Explanation of “R’ Yishmael Omer”

Visible layers

Hebrew

כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה
בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא מִן
הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד
לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל
עַצְמוֹ יָצָא,
אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל
הַכְּלָל כֻּלּוֹ יָצָא

Sephardi

Kol davar shehayah
bikhlal veyatza min
haklal lelamed
lo lelamed al
atzmo yatza,
ela lelamed al
haklal kulo yatza

English

Anything that was included in a general statement and then singled out by the Torah in order to teach us something new is not only teaching us about that which was singled out; rather, it is teaching us something new about the general statement as well. For example, the Torah has a general statement that no forbidden work should be done on Shabbos. Later, it adds, “Do not light any fires on Shabbos.” This is singled out to teach us that if a person did this forbidden work, a separate offering must be brought, even if the person is already bringing an offering for another episode of forbidden work. However, we also apply this rule to the general statement, which included all the other forbidden work, to teach us that a separate offering must be brought for each and every forbidden work that was done on Shabbos.

Hebrew

כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה
בִּכְלָל, וְיָצָא
לִטְעוֹן טַעַן אֶחָד
שֶׁהוּא כְעִנְיָנוֹ,
יָצָא לְהָקֵל
וְלֹא לְהַחֲמִיר

Sephardi

Kol davar shehayah
bikhlal, veyatza
lit'on ta'an echad
shehu ke'inyano,
yatza lehakel
v'lo lehachamir

English

Anything that was included in a general statement and then singled out to teach us something that was already mentioned in the rule, was only singled out to be less strict in some way, not more strict. For example, the Torah has a general statement that one who kills another person gets the death penalty, but does not mention any difference between killing by accident or on purpose. The Torah then says that a person who kills by accident must go to a city of refuge. This teaches us that accidental murder is less strict than killing on purpose, and that the killer goes to a city of refuge instead of getting the death penalty, not in addition to it.

Hebrew

כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה
בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא
לִטְעוֹן טַעַן אַחֵר
שֶׁלֹּא כְעִנְיָנוֹ יָצָא
לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר

Sephardi

Kol davar shehayah
bikhlal veyatza
lit'on ta'an acher
shelo ke'inyano yatza
lehakel ulehachamir

English

Anything that was included in a general statement and was then singled out to teach us something that was not mentioned in the rule, was singled out to be less strict in one way and more strict in another. For example, the Torah has a general statement about the rules of tzara’at, and then singles out a type of tzara’at that appears on the beard or head, and says that if the hair is yellow it is a sign of impurity. This is a new, unique law, and therefore teaches us that on the one hand this type of tzara’at is more strict than other types, which would not be impure if the hair was yellow. On the other hand it is also less strict, because white hair is not a sign of impurity for this type of tzara’as but it is for other types.

Hebrew

כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה
בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא לָדוּן
בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ
אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל
לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לַכְּלָל עַד
שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנּוּ הַכָּתוּב
לַכְּלָל בְּפֵרוּשׁ

Sephardi

Kol davar shehayah
bikhlal veyatza ladun
bedavar hechadash
i atah yachol
lehachaziro laklal ad
sheyachzirennu hakatuv
laklal beferush

English

When the Torah says anything that was included in a general statement and was then singled out to teach a new, different law, you cannot return and include that which was singled out back into the general statement unless the Torah clearly returns it and says that it is included in the general statement. For example, the Torah says that a Kohen’s family can all eat terumah, except for daughters who are married to a non-Kohen. If a daughter was married to a non-Kohen but then became a widow or divorced, we would not have known that she is allowed to eat terumah again. That is why the Torah includes her in the general statement in a later verse, to teach us that she is included as part of her father’s family and is allowed to eat trumah.

Hebrew

דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד
מֵעִנְיָנוֹ, וְדָבָר
הַלָּמֵד מִסּוֹפוֹ

Sephardi

Davar halamed
me'inyano, vedavar
halamed missufo

English

A law can be understood by looking at where it appears in the Torah, or from verses after it. For example, one of the Ten Commandments is, “Do not steal.” We learn that this means kidnapping, not just any stealing, because it is next to similarly serious sins. Similarly, a law can be understood by looking at what is written after it.

Hebrew

שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים
הַמַּכְחִישִׁים
זֶה אֶת זֶה עַד
שֶׁיָּבֹא הַכָּתוּב
הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְיַכְרִיעַ
בֵּינֵיהֶם

Sephardi

Sh'nei ketuvim
hamakhchishim
zeh et zeh ad
sheyavo hakatuv
hash'lishi veyakhria
beineihem

English

If two verses seem to contradict each other, we can understand them when we find a third verse that solves the contradiction between them by explaining them. For example, one verse says that God spoke to Moses from above the Ark, and another verse says that He spoke to Moses from the entire Tabernacle. These verses seem to contradict each other. However, a third verse says that when Moses was in the Tabernacle, he heard God speaking to Him from above the Ark. This teaches us that the first two verses are not contradicting each other. The first verse is telling us that God’s voice came from the Ark, and the second verse is telling us that Moses heard the voice throughout the entire Tabernacle.