(Exodus 22:24) "Im you lend money to My people": R. Yishmael says: Every "im" (generally "if") in the Torah connotes optionality, with the exception of this and two others; (Leviticus 2:14) "And im ("when") you offer a meal-offering of first-fruits," where it is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 14) "You shall bring the meal-offering of your first-fruits." It is mandatory and not optional.
Similarly, (Exodus 20:22) "And im ("when") an altar of stones you make unto Me." It is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? (Devarim 27:6) "Of whole stones shall you build the altar of your G–d" indicates that it is mandatory and not optional.
3
אַף כָּן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: "אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי", חוֹבָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוֹבָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא רְשׁוּת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טו,י) "וְהַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ."*וְהַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ: תלווה לו מספיק כדי לספק את מה שחסר לו וקח ערבון, עבוט, כביטחון שיחזיר את חובו. חוֹבָה וְלֹא רְשׁוּת.
Here, too, "Im ("when") you lend money." It is mandatory and not optional. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? (Devarim 15:8) "Lend shall you lend" indicates that it is mandatory and not optional.
"When you lend money": You lend money for money (i.e., you lend money to receive money), and not fruit for fruit. (this is relevant to the laws of interest.)
"My people": If an Israelite and a gentile stand before you to borrow, "My people" take precedence. A poor man and a rich man — the poor man takes precedence. Your poor (i.e., the poor of your family) and the poor of your city" — your poor take precedence. The poor of your city and the poor of a different city — the poor of your city take precedence. Thus, "the poor man with you" (i.e., closest to you). "Do not be as a creditor to him": Do not appear to him, (obviously, to collect the money) at all times.
"Do not impose interest upon him": What is the intent of this? (Leviticus 25:37) "Your money you shall not give him on interest" is an exhortation to the lender. Whence do we derive (the same for) the borrower? From (Ibid. 36) "You shall not take from him interest."
This tells me only of an exhortation to the borrower and to the lender. Whence do we derive (the same for) the witnesses, the guarantors, and the scribe? From "Do not impose" — in any manner.
From here they adduced: One who lends on interest is guilty of five transgressions: "You shall not give," "You shall not take," "You shall not impose interest upon him," "You shall not be as a creditor to him," (Leviticus 19:14) "You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind man." Just as the lender and the borrower transgress, so, the guarantor, the witnesses, and the scribe. R. Meir excludes the scribe.
R. Yossi says: One who lends on interest and says to the scribe "Come and write," and to the witnesses "Sign" has no portion with Him who commanded against interest.
(Exodus 22:25) "Im chavol (lit., "bundle") tachbol": R. Yishmael says: Scripture here comes to teach you that if you do mitzvoth, you will take (the reward) that is yours, (midrashically: "If you 'bundle' (mitzvoth), you will have 'bundles.'")
This tells me only of a day-garment. Whence do you derive of a night-garment that it can be returned the entire night? From (Devarim 24:13) "Return shall you return the pledge to him when the sun goes down."
From here they ruled: A day-garment is taken as a pledge during the night, and a night-garment, during the day. A day-garment is returned during the day, and a night-garment, during the night.
(Exodus 22:26) "for it is his solitary covering": This is his cloak. "it is his garment for his skin" — this is his undergarment. "On what shall he lie?": to include his mat-skin. "and it shall be, if he cries out to Me, I shall hear; for I am gracious." R. Nathan says: If one left beth-din owing his neighbor a hundred and wearing a garment worth two hundred, he (the creditor) should not say to him: "Sell your garment for two hundred, cover yourself with one of one hundred, and give me the hundred (that you owe me.") This is the intent of "For it is his solitary covering" — You are not permitted to deprive him of a garment which is "familiar" to his body.
(Exodus 22:27) "Elokim you shall not curse": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 24:16) "One who utters blasphemously the name of the L–rd shall be put to death" we hear the punishment. Whence the exhortation? "Elokim you shall not curse." Variantly: This tells me only of the distinctive Name (the Tetragrammaton [i.e., "Yod-keh-vov-keh"]). Whence do we derive (the same for cursing Him with) one of His epithets? From "Elokim you shall not curse" — in any event. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
"elohim you shall not curse": This tells me only of a judge. Whence do I derive the same for a prince? From (Ibid.) "and a prince in your people you shall not revile." In "and a prince in your people you shall not revile," I hear both a prince and a judge. Why, then, is it written "elohim you shall not curse"? To impose liability for each in itself.
From here they derived: One may speak one thing and be liable for four. (How so?) If the son of a prince curses his father, he is liable for "prince," "father," "judge," and "in your people you shall not curse." R. Yehudah b. Bethira says: From "elohim you shall not curse and a prince in your people you shall not revile," I hear that he is not liable unless he is both a judge and a prince. It is, therefore, written "elohim you shall not curse" — to impose liability (for cursing) a judge; "and a prince in your people" — to impose liability (for cursing) a prince.
What is the intent of "in your people"? (You are liable for cursing them) when they conduct themselves as becomes your people (and not when they are renegades.)
"elohim you shall not curse, etc.": This tells me only of a judge and a prince. Whence do I derive (the same for cursing) all men? From "in your people you shall not revile."
(Exodus 22:28) "Your fullness and your dema (terumah) you shall not delay": "Your fullness" — bikkurim (first-fruits, which are taken from fully ripened grain). "you shall not delay": You shall not give second-tithe before first-tithe, first-tithe before terumah, or terumah before bikkurim. But I do not know which takes precedence — terumah to bikkurim or bikkurim to terumah? Would you say that? Bikkurim takes precedence because they are called by four names — "first," "bikkurim," "terumah," and "dema." (They take precedence) to terumah, which is called by only three names — "first," "terumah," and "ma'aser," which, in turn, takes precedence to ma'aser, which is called by only two names. And first-tithe, which is called by two names — "first" and "ma'aser" — takes precedence to second-tithe, which is called by only one name ("ma'aser"). From here they ruled: If one gives terumah before bikkurim or first-tithe before terumah or second-tithe before first-tithe — even though he transgresses the negative commandment "Your fullness and your dema you shall not delay," what is done is done (i.e., he has fulfilled his obligation.)
(Exodus 22:29) "Thus shall you do with your ox": Just as with the first-born of an ox, miscarriages exempt (the next birth) from (the laws of) the first-born, so, with the first-born of a human being. Just as with the first-born of a human being you are permitted to redeem the first-born through any Cohein, wherever you wish, so, with the first-born of a beast, you are permitted to give it to any Cohein wherever you wish.
Because it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices … and the first-born of your herds and flocks," I might think that he must bring them (the first-born) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written (Exodus 13:2) "in man and beast, he (the first-born) is mine." The first-born of a beast is likened to the first-born of a human being, and the first-born of a human being, to the first-born of a beast.
Just as with the first-born of a human being, you look after it for thirty days (before redeeming it), so, with the first-born of a beast, you look after it for thirty days (before giving it to the Cohein.)
"Seven days shall it be with its mother': What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Leviticus 22:27) "then it shall stay seven days under its mother" — with its mother (i.e., while its mother is living). But perhaps, "under," literally, (i.e., instead of its mother, [when its mother has died]). It is, therefore, written (here) "Seven days shall it be with its mother." Just as here, with its mother, so, there, with its mother.
R. Nathan says: The verse "under its mother" comes to be expounded, viz.: "under its mother" — after its mother has died. You say "under its mother" — after its mother, but perhaps it is to be understood literally, (i.e., near its mother)? — You reason thus: It is written here "its mother," and elsewhere, "its mother" ([Devarim 14:21] "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk.") Just as there, (the meaning is "(milk) of the same kind" (as it is, i.e., both it and the milk being of the same source), so, here, "of the same kind." [This has a specific halachic implication.]
What is the intent of "Seven days shall it be with its mother"? Just as a consecrated first-born nurses only from a non-consecrated animal, so, all of them.
From here they ruled: All consecrated animals do not nurse their young, and a tithed animal does not nurse its young. And all are derived from the (instance of the) first-born.
What is done (to nurse them)? Money is taken from Temple funds, with which a non-consecrated animal is bought, which (is placed before them and) "pities" them and nurses them — even though there are some who donate (an animal) with this intent (that if they are consecrated, their milk will be non-consecrated.)
"On the eighth day shall you give it to Me": This tells me (that it is acceptable) only on the eighth day itself. Whence do I derive (that it is acceptable) from the eighth day onward? It follows, viz.: It is written here "eighth," and elsewhere (Leviticus 22:27) "eighth." Just as there, from the eighth day on, so, here, from the eighth day on. Just as here (it is acceptable) on the eighth day itself, so, there.
(שמות כב,כד) ["אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי, אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ, לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנֹשֶׁה, לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ."] "אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי". רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כָּל "אִם" וְ"אִם" שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, רְשׁוּת, חוּץ מִזֶּה וְעוֹד שְׁנַיִם: (ויקרא ב,יד) "וְאִם תַּקְרִיב מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרִים לַיי, אָבִיב קָלוּי בָּאֵשׁ גֶּרֶשׂ כַּרְמֶל תַּקְרִיב אֵת מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרֶיךָ."*גֶּרֶשׂ כַּרְמֶל: גרעיני דגנים שבורים, בורגול. חוֹבָה, לֹא רְשׁוּת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוֹבָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא רְשׁוּת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "תַּקְרִיב אֵת מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרֶיךָ", חוֹבָה, לֹא רְשׁוּת.
(Exodus 22:24) "Im you lend money to My people": R. Yishmael says: Every "im" (generally "if") in the Torah connotes optionality, with the exception of this and two others; (Leviticus 2:14) "And im ("when") you offer a meal-offering of first-fruits," where it is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 14) "You shall bring the meal-offering of your first-fruits." It is mandatory and not optional.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ: (שמות כ,כה) "וְאִם מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי, לֹא תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית, כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ וַתְּחַלְלֶהָ." חוֹבָה, לֹא רְשׁוּת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוֹבָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא רְשׁוּת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות כז,ו) "אֲבָנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת תִּבְנֶה", חוֹבָה וְלֹא רְשׁוּת.
Similarly, (Exodus 20:22) "And im ("when") an altar of stones you make unto Me." It is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? (Devarim 27:6) "Of whole stones shall you build the altar of your G–d" indicates that it is mandatory and not optional.
אַף כָּן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: "אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי", חוֹבָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוֹבָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא רְשׁוּת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טו,י) "וְהַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ."*וְהַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ: תלווה לו מספיק כדי לספק את מה שחסר לו וקח ערבון, עבוט, כביטחון שיחזיר את חובו. חוֹבָה וְלֹא רְשׁוּת.
Here, too, "Im ("when") you lend money." It is mandatory and not optional. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? (Devarim 15:8) "Lend shall you lend" indicates that it is mandatory and not optional.
"אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי", כֶּסֶף בְּכֶסֶף אַתְּ מַלְוֵהוּ, אֵין אַתְּ מַלְוֵהוּ פֵּרוֹת בְּפֵרוֹת.
"When you lend money": You lend money for money (i.e., you lend money to receive money), and not fruit for fruit. (this is relevant to the laws of interest.)
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי", כֶּסֶף בְּכֶסֶף אַתְּ מַלְוֵהוּ, אֵין אַתְּ מַלְוֵהוּ כֶּסֶף וּפֵרוֹת בְּכֶסֶף.
"אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי, אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ", יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי עוֹמְדִין לְפָנֶיךָ לִלְווֹת, עַמִּי קוֹדֵם; עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר עוֹמְדִין לְפָנֶיךָ, עָנִי קוֹדֵם; עֲנִיֶּיךָ וַעֲנִיֵּי עִירָךְ, עֲנִיֶּיךָ קוֹדְמִין לַעֲנִיֵּי עִירָךְ; עֲנִיֵּי עִירָךְ וַעֲנִיֵּי עִיר אַחֶרֶת, עֲנִיֵּי עִירָךְ קוֹדְמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ". "אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי, אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ, לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנֹשֶׁה", אֲבָל הֱוֵה אַתְּ לֶעָשִׁיר כְּנוֹשֶׁה. "לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנֹשֶׁה", שֶׁלֹּא תֵרָאֶה לוֹ בְּכָל זְמַן.
"My people": If an Israelite and a gentile stand before you to borrow, "My people" take precedence. A poor man and a rich man — the poor man takes precedence. Your poor (i.e., the poor of your family) and the poor of your city" — your poor take precedence. The poor of your city and the poor of a different city — the poor of your city take precedence. Thus, "the poor man with you" (i.e., closest to you). "Do not be as a creditor to him": Do not appear to him, (obviously, to collect the money) at all times.
"לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ." מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כה,לז) "אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית", הֲרֵי זוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַמַּלְוֶה, שֶׁלֹּא יַלְוֶה בְרִבִּית. אַתְּ אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַמַּלְוֶה, שֶׁלֹּא יַלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, אוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַלּוֹוֶה? וּכְשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כה,לו) "אַל תִּקַּח מֵאִתּוֹ נֶשֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּית, וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ, וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ", הֲרֵי זוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַלּוֹוֶה אָמוּר. וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כה,לז) "אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִּתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ"? הֲרֵי זוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַמַּלְוֶה, שֶׁלֹּא יַלְוֶה בְרִבִּית.
"Do not impose interest upon him": What is the intent of this? (Leviticus 25:37) "Your money you shall not give him on interest" is an exhortation to the lender. Whence do we derive (the same for) the borrower? From (Ibid. 36) "You shall not take from him interest."
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אַזְהָרָה לַמַּלְוֶה וְלַלּוֹוֶה; לֶעָרֵב וְלָעֵדִין וְלַלִּבְלָר, מְנַיִן?*לִבְלָר. librarius: סופר. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
This tells me only of an exhortation to the borrower and to the lender. Whence do we derive (the same for) the witnesses, the guarantors, and the scribe? From "Do not impose" — in any manner.
מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: הַמַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית עוֹבֵר מִשֵּׁם חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים: מִשֵּׁם 'בַּל תִּתֵּן', מִשֵּׁם 'בַּל תִּקַּח', "לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנֹשֶׁה", "לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ", (ויקרא יט,יד) "וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִּתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל". כַּשֵּׁם שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלּוֹוֶה עוֹבְרִין מִשֵּׁם חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִין, כָּךְ הֶעָרֵב וְהָעֵדִין וְהַלִּבְלָר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר לַלִּבְלָר.
From here they adduced: One who lends on interest is guilty of five transgressions: "You shall not give," "You shall not take," "You shall not impose interest upon him," "You shall not be as a creditor to him," (Leviticus 19:14) "You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind man." Just as the lender and the borrower transgress, so, the guarantor, the witnesses, and the scribe. R. Meir excludes the scribe.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַמַּלְוֶה בְרִבִּית וְאוֹמֵר לַסּוֹפֵר 'בֹּא כְתֹב!' וְלָעֵדִים 'בֹּאוּ חֲתֹמוּ!' אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בְּמִי שֶׁפִּקֵּד עַל הָרִבִּית.
R. Yossi says: One who lends on interest and says to the scribe "Come and write," and to the witnesses "Sign" has no portion with Him who commanded against interest.
(שמות כב,כה) ["אִם חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל שַׂלְמַת רֵעֶךָ, עַד בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ."] "אִם חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל שַׂלְמַת רֵעֶךָ", רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ, הֵיאָךְ אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה וּתְהֵי נוֹטֵל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ.
(Exodus 22:25) "Im chavol (lit., "bundle") tachbol": R. Yishmael says: Scripture here comes to teach you that if you do mitzvoth, you will take (the reward) that is yours, (midrashically: "If you 'bundle' (mitzvoth), you will have 'bundles.'")
"עַד בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ." זוֹ כְסוּת יוֹם, שֶׁאַתְּ מַחְזִיר לוֹ כָּל הַיּוֹם.
"Before the sun goes down, you shall return it to him": This refers to a day-garment, that you can return the entire day.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כְּסוּת יוֹם שֶׁאַתְּ מַחְזִיר לוֹ כָּל הַיּוֹם, כְּסוּת לַיְלָה שֶׁאַתְּ מַחְזִיר לוֹ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים כד,יג) "הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ".
This tells me only of a day-garment. Whence do you derive of a night-garment that it can be returned the entire night? From (Devarim 24:13) "Return shall you return the pledge to him when the sun goes down."
מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: מְמַשְׁכְּנִין כְּסוּת יוֹם בַּלַּיְלָה, וּכְסוּת לַיְלָה בַּיּוֹם, וּמַחְזִירִין כְּסוּת יוֹם בַּיּוֹם, וּכְסוּת לַיְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה.
From here they ruled: A day-garment is taken as a pledge during the night, and a night-garment, during the day. A day-garment is returned during the day, and a night-garment, during the night.
(שמות כב,כו) ["כִּי הִוא כְסוּתֹה לְבַדָּהּ, הִוא שִׂמְלָתוֹ לְעֹרוֹ, בַּמֶּה יִשְׁכָּב? וְהָיָה כִּי יִצְעַק אֵלַי, וְשָׁמַעְתִּי, כִּי חַנּוּן אָנִי."] "כִּי הִוא כְסוּתֹה לְבַדָּהּ", זֶה טַלֵּיתוֹ; "הִוא שִׂמְלָתוֹ לְעֹרוֹ", זֶה חָלוּק; "בַּמֶּה יִשְׁכָּב?" לְהָבִיא עוֹר מַצָּע. "וְהָיָה כִּי יִצְעַק אֵלַי, וְשָׁמַעְתִּי, כִּי חַנּוּן אָנִי." רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: וַהֲרֵי שֶׁיָּצָא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָנֶה בְּבֵית דִּין, וְעָלָיו כְּסוּת בְּמָאתַיִם, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: מְכֹר כְּסוּתָךְ וְהִתְכַּסֵּה בְמָנֶה, וְתֵן לִי מָנֶה! לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: "כִּי הִוא כְסוּתֹה לְבַדָּהּ, הִוא שִׂמְלָתוֹ לְעֹרוֹ", אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁי לִמְנֹעַ מִמֶּנּוּ כְסוּת שֶׁנּוֹפֶלֶת לִשְׁאֵרוֹ.
(Exodus 22:26) "for it is his solitary covering": This is his cloak. "it is his garment for his skin" — this is his undergarment. "On what shall he lie?": to include his mat-skin. "and it shall be, if he cries out to Me, I shall hear; for I am gracious." R. Nathan says: If one left beth-din owing his neighbor a hundred and wearing a garment worth two hundred, he (the creditor) should not say to him: "Sell your garment for two hundred, cover yourself with one of one hundred, and give me the hundred (that you owe me.") This is the intent of "For it is his solitary covering" — You are not permitted to deprive him of a garment which is "familiar" to his body.
"וְשָׁמַעְתִּי, כִּי חַנּוּן אָנִי." שֶׁבְּרַחֲמִים אֲנִי בָרָאתִי עוֹלָמִי.
"I shall hear; for I am gracious": I created My world with mercy.
(שמות כב,כז) ["אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל, וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר."] "אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כד,טז) "וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם יי, מוֹת יוּמָת", עֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל". דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה.
(Exodus 22:27) "Elokim you shall not curse": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 24:16) "One who utters blasphemously the name of the L–rd shall be put to death" we hear the punishment. Whence the exhortation? "Elokim you shall not curse." Variantly: This tells me only of the distinctive Name (the Tetragrammaton [i.e., "Yod-keh-vov-keh"]). Whence do we derive (the same for cursing Him with) one of His epithets? From "Elokim you shall not curse" — in any event. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בַּדַּיָּנִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כב,ח) "עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר שְׁנֵיהֶם".
R. Akiva says: Scripture (in "elohim") speaks of judges, as in (Exodus 22:8) "Until the judges ("elohim") shall come the matter of both."
"אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דַּיָּן, נָשִׂיא מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר." אֲנִי אֶקְרָא "וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר", אֶחָד דַּיָּן וְאֶחָד נָשִׂיא בְמַשְׁמָע! וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל, וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר"? לְחַיֵּב עַל כָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
"elohim you shall not curse": This tells me only of a judge. Whence do I derive the same for a prince? From (Ibid.) "and a prince in your people you shall not revile." In "and a prince in your people you shall not revile," I hear both a prince and a judge. Why, then, is it written "elohim you shall not curse"? To impose liability for each in itself.
מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: יֵשׁ מְדַבֵּר דָּבָר אֶחָד, וְחַיָּב עָלָיו מִשֵּׁם אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִין: בֶּן נָשִׂיא שֶׁקִּלֵּל אֶת הָאָב, חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשֵּׁם אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִין: חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשֵּׁם אָב, מִשֵּׁם דַּיָּן, מִשֵּׁם נָשִׂיא, מִשֵּׁם "בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר". רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה אוֹמֵר: "אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל, וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר." שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, לֹא יְהֵי חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵי דַּיָּן וְנָשִׂיא! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל, וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר." לְחַיֵּב עָלָיו מִשֵּׁם דַּיָּן וּמִשֵּׁם נָשִׂיא.
From here they derived: One may speak one thing and be liable for four. (How so?) If the son of a prince curses his father, he is liable for "prince," "father," "judge," and "in your people you shall not curse." R. Yehudah b. Bethira says: From "elohim you shall not curse and a prince in your people you shall not revile," I hear that he is not liable unless he is both a judge and a prince. It is, therefore, written "elohim you shall not curse" — to impose liability (for cursing) a judge; "and a prince in your people" — to impose liability (for cursing) a prince.
אוֹ נָשִׂיא כְאָחָז וְכַחֲבֵרָיו! וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בְעַמְּךָ"? לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן נוֹהֲגִין כְּמִנְהַג עַמְּךָ.
What is the intent of "in your people"? (You are liable for cursing them) when they conduct themselves as becomes your people (and not when they are renegades.)
"אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דַּיָּן וְנָשִׂיא, שְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
"elohim you shall not curse, etc.": This tells me only of a judge and a prince. Whence do I derive (the same for cursing) all men? From "in your people you shall not revile."
(שמות כב,כח) "מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר, בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּתֶּן לִי." "מְלֵאָתְךָ", אֵלּוּ בִּכּוּרִין, הַנִּטָּלִין מִן הַמָּלֵא; "וְדִמְעֲךָ", זוֹ תְרוּמָה; "לֹא תְאַחֵר", שֶׁלֹּא תַּקְדִּים מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לָרִאשׁוֹן, לֹא רִאשׁוֹן לִתְרוּמָה, לֹא תְרוּמָה לַבִּכּוּרִין. אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶה מֵהֶם יִקְדֹּם, אִם תְּרוּמָה לַבִּכּוּרִים, אִם בִּכּוּרִים לִתְרוּמָה? אָמַרְתָּ, יִקְדְּמוּ הַבִּכּוּרִין, שֶׁהֵן קְרוּיִין אַרְבָּעָה שֵׁמוֹת, רֵאשִׁית, בִּכּוּרִים, תְּרוּמָה, וְדִמְעֲךָ, לִתְרוּמָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת. תִּקְדֹּם תְּרוּמַה, שֶּׁהִיא קְרוּיָה שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת, רֵאשִׁית, תְּרוּמָה, וּמַעֲשֵׂר, לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרוּי אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת, וְיִקְדֹּם מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁהוּא קָרוּי שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת, תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר, לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרוּי אֶלָּא שֵׁם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לַבִּכּוּרִים, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לִתְרוּמָה, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לָרִאשׁוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּ'לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה', מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כב,כח) "מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר".
(Exodus 22:28) "Your fullness and your dema (terumah) you shall not delay": "Your fullness" — bikkurim (first-fruits, which are taken from fully ripened grain). "you shall not delay": You shall not give second-tithe before first-tithe, first-tithe before terumah, or terumah before bikkurim. But I do not know which takes precedence — terumah to bikkurim or bikkurim to terumah? Would you say that? Bikkurim takes precedence because they are called by four names — "first," "bikkurim," "terumah," and "dema." (They take precedence) to terumah, which is called by only three names — "first," "terumah," and "ma'aser," which, in turn, takes precedence to ma'aser, which is called by only two names. And first-tithe, which is called by two names — "first" and "ma'aser" — takes precedence to second-tithe, which is called by only one name ("ma'aser"). From here they ruled: If one gives terumah before bikkurim or first-tithe before terumah or second-tithe before first-tithe — even though he transgresses the negative commandment "Your fullness and your dema you shall not delay," what is done is done (i.e., he has fulfilled his obligation.)
(שמות כב,כט) "כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשֹׁרְךָ לְצֹאנֶךָ, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִהְיֶה עִם אִמּוֹ, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי." הִקִּישׁ בְּכוֹר אָדָם לִבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה, וּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה לִבְכוֹר אָדָם: מַה בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה, נְפָלִין פּוֹטְרִין בָּהּ אֶת הַבְּכוֹרָה, אַף בְּכוֹר אָדָם, נְפָלִין פּוֹטְרִין בּוֹ אֶת הַבְּכוֹרָה; מַה בְּכוֹר אָדָם, אַתְּ רַשַּׁי לִתְּנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, אַף בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה, אַתְּ רַשַּׁי לִתְּנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצֶה.
(Exodus 22:29) "Thus shall you do with your ox": Just as with the first-born of an ox, miscarriages exempt (the next birth) from (the laws of) the first-born, so, with the first-born of a human being. Just as with the first-born of a human being you are permitted to redeem the first-born through any Cohein, wherever you wish, so, with the first-born of a beast, you are permitted to give it to any Cohein wherever you wish.
לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (דברים יב,ו) "וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְזִבְחֵיכֶם", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אֲפִלּוּ בְּרִחוּק מָקוֹם, יִהְיֶה בְחוֹבָה עָלָיו לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (במדבר ח,יח) "בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה", הִקִּישׁ בְּכוֹר אָדָם לִבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה, וּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה לִבְכוֹר אָדָם:
Because it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices … and the first-born of your herds and flocks," I might think that he must bring them (the first-born) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written (Exodus 13:2) "in man and beast, he (the first-born) is mine." The first-born of a beast is likened to the first-born of a human being, and the first-born of a human being, to the first-born of a beast.
מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם, אַתְּ מְטַפֵּל בּוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אַף בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה, אַתְּ מְטַפֵּל בּוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
Just as with the first-born of a human being, you look after it for thirty days (before redeeming it), so, with the first-born of a beast, you look after it for thirty days (before giving it to the Cohein.)
"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִהְיֶה עִם אִמּוֹ", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כב,כז) "וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ", "תַּחַת אִמּוֹ", עִם אִמּוֹ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר תַּחַת אִמּוֹ, עִם אִמּוֹ, אוֹ תַּחַת אִמּוֹ כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִהְיֶה עִם אִמּוֹ". מַה כָּן "עִם אִמּוֹ", אַף לְהַלָּן עִם אִמּוֹ.
"Seven days shall it be with its mother': What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Leviticus 22:27) "then it shall stay seven days under its mother" — with its mother (i.e., while its mother is living). But perhaps, "under," literally, (i.e., instead of its mother, [when its mother has died]). It is, therefore, written (here) "Seven days shall it be with its mother." Just as here, with its mother, so, there, with its mother.
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָא "תַּחַת" אֶלָּא לִדְרֹשׁ: "תַּחַת אִמּוֹ", אַחַר אִמּוֹ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר תַּחַת אִמּוֹ, אַחַר אִמּוֹ, אוֹ תַּחַת אִמּוֹ כִשְׁמוּעוֹ? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "אִמּוֹ", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "אִמּוֹ"; מַה "אִמּוֹ" אָמוּר לְהַלָּן, בְּסָמוּךְ לוֹ, אַף "אִמּוֹ" הָאָמוּר כָּן בְּסָמוּךְ לוֹ.
R. Nathan says: The verse "under its mother" comes to be expounded, viz.: "under its mother" — after its mother has died. You say "under its mother" — after its mother, but perhaps it is to be understood literally, (i.e., near its mother)? — You reason thus: It is written here "its mother," and elsewhere, "its mother" ([Devarim 14:21] "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk.") Just as there, (the meaning is "(milk) of the same kind" (as it is, i.e., both it and the milk being of the same source), so, here, "of the same kind." [This has a specific halachic implication.]
"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִהְיֶה עִם אִמּוֹ". מַה בְּכוֹר קֹדֶשׁ אֵינוֹ יוֹנֵק אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין, אַף כֻּלָּן לֹא יִינְקוּ אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין.
What is the intent of "Seven days shall it be with its mother"? Just as a consecrated first-born nurses only from a non-consecrated animal, so, all of them.
מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא יֵינִיקוּ אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם, מַעֲשֶׂרֶת הַלָּה לֹא תֵינִיק אֶת בְּנָהּ,*מַעֲשֶׂרֶת הַלָּה: הבהמה הזאת שהיא מעשר. וְכֻלָּן אֵינָן לְמֵדִין אֶלָּא מִן הַבְּכוֹר. מַה בְּכוֹר קֹדֶשׁ אֵינוֹ יוֹנֵק אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין, אַף כֻּלָּן לֹא יִינְקוּ אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין.
From here they ruled: All consecrated animals do not nurse their young, and a tithed animal does not nurse its young. And all are derived from the (instance of the) first-born.
כֵּיצַד הֵן עוֹשִׂין? נוֹטְלִין מָעוֹת מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְלוֹקְחִין בָּהֶן בְּהֵמָה מִן הַחֻלִּין, וּמִתְרַחֲמוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן וּמֵינִיקוֹת אוֹתָן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: מִתְנַדְּבִין הָיוּ עַל מְנָת כֵּן.
What is done (to nurse them)? Money is taken from Temple funds, with which a non-consecrated animal is bought, which (is placed before them and) "pities" them and nurses them — even though there are some who donate (an animal) with this intent (that if they are consecrated, their milk will be non-consecrated.)
"בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי." אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שְׁמִינִי, וּמִשְּׁמִינִי וּלְהַלָּן, מְנַיִן? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "שְׁמִינִי", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "שְׁמִינִי", מַה שְּׁמִינִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן, הִכְשִׁיר בּוֹ שְׁמִינִי, וּמִשְּׁמִינִי וּלְהַלָּן, אַף שְׁמִינִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּן, נַכְשִׁיר בּוֹ שְׁמִינִי, וּמִשְּׁמִינִי וּלְהַלָּן. מַה כָּן בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, שְׁמִינִי, אַף לְהַלָּן בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, שְׁמִינִי. "בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי." לְהוֹצִיא מְחֻסַּר זְמַן.
"On the eighth day shall you give it to Me": This tells me (that it is acceptable) only on the eighth day itself. Whence do I derive (that it is acceptable) from the eighth day onward? It follows, viz.: It is written here "eighth," and elsewhere (Leviticus 22:27) "eighth." Just as there, from the eighth day on, so, here, from the eighth day on. Just as here (it is acceptable) on the eighth day itself, so, there.