absolutely

I asked him again, and said, “Since the Lord has vouchsafed to dwell always with me, bear with me while I utter a few words; for I understand nothing, and my heart has been hardened by my previous mode of life. Give me understanding, for I am exceedingly dull, and I understand absolutely nothing.” And he answered and said unto me, “I am set over repentance, and I give understanding to all who repent. Do you not think,” he said, “that it is great wisdom to repent? for repentance is great wisdom. For he who has sinned understands that he acted wickedly in the sight of the Lord, and remembers the actions he has done, and he repents, and no longer acts wickedly, but does good munificently, and humbles and torments his soul because he has sinned. You see, therefore, that repentance is great wisdom.” And I said to him, “It is for this reason, sir, that I inquire carefully into all things, especially because I am a sinner; that I may know what works I should do, that I may live: for my sins are many and various.” And he said to me, “You shall live if you keep my commandments, and walk in them; and whosoever shall hear and keep these commandments, shall live to God.”

For, who of men at all understood before His coming what God is? Do you accept of the vain and silly doctrines of those who are deemed trustworthy philosophers? of whom some said that fire was God, calling that God to which they themselves were by and by to come; and some water; and others some other of the elements formed by God. But if any one of these theories be worthy of approbation, every one of the rest of created things might also be declared to be God. But such declarations are simply the startling and erroneous utterances of deceivers; and no man has either seen Him, or made Him known, but He has revealed Himself. And He has manifested Himself through faith, to which alone it is given to behold God. For God, the Lord and Fashioner of all things, who made all things, and assigned them their several positions, proved Himself not merely a friend of mankind, but also long-suffering [in His dealings with them]. Yea, he was always of such a character, and still is, and will ever be, kind and good, and free from wrath, and true, and the only one who is [absolutely] good; and He formed in His mind a great and unspeakable conception, which He communicated to His Son alone. As long, then, as He held and preserved His own wise counsel in concealment, he appeared to neglect us, and to have no care over us. But after He revealed and laid open, through His beloved Son, the things which had been prepared from the beginning, He conferred every blessing all at once upon us, so that we should both share in His benefits, and see and be active [in His service]. Who of us would ever have expected these things? He was aware, then, of all things in His own mind, along with His Son, according to the relation subsisting between them.

[…] Wherefore dost Thou refuse to answer me in this manner? Behold, it is two days since a token came to me, saying, 'Watch over thyself, permit none to rob thee,' for I keep this voice in my memory; but behold, Thou humblest me, and dost make a mock of me. I will not depart from Thee, but I will cleave unto Thee until thou makest Thyself manifest, and declarest Who Thou art. Now I am absolutely all-powerful in my might, and Thou wilt never be able to deceive me.

Mice defile and damage everything, not only for their own food but even to the extent of rendering absolutely useless to man whatever it falls in their way to damage.

For the temperate mind is able, as I said, to win the victory over the passions, modifying some, while crushing others absolutely.

Now all these had one and the same design of atheism, to blaspheme Almighty God, to spread their doctrine that He is an unknown being, and not the Father of Christ, nor the Creator of the world; but one who cannot be spoken of, ineffable, not to be named, and begotten by Himself; that we are not to make use of the law and the prophets; that there is no providence and no resurrection to be believed; that there is no judgment nor retribution; that the soul is not immortal; that we must only indulge our pleasures, and turn to any sort of worship without distinction. Some of them say that there are many gods, some that there are three gods without beginning, some that there are two unbegotten gods, some that there are innumerable Æons. Further, some of them teach that men are not to marry, and must abstain from flesh and wine, affirming that marriage, and the begetting of children, and the eating of certain foods, are abominable; that so, as sober persons, they may make their wicked opinions to be received as worthy of belief. And some of them absolutely prohibit the eating of flesh, as being the flesh not of brute animals, but of creatures that have a rational soul, as though those that ventured to slay them would be charged with the crime of murder. But others of them affirm that we must only abstain from swine's flesh, but may eat such as are clean by the law; and that we ought to be circumcised, according to the law, and to believe in Jesus as in an holy man and a prophet. But others teach that men ought to be impudent in uncleanness, and to abuse the flesh, and to go through all unholy practices, as if this were the only way for the soul to avoid the rulers of this world. Now all these are the instruments of the devil, and the children of wrath.

"O you illustrious young men! we have of our own at home, and great plenty of good things there, together with the natural, affectionate parents and friends; nor is it out of our want of any such things that we came to discourse with you; nor did we admit of your invitation with design to prostitute the beauty of our bodies for gain; but taking you for brave and worthy men, we agreed to your request, that we might treat you with such honors as hospitality required: and now seeing you say that you have a great affection for us, and are troubled when you think we are departing, we are not averse to your entreaties; and if we may receive such assurance of your good-will as we think can be alone sufficient, we will be glad to lead our lives with you as your wives; but we are afraid that you will in time be weary of our company, and will then abuse us, and send us back to our parents, after an ignominious manner." And they desired that they would excuse them in their guarding against that danger. But the young men professed they would give them any assurance they should desire; nor did they at all contradict what they requested, so great was the passion they had for them. "If then," said they, "this be your resolution, since you make use of such customs and conduct of life as are entirely different from all other men, insomuch that your kinds of food are peculiar to yourselves, and your kinds of drink not common to others, it will be absolutely necessary, if you would have us for your wives, that you do withal worship our gods. Nor can there be any other demonstration of the kindness which you say you already have, and promise to have hereafter to us, than this, that you worship the same gods that we do. For has any one reason to complain, that now you are come into this country, you should worship the proper gods of the same country? especially while our gods are common to all men, and yours such as belong to nobody else but yourselves." So they said they must either come into such methods of divine worship as all others came into, or else they must look out for another world, wherein they may live by themselves, according to their own laws.

There was a Levite a man of a vulgar family, that belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, and dwelt therein: this man married a wife from Bethlehem, which is a place belonging to the tribe of Judah. Now he was very fond of his wife, and overcome with her beauty; but he was unhappy in this, that he did not meet with the like return of affection from her, for she was averse to him, which did more inflame his passion for her, so that they quarreled one with another perpetually; and at last the woman was so disgusted at these quarrels, that she left her husband, and went to her parents in the fourth month. The husband being very uneasy at this her departure, and that out of his fondness for her, came to his father and mother-in-law, and made up their quarrels, and was reconciled to her, and lived with them there four days, as being kindly treated by her parents. On the fifth day he resolved to go home, and went away in the evening; for his wife's parents were loath to part with their daughter, and delayed the time till the day was gone. Now they had one servant that followed them, and an ass on which the woman rode; and when they were near Jerusalem, having gone already thirty furlongs, the servant advised them to take up their lodgings some where, lest some misfortune should befall them if they traveled in the night, especially since they were not far off enemies, that season often giving reason for suspicion of dangers from even such as are friends; but the husband was not pleased with this advice, nor was he willing to take up his lodging among strangers, for the city belonged to the Canaanites, but desired rather to go twenty furlongs farther, and so to take their lodgings in some Israelite city. Accordingly, he obtained his purpose, and came to Gibeah, a city of the tribe of Benjamin, when it was just dark; and while no one that lived in the market-place invited him to lodge with him, there came an old man out of the field, one that was indeed of the tribe of Ephraim, but resided in Gibeah, and met him, and asked him who he was, and for what reason he came thither so late, and why he was looking out for provisions for supper when it was dark? To which he replied, that he was a Levite, and was bringing his wife from her parents, and was going home; but he told him his habitation was in the tribe of Ephraim: so the old man, as well because of their kindred as because they lived in the same tribe, and also because they had thus accidentally met together, took him in to lodge with him. Now certain young men of the inhabitants of Gibeah, having seen the woman in the market-place, and admiring her beauty, when they understood that she lodged with the old man, came to the doors, as contemning the weakness and fewness of the old man's family; and when the old man desired them to go away, and not to offer any violence or abuse there, they desired him to yield them up the strange woman, and then he should have no harm done to him: and when the old man alleged that the Levite was of his kindred, and that they would be guilty of horrid wickedness if they suffered themselves to be overcome by their pleasures, and so offend against their laws, they despised his righteous admonition, and laughed him to scorn. They also threatened to kill him if he became an obstacle to their inclinations; whereupon, when he found himself in great distress, and yet was not willing to overlook his guests, and see them abused, he produced his own daughter to them; and told them that it was a smaller breach of the law to satisfy their lust upon her, than to abuse his guests, supposing that he himself should by this means prevent any injury to be done to those guests. When they no way abated of their earnestness for the strange woman, but insisted absolutely on their desires to have her, he entreated them not to perpetrate any such act of injustice; but they proceeded to take her away by force, and indulging still more the violence of their inclinations, they took the woman away to their house, and when they had satisfied their lust upon her the whole night, they let her go about daybreak. So she came to the place where she had been entertained, under great affliction at what had happened; and was very sorrowful upon occasion of what she had suffered, and durst not look her husband in the face for shame, for she concluded that he would never forgive her for what she had done; so she fell down, and gave up the ghost: but her husband supposed that his wife was only fast asleep, and, thinking nothing of a more melancholy nature had happened, endeavored to raise her up, resolving to speak comfortably to her, since she did not voluntarily expose herself to these men's lust, but was forced away to their house; but as soon as he perceived she was dead, he acted as prudently as the greatness of his misfortunes would admit, and laid his dead wife upon the beast, and carried her home; and cutting her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, he sent them to every tribe, and gave it in charge to those that carried them, to inform the tribes of those that were the causes of his wife's death, and of the violence they had offered to her.

"You are not unacquainted, my fellow soldiers, that we have had, not long since, many accidents that have put a stop to what we are about, and it is probable that even those that are most distinguished above others for their courage can hardly keep up their spirits in such circumstances; but since we cannot avoid fighting, and nothing that hath happened is of such a nature but it may by ourselves be recovered into a good state, and this by one brave action only well performed, I have proposed to myself both to give you some encouragement, and, at the same time, some information; both which parts of my design will tend to this point; that you may still continue in your own proper fortitude. I will then, in the first place, demonstrate to you that this war is a just one on our side, and that on this account it is a war of necessity, and occasioned by the injustice of our adversaries; for if you be once satisfied of this, it will be a real cause of alacrity to you; after which I will further demonstrate, that the misfortunes we are under are of no great consequence, and that we have the greatest reason to hope for victory. I shall begin with the first, and appeal to yourselves as witnesses to what I shall say. You are not ignorant certainly of the wickedness of the Arabians, which is to that degree as to appear incredible to all other men, and to include somewhat that shows the grossest barbarity and ignorance of God. The chief things wherein they have affronted us have arisen from covetousness and envy; and they have attacked us in an insidious manner, and on the sudden. And what occasion is there for me to mention many instances of such their procedure? When they were in danger of losing their own government of themselves, and of being slaves to Cleopatra, what others were they that freed them from that fear? for it was the friendship I had with Antony, and the kind disposition he was in towards us, that hath been the occasion that even these Arabians have not been utterly undone, Antony being unwilling to undertake any thing which might be suspected by us of unkindness: but when he had a mind to bestow some parts of each of our dominions on Cleopatra, I also managed that matter so, that by giving him presents of my own, I might obtain a security to both nations, while I undertook myself to answer for the money, and gave him two hundred talents, and became surety for those two hundred more which were imposed upon the land that was subject to this tribute; and this they have defrauded us of, although it was not reasonable that Jews should pay tribute to any man living, or allow part of their land to be taxable; but although that was to be, yet ought we not to pay tribute for these Arabians, whom we have ourselves preserved; nor is it fit that they, who have professed [and that with great integrity and sense of our kindness] that it is by our means that they keep their principality, should injure us, and deprive us of what is our due, and this while we have been still not their enemies, but their friends. And whereas observation of covenants takes place among the bitterest enemies, but among friends is absolutely necessary, this is not observed among these men, who think gain to be the best of all things, let it be by any means whatsoever, and that injustice is no harm, if they may but get money by it: is it therefore a question with you, whether the unjust are to be punished or not? when God himself hath declared his mind that so it ought to be, and hath commanded that we ever should hate injuries and injustice, which is not only just, but necessary, in wars between several nations; for these Arabians have done what both the Greeks and barbarians own to be an instance of the grossest wickedness, with regard to our ambassadors, which they have beheaded, while the Greeks declare that such ambassadors are sacred and inviolable. And for ourselves, we have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our law, by angels or ambassadors; for this name brings God to the knowledge of mankind, and is sufficient to reconcile enemies one to another. What wickedness then can be greater than the slaughter of ambassadors, who come to treat about doing what is right? And when such have been their actions, how is it possible they can either live securely in common life, or be successful in war? In my opinion, this is impossible; but perhaps some will say, that what is holy, and what is righteous, is indeed on our side, but that the Arabians are either more courageous or more numerous than we are. Now, as to this, in the first place, it is not fit for us to say so, for with whom is what is righteous, with them is God himself; now where God is, there is both multitude and courage. But to examine our own circumstances a little, we were conquerors in the first battle; and when we fought again, they were not able to oppose us, but ran away, and could not endure our attacks or our courage; but when we had conquered them, then came Athenion, and made war against us without declaring it; and pray, is this an instance of their manhood? or is it not a second instance of their wickedness and treachery? Why are we therefore of less courage, on account of that which ought to inspire us with stronger hopes? and why are we terrified at these, who, when they fight upon the level, are continually beaten, and when they seem to be conquerors, they gain it by wickedness? and if we suppose that any one should deem them to be men of real courage, will not he be excited by that very consideration to do his utmost against them? for true valor is not shown by fighting against weak persons, but in being able to overcome the most hardy. But then if the distresses we are ourselves under, and the miseries that have come by the earthquake, hath affrighted any one, let him consider, in the first place, that this very thing will deceive the Arabians, by their supposal that what hath befallen us is greater than it really is. Moreover, it is not right that the same thing that emboldens them should discourage us; for these men, you see, do not derive their alacrity from any advantageous virtue of their own, but from their hope, as to us, that we are quite cast down by our misfortunes; but when we boldly march against them, we shall soon pull down their insolent conceit of themselves, and shall gain this by attacking them, that they will not be so insolent when we come to the battle; for our distresses are not so great, nor is what hath happened all indication of the anger of God against us, as some imagine; for such things are accidental, and adversities that come in the usual course of things; and if we allow that this was done by the will of God, we must allow that it is now over by his will also, and that he is satisfied with what hath already happened; for had he been willing to afflict us still more thereby, he had not changed his mind so soon. And as for the war we are engaged in, he hath himself demonstrated that he is willing it should go on, and that he knows it to be a just war; for while some of the people in the country have perished, all you who were in arms have suffered nothing, but are all preserved alive; whereby God makes it plain to us, that if you had universally, with your children and wives, been in the army, it had come to pass that you had not undergone any thing that would have much hurt you. Consider these things, and, what is more than all the rest, that you have God at all times for your Protector; and prosecute these men with a just bravery, who, in point of friendship, are unjust, in their battles perfidious, towards ambassadors impious, and always inferior to you in valor."

But when I was come near Sogane, I caused the multitude to make a halt, and exhorted them not to be so easily provoked to anger, and to the inflicting such punishments as could not be afterwards recalled: I also gave order, that a hundred men, who were already in years, and were principal men among them, should get themselves ready to go to the city of Jerusalem, and should make a complaint before the people of such as raised seditions in the country. And I said to them, that "in case they be moved with what you say, you shall desire the community to write to me, and to enjoin me to continue in Galilee, and to order Jonathan and his colleagues to depart out of it." When I had suggested these instructions to them, and while they were getting themselves ready as fast as they could, I sent them on this errand the third day after they had been assembled: I also sent five hundred armed men with them [as a guard]. I then wrote to my friends in Samaria, to take care that they might safely pass through the country: for Samaria was already under the Romans, and it was absolutely necessary for those that go quickly [to Jerusalem] to pass through that country; for in that road you may, in three days' time, go from Galilee to Jerusalem. I also went myself, and conducted the old men as far as the bounds of Galilee, and set guards in the roads, that it might not be easily known by any one that these men were gone. And when I had thus done, I went and abode at Japha.

For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essens. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. These Essens reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.

Now Vespasian was very desirous of demolishing Jotapata, for he had gotten intelligence that the greatest part of the enemy had retired thither, and that it was, on other accounts, a place of great security to them. Accordingly, he sent both foot-men and horsemen to level the road, which was mountainous and rocky, not without difficulty to be traveled over by footmen, but absolutely impracticable for horsemen. Now these workmen accomplished what they were about in four days' time, and opened a broad way for the army. On the fifth day, which was the twenty-first of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] Josephus prevented him, and came from Tiberias, and went into Jotapata, and raised the drooping spirits of the Jews. And a certain deserter told this good news to Vespasian, that Josephus had removed himself thither, which made him make haste to the city, as supposing that with taking that he should take all Judea, in case he could but withal get Josephus under his power. So he took this news to be of the vastest advantage to him, and believed it to be brought about by the providence of God, that he who appeared to be the most prudent man of all their enemies, had, of his own accord, shut himself up in a place of sure custody. Accordingly, he sent Placidus with a thousand horsemen, and Ebutius a decurion, a person that was of eminency both in council and in action, to encompass the city round, that Josephus might not escape away privately.

But when Vespasian had overthrown all the places that were near to Jerusalem, he returned to Cesarea, and heard of the troubles that were at Rome, and that Vitellius was emperor. This produced indignation in him, although he well knew how to be governed as well as to govern, and could not, with any satisfaction, own him for his lord who acted so madly, and seized upon the government as if it were absolutely destitute of a governor. And as this sorrow of his was violent, he was not able to support the torments he was under, nor to apply himself further in other wars, when his native country was laid waste; but then, as much as his passion excited him to avenge his country, so much was he restrained by the consideration of his distance therefrom; because fortune might prevent him, and do a world of mischief before he could himself sail over the sea to Italy, especially as it was still the winter season; so he restrained his anger, how vehement soever it was at this time.

And justly have the wisest men thought these notions deserved severe rebukes; they also laugh at them for determining that we ought to believe some of the gods to be beardless and young, and others of them to be old, and to have beards accordingly; that some are set to trades; that one god is a smith, and another goddess is a weaver; that one god is a warrior, and fights with men; that some of them are harpers, or delight in archery; and besides, that mutual seditions arise among them, and that they quarrel about men, and this so far, that they not only lay hands upon one another, but that they are wounded by men, and lament, and take on for such their afflictions. But what is the grossest of all in point of lasciviousness, are those unbounded lusts ascribed to almost all of them, and their amours; which how can it be other than a most absurd supposal, especially when it reaches to the male gods, and to the female goddesses also? Moreover, the chief of all their gods, and their first father himself, overlooks those goddesses whom he hath deluded and begotten with child, and suffers them to be kept in prison, or drowned in the sea. He is also so bound up by fate, that he cannot save his own offspring, nor can he bear their deaths without shedding of tears. These are fine things indeed! as are the rest that follow. Adulteries truly are so impudently looked on in heaven by the gods, that some of them have confessed they envied those that were found in the very act. And why should they not do so, when the eldest of them, who is their king also, hath not been able to restrain himself in the violence of his lust, from lying with his wife, so long as they might get into their bedchamber? Now some of the gods are servants to men, and will sometimes be builders for a reward, and sometimes will be shepherds; while others of them, like malefactors, are bound in a prison of brass. And what sober person is there who would not be provoked at such stories, and rebuke those that forged them, and condemn the great silliness of those that admit them for true? Nay, others there are that have advanced a certain timorousness and fear, as also madness and fraud, and any other of the vilest passions, into the nature and form of gods, and have persuaded whole cities to offer sacrifices to the better sort of them; on which account they have been absolutely forced to esteem some gods as the givers of good things, and to call others of them averters of evil. They also endeavor to move them, as they would the vilest of men, by gifts and presents, as looking for nothing else than to receive some great mischief from them, unless they pay them such wages.

Some indeed of our predecessors have observed, that in the New Testament, whenever the Spirit is named without that adjunct which denotes quality, the Holy Spirit is to be understood; as e.g. in the expression, “Now the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace;” and, “Seeing ye began in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?” We are of opinion that this distinction may be observed in the Old Testament also, as when it is said, “He that giveth His Spirit to the people who are upon the earth, and Spirit to them who walk thereon.” For, without doubt, every one who walks upon the earth (i.e. earthly and corporeal beings) is a partaker also of the Holy Spirit, receiving it from God. My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts,” were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, “In the midst either of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,” ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father is obtained by revelation of the Son through the Holy Spirit, so that both of these beings which, according to the prophet, are called either “living things” or “lives,” exist as the ground of the knowledge of God the Father. For as it is said of the Son, that “no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him,” the same also is said by the apostle of the Holy Spirit, when he declares, “God hath revealed them to us by His Holy Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God;” and again in the Gospel, when the Saviour, speaking of the divine and profounder parts of His teaching, which His disciples were not yet able to receive, thus addresses them: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; but when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is come, He will teach you all things, and will bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will: “For the Spirit bloweth where He listeth.” We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the Son’s revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. For even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e. along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as “always” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.

In the following way, also, we may conclude that they who came out of Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians; for if they had been Egyptians, their names also would be Egyptian, because in every language the designations [of persons and things] are kindred to the language. But if it is certain, from the names being Hebrew, that the people were not Egyptians,—and the Scriptures are full of Hebrew names, and these bestowed, too, upon their children while they were in Egypt,—it is clear that the Egyptian account is false, which asserts that they were Egyptians, and went forth from Egypt with Moses. Now it is absolutely certain that, being descended, as the Mosaic history records, from Hebrew ancestors, they employed a language from which they also took the names which they conferred upon their children. But with regard to the Christians, because they were taught not to avenge themselves upon their enemies (and have thus observed laws of a mild and philanthropic character); and because they would not, although able, have made war even if they had received authority to do so,—they have obtained this reward from God, that He has always warred in their behalf, and on certain occasions has restrained those who rose up against them and desired to destroy them. For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity,—God not permitting the whole nation to be exterminated, but desiring that it should continue, and that the whole world should be filled with this salutary and religious doctrine. And again, on the other hand, that those who were of weaker minds might recover their courage and rise superior to the thought of death, God interposed His providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His will alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings, nor rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond a certain point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus, “that a revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state, and subsequently of Christianity.”

But since he says, in addition to this, “What is this preference of sinners over others?” and makes other remarks of a similar nature, we have to reply that absolutely a sinner is not preferred before one who is not a sinner; but that sometimes a sinner, who has become conscious of his own sin, and for that reason comes to repentance, being humbled on account of his sins, is preferred before one who is accounted a lesser sinner, but who does not consider himself one, but exalts himself on the ground of certain good qualities which he thinks he possesses, and is greatly elated on their account. And this is manifest to those who are willing to peruse the Gospels in a spirit of fairness, by the parable of the publican, who said, “Be merciful to me a sinner,” and of the Pharisee who boasted with a certain wicked self-conceit in the words, “I thank Thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” For Jesus subjoins to His narrative of them both the words: “This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither are we guilty of falsehood, when we teach that every man, whoever he may be, is conscious of human infirmity in comparison with the greatness of God, and that we must ever ask from Him, who alone is able to supply our deficiencies, what is wanting to our [mortal] nature.

But if in these matters any one were to imagine that it is superstition rather than wickedness which appears in the multitude of those who believe the word, and should charge our doctrine with making men superstitious, we shall answer him by saying that, as a certain legislator replied to the question of one who asked him whether he had enacted for his citizens the best laws, that he had not given them absolutely the best, but the best which they were capable of receiving; so it might be said by the Father of the Christian doctrine, I have given the best laws and instruction for the improvement of morals of which the many were capable, not threatening sinners with imaginary labours and chastisements, but with such as are real, and necessary to be applied for the correction of those who offer resistance, although they do not at all understand the object of him who inflicts the punishment, nor the effect of the labours. For the doctrine of punishment is both attended with utility, and is agreeable to truth, and is stated in obscure terms with advantage. Moreover, as for the most part it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of Christianity gain over, neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him both what is true, and what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so clear to them as it is to those few who investigate the truths of the gospel in a philosophical manner.

I conjure ye, and I command ye absolutely, O Demons, in whatsoever part of the Universe ye may be, by the virtue of all these Holy names:— ADONAI, YAH, HOA, EL, ELOHA, ELOHINU, ELOHIM, EHEIEH, MARON, KAPHU, ESCH, INNON, AVEN, AGLA, HAZOR, EMETH, YAII, ARARITHA, YOVA, HA-KABIR, MESSIACH, IONAH, MAL-KA, EREL, KUZU, MATZPATZ, EL SHADDAI; and by all the Holy names of God which have been written with blood in the sign of an eternal alliance.

ADDRESS. Here be the symbols of secret things, the standards, the ensigns, and the banners, of God the conqueror; and the arms of the almighty One, to compel the aerial potencies. I command ye absolutely by their power and virtue that ye come near unto us, into our presence, from whatsoever part of the world ye may be in, and that ye delay not to obey us in all things wherein we shall command ye by the virtue of God the mighty One. Come ye promptly, and delay not to appear, and answer us with humility. If they appear at this time, show them the pentacles, and receive them with kindness, gentleness, and courtesy; reason and speak with them, question them, and ask from them all things which thou hast proposed to demand.

It is necessary to have a chamber or cabinet specially set apart and newly cleaned, wherein thou canst remain without interruption, the which having entered with thy companions, thou shalt incense and perfume it with the odours and perfumes of the art. The sky should be clear and serene. It is necessary that thou shouldest have one or more pieces of virgin paper prepared and arranged ready, as we shall tell you more fully later on, in its place. Thou shalt commence the writing or construction of the pentacles in the hour aforesaid. Among other things, thou shalt chiefly use these colours: Gold, cinnabar or vermilion red, and celestial or brilliant azure blue. Furthermore, thou shalt make these medals or pentacles with exorcised pen and colours, as we shall hereafter show thee. Whensoever thou constructest them, if thou canst complete them in the hour wherein thou didst begin them, it is better. However, if it be absolutely necessary to interrupt the work, thou shouldest await the proper day and hour before re-commencing it.

When the master of the art wisheth to put in practice any operation or experiment, especially one of importance, he should first consider of what companions he should avail himself. This is the reason why in every operation whose experience should be carried out in the circle, it is well to have three companions. And if he cannot have Companions, he should at least have with him a faithful and attached dog. But if it be absolutely necessary for him to have companions, these companions should be obligated and bound by oath to do all that the master shall order or prescribe them, and they should study, observe, and carefully retain, and be attentive unto all which they shall hear. For those who shall act otherwise shall suffer and endure many pains and labors, and run into many dangers, which the spirits will cause and procure for them, and for this cause sometimes they shall even die.

When the master of the art shall wish to perform his operations, having previously arranged all things which it is necessary to observe and practise; from the first day of the experiment, it is absolutely necessary to ordain and to prescribe care and observation, to abstain from all things unlawful, and from every kind of impiety, impurity, wickedness, or immodesty, as well of body as of soul; as, for example, eating and drinking superabundantly, and all sorts of vain words, buffooneries, slanders, calumnies, and other useless discourse; but instead to do good deeds, speak honestly, keep a strict decency in all things, never lose sight of modesty in walking, in conversation, in eating and drinking, and in all things; the which should be principally done and observed for nine days, before the commencement of the operation. The disciples should do the same, and should equally put in practice all things necessary to be observed, if they wish to make use of all these operations and experiments.

But before the commencement of the work, it is absolutely necessary that the master with his disciples repeat the following conjuration once in the morning, and twice in the evening:—

Asmoday. —The Thirty-second Spirit is Asmoday, or Asmodai. He is a Great King, Strong, and Powerful. He appeareth with Three Heads, whereof the first is like a Bull, the second like a Man, and the third like a Ram; he hath also the tail of a Serpent, and from his mouth issue Flames of Fire. His Feet are webbed like those of a Goose. He sitteth upon an Infernal Dragon, and beareth in his hand a Lance with a Banner. He is first and choicest under the Power of Amaymon, he goeth before all other. When the Exorcist hath a mind to call him, let it be abroad, and let him stand on his feet all the time of action, with his Cap or Head-dress off; for if it be on, Amaymon will deceive him and call all his actions to be bewrayed. But as soon as the Exorcist seeth Asmoday in the shape aforesaid, he shall call him by his Name, saying: “Art thou Asmoday?” and he will not deny it, and by-and-by he will bow down unto the ground. He giveth the Ring of Virtues; he teacheth the Arts of Arithmetic, Astronomy, Geometry, and all handicrafts absolutely. He giveth true and full answers unto thy demands. He maketh one Invincible. He showeth the place where Treasures lie, and guardeth it. He, amongst the Legions of Amaymon governeth 72 Legions of Spirits Inferior. His Seal is this which thou must wear as a Lamen upon thy breast, etc.

“And in the ‘Book of Concealed Mystery’ (have we learned) that on account of the former benignity of the Ancient of Days is he called ‘Abundant in Benignity.’ But in Microprosopus (the word) ‘mercy’ is placed alone and absolutely.

“And now we have taught concerning this Name, ‘And abundant in benignity,’ because therefrom is mitigated the (interior) benignity, so that it may shine into all the lights (otherwise, this Name, ‘Abundant in mercy,’ stretcheth down even unto the ‘mercy’ which is so called absolutely, so that it may illuminate it, and kindle the lights).

These are the twelve who were rejected from among the seventy, as Judas Iscariot was from among the twelve, because they absolutely denied our Lord’s divinity at the instigation of Cerinthus. Of these Luke said, ‘ They went out from us, but they were not of and Paul called them ‘ false apostles and deceitful workers n.’ Simon; Levi; Bar-Kubba; Cleon; Hymenaeus; Candarus; Clithon (?); Demas; Narcissus; Slikis-pus (?); Thaddaeus; Marutha. In their stead there came in these: Luke the physician; Apollos the elect; Ampelius; Urbanus; Stachys; Popillius (or Publius); Aristobulus; Stephen (not the Corinthian); Herodion the son of Narcissus; Olympas; Mark the Evangelist; Addai; Aggai; Mar Mari.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

Rebbi Abbahu said: There are Samaritan places permitted since the days of Joshua bin Nun and they remain permitted. Rebbi Yose inquired: If that is so, Cohanim should not worry about their ḥallah. But we see that rabbis worry! Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, it is not because of what you said, but because it never was absolutely under government control.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said,” etc. “Rebbi Eliezer said, since a woman on whom I had no claim before she entered into my domain, becomes absolutely mine after she entered my domain, is it not logical that a woman on whom I had some claim before she entered my domain, shall become absolutely mine when she enters my domain? Rebbi Aqiba told him, no. If you speak about a woman on whom you had no claim before she entered into your domain, but after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, then just as you had no part in her so no other man had any part in her. What can you conclude about a woman on whom you had some claim before she entered your domain, and after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, but just as you had some rights to her so others had the same rights to her! Rebbi Joshua told him, Aqiba, your argument holds for two levirs. What do you respond in the case of a single levir? He said to him, just as you make no difference in the rules of one waiting for one levir or for two levirs, whether he ‘bespoke’ her or did not ‘bespeak’ her, can it not be the same for vows and oaths? He said to him, that is true. He said to him, if you had lived in the times of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, he would have said that ‘bespeaking’ does not acquire completely since he would agree that he cannot dissolve until she enters his domain.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said,” etc. “Rebbi Eliezer said, since a woman on whom I had no claim before she entered into my domain, becomes absolutely mine after she entered my domain, is it not logical that a woman on whom I had some claim before she entered my domain, shall become absolutely mine when she enters my domain? Rebbi Aqiba told him, no. If you speak about a woman on whom you had no claim before she entered into your domain, but after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, then just as you had no part in her so no other man had any part in her. What can you conclude about a woman on whom you had some claim before she entered your domain, and after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, but just as you had some rights to her so others had the same rights to her! Rebbi Joshua told him, Aqiba, your argument holds for two levirs. What do you respond in the case of a single levir? He said to him, just as you make no difference in the rules of one waiting for one levir or for two levirs, whether he ‘bespoke’ her or did not ‘bespeak’ her, can it not be the same for vows and oaths? He said to him, that is true. He said to him, if you had lived in the times of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, he would have said that ‘bespeaking’ does not acquire completely since he would agree that he cannot dissolve until she enters his domain.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said,” etc. “Rebbi Eliezer said, since a woman on whom I had no claim before she entered into my domain, becomes absolutely mine after she entered my domain, is it not logical that a woman on whom I had some claim before she entered my domain, shall become absolutely mine when she enters my domain? Rebbi Aqiba told him, no. If you speak about a woman on whom you had no claim before she entered into your domain, but after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, then just as you had no part in her so no other man had any part in her. What can you conclude about a woman on whom you had some claim before she entered your domain, and after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, but just as you had some rights to her so others had the same rights to her! Rebbi Joshua told him, Aqiba, your argument holds for two levirs. What do you respond in the case of a single levir? He said to him, just as you make no difference in the rules of one waiting for one levir or for two levirs, whether he ‘bespoke’ her or did not ‘bespeak’ her, can it not be the same for vows and oaths? He said to him, that is true. He said to him, if you had lived in the times of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, he would have said that ‘bespeaking’ does not acquire completely since he would agree that he cannot dissolve until she enters his domain.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said,” etc. “Rebbi Eliezer said, since a woman on whom I had no claim before she entered into my domain, becomes absolutely mine after she entered my domain, is it not logical that a woman on whom I had some claim before she entered my domain, shall become absolutely mine when she enters my domain? Rebbi Aqiba told him, no. If you speak about a woman on whom you had no claim before she entered into your domain, but after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, then just as you had no part in her so no other man had any part in her. What can you conclude about a woman on whom you had some claim before she entered your domain, and after she entered your domain she became absolutely yours, but just as you had some rights to her so others had the same rights to her! Rebbi Joshua told him, Aqiba, your argument holds for two levirs. What do you respond in the case of a single levir? He said to him, just as you make no difference in the rules of one waiting for one levir or for two levirs, whether he ‘bespoke’ her or did not ‘bespeak’ her, can it not be the same for vows and oaths? He said to him, that is true. He said to him, if you had lived in the times of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, he would have said that ‘bespeaking’ does not acquire completely since he would agree that he cannot dissolve until she enters his domain.

The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meїr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meїr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: “There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Jehudah. When was this said? About war killings before the war. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply.” But are those killed before the war not like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial.

“From today and after 30 days.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even preliminary marriages of a hundred men apply to her. Rebbi Eleazar said, it was necessary [to state], even if the second preliminarily married her absolutely. Rebbi Isaac bar Tebele asked before Rebbi Eleazar: As you take it; what the first acquired, he acquired; the remainder the second finished. He answered, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? How is that? To any woman who is not acquired by one man only, even preliminary marriages of a hundred men apply.

A student asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he gave it to her in the morning on condition that he divorce her in the afternoon? A certain David was of the opinion that anything acquires; Rebbi Ze‘ira said that after thirty days he acquires absolutely. But if the second one added absolute acquisition, I am reading for her: “Her first husband who had sent her away cannot return to take her back.”

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.

It is written: Elisha came to Damascus when Ben-Hadad the king of Aram was sick. What did he come to do there? He went to bring back Geḥazi but found him absolutely impure. From here that one should push away with one’s left hand but bring back close with one’s right. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the stranger should not stay outside overnight; my doors I opened for the guest. From here that one should push away with one’s left hand but bring back close with one’s right. Not as Elisha did who pushed Geḥazi away with both hands. Elisha was sick with two sicknesses. One in the ways of the world, and one because he pushed Geḥazi away.

The haughtiness of Jeroboam damned him absolutely. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, Jeroboam became king at the end of a Sabbatical year. This refers to what is written, at the end of seven years, at the time of the Sabbatical year, on the festival of Tabernacles, when all of Israel comes to appear before the Eternal, your God, at the place which He shall choose, you shall read this Torah in the presence of all of Israel to their ears. He said, if I am asked to read, I have to stand. They will say, the local king has precedence. But if I am reading as second, it is a shame for me. If I do not read, it is a disgrace for me. And if I let them go, they will ascend and desert me. They will go to Rehabeam, Solomon’s son. This is what is written: If this people would go up to sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem will this people’s heart return to their master, to Rehabeam. What did he do? He made two golden calves and wrote on their hearts, “they will kill you.” He said, any king who will succeed me will look at them. Rebbi Ḥuna said, companions of ingenious conjurations. Anybody who joined with him he will make a coconspirator. Rebbi Ḥuna said, a slaughtering place deepened by seducers, for he deepened in crime. He said, anybody, I shall kill anybody who makes this public.

Bar He He said to Hillel, What is that which is written, "Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not" (Mal. iii. 18)? The righteous and he that serveth God are identical terms, the wicked and he that serveth Him not are identical terms. He said to him, He that serveth Him and he that serveth Him not are both absolutely righteous, but he that repeateth his portion a hundred times is not like him that repeateth his portion a hundred and one times. He said to him, Then by reason of one time is he called "him that serveth Him not"? He said to him, Yes, go and learn from the mule-drivers' market how they say, Ten parasangs for a zouza, but eleven parasangs for two zouzas.

They made him as one unclean through touching a dead animal. But regard it thus. Such an unclean thing will not make a man unclean by touching him. Perhaps it will not, you will say. But then to what purpose is the Baraitha, viz., He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Or was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man? If so, this would require the purifications of the third and seventh days. To what purpose is the Baraitha, He that cuts it and dips it, needs dipping? Dipping, yes; but the purifications of the third and seventh days, no. But was it that they made him as one who is unclean by touching a dead man on his seventh day? But lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., They absolutely refrain from making any new ordinance in the case of the heifer. But Abai said, They do not say that a spade makes unclean when used as a seat, according to the teaching, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel" (Lev. xv. 6). I might have thought, If he were to turn a two gallon measure upside down, and sit upon it, or a peck measure, and sit upon it, he would be unclean. But no; I should have been wrong, for the teaching says, "And he that sitteth upon the vessel, upon which there sitteth—" (ibid.), shall be unclean. But it must mean, that which is intended for sitting, and the other is excepted, for if he sit upon it, he will be told, Stand up and let us do our work.