1,517 texts in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael
The Torah says that if men quarrel and one strikes the other "with stone or fist" (Exodus 21:18), the striker is liable. Does this mean liability exists only for these two specific...
Rabbi Nathan analyzed the Torah's laws about lethal weapons with a precise analogy: stone is compared to fist, and fist is compared to stone. This mutual comparison, drawn from the...
This is one of three things in the Torah which R. Yishmael expounded metaphorically. Similarly, (Exodus 22:2) "If the sun shone upon him." Now is it upon him alone that the sun shi...
The Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael draws a connection between two seemingly unrelated legal passages in the Torah, both involving the concept of metaphorical language in legal contexts....
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 heal...
(Exodus 21:20) introduces the law of a master who strikes his bondservant: "And if a man strike his man-servant or his maid-servant." The Mekhilta explains why this verse is necess...
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? ...
R. Eliezer says: Scripture speaks of a Canaanite (as opposed to a Hebrew) man-servant. You say this, but perhaps it speaks of a Hebrew? (This is not so, for) it is written here "hi...
(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 caus...
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 with an...
Rebbi, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, asked why the Torah specifically mentions "a rod" in the law about striking a bondservant. He argued that the word "rod" is extra, it is not needed for...
The Torah legislates the case of a master who strikes his servant, specifying that the servant must "die under his hand." The Mekhilta dissects this phrase to extract a precise leg...
"Vengeance shall be taken", the Torah declares this regarding a master who kills his bondservant. But what does "vengeance" mean in legal terms? The Mekhilta identifies it as death...
The Torah addresses the case of a master who strikes his slave in (Exodus 21:21), using a phrase that puzzled the rabbis: "But if one day or two days." The first reading, this seem...
R. Shimon says: Why need this ("for he is his money") be stated. Even if it were not stated I would know it by induction, viz. Since his ox is killed for (killing) his man-servant ...
(Exodus 21:22) introduces the case of men who fight and accidentally injure a pregnant bystander. The Mekhilta asks why this passage is necessary. From (Exodus 21:14), "And if a ma...
Rebbi, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, offered an alternative reading of the fighting-men passage. If a man intends to strike one enemy and accidentally strikes a different enemy, the logic ...
R. Yitzchak says: Even a man who intends to smite one and smites another is not liable, until he makes it clear that it is this man that he wishes to smite, as it is written (Devar...
"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 misca...
The Torah addresses a disturbing scenario: "And they hit a pregnant woman" (Exodus 21:22). Two men are fighting, and a pregnant bystander is struck, causing her to miscarry. The To...
"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 ...
The Torah uses the word "punished" in (Exodus 21:22) when describing the penalty for a man who injures a pregnant woman during a fight. "Then he shall be punished". But punished ho...
The Torah addresses a troubling scenario in (Exodus 21:22): two men are fighting, and in the chaos, a pregnant woman gets struck. The blow causes her to miscarry. Who pays? And to ...
The Torah says that when a pregnant woman is struck and miscarries, the compensation is determined "as the husband of the woman imposes upon him" (Exodus 21:22). One might think th...
Rebbi, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, taught that "nefesh (the vital soul) for nefesh", "a life for a life", means monetary compensation, not literal execution. The Torah is requiring the p...
"An eye for an eye", the Mekhilta states flatly that this means money. Monetary compensation, not literal blinding. But the text anticipates resistance to this reading: perhaps an ...
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...
(Exodus 21:25) "A burn for a burn": If you say (the meaning is that he burned him and spilled his blood, this is already subsumed in "a wound for a wound." If you say that he made ...
(Exodus 21:26) "And if a man strike the eye of his (Canaanite) man-servant": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 25:26) "Forever shall you have them serve you," I might thi...
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 (...
The Mekhilta addresses a precise scenario: what happens when a master knocks out two of his bondservant's teeth. Or blinds both eyes, simultaneously, in a single blow? The ruling i...
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...
The Torah grants freedom to a bondservant whose master knocks out a tooth or blinds an eye. But does this apply only to adult bondservants? What about a minor, a child bondservant ...
I might think (that he goes free) even if he knocked out a milk tooth, (which grows back); it is, therefore, written "eye." Just as an eye does not grow back, so the tooth (in ques...
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...
Despite the permanence of Canaanite servitude, there was one path to freedom that did not require the master's consent: suffering. If a master persecuted his Canaanite bondservant ...
The Torah states: "And if an ox gore a man or a woman and they die, the ox shall surely be stoned" (Exodus 21:28). The Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael asks: why does the Torah need this ...
"And if an ox gore", the Torah mentions only an ox. But what about other animals? If a donkey kicks someone, or a camel bites, do the same laws apply? The Mekhilta says yes, and de...
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 rans...
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, treated t...
