Chumashחומש

ואלה המשפטים. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אֵלֶּה" פָּסַל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, "וְאֵלֶּה" מוֹסִיף עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, מָה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מִסִּינַי, אַף אֵלּוּ מִסִּינַי; וְלָמָּה נִסְמְכָה פָּרָשַׁת דִּינִין לְפָרָשַׁת מִזְבֵּחַ? לוֹמַר לְךָ, שֶׁתָּשִׂים סַנְהֶדְרִין אֵצֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ (מכילתא):

ואלה המשפטים NOW THESE ARE THE JUDGMENTS — Wherever אלה, “these are”, is used it cuts off (פוסל) the preceding section from that which it introduces; where, however, ואלה “and these” is used it adds something to the former subject (i. e. forms a continuation of it). So also here: “And these are the judgments (i. e. these, also)”: What is the case with the former commandments (the עשרת הדברות)? They were given at Sinai! So these, too, were given at Sinai! (Mekhilta; Shemot Rabbah 30:3; cf. also Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 3) If this be so, why is this section dealing with the “civil laws” placed immediately after that commanding the making of the altar? To tell you that you should seat (i. e. provide quarters for) the Sanhedrin in the vicinity of the Temple.

אשר תשים לפניהם. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּבָּ"ה לְמֹשֶׁה: לֹא תַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ לוֹמַר, אֶשְׁנֶה לָהֶם הַפֶּרֶק וְהַהֲלָכָה ב' אוֹ ג' פְּעָמִים, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא סְדוּרָה בְּפִיהֶם כְּמִשְׁנָתָהּ, וְאֵינִי מַטְרִיחַ עַצְמִי לַהֲבִינָם טַעֲמֵי הַדָּבָר וּפֵרוּשׁוֹ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם – כְּשֻׁלְחָן הֶעָרוּךְ וּמוּכָן לֶאֱכֹל לִפְנֵי הָאָדָם (שם):

אשר תשים לפניהם WHICH THOU SHALT PUT BEFORE THEM — God said to Moses: It should not enter your mind to say, “I shall teach them a section of the Torah or a single Halacha twice or three times until it will become current in their mouths exactly according to its wording (i. e. until they know the text verbatim), but I shall not take the trouble to make them understand the reason of each thing and its significance”; therefore Scripture says, אשר תשים לפניהם, “which thou shalt set before them” (cf. Genesis 34:23) — like a table fully laid before a person with everything ready for eating (Mekhilta).

לפניהם. וְלֹא לִפְנֵי גוֹיִם, וַאֲפִלּוּ יָדַעְתָּ בְדִין אֶחָד שֶׁהֵם דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַל תְּבִיאֵהוּ בְעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם, שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא דִּינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי גוֹיִם, מְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם וּמְיַקֵּר שֵׁם עֲ"זָ לְהַשְׁבִּיחָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי לֹא כְצוּרֵנוּ צוּרָם וְאֹיְבֵינוּ פְּלִילִים (דברים ל"ב) – כְּשֶׁאוֹיְבֵינוּ פְּלִילִים זֶהוּ עֵדוּת לְעִלּוּי יִרְאָתָם (תנחומא):

לפניהם BEFORE THEM — but not before the heathens. Even if you know that in the case of a particular matter of law they will decide it in the same way as Jewish law would, do not bring it before their courts; for he who brings Israel’s law-cases before the heathens defames the Name of the Lord and pays honour to the name of the idol (in the name of which the heathen court administers justice), thereby giving it undue importance, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 32:31) “For their rock is not as our Rock that our enemies should be judges over us”, which implies: when our enemies are judges over us (i. e. if we make them judges over us) it is a testimony to the superiority of that which they reverence (their idol) (Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 3).

כי תקנה עבד עברי. עֶבֶד שֶׁהוּא עִבְרִי; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל עִבְרִי – עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי שֶׁלְּקַחְתּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל – וְעָלָיו הוּא אוֹמֵר שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד? וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם (ויקרא כ"ה), בְּלָקוּחַ מִן הַגּוֹי, אֲבָל בְּלָקוּחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יֵצֵא בְּשֵׁשׁ? תַּ"לֹ כִּי יִמָּכֵר לְךָ אָחִיךָ הָעִבְרִי (דברים ט"ו), לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְאָחִיךָ:

כי תקנה עבד עברי IF THOU BUYEST AN עבד עברי — This means a servant who is a Hebrew. Or perhaps this is not so, but it means a servant of a Hebrew (one who had been the servant of a Hebrew), i. e. a Canaanitish servant whom thou hast bought from an Israelite, and it is with regard to him that Scripture states “six years he shall serve”! — And if you ask, how I will then explain the commandment, (Leviticus 25:46) “and you shall leave them (the Canaanitish servants) as an inheritance for your children [and they shall serve you forever]”? then I reply, that this refers to the case of a Canaanitish servant who has been bought from a heathen; but if such a servant has been bought from an Israelite he shall go free at the end of six years! — This explanation that our text refers to a Canaanite servant will not hold, for Scripture states, (Deuteronomy 15:12) “and if thy brother an Hebrew man be sold unto thee [and serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee]” — the Torah says, as it were, by using the two terms העברי and אחיך: I tell you this (that the servant shall go free in the seventh year) only with regard to thy brother! Consequently Leviticus 25:46 has to be applied to any Canaanite servant, whether bought from a Hebrew or from a heathen and עבד עברי in our text can only denote עבד שהוא עברי. (Mekhilta)

כי תקנה. מִיַּד בֵּית דִּין שֶׁמְּכָרוּהוּ בִגְנֵבָתוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִם אֵין לוֹ וְנִמְכַּר בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמוֹכֵר עַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵי דָּחְקוֹ, אֲבָל מְכָרוּהוּ בֵית דִּין לֹא יֵצֵא בְשֵׁשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ וְנִמְכַּר לָךְ (ויקרא כ"ה), הֲרֵי מוֹכֵר עַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵי דָּחְקוֹ אָמוּר, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם כִּי תִקְנֶה? בְּנִמְכַּר בְּבֵית דִּין:

‎כי תקנה IF THOU BUYEST [AN HEBREW SERVANT] — This means an Hebrew servant whom thou hast bought from the hand of the court which sold him for a theft which he had committed, as it is said, (Exodus 22:2) “if he (the thief) have nothing, then shall he be sold for his theft”. Or perhaps this is not so, but Scripture is referring to the case of one who sells himself as a servant on account of his destitution, whilst he who has been sold by the court for his theft shall not go free at the end of six years! This assumption it erroneous, for when Scripture states, (Leviticus 25:39, 40) “and if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and he sells himself unto thee … [he shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee]”, it is plain that in this passage there is mentioned the case of one who sells himself on account of his destitution. How then must I explain כי תקנה in this verse? Obviously as referring to him who was sold by the court (Mekhilta).

לחפשי. לְחֵרוּת:

לחפשי means INTO FREEDOM (i. e. חפשי is a noun like חֹפֶשׁ but having a redundant י at the end).

אם בגפו יבא. שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה נָשׂוּי אִשָּׁה, כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ אִם בִּלְחוֹדוֹהִי, וּלְשׁוֹן בְּגַפּוֹ – בִּכְנָפוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא בָּא אֶלָּא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, יְחִידִי, בְּתוֹךְ לְבוּשׁוֹ – בִּכְנַף בִּגְדוֹ:

אם בגפו יבא IF HE CAME IN BY HIMSELF — This means that he was unmarried — as the Targum renders it אם בלחודוהי, if he came in “alone”. The term בגפו is the same as גף) בכנפו being synonymous with כנף wing, skirt) i. e. he came in only just as he was, alone, merely wrapped in his garment: so that בגפו, “in his skirt”, means “in the skirt of his garment”.

בגפו יצא. מַגִּיד שֶׁאִם לֹא הָיָה נָשׂוּי מִתְּחִלָּה, אֵין רַבּוֹ מוֹסֵר לוֹ שִׁפְחָה כְנַעֲנִית לְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה עֲבָדִים (קידושין כ'):

בגפו יצא HE SHALL GO OUT BY HIMSELF — This intimates that if he was unmarried originally (when he came in), his master is not allowed to give him against his will a Canaanitish handmaid with the object of raising slaves (Kiddushin 20a).

אם בעל אשה הוא. יִשְׂרְאֵלִית:

אם בעל אשה הוא IF HE BE MARRIED to an Israelite woman (Mekhilta),

ויצאה אשתו עמו. וְכִי מִי הִכְנִיסָהּ שֶׁתֵּצֵא? אֶלָּא מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַקּוֹנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו (שם כ"ב):

ויצאה אשתו עמו then HIS WIFE SHALL GO OUT WITH HIM — But who brought her in (into the state of service) that the text has to state she shall go out? But by saying this Scripture intimates that he who acquires a Hebrew servant is bound to provide his wife and children also with food (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 22a).

אם אדניו יתן לו אשה. מִכָּאן שֶׁהָרְשׁוּת בְּיַד רַבּוֹ לִמְסֹר לוֹ שִׁפְחָה כְנַעֲנִית לְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה עֲבָדִים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית? תַּ"לֹ הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ, הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּכְנַעֲנִית, שֶׁהֲרֵי הָעִבְרִיָּה אַף הִיא יוֹצְאָה בְשֵׁשׁ – וַאֲפִלּוּ לִפְנֵי שֵׁשׁ אִם הֵבִיאָה סִימָנִין יוֹצְאָה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אָחִיךָ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה (דברים ט"ו), מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאַף הָעִבְרִיָּה יוֹצְאָה בְשֵׁשׁ (מכילתא):

אם אדניו יתן לו אשה IF HIS LORD HAS GIVEN HIM A WIFE — From this we learn that if he has already an Israelite wife the master has the right to give him a Canaanitish handmaid with the object of raising slaves. Or perhaps this is not so, but Scripture by אשה is speaking about an Israelite woman?! Scripture, however, states: “the wife and her children shall be the master’s”, consequently the text can only be speaking of a Canaanitish woman, for a Hebrew maidservant goes free at the end of six years just as a Hebrew man-servant does — yea, even before the termination of six years she goes free if she shows symptoms of incipient puberty (cf. Rashi v. 7) — for it is said, (Deuteronomy 15:12) “[and if] thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, [be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee]”, which statement teaches you that a Hebrew woman also goes free after six years’ service (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 14b).

את אשתי. הַשִּׁפְחָה:

את אשתי MY WIFE — the Canaanitish handmaid mentioned above.

אל האלהים. לְבֵית דִּין; צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּמָּלֵךְ בְּמוֹכְרָיו שֶׁמְּכָרוּהוּ לוֹ (שם):

אל האלהים means to the court. He (the slave) should take counsel with his vendors (the court) because it was they who sold him to him (the master) (Mekhilta).

אל הדלת או אל המזוזה. יָכוֹל שֶׁתְּהֵא הַמְּזוּזָה כְשֵׁרָה לִרְצֹעַ עָלֶיהָ, תַּ"לֹ וְנָתַתָּה בְאָזְנוֹ וּבַדֶּלֶת, בַּדֶּלֶת וְלֹא בַמְּזוּזָה, הָא מַה תַּ"לֹ אוֹ אֶל הַמְּזוּזָה? הִקִּישׁ דֶּלֶת לִמְזוּזָה, מַה מְּזוּזָה מֵעוֹמֵד אַף דֶּלֶת מֵעוֹמֵד (שם):

אל הדלת או אל המזוזה TO THE DOOR OR TO THE DOORPOST — From this statement you might think that the doorpost is also a proper thing upon which the servant’s ear may be pierced! Scripture, however, states, (Deuteronomy 15:17) “[Then thou shalt take an awl], and thrust it through his ear and into the door” — into the door but not into the doorpost. If this be so, what is the purpose of Scripture stating here “[to the door] or to the doorpost”? By this juxtaposition it only compares the door with the doorpost. What is the characteristic of the doorpost? It is something perpendicular! So, too, the door must during the act of performation be in a perpendicular position (on its hinges), not detached as, for instance, lying on the ground (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 22b).

ורצע אדניו את אזנו במרצע. הַיְמָנִית, אוֹ אֵינוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל? תַּ"לֹ אֹזֶן אֹזֶן לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּמְצֹרָע תְּנוּךְ אֹזֶן הַמִּטַּהֵר הַיְמָנִית (ויקרא י"ד), מַה לְּהַלָּן הַיְמָנִית, אַף כָּאן הַיְמָנִית; וּמָה רָאָה אֹזֶן לֵרָצַע מִכָּל שְׁאָר אֵבָרִים שֶׁבַּגּוּף? אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: אֹזֶן זֹאת שֶׁשָּׁמְעָה עַל הַר סִינַי לֹא תִגְנֹב, וְהָלַךְ וְגָנַב, תֵּרָצַע. וְאִם מוֹכֵר עַצְמוֹ, אֹזֶן שֶׁשָּׁמְעָה עַל הַר סִינַי כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים, וְהָלַךְ וְקָנָה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ, תֵּרָצַע. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִקְרָא זֶה כְּמִין חֹמֶר: מַה נִּשְׁתַּנּוּ דֶּלֶת וּמְזוּזָה מִכָּל כֵּלִים שֶׁבַּבַּיִת? אָמַר הַקָּבָּ"ה דֶּלֶת וּמְזוּזָה שֶׁהָיוּ עֵדִים בְּמִצְרַיִם כְּשֶׁפָּסַחְתִּי עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת וְאָמַרְתִּי כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים – עֲבָדַי הֵם וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לַעֲבָדִים – וְהָלַךְ זֶה וְקָנָה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ, יֵרָצַע בִּפְנֵיהֶם (קידושין כ"ב):

ורצע אדניו את אזנו במרצע AND HIS LORD SHALL BORE HIS EAR THROUGH WITH THE AWL — “His ear” means his right ear. Or perhaps this is not so, but Scripture means his left ear? Scripture however uses the term אזן here and it uses אזן in another passage, thereby suggesting an analogy based upon verbal similarity; viz., here it is said “and his lord shall bore his ear (אזנו) through”, and of the leper it is said, (Leviticus 14:25) “and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear (אזנו הימית) of him that is to be cleansed”. — How is it in that latter passage? It is the right ear! So here, too, it is the right ear. — What is the reason that the ear had to be pierced rather than any other limb of the servant’s body? Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai said: That ear which heard on Mount Sinai, (Exodus 20:13) “Thou shalt not steal” and yet its owner went and stole and was therefore sold as a slave — let it be pierced! Or, in the case of him who sold himself from destitution, having committed no theft, the reason is: That ear which heard on Mount Sinai what I said, (Leviticus 25:55) “For unto Me the children Israel are servants” and yet its owner went and procured for himself another master — let it be pierced! (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 22b). Rabbi Simeon interpreted this verse like a jewel (i. e. giving it an ethical signification): In what respect are door and doorpost different from all other objects in the house that they should be singled out for this purpose? God, in effect, said: door and doorpost that were eye-witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and the two doorposts, freeing Israel from slavery, and when I said, (Leviticus 25:55) “For unto Me the children of Israel are servants” — servants to Me but not servants of servants (of human beings), and yet this man went and procured another master for himself — let him be pieced in their presence (i. e. let them be eye-witnesses now when this man voluntarily prolongs his state of slavery)! (Kiddushin 22b.)

ועבדו לעלם. עַד הַיּוֹבֵל; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כְמַשְׁמָעוֹ? תַּ"לֹ וְאִישׁ אֶל מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ תָּשׁוּבוּ (ויקרא כ"ה), מַגִּיד שֶׁחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה קְרוּיִים עוֹלָם; וְלֹא שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹבְדוֹ כָּל חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה, אֶלָּא עוֹבְדוֹ עַד הַיּוֹבֵל, בֵּין סָמוּךְ בֵּין מֻפְלָג (קידושין ט"ו):

ועבדו לעלם AND HE SHALL SERVE HIM FOR EVER — This means until the Jubilee. Or, perhaps this is not so, but לעולם means for ever as is its usual meaning? Scripture however, states, (Leviticus 25:10) “[And ye shall sanctify the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof] and ye shall return every man unto his family”. A comparison of these two passages tells us that a period of fifty years is termed עולם. This does not, however, imply that he has to serve him a whole period of fifty years, but that he has to serve him until the year of the Jubilee (the fiftieth year) whether this be close at hand or far ahead (Kiddushin 15a; Mekhilta).

וכי ימכר איש את בתו לאמה. בִּקְטַנָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר; יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיאָה סִימָנִים, אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר, וּמַה מְּכוּרָה קֹדֶם לָכֵן יוֹצְאָה בְסִימָנִין – כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף, שֶׁאָנוּ דּוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ לְסִימָנֵי נַעֲרוּת – שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִמָּכֵר (ערכין כ"ט):

וכי ימכר איש את בתו לאמה AND IF A MAN SELL HIS DAUGHTER TO BE A MAIDSERVANT — The text speaks of a minor daughter (under 12 years of age). You might think that he may sell her also although she may have shown signs of incipient puberty and is no longer a minor! You must admit, however, that the à fortiori argument applies: How is it in the case of a woman who was sold at an earlier age (as a minor)? She goes free on showing signs of incipient puberty, as it is said, (v. 11) “then shall she go out free without money”, which law we explain to refer to a woman who has showed such signs during the period of slavery! Is it not the conclusion that she who is of such an age and has not yet been sold shall not be sold at all?! (Arakhin 29b, cf. Mekhilta).

לא תצא כצאת העבדים. כִּיצִיאַת עֲבָדִים כְּנַעֲנִים שֶׁיּוֹצְאִים בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן, אֲבָל זוֹ לֹא תֵצֵא בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן אֶלָּא עוֹבֶדֶת שֵׁשׁ, אוֹ עַד הַיּוֹבֵל, אוֹ עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא סִימָנִין, וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם קוֹדֵם לְחֵרוּתָהּ, וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ דְּמֵי עֵינָהּ אוֹ דְּמֵי שִׁנָּהּ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים בְּשֵׁשׁ וּבַיּוֹבֵל? תַּ"לֹ כִּי יִמָּכֵר לְךָ אָחִיךָ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה, מַקִּישׁ עִבְרִיָּה לְעִבְרִי לְכָל יְצִיאוֹתָיו, מָה עִבְרִי יוֹצֵא בְשֵׁשׁ וּבַיּוֹבֵל, אַף עִבְרִיָּה יוֹצְאָה בְשֵׁשׁ וּבַיּוֹבֵל, וּמַהוּ לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים? לֹא תֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כַּעֲבָדִים כְּנַעֲנִיִּים; יָכוֹל הָעִבְרִי יוֹצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים? תַּ"לֹ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה, מַקִּישׁ עִבְרִי לְעִבְרִיָּה, מָה הָעִבְרִיָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים (מכילתא):

לא תצא כצאת העבדים SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MENSERVANTS DO — i. e. not under the circumstances that the Canaanitish menservants’ departure takes place, for these go free in consequence of the loss of their tooth or eye inflicted by their master; this woman, however, shall not go free because of such loss of her tooth or eye, but shall serve either six years or until the Jubilee, or until she shows signs of incipient puberty. Whichsoever of these periods comes first brings her freedom first. — He (the master), however, has to pay her the value of her eye or the value of her tooth. — Or perhaps this is not so, but, “she shall not go out as the men-servants do,” means she shall not go free as the Hebrew menservants do, viz., at the end of six years or at the Jubilee? Scripture, however, states, (Deuteronomy 15:12) And if thy brother, an Hebrew man or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee”, comparing the Hebrew woman with the Hebrew man in regard to all reasons for departure (i. e. also with regard to her going free in the Jubilee, for that she goes free in the seventh year is stated in the text just quoted). How is it in the case of a Hebrew man? He goes free at the end of six years and at the Jubilee! So, too, does the Hebrew woman go free at the end of six years and at the Jubilee. What then do these words mean: “she shall not go out as the menservants do”? They mean: she shall not go free in consequence of the loss of one of “the tips of her limbs” (i. e. the ends of limbs that project from the body) (cf. Mishnah Negaim 6:7) inflicted by the master, as the Canaanitish servants do when they that lose “the tips of their limbs” (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 20a). Incidentally I may add that you might think that the Hebrew manservant shall go free in consequence of loss of one of the tips of his limbs and that only the Hebrew maidservant differs in this respect from the Canaanitish servant, since Scripture expressly specified her in the words: she shall not go out free etc. Scripture, however, states “an Hebrew man or an Hebrew woman” thereby comparing the Hebrew man with the Hebrew woman. What is the case with the Hebrew woman? She does not go free in consequence of loss of one of “the tips of her limbs”! So, too, the Hebrew man does not go free as compensation for the injury inflicted on one of “the tips of his limbs” (cf. Mekhilta).

אם רעה בעיני אדניה. שֶׁלֹּא נָשְׂאָה חֵן בְּעֵינָיו לְכָנְסָהּ:

אם רעה בעיני אדניה IF SHE BE EVIL IN THE EYES OF HER LORD — i. e. that she did not find favour in his eyes so that he might be induced to marry her (cf. Mekhilta).

אשר לא יעדה. שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְיַעֲדָהּ וּלְהַכְנִיסָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וְכֶסֶף קְנִיָּתָהּ הוּא כֶסֶף קִדּוּשֶׁיהָ; וְכָאן רָמַז לְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁמִּצְוָה בְּיִעוּד, וְרָמַז לְךָ שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה קִדּוּשִׁין אֲחֵרִים (קידושין י"ח):

אשר לו יעדה means: [IF SHE BE EVIL IN THE EYES OF HER LORD] WHO OUGHT TO HAVE DESIGNATED HER to be his wife and ought to have married her, her purchase-money serving as the money necessary to contract a marriage (כסף קידושין). Scripture hereby implicitly tells you that it is his duty to designate her for himself, and since it makes no mention of the manner in which the marriage is to be contracted it implicitly tells you at the same time that she requires no other rite of marriage than the passing of the purchase-money from the master to her father (cf. Kiddushin 19a, Bekhorot 13a).

והפדה. יִתֵּן לָהּ מָקוֹם לְהִפָּדוֹת וְלָצֵאת – שֶׁאַף הוּא מְסַיֵּעַ בְּפִדְיוֹנָהּ; וּמַה הוּא מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לָהּ? שֶׁמְּגָרֵעַ מִפִּדְיוֹנָהּ בְּמִסְפַּר הַשָּׁנִים שֶׁעָשְׂתָה אֶצְלוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הִיא שְׂכוּרָה אֶצְלוֹ. כֵּיצַד? הֲרֵי שֶׁקְּנָאָהּ בְּמָנֶה וְעָשְׂתָה אֶצְלוֹ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, יוֹדֵעַ הָיִיתָ שֶׁעֲתִידָה לָצֵאת לְסוֹף שֵׁשׁ, נִמְצָא שֶׁקָּנִיתָ עֲבוֹדַת כָּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה בְּשִׁשִּׁית הַמָּנֶה, וְעָשְׂתָה אֶצְלְךָ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, הֲרֵי שְׁלִישִׁית הַמָּנֶה, טֹל שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישִׁיּוֹת הַמָּנֶה וְתֵצֵא מֵאֶצְלְךָ:

והפדה means he shall afford her the opportunity to obtain her release from service — that he himself must cooperate in respect to the amount of her ransom. And what is this opportunity he has to give her? That he allows her a deduction from her ransom corresponding to the number of years she has served in his house, as though she were only hired by him. How can this be done? Supposing he had bought her for a maneh (one hundred shekels) and she had served him two years. We say to him: “You knew that she was to go free at the end of six years; it follows then that you bought the labour of each year for one sixth of a maneh. Now she has served you two years, that is the equivalent of one-third of the maneh: accept therefore two-thirds of a maneh as a ransom and let her go free out of your house (Kiddushin 14b).

לעם נכרי לא ימשל למכרה. שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְמָכְרָהּ לְאַחֵר לֹא הָאָדוֹן וְלֹא הָאָב (שם):

לעם נכרי לא ימשל למכרה means that neither the master nor the father has a right to sell her to another Jewish man (Kiddushin 18a),

בבגדו בה. אִם בָּא לִבְגֹּד בָּהּ, שֶׁלֹּא לְקַיֵּם בָּהּ מִצְוַת יִעוּד, וְכֵן אָבִיהָ מֵאַחַר שֶׁבָּגַד בָּהּ וּמְכָרָהּ לָזֶה:

בבגדו בה SEEING THAT HE HATH DEALT DECEITFULLY WITH HER — If “he” means the master then these words signify: if he intends to deal faithlessly with her, i. e. if he does not intend to fulfil the commandment of “Jiud” (of designating her to himself). So also the father — he has no right to sell her to another man since he has dealt faithlessly with her as a father having sold her to this man (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 18b).

ואם לבנו ייעדנה. הָאָדוֹן; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאַף בְּנוֹ קָם תַּחְתָּיו לְיַעֲדָהּ אִם יִרְצֶה אָבִיו, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַדְּשָׁהּ קִדּוּשִׁין אֲחֵרִים, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְיֹעֶדֶת לִי בַּכֶּסֶף שֶׁקִּבֵּל אָבִיךְ בְּדָמַיִךְ:

ואם לבנו יעדנה AND IF HE HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIS SON — “He” means the master (not like “he” in the previous verse where it refers both to the master and to the father). The verse teaches you that the son also may succeed to his father’s rights to betroth her to himself, if his father consents to it. Then it is not necessary for him either (just as is not obligatory for his father; cf. v. 8) to perform another act of betrothal, but he merely says to her: “You are designated for me as my wife by means of the money which your father has received from my father as your price” (Kiddushin 19a).

כמשפט הבנות. שְׁאֵר כְּסוּת וְעוֹנָה (מכילתא):

כמשפט הבנות [HE SHALL DO UNTO HER] AFTER THE MANNER OF DAUGHTERS — who may claim food, clothing and marital duty (Mekhilta).

אם אחרת יקח לו. עָלֶיהָ:

אם אחרת יקח לו IF HE TAKE HIM ANOTHER WIFE — besides her,

שארה כסותה וענתה לא יגרע. מִן הָאָמָה שֶׁיָּעַד לוֹ כְבָר:

שארה כסותה וענתה לא יגרע HER FOOD, HER RAIMENT AND THE MARITAL DUTY SHALL HE NOT WITHHOLD — from the maidservant whom he has already designated as his wife.

שארה. מְזוֹנוֹת:

שארה means FOOD;

כסותה. כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ.

כסותה means what the literal sense of the word is:RAIMENT;

ענתה. תַּשְׁמִישׁ (כתובות מ"ז):

ענתה means THE MARITAL DUTY (Ketuvot 47b).

ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה. אִם אַחַת מִשְּׁלֹשׁ אֵלֶּה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה לָהּ; וּמָה הֵן הַשָּׁלֹשׁ? יִיעָדֶנָּה לוֹ, אוֹ לִבְנוֹ, אוֹ יְגָרֵעַ מִפִּדְיוֹנָהּ וְתֵצֵא, וְזֶה לֹא יְעָדָהּ, לֹא לוֹ וְלֹא לִבְנוֹ, וְהִיא לֹא הָיָה בְיָדָהּ לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמָהּ:

ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה means IF HE DO NOT one of THESE THREE UNTO HER. What are these three? He should designate her to himself as his wife, or to his son, or allow her a deduction from the ransom so that she may go free (Mekhilta). This man, however, has neither betrothed her to himself, nor to his son, and she herself does not possess the entire sum paid for her originally that she might buy herself out, therefore shall she go out free without money.

ויצאה חנם. רִבָּה לָהּ יְצִיאָה לָזוֹ יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁרִבָּה לָעֲבָדִים, וּמַה הִיא הַיְצִיאָה? לִמֶּדְךָ שֶׁתֵּצֵא בְסִימָנִין וְתִשְׁהֶה עִמּוֹ עוֹד עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא סִימָנִין, – וְאִם הִגִּיעוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים קֹדֶם סִימָנִין, כְּבָר לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁתֵּצֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים (דברים ט"ו) – וּמַהוּ הָאָמוּר כָּאן וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם? שֶׁאִם קָדְמוּ סִימָנִים לְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תֵּצֵא בָהֵן. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר שֶׁתֵּצֵא אֶלָּא בְּבַגְרוּת? תַּ"לֹ אֵין כָּסֶף לְרַבּוֹת יְצִיאַת בַּגְרוּת; וְאִם לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם זוֹ בַגְרוּת, לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא לִתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְבַעַל הַדִּין לַחֲלֹק (מכילתא):

ויצאה חנם THEN SHALL SHE GO OUT FOR NOTHING (i. e. without making any payment) — Scripture adds in her case one more way of acquiring freedom than it provides for menservants. What is this additional way of acquiring freedom? This verse teaches you that she goes free also on account of having shown signs of incipient puberty: but she must stay with him until she reaches this stage of incipient puberty. For that she goes free if the termination of the six years happened to come before the signs of incipient puberty we have already learned, since it is said, (Deuteronomy 15:12) ,‘[and if thy brother], an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman [be sold unto thee], and serve thee six years [then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee]” (cf. Rashi v. 7). What then must be the meaning of what is stated here, “she shall go out for nothing”? That when the signs of incipient puberty appear before the six years are at end she shall go out on account of them. Or perhaps Scripture states here that she shall go free only when she has reached the intermediate stage of womenhood (בגרות, fuller development after twelve years and a half), if this stage happened to be reached before the termination of the six years! To teach this Scripture states “without money” — which would be superfluous since it has already said “she shall go out חנם” — in order to add as another date of her acquiring freedom the time of her reaching this stage of womanhood. And though it necessarily follows that she goes free an reaching the state of בגרות since her freedom is brought about even by the earlier stage of נערות yet if Scripture had not used both terms (both חנם and אין כסף), I might have said that ויצאה חנם refers to the stage of womanhood; therefore both expressions are used in order to give a disputant no opportunity to offer a different explanation (i. e. Scripture wishes to be quite clear on the point in order to preclude all possibility of misunderstanding) (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 4a).

מכה איש ומת. כַּמָּה כְתוּבִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּפָרָשַׁת רוֹצְחִין, וּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדִי לְפָרֵשׁ לָמָּה בָאוּ כֻלָּם, אֲפָרֵשׁ:

מכה איש ומת WHOSOEVER SMITETH A MAN SO THAT HE DIE [SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Many apparently redundant verses have been written in various sections of the Torah dealing with murderers and I shall explain to the best of my ability why all these statements have been made.

מכה איש ומת. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם (ויקרא כ"ד), שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי הַכָּאָה בְלֹא מִיתָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת – אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בְּהַכָּאָה שֶׁל מִיתָה; וְאִם נֶאֱמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּה אִישׁ, הִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאֶת הַקָּטָן מִנַּיִן? תַּ"לֹ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם – אֲפִלּוּ קָטָן וַאֲפִלּוּ אִשָּׁה; וְעוֹד, אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִלּוּ קָטָן שֶׁהִכָּה וְהָרַג יְהֵא חַיָּב, תַּ"לֹ וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה, וְלֹא קָטָן שֶׁהִכָּה; וְעוֹד כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם אֲפִלּוּ נְפָלִים בְּמַשְׁמָע, תַּ"לֹ מַכֵּה אִישׁ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּה בֶן קַיָּמָא הָרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת אִישׁ (מכילתא):

מכה איש ומת WHOSOEVER SMITETH A MAN SO THAT HE DIE — Why is this said (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in another text bearing upon the same subject)? Since it is said, (Leviticus 24:17) “And the man that smiteth (יכה) any person (more lit., the soul of any human being) [shall surely be put to death]”, I might have inferred that mere smiting without resultant death is subject to the death penalty. Scripture therefore states here, “Whosoever smiteth a man so that he die [shall surely be put to death]”, thus telling you that he is not punishable with death unless the stroke proves fatal. On the other hand if it had stated here, “Whosoever smiteth a man…” and it had not said there “If a man smiteth [any person]”, I might have inferred that the murderer is not guilty except if he killed “a man”; whence, however, could I know that he is subject to the death penalty if he killed a woman or a minor? Therefore Scripture states “And if [a man] smiteth any person”, thus including even a minor and a woman. Then again: if it had stated only, “Whosoever smiteth a man” I might have inferred that even a minor who smote and killed a person is punishable with death. Scripture therefore states “and if a man smiteth” — a man but not a minor. Then on the other hand, so far as concerns the statement “And if [a man] smiteth the soul of any man” it might be held that even premature births at a term of eight months are included in the term כל נפש אדם “soul of any man”, Scripture therefore states “Whosoever smiteth a man” to intimate that one is not subject to the death penalty unless he kills a viable child — one which is fitted to become a man (Mekhilta).

ואשר לא צדה. לֹא אָרַב לוֹ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן:

ואשר לא צדה AND IF A MAN LIE NOT IN WAIT — i. e. if he did not lie in ambush for him (the person whom he killed), nor did he premeditate the blow (Makkot 7b).

צדה. לְשׁוֹן אָרַב, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר "וְאַתָּה צֹדֶה אֶת נַפְשִׁי" (שמואל א כ"ד); וְלֹא יִתָּכֵן לוֹמַר צָדָה לְשׁוֹן "הַצָּד צַיִד" (בראשית כ"ז), שֶׁצִּידַת חַיּוֹת אֵין נוֹפֵל ה"א בְּפֹעַל שֶׁלָּהּ, וְשֵׁם דָּבָר בָּהּ צַיִד, וְזֶה שֵׁם דָּבָר בּוֹ צְדִיָּה, וּפֹעַל שֶׁלּוֹ צוֹדֶה, וְזֶה הַפֹּעַל שֶׁלּוֹ צָד. וְאוֹמֵר אֲנִי פִּתְרוֹנוֹ כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ – וּדְלָא כְמַן לֵהּ. וּמְנַחֵם חִבְּרוֹ בְּחֵלֶק צָד צַיִד, וְאֵין אֲנִי מוֹדֶה לוֹ; וְאִם יֵשׁ לְחַבְּרוֹ בְּאַחַת מִמַּחְלָקוֹת שֶׁל צָד, נְחַבְּרֶנּוּ בְחֵלֶק "עַל צַד תִּנָּשֵׂאוּ" (ישעיהו ס"ו), "צִדָּה אוֹרֶה" (שמואל א כ'), "וּמִלִּין לְצַד עִלָּאָה יְמַלֵּל" (דניאל ז'), אַף כָּאן אֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה – לֹא צִדֵּד לִמְצֹא לוֹ שׁוּם צַד מִיתָה; וְאַף זֶה יֵשׁ לְהַרְהֵר עָלָיו, מִכָּל מָקוֹם לְשׁוֹן אוֹרֵב הוּא:

צדה is a term denoting “lying in wait”; similarly it says, (I Samuel 24:12) “yet thou liest in wait (צדה) for my soul to take it”. It is, however, not correct to say that צדה is of the same derivation as, (Genesis 27:34) הצד ציד “he that hath hunted (הצד) venison”, for a ה has no place in the verbal forms of the term denoting “hunting beasts”. Then again, the noun form of the latter is צַיִד and that of the former צְדִיָה, whilst the participle of the verb “lying in wait” is צוֹדֶה and that of the other is צָד. I therefore say that its meaning is as the Targum gives it: “and if he did not lie in ambush for him”. Menachem ben Seruk placed it in the same section as הצד ציד (i. e. he held that the root is צד and that it has the meaning of “hunting”), but I do not agree with him. If it is to be placed in one of the sections of צד we had better place it in the same section as, (Isaiah 66:12) על צד תנשאו “ye shall be borne upon her side (צד)” and (I Samuel 20:20) “and I will shoot [three arrows] on the side thereof (צדה)”, and (Daniel 7:25) “and he shall speak towards the side of (against) the Most High”. Thus, here, the words אשד לא צדה could be taken to mean, “he did not turn aside (צִדֵּד)” to seek some side (occasion) for killing him. But there are objections even to this explanation. At any rate, even if it be connected with צד in this sense, it would still have the meaning “lying in wait”.

והאלהים אנה לידו. זִמֵּן לְיָדוֹ, לְשׁוֹן "לֹא תְאֻנֶּה אֵלֶיךָ רָעָה" (תהילים צ"א), "לֹא יְאֻנֶּה לַצַּדִּיק כָּל אָוֶן" (משלי י"ב), "מִתְאַנֶּה הוּא לִי" (מלכים ב ה') – מִזְדַּמֵּן לִמְצֹא לִי עִלָּה:

והאלהים אנה לידו means, BUT GOD GOT IT READY FOR HIS HAND. It has the same meaning as this root has in, (Psalms 91:10) “No evil shall be got ready (תאנה) for thee”; (Proverbs 12:21) “There shall no evil be got ready (תאנה) for the just”; (2 Kings 5:7) “he gets himself ready (מתאנה) for me”, i. e. he gets himself ready to discover some occasion against me.

והאלהים אנה לידו. וְלָמָּה תֵצֵא זֹאת מִלְּפָנָיו? הוּא שֶׁאָמַר דָּוִד "כַּאֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר מְשַׁל הַקַּדְמֹנִי מֵרְשָׁעִים יֵצֵא רֶשַׁע" (שמואל א כ"ד); וּמְשַׁל הַקַּדְמוֹנִי הִיא הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהִיא מְשַׁל הַקָּבָּ"ה שֶׁהוּא קַדְמוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם; וְהֵיכָן אָמְרָה תוֹרָה מֵרְשָׁעִים יֵצֵא רֶשַׁע? וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ. בַּמֶּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? בִּשְׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם, אֶחָד הָרַג שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד הָרַג מֵזִיד, וְלֹא הָיוּ עֵדִים בַּדָּבָר שֶׁיָּעִידוּ, זֶה לֹא נֶהֱרַג, וְזֶה לֹא גָלָה, וְהַקָּבָּ"ה מְזַמְּנָן לְפֻנְדָק אֶחָד, זֶה שֶׁהָרַג בְּמֵזִיד יוֹשֵׁב תַּחַת הַסֻּלָּם וְזֶה שֶׁהָרַג שׁוֹגֵג עוֹלֶה בַּסֻּלָּם וְנוֹפֵל עַל זֶה שֶׁהָרַג בְּמֵזִיד וְהוֹרְגוֹ, וְעֵדִים מְעִידִים עָלָיו וּמְחַיְּבִים אוֹתוֹ לִגְלוֹת, נִמְצָא זֶה שֶׁהָרַג בְּשׁוֹגֵג גּוֹלֶה, וְזֶה שֶׁהָרַג בְּמֵזִיד נֶהֱרָג (מכות י'):

והאלהים אנה לידו BUT GOD GOT IT READY FOR HIS HAND — But why should this go forth from Him (be brought about by God)? This is just what David tells us: (I Samuel 24:13) “As says the proverb of the ancient (הקדמני) “Wickedness proceededeth from the wicked”. — “The proverb of the קדמני” is the Torah, the maxim of God, Who it the “Ancient” (Whose existence preceded that) of the world. But where indeed does the Torah say, “Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked”? It says it implicitly in the verse: “But God got it ready for his hand”. For what is Scripture here speaking about? About two men, one of whom killed a person with premeditation and the other killed inadvertently, and in neither case were there witnesses to the deed who could testify about it. Consequently, the former was not put to death and the latter was not forced into banishment to a city of refuge (cf. Numbers 35:11). Now God brings them together at the same inn. He who killed with premeditation happens to sit beneath a ladder, and the other who killed inadvertently ascends the ladder and falls, when descending it, upon the man who killed with premeditation and kills him. Witnesses now being present they testify against him, so compelling him to be banished to one of the cities of refuge. The result is that he who killed inadvertently is actually banished and he who killed with premeditation actually suffers death (cf. Mekhilta and Makkot 10b).

ושמתי לך מקום. אַף בַּמִּדְבָּר, שֶׁיָּנוּס שָׁמָּה, וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם קוֹלְטוֹ? זֶה מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה (מכילתא):

ושמתי לך מקום AND I WILL APPOINT THEE A PLACE — in the wilderness also — WHITHER HE SHALL FLEE — Which was the place that offered him an asylum? The camp of the Levites (Mekhilta; Makkot 12b).

וכי יזד. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ וְגוֹ' שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִלּוּ גּוֹי, וְרוֹפֵא שֶׁהֵמִית וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהֵמִית בְּמַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים, וְהָאָב הַמַּכֶּה אֶת בְּנוֹ וְהָרַב הָרוֹדֶה אֶת תַּלְמִידוֹ, וְהַשּׁוֹגֵג, תַּ"לֹ וְכִי יָזִד – וְלֹא שׁוֹגֵג, עַל רֵעֵהוּ – וְלֹא עַל גּוֹי, לְהָרְגוֹ בְעָרְמָה – וְלֹא שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין וְהָרוֹפֵא וְרוֹדֶה בְנוֹ וְתַלְמִידוֹ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם מְזִידִין אֵין מַעֲרִימִין (מכילתא):

וכי יזד AND IF A MAN ACT INTENTIONALLY — Why is this stated at all (since v. 13 expressly provides a place for the murderer only if he does not lie in wait)? Since it is said, (v. 12) “Whosoever smiteth a man [so that he die shall be put to death]”, I might infer that this is so even if the victim is a heathen, and that there it included even a physician who kills a person as a result of his treatment, and a court-officer who kills a man when inflicting on him the forty lashes, and a father who beats and thereby kills his son, and a teacher who chastises his pupil and thereby kills him, and one who kills in error (שוגג, i. e. one who intended to kill a certain person but missed the mark and killed another instead — נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה)! Scripture therefore states here: “if a man acts intentionally (יזיד)” — but not in error (שוגג); “against his fellowman (רעהו)” — but not against a heathen; “to slay with guile (בערמה)” — thus excluding the court-officer, the physician, and one who chastises his son or his pupil for all these though acting intentionally do not do so with guile (cf. Mekhilta).

מעם מזבחי. אִם הָיָה כֹהֵן וְרוֹצֶה לַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדָה תִּקָּחֶנוּ לָמוּת (יומא פ"ה):

מעם מזבחי תקחנו למות THOU SHALT TAKE HIM FROM MY ALTAR, THAT HE MAY DIE — even if he is a priest and stands at the altar intending to officiate thou shalt take him away that he die (cf. Mekhilta; Yoma 85a).

ומכה אביו ואמו. לְפִי שֶׁלִּמְּדָנוּ עַל הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְתַשְׁלוּמִין וְלֹא בְמִיתָה, הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר עַל הַחוֹבֵל בְּאָבִיו שֶׁהוּא בְמִיתָה, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בְהַכָּאָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חַבּוּרָה (סנהדרין פ"ה):

ומכה אביו ואמו AND HE THAT SMITETH HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER [SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Because Scripture has taught us that he who inflicts a wound upon his fellow-man is liable for damages (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:24) but is not subject to death, it was compelled to state that he who inflicts a wound on his father or his mother is subject to the death penalty (Mekhilta). He is, however, not punishable with death except for a blow which causes a wound (Sanhedrin 85b).

אביו ואמו. אוֹ זֶה אוֹ זֶה:

אביו ואמו means either his father or his mother (Mekhilta).

מות יומת. בְּחֶנֶק (מכילתא):

מות יומת SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — by strangulation (Mekhilta).

וגנב איש ומכרו. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ גּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מֵאֶחָיו (דברים כ"ד), אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ שֶׁגָּנַב נֶפֶשׁ, אִשָּׁה אוֹ טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס שֶׁגָּנְבוּ מִנַּיִן? תַּ"לֹ וְגֹנֵב אִישׁ וּמְכָרוֹ. וּלְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱ' כָּאן וְגֹנֵב אִישׁ, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא גּוֹנֵב אִישׁ, גּוֹנֵב אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? תַּ"לֹ גֹּנֵב נֶפֶשׁ, לְכָךְ הֻצְרְכוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַה שֶּׁחִסֵּר זֶה גִּלָּה זֶה (סנהדרין שם):

וגנב איש ומכרו AND HE THAT STEALETH A MAN, AND SELLETH HIM, [AND HE BE PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Why is this statement made (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in another text bearing upon the same subject)? Since it is said, (Deuteronomy 24:7) “If a man be found stealing any of his brethren … [then that thief shall die]”, I might say that I have here only the law that a man who stole a person is punishable with death. Whence, however, do I know that this is also the case if a woman or a person whose sex is not distinguishable or a hermaphrodite (טומטום ואנדרונינוס) has stolen a person? Scripture therefore states here: “Whosoever stealeth a man and selleth him”. — And again, since Scripture states here: “He that stealeth a man [shall be put to death]”, I might say that I have here only the law that if one steals a man he is punishable with death. Whence do I know that this is also the case if he has stolen a woman? Therefore Scripture states, (Deuteronomy 24:7) “[If a man be found] stealing any person [he shall be put to death]”. Consequently both verses are necessary: what the one omits the other tells us (Mekhilta; Sanhedrin 85b).

ונמצא בידו. שֶׁרָאוּהוּ עֵדִים שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ, וְנִמְצָא כְבָר בְּיָדוֹ קֹדֶם מְכִירָה (שם):

ונמצא בידו implies that witnesses have seen him stealing and also saw him selling the person, and that he has been found in his possession before he had sold him (Mekhilta).

מות יומת. בְּחֶנֶק; כָּל מִיתָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַתּוֹרָה סְתָם חֶנֶק הִיא (וְהִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן וְכָתַב וְגֹנֵב אִישׁ בֵּין מַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ לִמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו, וְנִרְאֶה לִי הַיְנוּ פְּלוּגְתָּא, דְּמַר סָבַר מַקְּשִׁינַן הַכָּאָה לִקְלָלָה וּמַר סָבַר לָא מַקְּשִׁינַן (שם)):

מות יומת HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH — by strangulation. Wherever the death-penalty is mentioned in Scripture without being precisely defined strangulation is intended (Mekhilta; Sanhedrin 84b). [It should be noted that Scripture interrupted the context by writing “Whosoever stealeth etc.” between the passages, “He that smiteth his father etc.” and “He that curseth his father etc.”, which passages ought on account of their contents to follow one after the other. I think that this gave rise to the difference of opinion found in Sanhedrin 85a where one Rabbi holds that we must put “smiting” on an equality with “cursing”, in spite of the text being interrupted by the verse וגונב, which, however, is placed between them only to teach that in some respects “smiting” and “cursing” have not the same law, — that after the death of the parents “cursing” them is punishable whilst “smiting” them is not; whilst another bolds that since the two verses have been disconnected “smiting” can by no means be put on an equality with, and have the same legal consequenses as, “cursing” (cf. Sanhedrin 85b)].

ומקלל אביו ואמו. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר אִישׁ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יְקַלֵּל אֶת אָבִיו (ויקרא כ'), אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ שֶׁקִּלֵּל אֶת אָבִיו, אִשָּׁה שֶׁקִּלְּלָה אֶת אָבִיהָ מִנַּיִן? תַּ"לֹ וּמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ סְתָם, בֵּין אִישׁ וּבֵין אִשָּׁה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יְקַלֵּל? לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַקָּטָן (מכילתא):

ומקלל אביו ואמו WHOSOEVER CURSETH HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER [SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Why is this stated in this particular form? Since Scripture says, (Leviticus 20:9) “For every man who execrateth his father [or his mother shall surely be put to death]” I might say that I have here only the law that a man who curseth his father or his mother is punishable with death. Whence do I know that this is also the case if a woman curseth her father or her mother? Scripture therefore states here, “Whosoever curseth father or mother” — whosoever generally — intimating that it applies to both man and woman (Mekhilta). But if this be so why is it said, (Leviticus 20:9). “For every man who execrateth etc.”? To exclude a minor.

מות יומת. בִּסְקִילָה; וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר דָּמָיו בּוֹ בִּסְקִילָה, וּבִנְיַן אָב לְכֻלָּם בָּאֶבֶן יִרְגְּמוּ אֹתָם דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם (ויקרא כ'), וּבִמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ נֶאֱמַר דָּמָיו בּוֹ:

מות יומת SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH — by stoning. And the rule is that wherever the term “his blood is upon him “is used in connection with the death penalty, “execution by stoning” is meant. The following in the passage from which this is evident (בנין אב): (Leviticus 20:27) “they shall overwhelm them with stones: their blood is upon them” — and as regards one who curses father or mother (Leviticus 20:9), Scripture indeed uses the words דמיו בו (Mekhilta; Sanhedrin 66a).

וכי יריבן אנשים. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, לֹא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אֵבָרָיו אֲבָל שֶׁבֶת וְרִפּוּי לֹא לָמַדְנוּ, לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ:

וכי יריבן אנשים AND IF MEN QUARREL — Why is this (vv. 18, 19) stated in this particular form? Since Scripture states, (v. 24) “Eye for eye”, we learn from this only that compensation for the loss of limbs has to be paid, but we cannot infer from it that indemnity for loss of time (during which the injured has been disabled from work) and cost of medical treatment have also to be paid; consequently this section (vv. 18 and 19) is said (Mekhilta).

ונפל למשכב. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ וְיִפֵּל לְבוּטְלָן – לְחֹלִי שֶׁמְּבַטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ:

ונפל למשכב BUT KEEPETH HIS BED — The meaning is as the Targum gives it: ויפל לבוטלן “and he falls into inactivity”, i. e. he falls into an illness that prevents him from working.

על משענתו. עַל בֻּרְיוֹ וְכֹחוֹ (מכילתא):

על משענתו (lit., with that on which he relies) — i. e. his former healthy state and vigour (Mekhilta; cf. Onkelos).

ונקה המכה. וְכִי תַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁיֵּהָרֵג זֶה שֶׁלֹּא הָרַג? אֶלָּא לִמֶּדְךָ כָאן שֶׁחוֹבְשִׁים אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּרְאֶה אִם יִתְרַפֵּא זֶה; וְכֵן מַשְׁמָעוֹ: כְּשֶׁקָּם זֶה וְהוֹלֵךְ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ אָז נִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה, אֲבָל עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָקוּם זֶה לֹא נִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה (כתובות ל"ג):

ונקה המכה [WHEN HE RISES AGAIN…] HE THAT SMOTE HIM SHALL BE FREED — But could it enter your mind that this person who has not killed anyone at all should be subject to the death penalty? Why, then, is it necessary to state this? But it is intended to teach you that he is kept in prison until we discover whether the other is completely healed or not, and what the verse implies is this: when this man rises again (אם יקום) and walks in the street in his former vigour, then he who smote him shall be freed from prison, but so long as the other has not risen from the sick-bed etc. the man who smote him is not freed (Ketubot 33b; Sanhedrin 78b).

רק שבתו. בִּטּוּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ מֵחֲמַת הַחֹלִי; אִם קָטַע יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ, רוֹאִין בִּטּוּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ מֵחֲמַת הַחֹלִי כְאִלּוּ שׁוֹמֵר קִשּׁוּאִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי אַף לְאַחַר הַחֹלִי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִמְלֶאכֶת יָד וָרֶגֶל, וְהוּא כְבָר נָתַן לוֹ מֵחֲמַת נִזְקוֹ דְּמֵי יָדוֹ וְרַגְלוֹ, שֶׁנֶּ' יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל:

רק שבתו ONLY [HE SHALL PAY FOR] THE LOSS OF HIS TIME — i. e. for the interruption of his labour due to this illness. If, for instance, he cut off his hand or his foot, we regard the interruption of labour caused by this illness as though his occupation were that of a watchman in a cucumber field (which work can be done even by a man lacking a hand or a foot), for even after he has recovered from the illness he will not be able to do work which requires hands or feet, and indeed the value of his hand or his foot that was cut off the other has already paid to him as “damages” (נזק), as it is said, (v. 24) “hand for hand, foot for foot”. (Having compensated him already for loss of capacity as a wage-earner whole in body, it would not be right if this man has again to pay him for loss of time as though he were of full-earning capacity) (Bava Kamma 85b).

ורפא ירפא. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ – יְשַׁלֵּם שְׂכַר הָרוֹפֵא:

ורפא ירפא — Translate it as the Targum does: he shall pay the physician’s fee.