of "You shall not follow a majority to do evil," I would hear that I should be with them for good; if so, what does Scripture teach by "after a majority"? Your inclining toward conviction is not like your inclining toward acquittal: for acquittal by a single vote, for conviction by two; and since a court must not be evenly balanced, one more is added, making twenty-three. "After the majority to incline" (Exodus 23:2): Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says — what does Scripture teach by "after the majority to incline"? The Torah said: make for yourself a court that inclines. Twelve acquit and eleven convict — acquitted. Thirteen convict and ten acquit — guilty. Or eleven acquit and twelve convict, I would hear he is guilty; Scripture teaches, "You shall not respond in a dispute" — the Torah said: execute by witnesses, execute by those who incline; just as witnesses are two, so those who incline [for conviction must exceed by] two. Eleven acquit and eleven convict and one says "I do not know" — this is a warning to the judge to incline only toward acquittal, as it is said, "You shall not respond in a dispute to incline." In monetary cases, and matters of purity and impurity, they begin with the greatest. In capital cases they begin from the side [the lesser judges first]. From where these things? Rav Aha bar Pappa said: Scripture says, "You shall not respond [al riv]" — read it "upon the great one [al rav]." Rabbah bar bar Hannah said: from here — "And David said to his men, Let every man gird on his sword, and David too girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13). "And you shall not favor a poor man in his dispute" (Exodus 23:3): why is it said? Because it says, "You shall not favor the poor nor honor the great" (Leviticus 19:15), which specified. I would know only these; from where their opposites? Scripture teaches, "And you shall not favor a poor man in his dispute." Abba Hanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Scripture speaks of gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field.