9,687 related texts · Page 102 of 202
But perhaps the first is an exhortation against stealing money, and the second an exhortation against stealing souls? Would you say that? Three mitzvot (commandments)h are mentione...
(Exodus 21:17) states: "And if one curses his father and his mother, he shall be put to death." The Mekhilta asks why this verse is needed at all, since (Leviticus 20:9) already sa...
The Mekhilta asks yet another question about the verse "And if one curses his father and his mother." From (Leviticus 20:9), which says "every man who curses," we would know only t...
The Torah commands, "And if one curses his father and his mother" he is liable for a grave sin (Exodus 21:17). The Mekhilta noticed that the verse as written only clearly applies w...
What happens if your father is a judge? The Torah prohibits cursing judges: "Elohim you shall not curse" (Exodus 22:27). It also prohibits cursing leaders: "And a prince in your pe...
But perhaps the common element between them is that they are dignitaries, and it is their eminence that accounts for this, wherefore you are exhorted against cursing them—as oppose...
Rabbi Yonathan argued that the explicit mention of "a man or a woman" in (Exodus 21:29) was not even necessary to include women in injury law. Two other verses already accomplished...
The Torah addresses a grim scenario: one person strikes another, and the victim's survival is uncertain. The verse states that if the injured party recovers, "the striker shall be ...
When a man strikes another and the victim recovers — "if he arise and walk outside upon his staff" — the Torah says "the striker shall be absolved" (Exodus 21:19). Absolved of what...
The Torah prescribes that when one person injures another, the attacker must pay for the victim's lost wages: "his sheveth shall he give" (Exodus 21:19). The Hebrew word sheveth me...
The Mekhilta explores a subtle legal distinction between two types of compensation: ripui (medical expenses) and sheveth (work-disability payment). When it comes to medical expense...
"And heal shall he heal" — the Torah doubles the word "heal," and the Mekhilta mines this repetition for legal content. If the victim was healed once but then relapsed, and was hea...
The Torah says: "And if a man strike" — using the masculine form. The Mekhilta immediately asks the obvious question: does this law apply only to men? What about a woman who kills?...
(Exodus 21:20) specifies that the master strikes his bondservant "with a rod." The Mekhilta asks: does this mean the master is liable regardless of what kind of rod he used? Even a...
The Torah requires that for a killing to be classified as murder — and thus subject to the death penalty — the blow must be struck in a place on the body where it could actually ca...
Now if (in the killing of) an Israelite, the graver (instance), not being subject to (the provision of [(Exodus 21:21)]) "But if one or two days," he is not liable unless it be wit...
"And they hit a pregnant woman, and her fetuses miscarry" — Abba Chanin asked in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: why does the verse bother saying "a pregnant woman"? If her fetuses misc...
"and there be no death": in the woman. "then he shall be punished": for the fetuses (i.e., payment for the fetuses shall be exacted of him.) You say this, but perhaps (the meaning ...
Rabbi Eliezer offered an additional proof that "eye for an eye" means monetary compensation. His argument is an a fortiori — a kal va-chomer — that he considered logically airtight...
R. Yitzchak says: "an eye for an eye": I understand this to mean that whether or not he intends (to blind him), he pays only money. And, indeed, Scripture limits one who intends to...
Rabbi Eliezer tackles a textual ambiguity in the Torah's laws of servitude that has real legal consequences. The verse under discussion deals with the acquisition of servants, and ...
"the eye of his man-servant": I might think (that he goes free) even if it developed a leucoma; it is, therefore, written "and he destroy it." Only a blow that causes destruction (...
Rabbi Eliezer employs one of the most powerful tools in the rabbinic interpretive arsenal: the gezeirah shavah, a comparison of two passages that share a common word. The word in q...
Rabbi Yishmael taught a sobering principle about Canaanite bondservants: a Canaanite bondservant can never be redeemed by an outside party. The only path to freedom is the master's...
The Torah specifies that a goring ox is put to death by stoning. But what about an ox that kills by biting, kicking, or trampling rather than goring? Are all forms of animal-inflic...
The Mekhilta raises an objection to equating the tam (first-time gorer) with the mued (habitual gorer). The two categories are not truly parallel. A mued's owner pays kofer — a ran...
Another question about the tam — the first-time goring ox. We have established that all forms of killing are equated with goring. But are minors — children killed by a tam — treate...
The Mekhilta presents a logical reversal. It initially attempted to compare a stoned ox to an eglah arufah — the heifer whose neck is broken in the ceremony for an unsolved murder ...
Rebbi says: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which do not come to atone for the world (viz. (Leviticus 26:2)7), how much more so...
"and the owner of the ox is absolved": R. Yehudah says: He is absolved by Heaven. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a mued is stoned and a tam is stoned, then if we have...
Shimon ben Azzai interpreted the phrase "and the owner of the ox is absolved" (Exodus 21:28) as absolution from paying half-kofer — half of the ransom payment owed when an ox kills...
Rabban Gamliel offered a different interpretation of "the owner of the ox is absolved." He argued the tam's owner is absolved from paying the monetary value of a bondservant who is...
Rabbi Akiva offered his own reading of "the owner of the ox is absolved." He argued that the tam's owner is absolved from paying for the value of fetuses. His reasoning: both a man...
(Exodus 21:29) introduces the mued — the habitual goring ox: "And if it were a goring ox." The Mekhilta explains that this verse exists to draw clear distinctions between the tam (...
Rabbi Meir tackled one of the trickiest problems in the Torah's laws of damages: how do you classify a dangerous ox? The Torah distinguishes between a tam — an ox with no history o...
"and the owner were warned": We are hereby apprised that he is not liable unless he was warned. "and he did not guard it": to bring (even) a non-paid watcher. Variantly: "and he di...
"And its owner, too, shall die" — the Torah pronounces a death sentence on the owner of a mued ox that kills a person. But the Mekhilta specifies: this death is "at the hands of He...
R. Yishmael says: Come and see the mercies of the One who spoke and brought the world into being, for flesh and blood. For a man acquires himself with money from the hands of Heave...
The Mekhilta explores a fascinating taxonomy of what can and cannot be redeemed in Jewish law. Certain consecrated objects can be redeemed — returned to ordinary status through a m...
(Exodus 21:32) addresses the case of an ox that gores a bondservant: "If the ox gore a man-servant or a maid-servant." The Mekhilta explains that bondservants were already included...
The Torah says the ox gored "a man-servant or a maid-servant." The Mekhilta asks: which kind of servant? This must refer to a Canaanite bondservant, not an Israelite one. The proof...
"and there fall there an ox or an ass": He is liable for each in itself. "an ox": and not an ox and its trappings. "an ass": and not an ass and its trapping. For it would follow (o...
Variantly: Slaughtering is being likened to selling, and selling, to slaughtering. Just as selling is outside his (the owner's) domain, so, slaughtering (to make him liable for "fo...
The Mekhilta addresses whether the four-and-five payment applies to consecrated animals — those dedicated to the Temple. If someone steals a consecrated animal and slaughters it ou...
From the law of the burglar, the Mekhilta derives one of the most important principles in Jewish law: a doubt about whether a life is in danger overrides the Sabbath. The reasoning...
Rabbi Yishmael addressed a possible misreading of the burglar law. The Torah seems to distinguish between day and night: (Exodus 22:1) discusses the thief "breaking in" (at night),...
Now what do we learn (about raping) from (murdering)? But it (the instance of murdering) apparently comes to teach (something about that of raping), and ends up "learning" (somethi...
Beyond these is a kidnapper, who pays his life. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: It is written (Mishlei 29:24) "One who divides with a thief hates his soul. (He hears the adjuration to sw...
