1 And these are the ordinances-Wherever
it says, “these” [in the Torah,] it [(this word) is used to] separate from what
has been stated previously. [Where it says,] “And these,” [it means that] it is
adding to what has been previously stated (Tanchuma Mishpatim 3). [Thus] just
as what has been previously stated [namely the Ten Commandments,] were from
Sinai, these too were from Sinai. Now why was the section dealing with laws
juxtaposed to the section dealing with the altar? To tell you that you shall
place the Sanhedrin adjacent to the Beth Hamikdash (other editions: the altar).-[From
Mechilta]
that you shall set before them-The Holy
One, blessed is He, said to Moses: Do not think of saying, “I will teach them
the chapter or the law [both terms seemingly refer to the Oral Torah] two or
three times until they know it well, as it was taught, but I will not trouble
myself to enable them to understand the reasons for the matter and its
explanation.” Therefore, it is said: “you shall set before them,” like a table,
set [with food] and prepared to eat from, [placed] before someone.-[From
Mechilta, Eruvin 54b]
before them But not before gentiles. Even if you know that they
[gentiles] judge a certain law similarly to the laws of Israel, do not bring it
to their courts, for one who brings Jewish lawsuits before gentiles profanes
the [Divine] Name and honors the name of idols to praise them (other editions:
to give them importance), as it is said: “For not like our Rock [God] is their
rock, but [yet] our enemies judge [us]” (Deut. 32:31). When [we let] our
enemies judge [us], this is testimony to [our] esteem of their deity.-[From
Tanchuma 3]
2 Should you but a Hebrew slave A slave
who is himself a Hebrew. Or perhaps it means only a slave of a Hebrew, a
Canaanite [servant] whom you bought from a Hebrew. And concerning him, he [the
Torah] says, “he shall work [for] six years.” How [then] can I apply the [law
in the following] verse, “and you shall bequeath them” (Lev. 25:46) ? [Does
this verse apply] concerning one [a servant] purchased from a non-Jew, but one
[a servant] purchased from an Israelite goes free after six years? Therefore,
the Torah states: “Should your brother, a Hebrew man… be sold to you, [he shall
serve you for six years]” (Deut. 15:12). [This is the clarification that] I
[God] said this only regarding your brother.- [From Mechilta]
Should you buy from the hand of the court,
who sold him [into servitude] because of his theft, as it is said: “If he has
no [money], he shall be sold for his theft” (Exod. 22:2). Or perhaps it refers
only to one who sold oneself [into servitude] because of poverty, but if the
court sold him, he does not go free after six [years]? When he [the Torah]
says: “And if your brother becomes impoverished beside you and is sold to you”
(Lev. 25:39), one who sells oneself because of poverty is mentioned [here]. So
[to avoid repetition,] how do I apply “Should you buy”? [By understanding that
this is] concerning one sold by the court.
to freedom Heb. לַחָפְשִׁי , to freedom.
3 If he comes [in] alone Heb. בְּגַפּוֹ , meaning that he was not married, as the Targum
renders: אִם
בִּלְחוֹדוֹהִי . The expression בְּגַפּוֹ means “with his skirt,” [i.e., the skirt of his
cloak, meaning] that he came only as he was, alone within his clothing, in the
skirt of his garment.
he shall go out alone-[This]
tells [us] that if he was not married at first, his master may not give him a
Canaanite maidservant from whom to beget slaves.-[From Kid. 20a]
if he is a married man-[Lit.,
if he is someone’s husband, meaning] an Israelite [woman].-[From Mechilta]
his wife shall go out with him Now who
brought her in that she should go out? Rather, the text informs us that whoever
purchases a Hebrew slave is [also] responsible for supporting his wife and his
children. [From Mechilta, Kid. 22a]
4 If his master gives him a wife From
here we deduce that his master has the option to give him [the slave] a
Canaanite maidservant [in order] to beget slaves from her. Or, perhaps this
means only an Israelite woman? Therefore, Scripture says: “The woman and her
children shall belong to her master.” Thus, He is speaking only about a
Canaanite woman, for a Hebrew woman she, too, goes free after six [years], and
even before six [years], when she develops signs [of puberty], she goes free,
as it is said: “your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman [that one shall
serve you for six years]” (Deut. 15:12). [This] teaches [us] that a Hebrew
[maidservant] also goes free after six [years].-[From Mechilta, Kid. 14b]
5 my wife-[This refers to] the maidservant.
6 to the judges Heb. אֶל-הָאֱלֽהִים , to the court to consult his sellers, for they
sold him [the slave] to him [to his master].-[From Mechilta]
to the door or to the doorpost I might
think that the doorpost is [a] qualified [place] on which to bore [the
servant’s ear]. Therefore, Scripture says: “and you shall thrust it into his
ear and into the door” (Deut. 15:17), [meaning] “into the door,” but not “into
the doorpost.” What then does or to the doorpost mean? [The text is] comparing
the door to the doorpost. Just as the doorpost is upright [i.e., attached to
the house; otherwise it is not called a doorpost], so is the door upright. [A
detached door may not be used for the ritual of ear boring.]-[From Mechilta,
Kid. 22b]
and his master shall bore his ear-[I.e.,]
the right [ear]. Or perhaps it means the left one? Therefore, the Torah states אֽזֶן “ear,” here and אֽזֶן [elsewhere] for [the purpose of making] a גְזֵרָה
שָׁוָה , [which means two places having similar wording, which
indicates that the rulings pertaining to one situation also apply to the
other]. It is stated here: “and his master shall bore his ear,” and it is
stated regarding the mezora [person with the disease of zara’ath]: “the
cartilage of the right ear of the one who is becoming pure” (Lev. 14:14). Just
as there the right [ear] is specified, here too the right [ear] is meant. Now,
why was the ear chosen to be bored out of all the organs of the body? Rabban
Jochanan ben Zakkai said: The ear that heard on Mount Sinai, “You shall not
steal” (Exod. 20:13) and [then] went and stole, shall be bored. And if [the
text is referring to] one who sold himself [into servitude, the reason is that]
the ear that heard, “For the children of Israel are slaves to Me” (Lev. 25:55)
and [then] went and acquired a master for himself, [this ear] shall be bored.
Rabbi Shimon used to interpret this verse [in a beautiful manner] like a bundle
of pearls [or a great amount of perfume in this way:]-why were the door and the
doorpost singled out from all the fixtures in the house? The Holy One, blessed
is He, said: The door and the doorpost were witnesses in Egypt when I passed
over the lintel and the two doorposts, and I said, “For the children of Israel
are slaves to Me; they are My slaves,” but [they are] not slaves to slaves, and
[yet] this one went and acquired for himself a master-[his ear] shall be bored
before them [for everyone to see].-[From Kid. 22b]
and he shall serve him forever-Heb. לְעֽלָם , until the Jubilee year [the fiftieth year of the cycle]. Or
perhaps it means literally forever, as its apparent meaning? Therefore, the
Torah states [in reference to the Jubilee year]: “and each man to his family
you shall return” (Lev. 25:10). [This] informs [us] that fifty years are called
עֽלָם . But [this does] not [mean] that he must serve him [his
master] the entire fifty years, but he must serve him until the Jubilee year,
regardless of whether it is near or far off.-[From Mechilta, Kid. 15a]
7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant
Scripture is referring [here] to a minor girl. I might think that even if she
develops signs [of initial puberty, the father may sell her]. [But] you must
agree that a kal vachomer [the inference of a major rule from a minor rule]
applies here namely if she who is already sold goes free with signs [that is,
when she has signs of initial puberty], as it is written: “she shall go out for
nothing, without money” (Exod. 21:11), which we interpret as referring to the
signs of initial puberty, does it not make sense that she who is not sold [and
has initial signs of puberty] should not be sold [at all]? -[From Mechilta,
Arachin 29a] [At the moment when a female has two pubic hairs, usually when she
is twelve years old, she is no longer considered a minor. She is then called נַעֲרָה . She is, however, still under her father’s jurisdiction until
six months later, when her breasts have developed to a certain stage. Then she
is called בּוֹגֶרֶת , a mature girl. In the case of a Hebrew
maidservant, the father may sell her only when she is a minor, not after she
has become a נַעֲרָה she shall not go free as the slaves go free
[I.e.,]-like the emancipation of Canaanite slaves, who go free because of [the
loss of] a tooth or an eye. [See below, verses 26, 27.] This one [a Hebrew
maidservant], however, will not go free because of [the loss of] a tooth or an
eye, but she will work for [her complete] six years or until the Jubilee year
or until she develops signs [of initial puberty]. Whichever comes first will be
the first [event] to effect her emancipation, and [her master] will reimburse
her for the value of her eye or the value of her tooth. Or perhaps this is not
so [i.e., the intention of the verse], but “she shall not go free as the [male]
slaves go free” [meaning] after six years or in the Jubilee year? Therefore,
the Torah states: “Should your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, be sold
to you…” (Deut. 15:12). This compares the Hebrew woman to the Hebrew man in
regard to all the ways he can be emancipated: just as a Hebrew man goes free
following six years [of service] or in the Jubilee year, so too does a Hebrew
woman go free following six years [of service] or in the Jubilee year. What
then is the meaning of “she shall not go free as the slaves go free”? [This
means] she shall not go free with [the loss of] the tips of her limbs, as do
the Canaanite slaves. I might think [then] that [only a Hebrew maidservant does
not go free due to the loss of the tips of her limbs, but] a Hebrew man does go
free with [the loss of] the tips of his limbs. [Therefore, the Torah] compares
the Hebrew man to the Hebrew woman: just as the Hebrew woman does not go free
with [the loss of] the tips of her limbs, neither does the Hebrew man go free
with [the loss of] the tips of his limbs.-[From Mechilta] 8 If she is
displeasing to her master-[Meaning] that she does not please him to the extent
that he would [want to] marry her.-[From Mechilta] who did not designate her
For he should have designated her and married her, and the money paid for her
purchase is the money of her betrothal. Here Scripture hints that it is a
mitzvah [for the master] to perform יִעוּד , designation for marriage, [with the maidservant]
and it hints that she would not require any other betrothal. [I.e., neither
money nor articles of value would have to be given to the girl’s father in
order to marry her. The money the father originally received for selling his
daughter now would become the money of betrothal from her master.]-[From Kid.
19b]
he shall enable her to be redeemed-[This
means] he [the master] should give her the opportunity to be redeemed and go
free, for he too assists in her redemption. Now what is this opportunity that
he gives her? That he deducts from her redemption, according to the number of
years that she worked for him, as if she had been hired by him [and was not a
slave]. How so? Let us say that he bought her for a maneh [one hundred zuz],
and she worked for him for two years. We say to him, “You knew that she would
ultimately leave at the end of six years. This means that you bought each
year’s work for one-sixth of a maneh, and she has worked for you for two years,
which equals one-third of a maneh. Accept two-thirds of a maneh [from her, to
pay for the remaining four years] and let her leave you.”- [from Kid. 14b]
to another person Heb. לְעַם
נָכְרִי . [Meaning] that neither the master nor the father has the
right to sell her to anyone else.-[from Kid. 18a]
when he betrays her If he [the master] comes to
betray her and not fulfill the commandment of designation, and the father, too,
since he betrayed her and sold her to this one.
9 And if he designates her for his son-[I.e.,
if] the master [chooses her as a wife for his son]. [This] teaches [us] that
his son also stands in his [the master’s] place to designate her if his father
so desires, and he does not require another betrothal, but he [can] say to her,
“Behold, you are designated to me with the money your father received
[originally] for your value.”-[From Kid. 18b]
according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]-Meaning
sustenance, clothing, and marital relations.-[From Mechilta]
10 If he takes another [wife] for himself in addition
to her.-[From Mechilta]
he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or
her marital relations from the maidservant whom he had already designated.-[From
Mechilta]
her sustenance Heb. שְׁאֵרָהּ , [referring to] food.-[From Mechilta, Keth. 47b]
her clothing Heb. כְּסוּתָה , lit., her covering As its apparent meaning
[namely her clothing].
her marital relations Heb. עֽנָתָה , [meaning physical] intimacy.-[From Mechilta, Keth. 47b]
11 And if he does not do these three things for her If he
does not do any one of these three things for her. Now what are these three
things? He should designate her for himself or for his son [as a wife], or he
should deduct from the money of her redemption and allow her to go free. But
this one [master] designated her neither for himself nor for his son, and she
could not afford to redeem herself [even after the deduction].-[From Mechilta]
she shall go free without charge-[The
text] adds [another means of] emancipation for this [maidservant] beyond what
it provided for male slaves. Now what is this [means of] emancipation? וְיָצְאָה
חִנָם informs you that she goes free when she shows [initial] signs
[of puberty], and she must stay with him until she develops [these] signs. If
six years pass before the appearance of these signs, we have already learned
that she goes free, as it is said: “Should your brother, a Hebrew man or a
Hebrew woman [be sold to you, that one] shall serve you for six years” (Deut.
15:12). What then is the meaning of “she shall go out without charge”? If the
signs [of puberty] precede the [end of] six years, she shall go free because of
them. Or perhaps it means only that she goes out when she reaches maturity
[i.e., at twelve and a half years]? Therefore, Scripture says: “without
[payment of] money,” to include her emancipation at maturity. If both of them
[i.e., that she goes free “without charge” and “without money”] were not
stated, [and “she shall go out without charge” was stated,] I would say that
“she shall go out without charge” refers to [her being freed at] maturity.
Therefore, both of them were stated, so that the disputant has no opportunity
to differ. -[From Mechilta, Kid. 4a]
12 One who strikes a man so that he dies Several
verses have been written in the section dealing with murderers, and I will
explain what I am able to explain [about] why they [these verses] are needed.
One who strikes a man so that he dies Why was
this said? Because it says: “And if a man strikes down any human being, he
shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 24:17), I understand [that even if he deals
him] a blow without death. Therefore, the Torah says: “He who strikes a man and
he dies,” meaning that he is liable only for a blow causing death. If it said:
“He who strikes a man,” and it did not say, “And if a man strikes down any
human being,” I would say that one is liable only if one strikes a man. If one
strikes a woman or a minor, how do we know [that one is liable]? Therefore, the
Torah says: “if [a man] strikes down any human being,” referring even to a
minor or even a woman. Also, if it said: “He who strikes a man,” I would
understand that even a minor who struck and killed [someone] would be liable.
Therefore, the Torah [specifically] says: “if a man strikes down,” but not a
minor who strikes [someone] down. Also, “if… strikes down any human being”
implies even a nonviable infant. Therefore, the Torah [here] says: “He who
strikes a man,” implying one is liable only if one strikes a viable infant, one
[who is] capable of becoming a man [i.e., an adult]. -[From Mechilta]
13 But one who did not stalk [him] He did
not lie in wait for him, and he did not intend [to kill him]. -[From Sifrei,
Num. 35:22]
stalk Heb. צָדָה , an expression meaning “lie in wait.” And so does
Scripture say: “but you are stalking (צֽדֶה) my soul to take it” (I Sam. 24:12). It is,
however, impossible to say that צָדָה is an expression [that is] related to [hunting
animals as in the following verse:] “the one who hunted game (הַצָּד
צַיִד) ” (Gen. 27:33) [and to render: he did not hunt him down],
because in [the expression of] hunting beasts, there is no “hey” in its verb,
and the noun related to it is צַיִד , whereas the noun in this case is צְדִיָּה (Num. 35:20), and its verb is צוֹדֶה , but the verb of this one [namely hunting] is צָּד . I say, [therefore,] that this is to be interpreted as the
Targum [Onkelos] renders: But he who did not stalk [him]. Menachem, however,
classified it (Machbereth Menachem, p. 148) in the grouping along with הַצָּד
צַיִד , but I disagree with him. If it is at all possible to classify
it in one of the groupings of צד [enumerated by Menachem], we may classify it in
the grouping of “on the side (צַד) you shall be borne” (Isa. 66:12); “I shall shoot
to the side (צִדָּה) ” (I Sam. 20:20); “And he will speak words
against [lit., to the side of] (לְצַד) the Most High” (Dan. 7:25). Here, too, אֲשֶׁר לֹא
צָדָה means that he did not look sideways (צִדֵּד) to find for him some occasion [lit., side] to
kill him. This [interpretation] too is questionable. In any case, it is an
expression of stalking.
[but God brought [it] about into his hand Heb. אִנָּה , made it ready for his hand, an expression similar to “No harm
will be prepared (תְאוּנֶּה) for you” (Ps. 91:10); No wrong shall be prepared
(יְאוּנֶּה) (Prov. 12:21); [and] “he is preparing himself (מִתְאַנֶה) against me” (II Kings 5:7), [meaning that] he is
preparing himself to find a pretext against me..
but God brought [it] about into his hand Now why
should this go out from before Him? That is what David said, “As the proverb of
the Ancient One says, ‘From the wicked comes forth wickedness’”(I Sam. 24:14).
The proverb of the Ancient One is the Torah, which is the proverb of the Holy
One, blessed is He, Who is the Ancient One of the world. Now where did the
Torah say, “From the wicked comes forth wickedness”? [This refers to:] “but God
brought [it] about into his hand.” To what is the text referring? To two
people, one who killed unintentionally and one who killed intentionally, but
there were no witnesses who would testify to the matter. This one [who killed
intentionally] was not executed, and that one [who killed unintentionally] was
not exiled [to the refuge cities]. So the Holy One, blessed is He, brings them
[both] to one inn. The one who killed intentionally sits under a ladder, and
the one who killed unintentionally is ascending the ladder, and he falls on the
one who had killed intentionally and kills him, and witnesses testify about him
and sentence him to exile. The result is that the one who killed
unintentionally is exiled, and the one who killed intentionally was killed.
-[From Mechilta, Makkoth 10b]
I will make a place for you Even in
the desert, where he [the man who has murdered] shall flee, and what place
affords him asylum? This is the camp of the Levites. -[From Mechilta, Mak. 12b]
14 But if… plots deliberately Why was
this said? Because it said: “One who strikes [a man so that he dies shall
surely be put to death]” (verse 12), I [may] understand [this to apply to] a
physician [who killed a patient], the agent of the court who killed by
[administering] forty lashes, the father who strikes his son, the teacher who
disciplines his pupil, and the unintentional [killer]. Therefore, the Torah
states: “But if [a man] plots deliberately,” but not the unintentional
[killer]; “to slay him with cunning,” but not the agent of the court, the
physician, or the one who disciplines his son or his pupil, for although they
are intentional [in striking], they do not act with cunning. -[From Mechilta]
[even] from My altar if he were a kohen and
wanted to perform the [sacrificial] service, you shall take him to die. [From
Mechilta, Yoma 85a]
15 And one who strikes his father or his mother Since we
learned that one who strikes one’s fellow is liable to make monetary
compensation (Exod. 21:18, 19, 24, 25), but he is not liable to death, the text
had to state that one who strikes his father is liable to the death penalty, but
he is not liable except for a blow that causes a wound. -[From Mechilta, Sanh.
84b]
his father or his mother Either
this one or that one. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 85b]
shall surely be put to death by
strangulation. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 85b]
16 And whoever kidnaps a man Why was
this said [here since the law of kidnapping is mentioned elsewhere (Ho’il
Moshe)]? Since it says (Deut. 24:7): “Should a man be found stealing a person
from among his brothers” [meaning from the children of Israel, and he has
worked with him and sold him, that thief shall die, and you shall clear away
the evil from your midst]. [From here] I know only [that] a man who kidnapped a
person [is liable to death]. How do I know if a woman, one of indeterminate
sex, or a hermaphrodite kidnap [a person, that they too are liable to death]?
Therefore, the Torah states: “And whoever kidnaps a man and sells him…” And
since it says here: “And whoever kidnaps a man,” I know only that one who
kidnaps a man [is liable to death]. How do I know that if one kidnaps a woman
[he is also liable… to death]? Therefore, the Torah states (Deut. 24:7):
“stealing a person.” Therefore, both of them [both verses] were needed; what
one [verse] left out the other [verse] filled in [lit., revealed]. -[From Mechilta,
Sanh. 85b]
and he is found in his possession [I.e.,
this means] that witnesses saw him that he kidnapped him and sold him, and he
[the kidnapped man] was found in his hand prior to the sale. -[From Mechilta]
shall surely be put to death By strangulation.
Every death penalty mentioned in the Torah without qualification is
strangulation (Mechilta, Sanh. 84b). [God] interrupts the subject [of
discussing sins against parents] and writes, “and whoever kidnaps a man”
between [the verses] “one who strikes his father or his mother” and “one who
curses his father or his mother.” It appears to me that that is [the underlying
reason for] the controversy [found in Sanh. 85], that one Tannaic master
believes that we are comparing striking [someone] to cursing [i.e., just as one
is liable only if one curses a person who keeps the commandments as befits a
Jew (see Exod. 22:27), so too is one liable only for striking a person who
keeps the commandments, but not for striking a Cuthite], and the other master
believes that we do not compare cursing to striking [and thus one would be
liable for striking a Cuthite even though he does not keep the commandments].
-[Rashi, referring to Sanh. 85b]
17 And one who curses his father or his mother Why was
this said? Since [Scripture] says: “any man, any man who curses his father [or
his mother shall surely be put to death]” (Lev. 20:9). [From there] I know only
that if a man curses his father [he is liable to death]. How do I know that if
a woman curses her father [she too is liable to death]? Therefore, Scripture
says [here]: “And one who curses his father or his mother….” It makes an
unqualified statement, meaning whether it is a man or a woman. If so, why does
it say, “any man who curses”? [In order] to exclude a minor. -[From Mechilta]
shall surely be put to death By
stoning. Wherever it says: “his blood is upon him,” [it means that he is to be
put to death] by stoning. The model for all of them is “with rocks they shall
stone them; their blood is upon them” (Lev. 20:27). Regarding the one who
curses his father, it says: “his blood is upon him” (Lev. 20:9). -[From
Mechilta; Sanh. 66a; Sifra, end of Kedoshim]
18 And if men quarrel Why was
this said? Since it says: “An eye for an eye” (Exod. 21:24), we learn only
[that if one assaults his fellow, he must pay] the value of his limbs [which he
amputated or rendered permanently useless], but [payment for] idleness and
healing we have not [yet] learned. Therefore, this section, [which delineates
those payments,] was stated. -[From Mechilta]
but is confined to [his] bed Heb. וְנָפַל
לְמִשְׁכָּב , as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: לְבוּטְלָן , and he falls into idleness, [meaning] into an
illness that prevents him from working. 19 [with what he relies on, i.e.,]
on his support Heb. עַל-מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ , with his health and his strength. -[From
Mechilta].
the assailant shall be cleared Now
would it enter your mind that one who did not kill should be killed? But
rather, [the Torah] teaches you here that they imprison him until it becomes
apparent whether this one [the victim] will get well, and this is its meaning:
When this one gets up and walks on his support, then the assailant shall be
cleared, but before this one [the victim] gets up, the assailant shall not be
cleared. -[From Keth. 33b]
only [payment] for his [enforced] idleness Heb. שִׁבְתּוֹ , the [enforced] idleness from his work due to the
illness. If he cut off his hand or his foot, we assess [payment for] the
idleness as if he were a watchman of a cucumber field, because even after
[recovery from] the illness, he is not fit for work that requires a hand or
foot, and he [the assailant] already gave him as payment for his damage the
value of his hand and his foot, as it is said: “a hand for a hand, a foot for a
foot” (Exod. 21:24). - [From B.K. 83b, 85b, Tosefta B.K. 9:1]
and he shall provide for his cure As the
Targum [Onkelos] renders: and he shall pay the physician’s fee.
20 And should a man strike his manservant or his
maidservant The text is referring to a Canaanite slave, or
perhaps it is referring only to a Hebrew [slave]? To clarify this, the Torah
says: “because he is his property” (verse 21). Just as his property is his
permanent acquisition, so is the slave [in question] one who is his permanent
acquisition. Now, was he [the one who kills his slave] not included in “He who
strikes a man and he dies” (above, verse 12) ? This verse was written [lit.,
came] to exclude him [the owner of the slave] from the general rule [concerning
murder], to be judged with the law of “a day or two days” (verse 21), that if
he did not die under his hand but lingered an entire twenty-four-hour period,
he is exempt. -[From Mechilta]
with a rod The verse refers to [a rod] that has sufficient
[weight and strength] to kill [someone]. Or perhaps that is not so, but [the
master is liable] even if it [the rod] does not have sufficient [weight and
strength] to kill? Therefore, the Torah says concerning an Israelite: “Or if he
strikes him with a stone that can be held in the hand, from which he may die”
(Num. 35:17). (“Or if he strikes him with a wooden instrument that can be held
in the hand, from which he may die”) (Num. 35:18). -[Mizrachi version] Now
could the matter not be understood by a kal vachomer [an inference from a major
to a minor case], that if [in the case of] an Israelite [victim], [a case]
which is treated more stringently, one is not liable unless he struck him [the
victim] with an article that has sufficient [weight and strength] to kill and
the blow is on an organ which could cause death, how much more should it be so
[in the case of] a slave, [a case] which is treated more leniently? -[From
Mechilta]
he shall surely be avenged [with]
death by the sword [decapitation], and so does the Torah say: “a sword avenging
the vengeance of the covenant” (Lev. 26:25). -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 52b]
21 But if he survives for a day or two he shall not be
avenged If one day[’s survival] exempts him [from punishment],
then would not [survival of] two days be even more obvious? [Why then, is the
word יומים written?] Rather [it must be that we are speaking of] one day
which is as two days, and what [kind of day] is that? A full, twenty-four hour
period.
he shall not be avenged, because
he is his property But if someone else struck him, even if he lingered for
twenty-four hours before he died, he [the other person] is liable [to incur the
death penalty].
22 And should men quarrel with one
another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman.
[From Sanh. 79a]
and hit a pregnant woman Heb. נְגִיפָה
.וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as
[in the following phrases:] “lest you strike תִּגֽף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before
your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself
(נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).
but there is no fatality with the
woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]
he shall surely be punished to pay
the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was
valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy.
-[From B.K. 49a] I.e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as
a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the
slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The
assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]
he shall surely be punished Heb. עָנוֹשׁ
יֵעָנֵשׁ . They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut.
22:19). [From Mechilta]
when the woman’s husband makes demands of him When the
husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that.
and he shall give [restitution] The
assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses.
according to the judges Heb. בִּפְלִלִים , according to the verdict of the judges. -[From
Mechilta]
23 But if there is a fatality with the
woman.
you shall give a life for a life Our
Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must] actually [give up his]
life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not actually a life, and if
one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is exempt from the death
penalty and must pay his [the victim’s] heirs his value, as [it would be if] he
were sold in the marketplace. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 79]
24 an eye for an eye If [a person] blinds his
neighbor’s eye, he must give him the value of his eye, [which is] how much his
price to be sold in the marketplace has decreased [without the eye]. So is the
meaning of all of them [i.e., all the injuries enumerated in the following
verses], but not the actual amputation of a limb, as our Rabbis interpreted it
in the chapter entitled הַחוֹבֵל , he who assaults. -[From B.K. 83b, 84a]
25 a burn for a burn Heb. כְּוִיָּה , a burn caused by fire. [Rashi probably alludes
to מִכְוַת-אֵשׁ in Lev. 13:24.] Until now [the Torah] spoke of an
injury that decreases the value [of the victim], and now of [an injury] that
does not decrease the [victim’s] value [as a slave] but causes pain, for
instance if he [the assailant] burned him [the victim] on his nails with a
spit, they [the judges] compute how much [money] a person like him would be
willing to take to endure such pain. -[From B.K. 84a, Mechilta]
a wound Heb. פֶּצַע , a wound that bleeds, where he wounded his
[victim’s] flesh, navredure in Old French, all according to what it [the wound]
is. If it decreases his value, he [the assailant must] pay [for the] damage; if
he falls into idleness, he [must] pay for idleness, and for healing, shame, and
pain. This verse is superfluous [because there is no difference between a wound
and a burn. Whatever damage he inflicts he must pay]. In [the chapter] הַחוֹבֵל (B.K. 84a), our Rabbis interpreted it as making
one liable for [the victim’s] pain even where there is [permanent] damage
[which he must pay for], because although he pays him [the victim] the value of
his hand, we do not exempt him from the [payment compensating for the victim’s]
pain, reasoning that since he [the assailant] purchased his [the victim’s] hand
[by giving the victim payment for its value], he may amputate it with whatever
he wants. We say, however, that he should amputate it with a medication that
lessens the pain. However, [if] he cut it off with [an] iron [implement] and
caused him pain [he must give the victim compensation]. -[From B.K. 85a] a
bruise Heb. חַבּוּרָה . This is a blow in which blood collects but does
not come out. It only reddens the flesh on that spot. The term חַבּוּרָה is equivalent to tache in Old French [meaning] a
spot, like “or a leopard its spots (חֲבַרְבֻּרֽתָיו) ” (Jer. 13:23). Its Aramaic translation is מַשְׁקוֹפֵי , an expression of beating, batedure in Old
French, [meaning] beating, knocking, and so, שְׁדֻפוֹת
קָדִּים (Gen. 41:23) [is translated by Onkelos as:] שְׁקִיפָן
קִדּוּם , [which means] “beaten by the [east] wind,” and similarly, “on
the lintel (עַל
הַמַשְׁקוֹף) ” (Exod. 12:7), [is given this appellation]
because the door bangs against it [the lintel]. [See commentary on Exod. 12:7.]
26 the eye of his manservant [This
refers to] a Canaanite, but a Hebrew [slave] does not go out with [the loss of
his] tooth or [his] eye as we have stated on “she shall not go out as the
slaves go out” (Exod. 21:7).
in return for his eye And so
it [the law] is with the twenty-four tips of limbs: [i.e.,] the fingers and
toes, the two ears and the nose, and the רֽאֽש
הַגְּוִיָה , which is the male organ. Why were [both] a tooth
and an eye mentioned [when the Torah could have mentioned only one]? Because if
it had mentioned an eye and did not mention a tooth, I would say that just as
an eye was created with him [at birth], so [does this apply to] everything that
is created with him, but a tooth was not created with him [at birth].
[Therefore, I would say that if the master knocked out his slave’s tooth, the
slave would not be freed.] If it mentioned a tooth and did not mention an eye,
I would say [that] even [if the master knocked out] a baby tooth, which would
be replaced [by the natural growth of another tooth, the slave would be freed].
Therefore, it mentions the eye [which cannot be replaced, to teach us that if
the master knocks out a baby tooth, the slave is not freed]. -[From Kid. 24a]
28 And if a bull gores [This
law refers to] either a bull or any domestic animal, beast, or bird, but the
text spoke of what usually occurs [i.e., bulls usually gore]. -[From Mechilta,
B.K. 54b]
and its flesh shall not be eaten From the
implication of what was stated: “the bull shall surely be stoned,” do I not
know that it will become carrion [i.e., meaning not killed according to
halachah], and carrion is forbidden to be eaten. For what purpose, then, does
the Torah state: “and its flesh shall not be eaten”? [To inform us] that even
if one slaughtered it [according to halachah] after it was sentenced, it is
forbidden to be eaten. How do we know that no benefit may be derived from it
[this animal sentenced to death]? Therefore, the Torah says: “and the owner of
the bull is clean (נָקִי) ”, as one says to his friend, “So-and-so lost his property
[lit., was cleaned out (נָקִי) of his property], and he has no benefit at all from it” (B.K.
41a). This is its midrashic meaning. Its simple meaning is as its apparent
meaning. Since it says concerning a habitual gorer: “and also its owner shall
be put to death,” it had to say that in the case of a tame [bull]: “and the
owner of the bull is clean [i.e., clear of any charges].” [The tame bull (תָּם) is the bull that did not gore habitually, but only once or
twice. In the case of the bull that killed a person, this bull is put to death,
but the owner is clear; i.e., he does not have to pay ransom. Should the bull
gore three people and kill all of them, it is called מוּעָד , warned. The fourth time it gores someone it is
liable to death, and its owner is also liable to death by the hands of Heaven.
In order to clear himself of this punishment he must pay ransom, as is
delineated in verses 29 and 30.]
29 since yesterday and the day before yesterday This
implies [a total of] three gorings. [From Mechilta, B.K. 23b]
and its owner has been warned Heb. וְהוּעַד , a word denoting a warning in front of witnesses
(Mechilta, B.K. 24a), like “The man warned us repeatedly (הָעֵד
הֵעִד) ” (Gen. 43:3).
and it puts to death a man, etc.
Since it stated: “if [a bull] gores,” I know only that [the bull is liable to
death] if it kills him [its victim] by goring [with its horns]. If it killed
him through biting, shoving, or kicking, how do we know [that it must be
killed]? Therefore, the Torah states: “and it puts to death,” [implying that in
whatever way it kills its victim, the bull is liable to death]. -[based on
Mechilta]
and also its owner shall be put to death By the
hands of Heaven [and not through a court]. I might think that it [this verse]
means [that he is liable to death] by the hands of man [i.e., through the
court]. Therefore, the Torah states: “The assailant shall surely be put to
death; he is a murderer” (Num. 35:21), [implying that] for his [act of] murder
you [must] kill him, but you do not kill him [i.e., anyone] for his bull’s [act
of] murder. -[From Sanh. 15b]
30 insofar as ransom shall be levied upon him Heb. (אִם) .
This (אִם) is not [meant as a] conditional, but it is like “When (אִם) you
lend money” (Exod. 22:24), a word meaning “that.” His sentence is that the
court levy ransom upon him.
he shall give the redemption of his soul [This
means] the value of the victim [as a slave]. This is the view of Rabbi Ishmael.
Rabbi Akiva says: The value of the damager, [i.e., the owner of the goring
bull]. -[From Mechilta]
31 Or if it gores a young boy Heb. בֵן ,
lit., a son A son who is a minor.
or a young girl Heb. בַת , lit., a daughter who is a minor. Since it says
(verse 29): “and it puts to death a man or a woman,” I may think that he (the
bull) is liable only for [killing] adults. Therefore, the Torah states: “Or if
it gores a young boy, etc.” to make one liable for minors as [for] adults.
-[From Mechilta, Mechilta d’Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, B.K. 43b, 44a]
32 …a manservant or a maidservant -
Canaanites. -[From Mechilta] thirty shekels This is a decree of the Scriptures
[that the bull’s owner pay thirty shekels] whether he [the dead slave] was
worth a thousand zuz or whether he was worth no more than a dinar. The weight
of the shekel is four pieces of gold, which equal half an ounce according to
the official weight of Cologne.
33 And if a person opens a pit which was
covered, and he uncovered it.
or if… digs Why was this stated? If he is liable for opening [a
pit that had already been dug], is it not [true that he would be] even more
[guilty] for digging [a new pit]? But this is to include a digger [who digs deeper]
after a digger, that he is liable. [I.e., if one digs a pit nine handbreadths
deep, which is capable of injuring an animal but not killing it, and another
digs one handbreadth more, making the open pit capable of killing an animal,
the second digger is liable in all cases.] -[From B.K. 51a]
and does not cover it
intimating that if he covered it, he is exempt [from paying for any damages
that could occur], and the text speaks of one who digs in a public domain.
-[From B.K. 55b]
and a bull or a donkey The same
applies to all domestic animals and beasts, for wherever it says: “a bull and a
donkey,” we [can] derive [that it applies to all domestic animals] through a גְּזֵרָה
שָׁוָה , similar wording of שׂוֹר
שׁוֹר , [which is] from [the law concerning the] Sabbath, as it is
stated: “In order that your bull and your donkey rest” (Exod. 23:12). Just as
there [referring to the Sabbath] every domestic animal and beast is like the
bull [in reference to the law], for it says elsewhere [regarding the Sabbath]
(Deut. 5: 14) “[…you shall not perform any kind of work, neither you, nor your
son…] and all your animals,” here, too, all animals and beasts are like the
bull [in reference to the law]. The bull and the donkey are mentioned only [for
us to understand that] for a bull [that falls into a pit the owner is liable]
but not for a man [who falls into a pit], and [he is liable for] a donkey but
not for utensils. -[From B.K. 10b]
34 the owner of the pit [This
refers to] the creator of the obstacle [i.e., the pit], although the pit is not
his, for he made it in a public domain, Scripture made him its owner, insofar
as he is liable for its damages. -[From B.K. 29b]
he shall return money to its owner Heb. יָשִׁיב . [The word] יָשִׁיב [is written] to include [anything] worth money,
even bran. -[From B.K. 7a] (See Exod. 22:4: “the best of his field or the best
of his vineyard he shall pay,” which Rashi explains to mean that damages are
paid from the best land. Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua in the Talmud (B.K.
7b) solves this apparent discrepancy by concluding that it applies only if the
defendant prefers to pay the damages with land, but if he prefers to pay with
movable objects, everything is deemed the best, because if it cannot be sold
here, it can be sold elsewhere.) [Addendum to Rashi] [It can therefore be
easily converted to cash.]
and the dead body shall be his - [The
dead animal will belong to] the one [owner] who sustained the damage. They
assess the carcass, and he [the owner] takes it for its value, and the damager
pays him in addition to it [the carcass] payment for his damage. -[From
Mechilta, B.K. 10b]
35 And if… strikes Heb. יִגּֽף , shove, either with its horns, or with its feet,
or whether he bit him with his teeth All are included in נְגִיפָה , for נְגִיפָה is only an expression of striking. -[From
Mechilta]
a man’s bull Heb. שׁוֹר-אִישׁ , a bull [belonging to] a man.
they shall sell the live bull, etc.
Scripture speaks of [two bulls] of equal value a bull worth two hundred [zuz]
that killed a bull worth two hundred [zuz]. Whether the carcass is worth much
or worth little, when this one takes half [the value of] the live [bull] and
half [the value of] the dead one, the result is that each one sustains half the
damage that death inflicted upon him. We learn that the tame [bull] pays half
the damage, for from the equal ones [the bulls of equal value] you learn [how
it is with] the unequal ones [bulls of unequal value], for the law of the tame
bull is to pay half the damage, not more or less. Or perhaps, even if they were
unequal when they were alive, Scripture mandates that they sell them both [and
divide the proceeds of the sale between them]? [This cannot be true since] if
you say that sometimes the damager would gain very much, or sometimes the
victim would receive much more than the amount of the complete damage, for half
the value of the damaging bull [may] exceed the entire value of the bull that
was damaged. If you say that, the [law regarding the] tame bull is more
stringent than the [law regarding the] habitual gorer [which is illogical]. You
are compelled to say that Scripture is referring only to the ones [bulls] of
equal value. It teaches you that the tame bull pays half the damage, and from
the [law concerning] equal ones, you learn about the unequal ones, that for the
one who is awarded half the damage they [the court] assess the carcass, and the
decrease of its value due to the death, [and] he receives half the depreciation
and leaves (B.K. 34a). Now why did Scripture state it in this language? To
teach [us] that the tame bull pays only with its body, and if it gored and
subsequently died, the one [owner] who sustained the damage receives only the
carcass, and if it does not equal half his damage, he has a loss. Or if a bull
worth a maneh [one hundred zuz] gored a bull worth five hundred zuz, he [the
owner] receives only the bull, for the tame bull did not become obligated to
obligate its owner to pay from the best of his property (B.K. 16b).
36 Or if it was known Or if it
was not tame, but it was known that it was a [habitually] goring bull today and
from yesterday and the day before yesterday, totaling three gorings. -[From
Mechilta, B.K. 23b]
he shall surely pay a bull The complete
damage. [Midrash Hagadol from Mechilta d’Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai]
and the dead body shall be his [I.e.,]
the victim’s, and in addition to that, the damager must complete it until the
victim is paid his entire damage [due to him]. -[From B.K. 10b. 53b]
37 five cattle, etc. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai
said: The Omnipresent was considerate of people’s honor. [For] a bull, which
walks with its [own] feet, and the thief was not disgraced by carrying it on
his shoulder, he pays fivefold. [For] a lamb, which he [the thief] carries on
his shoulder, he pays [only] fourfold because he was disgraced by it. Rabbi
Meir said: Come and see how great the power of work is. [For the theft of] a
bull, which caused [the owner] to stop working, he [the thief] pays five. [For
the theft of] a lamb, which did not cause [the owner] to stop working, [the
thief pays] four. - [From Mechilta, B.K. 79b, Tosefta B.K. 7:3]
for the bull…for the lamb
Scripture repeated them [i.e., the mentioning of the bull and the lamb] to tell
[you] that the rule of fourfold and fivefold payments applies only to a bull
and a lamb. [From B.K. 67b]
Chapter 22
1 If, while breaking in [I.e.,]
when he was breaking into the house.
he has no blood [This signifies that] this
is not [considered] murder. It is as though he [the thief] was [considered]
dead from the start. Here the Torah teaches you [the lesson]: If someone comes
to kill you, kill him first. And this one [the thief] has come to kill you,
because he knows that no one [can] hold himself back and remain silent when he
sees people taking his money. Therefore, he [the thief] has come with the
acknowledgement that if the owner of the property were to stand up against him,
he [the owner] would kill him [the thief]. -[From Sanh. 72a]
2 If the sun shone upon him This is
nothing but a metaphor [meaning] if the matter is clear to you that he [the
thief] is peaceably disposed toward you—similar to the sun, which represents
peace in the world—so it is obvious to you that he has not come to kill [you].
Even if the owner of the money rises against him, for instance, if a father
breaks in to steal his son’s property, it is known that the father has mercy on
his son, and he has not come with the idea of murdering [him]. -[From Sanh.
72a, Mechilta]
he has blood He [the thief] is considered as a live person, and it
is [considered] murder if the property owner kills him.
he shall surely pay The thief [shall pay] the
money he stole, and he is not liable to death. [The thief is considered to have
been sentenced to death in cases where the property owner is allowed kill him.
In these cases the thief is exempt from any monetary obligation incurred when
he dug into the house. In cases where the property owner may not kill him,
however, the thief is not considered liable to death, and thus must pay for
what he stole.] Onkelos, who rendered: “If the eye of witnesses fell upon him,”
adopted another view, saying that if witnesses discovered him [the thief]
before the property owner came, and when the property owner came against him,
they warned him not to kill him, [the thief is considered as if] he has blood;
i.e., he [the owner] is liable for him [the thief] if he kills him, because
since [he has committed his crime when] people can see him, this thief has not
come with the intention to murder, and he would not kill the property owner.
3 If the stolen article is found in his possession Heb. בְיָדוֹ , lit., in his hand, [meaning] in his possession, [meaning]
that he neither slaughtered nor sold [it]. - [From Mechilta]
whether a bull, a donkey
Everything is included in the [obligation to make a] twofold payment, whether
it is a living thing or something that is not alive, for it says elsewhere
(verse 8): “for a lamb, for a garment, for any lost article,… [he] shall pay
twofold to his neighbor.” - [From B.K. 62b]
live ones he shall pay twofold And he
shall not pay him dead ones, but either live ones or the value of live ones.
-[From Mechilta]
4 If… leads his animals (יַבְעֶר) … his animal (בְּעִירֽה) loose and it eats (וּבִעֵר) They are all terms signifying an animal, like “we
and our animals (וּבְעִירֵנוּ) (Num. 20:4).
If leads his animals Heb. יַבְעֶר , [i.e.,] leads his animals into his neighbor’s field or
vineyard, and it damages it [the property] in one of these two [ways]: either
by sending (שִׁלּוּחַ) his animal or by eating (בִּעוּר) . Our Sages explained [that] וְשִׁלַח refers to the damages [made by] the treading of
the foot, and וּבִעֵר refers to the damages of the tooth, which eats and
destroys [someone’s property]. -[From B.K. 2b]
in another’s field Heb. בִּשְׂדֵה
אַחֵר , in another person’s field. The vowelization of בִּשְׂדֵה with the sheva under the “sin” denotes the
construct state. Hence, it means “in the field of another,” rather than “in
another field.” Since the noun is missing, Rashi explains that it means
“another person’s field.” -[Mizrachi]
the best of his field… he shall pay They
[judges] assess the damage, and if he [the owner of this animal] comes to pay
him [the owner of the land] the amount of his damage with land, he must pay him
from the best of his fields. If his damage was [worth] a sela, he must give him
the value of a sela from the best [land] that he has. Scripture teaches you that
for the injured party, they assess [the damage] with the best land. -[From
Mechilta, B.K. 6b]
5 If a fire goes forth Even by
itself. [From B.K. 22b]
and finds thorns Heb. קֽצִים , chardons in French, [meaning] thistles.
and a stack of grain… be consumed That it
[the fire] caught onto the thorns until it reached a stack of grain or standing
grain still attached to the ground.
or the field That it [the fire] scorched the furrow that he had
plowed, and he had to plow it a second time. -[From B.K. 60a]
the one who ignited the fire shall surely pay Although
he ignited it within his own property, and it spread by itself through thorns
that it found, he is liable to pay because he did not guard his burning coal so
that it would not go forth and inflict damage.
6 and it is stolen from the man’s house
According to his words.
if the thief is found, he shall pay twofold The
thief shall pay twofold [the value of the object] to its [original] owners.
-[From B.K. 63b]
7 If the thief is not found And this
custodian, who is the owner of the house, comes.
approaches - the judges to litigate with this one [the owner]
and to swear to him that he did not lay his hand upon his [property]. -[From
B.K. 63b]
8 For any sinful word [i.e.,]
that he is found to be lying in his oath, for witnesses testify that he himself
stole it, and the judges declare him guilty because of [the testimony of] the
witnesses.
shall pay twofold to his neighbor The text
teaches you that if one puts forth a claim concerning an item entrusted to him,
saying that it was stolen from him, and it is discovered that he himself stole
it, he must make twofold restitution. When [is this so]? Only if he swore [that
he did not take it] and afterwards witnesses came [and testified that he had
taken it for himself,] for so have our Rabbis, of blessed memory, interpreted:
“and the homeowner approaches the judges” (verse 7). This approaching means [to
make] an oath [that the custodian swore that the article was stolen]. You say
[that he approaches] for an oath, or perhaps it means [he approaches] only for
litigation. [In this case, if] he comes to litigate and he denies [any
responsibility] by saying that it [the object] was stolen, then is he
immediately liable for twofold restitution if witnesses come [and testify] that
it is in his possession? [The answer is that since the expression] laying a
hand is mentioned here (in verse 7), and below, laying a hand is [also]
mentioned: “the oath of the Lord shall be between the two of them provided that
he did not lay his hand upon his neighbor’s property.” (verse 10). Just as
[“lay his hand” written] further denotes an oath, so does [“laid his hand”
written] here denote an oath. -[From Mechilta, B.K. 63b]
concerning which he will say that this is it According
to its [the verse’s] simple meaning, concerning which the witness will say that
this is it, [i.e., the article] about which you swore [was stolen but really]
is in your possession. The pleas of both parties must be brought to the judges
and they [the judges] will interrogate the witnesses, and if they [the
witnesses] are acceptable and they [the judges] declare this custodian guilty,
he must pay twofold [to the owner]. If they declare the witnesses guilty,
namely that they were found collusive, they must pay twofold to the custodian.
Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, however, interpreted כִּי
הוּא זֶה , that this is it, to mean that [the judges] do not demand an
oath of him [the custodian] unless he admitted part [of the claim against him],
saying, “I owe you this much, but the rest was stolen from me.” -[From B.K.
106b]
9 If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, a bull The
first section was stated concerning an unpaid custodian. Therefore, [the Torah]
exempted him [the custodian] from theft, as it is written: “and it is stolen
from the man’s house… If the thief is not found, the homeowner approaches the
judges” (verses 6-7) for an oath. [Thus] you learn that he exempts himself with
this oath. This section, [however,] is stated concerning a paid custodian.
Therefore, he is not exempt if it [the deposit] was stolen, as it is written:
“But if it is stolen from him, he shall pay” (verse 10). But in the case of an
accident beyond his control, such as if it [the animal] died by itself or if it
broke a limb, or if it was forcibly captured by bandits, and no one [was there
to] see it [and] to testify concerning the matter [if he swears that this is
the case, then he is exempt].-[From B.M. 94b]
10 the oath of the Lord shall be He must
swear that it is so, as he says [that it was beyond his control] and that he
did not lay his hand upon it to use it for himself. Because if he laid his hand
upon it, and afterwards, something beyond his control happens to it, he is
liable for [any damage resulting from] accidents.
and its owner shall accept the oath.
[from B.K. 106a]
and he shall not pay The custodian [shall not
pay] him anything.
12 If it is torn By a ferocious beast.
he shall bring witness for it He shall
bring witnesses [to testify] that it [the animal] was torn [apart] in a way
that was beyond his control, and he is exempt. -[From B.K. 10b, 11a]
[for] the torn one he shall not pay [The
Torah] does not say, “[for] a torn one he shall not pay,” but, “[for] the
torn one.” For one type of torn animal he pays, and for another type of
torn animal he does not pay. For an animal torn [apart] by a cat, a fox, or a
marten, he must pay, but for an animal torn by a wolf, a lion, a bear, or a
snake, he does not pay. Now who whispered to you to reason that way? [The proof
is] that it is written: “and it dies, breaks a limb, or is captured” (verse 9).
Just as with death, he cannot save it, so it is with breaking a limb and
captivity, that he cannot save [it. But in the case of less ferocious beasts,
like a fox, since the shepherd could have saved his charge, he is liable].
-[From Mechilta]
13 And if a person borrows This
[verse] comes to teach you concerning a borrower, that he is liable for
incidents beyond his control.
if its owner is not with him If the
owner of the bull is not with the borrower doing his work. -[From B.M. 95b]
14 If its owner is with him Whether
he [the animal’s owner] is with him [the borrower] doing the same work, or if
he was with him doing a different work. If he [the animal’s owner] was with him
[the borrower] at the time of the loan, he [the owner] need not be with him at
the time the limb was broken or the animal died [to make him exempt from
payment]. -[From B.M. 95b]
if it is a hired [animal] If the
bull was not borrowed but hired, [and] it came to be hired into the hands of
this hirer [for a fee] not through lending And he [the hirer] does not have
complete benefit [of the animal] for he used it through its hire, and he does
not have the status of a borrower to be liable for accidents beyond his control.
[The Torah, however,] did not specify what his status is, whether he is judged
like an unpaid custodian or like a paid custodian. Therefore, the Sages of
Israel differed concerning him: How does a hirer pay [in the case of an
accident]? Rabbi Meir says: Like an unpaid custodian. Rabbi Judah says: Like a
paid custodian. -[From B.M. 90b]
15 If a man seduces Heb. יְפַתֶּה , he speaks to her heart until she yields to him.
And so is its Aramaic translation: וַאֲרֵי
יְשַׁדֵּל . שִׁדּוּל in Aramaic is the equivalent of פִּתּוּי in Hebrew [and both signify persuasion].
he shall provide her with a marriage contract He shall
stipulate for her a dowry, as is the custom of a man to his wife, that he
writes for her a kethubah, and he shall marry her. -[From Mechilta]
16 according to the dowry of the virgins which is
fixed at fifty silver shekels in the case of one who seizes a virgin and
forcibly lies with her, as it is said: “The man who lay with her shall give the
maiden’s father fifty silver shekels” (Deut. 22:29). -[From Keth. 10a]
17 You shall not allow a sorceress to live But she
shall be executed by the court. [This law applies equally to] both males and
females, but the text speaks of the usual, and those who practice sorcery are
usually women. - [From Mechilta, Sanh. 67a] 18 (Some editions:
Whoever lies [carnally] with an animal shall surely be
put to death by stoning. A male who has carnal relations with an
animal [is just as liable] as a female who has carnal relations with an animal,
concerning whom it is written: “their blood is upon them [meaning they will be
killed]” (Lev. 20:16). -[From Sanh. 53, 54]) See Rashi on Exod. 21:17.
19 to the gods Heb. לָאֱלֽהִים , to pagan deities. If it were vowelized לֵאלֽהִים [the “lammed” with a “tzeirei”], it would have to
specify [which deities] and [it would need to be explained and] written אֲחֵרִים , other [gods]. Now that it says לָאֱלֽהִים , it does not have to specify [which gods are
meant] because every “lammed,” “beth,” and “hey” prefixed to a word, if it is
vowelized with a “chataf” (meaning a “sheva”), such as לְמֶלֶךְ , to a king, לְמִדְבָּר , to a desert, לְעִיר , to a city, one must specify to which king, to
which desert, to which city. Similarly, [with a “beth” or “lammed”] לִמְלָכִים , to kings, and לִרְגָלִים , to festivals, punctuated with a “chirik,” must
be specified to which ones. If it is not specified all kings are meant. So too,
לֵאלֽהִים means all gods, even the divine, but when it is
vowelized with a “pattach,” like לַמֶּלֶךְ , to the king, לַמִּדְבָּר , to the desert, לָעִיר , to the city, [The “pattach” and the “kamatz” are
in one category in this context. There is also another way to explain this, as
is written in Dikdukei Rashi. See that source.] it is known about which king he
is speaking, and so לָאֱלֽהִים , to the gods, to those concerning which you were
warned elsewhere. Similarly, “There is none like You among the gods” (Ps.
86:8). Since it is not specified, it had to be vowelized with a “pattach”.
shall be destroyed Shall be put to death. Now
why does it say “shall be destroyed”? Is the death penalty not mentioned
elsewhere: “And you shall take that man or that woman [and you shall stone
them… so that they will die], etc.” (Deut. 17:5) ? Since [there the Torah] did
not specify for which type of worship he is liable to death, so that you do not
say that for all types of worship one is liable to death, [the Torah] came and
specified to you here: “He who slaughters [a sacrifice] to the gods shall be
destroyed,” to inform you that just as slaughtering is a type of worship
performed inside [the Temple] to Heaven, I also include one who burns [incense
or parts of an animal] or performs libations, which are types of worship
performed inside [the Temple], and [people] are liable for performing them for
idolatry whether or not it is customary to worship that particular deity in
that manner. However, [for] other types of worship—for example, if one sweeps,
sprinkles water on the sand floor before it [the idol], embraces it or kisses
it—he is not liable to death, but he is warned against it [i.e., he is liable
to receive lashes]. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 60b]
20 And you shall not mistreat By taunting
with words, contralier in Old French, [meaning] to vex, like “And those who
taunt you (מוֹנַיִךְ) , I will feed their flesh” (Isa. 49:26). -[From
Mechilta, Jonathan]
nor shall you oppress him by
robbing [him of his] money. -[From Mechilta, Jonathan]
for you were strangers in the land of Egypt If you
taunt him, he can also taunt you and say to you, “You too emanate from
strangers.” Do not reproach your neighbor with a fault that is also yours
(Mechilta, B.M. 59b). Every expression of a stranger (גֵּר) means a person who was not born in that country
but has come from another country to sojourn there.
21 You shall not oppress any widow or orphan The same
applies to all people, but the Scripture speaks of the usual situation, since
they [widows and orphans] are weak and [they] are frequently oppressed. -[From
Mechilta]
22 If you oppress him This is
an elliptical verse. It threatens [punishment], but does not delineate his
punishment. [This is] similar to “Therefore, whoever kills Cain…!” (Gen. 4:15).
It threatens, but does not delineate his punishment. Here too, “If you oppress
him” is an expression of a threat: If you oppress him [the orphan], you will
ultimately receive what is coming to you. Why? “For if he cries out to Me,
etc.”
23 and your wives will be widows From the
implication of what is said—“and I will slay you”—do I not know that your wives
will be widows and your children orphans? Rather, this is another curse, namely
that the wives will be bound in living widowhood -there will be no witnesses to
their husbands’ deaths, and [thus] they will be forbidden to remarry. The
children will be orphans because the court will not allow them to have their
fathers’ property, since they do not know whether they died or were captured.
-[From Mechilta, B.M. 38b]
Esnoga Bet Emunah