4,128 texts · Page 48 of 86
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 ...
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...
(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...
(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...
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 ...
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." On the surface, this seems t...
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 logi...
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 (Devari...
"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...
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...
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 t...
(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 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...
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...
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...
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 records the same logical challenge yet again, applying it to a slightly different aspect of the tam-mued comparison. The mued's owner pays kofer — ransom money. This i...
R. Shimon b. Yochai said: Why was this (gezeirah shavah ) stated? Even without it, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If in a "place"—killing others—where minors are not equated with adu...
(Exodus 21:28) states: "The ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten." The Mekhilta asks: why is the prohibition against eating the flesh necessary? If the ox has been s...
This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive that it is even forbidden to derive benefit from it?—Do you ask? If follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit ...
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 ...
"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 it killed a man or a woman" — this phrase appears in the mued section, but the Mekhilta says it is "extra." Its legal content is already known from other verses. So why is it ...
(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...
"and the ox shall be stoned": Why is this stated? (i.e., it was stated already.) For if it were not stated, I would say (otherwise), viz.: Since he is put to death for killing his ...
(Exodus 21:33) "And if a man open a pit": Why is this stated? It can be derived by reason, viz.: Since the ox is his possession and the pit is his possession, then if you have lear...
The Torah discusses two ways a dangerous pit might come into existence: someone might open an existing pit that was previously covered, or someone might dig a brand-new one. In (Ex...
R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Opening (a pit) is not like digging, or digging, like opening. What is common to them is that wherever one is liable for guarding it, he is liable for ...
"And he not cover it" — the Torah addresses liability for an uncovered pit. The Mekhilta adds a crucial qualifier: "and he not cover it properly." This distinction between proper a...
"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...
"And there fall there" — the Torah describes an animal falling into an uncovered pit. The Mekhilta specifies: this must happen "in the normal mode of falling." The animal must fall...
"Money shall he restore to its owner" — when someone's animal falls into another person's uncovered pit and dies, the pit-digger must pay compensation. The Torah specifies "money."...
"and the carcass shall belong to him": to him who sustained the loss. You say this, but perhaps it belongs to him who caused the loss? (This cannot be, for) if so, why need it be m...
(21:35) "And if the ox of a man butt": Included in "goring" is butting, pushing, lying upon, kicking, and biting. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name ...
(Exodus 21:35) says: "And if the ox of a man strike" — the Mekhilta immediately draws a legal boundary. The phrase "of a man" excludes the ox of a minor. A child who owns an ox tha...
"Then they shall sell the living ox" — when one person's ox kills another person's ox, the Torah prescribes a specific remedy. But the Mekhilta specifies: this verse assumes the tw...
