absence

And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

“I said to you a little ago,” he answered, “that you were cunning and obstinate in asking explanations of the parables; but since you are so persistent, I shall unfold to you the meaning of the similitudes of the field, and of all the others that follow, that you may make them known to every one. Hear now,” he said, “and understand them. The field is this world; and the Lord of the field is He who created, and perfected, and strengthened all things; [and the son is the Holy Spirit;] and the slave is the Son of God; and the vines are this people, whom He Himself planted; and the stakes are the holy angels of the Lord, who keep His people together; and the weeds that were plucked out of the vineyard are the iniquities of God’s servants; and the dishes which He sent Him from His table are the commandments which He gave His people through His Son; and the friends and fellow-councillors are the holy angels who were first created; and the Master’s absence from home is the time that remains until His appearing.” I said to him, “Sir, all these are great, and marvellous, and glorious things. Could I, therefore,” I continued, “understand them? No, nor could any other man, even if exceedingly wise. Moreover,” I added, “explain to me what I am about to ask you.” “Say what you wish,” he replied. “Why, sir,” I asked, “is the Son of God in the parable in the form of a slave?”

“While” says she, “we were still with the persecutors, and my father, for the sake of his affection for me, was persisting in seeking to turn me away, and to cast me down from the faith,—‘Father,’ said I, ‘do you see, let us say, this vessel lying here to be a little pitcher, or something else?’ And he said, ‘I see it to be so.’ And I replied to him, ‘Can it be called by any other name than what it is?’ And he said, ‘No.’ ‘Neither can I call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian.’ Then my father, provoked at this saying, threw himself upon me, as if he would tear my eyes out. But he only distressed me, and went away overcome by the devil’s arguments. Then, in a few days after I had been without my father, I gave thanks to the Lord; and his absence became a source of consolation to me. In that same interval of a few days we were baptized, and to me the Spirit prescribed that in the water of baptism nothing else was to be sought for bodily endurance. After a few days we are taken into the dungeon, and I was very much afraid, because I had never felt such darkness. O terrible day! O the fierce heat of the shock of the soldiery, because of the crowds! I was very unusually distressed by my anxiety for my infant. There were present there Tertius and Pomponius, the blessed deacons who ministered to us, and had arranged by means of a gratuity that we might be refreshed by being sent out for a few hours into a pleasanter part of the prison. Then going out of the dungeon, all attended to their own wants. I suckled my child, which was now enfeebled with hunger. In my anxiety for it, I addressed my mother and comforted my brother, and commended to their care my son. I was languishing because I had seen them languishing on my account. Such solicitude I suffered for many days, and I obtained for my infant to remain in the dungeon with me; and forthwith I grew strong and was relieved from distress and anxiety about my infant; and the dungeon became to me as it were a palace, so that I preferred being there to being elsewhere.

And how can he be other than an adversary to God, who takes pains about temporary things night and day, but takes no care of things eternal? Who takes care of washings and temporary food every day, but does not take care of those that endure for ever? How can such a one even now avoid hearing that word of the Lord, The Gentiles are justified more than you? as He says, by way of reproach, to Jerusalem, Sodom is justified rather than you. For if the Gentiles every day, when they arise from sleep, run to their idols to worship them, and before all their work and all their labours do first of all pray to them, and in their feasts and in their solemnities do not keep away, but attend upon them; and not only those upon the place, but those living far distant do the same; and in their public shows all come together, as into a synagogue: in the same manner those which are vainly called Jews, when they have worked six days, on the seventh day rest, and come together into their synagogue, never leaving nor neglecting either rest from labour or assembling together, while yet they are deprived of the efficacy of the word in their unbelief, nay, and of the force of that name Judah, by which they call themselves — for Judah is interpreted Confession, — but these do not confess to God (having unjustly occasioned the suffering on the cross), so as to be saved on their repentance;— if, therefore, those who are not saved frequently assemble together for such purposes as do not profit them, what apology will you make to the Lord God who forsakest His Church, not imitating so much as the heathen, but by such your absence growest slothful, or turnest apostate, or actest wickedness? To whom the Lord says by Jeremiah: You have not kept my ordinances; nay, you have not walked according to the ordinances of the heathen, and you have in a manner exceeded them. And again: Israel has justified his soul more than treacherous Judah. And afterwards: Will the Gentiles change their gods which are not gods? Wherefore pass over to the isles of Chittim, and behold, and send to Kedar, and observe diligently whether such things have been done. For those nations have not changed their ordinances; but, says He, my people has changed its glory for that which will not profit. How, therefore, will any one make his apology who has despised or absented himself from the church of God?

Concerning the canons I the same make a constitution. A bishop blesses, but does not receive the blessing. He lays on hands, ordains, offers, receives the blessing from bishops, but by no means from presbyters. A bishop deprives any clergyman who deserves deprivation, excepting a bishop; for of himself he has not power to do that. A presbyter blesses, but does not receive the blessing; yet does he receive the blessing from the bishop or a fellow presbyter. In like manner does he give it to a fellow presbyter. He lays on hands, but does not ordain; he does not deprive, yet does he separate those that are under him, if they be liable to such a punishment. A deacon does not bless, does not give the blessing, but receives it from the bishop and presbyter: he does not baptize, he does not offer; but when a bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes to the people, not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests. But it is not lawful for any one of the other clergy to do the work of a deacon. A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency. A deacon separates a subdeacon, a reader, a singer, and a deaconess, if there be any occasion, in the absence of a presbyter. It is not lawful for a subdeacon to separate either one of the clergy or laity; nor for a reader, nor for a singer, nor for a deaconess, for they are the ministers to the deacons.

Now as Jacob was proceeding on his journey to the land of Canaan, angels appeared to him, and suggested to him good hope of his future condition; and that place he named the Camp of God. And being desirous of knowing what his brother's intentions were to him, he sent messengers, to give him an exact account of every thing, as being afraid, on account of the enmities between them. He charged those that were sent, to say to Esau, "Jacob had thought it wrong to live together with him while he was in anger against him, and so had gone out of the country; and that he now, thinking the length of time of his absence must have made up their differences, was returning; that he brought with him his wives, and his children, with what possessions he had gotten; and delivered himself, with what was most dear to him, into his hands; and should think it his greatest happiness to partake together with his brother of what God had bestowed upon him." So these messengers told him this message. Upon which Esau was very glad, and met his brother with four hundred men. And Jacob, when he heard that he was coming to meet him with such a number of men, was greatly afraid: however, he committed his hope of deliverance to God; and considered how, in his present circumstances, he might preserve himself and those that were with him, and overcome his enemies if they attacked him injuriously. He therefore distributed his company into parts; some he sent before the rest, and the others he ordered to come close behind, that so, if the first were overpowered when his brother attacked them, they might have those that followed as a refuge to fly unto. And when he had put his company in this order, he sent some of them to carry presents to his brother. The presents were made up of cattle, and a great number of four-footed beasts, of many kinds, such as would be very acceptable to those that received them, on account of their rarity. Those who were sent went at certain intervals of space asunder, that, by following thick, one after another, they might appear to be more numerous, that Esau might remit of his anger on account of these presents, if he were still in a passion. Instructions were also given to those that were sent to speak gently to him.

But when the forty days, and as many nights, were over, Moses came down, having tasted nothing of food usually appointed for the nourishment of men. His appearance filled the army with gladness, and he declared to them what care God had of them, and by what manner of conduct of their lives they might live happily; telling them, that during these days of his absence he had suggested to him also that he would have a tabernacle built for him, into which he would descend when he came to them, and how we should carry it about with us when we remove from this place; and that there would be no longer any occasion for going up to Mount Sinai, but that he would himself come and pitch his tabernacle amongst us, and be present at our prayers; as also, that the tabernacle should be of such measures and construction as he had shown him, and that you are to fall to the work, and prosecute it diligently. When he had said this, he showed them the two tables, with the ten commandments engraven upon them, five upon each table; and the writing was by the hand of God.

But David fell now into a very grievous sin, though he were otherwise naturally a righteous and a religious man, and one that firmly observed the laws of our fathers; for when late in an evening he took a view round him from the roof of his royal palace, where he used to walk at that hour, he saw a woman washing herself in her own house: she was one of extraordinary beauty, and therein surpassed all other women; her name was Bathsheba. So he was overcome by that woman's beauty, and was not able to restrain his desires, but sent for her, and lay with her. Hereupon she conceived with child, and sent to the king, that he should contrive some way for concealing her sin [for, according to the laws of their fathers, she who had been guilty of adultery ought to be put to death]. So the king sent for Joab's armor-bearer from the siege, who was the woman's husband, and his name was Uriah. And when he was come, the king inquired of him about the army, and about the siege; and when he had made answer that all their affairs went according to their wishes, the king took some portions of meat from his supper, and gave them to him, and bade him go home to his wife, and take his rest with her. Uriah did not do so, but slept near the king with the rest of his armor-bearers. When the king was informed of this, he asked him why he did not go home to his house, and to his wife, after so long an absence; which is the natural custom of all men, when they come from a long journey. He replied, that it was not right, while his fellow soldiers, and the general of the army, slept upon the ground, in the camp, and in an enemy's country, that he should go and take his rest, and solace himself with his wife. So when he had thus replied, the king ordered him to stay there that night, that he might dismiss him the next day to the general. So the king invited Uriah to supper, and after a cunning and dexterous manlier plied him with drink at supper, till he was thereby disordered; yet did he nevertheless sleep at the king's gates without any inclination to go to his wife. Upon this the king was very angry at him; and wrote to Joab, and commanded him to punish Uriah, for he told him that he had offended him; and he suggested to him the manner in which he would have him punished, that it might not be discovered that he was himself the author of this his punishment; for he charged him to set him over against that part of the enemy's army where the attack would be most hazardous, and where he might be deserted, and be in the greatest jeopardy, for he bade him order his fellow soldiers to retire out of the fight. When he had written thus to him, and sealed the letter with his own seal, he gave it to Uriah to carry to Joab. When Joab had received it, and upon reading it understood the king's purpose, he set Uriah in that place where he knew the enemy would be most troublesome to them; and gave him for his partners some of the best soldiers in the army; and said that he would also come to their assistance with the whole army, that if possible they might break down some part of the wall, and enter the city. And he desired him to be glad of the opportunity of exposing himself to such great pains, and not to be displeased at it, since he was a valiant soldier, and had a great reputation for his valor, both with the king and with his countrymen. And when Uriah undertook the work he was set upon with alacrity, he gave private orders to those who were to be his companions, that when they saw the enemy make a sally, they should leave him. When, therefore, the Hebrews made an attack upon the city, the Ammonites were afraid that the enemy might prevent them, and get up into the city, and this at the very place whither Uriah was ordered; so they exposed their best soldiers to be in the forefront, and opened their gates suddenly, and fell upon the enemy with great vehemence, and ran violently upon them. When those that were with Uriah saw this, they all retreated backward, as Joab had directed them beforehand; but Uriah, as ashamed to run away and leave his post, sustained the enemy, and receiving the violence of their onset, he slew many of them; but being encompassed round, and caught in the midst of them, he was slain, and some other of his companions were slain with him.

These disorders increased greatly, and the king's absence abroad had afforded a fit opportunity for that increase; but as soon as Herod was returned, and had made the forementioned speech to the multitude, Pheroras and Salome let fill words immediately as if he were in great danger, and as if the young men openly threatened that they would not spare him any longer, but revenge their mother's death upon him. They also added another circumstance, that their hopes were fixed on Archelaus, the king of Cappadocia, that they should be able by his means to come to Cæsar, and accuse their father. Upon hearing such things, Herod was immediately disturbed; and indeed was the more astonished, because the same things were related to him by some others also. He then called to mind his former calamity, and considered that the disorders in his family had hindered him from enjoying any comfort from those that were dearest to him or from his wife whom he loved so well; and suspecting that his future troubles would soon be heavier and greater than those that were past, he was in great confusion of mind; for Divine Providence had in reality conferred upon him a great many outward advantages for his happiness, even beyond his hopes; but the troubles he had at home were such as he never expected to have met with, and rendered him unfortunate; nay, both sorts came upon him to such a degree as no one could imagine, and made it a doubtful question, whether, upon the comparison of both, he ought to have exchanged so great a success of outward good things for so great misfortunes at home, or whether he ought not to have chosen to avoid the calamities relating to his family, though he had, for a compensation, never been possessed of the admired grandeur of a kingdom.

And now what happened during Antipater's absence augmented the honor to which he had been promoted, and his apparent eminence above his brethren; for he had made a great figure in Rome, because Herod had sent recommendations of him to all his friends there; only he was grieved that he was not at home, nor had proper opportunities of perpetually calumniating his brethren; and his chief fear was, lest his father should alter his mind, and entertain a more favorable opinion of the sons of Mariamne; and as he had this in his mind, he did not desist from his purpose, but continually sent from Rome any such stories as he hoped might grieve and irritate his father against his brethren, under pretense indeed of a deep concern for his preservation, but in truth such as his malicious mind dictated, in order to purchase a greater hope of the succession, which yet was already great in itself: and thus he did till he had excited such a degree of anger in Herod, that he was already become very ill-disposed towards the young men; but still while he delayed to exercise so violent a disgust against them, and that he might not either be too remiss or too rash, and so offend, he thought it best to sail to Rome, and there accuse his sons before Cæsar, and not indulge himself in any such crime as might be heinous enough to be suspected of impiety. But as he was going up to Rome, it happened that he made such haste as to meet with Cæsar at the city Aquilei so when he came to the speech of Cæsar, he asked for a time for hearing this great cause, wherein he thought himself very miserable, and presented his sons there, and accused them of their mad actions, and of their attempts against him: That they were enemies to him; and by all the means they were able, did their endeavors to show their hatred to their own father, and would take away his life, and so obtain his kingdom, after the most barbarous manner: that he had power from Cæsar to dispose of it, not by necessity, but by choice, to him who shall exercise the greatest piety towards him; while these my sons are not so desirous of ruling, as they are, upon a disappointment thereof, to expose their own life, if so be they may but deprive their father of his life; so wild and polluted is their mind by time become, out of their hatred to him: that whereas he had a long time borne this his misfortune, he was now compelled to lay it before Cæsar, and to pollute his ears with such language, while he himself wants to know what severity they have ever suffered from him, or what hardships he hath ever laid upon them to make them complain of him; and how they can think it just that he should not be lord of that kingdom which he in a long time, and with great danger, had gained, and not allow him to keep it and dispose of it to him who should deserve best; and this, with other advantages, he proposes as a reward for the piety of such a one as will hereafter imitate the care he hath taken of it, and that such a one may gain so great a requital as that is: and that it is an impious thing for them to pretend to meddle with it beforehand; for he who hath ever the kingdom in his view, at the same time reckons upon procuring the death of his father, because otherwise he cannot come at the government: that as for himself, he had hitherto given them all that he was able, and what was agreeable to such as are subject to the royal authority, and the sons of a king; what ornaments they wanted, with servants and delicate fare, and had married them into the most illustrious families, the one [Aristobulus] to his sister's daughter, but Alexander to the daughter of king Archelaus; and, what was the greatest favor of all, when their crimes were so very bad, and he had authority to punish them, yet had he not made use of it against them, but had brought them before Cæsar, their common benefactor, and had not used the severity which, either as a father who had been impiously abused, or as a king who had been assaulted treacherously, he might have done, but made them stand upon a level with him in judgment: that, however, it was necessary that all this should not be passed over without punishment, nor himself live in the greatest fears; nay, that it was not for their own advantage to see the light of the sun after what they have done, although they should escape at this time, since they had done the vilest things, and would certainly suffer the greatest punishments that ever were known among mankind.

After this, Herod returned to Judea again. But during his absence no small part of his dominion about Trachon had revolted, whom yet the commanders he left there had vanquished, and compelled to a submission again. Now as Herod was sailing with his sons, and was come over against Cilicia, to [the island] Eleusa, which hath now changed its name for Sebaste, he met with Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, who received him kindly, as rejoicing that he was reconciled to his sons, and that the accusation against Alexander, who had married his daughter, was at an end. They also made one another such presents as it became kings to make, From thence Herod came to Judea and to the temple, where he made a speech to the people concerning what had been done in this his journey. He also discoursed to them about Cæsar's kindness to him, and about as many of the particulars he had done as he thought it for his advantage other people should be acquainted with. At last he turned his speech to the admonition of his sons; and exhorted those that lived at court, and the multitude, to concord; and informed them that his sons were to reign after him; Antipater first, and then Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne: but he desired that at present they should all have regard to himself, and esteem him king and lord of all, since he was not yet hindered by old age, but was in that period of life when he must be the most skillful in governing; and that he was not deficient in other arts of management that might enable him to govern the kingdom well, and to rule over his children also. He further told the rulers under him, and the soldiery, that in case they would look upon him alone, their life would be led in a peaceable manner, and they would make one another happy. And when he had said this, he dismissed the assembly. Which speech was acceptable to the greatest part of the audience, but not so to them all; for the contention among his sons, and the hopes he had given them, occasioned thoughts and desires of innovations among them.

When Herod had been at Rome, and was come back again, a war arose between him and the Arabians, on the occasion following: The inhabitants of Trachonitis, after Cæsar had taken the country away from Zenodorus, and added it to Herod, had not now power to rob, but were forced to plough the land, and to live quietly, which was a thing they did not like; and when they did take that pains, the ground did not produce much fruit for them. However, at the first the king would not permit them to rob, and so they abstained from that unjust way of living upon their neighbors, which procured Herod a great reputation for his care. But when he was sailing to Rome, it was at that time when he went to accuse his son Alexander, and to commit Antipater to Cæsar's protection, the Trachonites spread a report as if he were dead, and revolted from his dominion, and betook themselves again to their accustomed way of robbing their neighbors; at which time the king's commanders subdued them during his absence; but about forty of the principal robbers, being terrified by those that had been taken, left the country, and retired into Arabia, Sylleus entertaining them, after he had missed of marrying Salome, and gave them a place of strength, in which they dwelt. So they overran not only Judea, but all Celesyria also, and carried off the prey, while Sylleus afforded them places of protection and quietness during their wicked practices. But when Herod came back from Rome, he perceived that his dominions had greatly suffered by them; and since he could not reach the robbers themselves, because of the secure retreat they had in that country, and which the Arabian government afforded them, and yet being very uneasy at the injuries they had done him, he went all over Trachonitis, and slew their relations; whereupon these robbers were more angry than before, it being a law among them to be avenged on the murderers of their relations by all possible means; so they continued to tear and rend every thing under Herod's dominion with impunity. Then did he discourse about these robberies to Saturninus and Volumnius, and required that they should be punished; upon which occasion they still the more confirmed themselves in their robberies, and became more numerous, and made very great disturbances, laying waste the countries and villages that belonged to Herod's kingdom, and killing those men whom they caught, till these unjust proceedings came to be like a real war, for the robbers were now become about a thousand;—at which Herod was sore displeased, and required the robbers, as well as the money which he had lent Obodas, by Sylleus, which was sixty talents, and since the time of payment was now past, he desired to have it paid him; but Sylleus, who had laid Obodas aside, and managed all by himself, denied that the robbers were in Arabia, and put off the payment of the money; about which there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the presidents of Syria. At last he, by their means, agreed, that within thirty days' time Herod should be paid his money, and that each of them should deliver up the other's subjects reciprocally. Now, as to Herod, there was not one of the other's subjects found in his kingdom, either as doing any injustice, or on any other account, but it was proved that the Arabians had the robbers amongst them.

These confessions agreed with what his sister had told him, and tended greatly to corroborate her testimony, and to free her from the suspicion of her unfaithfulness to him. So the king having satisfied himself of the spite which Doris, Antipater's mother, as well as himself, bore to him, took away from her all her fine ornaments, which were worth many talents, and then sent her away, and entered into friendship with Pheroras's women. But he who most of all irritated the king against his son was one Antipater, the procurator of Antipater the king's son, who, when he was tortured, among other things, said that Antipater had prepared a deadly potion, and given it to Pheroras, with his desire that he would give it to his father during his absence, and when he was too remote to have the least suspicion cast upon him thereto relating; that Antiphilus, one of Antipater's friends, brought that potion out of Egypt; and that it was sent to Pheroras by Thendion, the brother of the mother of Antipater, the king's son, and by that means came to Pheroras's wife, her husband having given it her to keep. And when the king asked her about it, she confessed it; and as she was running to fetch it, she threw herself down from the house-top; yet did she not kill herself, because she fell upon her feet; by which means, when the king had comforted her, and had promised her and her domestics pardon, upon condition of their concealing nothing of the truth from him, but had threatened her with the utmost miseries if she proved ungrateful [and concealed any thing]: so she promised, and swore that she would speak out every thing, and tell after what manner every thing was done; and said what many took to be entirely true, that the potion was brought out of Egypt by Antiphilus; and that his brother, who was a physician, had procured it; and that "when Thendion brought it us, she kept it upon Pheroras's committing it to her; and that it was prepared by Antipater for thee. When, therefore, Pheroras was fallen sick, and thou camest to him and tookest care of him, and when he saw the kindness thou hadst for him, his mind was overborne thereby. So he called me to him, and said to me, 'O woman! Antipater hath circumvented me in this affair of his father and my brother, by persuading me to have a murderous intention to him, and procuring a potion to be subservient thereto; do thou, therefore, go and fetch my potion, [since my brother appears to have still the same virtuous disposition towards me which he had formerly, and I do not expect to live long myself, and that I may not defile my forefathers by the murder of a brother,] and burn it before my face:' that accordingly she immediately brought it, and did as her husband bade her; and that she burnt the greatest part of the potion; but that a little of it was left, that if the king, after Pheroras's death, should treat her ill, she might poison herself, and thereby get clear of her miseries." Upon her saying thus, she brought out the potion, and the box in which it was, before them all. Nay, there was another brother of Antiphilus, and his mother also, who, by the extremity of pain and torture, confessed the same things, and owned the box [to be that which had been brought out of Egypt]. The high priest's daughter also, who was the king's wife, was accused to have been conscious of all this, and had resolved to conceal it; for which reason Herod divorced her, and blotted her son out of his testament, wherein he had been mentioned as one that was to reign after him; and he took the high priesthood away from his father-in-law, Simeon the son of Boethus, and appointed Matthias the son of Theophilus, who was born at Jerusalem, to be high priest in his room.

Now Herod, upon Antipater's writing to him, that having done all that he was to do, and this in the manner he was to do it, he would suddenly come to him, concealed his anger against him, and wrote back to him, and bid him not delay his journey, lest any harm should befall himself in his absence. At the same time also he made some little complaint about his mother, but promised that he would lay those complaints aside when he should return. He withal expressed his entire affection for him, as fearing lest he should have some suspicion of him, and defer his journey to him; and lest, while he lived at Rome, he should lay plots for the kingdom, and, moreover, do somewhat against himself. This letter Antipater met with in Cilicia; but had received an account of Pheroras's death before at Tarentum. This last news affected him deeply; not out of any affection for Pheroras, but because he was dead without having murdered his father, which he had promised him to do. And when he was at Celenderis in Cilicia, he began to deliberate with himself about his sailing home, as being much grieved with the ejection of his mother. Now some of his friends advised him that he should tarry a while some where, in expectation of further information. But others advised him to sail home without delay; for that if he were once come thither, he would soon put an end to all accusations, and that nothing afforded any weight to his accusers at present but his absence. He was persuaded by these last, and sailed on, and landed at the haven called Sebastus, which Herod had built at vast expenses in honor of Cæsar, and called Sebastus. And now was Antipater evidently in a miserable condition, while nobody came to him nor saluted him, as they did at his going away, with good wishes of joyful acclamations; nor was there now any thing to hinder them from entertaining him, on the contrary, with bitter curses, while they supposed he was come to receive his punishment for the murder of his brethren.

Now Herod, upon Antipater's writing to him, that having done all that he was to do, and this in the manner he was to do it, he would suddenly come to him, concealed his anger against him, and wrote back to him, and bid him not delay his journey, lest any harm should befall himself in his absence. At the same time also he made some little complaint about his mother, but promised that he would lay those complaints aside when he should return. He withal expressed his entire affection for him, as fearing lest he should have some suspicion of him, and defer his journey to him; and lest, while he lived at Rome, he should lay plots for the kingdom, and, moreover, do somewhat against himself. This letter Antipater met with in Cilicia; but had received an account of Pheroras's death before at Tarentum. This last news affected him deeply; not out of any affection for Pheroras, but because he was dead without having murdered his father, which he had promised him to do. And when he was at Celenderis in Cilicia, he began to deliberate with himself about his sailing home, as being much grieved with the ejection of his mother. Now some of his friends advised him that he should tarry a while some where, in expectation of further information. But others advised him to sail home without delay; for that if he were once come thither, he would soon put an end to all accusations, and that nothing afforded any weight to his accusers at present but his absence. He was persuaded by these last, and sailed on, and landed at the haven called Sebastus, which Herod had built at vast expenses in honor of Cæsar, and called Sebastus. And now was Antipater evidently in a miserable condition, while nobody came to him nor saluted him, as they did at his going away, with good wishes of joyful acclamations; nor was there now any thing to hinder them from entertaining him, on the contrary, with bitter curses, while they supposed he was come to receive his punishment for the murder of his brethren.

When Herod had thus spoken, he fell a weeping, and was not able to say any more; but at his desire Nicolaus of Damascus, being the king's friend, and always conversant with him, and acquainted with whatsoever he did, and with the circumstances of his affairs, proceeded to what remained, and explained all that concerned the demonstrations and evidences of the facts. Upon which Antipater, in order to make his legal defense, turned himself to his father, and enlarged upon the many indications he had given of his good-will to him; and instanced in the honors that had been done him, which yet had not been done, had he not deserved them by his virtuous concern about him; for that he had made provision for every thing that was fit to be foreseen beforehand, as to giving him his wisest advice; and whenever there was occasion for the labor of his own hands, he had not grudged any such pains for him. And that it was almost impossible that he, who had delivered his father from so many treacherous contrivances laid against him, should be himself in a plot against him, and so lose all the reputation he had gained for his virtue, by his wickedness which succeeded it; and this while he had nothing to prohibit him, who was already appointed his successor, to enjoy the royal honor with his father also at present; and that there was no likelihood that a person who had the one half of that authority without any danger, and with a good character, should hunt after the whole with infamy and danger, and this when it was doubtful whether he could obtain it or not; and when he saw the sad example of his brethren before him, and was both the informer and the accuser against them, at a time when they might not otherwise have been discovered; nay, was the author of the punishment inflicted upon them, when it appeared evidently that they were guilty of a wicked attempt against their father; and that even the contentions there were in the king's family were indications that he had ever managed affairs out of the sincerest affection to his father. And as to what he had done at Rome, Cæsar was a witness thereto, who yet was no more to be imposed upon than God himself; of whose opinions his letters sent hither are sufficient evidence; and that it was not reasonable to prefer the calumnies of such as proposed to raise disturbances before those letters; the greatest part of which calumnies had been raised during his absence, which gave scope to his enemies to forge them, which they had not been able to do if he had been there. Moreover he showed the weakness of the evidence obtained by torture, which was commonly false, because the distress men are in under such tortures naturally obliges them to say many things in order to please those that govern them. He also offered himself to the torture.

But now as Gabinius was marching to the war against the Parthians, he was hindered by Ptolemy, whom, upon his return from Euphrates, he brought back into Egypt, making use of Hyrcanus and Antipater to provide every thing that was necessary for this expedition; for Antipater furnished him with money, and weapons, and corn, and auxiliaries; he also prevailed with the Jews that were there, and guarded the avenues at Pelusium, to let them pass. But now, upon Gabinius's absence, the other part of Syria was in motion, and Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, brought the Jews to revolt again. Accordingly, he got together a very great army, and set about killing all the Romans that were in the country; hereupon Gabinius was afraid, [for he was come back already out of Egypt, and obliged to come back quickly by these tumults,] and sent Antipater, who prevailed with some of the revolters to be quiet. However, thirty thousand still continued with Alexander, who was himself eager to fight also; accordingly, Gabinius went out to fight, when the Jews met him; and as the battle was fought near Mount Tabor, ten thousand of them were slain, and the rest of the multitude dispersed themselves, and fled away. So Gabinius came to Jerusalem, and settled the government as Antipater would have it; thence he marched, and fought and beat the Nabateans: as for Mithridates and Orsanes, who fled out of Parthin, he sent them away privately, but gave it out among the soldiers that they had run away.

Now when Herod was come to Jerusalem, he gathered the people together, and presented to them his three sons, and gave them an apologetic account of his absence, and thanked God greatly, and thanked Caesar greatly also, for settling his house when it was under disturbances, and had procured concord among his sons, which was of greater consequence than the kingdom itself,--"and which I will render still more firm; for Caesar hath put into my power to dispose of the government, and to appoint my successor. Accordingly, in way of requital for his kindness, and in order to provide for mine own advantage, I do declare that these three sons of mine shall be kings. And, in the first place, I pray for the approbation of God to what I am about; and, in the next place, I desire your approbation also. The age of one of them, and the nobility of the other two, shall procure them the succession. Nay, indeed, my kingdom is so large that it may be sufficient for more kings. Now do you keep those in their places whom Caesar hath joined, and their father hath appointed; and do not you pay undue or unequal respects to them, but to every one according to the prerogative of their births; for he that pays such respects unduly, will thereby not make him that is honored beyond what his age requires so joyful, as he will make him that is dishonored sorrowful. As for the kindred and friends that are to converse with them, I will appoint them to each of them, and will so constitute them, that they may be securities for their concord; as well knowing that the ill tempers of those with whom they converse will produce quarrels and contentions among them; but that if these with whom they converse be of good tempers, they will preserve their natural affections for one another. But still I desire that not these only, but all the captains of my army, have for the present their hopes placed on me alone; for I do not give away my kingdom to these my sons, but give them royal honors only; whereby it will come to pass that they will enjoy the sweet parts of government as rulers themselves, but that the burden of administration will rest upon myself whether I will or not. And let every one consider what age I am of, how I have conducted my life, and what piety I have exercised; for my age is not so great that men may soon expect the end of my life; nor have I indulged such a luxurious way of living as cuts men off when they are young; and we have been so religious towards God, that we [have reason to hope we] may arrive at a very great age. But for such as cultivate a friendship with my sons, so as to aim at my destruction, they shall be punished by me on their account. I am not one who envy my own children, and therefore forbid men to pay them great respect; but I know that such [extravagant] respects are the way to make them insolent. And if every one that comes near them does but revolve this in his mind, that if he prove a good man, he shall receive a reward from me, but that if he prove seditious, his ill-intended complaisance shall get him nothing from him to whom it is shown, I suppose they will all be of my side, that is, of my sons' side; for it will be for their advantage that I reign, and that I be at concord with them. But do you, O my good children, reflect upon the holiness of nature itself, by whose means natural affection is preserved, even among wild beasts; in the next place, reflect upon Caesar, who hath made this reconciliation among us; and in the third place, reflect upon me, who entreat you to do what I have power to command you,--continue brethren. I give you royal garments, and royal honors; and I pray to God to preserve what I have determined, in case you be at concord one with another." When the king had thus spoken, and had saluted every one of his sons after an obliging manner, he dismissed the multitude; some of which gave their assent to what he had said, and wished it might take effect accordingly; but for those who wished for a change of affairs, they pretended they did not so much as hear what he said.

Now the king, being desirous to get this plotter against him into his hands, and being also afraid lest he should some way come to the knowledge how his affairs stood, and be upon his guard, he dissembled his anger in his epistle to him, as in other points he wrote kindly to him, and desired him to make haste, because if he came quickly, he would then lay aside the complaints he had against his mother; for Antipater was not ignorant that his mother had been expelled out of the palace. However, he had before received a letter, which contained an account of the death of Pheroras, at Tarentum, and made great lamentations at it; for which some commended him, as being for his own uncle; though probably this confusion arose on account of his having thereby failed in his plot [on his father's life]; and his tears were more for the loss of him that was to have been subservient therein, than for [an uncle] Pheroras: moreover, a sort of fear came upon him as to his designs, lest the poison should have been discovered. However, when he was in Cilicia, he received the forementioned epistle from his father, and made great haste accordingly. But when he had sailed to Celenderis, a suspicion came into his mind relating to his mother's misfortunes; as if his soul foreboded some mischief to itself. Those therefore of his friends which were the most considerate advised him not rashly to go to his father, till he had learned what were the occasions why his mother had been ejected, because they were afraid that he might be involved in the calumnies that had been cast upon his mother: but those that were less considerate, and had more regard to their own desires of seeing their native country, than to Antipater's safety, persuaded him to make haste home, and not, by delaying his journey, afford his father ground for an ill suspicion, and give a handle to those that raised stories against him; for that in case any thing had been moved to his disadvantage, it was owing to his absence, which durst not have been done had he been present. And they said it was absurd to deprive himself of certain happiness, for the sake of an uncertain suspicion, and not rather to return to his father, and take the royal authority upon him, which was in a state of fluctuation on his account only. Antipater complied with this last advice, for Providence hurried him on [to his destruction]. So he passed over the sea, and landed at Sebastus, the haven of Cesarea.

Upon Herod's saying this, he was interrupted by the confusion he was in; but ordered Nicolaus, one of his friends, to produce the evidence against Antipater. But in the mean time Antipater lifted up his head, [for he lay on the ground before his father's feet,] and cried out aloud, "Thou, O father, hast made my apology for me; for how can I be a parricide, whom thou thyself confessest to have always had for thy guardian? Thou callest my filial affection prodigious lies and hypocrisy! how then could it be that I, who was so subtle in other matters, should here be so mad as not to understand that it was not easy that he who committed so horrid a crime should be concealed from men, but impossible that he should be concealed from the Judge of heaven, who sees all things, and is present every where? or did not I know what end my brethren came to, on whom God inflicted so great a punishment for their evil designs against thee? And indeed what was there that could possibly provoke me against thee? Could the hope of being king do it? I was a king already. Could I suspect hatred from thee? No. Was not I beloved by thee? And what other fear could I have? Nay, by preserving thee safe, I was a terror to others. Did I want money? No; for who was able to expend so much as myself? Indeed, father, had I been the most execrable of all mankind, and had I had the soul of the most cruel wild beast, must I not have been overcome with the benefits thou hadst bestowed upon me? whom, as thou thyself sayest, thou broughtest [into the palace]; whom thou didst prefer before so many of thy sons; whom thou madest a king in thine own lifetime, and, by the vast magnitude of the other advantages thou bestowedst on me, thou madest me an object of envy. O miserable man! that thou shouldst undergo this bitter absence, and thereby afford a great opportunity for envy to arise against thee, and a long space for such as were laying designs against thee! Yet was I absent, father, on thy affairs, that Sylleus might not treat thee with contempt in thine old age. Rome is a witness to my filial affection, and so is Caesar, the ruler of the habitable earth, who oftentimes called me Philopater. Take here the letters he hath sent thee, they are more to be believed than the calumnies raised here; these letters are my only apology; these I use as the demonstration of that natural affection I have to thee. Remember that it was against my own choice that I sailed [to Rome], as knowing the latent hatred that was in the kingdom against me. It was thou, O father, however unwillingly, who hast been my ruin, by forcing me to allow time for calumnies against me, and envy at me. However, I am come hither, and am ready to hear the evidence there is against me. If I be a parricide, I have passed by land and by sea, without suffering any misfortune on either of them: but this method of trial is no advantage to me; for it seems, O father, that I am already condemned, both before God and before thee; and as I am already condemned, I beg that thou wilt not believe the others that have been tortured, but let fire be brought to torment me; let the racks march through my bowels; have no regard to any lamentations that this polluted body can make; for if I be a parricide, I ought not to die without torture." Thus did Antipater cry out with lamentation and weeping, and moved all the rest, and Varus in particular, to commiserate his case. Herod was the only person whose passion was too strong to permit him to weep, as knowing that the testimonies against him were true.

Having, then, briefly restated these points regarding the nature of the Trinity, it follows that we notice shortly this statement also, that “by the Son” are said to be created “all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all, and all things consist by Him, who is the head.” In conformity with which John also in his Gospel says: “All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made.” And David, intimating that the mystery of the entire Trinity was [concerned] in the creation of all things, says: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth.” After these points we shall appropriately remind [the reader] of the bodily advent and incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, with respect to whom we are not to suppose that all the majesty of His divinity is confined within the limits of His slender body, so that all the “word” of God, and His “wisdom,” and “essential truth,” and “life,” was either rent asunder from the Father, or restrained and confined within the narrowness of His bodily person, and is not to be considered to have operated anywhere besides; but the cautious acknowledgment of a religious man ought to be between the two, so that it ought neither to be believed that anything of divinity was wanting in Christ, nor that any separation at all was made from the essence of the Father, which is everywhere. For some such meaning seems to be indicated by John the Baptist, when he said to the multitude in the bodily absence of Jesus, “There standeth one among you whom ye know not: He it is who cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.” For it certainly could not be said of Him, who was absent, so far as His bodily presence is concerned, that He was standing in the midst of those among whom the Son of God was not bodily present.

“Altogether absurd, and out of season,” he continues, “is the [account of the] begetting of children,” where, although he has mentioned no names, it is evident that he is referring to the history of Abraham and Sarah. Cavilling also at the “conspiracies of the brothers,” he alludes either to the story of Cain plotting against Abel, or, in addition, to that of Esau against Jacob; and [speaking] of “a father’s sorrow,” he probably refers to that of Isaac on account of the absence of Jacob, and perhaps also to that of Jacob because of Joseph having been sold into Egypt. And when relating the “crafty procedure of mothers,” I suppose he means the conduct of Rebecca, who contrived that the blessing of Isaac should descend, not upon Esau, but upon Jacob. Now if we assert that in all these cases God interposed in a very marked degree, what absurdity do we commit, seeing we are persuaded that He never withdraws His providence from those who devote themselves to Him in an honourable and vigorous life? He ridicules, moreover, the acquisition of property made by Jacob while living with Laban, not understanding to what these words refer: “And those which had no spots were Laban’s, and those which were spotted were Jacob’s;” and he says that “God presented his sons with asses, and sheep, and camels,” and did not see that “all these things happened unto them for ensamples, and were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” The varying customs [prevailing among the different nations] becoming famous, are regulated by the word of God, being given as a possession to him who is figuratively termed Jacob. For those who become converts to Christ from among the heathen, are indicated by the history of Laban and Jacob.

A man may give a ma’ah to a shopkeeper or a baker in order to acquire a share in the eruv, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: his money acquires no share for him They agree that in the case of all other men his money may acquire [an eruv for him], Since they do not prepare an eruv except with one’s consent. Rabbi Judah says: To what does this apply? To Shabbat border eruvin, but in the case of courtyard eruvin they prepare an eruv with his consent and without his consent, since they confer a benefit on a person in his absence but they do not confer a disability on a person except in his presence.

“A woman who impairs her kethubah”: How is this so? If her ketubah was for a thousand zuz and [her husband] said to her, “You have already received your kethubah”, and she says, “I received only a maneh”, she is not paid [the balance] except by an oath. “If one witness testifies against her that [her kethubah] has been paid”: How is this so? If her ketubah was for a thousand zuz and [her husband] said to her, “You have already received your ketubah”, and she says, “I have not received it” and one witness testifies against her that [the ketubah] has been paid, she is not paid except by an oath. “From property with a lien on it”: How is this so? He had sold his property to others and she seeks to recover payment from the buyers, she is not paid except by an oath. “From the property of orphans”: How is this so? He died and left his estate to his orphans and she seeks to recover payment from the orphans, she is not paid except by an oath. “An husband who is not present” How is this so? If her husband went to a country beyond the sea and she seeks to recover payment in his absence, she is not paid except by an oath. Rabbi Shimon says: whenever she claims her ketubah the heirs may impose an oath upon her but whenever she does not claim her ketubah the heirs can not impose an oath upon her.

If a man went to a country beyond the sea and [in his absence] the path to his field was lost, Admon ruled: let him walk [to his field] by the shortest way. But the Sages say: let him purchase a path for himself even if it costs him a hundred maneh or let him fly through the air.

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.

The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest.

The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest.

The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest.

The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest.

The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest.

The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest.

The [absence of either the] bullocks or the rams or the lambs does not invalidate the others. Rabbi Shimon says: if they had [money enough to buy] many bullocks but not [enough for] the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock and its drink-offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

The [absence of the] daily offerings (tamidin) does not invalidate the additional offerings (musafin), neither does [the absence of] the additional offerings invalidate the daily offerings, neither does the absence of [one of the] additional offerings invalidate the other additional offerings. Even though they did not offer the [tamid] lamb in the morning they must offer [the lamb] towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: When is this so? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they may not offer [the lamb] towards evening. If they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: all of it was burned towards evening. For the golden altar was dedicated only by the incense of spices. And the altar for the olah by the daily offering of the morning, And the table only by the showbread on Shabbat, And the menorah only by [the kindling of] seven lamps towards evening.

The [absence of the] daily offerings (tamidin) does not invalidate the additional offerings (musafin), neither does [the absence of] the additional offerings invalidate the daily offerings, neither does the absence of [one of the] additional offerings invalidate the other additional offerings. Even though they did not offer the [tamid] lamb in the morning they must offer [the lamb] towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: When is this so? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they may not offer [the lamb] towards evening. If they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: all of it was burned towards evening. For the golden altar was dedicated only by the incense of spices. And the altar for the olah by the daily offering of the morning, And the table only by the showbread on Shabbat, And the menorah only by [the kindling of] seven lamps towards evening.

The [absence of the] daily offerings (tamidin) does not invalidate the additional offerings (musafin), neither does [the absence of] the additional offerings invalidate the daily offerings, neither does the absence of [one of the] additional offerings invalidate the other additional offerings. Even though they did not offer the [tamid] lamb in the morning they must offer [the lamb] towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: When is this so? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they may not offer [the lamb] towards evening. If they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: all of it was burned towards evening. For the golden altar was dedicated only by the incense of spices. And the altar for the olah by the daily offering of the morning, And the table only by the showbread on Shabbat, And the menorah only by [the kindling of] seven lamps towards evening.

If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah.

If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah.

It was stated: “If somebody entered a town, found there groups of people, and asked, who is trustworthy here, who tithes here? If one person told him that he himself was trustworthy, and the others told him that he was trustworthy, that one is trustworthy. If they told him in the person’s presence that he was not trustworthy, he is not trustworthy; but in his absence, he is trustworthy.” Rebbi Jonah said, if that somebody was from that town, the group must be of ḥaverim, if he is a stranger, the group may be composed of amē haäreẓ. It is difficult for Rebbi Yose, you say that ḥaverim are not trustworthy in his presence?

Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree, for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice?

MISHNAH: Anything and participation except water and salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, an eruv is a loaf of bread. Even if a se’ah was baked but is sliced one may not use it for eruv; a loaf the size of an as which is complete may be used for eruv. A person may give an obolus to a grocer or a baker to acquire part in his eruv, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him. They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him, because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement. Rebbi Jehudah explained, when has this been said? For eruv of domains, but eruvin of courtyards one makes with or without his agreement since one may give benefits to a person in his absence but impose obligations on him only in his presence.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

Who permits? Did we not state, if one of the excommunicators died one may not permit him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch. But if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: It happened that one of the excommunicators died and they did not permit him. Did not Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch, but if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits? What Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said is confirmed if he did not reform. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rav Sheshet: At Usha they voted not to excommunicate an ordained rabbi. This parallels what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not strip an ordained rabbi who is guilty of something of his title but tells him, respect yourself and sit in your house. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One treats an ordained rabbi who forgot his learning by an act of God with the holiness of the Ark. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Excommunication by an ordained rabbi who excommunicated for his personal benefit is no excommunication.

Who permits? Did we not state, if one of the excommunicators died one may not permit him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch. But if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: It happened that one of the excommunicators died and they did not permit him. Did not Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch, but if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits? What Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said is confirmed if he did not reform. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rav Sheshet: At Usha they voted not to excommunicate an ordained rabbi. This parallels what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not strip an ordained rabbi who is guilty of something of his title but tells him, respect yourself and sit in your house. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One treats an ordained rabbi who forgot his learning by an act of God with the holiness of the Ark. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Excommunication by an ordained rabbi who excommunicated for his personal benefit is no excommunication.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one makes only betrothed girls repudiate. The House of Hillel say, betrothed or married. The House of Shammai say, the husband, but the House of Hillel say, the husband or the levir. The House of Shammai say, in his presence, but the House of Hillel say, in his presence or in his absence. The House of Shammai say, in a court of law, but the House of Hillel say, in a court or outside a court. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: An underage girl may repudiate even four or five times. The House of Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not abandoned property! But she repudiates, waits until she is of age, or repudiates and is married.

“ The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: It happened with the wife of the cameldriver Pison that the Sages repudiated for her in her absence. The House of Shammai said to them, is that a proof? Since he measured crookedly, the Sages measured crookedly for him.” This is difficult. Because a man behaves incorrectly, does one permit his incest prohibition? Rab Ḥisda said, that means that, if she transgresses and repudiated after marriage, the House of Shammai recognize her act of repudiation.

MISHNAH: If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From orphans’ property, or from encumbered property, in his absence she shall not be able to collect without an oath.

MISHNAH: If she had compromised her ketubah, how is that? If her ketubah was 1‘000 zuz and he said to her, you received your ketubah, but she says, I received only one mina, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, how is that? If her ketubah was 1‘000 zuz and he said to her, you received your ketubah, but she says, I received nothing, and one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From encumbered property, how is that? If he sold his real estate to others and she collects from the buyers, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From orphans’ property, how is that? If he died and left his estate to the orphans, if she is paid out by the orphans she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Not in his presence, how is that? If he went overseas and she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Rebbi Simeon says, any time she asks for her ketubah, the heirs can require an oath from her. If she does not ask for her ketubah, the heirs cannot require an oath from her.

HALAKHAH: “If she had compromised her ketubah, how is that? If her ketubah was l‘000 zuz,” etc. “If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.”

“If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah says, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain it that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.

“If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah says, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain it that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.

“A person who makes a vow ‘to forbid himself the people of the town,’ if another person came and dwelled there for thirty days, [the vower] is permitted to deal with him. ‘From the inhabitants of the town,’ if another person came and dwelled there for thirty days, [the vower] is prohibited from dealing with him.” ‘A qônām that the people of my town cannot have any usufruct from me,’ he cannot ask the local rabbi. ‘The usufruct of the people of my town [is forbidden] to me’, he can ask the local rabbi. Some Tannaïm state, even in the first case he can ask, for it does not mean that [the rabbi] would dissolve his own vow. A vow of the community cannot be dissolved. A vow made in public cannot be dissolved. “If somebody made a vow that another should not have usufruct from him, if the vow was made in the other’s presence, he can request the vow to be dissolved only in the other’s presence; if the vow was not made in the other’s presence, he can request the dissolution either in the other’s presence or in his absence.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of the shame; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because of the suspicion.

If his master forced him in one respect, did he force him in all respects? We came to the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose: “If [the slave] is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meїr says, he cannot drink, but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink.” Where do we hold? If he told him, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. If he told him, drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence, even Rebbi Yose will agree. But we hold in the case that he tells him: “drink!” Rebbi Meїr says, [it means] drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence. Rebbi Yose says, [it is] as if he said, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence.

If his master forced him in one respect, did he force him in all respects? We came to the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose: “If [the slave] is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meїr says, he cannot drink, but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink.” Where do we hold? If he told him, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. If he told him, drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence, even Rebbi Yose will agree. But we hold in the case that he tells him: “drink!” Rebbi Meїr says, [it means] drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence. Rebbi Yose says, [it is] as if he said, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence.

MISHNAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave,” if he wants to change his mind in either case he can retract, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, only for women’s bills of divorce but not for slaves’ documents of manumission because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence but put a detriment on him only in his presence; for if one chooses not to sustain his slave, he has the right not to do so, but not to sustain his wife he has no right. He said to them, but he disqualifies his slave for heave the same way he disqualifies his wife! They answered him, because he is his property. If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave” and dies, they shall not be delivered after his death; “give this mina to Mr. X” and dies, they shall deliver it after his death.

HALAKHAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife,” etc. Elsewhere you say that “give” means “bring”, but here you say that “give” means “acquire”! So is the Mishnah: “Acquire this bill of divorce for my wife; acquire this document of manumission for my slave.” The formulation of the Mishnah says so: “Because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence but put a detriment on a person only in his presence.” Rebbi Meïr says, it is a detriment for either of them, but the Sages say it is a benefit for the slave but a detriment for the wife. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Think of it, if he was the slave of a rich person, would it not be a detriment for the slave? The colleagues said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Think of it, if she was the wife of a man suffering from boils, would it not be a benefit for the woman? You have only the following: If one sells his slave without the latter’s knowledge, is the sale of the slave not valid? If one divorces his wife without her knowledge, is the divorce valid because she was acquired by him? Rebbi Abin said, he is his property but he disqualifies him for heave.

Yose from Maon interpreted in the synagogue of Tiberias: Listen to this, you priests, why do you not study Torah? Did I not give you 24 gifts? They told him, they do not give us anything. And hearken, House of Israel, why do you not give the 24 gifts which I commanded you at Sinai? They told him, the king takes everything. Listen, king’s court, for yours are legal proceedings, for you I did say, these are the priests’ legal rights; in the future I shall sit in judgment over you, to stop them and to eliminate them from the world. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He was afraid and fled. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish went to appease him. They told him, Rabbi, he is a great man. He asked them, would it be possible that he could answer any question which I would ask him? They told him, yes. He asked him: What is that which is written: For their mother whored? Was our mother Sarah a whore? He answered, like daughter like mother, like mother like daughter, like generation like the prince, like the prince like the generation, like the altar like its priests. Cahana used to say, like the garden like its gardener. He told them, not only did he curse me once in my absence, but he cursed me three times in my presence! He asked him, what is that which is written: Anybody wanting to formulate a simile about you will state as follows: like mother like daughter; was our mother Leah a prostitute since it is written, Dinah went out? He told him, for it is written, Leah went out towards him. One identifies going out with going out.

It was stated: “If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.

It was stated: “If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.

MISHNAH: If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. From encumbered property, or from orphans’ property, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath. Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath; “an oath that our father did not instruct us, our father did not tell us, and we found nothing in our father’s documents that this note of indebtedness was paid.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa testified that even if the son was born after the father’s death he swears and collects. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if there are witnesses that the father said on his death bed that this note of indebtedness was not paid, he collects without oath.

Here you say, “one does not swear on the claim of a deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor.” But there you say, “one swears for a minor and the Temple.” If one pays from the minor’s property. But can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain it that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.

If [his absence is because] he went to perform a religious duty, he will have light ; but if he went to attend to some secular business, he will have no light.

It is to be concluded that it was Rab who said above, "If they wish to arrange Zimmun, they may not" ; for Rab Dimai b. Joseph said in the name of Rab : If three ate together, and one of them went out into the street, they call to him [that they desire to include him for Zimmun, and should he consent, even in his absence] they may reckon him in for Zimmun. The reason [why they can have Zimmun without him is] that they called to him ; hence if they did not call to him, they are not [to have Zimmun].

Mishnah: 1. The order of these fasts, as given above, applies only to (a drought) during the first season, but if the sprouts show signs of decay, the alarm must be sounded at once. And if there was absence of rain for forty days between the first and second rainfall, the alarm is likewise sounded at once, because this is a calamity of drought.

If there was absence of rain for forty days between the first and second rainfall, the alarm is likewise sounded at once because this is a calamity of drought, etc. What is to be understood by a calamity of drought (מכת בצרת)? Said R. Judah in the name of Rab, a calamity that is the cause of scarcity. Said R. Naḥman, when provision has to be imported from one city to another by water,

Samuel was told that there was an epidemic among the people of Khuza. He ordered a public fast. The people objected, saying that the place was far off, whereupon Samuel said, "Do you think that the (absence of a) ferry will prevent the epidemic from spreading?"

And how do we know that he was not punished [for these fourteen years]? As it has been taught in a baraita: We find that Joseph was away from his father twenty-two years just as Jacob our father was away from his father. But Jacob’s absence was thirty-six years? It must be then that the fourteen years which he was in the House of Ever are not counted.