(Exodus 22:15) "And if a man entice a virgin, etc.": Scripture comes to teach about an enticed girl that knass (penalty [viz. 16]) is paid for her. (But why is the verse needed?) Can it not be derived by reason, viz. "A ravished girl is in her father's jurisdiction, and an enticed girl is in her father's jurisdiction. If we have learned that knass is paid for the first (viz. Devarim 22:28-29) then knass should also be paid for the second.
No, this may be true of a ravished girl, where he violates her will and the will of her father, as opposed to an enticed girl, where he violates her father's will alone — wherefore he should not pay knass. Since it could not be derived by reason, the verse must be adduced.
"who is not betrothed": to exclude one who was widowed or divorced in betrothal. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Even one who was divorced or widowed. And this follows by reason, viz. Since he can annul her vows and he can accept her knass, then just as the first obtains if she were widowed or divorced, so, the second.
If so, why is it written "who is not betrothed"? It is "extra" for purposes of comparison and towards the formulation of a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: It is written here "who is not betrothed" and there (Devarim 22:28) "who is not betrothed": Just as there, fifty, so, here, fifty. Just as here, shekalim, so, there shekalim.
5
"מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה." לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (דברים כב,כט) "וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף, וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה", כַּשֵּׁם שֶׁבַּתְּפוּסָה, נוֹתֵן מִיָּד, כָּךְ בַּמְּפֻתָּה, נוֹתֵן מִיָּד! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה", מַגִּיד שֶׁעוֹשִׂין עָלָיו מֹהַר.*עוֹשִׂין עָלָיו מֹהַר: אינו צריך לשלם מיד את חמישים הכסף, אלא הם סכום הכתובה, המוהר, שנותן לה.
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": What is the intent of this? From (Devarim 22:29) "then the man who lay with her shall give," I might think that just as when he ravishes her he gives (knass) immediately, so, when he entices her. We are, therefore, apprised that he (the father) imposes it (the fine) upon him as mohar,"
"mohar" being a kethubah, as in (Genesis 34:12) "Impose upon me much mohar and dower, and I will give it as you tell me, but give me the maiden as a wife."
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": a wife that is permitted to him — to exclude (from marriage, but not from knass) a widow to a high-priest; a divorcée and a chalutzah (one who had undergone the ceremony dissolving the levirate marriage obligation) to a regular priest; a mamzereth (a bastard [halachically] and a Nathinah (a descendent of the Givonites) to an Israelite, and the daughter of an Israelite to a Nathin or a mamzer.
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": I might think whether or not the father consents. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15) "If her father refuse, refuse, to give her to him, then money shall he pay according to the price of the virgins," whereby Scripture apprises us that if the father consents he may take her, and if he does not consent, he may not take her.
This tells me only of one who was enticed. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who was ravished? It follows thus: Since a ravished one is under her father's jurisdiction and an enticed one is under her father's jurisdiction, then if we have learned about an enticed one that if the father consents, he may take her, and if not, not, the same obtains with a ravished one.
Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If with an enticed one, where he did not violate her father's will, the father may abrogate or sustain the marriage, then with a ravished one, where he violated both her will and that of her father, how much more so may the father abrogate or sustain as he wills!
"if her father refuse, refuse": This tells me only of one who has a father. Whence do I derive the same for one who does not have a father (i.e., that she herself may refuse)? It is, therefore, written "If refuse, refuse" — in any event.
"money shall he pay": R. Yossi Haglili says: We have not heard how much. I, therefore, reason as follows: It is written here "money," and elsewhere (re one who was ravished, Devarim 22:29), "money." Just as there, fifty, so, here, fifty.
"according to the mohar of the virgins": What do we learn from "the mohar of the virgins." This (seemingly) comes to teach, but it emerges as learning, i.e., just as there, (Devarim 22:29) fifty silver, so, here, fifty silver.
(Exodus 22:17) "A witch you shall not allow to live": Both a man and a woman. R. Yishmael says: It is written here "You shall not allow to live," and elsewhere (Devarim 20:16) "You shall not allow to live. Just as there, (the death is) by the sword, so, here, by the sword.
R. Akiva says: It is written here "You shall not allow to live," and elsewhere (Exodus 19:13) "Whether beast or man it shall not live." Just as there (the death is) by stoning, so, here, by stoning.
R. Yishmael rejoined: I derive "You shall not allow to live" from "You shall not allow to live," and you answer me from "You shall not allow to live" to "it shall not live!" R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written here "A witch you shall not allow to live," and (Ibid. 18) "Whoever lives with a beast shall be put to death." They are juxtaposed to teach that just as the second (is killed) by stoning, so, the first.
R. Yehudah says: It is written (Leviticus 20:27) "And a man or a woman, if there be in them an ov or a yidoni" (shall be stoned). Now "ov" and "yidoni" are types of witchcraft. Why were they singled out for special mention? To teach that just as these are (killed) by stoning, so all (types of) witches are (killed) by stoning. We have heard the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, a diviner, a soothsayer an enchanter or a witch."
(Exodus 22:18) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death": What is the intent of this? It is written (Leviticus 20:15) "And a man who cohabits with a beast shall be put to death" — by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps, by one of the other death penalties in Scripture? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the beast shall you kill." It is written here "kill," and elsewhere (Devarim 13:10) "kill." Just as there, stoning (is indicated), so, here, stoning. We have heard the penalty. Whence is the exhortation (derived)? From (Leviticus 18:23) "And you shall not cohabit with any beast." This tells me only of the punishment and the exhortation for the active agent. Whence do we derive the punishment for the passive agent? From (our verse) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death." Scripture (hereby) equated the passive agent with the active one. Just as the second is to be stoned, so, the first. We have heard the punishment. Whence the exhortation (for the passive agent)? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 23:18) "and there shall not be a (male) harlot among the children of Israel," and (I Kings 14:24) "And there was also a (male) harlot in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the L–rd drove out."
(Exodus 22:19) "One who sacrifices to idolatry shall be put to death": We have heard the punishment. Whence the exhortation? It is written (Exodus 20:5) "You shall not bow down to them and you shall not serve them." Sacrifice was included (in serving), and it was singled out to teach that just as sacrificing is distinctive in that it is an inner Temple service and one is liable for it (if done for an idol) whether or not it is its conventional mode of worship, so, one is liable for all such modes of service (in the worship of idolatry.)
All modes of service which are not inner Temple services — If one performs them in the worship of idolatry, he is liable; if not in the worship of idolatry, he is not liable.
"only to the L–rd alone": Because others say: If the Israelites had not joined the name of the Holy One Blessed be He, with that of idolatry (i.e., the golden calf), they would have gone lost from the world, it is written "One who sacrifices to idolatry shall be put to death — only to the L–rd alone!" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Are not all who join the name of the Holy One Blessed be He to the name of idolatry liable to destruction! As it is written (II Kings 17:33) "They feared the L–rd and served their (the nations') gods, according to the custom of the nations that exiled them from there."
22
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בְּאוֹתוֹתֶיהָ נִתְּנָה תוֹרָה,*בְּאוֹתוֹתֶיהָ: עם סימנים. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִין: הוֹאִיל וַאֲנוּ מְצֻוִּין עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, נְהֵי בוֹלְשִׁין בַּבּוֹרוֹת בַּשִּׁיחִין וּבַמְּעָרוֹת!*בּוֹלְשִׁין: מתאמצים לחפש עבודה זרה כדי לבער אותה. הגירסה בולשין על פי מכילתא דברים, ס. בגניזה, בושין. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים יב,ב) "עַל הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל הַגְּבָעוֹת, וְתַחַת כָּל עֵץ רַעֲנָן." עַל הַגְּלוּיִים, וְלֹא עַל הַסְּתָרִין.
Others say: Torah was given with its signs (i.e., with its warnings), so that Israel not say: Though we are commanded against idolatry, it will not be held against us if we secrete the idols in the recesses of the earth. It is, therefore, written (Isaiah 2:14) "On all the high mountains and on all the lofty hills" (and in the recesses of the earth) — whether revealed or hidden, (idolatry is forbidden) — "only to the L–rd alone" (with no admixtures of idolatry)!
(שמות כב,טו) "וְכִי יְפַתֶּה אִישׁ בְּתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ, מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה."*מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה: ישלם לאביה את המוהר והיא תהיה אשתו. בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמֵּד עַל הַמְפֻתָּה, שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם עָלֶיהָ קְנָס. וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: הוֹאִיל וּתְפוּסָה בִרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ,*תְּפוּסָה: אנוסה. מלשון הפסוק (במדבר ה,יג) "וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה". וּמְפֻתָּה בִרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל תְּפוּסָה, שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם עָלֶיהָ קְנָס, אַף מְפֻתָּה, יְשַׁלֵּם עָלֶיהָ קְנָס!
(Exodus 22:15) "And if a man entice a virgin, etc.": Scripture comes to teach about an enticed girl that knass (penalty [viz. 16]) is paid for her. (But why is the verse needed?) Can it not be derived by reason, viz. "A ravished girl is in her father's jurisdiction, and an enticed girl is in her father's jurisdiction. If we have learned that knass is paid for the first (viz. Devarim 22:28-29) then knass should also be paid for the second.
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּתְּפוּסָה, שֶׁעָבַר עַל דַּעְתָּהּ וְעַל דַּעַת אָבִיהָ, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם עָלֶיהָ קְנָס, תֹּאמַר בַּמְּפֻתָּה, שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת אָבִיהָ, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם עָלֶיהָ קְנָס. הָא לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא זָכִיתִי מִן הַדִּין, צָרַךְ הַכָּתוּב לַהֲבִיאוֹ.
No, this may be true of a ravished girl, where he violates her will and the will of her father, as opposed to an enticed girl, where he violates her father's will alone — wherefore he should not pay knass. Since it could not be derived by reason, the verse must be adduced.
"אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה", לְהוֹצִיא אֶת שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנָה, וְאֶת שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: וּמְנַיִן אֲפִלּוּ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְאַלְמְנָה? וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: הוֹאִיל וְרַשַּׁי בְּהָפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ, וְרַשַּׁי בְּכֶסֶף קְנָסָהּ, מַה בְּהָפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְאַלְמְנָה אֲפִלּוּ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, אַף בְּכֶסֶף קְנָסָהּ, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרָשָׁה.
"who is not betrothed": to exclude one who was widowed or divorced in betrothal. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Even one who was divorced or widowed. And this follows by reason, viz. Since he can annul her vows and he can accept her knass, then just as the first obtains if she were widowed or divorced, so, the second.
וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה"? אֶלָּא מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ לָדוּן מִמֶּנּוּ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (דברים כב,כח) "אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה"; מַה לְּהַלָּן כֶּסֶף, אַף כָּן כֶּסֶף.
If so, why is it written "who is not betrothed"? It is "extra" for purposes of comparison and towards the formulation of a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: It is written here "who is not betrothed" and there (Devarim 22:28) "who is not betrothed": Just as there, fifty, so, here, fifty. Just as here, shekalim, so, there shekalim.
"מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה." לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (דברים כב,כט) "וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף, וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה", כַּשֵּׁם שֶׁבַּתְּפוּסָה, נוֹתֵן מִיָּד, כָּךְ בַּמְּפֻתָּה, נוֹתֵן מִיָּד! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה", מַגִּיד שֶׁעוֹשִׂין עָלָיו מֹהַר.*עוֹשִׂין עָלָיו מֹהַר: אינו צריך לשלם מיד את חמישים הכסף, אלא הם סכום הכתובה, המוהר, שנותן לה.
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": What is the intent of this? From (Devarim 22:29) "then the man who lay with her shall give," I might think that just as when he ravishes her he gives (knass) immediately, so, when he entices her. We are, therefore, apprised that he (the father) imposes it (the fine) upon him as mohar,"
וְאֵין מֹהַר אֶלָּא כְּתוּבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (בראשית לד,יב) "הַרְבּוּ עָלַי מְאֹד מֹהַר וּמַתָּן, וְאֶתְּנָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָי, וּתְנוּ לִי אֶת הַנַּעֲרָ לְאִשָּׁה."
"mohar" being a kethubah, as in (Genesis 34:12) "Impose upon me much mohar and dower, and I will give it as you tell me, but give me the maiden as a wife."
"מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה." בָּרְאוּיָה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, לְהוֹצִיא אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר וּלְנָתִין.*נָתִין, נְתִינָה: אדם מצאצאי הגבעונים, כנענים שקיבלו במרמה מיהושע להשאר בארץ.
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": a wife that is permitted to him — to exclude (from marriage, but not from knass) a widow to a high-priest; a divorcée and a chalutzah (one who had undergone the ceremony dissolving the levirate marriage obligation) to a regular priest; a mamzereth (a bastard [halachically] and a Nathinah (a descendent of the Givonites) to an Israelite, and the daughter of an Israelite to a Nathin or a mamzer.
"מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה." שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, בֵּין שֶׁהָאָב רוֹצֶה, בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות כב,טז) "אִם מָאֵן יְמָאֵן אָבִיהָ לְתִתָּהּ לוֹ, כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקֹל כְּמֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת." מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁאִם רָצָה הָאָב, יְקַיֵּם, לֹא רָצָה הָאָב, יוֹצִיא.
"mahor yimharenah to himself as a wife": I might think whether or not the father consents. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15) "If her father refuse, refuse, to give her to him, then money shall he pay according to the price of the virgins," whereby Scripture apprises us that if the father consents he may take her, and if he does not consent, he may not take her.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מְפֻתָּה, שֶׁאִם רָצָה הָאָב, יְקַיֵּם, לֹא רָצָה הָאָב, יוֹצִיא, תְּפוּסָה מְנַיִן? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: הוֹאִיל וּתְפוּסָה בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ, וּמְפֻתָּה בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ, אִם לָמַדְתָּ בַּמְּפֻתָּה, שֶׁאִם רָצָה הָאָב, יְקַיֵּם, לֹא רָצָה הָאָב, יוֹצִיא, אַף תְּפוּסָה , אִם רָצָה הָאָב, יְקַיֵּם, לֹא רָצָה הָאָב, יוֹצִיא.
This tells me only of one who was enticed. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who was ravished? It follows thus: Since a ravished one is under her father's jurisdiction and an enticed one is under her father's jurisdiction, then if we have learned about an enticed one that if the father consents, he may take her, and if not, not, the same obtains with a ravished one.
עוֹד קוֹל וָחֹמֶר: מָה, אִם מְפֻתָּה, שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת אָבִיהָ, שֶׁאִם רָצָה הָאָב, יְקַיֵּם, לֹא רָצָה הָאָב, יוֹצִיא, תְּפוּסָה, שֶׁעָבַר עַל דַּעְתָּהּ וְעַל דַּעַת אָבִיהָ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁאִם רָצָה הָאָב, יְקַיֵּם, לֹא רָצָה הָאָב, יוֹצִיא.
Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If with an enticed one, where he did not violate her father's will, the father may abrogate or sustain the marriage, then with a ravished one, where he violated both her will and that of her father, how much more so may the father abrogate or sustain as he wills!
(שמות כב,טז) "אִם מָאֵן יְמָאֵן אָבִיהָ לְתִתָּהּ לוֹ, כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקֹל כְּמֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת." אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ אָב, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אָב, מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִם מָאֵן יְמָאֵן". דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי.
"if her father refuse, refuse": This tells me only of one who has a father. Whence do I derive the same for one who does not have a father (i.e., that she herself may refuse)? It is, therefore, written "If refuse, refuse" — in any event.
"כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקֹל", אֲבָל לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ כַּמָּה! הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "כֶּסֶף", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "כָּסֶף". (דברים כב,כט) מַה לְּהַלָּן חֲמִשִּׁים, אַף כָּן חֲמִשִּׁים.
"money shall he pay": R. Yossi Haglili says: We have not heard how much. I, therefore, reason as follows: It is written here "money," and elsewhere (re one who was ravished, Devarim 22:29), "money." Just as there, fifty, so, here, fifty.
"כְּמֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת." וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ עַל מֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת? אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד: מַה לְּהַלָּן כָּתוּב חֲמִשִּׁים כֶּסֶף, אַף כָּן מֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת חֲמִשִּׁים כֶּסֶף.
"according to the mohar of the virgins": What do we learn from "the mohar of the virgins." This (seemingly) comes to teach, but it emerges as learning, i.e., just as there, (Devarim 22:29) fifty silver, so, here, fifty silver.
(שמות כב,יז) "מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה." אֶחָד אִישׁ וְאֶחָד אִשָּׁה. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "לֹא תְחַיֶּה", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (דברים כ,טז) "לֹא תְחַיֶּה כָּל נְשָׁמָה." מַה לְּהַלָּן בַּסַּיִף, אַף כָּן בַּסַּיִף.
(Exodus 22:17) "A witch you shall not allow to live": Both a man and a woman. R. Yishmael says: It is written here "You shall not allow to live," and elsewhere (Devarim 20:16) "You shall not allow to live. Just as there, (the death is) by the sword, so, here, by the sword.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "לֹא תְחַיֶּה", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (שמות יט,יג) "אִם בְּהֵמָה אִם אִישׁ, לֹא יִחְיֶה". מַה לְּהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּן בִּסְקִילָה.
R. Akiva says: It is written here "You shall not allow to live," and elsewhere (Exodus 19:13) "Whether beast or man it shall not live." Just as there (the death is) by stoning, so, here, by stoning.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אֲנִי דָּן "לֹא תְחַיֶּה" מִ"לֹּא תְחַיֶּה", וְאַתָּה מְשִׁיבֵנִי "לֹא יִחְיֶה" עַל "לֹא תְחַיֶּה"! רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר "מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה", וְנֶאֱמַר (שמות כב,יח) "כָּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת", מָה זֶה בִּסְקִילָה, אַף זֶה בִּסְקִילָה.
R. Yishmael rejoined: I derive "You shall not allow to live" from "You shall not allow to live," and you answer me from "You shall not allow to live" to "it shall not live!" R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written here "A witch you shall not allow to live," and (Ibid. 18) "Whoever lives with a beast shall be put to death." They are juxtaposed to teach that just as the second (is killed) by stoning, so, the first.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בְּתֵירָה אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כ,כז) "וְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה, כִּי יִהְיֶה בָהֶם אוֹב אוֹ יִדְּעֹנִי, מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, בָּאֶבֶן יִרְגְּמוּ אֹתָם, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם." בִּסְקִילָה. עֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים יח,י) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ, קֹסֵם קְסָמִים, מְעוֹנֵן וּמְנַחֵשׁ וּמְכַשֵּׁף."
R. Yehudah says: It is written (Leviticus 20:27) "And a man or a woman, if there be in them an ov or a yidoni" (shall be stoned). Now "ov" and "yidoni" are types of witchcraft. Why were they singled out for special mention? To teach that just as these are (killed) by stoning, so all (types of) witches are (killed) by stoning. We have heard the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Devarim 18:10) "There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, a diviner, a soothsayer an enchanter or a witch."
(שמות כב,יח) "כָּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת." לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כ,טו) "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתּוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת", בִּסְקִילָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּסְקִילָה, אוֹ בְאַחַת מִכָּל מִיתוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כ,טו) "וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה תַּהֲרֹגוּ." נֶאֱמַר כָּן הֲרִיגָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן הֲרִיגָה; מַה הֲרִיגָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּן בִּסְקִילָה. עֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (ויקרא יח,כג) "וּבְכָל בְּהֵמָה לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ לְטָמְאָה בָהּ". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֹנֶשׁ וְאַזְהָרָה לַשּׁוֹכֵב, עֹנֶשׁ וְאַזְהָרָה לַנִּשְׁכָּב מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כָּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת." קָרָא הַכָּתוּב לַנִּשְׁכָּב שׁוֹכֵב, מָה זֶה בִסְקִילָה, אַף זֶה בִסְקִילָה. עֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, וְאַזְהָרָה לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים כג,יח) "לֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל." וְאוֹמֵר: (מלכים א יד,כד) "וְגַם קָדֵשׁ הָיָה בָאָרֶץ, עָשׂוּ כְּכֹל הַתּוֹעֲבֹת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִישׁ יי".
(Exodus 22:18) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death": What is the intent of this? It is written (Leviticus 20:15) "And a man who cohabits with a beast shall be put to death" — by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps, by one of the other death penalties in Scripture? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the beast shall you kill." It is written here "kill," and elsewhere (Devarim 13:10) "kill." Just as there, stoning (is indicated), so, here, stoning. We have heard the penalty. Whence is the exhortation (derived)? From (Leviticus 18:23) "And you shall not cohabit with any beast." This tells me only of the punishment and the exhortation for the active agent. Whence do we derive the punishment for the passive agent? From (our verse) "Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death." Scripture (hereby) equated the passive agent with the active one. Just as the second is to be stoned, so, the first. We have heard the punishment. Whence the exhortation (for the passive agent)? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 23:18) "and there shall not be a (male) harlot among the children of Israel," and (I Kings 14:24) "And there was also a (male) harlot in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the L–rd drove out."
(שמות כב,יט) "זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם, בִּלְתִּי לַיי לְבַדּוֹ." עֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות כ,ד) "לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם". זְבִיחָה הָיְתָה בַכְּלָל, וְיָצַאת לְלַמֵּד: מַה זְּבִיחָה מְיֻחֶדֶת, שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בָהּ עוֹבְדִין לַשָּׁמַיִם, וְחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ, בֵּין שֶׁהִיא עוֹבְדָתוֹ וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבְדָתוֹ, וְכָל שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בָהּ עוֹבְדִין לַשָּׁמַיִם, יְהוּ חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ, בֵּין שֶׁהִיא עוֹבְדָתוֹ וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבְדָתוֹ.
(Exodus 22:19) "One who sacrifices to idolatry shall be put to death": We have heard the punishment. Whence the exhortation? It is written (Exodus 20:5) "You shall not bow down to them and you shall not serve them." Sacrifice was included (in serving), and it was singled out to teach that just as sacrificing is distinctive in that it is an inner Temple service and one is liable for it (if done for an idol) whether or not it is its conventional mode of worship, so, one is liable for all such modes of service (in the worship of idolatry.)
וְכָל שֶׁאֵין כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהּ עוֹבְדִין לַשָּׁמַיִם, לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָתוֹ, חַיָּב, שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָתוֹ, פָּטוּר.
All modes of service which are not inner Temple services — If one performs them in the worship of idolatry, he is liable; if not in the worship of idolatry, he is not liable.
לְפִי שֶׁאֲחֵרִין אוֹמְרִין: אִלּוּלֵי שֶׁשִּׁתְּפוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמוֹ שֶׁלַּמָּקוֹם בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הָיוּ כָלִים מִן הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם, בִּלְתִּי לַיי לְבַדּוֹ." רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: וַהֲלֹא כָּל הַמְשַׁתֵּף שְׁמוֹ שֶׁלַּמָּקוֹם בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, חַיָּב כְּלָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם, בִּלְתִּי לַיי לְבַדּוֹ." אֶלָּא כְמַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: (מלכים ב יז,לג) "אֶת יי הָיוּ יְרֵאִים, וְאֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם הָיוּ עֹבְדִים, כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הִגְלוּ אֹתָם מִשָּׁם."
"only to the L–rd alone": Because others say: If the Israelites had not joined the name of the Holy One Blessed be He, with that of idolatry (i.e., the golden calf), they would have gone lost from the world, it is written "One who sacrifices to idolatry shall be put to death — only to the L–rd alone!" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Are not all who join the name of the Holy One Blessed be He to the name of idolatry liable to destruction! As it is written (II Kings 17:33) "They feared the L–rd and served their (the nations') gods, according to the custom of the nations that exiled them from there."
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בְּאוֹתוֹתֶיהָ נִתְּנָה תוֹרָה,*בְּאוֹתוֹתֶיהָ: עם סימנים. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִין: הוֹאִיל וַאֲנוּ מְצֻוִּין עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, נְהֵי בוֹלְשִׁין בַּבּוֹרוֹת בַּשִּׁיחִין וּבַמְּעָרוֹת!*בּוֹלְשִׁין: מתאמצים לחפש עבודה זרה כדי לבער אותה. הגירסה בולשין על פי מכילתא דברים, ס. בגניזה, בושין. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים יב,ב) "עַל הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל הַגְּבָעוֹת, וְתַחַת כָּל עֵץ רַעֲנָן." עַל הַגְּלוּיִים, וְלֹא עַל הַסְּתָרִין.
Others say: Torah was given with its signs (i.e., with its warnings), so that Israel not say: Though we are commanded against idolatry, it will not be held against us if we secrete the idols in the recesses of the earth. It is, therefore, written (Isaiah 2:14) "On all the high mountains and on all the lofty hills" (and in the recesses of the earth) — whether revealed or hidden, (idolatry is forbidden) — "only to the L–rd alone" (with no admixtures of idolatry)!