adjacent

When the Jews saw this, they uttered a loud cry to heaven so that the adjacent valleys resounded and caused an irrepressible lamentation throughout the army.

Hereby a good report was spread everywhere of Thecla, and she wrought several (miraculous) cures, so that all the city and adjacent countries brought their sick to that mountain, and before they came as far as the door of the cave, they were instantly cured of whatsoever distemper they had.

Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists and apostles. For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e. a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that any one eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how any one can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for any one who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show Him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e. the kingdom of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by any one who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

This descent of the holy fathers into Egypt will appear as granted to this world by the providence of God for the illumination of others, and for the instruction of the human race, that so by this means the souls of others might be assisted in the work of enlightenment. For to them was first granted the privilege of converse with God, because theirs is the only race which is said to see God; this being the meaning, by interpretation, of the word “Israel.” And now it follows that, agreeably to this view, ought the statement to be accepted and explained that Egypt was scourged with ten plagues, to allow the people of God to depart, or the account of what was done with the people in the wilderness, or of the building of the tabernacle by means of contributions from all the people, or of the wearing of the priestly robes, or of the vessels of the public service, because, as it is written, they truly contain within them the “shadow and form of heavenly things.” For Paul openly says of them, that “they serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” There are, moreover, contained in this same law the precepts and institutions, according to which men are to live in the holy land. Threatenings also are held out as impending over those who shall transgress the law; different kinds of purifications are moreover prescribed for those who required purification, as being persons who were liable to frequent pollution, that by means of these they may arrive at last at that one purification after which no further pollution is permitted. The very people are numbered, though not all; for the souls of children are not yet old enough to be numbered according to the divine command: nor are those souls who cannot become the head of another, but are themselves subordinated to others as to a head, who are called “women,” who certainly are not included in that numbering which is enjoined by God; but they alone are numbered who are called “men,” by which it might be shown that the women could not be counted separately, but were included in those called men. Those, however, especially belong to the sacred number, who are prepared to go forth to the battles of the Israelites, and are able to fight against those public and private enemies whom the Father subjects to the Son, who sits on His right hand that He may destroy all principality and power, and by means of these bands of His soldiery, who, being engaged in a warfare for God, do not entangle themselves in secular business, He may overturn the kingdom of His adversary; by whom the shields of faith are borne, and the weapons of wisdom brandished; among whom also the helmet of hope and salvation gleams forth, and the breastplate of brightness fortifies the breast that is filled with God. Such soldiers appear to me to be indicated, and to be prepared for wars of this kind, in those persons who in the sacred books are ordered by God’s command to be numbered. But of these, by far the more perfect and distinguished are shown to be those of whom the very hairs of the head are said to be numbered. Such, indeed, as were punished for their sins, whose bodies fell in the wilderness, appear to possess a resemblance to those who had made indeed no little progress, but who could not at all, for various reasons, attain to the end of perfection; because they are reported either to have murmured, or to have worshipped idols, or to have committed fornication, or to have done some evil work which the mind ought not even to conceive. I do not consider the following even to be without some mystical meaning, viz. that certain [of the Israelites], possessing many flocks and animals, take possession by anticipation of a country adapted for pasture and the feeding of cattle, which was the very first that the right hand of the Hebrews had secured in war. For, making a request of Moses to receive this region, they are divided off by the waters of the Jordan, and set apart from any possession in the holy land. And this Jordan, according to the form of heavenly things, may appear to water and irrigate thirsty souls, and the senses that are adjacent to it. In connection with which, even this statement does not appear superfluous, that Moses indeed hears from God what is described in the book of Leviticus, while in Deuteronomy it is the people that are the auditors of Moses, and who learn from him what they could not hear from God. For as Deuteronomy is called, as it were, the second law, which to some will appear to convey this signification, that when the first law which was given through Moses had come to an end, so a second legislation seems to have been enacted, which was specially transmitted by Moses to his successor Joshua, who is certainly believed to embody a type of our Saviour, by whose second law—that is, the precepts of the Gospel—all things are brought to perfection.

It was not only, however, with the [Scriptures composed] before the advent [of Christ] that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and [proceeding] from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles,—as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g. the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show Him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body—which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying [immediately] under and adjacent may be seen—the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

But, that we may not pass without notice what Celsus has said between these and the preceding paragraphs, let us quote his words: “We might adduce Herodotus as a witness on this point, for he expresses himself as follows: ‘For the people of the cities Marea and Apis, who inhabit those parts of Egypt that are adjacent to Libya, and who look upon themselves as Libyans, and not as Egyptians, finding their sacrificial worship oppressive, and wishing not to be excluded from the use of cows’ flesh, sent to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, saying that there was no relationship between them and the Egyptians, that they dwelt outside the Delta, that there was no community of sentiment between them and the Egyptians, and that they wished to be allowed to partake of all kinds of food. But the god would not allow them to do as they desired, saying that that country was a part of Egypt, which was watered by the inundation of the Nile, and that those were Egyptians who dwell to the south of the city of Elephantine, and drink of the river Nile.’ Such is the narrative of Herodotus. But,” continues Celsus, “Ammon in divine things would not make a worse ambassador than the angels of the Jews, so that there is nothing wrong in each nation observing its established method of worship. Of a truth, we shall find very great differences prevailing among the nations, and yet each seems to deem its own by far the best. Those inhabitants of Ethiopia who dwell in Meroe worship Jupiter and Bacchus alone; the Arabians, Urania and Bacchus only; all the Egyptians, Osiris and Isis; the Saïtes, Minerva; while the Naucratites have recently classed Serapis among their deities, and the rest according to their respective laws. And some abstain from the flesh of sheep, and others from that of crocodiles; others, again, from that of cows, while they regard swine’s flesh with loathing. The Scythians, indeed, regard it as a noble act to banquet upon human beings. Among the Indians, too, there are some who deem themselves discharging a holy duty in eating their fathers, and this is mentioned in a certain passage by Herodotus. For the sake of credibility, I shall again quote his very words, for he writes as follows: ‘For if any one were to make this proposal to all men, viz. to bid him select out of all existing laws the best, each would choose, after examination, those of his own country. Men each consider their own laws much the best, and therefore it is not likely that any other than a madman would make these things a subject of ridicule. But that such are the conclusions of all men regarding the laws, may be determined by many other evidences, and especially by the following illustration. Darius, during his reign, having summoned before him those Greeks who happened to be present at the time, inquired of them for how much they would be willing to eat their deceased fathers; their answer was, that for no consideration would they do such a thing. After this, Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatians, who are in the habit of eating their parents, and asked of them in the presence of these Greeks, who learned what passed through an interpreter, for what amount of money they would undertake to burn their deceased fathers with fire; on which they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more.’ Such is the way, then, in which these matters are regarded. And Pindar appears to me to be right in saying that ‘law’ is the king of all things.”

But what sort of being is this Ammon of Herodotus, whose words Celsus has quoted, as if by way of demonstrating how each one ought to keep his country’s laws? For this Ammon would not allow the people of the cities of Marea and Apis, who inhabit the districts adjacent to Libya, to treat as a matter of indifference the use of cows’ flesh, which is a thing not only indifferent in its own nature, but which does not prevent a man from being noble and virtuous. If Ammon, then, forbade the use of cows’ flesh, because of the advantage which results from the use of the animal in the cultivation of the ground, and in addition to this, because it is by the female that the breed is increased, the account would possess more plausibility. But now he simply requires that those who drink of the Nile should observe the laws of the Egyptians regarding kine. And hereupon Celsus, taking occasion to pass a jest upon the employment of the angels among the Jews as the ambassadors of God, says that “Ammon did not make a worse ambassador of divine things than did the angels of the Jews,” into the meaning of whose words and manifestations he instituted no investigation; otherwise he would have seen, that it is not for oxen that God is concerned, even where He may appear to legislate for them, or for irrational animals, but that what is written for the sake of men, under the appearance of relating to irrational animals, contains certain truths of nature. Celsus, moreover, says that no wrong is committed by any one who wishes to observe the religious worship sanctioned by the laws of his country; and it follows, according to his view, that the Scythians commit no wrong, when, in conformity with their country’s laws, they eat human beings. And those Indians who eat their own fathers are considered, according to Celsus, to do a religious, or at least not a wicked act. He adduces, indeed, a statement of Herodotus which favours the principle that each one ought, from a sense of what is becoming, to obey his country’s laws; and he appears to approve of the custom of those Indians called Callatians, who in the time of Darius devoured their parents, since, on Darius inquiring for how great a sum of money they would be willing to lay aside this usage, they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more.

He had figs of tevel in his house, and he is in the house of study or in the field: he may say: “The two figs which I shall set apart shall be terumah, ten figs shall be first tithe, and nine figs second tithe.” If the figs were demai, he may say: “Whatever I shall separate tomorrow will be tithe, and the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I made tithe will become terumat maaser for the whole, and the second tithe is to the north or to the south and it shall be exchanged for money.”

One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row], he may bring seed there. Rabbi Judah said: It happened at Tsalmon that a man planted his vineyard on [a plan of] sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row]. [One year] he would turn the tips of the vine branches of two [adjacent rows] towards one place, and sow the furrow [in between], and the following year he would turn the tips of the vine branches in the opposite direction, and sow the land which had been left untilled [the preceding year]. The matter came before the sages, and they declared it permitted. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: even one who has planted his vineyard with eight cubits [between every two rows], this is permitted.

If the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants of its gallery forgot and did not participate [together] in the eruv, anything that is higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the [residents of the] gallery, and anything lower belongs to the [residents of the] courtyard. The rim around a cistern, or a rock, if they are ten handbreadths high they belong to the gallery but if lower than they belong to the courtyard. To what does this apply? To one that is adjacent to the gallery, but one that is distanced from it, even if ten handbreadths high, belongs to the courtyard. And what is regarded as adjacent? One that is not further than four handbreadths.

If the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants of its gallery forgot and did not participate [together] in the eruv, anything that is higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the [residents of the] gallery, and anything lower belongs to the [residents of the] courtyard. The rim around a cistern, or a rock, if they are ten handbreadths high they belong to the gallery but if lower than they belong to the courtyard. To what does this apply? To one that is adjacent to the gallery, but one that is distanced from it, even if ten handbreadths high, belongs to the courtyard. And what is regarded as adjacent? One that is not further than four handbreadths.

If a man contests [the ownership of] a field and he has signed as a witness on [its deed of sale], Admon says: He can say, “[Litigation with] the second is easier for me, since the first is a more difficult person than he”. But the Sages say: He lost his right. If [the protester] made it a boundary mark [when selling an adjacent piece of land to] another person he has lost his right [to protest].

If one’s wall was adjacent to his friend’s wall he may not build another wall adjoining it unless it is at a distance of four cubits. And [if he builds a wall opposite his friend’s] windows, whether it is higher or lower than them or level with them, it may not be within four cubits.

A double stove: its original height must be no less than three fingerbreadths and what is left of it three fingerbreadths. [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of the lightest of eggs when scrambled and put in a saucepan. A single stove: if it was made for baking its prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking its prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. A stone that projects one handbreadth from a baking-oven or three fingerbreadths from a double stove is considered a connection. One that projects from a single stove, if it was made for baking, the prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking the prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. Rabbi Judah said: they spoke of a ‘handbreadth’ only where the projection was between the oven and a wall. If two ovens were adjacent to one another, they allot one handbreadth to this one and one to the other and the remainder is clean.

If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosot that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty. Rabbi Joshua ben Batera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid. If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: by the root.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the commissioned grain merchant. Rebbi Yose objected, does not the Mishnah disagree? “The following sell wholesale in large quantities, for example commissioners and grain merchants.” Hence, there must be others! Rebbi Yose said, this is not what Rebbi Eleazar referred to, but the following, as we have stated: “When is this statement operative, if he sells in his bakeshop or at the door of his bakeshop. But if he was selling in the bakery or in his bakeshop adjacent to the bakery, he must give all tithes on it.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they only permitted to the commissioned grain merchant to sell demay. Which (statement of) Rebbi Meïr? The one we have stated next: “Rebbi Meïr says, something which usually he measured wholesale and he measured retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Something which usually is measured wholesale and he measured it retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” And so the bakery is retail but the bakeshop is wholesale, there the wholesale is adjunct to the retail.

MISHNAH: He who buys from the baker, how does he tithe? He takes the heave of the tithe and ḥallah and says: One percent here on that side is tithe, the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I turned into tithe is made heave of the tithe for it and the rest is ḥallah. The Second Tithe is North (or South) of it and is redeemed by coins.

MISHNAH: He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together takes one in thirty-three and one third and says: One percent of what is here on this side is profane and the remainder is heave for everything. The profane here on that side is tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, (the rest is ḥallah,) the Second Tithe is either North or South of it and is redeemed by coins.

HALAKHAH: “ He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together takes for heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah, that is one in 20, and says: One percent of what is here on this side is profane ṭevel and another one in 48 next to it; the remainder is heave for everything. The profane which is in it and that which I made profane ṭevel is made tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, the Second Tithe is North or South of it and is redeemed by coins.”

MISHNAH: A vertex of wheat coming close to a field of barley is permitted since it visibly is the end of its field. If someone’s field was sown with wheat and that of his neighbor with another kind, he may have of that kind adjacent to it. If both his and his neighbor’s fields were growing wheat, it is permitted that he have one row of flax adjacent to his, but no other kind. Rebbi Simeon says, either flax or any other kind. Rebbi Yose says, even in the middle of his field he may test a row for flax.

MISHNAH: A vertex of wheat coming close to a field of barley is permitted since it visibly is the end of its field. If someone’s field was sown with wheat and that of his neighbor with another kind, he may have of that kind adjacent to it. If both his and his neighbor’s fields were growing wheat, it is permitted that he have one row of flax adjacent to his, but no other kind. Rebbi Simeon says, either flax or any other kind. Rebbi Yose says, even in the middle of his field he may test a row for flax.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For the first part, Rebbi Meïr says, even jailed, even adjacent, but the rabbis say, on condition that they were neither jailed nor adjacent. How is that done? 3,2,1,2,l.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For the first part, Rebbi Meïr says, even jailed, even adjacent, but the rabbis say, on condition that they were neither jailed nor adjacent. How is that done? 3,2,1,2,l.

MISHNAH: If somebody thins out olive trees, the House of Shammai say he should cut them off, the House of Hillel say he may take out the roots, but they agree that one who levels may only cut off. What is thinning? One or two. Levelling are three adjacent to one another. When has this been said? On his own property. But from another’s property, even one who flattens may take out the roots. If somebody cuts down an olive tree, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. If somebody cuts down a sycamore trunk, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. One does not cut a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical year because that is [agricultural] work. Rebbi Jehudah says, in a normal way it is forbidden but he [may] cut higher than ten hand-breadths or cut it down level with the ground.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody thins out olive trees,” etc. What is thinning? He removes one and leaves two, or removes two and leaves one. It was stated by the House of Rebbi: He removes one and leaves two. But did we not state: If somebody levels among vines, three adjacent to one another. Therefore, thinning must mean that one removes two and leaves one. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita when he thins out the first time, and what was stated by the House of Rebbi when he already had thinned.

“From Bet Ḥoron to the Sea is one domain.” Without regions? Rebbi Joḥanan said, still there is Mountain, Lowland, and Valley. From Bet Ḥoron to Emmaus it is Mountain, from Emmaus to Lydda Lowland, from Lydda to the Sea Valley. Then there should be four stated? They are adjacent.

From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rebbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it.” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits. If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit.

MISHNAH: If he wrote with fluid of drinks, with fruit juice, with road dust, with scribe’s dust, or with anything which is not permanent, he is not liable. With the back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth, with his elbow; if he wrote one letter adjacent to existing writing, wrote over existing writing, intended to write ח and wrote זז, one on the ground and one on a beam, on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden tablet if they cannot be read together, he is not liable. If he wrote one letter as abbreviation, Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.

If a porch was totally open to the public domain, Rebbi La: [Rav] and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, one may carry in its entirety; Samuel said, one may carry in it only four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, does not Samuel agree that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified? But Samuel must hold, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. There came Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. Rebbi Yose said, even if Samuel would think that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified, an alley is not comparable to a porch. An alley is made for the use of the adjacent houses, a porch is made for the use (of a thing). If an alley is not roofed but there is a beam within twenty cubits, would it not be qualified? But if a porch is not roofed although there is a beam within twenty cubits, would that mean anything?

May one carry in all of it? Samuel said, he carries in all of it. Rav said, he only carries within four cubits. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” One understands that of the large one four cubits are permitted. But of the small one is forbidden four cubits? Is anything forbidden in four cubits? Do not Rav and Samuel say that one allows him four cubits in front of his door? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in Samuel’s name: If there was a door open to the roof, even then the large one is permitted since it is not completely open, and the small one is forbidden because it is completely open.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in times of persecution we were taking the scroll and climbing from courtyard to roof, from a roof to another roof, and sitting down and reading. They told him, times of persecution are no proof.” “ Rebbi said, when we were studying with Rebbi Simeon (in a valley) [in Tekoa], we were taking oil and a bath towel and going from a courtyard to a roof, and from the roof to a corral, and from one corral to another corral, until we came to the corral adjacent to the spring, and descending and immersing ourselves in it.”

MISHNAH: If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden. If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden since it acts as a door to the large one.

HALAKHAH: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Our Mishnah [refers to] one roof only, but on another roof it is forbidden. If it is not level, but if it is level it is permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Should one not be able to move there up to the place of the partitions? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥiyya: What Samuel said, on this Sabbath itself, what the Mishnah deals with the next Sabbath. Where do we hold? If they made one eruv together, they should be permitted both on this and on the next Sabbath. If they did not make any eruv, they should be forbidden both on this and on the next Sabbath. The case happened as it happened. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each of them made separate eruvin, nevertheless the large one is permitted since it is breached along its entire length and the small one is forbidden since it was not breached along its entire length.

If the roof of a Gentile was adjacent to a Jew’s roof and leavened matter rolled from the Gentile’s roof to the Jew’s roof, he pushes it away with a stick. If it was Sabbath or holiday, Rav said, he covers it with a vessel.

MISHNAH: Somebody’s [property] surrounded another’s on three sides. If he fenced in the first, and the second, and the third sides, one does not hold [the other] liable. Rebbi Yose said, if the latter then fenced in the fourth side, one rolls everything over to him. If the wall of a courtyard collapsed, one obligates him to rebuild up to four cubits. There is a presumption that he gave, unless he brings proof that he did not give. Higher than four cubits one does not obligate him, but if he built an adjacent wall, even though he did not put on roofing, one rolls everything over to him. There is a presumption that he did not give, unless he brings proof that he gave.

HALAKHAH: “Also in a case where they said to lease,” etc. Therefore, at a place where one is used to sell, he may sell even a dwelling and lease a dwelling. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: Even a small room as in the tannery of Sidon. Not only all of it, but even one room. “If there were two, one inside the other, the inner one is liable, the outer one is not liable.” If there was one and it was subdivided into two, two and combined into one? Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that if there was a field adjacent to a road it is forbidden to lease it to Gentiles because it is known by the name of the Jew and they plough there on Sabbaths and holidays.

Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and covered them with the skhakh, R. Jacob says: found that on being planed and smoothed there would remain the width of a handbreadth on this side and on this side, they are treated as a two-sided pillar, but if not, they cannot be treated as two-sided pillars for R. Jacob used to say, the prescribed minimum width of a two-sided pillar of a sukkah is a handbreadth. But the sages say: only if two [of the adjacent walls] are proper [walls], may the width of the third be only a handbreadth.

R. Ammi said: A board which is slightly more than four [handbreadths] wide is permitted for a sukkah wall when he places it less than three [handbreadths] from the adjacent wall, since a space less than three [handbreadths] is treated as lavud

R. Tabi says that R. Shimon b. Gamaliel wanted the redemption of Purim to be close to the redemption of Pesah. Therefore, they should be observed in adjacent months.

And for the confession made over the tithe: As it is written, “And you shall say before the Lord your God, I have removed the sacred things from my house” (Deuteronomy 26:13), and in an adjacent context it says, “This day the Lord your God commands you” (26:16).