I have reasoned and reversed

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Mekhilta Tractate Nezikin 10:10

Curated by The Jewish Mythology Team · Published January 10, 2025

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 (Deuteronomy 21:1-9). The comparison was meant to prove that a stoned ox's flesh is forbidden for any benefit, not just eating.

The argument ran: if the eglah arufah, which atones for the spiller of blood, is forbidden for benefit, then surely a stoned ox — which is itself a spiller of blood, having killed a person — should be even more forbidden. The one who atones is restricted; the one who actually committed the killing should be restricted even further.

But this a fortiori argument encountered difficulties and was initially "reversed" — meaning a counter-argument challenged it. The Mekhilta then declares that the reversal has been nullified, and the original reasoning stands.

The restored conclusion is powerful: deriving benefit from a stoned ox is forbidden. You may not sell its hide, use its bones, or profit from any part of it. The animal that killed a human being is treated as something from which no value may be extracted. This goes beyond the prohibition against eating. It is a total economic prohibition. The killer ox is removed entirely from the sphere of human use — a complete exclusion that mirrors the severity of the act it committed.

Themes

Wisdom Adam & Eve Violence

Continue Reading

Ginzberg Solomon's Bold Claim About Virtuous Women Solomon, as we know, was never one to shy away from a bold statement. But one in particular ruffled feathers. He declare... Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael on the houses" — What is the intent of this The Mekhilta catches a redundancy in the Torah's Passover instructions that most readers would never notice — and from t... Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael The measure of flesh and blood—he goes to an artisan and The Mekhilta presents a second comparison between human artisans and the divine Creator — this time focusing on the prob... Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael You say it is two thousand ells, but perhaps it is four ells The Mekhilta debates the physical dimensions of the refuge space that a person who killed accidentally was confined to. ... Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael It follows a fortiori, viz The Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael presents a classic a fortiori argument, known in rabbinic logic as kal va-chomer, "from th... Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael And whence is it derived that it must be in a locus which The Torah requires that for a killing to be classified as murder — and thus subject to the death penalty — the blow must... Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Yitzchak says — Even a man who intends to smite one and R. Yitzchak says: Even a man who intends to smite one and smites another is not liable—until he makes it clear that it i... Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael This tells me only of eating This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive that it is even forbidden to derive benefit from it?—Do you ask? If fol... Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and the owner of the ox is absolved" — R "and the owner of the ox is absolved": R. Yehudah says: He is absolved by Heaven. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.:...