Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

Another interpretation: you must examine your brother [to determine] whether he is a swindler, and so on. "And you shall return it to him" — a find that works and feeds itself, and not a find that involves loss. [Bracketed plain-sense gloss: an animal that earns its keep by laboring and grazing may be held and returned in due course, but an object whose safekeeping only drains the finder's resources need not be retained at the finder's expense.]

"When you see" (Exodus 23:5) — I would hear even from far off; Scripture teaches "when you encounter," and so on. "Crouching" — and not habitually crouching. "Under its burden" — and not when its burden was beside it. "And you would refrain from helping him" — sometimes you refrain, sometimes you help. The donkey of an Israelite and the load of a Gentile: "you shall surely help"; the donkey of a Gentile and the load of an Israelite: "and you shall refrain." If he was among the graves [and the finder was a priest who would be defiled], he shall not become impure for it. If his father said to him "become impure," one might think he should become impure because a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment; therefore Scripture says "and you would refrain from helping him" — sometimes you refrain, sometimes you do not refrain. If his father said to him "do not unload with him, do not load with him, do not return his lost object to him," he shall not obey, because both he and his father are obligated in the commandments. "You shall surely help with him" — why is it said? Because it says "you shall surely lift up with him" (Deuteronomy 22:4); I would know only loading; from where unloading? Scripture teaches "you shall surely help with him." Rabbi Yoshiyah says: both this and that, Scripture speaks of unloading. I would know only unloading; from where loading? It is a logical inference: if unloading, which he can do by himself, you are warned about, then loading, which he cannot do by himself, surely you should be warned about; therefore Scripture spoke of the lighter case to learn from it the heavier. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: "you shall surely help with him" — this is unloading; "you shall surely lift up with him" — this is loading. From here Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai used to say: just as unloading is from the Torah, so loading is from the Torah. "You shall surely help with him" — why is it said? Because it says "you shall surely lift up with him"; I would know only loading and unloading; from where the animal itself [must be helped]? Scripture teaches "you shall surely lift up with him." "You shall surely lift up with him" — when you are equal to it [working alongside]. If the owner went and sat down and said to him, Since the commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload — he is exempt, as it is said "with him." If the owner was old or sick, he is obligated. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if the load was more than its proper burden, he is not bound to it, as it is said "and you would refrain." An Israelite's animal and a Gentile's load: "you shall help." And according to whom is this? Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who said that the suffering of living creatures is not a Torah-level concern. And even if you say the suffering of living creatures is a Torah-level concern, even so, subduing one's impulse is preferable [so one helps even an enemy]. (See the Gemara on the matter of the friend and the foe.)

"You shall not pervert the judgment of your needy in his dispute" (Exodus 23:6). Why is this said? Because it also says, "and you shall not favor a poor man in his dispute" (Exodus 23:3). From that I would know only about the poor man (dal); from where do I learn about one who is destitute and craving (ani ta'ev)? Scripture teaches, "You shall not pervert the judgment of your needy (evyon) in his dispute." Abba Chanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Scripture speaks here of gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field. A wicked man and a fit man stand before you in judgment; do not say, "Since he is wicked, I will tilt the verdict against him." Therefore it is said, "You shall not pervert the judgment" of one who is needy (evyon) in commandments. Rabbi Abbahu said: There are ten differences between monetary cases and capital cases, and none of them apply to the ox condemned to stoning, except for the requirement of a court of twenty-three, for the verse says, "You shall not pervert the judgment of your needy in his dispute" [implying] but you may pervert the judgment of the ox condemned to stoning. And its opposite is the case of one who incites to idolatry, for the Merciful One said, "you shall not pity him, nor shall you conceal him" (Deuteronomy 13:9).

"Keep far from a false matter" (Exodus 23:7). Our Rabbis taught: From where do we learn that a judge should not advocate for his own words [as a partisan defending his own opinion]? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that a judge should not seat an ignorant student before him [as an assistant]? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that a judge who knows of his colleague that he is a robber should not join with him [on the court]? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that a judge who knows a case to be fraudulent should not say, "Since witnesses testify before me, I will decide it and let the chain of guilt hang on the witnesses' neck"? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that a student sitting before his teacher, who sees merit for the poor man and liability for the rich man, should not be silent? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that a student who sees his teacher erring in judgment should not say, "I will wait for him to finish, then I will overturn it and rebuild it on my own authority so the ruling will be called by my name"? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that if a teacher said to his student, "You know that even if they gave me a hundred maneh I would not lie; so-and-so owes me a maneh but I have only one witness against him" - from where that the student should not join with him [as a second witness]? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." But does this not follow already from "a false matter"? In that case the man is surely lying, and the Merciful One has said, "you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Rather, the case is where he said to him, "I certainly have one [genuine] witness; come you and stand there too and say nothing, for then you do not utter a falsehood from your mouth." Even so it is forbidden, because it is said, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that a creditor owed a maneh should not say, "I will claim two hundred from him, so that he will admit to me a hundred, become liable to me an oath, and I will then roll over upon him an oath from another matter"? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that a creditor owed a maneh whom the debtor claims [falsely] owes two hundred should not say, "I will deny it in court and admit to him outside of court, so that I will not be liable to him an oath and he will roll over upon me an oath from another matter"? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that of three who are owed a maneh by one man, one should not be the litigant and two the witnesses, so they can extract the maneh and split it? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where that a judge should not hear one litigant before the other litigant arrives? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." From where, of two who came to court, one dressed in rags and one dressed in a cloak worth a hundred maneh, that they say to the wealthy one, "Dress like him, or clothe him like yourself"? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." When men came before Rabbah bar bar Channah he would say to them, "Take off your fine boots and come down to judgment." From where that a litigant should not present his arguments persuasively to the judge before the other litigant arrives? Scripture teaches, "Keep far from a false matter." Rav Kahana said: from "you shall not bear [lo tisa]" read "you shall not cause to be borne [lo tassi]" [do not make others swear falsely]. "Keep far from a false matter" - this is a warning to one who speaks slander.

Another interpretation: This ["Keep far from a false matter"] is a warning to a judge that he should not seat beside him an ignorant judge.

Another interpretation: that he should not set up beside him an advocate [a partisan pleader], as it is said, "the cause of both parties shall come before the judges" (Exodus 22:8). Rabbi Nathan says: "Keep far from a false matter" - this is a warning to keep away from heresy (epikorsut). And so it says, "And I find more bitter than death [the woman whose heart is snares and nets]" (Ecclesiastes 7:26). And it says, "but the king shall rejoice in God" (Psalms 63:12).

"The innocent and the righteous you shall not slay" (Exodus 23:7). Our Rabbis taught: From where do we learn that one who leaves the court convicted, and someone says, "I have something to argue in his favor," is brought back? Scripture teaches, "the innocent you shall not slay." And from where that one who leaves the court acquitted, and someone says, "I have something to argue to his liability," is not brought back? Scripture teaches, "the righteous you shall not slay." Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: and its opposite is the case of one who incites to idolatry, of whom it is written, "you shall not pity him, nor shall you conceal him" (Deuteronomy 13:9). If one witness testified that he worshipped the sun, and another testified that he worshipped the moon, I might think they combine and he is liable; Scripture teaches, "the innocent and the righteous you shall not slay." If they saw a man pursuing his fellow to kill him, sword in hand, and they said to him, "He is a son of the covenant, and the Torah said, 'whoever sheds the blood of a man [by man shall his blood be shed]' (Genesis 9:6)," and he said, "I know, and even so I am doing it," and the witnesses averted their eyes - and afterward they found him slain and writhing, the sword dripping blood in the murderer's hand - I might think the murderer is liable; Scripture teaches, "the innocent and the righteous you shall not slay" [since the witnesses did not give the formal warning]. Now Yehudah ben Tabbai once executed a witness who had been proven a scheming false witness (a single one). Shimon ben Shetach said to him, "May I not live to see the consolation of Israel if you have not shed innocent blood, for the Torah said: put to death by the testimony of [two] witnesses, put to death by [two] scheming witnesses - just as witnesses must be two, so scheming false witnesses must be two." Thereupon Yehudah ben Tabbai entered a ruin and found there a slain man writhing, the sword dripping blood in the murderer's hand. Yehudah ben Tabbai said to him, "May [retribution] come upon me if it is not you who killed him! But what can I do, since the Torah said, 'by the testimony of two witnesses shall a matter stand' (Deuteronomy 19:15)? Yet He who knows and is Master of thoughts will exact payment from this man." He had not managed to leave the place before a snake bit the murderer and he died. "The innocent and the righteous you shall not slay" - if one left the court convicted and afterward they found merit for him, I might think he is still liable; Scripture teaches, "the innocent you shall not slay." One might think that just as he left your court acquitted, so he has left the court Above acquitted; therefore it is said, "for I will not justify the wicked" [the Holy One, blessed be He, will not] (Exodus 23:7). "The righteous you shall not slay" - if one left the court acquitted and afterward they found liability for him, I might think they bring him back; Scripture teaches, "the righteous you shall not slay." One might think that just as he left your court acquitted, so he left the court Above acquitted; Scripture teaches, "for I will not justify the wicked." And these matters are an argument from minor to major: if regarding the measure of punishment, which is the lesser measure, the Torah said, "for I will not justify the wicked," how much more so for the measure of goodness, which is the greater.

"And you shall take no bribe" (Exodus 23:8). Do not say, "I will take the money but I will not pervert the judgment"; Scripture teaches, "for the bribe blinds the eyes of the wise." And these matters are an argument from minor to major: if of one who takes [a bribe] but not in order to pervert, the Torah said, "for the bribe blinds," how much more so of one who takes in order to pervert. "For the bribe blinds the eyes of the wise" - the wise in Torah. Or perhaps "the eyes of the wise" as its plain meaning [physical sight]? Scripture teaches, "for the bribe [blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the words of the righteous]." [The] clear-sighted - these are the clear-minded, who declare clean and unclean by their own discernment. From here they said: anyone who takes money and perverts judgment does not depart from the world before the light of his eyes diminishes. Rabbi Nathan says: before one of three things befalls him - either his mind becomes confused in Torah, so that he declares the clean unclean and the unclean clean; or he becomes dependent on others; or the light of his eyes diminishes. "And subverts the words of the righteous" - he hates the just words [ha-metzudakim] that were spoken at Sinai.

Karna used to take a stira-coin from the one who would be acquitted and a stira-coin from the one who would be liable, and then judge their case. How could he do this, when it is written, "And you shall take no bribe"? That [prohibition] applies where one takes from one party and not from the other, for then he may come to pervert the judgment; but Karna took from both of them. And is even this permitted? It was taught: "And you shall take no bribe" - what does this teach? If to teach not to acquit the liable and not to make liable the innocent, it is already said, "you shall not pervert judgment" (Deuteronomy 16:19). Rather, even if he acquitted the innocent and made liable the liable [ruling correctly], the Torah said, "you shall take no bribe." That applies where he takes it as a bribe; Karna took it as a wage [for lost work]. And is that permitted? We learned: "one who takes a wage to judge - his judgments are void." And should you say Karna took it as compensation for idleness from his work - we learned, "unseemly is the judge who takes a wage to judge, but his judgment stands." How so? If he takes a judging-fee, we learned his judgments are void; rather it must be that he takes compensation for idleness, and yet it is taught the judge is unseemly. That applies to idleness that is not evident; Karna's idleness was evident, for Karna used to test wine for the wine-merchants and they would give him a zuz [each day], and when two came before him he would say, "Give me a zuz each and I will judge you," [to replace his lost wage]. Rabbi Abbahu said: Come and see how blinded are the eyes of those who take bribes. A man feels pain in his eyes and gives much money to the physician, with no certainty whether he will be cured or not; yet they [judges] blind their own eyes for the worth of a mere perutah, as it is said, "for the bribe blinds the clear-sighted." Our Rabbis taught: "the bribe blinds the clear-sighted" - all the more so the foolish. "And subverts the words of the righteous" - all the more so the wicked. But are the foolish and the wicked fit to judge? Rather this is what it means: "the bribe blinds" - even a great scholar who takes a bribe will not leave the world without blindness of the heart; "and subverts the words of the righteous" - even a perfectly righteous man who takes a bribe will not leave the world without confusion of mind. Rava said: what is the reason a bribe [is so corrupting]? Once he takes the bribe from him, the giver becomes like part of himself, and no one sees fault in himself. What is the meaning of "shochad" [bribe]? That he becomes "chad" [one] with him. Rav Pappa said: a man should judge a case neither for one he loves nor for one he hates - for the one he loves, he will see no fault; for the one he hates, he will see no merit.

Our Rabbis taught: "And you shall take no bribe" - it need not say a bribe of money; rather even a bribe of words is also forbidden, since it is not written "you shall take no unjust gain (betza)." What is a bribe of words? Like this: Shmuel was crossing on a ferry, and a certain man came and gave him his hand [to help him]. He said to him, "What is your business?" He said, "I have a case to be judged." He said to him, "I am disqualified from judging you." Ameimar was sitting in judgment when a feather flew down and settled on his head, and a certain man came and removed it from him. He said, "What is your business?" He said, "I have a case." He said to him, "I am disqualified from judging you." Mar Ukva had spittle lying before him; a certain man came and covered it. He said, "What is your business?" He said, "I have a case." He said to him, "I am disqualified from judging you." Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yose had a sharecropper who customarily brought him a basket of fruit every Friday. One day he brought it on Thursday. He said, "Why is today different?" He said, "I have a case [here], and I said, on my way I will bring it to the master." He did not accept it from him, and said, "I am disqualified from judging you." He seated a pair of rabbis to judge him. As [the sharecropper] went back and forth, he [Rabbi Yishmael] thought, "If he wished he could plead thus, and if he wished he could plead thus." He said: May the breath of those who take bribes expire! If I, who did not take, and even had I taken would have taken what is mine, am affected like this, how much more so those who actually take bribes! Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha - a certain man brought him the first shearing of his flock. He said, "Where do you come from?" He said, "From such-and-such a place." He said, "And on the way from there to here was there no priest to give it to?" He said, "I have a case, and I said, on my way I will bring it to the master." He did not accept it from him, and said, "I am disqualified from judging you." He seated a pair of rabbis to judge him. As [the man] went back and forth, he thought, "If he wished he could plead thus, and if he wished he could plead thus." He said: May the breath of those who take bribes expire! If I, who did not take, and even had I taken would have taken my own portion, am affected like this, how much more so those who take bribes! Rav Anan - a certain man brought him a basket of small fish. He said, "What is your business?" He said, "I have a case, and I said, while I was coming I would bring it to the master." He did not accept it from him, and said, "I am disqualified from judging you." He [the man] said, "I do not want the master's judgment; let the master at least accept it, so that the master not prevent me from offering first-fruits, for it was taught: 'And a man came from Baal-Shalishah and brought the man of God bread of the first-fruits' (II Kings 4:42) - and was Elisha one who eats first-fruits? Rather, to tell you that whoever brings a gift to a Torah scholar, it is as if he offered first-fruits." He said, "I did not wish to accept; now that you have given a reason, I will accept." He sent the man before Rav Nachman, sending word: "Let the master judge this man, for I, Anan, am disqualified from judging him." [Rav Nachman] reasoned: since the master sent me this, he must be a relative of his. There was a case of orphans before [Rav Nachman]. He reasoned, "This is a positive commandment [to honor the orphans' case] and that is a positive commandment [to honor the Torah]; the honor of the Torah takes precedence." He set aside the orphans' case [to hear it first]. When the [other] litigant saw the honor being done for him, his arguments were stopped up [he lost confidence]. Rav Anan had been accustomed to Elijah coming to him and teaching him the Order of Elijah; once he did this, [Elijah] withdrew. He sat in fasting and begged for mercy, and [Elijah] came. But he would terrify him [with frightening visions], so [Rav Anan] made a box and would sit in the box and study his order, until he completed the whole order. This is why they say, "the Greater Order of Elijah and the Lesser Order of Elijah."

"Six years you shall sow [your land]" and so forth (Exodus 23:10). Rabbi Ishmael says: When Israel does the will of the Omnipresent, they observe one sabbatical year within a single seven-year cycle, as it is said, "Six years you shall sow" and so forth. But when they do not do the will of the Omnipresent, they end up observing four sabbatical years within a single seven-year cycle. How so? He plows it one year and sows it the next, plows it one year and sows it the next, with the result that they observe four sabbatical years within one cycle [because the land lies fallow for half of those years]. "And you shall gather in its produce" (Exodus 23:10) comes to include the produce of the eve of the seventh year that carried over into the seventh year. From this I know only about produce of the eve of the seventh year that entered the seventh year. From where do I learn that produce of the seventh year which carried over into the year following the seventh year should be treated like seventh-year produce? Scripture teaches, "So shall you do with your vineyard and with your olive grove" (Exodus 23:11). You may therefore derive a governing principle from the two of them together: the case of the olive is not like the case of the vineyard, and the case of the vineyard is not like the case of the olive; but what is common to both is that whatever grows into the time following the seventh year is treated like seventh-year produce, and so forth. These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: That derivation is not needed. Has it not already been said, "and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat" (Exodus 23:11), to bring in seventh-year produce that carried over into the year following the seventh year, that it is like seventh-year produce? Then what does Scripture teach by "So shall you do with your vineyard and with your olive grove"? It comes to assign a separate time of removal for the olive on its own and for the vineyard on its own.

"But the seventh year you shall release it and let it lie fallow" (Exodus 23:11). "You shall release it" means from working it; "and let it lie fallow" means regarding eating from it. From this I know only about vineyards and olive groves; from where do I learn about other produce and grasses? Scripture teaches, "and let it lie fallow," in any case [extending the rule to everything]. Another interpretation: "But the seventh year you shall release it." This tells that a man may break down its fences [so that the poor may enter and take freely], except that the Sages decreed [a restriction] for the sake of the right ordering of the world. [So that you should not say:] "And why did the Torah command this? Was it not so that the poor might eat of it? Behold, I will gather it in and distribute it to the poor myself." Scripture teaches, "But the seventh year you shall release it," telling that a man breaks down the fences, except that the Sages decreed otherwise for the sake of the right ordering of the world.

"And the needy of your people shall eat" (Exodus 23:11). One verse says, "And the needy of your people shall eat," and another verse says, "for you and for your servant and for your maidservant" (Leviticus 25:6). How can these two verses both stand? When the produce is plentiful, all may eat: "And the needy of your people shall eat." And when the produce is scarce: "for you and for your servant and for your maidservant." Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: One verse says, "And the needy of your people shall eat," and another verse says, "for you and for your servant and for your maidservant." Before the time of removal arrives, both poor and rich may clear it away; once the time of removal arrives, the poor clear it away but not the rich. "And what they leave the beast of the field shall eat" (Exodus 23:11). Why is this said? Because it says, "You shall surely tithe" and so forth (Deuteronomy 14:22), I might understand that even seventh-year produce is included. When it says "for you," "and for your cattle" (Leviticus 25:7), it compares the human being to the animal: just as the animal eats in the seventh year from what is fit for it, untithed, so too the human being eats in the seventh year from what is fit for him, untithed. You say it comes for this; or does it come only to compare the animal to the human, that just as the human eats only from what is tithed, so too the animal may eat only from what is tithed? Scripture teaches, "and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat." After you have learned that the wild beast eats in the seventh year from what is fit for it, untithed, you cannot compare the animal to the human, for it has already been said, "and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat." Rather, compare the human to the animal: just as the animal eats from what is fit for it, untithed, in the seventh year, so too the human eats in the seventh year from what is fit for him, which is untithed. So then, what does Scripture teach by "So shall you do with your vineyard and with your olive grove"? For the matter we have already stated.

"But the seventh year you shall release it and let it lie fallow" (Exodus 23:11). "You shall release it" means from weeding; "and let it lie fallow" means from clearing away stones. There are two kinds of weeding. Stopping up cracks [in the ground] is permitted; strengthening the trees is forbidden. A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu: Your God is a mocker, for He said to Ezekiel, "Lie on your left side" (Ezekiel 4:4), and it is written, "and you shall lie on your right side" (Ezekiel 4:6) [as if He were toying with the prophet]. Meanwhile, in came a certain disciple who said to him: What is the reason for the seventh year? He said to him: Now I will tell you something that will serve the two of you together. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: Sow for six, and release the seventh, so that you may know that the land is Mine. But they did not do so; rather, they sinned and were exiled. It is the way of the world that when a province rebels against a king of flesh and blood, if he is cruel he kills them all; if he is merciful he kills half; and if he is full of mercy, he afflicts the great ones among them with sufferings. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, afflicts the righteous with sufferings, in order to scour away the iniquities of Israel.

"Six days you shall do your work" (Exodus 23:12). The Sabbath of Creation is mentioned here in connection with the seventh year, so that the weekly Sabbath of Creation should not be uprooted from its place [by the laws of the sabbatical year]. "So that your ox and your donkey may rest" (Exodus 23:12). Scripture added for the animal one form of rest, namely, to be able to tear food from the ground and eat. You say it comes for this; or does it come only [to teach] that one should shut the animal up inside his house? You have said: that is not rest but distress. Scripture teaches, "so that your ox may rest": Scripture added for it one form of rest, namely, to be able to tear food from the ground and eat.

Our Rabbis taught: One may keep slaves who are uncircumcised. These are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not keep them. Rabbi Ishmael said to him: Behold, Scripture says, "and the son of your maidservant and the stranger may be refreshed" (Exodus 23:12). Rabbi Akiva said to him: Scripture speaks of one who buys a slave at twilight and did not have time to circumcise him. In any case, all agree that "and the son of your maidservant may be refreshed" is written concerning an uncircumcised slave. What is the implication? As it was taught: "and the son of your maidservant" and so forth. "And the son of your maidservant may be refreshed" refers to an uncircumcised slave. Or perhaps it refers only to one who has entered the covenant? When it says "your servant and your maidservant" elsewhere, one who has entered the covenant is already spoken of. So what does Scripture teach by "and the son of your maidservant may be refreshed"? This is an uncircumcised slave. "And the stranger" refers to a resident stranger. Or perhaps it refers only to a righteous convert? When it says "and your stranger who is within your gates," a righteous convert is already spoken of. So what does Scripture teach by "and the stranger"? This is a resident stranger. On the Sabbath, such a one is like an Israelite on a festival. As for one who buys uncircumcised slaves from the gentiles, on the Sabbath they are like an Israelite on the intermediate days of a festival. These are the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean; and Rabbi Akiva reverses it. When do they render wine forbidden as libation wine? At the moment they mention idolatrous worship with their mouths. From when do they mention idolatrous worship with their mouths? In an oath that they swear by them.

"And in all that I have said to you, take heed" (Exodus 23:13). Why is this said? Because it says, "And you shall set the table" and so forth (Exodus 26:35); if one changed [the arrangement], he transgresses a negative commandment. Therefore it says, "And in all that I have said" and so forth. Rabbi Meir says: To perform the words of the Torah is an obligation upon you. Rabbi Eliezer says: To perform a positive commandment and a negative commandment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: From this I know only what Scripture has specified; as for the remaining fine details of the section, from where do I learn them? Scripture teaches, "And in all that I have said to you" [take heed].

Another interpretation: "And in all that I have said to you" and so forth (Exodus 23:13). Why is this said? Because it says, "You shall do no manner of work" (Exodus 20:10), from this I know only matters that are primary categories of labor; from where do I learn matters that are forbidden as a measure of rest [decreed by the Sages]? Scripture teaches, "And in all that I have said to you, take heed," to bring in matters that are forbidden as a measure of rest.

Another interpretation: "And in all that I have said to you, take heed" (Exodus 23:13) comes to bring in the resting of vessels [the prohibition against letting one's tools and implements do work on the festival, not only one's own labor].

"Three times you shall keep a feast to Me in the year" (Exodus 23:14): All are obligated in the appearance [at the Temple], except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, one of indeterminate sex, a hermaphrodite, slaves who have not been freed, the lame and the blind, the sick and the aged, and so on. "All" comes to include what? To include one blind in one of his eyes. And this is not according to that Tanna, for it was taught: Yochanan ben Dahavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehudah ben Teima, one blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the appearance, as it is said, "Three times in the year shall every male appear [yera'eh / yir'eh]" (Exodus 23:17). Read it both as "he shall be seen" and "he shall see": just as one comes to see, so he comes to be seen; just as he sees with two eyes, so he is seen with two eyes. Rabbi Tanchum said: one deaf in one ear is exempt from the appearance, as it is said "in their ears" (Deuteronomy 31:11). But that phrase is needed for "in the ears of all Israel"! That requirement is derived from "before all Israel" in the same verse. And Rabbi Tanchum said: one lame in one leg is exempt from the appearance, as it is said "regalim" [feet/times]. But that word is needed to exclude those who walk on artificial stumps! That exclusion is derived from "pe'amim" (Exodus 23:17), for it was taught: "pe'amim" means nothing but feet, and so it says, "the foot shall tread it down, the feet of the poor, the steps [pa'amei] of the needy" (Isaiah 26:6), and it says, "how beautiful are your feet [pe'amayikh]" (Song of Songs 7:2). Our Rabbis taught: "regalim" excludes those on artificial stumps, the lame, the blind, the sick, the aged, and one who cannot go up on his own feet; it comes to include the pampered, as it is written, "when you come to appear before Me, who has required this" (Isaiah 1:12). "Three times you shall keep a feast to Me": why is this said? Because it says, "three times in the year" (Exodus 23:17; Deuteronomy 16:16), I might understand at any time he wishes; therefore Scripture says, "on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Tabernacles" (Deuteronomy 16:16). If on the Feast of Unleavened Bread three times and on the Feast of Weeks three times, and so on, therefore Scripture says, "three feasts you shall keep to Me in the year." "Regalim" means those who walk on their feet. "He shall appear" excludes the blind. "Your males" (Deuteronomy 16:16) excludes women. "All your males" excludes one of indeterminate sex and a hermaphrodite. "You shall read this Torah" (Deuteronomy 31:11) excludes converts and slaves. "In their ears" excludes the deaf. "And you shall rejoice" excludes the sick and the minor. "Before the LORD your God" excludes the ritually impure. From here they said: all are obligated in the appearance, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, and so on.

"You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread" (Exodus 23:15): this teaches concerning the intermediate days of the festival that work is forbidden, the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: it is not needed; it follows by an argument from the lighter to the heavier. If the first and seventh days, which have no sanctity before them and after them, are forbidden in the doing of work, then the intermediate days, which have sanctity before them and after them, all the more should be forbidden in the doing of work. The six days of creation will prove otherwise, for they have sanctity before them and after them and are permitted in the doing of work. What of the six days of creation, in which there is no additional offering? The New Moon will prove it, in which there is an additional offering and work is permitted. What of the New Moon, which is not called a holy convocation? You may say of the intermediate days, since they are called a holy convocation, it is right that work be forbidden. It was taught elsewhere: "You shall do no laborious work" (Leviticus 23:35) teaches concerning the intermediate days that work is forbidden, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: it is not needed; it says, "These are the appointed times of the LORD, holy convocations" (Leviticus 23:4). Of what does Scripture speak? If of the first day, a day of rest has already been stated; if of the seventh, a day of rest has already been stated; rather, of the intermediate days, that work is forbidden. It was taught elsewhere: "Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly" (Deuteronomy 16:8): just as the seventh is restrained, so the six are restrained. If so, just as the seventh is restrained in all work, so the six are restrained in all work; therefore Scripture says "the seventh": the seventh is restrained in all work, but the six are not restrained in all work. Thus Scripture handed the matter only to the Sages, to tell you which day is forbidden and which is permitted, which work is forbidden and which work is permitted. "You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread": Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira used to say, "as I have commanded you," so that you bring it only in the month of Aviv.

"And they shall not appear before Me empty" (Exodus 23:15): with animal sacrifices. Or perhaps only with birds and meal offerings? It is a matter of reasoning: a festival offering is stated for the common person, and an appearance offering is stated for the Most High. Just as the festival offering stated for the common person is animal sacrifices, so the appearance offering stated for the Most High is animal sacrifices. And what animal sacrifices? Burnt offerings. Or perhaps only peace offerings? It is a matter of reasoning: a festival offering is stated for the common person, and an appearance offering is stated for the Most High. Just as the festival offering stated for the common person is of what is fitting for him, so the appearance offering stated for the Most High is of what is fitting for Him; and so it is fitting that your table not be full while your Master's table is empty. "And they shall not appear before Me empty": with animal sacrifices. Or perhaps only with libations? You may reason thus: rejoicing is stated regarding a person, and rejoicing is stated regarding peace offerings; just as there it is with animal sacrifices, so here it is with animal sacrifices.

"And the Feast of Harvest, the first fruits of your labors" (Exodus 23:16): the three festivals are stated regarding the Sabbatical year, that the three festivals not be moved from their place. (Exodus 23:17) One who speaks but does not hear, or hears but does not speak, is exempt from the appearance but obligated in rejoicing. Why is it different regarding the appearance, that he is exempt? Because the appearance is derived by a verbal analogy of "appearance, appearance" from the Assembly [Hakhel]. And there, from where do we know they are exempt? As it is written, "that they may hear" (Deuteronomy 31:12), excluding one who speaks but does not hear; "and that they may learn," excluding one who hears but does not speak. Does this mean that one who cannot speak cannot learn? But there were two mute men in the neighborhood of Rabbi, sons of the daughter of Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgeda, who whenever Rabbi entered the study house would enter before him and nod their heads and move their lips; and Rabbi prayed for mercy on their behalf and they were healed, and it was found that they had mastered halakhah, Sifra, Sifrei, and the whole Talmud. Mar Zutra said: read it "that they may teach." Rav Ashi said: certainly "that they may teach," for if it should enter your mind to read "that they may learn," since one who does not speak cannot learn, that would be derived from "that they may hear"; rather, certainly it is "that they may teach."

Rav Huna, when he reached this verse, would weep: "he shall appear [yir'eh], he shall be seen [yera'eh]" (Exodus 23:17). A servant whose master expects to see him, yet he keeps himself far from him! As it is said, "when you come to appear before My face, who has required this from your hand" (Isaiah 1:12). Rav Huna, when he reached this verse, would weep: "and you shall sacrifice peace offerings and eat there" (Deuteronomy 27:7). A servant whose master expects him to eat at his table, yet he keeps himself far from him! As it is said, "why do I need the multitude of your sacrifices" (Isaiah 1:11). Our Rabbis taught: "male" excludes women. "Your male" excludes one of indeterminate sex and a hermaphrodite. "All your males" includes minors. "Male" excludes women: but why do I need a verse, since this is a positive commandment bound to a fixed time, and women are exempt from such? It was necessary, for it might enter your mind to say we should learn appearance from the Assembly [Hakhel]: just as there women are obligated, so here women are obligated; therefore it teaches us otherwise. "Your male" excludes one of indeterminate sex and a hermaphrodite. Granted, the hermaphrodite needed mention, for it might enter your mind to say that since he has an aspect of maleness he should be obligated, so it teaches that he is a creature unto himself; but as for the indeterminate, that is a doubtful case, and a verse was needed to exclude even a doubtful case. Abaye said: this refers to when his testicles are external. "All your males" includes minors. But have we not learned, "except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor"? It is no difficulty: here it refers to a minor who has not reached the age of training, here to a minor who has reached the age of training. But a minor who has reached the age of training is a rabbinic obligation! Indeed so, and the verse is a mere support. Then for what does the verse come? For the teaching of Acherim, as it was taught: a collector of refuse, a smelter of copper, and a tanner are exempt from the appearance, because it says "all your males," only one who can go up with all your males; these are excluded, who cannot go up with all your males. "The face of the Lord, the LORD" (Exodus 34:23): one who has only one Master, excluding a slave who has another master. And why do I need a verse, since whatever a woman is obligated in a slave is obligated in, for we derive "her, her" from a woman? It is needed only for one who is half slave and half free. This is also precise, for it teaches "slaves who have not been freed": what does "who have not been freed" mean? If it means not freed at all, let it teach simply "slaves"; rather it must mean not entirely freed, and what is that? One who is half slave and half free. "The face of the Lord, the LORD, the God of Israel" (Exodus 34:23): why is this said? Has it not already said "the face of the Lord, the LORD"? What does "the God of Israel" teach? That upon Israel He set His Name in a special way. Likewise, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is One" (Deuteronomy 6:4): has it not already said "the LORD our God"? What does "the LORD is One" teach? Rather, it is upon us to set His Name apart in a special way. Likewise, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel" (2 Kings 9:6): has it not already said "the God of all flesh" (Jeremiah 32:27)? What does "the God of Israel" teach? That upon Israel He set His Name in a special way. Likewise, "Hear, O My people, and I will speak, O Israel... God, your God" (Psalms 50:7): I am God to all who come into the world, yet even so I have set My Name only upon My people Israel.

"You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread" (Exodus 23:18): you shall not slaughter the Passover offering while leaven still exists, the words of Rabbi Yishmael. I have only the slaughtering; from where do I include the sprinkling of the blood? Scripture says "the blood of My sacrifice." Rabbi Yehudah says: "My sacrifice" means the sacrifice that is wholly Mine, and which is that? This is the daily burnt offering. "Nor shall the fat of My feast offering remain until the morning" (Exodus 23:18): Scripture comes to teach concerning the fats, that they become disqualified by being left overnight upon the floor [of the Temple court, off the altar]. And I have merited to reason regarding the limbs: since the fats are a gift to the altar fires and the limbs are a gift to the altar fires, if you have learned concerning the fats that they are disqualified by being left overnight upon the floor, so too the limbs are disqualified upon the floor. Could it be that the limbs are also disqualified by being left overnight upon the arrangement of wood on the altar? Scripture says "all night until the morning" upon the arrangement; thus you have learned concerning the limbs that they are not disqualified by being left overnight upon the arrangement. And I have merited to reason regarding the fats: since the fats are a gift to the altar fires and the limbs are a gift to the altar fires, if you have learned concerning the limbs that they are not disqualified upon the arrangement, so too the fats should not be disqualified by being left overnight upon the arrangement. Thus what does Scripture teach by "nor shall the fat of My feast offering remain"? For the matter we have stated.

Rav Huna raised a contradiction: it is written, "nor shall the fat of My feast offering remain until the morning" (Exodus 23:18); "until the morning" it shall not remain, implying that all night it may remain. But it is written, "and he shall burn upon it the fat of the peace offerings" (Leviticus 6:5), "upon it," meaning complete all the offerings upon it [by burning everything that night]. He himself raised the difficulty and he himself resolved it: this refers to a case where the offerings were left over [and not burned in their proper time]. Rav Safra raised a contradiction before Rava: it is written, "the sacrifice of the Feast of Passover shall not remain until the morning" (Exodus 34:25); "until the morning" it shall not remain, implying that all night it may remain. But it is written, "the burnt offering of the Sabbath on its Sabbath" (Numbers 28:10), and not the burnt offering of a weekday on the Sabbath, and not the burnt offering of a weekday on a festival. He said to him: Rabbi Abba bar Chiyya already raised this before Rabbi Abbahu, and he answered him: here we are dealing with the fourteenth of Nisan that falls on the Sabbath, for the fats of the Sabbath may be offered on the festival, and so on. We leave aside a verse that is forced and applies itself only to its own narrow case.

"The choicest first fruits of your soil" and so forth (Exodus 23:19). Why was this passage stated? Because it says, "And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground"; from this I would know only fruits. From where do I learn that the liquids pressed from first fruits are also brought? Scripture teaches, saying "you shall bring" — from any source. And what is the difference between these and those? These bring and recite [the declaration], and those bring but do not recite. "Which you bring in from your land" — to exclude tenant farmers, lessees, occupiers of confiscated land (sicaricon), and robbers. "Which the LORD your God" — to exclude converts and slaves. "Gives you" — to exclude women, one of doubtful sex (tumtum), and one of double sex (androgynos). One might think it excludes them so that they neither recite nor bring; therefore Scripture teaches, "you shall bring" — from any source. What is the difference between these and those? These bring and recite, and those bring but do not recite. One who plants within his own ground but layers the branch into a private or public domain, or who layers from a private or public domain into his own, or who plants in his own and layers in his own while a private path and a public path run between — such a one does not bring, because it is said, "the choicest first fruits of your soil," until all the growth comes from your own soil. Tenant farmers, lessees, occupiers, and robbers do not bring, for the same reason: because it is said, "the choicest first fruits of your soil." First fruits are not brought before Shavuot (Atzeret). The people of Mount Tzevoim brought first fruits before Shavuot, and they were not accepted from them, because of what is written in the Torah (above, verse 16), "and the Feast of Harvest, the first fruits of your labors." And from where do we learn that one bears responsibility for them until he brings them to the Temple Mount? As it is said, "the choicest first fruits of your soil you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God."

"You shall not boil a kid [in its mother's milk]." Rabbi Ishmael says: Why is it stated in three places? Corresponding to the three covenants that the Holy One, blessed be He, made with Israel — one at Horeb, one in the plains of Moab, and one at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. Rabbi Yoshiyah says: The first instance was stated at the beginning, and we do not expound openings. The second is needed because of the legal argument: a clean animal conveys impurity when carried, and an unclean animal conveys impurity when carried; if you learned of a clean animal that its flesh may not be cooked in its milk, perhaps an unclean animal's flesh too may not be cooked in its milk. Therefore Scripture teaches "in its mother's milk" — and not in the milk of an unclean animal. The third instance: and not in human milk. Rabbi Yonatan says: Why is it stated in three places? One for domestic beast, one for wild animal, and one for fowl. Abba Chanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer says: Why three places? One for large cattle, one for small cattle, and one for wild animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: One for the prohibition of eating, one for the prohibition of deriving benefit, and one for the prohibition of cooking.

Another interpretation: one statement teaches that the law applies both in the Land and outside the Land; one that it applies while the Temple stands; and one that it applies when the Temple does not stand. For since it says "the choicest first fruits of your soil," we might have heard only that where first fruits apply, meat-and-milk applies, but where first fruits do not apply we would not have heard. Therefore Scripture teaches, "You shall not eat any carcass," and it says, "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk": just as the law of a carcass applies in the Land and outside it, while the Temple stands and when it does not, so too meat-and-milk applies everywhere. Rabbi Akiva says: Why is it stated in three places? To exclude an unclean animal, to exclude a wild animal, to exclude fowl. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: It is said, "You shall not eat any carcass," and it is said, "You shall not boil a kid": that which is forbidden as a carcass is forbidden to cook in milk; fowl, which is forbidden as a carcass, one might think is forbidden to cook in milk, but Scripture teaches "in its mother's milk," excluding fowl, which has no mother's milk. "You shall not boil a kid." From this I know only that it is forbidden to cook. From where that it is forbidden to eat? You say: an inference from minor to major. If the Passover offering, which has no prohibition of cooking, has a prohibition of eating, then meat-and-milk, which has a prohibition of cooking, surely has a prohibition of eating. The argument is refuted and rebuilt through the sinew of the thigh, a carcass, fat and blood, until Scripture teaches, "you shall not eat it," to include meat-and-milk as forbidden to eat. And from "you shall not eat the life with the flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:23), Issi brings meat-and-milk as forbidden to eat. From this I know only that it is forbidden to eat. From where that it is forbidden to benefit from? You say: an inference from minor to major. If fruit of the first three years (orlah), in which no transgression was committed, is forbidden to benefit from, then meat-and-milk, in which a transgression was committed, surely is forbidden to benefit from. Leavened bread on Passover and the mixed seeds of the vineyard prove the point, until Rabbi teaches from "or sell it to a foreigner… you shall not boil" (Deuteronomy 14:21) that at the moment you might sell it, you may neither cook it nor sell it — so we learn it is forbidden to benefit from. "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." From this I know only its mother's milk; from where its sister's? An inference from minor to major. And the milk of itself with its own flesh, and goat's milk with sheep — each is derived by inference. The same applies to cattle; and why did Scripture speak of a kid? Because the milk is abundant in its mother. Rabbi says: "its mother" is stated here and "its mother" is stated elsewhere (regarding ox, lamb, and goat); just as there it speaks of ox, lamb, and goat, so here. "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" — meat-and-milk you may not cook, but not the other forbidden things of the Torah. And from "the house of the LORD your God you shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" we learn it applies even to consecrated animals.

It was taught: "in its mother's milk." One might think it means "in its mother's fat." You say: there is a tradition that follows the way the word is read aloud, and a tradition that follows the way it is written. And for the one who holds that we follow the written form, Scripture says "you shall not boil" — the Torah forbade the manner of cooking [which applies to milk, not fat]. The flesh of a clean animal in the milk of a clean animal is forbidden to cook and forbidden to benefit from. From where do we know these things? Rabbi Eleazar said: Scripture says, "And Judah sent the kid of the goats" (Genesis 38:20) — here "kid of goats," hence wherever "kid" is stated without qualification, even a cow or a ewe is implied. Then let us derive it from this verse alone? Another verse is written, "the skins of the kids of the goats" (Genesis 27:16), so these are two verses coming as one, and two such verses do not teach. And for the one who holds they do teach, what can be said? Two limiting words are written, "goats," "the goats." Shmuel said: "Kid" includes the fat. "Kid" includes the dead animal. "Kid" includes the unborn fetus. "Kid" excludes the blood. "Kid" excludes the afterbirth. "Kid" excludes the unclean animal. "In its mother's milk" — and not in the milk of a male. "In its mother's milk" — and not in the milk of a slaughtered animal. "In its mother's milk" — and not in the milk of an unclean animal. But only three instances of "kid" are written, and we expound six! Shmuel holds that a prohibition can take effect upon a prohibition, and the bans on fat and on a dead animal emerge from one verse, while blood and afterbirth are simply matters of plain exclusion; two verses remain, one to include the fetus and one to exclude the unclean animal.

Our Rabbis taught: "in its mother's milk." From this I know only its mother's milk; from where the milk of a cow or a ewe? You say: an inference from minor to major. If its own mother, which is not forbidden to mate with it, is forbidden to be cooked with it, then a cow or a ewe, which is forbidden to mate with it, surely is forbidden to be cooked with it. Why then do I need the verse? Because the inference can be refuted. Rav Ashi said: one could argue that the very root of the inference is faulty — from where do you bring it? From its mother; and what is special about its mother is that she is forbidden together with it in slaughter [on the same day]. Therefore Scripture teaches, "in its mother's milk." It was taught elsewhere: "in its mother's milk." From where the milk of an older sister? An inference from minor to major. If its mother, which enters the pen with it to be tithed, is forbidden, then an older sister, which does not enter the pen with it to be tithed, surely is forbidden. Therefore Scripture teaches, "in its mother's milk." And what of a younger sister? It is derived from the combination of the two cases: from its mother and from the older sister, the shared feature being that it is flesh and forbidden to cook in milk — so too the younger sister, which is flesh and forbidden to cook in milk. If so, why do I still need "in its milk"? For what was taught: "in its mother's milk" — from where the milk of itself with its own flesh? An inference from minor to major: if in a case where fruit with fruit is not forbidden in slaughter, fruit with the mother is forbidden in slaughter, then in a case where fruit with fruit is forbidden in cooking, surely fruit with the mother is forbidden in cooking. Rav Achadboi bar Ami objected, and Rav Ashi resolved it: one could argue that what distinguishes "fruit" is that they are two separate bodies, whereas "fruit with the mother" is one body — so the verse is required.

Rav Ashi said: From where do we learn that meat-and-milk is forbidden to eat? As it is said, "You shall not eat any abomination" (Deuteronomy 14:3) — anything I have made abominable to you falls under "you shall not eat." We have found that it is forbidden to eat; from where that it is forbidden to benefit from? As Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: wherever it says "it shall not be eaten," "you shall not eat," or "you shall not eat them," both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit are implied, until Scripture specifies otherwise, as it specified with a carcass — given to a resident stranger or sold to a foreigner. Resh Lakish said: From where that meat-and-milk is forbidden to benefit from? As it is said, "Do not eat it raw, or boiled at all" (Exodus 12:9) — since the word "boiled" need not have been stated, it teaches that there is another "boiled" thing that is forbidden; and which is it? This is meat-and-milk. Rabbi Yochanan said to him: How ugly is this teaching that Rabbi taught! "You shall not eat" — Scripture speaks of meat-and-milk; or perhaps of any one of the prohibitions in the Torah? You say: go and learn from the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded — a matter learned from its context. Of what does Scripture speak? Of two kinds; so here too, of two kinds. And from where benefit? As Rabbi taught: "For you are a holy people" (Deuteronomy 14:21) is said here, and "there shall be no cult prostitute" (Deuteronomy 23:18) is said there — just as there it is a prohibition of benefit, so here a prohibition of benefit. Rabbi Akiva says: wild animal and fowl are not forbidden by the Torah [but only by the Rabbis]. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says likewise. What is between them? Wild animal: Rabbi Yose the Galilean holds wild animal is by Torah law, and Rabbi Akiva holds it is by Rabbinic law. Or, if you prefer: fowl is between them, for Rabbi Akiva holds wild animal and fowl are not from the Torah but are forbidden by the Rabbis, while Rabbi Yose holds fowl is not even forbidden by the Rabbis. It was likewise taught: in the place of Rabbi Yose the Galilean they used to eat fowl in milk.

"Behold, I send an angel before you" (Exodus 23:20). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: The nations of the world betrayed Me, and I gave them ministering princes to guard them. You too have betrayed Me; behold, I am giving you an angel to guard you. When you were worthy and accepted the Torah, I Myself went before you; but now that you have become liable, behold, I send an angel before you. Another interpretation: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: I send him before you, and not before them. Moses said: If You send him before me, I do not want it. [See the difference between the first generations and the later ones:] yet Joshua saw the angel and fell on his face. What did the angel say to him? "Are you for us or for our adversaries?" When Joshua said this to him, the angel began to cry out from beneath the soles of his feet, as it is said, "And he said, No, but I am the captain of the host of the LORD; now I have come" (Joshua 5:14). Behold, twice I have come to give Israel their inheritance: I am the one who came in the days of Moses your teacher, and he repelled me, "and now I have come," "and Joshua fell" — he saw him and fell on his face, but Moses saw him and repelled him. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Behold, I send an angel before you" — to everyone who keeps the Torah as you do.

"Take heed of him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him" (Exodus 23:21). You did not merit to obey My voice; obey the voice of the angel. He cannot bear with your transgression, for he is of the order [of angels] that do not sin.

Another interpretation: "For he will not pardon your transgression" (Exodus 23:21). Why? Because he is a messenger, and whatever the messenger is commanded to do, he does; but I lift up the countenance to you, as it is said, "May the LORD lift up His countenance toward you" (Numbers 6:26). David said: Master of the universe, are You handing us over to an angel who does not lift up the countenance? Who could stand before him? "If You, LORD, should mark iniquities" etc. (Psalms 130:3). And lest you say that forgiveness is not with You, it is with You; this is what is written, "For with You is forgiveness, that You may be feared" (Psalms 130:4). "For My name is within him" (Exodus 23:21): the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is shared with each and every angel. Moses said to Him: I do not ask that an angel go with us, "If Your Presence does not go" etc. (Exodus 33:15); if You do not go with us, we will not stir from our place. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: By your life, I will not even send an angel before you; rather I will send the hornet before you, as it is said, "And I will send the hornet" (Exodus 23:28). How did the Amorites die? Rabbi Levi said: He would pair two hornets to each one, and each would pour its venom into his eyes, and he would die at once. Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: How did they die? A churning entered them, and they had violent diarrhea, and they died. Rabbi Berekhiah said: The Holy One, blessed be He, would bind them before Israel, and Israel would come and kill them, as it is said, "And the LORD our God delivered them into our hand" (Deuteronomy 3:3), like a man who binds his enemy before his son. And lest you say the Amorites were small, the Holy One, blessed be He, praises them: "whose height was like the height of cedars" (Amos 2:9); and what did I do to them? "I destroyed his fruit above" etc. (Amos 2:9), this is their heavenly prince, "and his roots beneath" (Amos 2:9), these are the Amorites. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: In this world I sent an angel before them, and it cut off the nations of the world; but in the world to come I will send you Elijah, may he be remembered for good, as it is said, "Behold, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD" (Malachi 3:23). From where does that saying of folk come, "When we were young, we were treated as men; now that we are old, we are treated as children"? For at first it is written, "And the LORD went before them by day" (Exodus 13:21), and at the end it is written, "Behold, I am sending an angel before you" (Exodus 23:20). A certain heretic said to Rav Idi: It is written, "And to Moses He said: Come up to the LORD" (Exodus 24:1); it should have said "Come up to Me." He said to him: This is Metatron, whose name is like the name of his Master, as it is written, "For My name is within him." If so, let us worship him! It is written, "Do not rebel against him" [do not exchange Me for him]. If so, why "he will not pardon your transgression"? He said to him: We hold by tradition that we did not accept him even as a guide-messenger, as it is written, "And he said to Him: If Your Presence does not go, do not bring us up from here" (Exodus 33:15).

"And He will bless your bread" (Exodus 23:25). From where do we derive Grace after Meals from the Torah? etc. Rabbi Yitzhak says: It is not necessary, for behold it says, "And He will bless your bread"; do not read "u-verakh" [and He will bless] but "u-varekh" [and bless you], meaning: bless. And when is it called bread? Before one eats it.

From where does that saying of folk come: "Sixty runners ran, yet they could not overtake the man who breakfasted in the morning"? And the Rabbis said: Rise early and eat, in summer because of the heat and in winter because of the cold. As it is written, "They shall not hunger nor thirst, neither shall the heat nor the sun smite them" (Isaiah 49:10). He said to him: You speak from there, and I speak from here: "And you shall serve the LORD your God" (Exodus 23:25), this is the recitation of the Shema and the Prayer; "and He will bless your bread and your water," this is bread with salt and a pitcher of water. From this point onward, "and I will remove sickness from your midst." And it was taught: "sickness" [mahalah], this is bile. And why is its name called mahalah? Because there are eighty-three illnesses in it, and "mahalah" in gematria is exactly that number [the letters of mahalah total eighty-three]. And all of them are nullified by bread with salt in the morning and a pitcher of water.

"The number of your days I will fulfill" (Exodus 23:26). It is written, "And he said to them: I am a hundred and twenty years old this day" (Deuteronomy 31:2). What does the verse teach by saying "this day"? This very day my days and my years were completed. This teaches you that the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills the years of the righteous from day to day and from month to month, as it is said, "The number of your days I will fulfill." "I can no longer go out and come in" (Deuteronomy 31:2). What is meant by "go out and come in"? If you say it means going out and coming in literally, is it not written, "And Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo" (Deuteronomy 34:1), and it was taught that there were twelve steps there and Moses strode them in a single stride? Rather, "go out and come in" refers to matters of Torah, teaching that the gates of wisdom were closed to him.

It was taught: Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll of hidden teachings in Jerusalem, and in it was written, "Manasseh killed Isaiah." Rabbi Meidan said: He judged him and executed him. He said to him: Your teacher Moses said, "For no man shall see Me and live" (Exodus 33:20), and you said, "And I saw the LORD" (Isaiah 6:1); your teacher Moses said, "As the LORD our God whenever we call upon Him" (Deuteronomy 4:7), and you said, "Seek the LORD while He may be found" (Isaiah 55:6), as if He is not always near; your teacher Moses said, "The number of your days I will fulfill" (Exodus 23:26), and you said, "And I will add fifteen years to your days" (2 Kings 20:6). Isaiah said: I know that he will not accept it from me, and if I answer I will make him a willful sinner. He spoke a divine name and was swallowed into a cedar. They brought the cedar and sawed it. When the saw reached his mouth he died, because he had said, "And I dwell among a people of unclean lips" (Isaiah 6:5). In any case the verses contradict one another. "And I saw the LORD": this is a matter of dispute among the Tannaim, for it was taught: all the prophets gazed through a dim glass, but Moses our teacher gazed through a clear glass. "Seek the LORD while He may be found": this refers to the individual, that to the community; and when does this apply to an individual? During the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. "The number of your days I will fulfill": this is a matter of dispute among the Tannaim, for we learned: "The number of your days I will fulfill" corresponds to two generations; if one merits, they complete it for him; if he does not merit, they reduce it for him, the words of Rabbi Akiva. And the Sages say: if one merits, they add for him; if he does not merit, they reduce for him. They said to Rabbi Akiva: but it is already said, "And I will add to your days" (2 Kings 20:6). He said to them: they added to him from his own; know this, for a prophet stands and prophesies, "Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name" (1 Kings 13:2), and Manasseh had not yet come. And the Rabbis: is it written "born to Hezekiah"? It is written "to the house of David" whether from Hezekiah or from another person.

"I will send My terror before you, and I will throw into confusion all the people" etc. (Exodus 23:27). This teaches that when Israel crossed the Jordan, no creature could stand before them, and whoever stood before them was immediately seized with diarrhea. It was taught: the hornet did not cross over with them. But is it not written, "And I will send the hornet"? Resh Lakish said: it stood on the bank of the Jordan and cast venom at them, blinding their eyes from above and unmanning them from below, as it is said, "And I destroyed the Amorite" (Amos 2:9). Rav Pappa said: there were two hornets, one in the days of Moses and one in the days of Joshua; the one of Moses did not cross over, the one of Joshua did. Three wars of panic the Holy One, blessed be He, promised to Israel upon their entry into the land, as it is said, "My terror" etc., "and the LORD your God will deliver them before you and throw them into great confusion" (Deuteronomy 7:23). And the Rabbis derive it from here: "And the LORD threw them into confusion before Israel" (Joshua 10:10); "And the LORD confused Sisera" (Judges 4:15); "And the LORD thundered with a great voice" etc. "and threw them into confusion" (1 Samuel 7:10), one for the past; "and lightnings in abundance, and discomfited them" (Psalms 18:15), and one in the days of Gog and Magog, "On that day there shall be a great panic from the LORD among them" etc. (Zechariah 14:13).