1) (Vayikra 24:17) ("And a man if he smite all the soul of a man shall be put to death.") "And a man if he smite": This tells me only of a man who smites. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman who smites? From (Shemoth 21:12) "If one strikes a man (and he dies, then he shall be put to death") — anyone, whether a man or a woman. If "If one strikes a man," I would know only of one who struck a man. When would I derive (the same for) one who struck a woman or a minor? It is, therefore, written "if he smite the soul" — whether man, woman, or minor. I might think that he would be liable even if he smote a nefel (a child that is certain to die); it is, therefore, written "if he smite a man." Just as a man is a "survivor," (so all [of the victims] must inherently be "survivors") — to exclude a nefel, who is not a "survivor." "if he smite all the soul": to include an instance in which one was smitten and would die (as a result), and another came and gave him the death blow, he (the last) is liable. 2) (Vayikra 24:18) "And one that smites a beast shall pay for it — a life for a life.": If it were written "And one who smites a soul a beast he shall pay," I would take it to mean: One who smites a man shall pay a beast. Now that it is written "shall pay for it," (I see that) the referent is the beast, (and the reading is [lit.,] "And one that smites the soul of a beast must pay for it.") 3) (Vayikra 24:19) ("And a man, if he inflicts an injury upon his neighbor; as he did, so shall it be done to him.") "And a man, if he inflicts an injury upon his neighbor": This tells me only of an (actual) injury). Whence do I derive (that the same halachah applies) if he screamed in one's ear, tore one's hair, spat at someone and hit him with his spittle, pulled off someone's garment, or uncovered a woman's head in the market place? From "as he did" (though no actual injury was inflicted), so shall it be done to him." 4) And whence is it derived (that the same applies) if he hit him with the back of his hand, with a tablet, with a board, or with a roll of papers in his hand? From "as he did, etc." 5) Whence is it derived that if he took hold of him and placed him in the sun, so that he was overcome by heat, or in the cold so that he was chilled, or if he held a dog or a snake to bite him? From "as he did, etc." 6) I might think (that the same applied) even if he said to him: Wait for me here in the sun and he was overcome by heat, or in the cold, and he was chilled, or if he "sicked" a dog or a snake on to him? It is, therefore, written "blemish." Why do you see fit to include the former (as liable) and to exclude the latter? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include those which his hand is (directly) involved in, and exclude those which his hand is not involved in. 7) (Vayikra 24:21) ("And one who strikes a beast shall pay, and one who strikes a man shall be put to death.") I might think that if one blinded another's eye, his eye should be blinded; that if he cut off his hand, his hand should be cut off; that if he broke his leg, his leg should be broken; it is, therefore, written "one who strikes a beast," "one who strikes a man" — Just as one who strikes a beast pays, so, one who strikes a man pays. And if you would object: (But it is written [Bamidbar 35:31]) "You shall not take kofer (monetary payment) for the life of a murderer" — for a murderer you do not take kofer, but you do take kofer for (injury to) the limbs. 8) "one who strikes a man": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemoth 21:15) "And one who strikes his father and mother (shall be put to death"), I might think that he is not liable until he strikes both of them together; it is, therefore, written "and one who strikes a man shall be put to death" — even one of them. I might think that even if he struck them and did not cause an injury he is liable; it is, therefore, written "And one who strikes a beast … and one who strikes a man." Just as one who strikes a beast (is not liable) until he causes an injury, so, he who strikes a man. I might think that even if he struck them (his father or his mother) after (their) death, he is liable, (just as he is if he curses them after their death); it is, therefore, written "one who strikes a beast" and "one who strikes a man" — Just as the first, while it is living, so, the second, while he is living. 9) (Vayikra 24:22) "One judgment shall there be for you": As the judgment of capital cases, so, the judgment of monetary litigations. Jut as capital cases require thorough cross-examination (of the witnesses), so, monetary litigations. If so, (why not say:) Just as capital cases require twenty-three (judges), so, monetary litigations? It is, therefore, written "en eye for an eye," to include (monetary litigations as requiring only three judges). 10) (Vayikra 24:23) ("And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they took the curser outside the camp, and they stoned him with a stone; and the children of Israel did as the L–rd commanded Moses.") "And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they took the curser outside the camp. As mentioned earlier (Chapter 19:1), we are hereby taught that beth-din was within, and beth-din, outside of it. "and they stoned him," and not his garment (viz. Chapter 19:3). "a stone": We are hereby taught that if he died with one stone, it is sufficient. "and the children of Israel did as the L–rd commanded Moses": both in respect to semichah (placing of the hands, viz. Vayikra 24:14), in respect to dechiyah (casting him from the stoning platform, viz. Shemoth 19:13), in respect to hanging (his body on a tree) (viz. Devarim 21:22), and in respect to (Devarim 21:23) "His corpse shall not remain on the tree."
Sifra Emor Chapter 20
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.