actual

And this one who wrote the book carried it up, and showed it and read it before the Lord of the sheep, and implored Him on their account, and besought Him on their account as he showed Him all the doings of the shepherds, and gave testimony before Him against all the shepherds. And he took the actual book and laid it down beside Him and departed.

All the four feet were made in the same style, and everything was wrought and fitted so skilfully, and such remarkable skill and knowledge were expended upon making it true to nature, that when the air was stirred by a breath of wind, movement was imparted to the leaves, and everything was fashioned to correspond with the actual reality which it represented.

Was, actual Word, begotten by his Father,

And Azaryas rose up straightway, and woke up the three men his brethren, and they took the pieces of wood, and went into the house of God--now they found all the doors open, both those that were outside and those that were inside--to the actual place where Azaryas found Zion, the Tabernacle of the Law of God; and it was taken away by them forthwith, in the twinkling of an eye, the Angel of the Lord being present and directing.

To which Joseph replied:—"This dream," said he, "O king, although seen under two forms, signifies one and the same event of things; for when thou sawest the fat kine, which is an animal made for the plough and for labor, devoured by the worser kine, and the ears of corn eaten up by the smaller ears, they foretell a famine, and want of the fruits of the earth for the same number of years, and equal with those when Egypt was in a happy state; and this so far, that the plenty of these years will be spent in the same number of years of scarcity, and that scarcity of necessary provisions will be very difficult to be corrected; as a sign whereof, the ill-favored kine, when they had devoured the better sort, could not be satisfied. But still God foreshows what is to come upon men, not to grieve them, but that, when they know it beforehand, they may by prudence make the actual experience of what is foretold the more tolerable. If thou, therefore, carefully dispose of the plentiful crops which will come in the former years, thou wilt procure that the future calamity will not be felt by the Egyptians."

But now, when the vessels were gotten ready, Vespasian put upon ship-board as many of his forces as he thought sufficient to be too hard for those that were upon the lake, and set sail after them. Now these which were driven into the lake could neither fly to the land, where all was in their enemies' hand, and in war against them; nor could they fight upon the level by sea, for their ships were small and fitted only for piracy; they were too weak to fight with Vespasian's vessels, and the mariners that were in them were so few, that they were afraid to come near the Romans, who attacked them in great numbers. However, as they sailed round about the vessels, and sometimes as they came near them, they threw stones at the Romans when they were a good way off, or came closer and fought them; yet did they receive the greatest harm themselves in both cases. As for the stones they threw at the Romans, they only made a sound one after another, for they threw them against such as were in their armor, while the Roman darts could reach the Jews themselves; and when they ventured to come near the Romans, they became sufferers themselves before they could do any harm to the ether, and were drowned, they and their ships together. As for those that endeavored to come to an actual fight, the Romans ran many of them through with their long poles. Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands; and indeed they were destroyed after various manners every where, till the rest being put to flight, were forced to get upon the land, while the vessels encompassed them about [on the sea]: but as many of these were repulsed when they were getting ashore, they were killed by the darts upon the lake; and the Romans leaped out of their vessels, and destroyed a great many more upon the land: one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped. And a terrible stink, and a very sad sight there was on the following days over that country; for as for the shores, they were full of shipwrecks, and of dead bodies all swelled; and as the dead bodies were inflamed by the sun, and putrefied, they corrupted the air, insomuch that the misery was not only the object of commiseration to the Jews, but to those that hated them, and had been the authors of that misery. This was the upshot of the sea-fight. The number of the slain, including those that were killed in the city before, was six thousand and five hundred.

But if these views should not appear to fill the minds of those who hope for such results with a becoming desire, let us go back a little, and, irrespective of the natural and innate longing of the mind for the thing itself, let us make inquiry so that we may be able at last to describe, as it were, the very forms of the bread of life, and the quality of that wine, and the peculiar nature of the principalities, all in conformity with the spiritual view of things. Now, as in those arts which are usually performed by means of manual labour, the reason why a thing is done, or why it is of a special quality, or for a special purpose, is an object of investigation to the mind, while the actual work itself is unfolded to view by the agency of the hands; so, in those works of God which were created by Him, it is to be observed that the reason and understanding of those things which we see done by Him remains undisclosed. And as, when our eye beholds the products of an artist’s labour, the mind, immediately on perceiving anything of unusual artistic excellence, burns to know of what nature it is, or how it was formed, or to what purposes it was fashioned; so, in a much greater degree, and in one that is beyond all comparison, does the mind burn with an inexpressible desire to know the reason of those things which we see done by God. This desire, this longing, we believe to be unquestionably implanted within us by God; and as the eye naturally seeks the light and vision, and our body naturally desires food and drink, so our mind is possessed with a becoming and natural desire to become acquainted with the truth of God and the causes of things. Now we have received this desire from God, not in order that it should never be gratified or be capable of gratification; otherwise the love of truth would appear to have been implanted by God into our minds to no purpose, if it were never to have an opportunity of satisfaction. Whence also, even in this life, those who devote themselves with great labour to the pursuits of piety and religion, although obtaining only some small fragments from the numerous and immense treasures of divine knowledge, yet, by the very circumstance that their mind and soul is engaged in these pursuits, and that in the eagerness of their desire they outstrip themselves, do they derive much advantage; and, because their minds are directed to the study and love of the investigation of truth, are they made fitter for receiving the instruction that is to come; as if, when one would paint an image, he were first with a light pencil to trace out the outlines of the coming picture, and prepare marks for the reception of the features that are to be afterwards added, this preliminary sketch in outline is found to prepare the way for the laying on of the true colours of the painting; so, in a measure, an outline and sketch may be traced on the tablets of our heart by the pencil of our Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore perhaps is it said, “Unto every one that hath shall be given, and be added.” By which it is established, that to those who possess in this life a kind of outline of truth and knowledge, shall be added the beauty of a perfect image in the future.

And if we go to the Gospel and institute a similar examination, what would be more irrational than [to take literally the injunction], “Salute no man by the way,” which simple persons think the Saviour enjoined on the apostles? The command, moreover, that the right cheek should be smitten, is most incredible, since every one who strikes, unless he happen to have some bodily defect, smites the left cheek with his right hand. And it is impossible to take [literally, the statement] in the Gospel about the “offending” of the right eye. For, to grant the possibility of one being “offended” by the sense of sight, how, when there are two eyes that see, should the blame be laid upon the right eye? And who is there that, condemning himself for having looked upon a woman to lust after her, would rationally transfer the blame to the right eye alone, and throw it away? The apostle, moreover, lays down the law, saying, “Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised.” In the first place, any one will see that he does not utter these words in connection with the subject before him. For, when laying down precepts on marriage and purity, how will it not appear that he has introduced these words at random? But, in the second place, who will say that a man does wrong who endeavours to become uncircumcised, if that be possible, on account of the disgrace that is considered by the multitude to attach to circumcision? All these statements have been made by us, in order to show that the design of that divine power which gave us the sacred Scriptures is, that we should not receive what is presented by the letter alone (such things being sometimes not true in their literal acceptation, but absurd and impossible), but that certain things have been introduced into the actual history and into the legislation that are useful in their literal sense.

Celsus, however, seeing he wished to prove by the foregoing statements that the irrational animals are more divine and intelligent than human beings, ought to have established at greater length the actual existence of such an art of divination, and in the next place have energetically undertaken its defence, and effectually refuted the arguments of those who would annihilate such arts of divination, and have overturned in a convincing manner also the arguments of those who say that it is from demons or from gods that animals receive the movements which lead them to divination, and to have proved in the next place that the soul of irrational animals is more divine than that of man. For, had he done so, and manifested a philosophical spirit in dealing with such things, we should to the best of our power have met his confident assertions, refuting in the first place the allegation that irrational animals are wiser than men, and showing the falsity of the statement that they have ideas of God more sacred than ours, and that they hold among themselves certain sacred assemblies. But now, on the contrary, he who accuses us because we believe in the Supreme God, requires us to believe that the souls of birds entertain ideas of God more divine and distinct than those of men. Yet if this is true, the birds have clearer ideas of God than Celsus himself; and it is not matter of surprise that it should be so with him, who so greatly depreciates human beings. Nay, so far as Celsus can make it appear, the birds possess grander and more divine ideas than, I do not say we Christians do, or than the Jews, who use the same Scriptures with ourselves, but even than are possessed by the theologians among the Greeks, for they were only human beings. According to Celsus, indeed, the tribe of birds that practise divination, forsooth, understand the nature of the Divine Being better than Pherecydes, and Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato! We ought then to go to the birds as our teachers, in order that as, according to the view of Celsus, they instruct us by their power of divination in the knowledge of future events, so also they may free men from doubts regarding the Divine Being, by imparting to them the clear ideas which they have obtained respecting Him! It follows, accordingly, that Celsus, who regards birds as superior to men, ought to employ them as his instructors, and not one of the Greek philosophers!

And to regard these myths in a figurative sense, and consider Minerva as representing prudence, let any one show what were the actual facts of her history, upon which this allegory is based. For, supposing honour was given to Minerva as having been a woman of ancient times, by those who instituted mysteries and ceremonies for their followers, and who wished her name to be celebrated as that of a goddess, much more are we forbidden to pay divine honours to Minerva, if we are not permitted to worship so glorious an object as the sun, although we may celebrate its glory. Celsus, indeed, says that “we seem to do the greater honour to the great God when we sing hymns in honour of the sun and Minerva;” but we know it to be the opposite of that. For we sing hymns to the Most High alone, and His Only-begotten, who is the Word and God; and we praise God and His Only-begotten, as do also the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the host of heaven. For these all form a divine chorus, and unite with the just among men in celebrating the praises of the Most High God and His Only-begotten. We have already said that we must not swear by a human king, or by what is called “the fortune of the king.” It is therefore unnecessary for us again to refute these statements: “If you are commanded to swear by a human king, there is nothing wrong in that. For to him has been given whatever there is upon earth; and whatever you receive in this life, you receive from him.” We deny, however, that all things which are on the earth have been given to the king, or that whatever we receive in this life we receive from him. For whatever we receive rightly and honourably we receive from God, and by His providence, as ripe fruits, and “corn which strengtheneth man’s heart, and the pleasant vine, and wine which rejoiceth the heart of man.” And moreover, the fruit of the olive-tree, to make his face to shine, we have from the providence of God.

And God said, Let there be MARTh, Maroth, lights in the firmament of the heaven. (Now he hasteneth to the third part of that quadrilateral name, namely, to these two letters IH, Yod, He. But by lights are understood the sun and the moon, the beautiful path and the kingdom or bride. And herein the sense is this: although usually by these two letters are accustomed to be understood the Father and the Mother, or the wisdom and the understanding, yet in this place the supernal lights are wanting, like as the word MARTh, Maroth, is written in a defective form; and the meaning is proper to be applied unto the firmament of the heaven—that is, to the foundation, extended and prepared for marital conjunction; for the spouse is called the heaven, and the member of the treaty is the firmament, like as, therefore, the two last paths in the whole name IHVI, Yod, He, Vau, Yod are designated by the letters V, Vau, and I, Yod, so likewise these in this portion of the square are designated by the letters, I Yod, and H, He.) The husband hath dominion over the wife (since it is not written by V, Vau, but by I, Yod, which is the symbol of the member of the treaty, and herein denoteth the actual combination with the female): like as it is written (Prov. x. 25): “And the just man is the foundation of the world.” (By this saying he illustrateth his meaning; because by the letter I, Yod, is understood the fundamental member by which the world is preserved in existence.)

Now when the Jews crucified Christ on the Wood, they divided His garments among them beneath the Cross, even as it is written. His tunic was of purple, which is the raiment of royalty; and when they stripped Him of the raiment of royalty Pilate would not permit the Jews to array Him in ordinary apparel, but only in the actual raiment of royalty, either purple or scarlet. By both of these it might be known that He was a king. For it is impossible for any other man to wear purple; only a king can do this. And one of the Evangelists hath said, “ The soldiers put on Him a purple robe ” (Mark xv. 17; John xix. 2, 5), and this is a true word and is highly credible; and another Evangelist uses the word “scarlet ” (Matt. xxvii. 28), and he proclaimed what was true. The scarlet garment indicateth to us blood, and the purple garment water; for the scarlet one was like unto blood, and the purple one was like* unto water. The scarlet garment proclaimeth the joyful and immortal nature of man, and the purple one the sad and mortal nature of man. Understand, therefore, O our brother Nemesius, that scarlet proclaimeth life.

One who cuts down branches of an olive tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One who cuts down branches of a sycamore tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One may not cut down from a virgin sycamore in the seventh year, for this would constitute actual labor. Rabbi Judah says: in its usual manner, it is forbidden. Rather he either cuts it ten handbreadths above [the soil], or he cuts it down to ground level.

If one was reading a scroll on a threshold and the scroll rolled out of his hand, he may roll it back to himself. If he was reading on the top of a roof and the scroll rolled out of his hand: Before it reached ten handbreadths from the ground, he may roll it back to himself; But after it had reached ten handbreadths from the ground he must turn it over with its writing downwards. Rabbi Judah says: even if it was removed from the ground by no more than a thread's thickness he may roll it back to himself. Rabbi Shimon says: even if it touched the actual ground he may roll it back to himself, since no prohibition that is due to “Shabbat rest” stands before the Holy Writings.

He who declares, “I seduced the daughter of so-and-so” must pay compensation for embarrassment and blemish on his own admission but need not pay the fine. He who declares, “I have stolen” must make restitution for the principal on his own evidence but need not repay double, fourfold or fivefold. [He who declares,] “My ox has killed so-and-so” or “the ox of so-and-so” must make restitution on his own evidence. [If he said] “My ox has killed the slave of so-and-so” he need not make restitution on his own evidence. This is the general rule: whoever pays more than the actual cost of the damage he has done need not pay it on his own evidence.

If an assessment of the judges was one sixth less, or one sixth more [than the actual value of the property] their sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: their sale is valid for, otherwise, of what advantage is the power of a court? But if they made a bill for inspection, their sale is valid even if they sold for two hundred zuz what was worth one maneh or for one maneh what was worth two hundred zuz.

These were the rules they laid down because of the ways of peace: A priest is called up first to read the Torah and after him a Levite and then an Israelite, because of the ways of peace. An “eruv” is placed in the room where it has always been placed, because of the ways of peace. The cistern which is nearest to the channel is filled first, because of the ways of peace. [Taking of] beasts, birds and fishes from traps [set by others] is robbery, because of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. [Taking away] anything found by a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor is robbery, because of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. If a poor man strikes [down olives] on top of an olive tree, [taking the fruit] that is beneath him is robbery. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. Poor Gentiles are not prevented from gathering gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, because of the ways of peace.

These were the rules they laid down because of the ways of peace: A priest is called up first to read the Torah and after him a Levite and then an Israelite, because of the ways of peace. An “eruv” is placed in the room where it has always been placed, because of the ways of peace. The cistern which is nearest to the channel is filled first, because of the ways of peace. [Taking of] beasts, birds and fishes from traps [set by others] is robbery, because of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. [Taking away] anything found by a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor is robbery, because of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. If a poor man strikes [down olives] on top of an olive tree, [taking the fruit] that is beneath him is robbery. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. Poor Gentiles are not prevented from gathering gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, because of the ways of peace.

These were the rules they laid down because of the ways of peace: A priest is called up first to read the Torah and after him a Levite and then an Israelite, because of the ways of peace. An “eruv” is placed in the room where it has always been placed, because of the ways of peace. The cistern which is nearest to the channel is filled first, because of the ways of peace. [Taking of] beasts, birds and fishes from traps [set by others] is robbery, because of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. [Taking away] anything found by a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor is robbery, because of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. If a poor man strikes [down olives] on top of an olive tree, [taking the fruit] that is beneath him is robbery. Rabbi Yose says that it is actual robbery. Poor Gentiles are not prevented from gathering gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, because of the ways of peace.

If one buys an animal from a non-Jew and it is not known whether it had given birth or had not given birth: Rabbi Ishmael says: that born of a goat in its first year certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first-born]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. That born of a cow or a donkey three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. Rabbi Akiva to him: if an animal were exempted [from the law of the first born] only with the birth of [actual] offspring, it would be as you say. But they said: the sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb]. In large cattle, the after-birth; in a woman, the signs are the fetus and the after-birth. This is the general rule: Whenever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing. Whenever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest. If there is a doubt, it shall be eaten blemished by the owners. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a large domestic animal has discharged a clot of blood, it [the clot] shall be buried, and it [the mother] is exempted from the law of the first born.

HALAKHAH: 5. “Reed to make a writing pen,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But at least that it reaches to the finger joints. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understands up to here. Maybe up to here? There, we have stated: “A pen of which the writing tip was broken off is impure because of the eraser. If the eraser was broken off it is impure because of the writing tip.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understand up to here. Maybe up to here? Rebbi Yose said, any “egg” which was stated in Kelim means the actual volume of an egg. In Šabbat in the volume of a dried fig, of an egg.

So is the Mishnah: “Because he did only add for the love of the first night, when he had intercourse with her.” If he slept with her, divorced her, and took her back, the love of the first night is still there. If he slept with her, died, and she became available to the levir, the love of the first night is still there. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Alexis in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah who said, if they were divorced or widowed after a preliminary marriage she collects 200, after the definitive marriage she collects everything. Rebbi Ḥanania said, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abbai said, they said to Rebbi Ḥanania, get outside to recite. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Yosa, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Yose said, we had a rule that Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jonathan said the same thing. As it was stated: If somebody’s son went overseas and one heard that he died, [the father] went and wrote his property to somebody else, and after that, the son returned. The gift remains valid; Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia says that the gift is invalid since he would not have written the deed if he had known that his son was alive. And Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia; and Rebbi Yannai said, they said to Rebbi Ḥanania, get outside to recite. And Rebbi Yose bar Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. An actual case was judged according to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah.

If there were two daughters and one son; the first one took a tenth of the estate, but the son died before the second could take her tenth. Rebbi Ḥanina was of the opinion that the second takes a tenth of the estate and the rest they divide equally among themselves. Rebbi Joḥanan told him that in this case there was nothing else to provide for her, but here she may sell from the remainder and provide for herself! Rebbi Tebi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The reason of Rebbi Ḥanina: If she can collect from encumbered real estate, from what lies before her not so much more? Rebbi Joḥanan sticks to his opinion, since Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rebbi Joḥanan does not collect. Who collects? Rebbi Ḥanina [and Rebbi Hila] collect. Rebbi Yasa was appointed custodian of orphans’ property. There were orphan [girls] who asked to be provided for. He brought the case before Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim. Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim said, is it not better to provide for them from their father’s estate rather than from charity? Rebbi Eleazar said to him: If such a case came before our teachers, our teachers would not touch it; would we act? Rebbi Yose said, I shall give to them, and if some orphans get up and complain, I would give it to them. Even so, they saw and did not complain. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose: How do you decide in practical cases? He said to him, following Rebbi Ḥanina. And so an actual case was decided following Rebbi Ḥanina. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Hila: One considers the estate as if it were dry.

MISHNAH: If the estate contained expected property, it does not have the status of property in actual possession. Rebbi Simeon says, even if there was no mortgageable property, it does not count unless there is mortgageable property in the value of at least a denar more than the two ketubot.

Rav Huna said, why did they require a date on the bill of divorce? Because of an actual case. It so happened that a man was married to his sister’s daughter who committed adultery when she was still married. He predated the bill of divorce and said, it is better she should be judged as single rather than as a married woman.

Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

Rebbi Yudan said, an argument de minore ad majus that a free woman should be acquired by actual possession. Is it not logical that since a Gentile slave woman, who cannot be acquired by intercourse, can be acquired by actual possession, by an argument de minore ad majus a free woman, who can be acquired by intercourse, could be acquired by actual possession? The verse says, “and has marital relations with her.” She can be acquired by intercourse but cannot be acquired by actual possession. An argument de minore ad majus that a Gentile slave woman should be acquired by intercourse: Is it not logical that since a free woman, who cannot be acquired by actual possession, can be acquired by intercourse, by an argument de minore ad majus a Gentile slave woman, who can be acquired by actual possession, could be acquired by intercourse? The verse says, “you may leave them as inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit them as property.” She is acquired by actual possession; she is not acquired by intercourse. So we inferred that a woman can be acquired in three ways: by money, or by document, or by intercourse.

HALAKHAH: “If the ground floor and the upper floor,” etc. But if the owner of the ground floor wants to build and the owner of the upper floor does not, may he tell him: seal it? Let us hear from the following: “If his collapsed building was next to another’s collapsed building, and he rebuilt without permission, he computes his actual expenses and he has to pay him all his expenses.” This implies that he cannot tell him, seal it on the side. Just as he cannot tell him, seal it on the side, so he cannot tell him, seal it on top.

Rebbi Mattania said: Greatness cannot atone (until his greatness becomes known to him) [unless his error became known to him.] If he ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, even in one oblivion he is not liable. A doubt of half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and a doubt of half the volume of an olive after he was appointed: he brings a suspended reparation offering. Do we find anything where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable? We do not find this! If he ate the volume of two olives, the true nature of one of them became known to him, the other remained for him in doubt. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: As you take it, if he ate forbidden fat, it atoned. [If he ate permitted fat, it atoned.] Rebbi Yose said, anything which convinced him to bring a suspended reparation offering, the knowledge of the doubt establishes his transgression. So we find a case where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable.

Rebbi Mattania said: Greatness cannot atone (until his greatness becomes known to him) [unless his error became known to him.] If he ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, even in one oblivion he is not liable. A doubt of half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and a doubt of half the volume of an olive after he was appointed: he brings a suspended reparation offering. Do we find anything where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable? We do not find this! If he ate the volume of two olives, the true nature of one of them became known to him, the other remained for him in doubt. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: As you take it, if he ate forbidden fat, it atoned. [If he ate permitted fat, it atoned.] Rebbi Yose said, anything which convinced him to bring a suspended reparation offering, the knowledge of the doubt establishes his transgression. So we find a case where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable.

Bet Shammai would tell thee : In that case, the text should read, "In the morning and at even" ; what means "When thou liest down and when thou risest up" ? At the time of lying down, there should be actual lying down [to read the Shema'], and at the time of rising up, there should be actual rising up.

Bet Shammai would tell thee : In that case, the text should read, "In the morning and at even" ; what means "When thou liest down and when thou risest up" ? At the time of lying down, there should be actual lying down [to read the Shema'], and at the time of rising up, there should be actual rising up.

This is an actual fact to upset [the teaching just quoted] ! [No; it is different with them,] because they were highly esteemed.

What does it mean ‘there are no occupants’? If we say, actual occupants, are then occupants [it could be objected] a determining factor? Rather we must say that ‘there are no occupants' means that the Sukkah is unsuitable for occupation? How so? Because it is less than ten handbreadths high. We could therefore infer that the first opinion [in the Mishnah] holds that even if it is unsuitable for occupation it is still invalid?

When Ravin came, he said in the name of R. Yohanan: Scripture says, "When you gather in from your threshingfloor and your winepress" (Deuteronomy 16:13). The verse thus speaks of the waste from the threshing-floor and the waste from the wine-press. But perhaps it means the actual threshing-floor product and the actual wine-press product?

When Ravin came, he said in the name of R. Yohanan: Scripture says, "When you gather in from your threshingfloor and your winepress" (Deuteronomy 16:13). The verse thus speaks of the waste from the threshing-floor and the waste from the wine-press. But perhaps it means the actual threshing-floor product and the actual wine-press product?

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘The handles of all foodstuffs that have been threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible’. What does it mean ‘threshed’? R. Yohanan says: Actual threshing. R. Elazar says: Untying the bundle.

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

And even if you find [that we need] to say that a Lulav requires a tie, a change that does not affect the actual object (lit. goes back to its original form) it is, and a change that goes back to its original form is not called a change [for halakhic purposes].

For if you do not say so, then "tithe" also must mean actual tithe. But surely it is written, "You shall bind the money in your hand? (Deuteronomy 14:21). Rather it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged].

Shmuel said: Ten priests are mentioned in the section [dealing with sanctifications], one for the actual priest required, and the rest constitute a limitation after a limitation, and a limitation after a limitation has the results in an addition, to include, namely, nine Israelites and one priest.

Joshua b. Korha says that the actual word lamahara’ot [is read] because it is a term of disgrace for idolatry.

Rav Chiyah bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Both [the Sages and Rebi] interpreted one verse. The iron breaks off from the wood [Ve'neshal]. Rebi holds that the transmission [how the written word appears in the text] is what matters, and 'Ve'Neyshal' it is written [the form of which implies that the phrase should be understood as meaning that the axe blade caused something else—i.e., a wood chip—to come loose], but the Sages hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters and "nashal" we read [the form of which implies that the actual axe head flew off].

What is this opinion of Rebbi Yehuda? That it was taught it a baraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says, (Deuteronomy 26,10) "And he shall place" it this is a reference to the waving. You say that it is referring to the waving or maybe it is really referring to the actual placement? But when the Torah also says, (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And he shall place", the [requirement of] placement has already been stated. So how will I maintain (Deuteronomy 26,10) "And he shall place"? It [must be referring to] waving.