anywhere

A donkey turning a millstone traveled a hundred miles. When it was released, it still found itself in the same place. Many people travel, but don't get anywhere. When evening came, they saw neither city nor village, nor anything created or natural, nor power nor angel. The wretches worked in vain.

Yet greater anywhere. And the great king

THAT WIVES OUGHT TO OBEY THEIR HUSBANDS AND WALK IN TRUE WISDOM. Let the wife obey and be subject to her husband, for the head of a wife is her husband,” and the head of the man that walketh in the way of righteousness is Christ; and “the head of Christ is God” the Father, who is above all, who was and is to come, the Creator of all, with His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be honour, greatness, and majesty and glory. Ye women also obey your husbands, and be in subjection with humility and honour and the fear of God; and delight your husbands with good service, that ye may find favour with them, as we said before. For thus saith the wisdom of Solomon, “If any man have found a brave woman, she is more precious than a jewel of great price. She that is such— the heart of her husband trusteth in her; she that is such-—good spoil will not be wanting. She helpeth her husband with good in good, and not with evil in evil (in) her life; who cardeth wool and flax, (and) hath wrought with her hands (that which is) good. She is as a ship which tradeth afar; and she gathereth for herself all riches. And she riseth up by night, and giveth food to her household, and their tasks to her handmaidens. She saw a field and bought (it); with the fruit of her hands she planted a possession. She firmly girded her loins, and put forth her hands to the work. She tasted that labour is good, and her lamp goeth not out all night long. She stretcheth out her hands to what doth profit, and her arm is strong to spin. And she opened her hands in mercy to the needy, and the palm of her hand is stretched out to the poor. And her husband hath no care about his house, even if he tarrieth long anywhere. All her household are clothed; double cloaks of fine linen and purple she made for her husband, and for herself she made garments. And her husband becometh notable in the gates, when he sitteth in the assembly with the elders of the land. Linen garments she made, and gave (them) away, and girdles for the Canaanites. And her mouth she opened according to the law, and set a fence for her tongue. With strength and beauty was she clothed, and rejoiced in the latter days. They that enter her house are many: she hath not eaten the bread of idleness. She openeth her mouth in wisdom, and according to the ordinance of the law; and her almsgiving hath brought up children and enriched (them), and her husband hath praised her. Many daughters have obtained riches, and many have done mightily, but thou excellest and hast surpassed them all. Flattery is deceitful, and beauty is despised, for a wise woman shall be blessed, and she that feareth the Lord shall be extolled. Give her of the fruit of her lips, and let her husband be praised in the gates,” ” that ye, O women, may know that a woman who loveth her husband: shall find honour and blessing and compassion with the Lord God. Take heed and understand, O woman, that desirest and wishest to be faithful, that thou mayest please the Lord, vaunt not thyself, nor adorn thyself for another man; and clothe not thyself with gorgeous apparel, nor put sandals on thy feet for show, as the harlots do to lead (men) astray: but keep thyself from all evil-doing and adultery, lest by thee other men offend. Obey thy husband rather, and show kindness unto him. But if thou desirest to walk about in the assembly and the streets, to ensnare the souls of many, then judgment from God shall come upon thee, and thou shalt be as one that hath no hope, as when a wicked man falleth into great affliction, and bringeth on himself disgrace, and dishonour, and sorrow. In like manner a wicked woman bringeth on herself dishonour: and as,a lion that lieth in wait and rendeth, so she ensnareth fools, even as it is written, saying, “As moths (destroy) a garment, and as decay a tree, So sorrow wasteth the heart of a man.” And furthermore it is said, “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than that thou shouldest dwell with a quarrelsome and talkative and passionate woman.” And now also I say unto you, O Christian people, look not after nor follow adulterous women. But it is right for faithful women to veil themselves in purity, not seeking to enhance the beauty of their faces with dyes and painting and adornment, which have no profit, on the form which God created. Let them not do thus, but when they walk in the way let them incline their heads, being veiled. [i., 10.] And take heed to yourselves, ye faithful women, and speak no (word of) hate to anyone, but above all (not) to your husbands. O ye good and gentle " women, worship God with joy and gladness; and ye also, our children and our brethren and kinsmen and beloved, seek after the precious wisdom that adorneth our life, and enlighteneth our -hearts, and bringeth us close to God, and winneth for us an entrance into the Kingdom of heaven in life eternal and rest.

It is not right to ordain him bishop presently who is just come in from the Gentiles, and baptized; or from a wicked mode of life: for it is unjust that he who has not yet afforded any trial of himself should be a teacher of others, unless it anywhere happens by divine grace.

I know that very many of the brethren, induced by their thirst for a knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested some distinguished men, well versed in Greek learning, to translate Origen into Latin, and so make him accessible to Roman readers. Among these, when our brother and colleague had, at the earnest entreaty of Bishop Damasus, translated two of the Homilies on the Song of Songs out of Greek into Latin, he prefixed so elegant and noble a preface to that work, as to inspire every one with a most eager desire to read and study Origen, saying that the expression, “The King hath brought me into his chamber,” was appropriate to his feelings, and declaring that while Origen in his other works surpassed all writers, he in the Song of Songs surpassed even himself. He promises, indeed, in that very preface, that he will present the books on the Song of Songs, and numerous others of the works of Origen, in a Latin translation, to Roman readers. But he, finding greater pleasure in compositions of his own, pursues an end that is attended with greater fame, viz. in being the author rather than the translator of works. Accordingly we enter upon the undertaking, which was thus begun and approved of by him, although we cannot compose in a style of elegance xiiequal to that of a man of such distinguished eloquence; and therefore I am afraid lest, through my fault, the result should follow, that that man, whom he deservedly esteems as the second teacher of knowledge and wisdom in the church after the apostles, should, through the poverty of my language, appear far inferior to what he is. And this consideration, which frequently recurred to my mind, kept me silent, and prevented me from yielding to the numerous entreaties of my brethren, until your influence, my very faithful brother Macarius, which is so great, rendered it impossible for my unskilfulness any longer to offer resistance. And therefore, that I might not find you too grievous an exactor, I gave way, even contrary to my resolution; on the condition and arrangement, however, that in my translation I should follow as far as possible the rule observed by my predecessors, and especially by that distinguished man whom I have mentioned above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homilies, and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief. His example, therefore, we follow, to the best of our ability; if not with equal power of eloquence, yet at least with the same strictness of rule, taking care not to reproduce those expressions occurring in the works of Origen which are inconsistent with and opposed to each other. The cause of these variations we have explained more freely in the Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen, where we added a brief tract, in which we showed, I think, by unmistakeable proofs, that his books had been corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons, and especially those books of which you now require me to undertake the translation, i.e. the books which may be entitled De Principiis or De Principatibus, and which are indeed in other respects full of obscurities and difficulties. For he there discusses those subjects with respect to which philosophers, xiiiafter spending all their lives upon them, have been unable to discover anything. But here our author strove, as much as in him lay, to turn to the service of religion the belief in a Creator, and the rational nature of created beings, which the latter had degraded to purposes of wickedness. If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward, agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself. If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.

The next subject of inquiry is, whether there was any other world before the one which now exists; and if so, whether it was such as the present, or somewhat different, or inferior; or whether there was no world at all, but something like that which we understand will be after the end of all things, when the kingdom shall be delivered up to God, even the Father; which nevertheless may have been the end of another world,—of that, namely, after which this world took its beginning; and whether the various lapses of intellectual natures provoked God to produce this diverse and varying condition of the world. This point also, I think, must be investigated in a similar way, viz. whether after this world there will be any [system of] preservation and amendment, severe indeed, and attended with much pain to those who were unwilling to obey the word of God, but a process through which, by means of instruction and rational training, those may arrive at a fuller understanding of the truth who have devoted themselves in the present life to these pursuits, and who, after having had their minds purified, have advanced onwards so as to become capable of attaining divine wisdom; and after this the end of all things will immediately follow, and there will be again, for the correction and improvement of those who stand in need of it, another world, either resembling that which now exists, or better than it, or greatly inferior; and how long that world, whatever it be that is to come after this, shall continue; and if there will be a time when no world shall anywhere exist, or if there has been a time when there was no world at all; or if there have been, or will be several; or if it shall ever come to pass that there will be one resembling another, like it in every respect, and indistinguishable from it.

Now we term world everything which is above the heavens, or in the heavens, or upon the earth, or in those places which are called the lower regions, or all places whatever that anywhere exist, together with their inhabitants. This whole, then, is called world. In which world certain beings are said to be super-celestial, i.e. placed in happier abodes, and clothed with heavenly and resplendent bodies; and among these many distinctions are shown to exist, the apostle, e.g., saying, “That one is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory.” Certain beings are called earthly, and among them, i.e. among men, there is no small difference; for some of them are Barbarians, others Greeks; and of the Barbarians some are savage and fierce, and others of a milder disposition. And certain of them live under laws that have been thoroughly approved; others, again, under laws of a more common or severe kind; while some, again, possess customs of an inhuman and savage character, rather than laws. And certain of them, from the hour of their birth, are reduced to humiliation and subjection, and brought up as slaves, being placed under the dominion either of masters, or princes, or tyrants. Others, again, are brought up in a manner more consonant with freedom and reason: some with sound bodies, some with bodies diseased from their early years; some defective in vision, others in hearing and speech; some born in that condition, others deprived of the use of their senses immediately after birth, or at least undergoing such misfortune on reaching manhood. And why should I repeat and enumerate all the horrors of human misery, from which some have been free, and in which others have been involved, when each one can weigh and consider them for himself? There are also certain invisible powers to which earthly things have been entrusted for administration; and amongst them no small difference must be believed to exist, as is also found to be the case among men. The Apostle Paul indeed intimates that there are certain lower powers, and that among them, in like manner, must undoubtedly be sought a ground of diversity. Regarding dumb animals, and birds, and those creatures which live in the waters, it seems superfluous to inquire; since it is certain that these ought to be regarded not as of primary, but of subordinate rank.

I am of opinion that the expression, by which God is said to be “all in all,” means that He is “all” in each individual person. Now He will be “all” in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God; and when it will no longer behold or retain anything else than God, but when God will be the measure and standard of all its movements; and thus God will be “all,” for there will no longer be any distinction of good and evil, seeing evil nowhere exists; for God is all things, and to Him no evil is near: nor will there be any longer a desire to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, on the part of him who is always in the possession of good, and to whom God is all. So then, when the end has been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared with their commencement, that condition of things will be re-established in which rational nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; so that when all feeling of wickedness has been removed, and the individual has been purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one good God becomes to him “all,” and that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a considerable number, but He Himself is “all in all.” And when death shall no longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God will be “all in all.” But some are of opinion that that perfection and blessedness of rational creatures, or natures, can only remain in that same condition of which we have spoken above, i.e. that all things should possess God, and God should be to them all things, if they are in no degree prevented by their union with a bodily nature. Otherwise they think that the glory of the highest blessedness is impeded by the intermixture of any material substance. But this subject we have discussed at greater length, as may be seen in the preceding pages.

But as if, in all the instances of this covering (i.e. of this history), the logical connection and order of the law had been preserved, we would not certainly believe, when thus possessing the meaning of Scripture in a continuous series, that anything else was contained in it save what was indicated on the surface; so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the introduction into the midst [of the narrative] of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many. And this we find frequently to be the case in the legislative portions, where there are many things manifestly useful among the “bodily” precepts, but a very great number also in which no principle of utility is at all discernible, and sometimes even things which are judged to be impossibilities. Now all this, as we have remarked, was done by the Holy Spirit in order that, seeing those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be led to the investigation of that truth which is more deeply concealed, and to the ascertaining of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by Him.

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

Celsus, indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of Scripture when he made Jesus say, that it is “a certain Satan who contrives such devices;” although he begs the question when he asserts that “Jesus did not deny that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but proceed from wicked men,” for he makes things which differ in kind to be the same. Now, as a wolf is not of the same species as a dog, although it may appear to have some resemblance in the figure of its body and in its voice, nor a common wood-pigeon the same as a dove, so there is no resemblance between what is done by the power of God and what is the effect of sorcery. And we might further say, in answer to the calumnies of Celsus, Are those to be regarded as miracles which are wrought through sorcery by wicked demons, but those not which are performed by a nature that is holy and divine? and does human life endure the worse, but never receive the better? Now it appears to me that we must lay it down as a general principle, that as, wherever anything that is evil would make itself to be of the same nature with the good, there must by all means be something that is good opposed to the evil; so also, in opposition to those things which are brought about by sorcery, there must also of necessity be some things in human life which are the result of divine power. And it follows from the same, that we must either annihilate both, and assert that neither exists, or, assuming the one, and particularly the evil, admit also the reality of the good. Now, if one were to lay it down that works are wrought by means of sorcery, but would not grant that there are also works which are the product of divine power, he would seem to me to resemble him who should admit the existence of sophisms and plausible arguments, which have the appearance of establishing the truth, although really undermining it, while denying that truth had anywhere a home among men, or a dialectic which differed from sophistry. But if we once admit that it is consistent with the existence of magic and sorcery (which derive their power from evil demons, who are spell-bound by elaborate incantations, and become subject to sorcerers) that some works must be found among men which proceed from a power that is divine, why shall we not test those who profess to perform them by their lives and morals, and the consequences of their miracles, viz. whether they tend to the injury of men or to the reformation of conduct? What minister of evil demons, e.g., can do such things? and by means of what incantations and magic arts? And who, on the other hand, is it that, having his soul and his spirit, and I imagine also his body, in a pure and holy state, receives a divine spirit, and performs such works in order to benefit men, and to lead them to believe on the true God? But if we must once investigate (without being carried away by the miracles themselves) who it is that performs them by help of a good, and who by help of an evil power, so that we may neither slander all without discrimination, nor yet admire and accept all as divine, will it not be manifest, from what occurred in the times of Moses and Jesus, when entire nations were established in consequence of their miracles, that these men wrought by means of divine power what they are recorded to have performed? For wickedness and sorcery would not have led a whole nation to rise not only above idols and images erected by men, but also above all created things, and to ascend to the uncreated origin of the God of the universe.

Whether, then, there are cycles of time, and floods, or conflagrations which occur periodically or not, and whether the Scripture is aware of this, not only in many passages, but especially where Solomon says, “What is the thing which hath been? Even that which shall be. And what is the thing which hath been done? Even that which shall be done,” etc. etc., belongs not to the present occasion to discuss. For it is sufficient only to observe, that Moses and certain of the prophets, being men of very great antiquity, did not receive from others the statements relating to the [future] conflagration of the world; but, on the contrary (if we must attend to the matter of time), others rather misunderstanding them, and not inquiring accurately into their statements, invented the fiction of the same events recurring at certain intervals, and differing neither in their essential nor accidental qualities. But we do not refer either the deluge or the conflagration to cycles and planetary periods; but the cause of them we declare to be the extensive prevalence of wickedness, and its [consequent] removal by a deluge or a conflagration. And if the voices of the prophets say that God “comes down,” who has said, “Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord,” the term is used in a figurative sense. For God “comes down” from His own height and greatness when He arranges the affairs of men, and especially those of the wicked. And as custom leads men to say that teachers “condescend” to children, and wise men to those youths who have just betaken themselves to philosophy, not by “descending” in a bodily manner; so, if God is said anywhere in the Holy Scriptures to “come down,” it is understood as spoken in conformity with the usage which so employs the word, and in like manner also with the expression “go up.”

It is evident that, by the preceding remarks, Celsus charges the Jews with falsely giving themselves out as the chosen portion of the Supreme God above all other nations. And he accuses them of boasting, because they gave out that they knew the great God, although they did not really know Him, but were led away by the artifices of Moses, and were deceived by him, and became his disciples to no good end. Now we have in the preceding pages already spoken in part of the venerable and distinguished polity of the Jews, when it existed amongst them as a symbol of the city of God, and of His temple, and of the sacrificial worship offered in it and at the altar of sacrifice. But if any one were to turn his attention to the meaning of the legislator, and to the constitution which he established, and were to examine the various points relating to him, and compare them with the present method of worship among other nations, there are none which he would admire to a greater degree; because, so far as can be accomplished among mortals, everything that was not of advantage to the human race was withheld from them, and only those things which are useful bestowed. And for this reason they had neither gymnastic contests, nor scenic representations, nor horse-races; nor were there among them women who sold their beauty to any one who wished to have sexual intercourse without offspring, and to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation. And what an advantage was it to be taught from their tender years to ascend above all visible nature, and to hold the belief that God was not fixed anywhere within its limits, but to look for Him on high, and beyond the sphere of all bodily substance! And how great was the advantage which they enjoyed in being instructed almost from their birth, and as soon as they could speak, in the immortality of the soul, and in the existence of courts of justice under the earth, and in the rewards provided for those who have lived righteous lives! These truths, indeed, were proclaimed in the veil of fable to children, and to those whose views of things were childish; while to those who were already occupied in investigating the truth, and desirous of making progress therein, these fables, so to speak, were transfigured into the truths which were concealed within them. And I consider that it was in a manner worthy of their name as the “portion of God” that they despised all kinds of divination, as that which bewitches men to no purpose, and which proceeds rather from wicked demons than from anything of a better nature; and sought the knowledge of future events in the souls of those who, owing to their high degree of purity, received the spirit of the Supreme God.

But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candour what he has not discovered in the contents of the book of Genesis, that “the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to them wives of all whom they chose,” we shall nevertheless even on this point persuade those who are capable of understanding the meaning of the prophet, that even before us there was one who referred this narrative to the doctrine regarding souls, which became possessed with a desire for the corporeal life of men, and this in metaphorical language, he said, was termed “daughters of men.” But whatever may be the meaning of the “sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of men,” it will not at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited mankind as an angel, and who manifestly became the Saviour and benefactor of all those who depart from the flood of wickedness. Then, mixing up and confusing whatever he had at any time heard, or had anywhere found written—whether held to be of divine origin among Christians or not—he adds: “The sixty or seventy who descended together were cast under the earth, and were punished with chains.” And he quotes (as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it) the following: “And hence it is that the tears of these angels are warm springs,”—a thing neither mentioned nor heard of in the churches of God! For no one was ever so foolish as to materialize into human tears those which were shed by the angels who had come down from heaven. And if it were right to pass a jest upon what is advanced against us in a serious spirit by Celsus, we might observe that no one would ever have said that hot springs, the greater part of which are fresh water, were the tears of the angels, since tears are saltish in their nature, unless indeed the angels, in the opinion of Celsus, shed tears which are fresh.

After the instance borrowed from the Mithraic mysteries, Celsus declares that he who would investigate the Christian mysteries, along with the aforesaid Persian, will, on comparing the two together, and on unveiling the rites of the Christians, see in this way the difference between them. Now, wherever he was able to give the names of the various sects, he was nothing loth to quote those with which he thought himself acquainted; but when he ought most of all to have done this, if they were really known to him, and to have informed us which was the sect that makes use of the diagram he has drawn, he has not done so. It seems to me, however, that it is from some statements of a very insignificant sect called Ophites, which he has misunderstood, that, in my opinion, he has partly borrowed what he says about the diagram. Now, as we have always been animated by a love of learning, we have fallen in with this diagram, and we have found in it the representations of men who, as Paul says, “creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts; ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The diagram was, however, so destitute of all credibility, that neither these easily deceived women, nor the most rustic class of men, nor those who were ready to be led away by any plausible pretender whatever, ever gave their assent to the diagram. Nor, indeed, have we ever met any individual, although we have visited many parts of the earth, and have sought out all those who anywhere made profession of knowledge, that placed any faith in this diagram.

In this diagram were described ten circles, distinct from each other, but united by one circle, which was said to be the soul of all things, and was called “Leviathan.” This Leviathan, the Jewish Scriptures say, whatever they mean by the expression, was created by God for a plaything; for we find in the Psalms: “In wisdom hast Thou made all things: the earth is full of Thy creatures; so is this great and wide sea. There go the ships; small animals with great; there is this dragon, which Thou hast formed to play therein.” Instead of the word “dragon,” the term “leviathan” is in the Hebrew. This impious diagram, then, said of this leviathan, which is so clearly depreciated by the psalmist, that it was the soul which had travelled through all things! We observed, also, in the diagram, the being named “Behemoth,” placed as it were under the lowest circle. The inventor of this accursed diagram had inscribed this leviathan at its circumference and centre, thus placing its name in two separate places. Moreover, Celsus says that the diagram was “divided by a thick black line, and this line he asserted was called Gehenna, which is Tartarus.” Now as we found that Gehenna was mentioned in the Gospel as a place of punishment, we searched to see whether it is mentioned anywhere in the ancient Scriptures, and especially because the Jews too use the word. And we ascertained that where the valley of the son of Ennom was named in Scripture in the Hebrew, instead of “valley,” with fundamentally the same meaning, it was termed both the valley of Ennom and also Geenna. And continuing our researches, we find that what was termed “Geenna,” or “the valley of Ennom,” was included in the lot of the tribe of Benjamin, in which Jerusalem also was situated. And seeking to ascertain what might be the inference from the heavenly Jerusalem belonging to the lot of Benjamin and the valley of Ennom, we find a certain confirmation of what is said regarding the place of punishment, intended for the purification of such souls as are to be purified by torments, agreeably to the saying: “The Lord cometh like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap: and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver and of gold.”

As, then, he gives the designation “wise” to the tragic poets, it is not on account of his philosophy that he holds up Socrates to veneration, or because of his love of truth and virtue. It is poor praise of Socrates to say that he prefers him to men who for a paltry reward compete upon the stage, and who by their representations excite the spectators at one time to tears and grief, and at another to unseemly laughter (for such is the intention of the satiric drama). And perhaps it was not so much in regard to his philosophy that he called Socrates the wisest of all men, as on account of the victims which he sacrificed to him and the other demons. For it seems that the demons pay more regard in distributing their favours to the sacrifices which are offered them than to deeds of virtue. Accordingly, Homer, the best of the poets, who describes what usually took place, when, wishing to show us what most influenced the demons to grant an answer to the wishes of their votaries, introduces Chryses, who, for a few garlands and the thighs of bulls and goats, obtained an answer to his prayers for his daughter Chryseis, so that the Greeks were driven by a pestilence to restore her back to him. And I remember reading in the book of a certain Pythagorean, when writing on the hidden meanings in that poet, that the prayer of Chryses to Apollo, and the plague which Apollo afterwards sent upon the Greeks, are proofs that Homer knew of certain evil demons who delight in the smoke of sacrifices, and who, to reward those who offer them, grant in answer to their prayers the destruction of others. “He,” that is, Jupiter, “who rules over wintry Dodona, where his prophets have ever unwashed feet, and sleep upon the ground,” has rejected the male sex, and, as Celsus observes, employs the women of Dodona for the prophetic office. Granting that there are oracles similar to these, as that at Clarus, another in Branchidæ, another in the temple of Jupiter Ammon, or anywhere else; yet how shall it be proved that these are gods, and not demons?

For that which is offered to idols is sacrificed to demons, and a man of God must not join the table of demons. As to things strangled, we are forbidden by Scripture to partake of them, because the blood is still in them; and blood, especially the odour arising from blood, is said to be the food of demons. Perhaps, then, if we were to eat of strangled animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us. And the reason which forbids the use of strangled animals for food is also applicable to the use of blood. And it may not be amiss, as bearing on this point, to recall a beautiful saying in the writings of Sextus, which is known to most Christians: “The eating of animals,” says he, “is a matter of indifference; but to abstain from them is more agreeable to reason.” It is not, therefore, simply on account of some traditions of our fathers that we refrain from eating victims offered to those called gods or heroes or demons, but for other reasons, some of which I have here mentioned. It is not to be supposed, however, that we are to abstain from the flesh of animals in the same way as we are bound to abstain from all vice and wickedness: we are indeed to abstain not only from the flesh of animals, but from all other kinds of food, if we cannot partake of them without incurring evil, and the consequences of evil. For we are to avoid eating for gluttony, or for the mere gratification of the appetite, without regard to the health and sustenance of the body. We do not believe that souls pass from one body to another, and that they may descend so low as to enter the bodies of the brutes. If we abstain at times from eating the flesh of animals, it is evidently, therefore, not for the same reason as Pythagoras; for it is the reasonable soul alone that we honour, and we commit its bodily organs with due honours to the grave. For it is not right that the dwelling-place of the rational soul should be cast aside anywhere without honour, like the carcases of brute beasts; and so much the more when we believe that the respect paid to the body redounds to the honour of the person who received from God a soul which has nobly employed the organs of the body in which it resided. In regard to the question, “How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?” we have already answered it briefly, as our purpose required.

Afterwards he says: “If it were possible,” implying at the same time that he thought it most desirable, “that all the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and barbarians, all to the uttermost ends of the earth, were to come under one law;” but judging this quite impossible, he adds, “Any one who thinks this possible, knows nothing.” It would require careful consideration and lengthened argument to prove that it is not only possible, but that it will surely come to pass, that all who are endowed with reason shall come under one law. However, if we must refer to this subject, it will be with great brevity. The Stoics, indeed, hold that, when the strongest of the elements prevails, all things shall be turned into fire. But our belief is, that the Word shall prevail over the entire rational creation, and change every soul into His own perfection; in which state every one, by the mere exercise of his power, will choose what he desires, and obtain what he chooses. For although, in the diseases and wounds of the body, there are some which no medical skill can cure, yet we hold that in the mind there is no evil so strong that it may not be overcome by the Supreme Word and God. For stronger than all the evils in the soul is the Word, and the healing power that dwells in Him; and this healing He applies, according to the will of God, to every man. The consummation of all things is the destruction of evil, although as to the question whether it shall be so destroyed that it can never anywhere arise again, it is beyond our present purpose to say. Many things are said obscurely in the prophecies on the total destruction of evil, and the restoration to righteousness of every soul; but it will be enough for our present purpose to quote the following passage from Zephaniah: “Prepare and rise early; all the gleanings of their vineyards are destroyed. Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, on the day that I rise up for a testimony; for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kings, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, shall bring my offering. In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride; and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain. I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.” I leave it to those who are able, after a careful study of the whole subject, to unfold the meaning of this prophecy, and especially to inquire into the signification of the words, “When the whole earth is destroyed, there will be turned upon the peoples a language according to their race,” as things were before the confusion of tongues. Let them also carefully consider the promise, that all shall call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him with one consent; also that all contemptuous reproach shall be taken away, and there shall be no longer any injustice, or vain speech, or a deceitful tongue. And thus much it seemed needful for me to say briefly, and without entering into elaborate details, in answer to the remark of Celsus, that he considered any agreement between the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, as well Greeks as barbarians, was impossible. And perhaps such a result would indeed be impossible to those who are still in the body, but not to those who are released from it.

When the Magi had returned to their country, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, and said to him, ‘Arise, take the Child and His mother, and flee to Egypt; and stay there until I tell thee.’ So Joseph arose and took the Child and His mother by night, and fled to Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod. When they were journeying along the road to Egypt, two robbers met them; the name of the one was Titus, that of the other Dumachos (?). Dumachos wished to harm them and to treat them evilly, but Titus would not let him, and delivered them from the hands of his companion. When they reached the gate of the city called Hermopolis, there were by the two buttresses of the gate two figures of brass, that had been made by the sages and philosophers; and they spoke like men. When our Lord and His mother and Joseph entered Egypt, that is to say that city, these two figures cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘ A great king has come into Egypt.’ When the king of Egypt heard this, he was troubled and moved; for he feared lest his kingdom should be taken away from him. And he commanded the heralds to proclaim throughout the whole city, ‘ If any man knoweth (who He is), let him point (Him) out to us without delay.’ When they had made much search and did not find Him, the king commanded all the inhabitants of the city to go outside and come in one by one. When our Lord entered, these two figures cried out, ‘ This is the king.’ And when our Lord was revealed, Pharaoh sought to slay Him. Now Lazarus — whom Christ raised from the dead — was there, and was one of the king’s officials, and held in much esteem by the lord of Egypt. He drew near to Joseph and asked them, ‘Whence are ye?’ They said to him, ‘ From the land of Palestine.’ When he heard that they were from the land of Palestine, he was sorry for them, and came to the king and pledged himself for the Child. And he said to the king, ‘ O king, live for ever! If deceit be found in this Child, behold, I am before thee, do unto me according to thy will.’ This is the (cause) of the love between Lazarus and Christ. One day when Mary was washing the swaddling bands of our Lord, she poured out the water used in washing in a certain place, and there grew up there apursam (that is to say balsam) trees, a species of tree not found anywhere else save in this spot in Egypt. Its oil has (divers) properties; if a man dips iron into it, ‘and brings (the iron) near a fire, it shines like wax; if some of it is thrown upon water, it sinks to the bottom; and if a drop of it is dropped upon the hollow of a man’s hand, it goes through to the other side. Our Lord remained two years in Egypt, until Herod had died an evil death. He died in this manner. First of all he slew his wife and his daughter, and he killed one man of every family, saying, ‘ At the time of my death there shall be mourning and weeping and lamentation in the whole city.’ His bowels and his legs were swollen with running sores, and matter flowed from them, and he was consumed by worms. He had nine wives and thirteen children. And he commanded his sister Salome and her husband, saying, ‘ I know that the Jews will hold a great festival on the day of my death; when they are gathered together with the weepers and mourners, slay them, and let them not live after my death.’ There was a knife in his hand, and he was eating an apple; and by reason of the severity of his pain, he drew the knife across his throat, and cut it with his own hand; and his belly burst open, and he died and went to perdition. After the death of Herod who slew the children, his son Herod Archelaus reigned, who cut off the head of John. And the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in Egypt and said to him, ‘Arise, take the Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the life of the Child are dead.’ So Joseph took the Child and His mother, and came to Galilee; and they dwelt in the city of Nazareth, that what was said in the prophecy might be fulfilled, ‘ He shall be called a Nazarene.’ In the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus the kingdom of the Jews was divided into four parts. To Philip (were assigned) two parts, Ituraea and Trachonitis; to Lysanias one part, which was Abilene; and to Herod the younger the fourth part. And Herod loved Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip.

Shoulder-stones may be removed from any place. And the contractor may bring them from anywhere. Which are shoulder-stones? Any one that cannot be picked up with one hand, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose says: the name is to be taken literally; those that are carried on a man’s shoulder, either two or three at a time.

Produce whose processing was completed and it passed through Jerusalem, its second tithe must be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If its processing had not been completed, [such as] baskets of grapes [that were going] to the wine-press or baskets of figs [that were going] to the drying-place: Bet Shammai says: its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. But Bet Hillel says: it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning produce whose processing had not been completed that its second tithe may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. What did they disagree about? About produce whose processing was completed. Bet Shammai says that its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. And Bet Hillel says that it may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. [The second tithe of] demai may [always] be brought in and taken out again and be redeemed.

Produce whose processing was completed and it passed through Jerusalem, its second tithe must be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If its processing had not been completed, [such as] baskets of grapes [that were going] to the wine-press or baskets of figs [that were going] to the drying-place: Bet Shammai says: its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. But Bet Hillel says: it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning produce whose processing had not been completed that its second tithe may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. What did they disagree about? About produce whose processing was completed. Bet Shammai says that its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. And Bet Hillel says that it may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. [The second tithe of] demai may [always] be brought in and taken out again and be redeemed.

Produce whose processing was completed and it passed through Jerusalem, its second tithe must be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If its processing had not been completed, [such as] baskets of grapes [that were going] to the wine-press or baskets of figs [that were going] to the drying-place: Bet Shammai says: its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. But Bet Hillel says: it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning produce whose processing had not been completed that its second tithe may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. What did they disagree about? About produce whose processing was completed. Bet Shammai says that its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. And Bet Hillel says that it may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. [The second tithe of] demai may [always] be brought in and taken out again and be redeemed.

They may also surround [the camp] with reeds, provided there is no [gap of] three handbreadths between one reed and the next. [The rabbis] spoke only of a caravan, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say that they only spoke of a caravan because it is a usual occurrence. Any partition that is not [made up of] both vertical and horizontal [pieces] is not a valid partition, the words of Rabbi Yose bar Judah. But the sages say: one of the two [is sufficient]. They exempted four obligations [to soldiers] in an encampment: They may bring wood from anywhere; they are exempt from the washing of the hands, and from [separating tithes from] doubtfully tithed produce (demai) and from the setting up an eruv.

A live coal is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, but a flame can be taken anywhere. In respect of a live coal of sanctified property [one who makes use of it] is considered as having trespassed, but as for a flame [of sanctified property], one may not derive benefit from it, but [one who does] has not trespassed. If one carries out a live coal into the public domain [on Shabbat] he is liable, but [if he carries out] a flame he is exempt. [The water from]: A private well is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, And [the water from a well] belonging to the inhabitants of that town is [restricted to the same limits] as the people of that town; And [the water from a well] belonging to those who came up from Babylonia is [restricted to the same limits] as he who draws [the water].

There is no difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem except that in Shiloh sacrifices of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of the town], whereas in Jerusalem [they had to be eaten] within the walls. In both places the most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains. After the sanctification of Shiloh there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission.

It is forbidden to rear small herd animals in the Land of Israel, but it is permitted to rear them in Syria or in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel. It is forbidden to rear fowls in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, nor may priests rear them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] clean foods. It is forbidden to rear pigs anywhere. One should not rear a dog unless it is tied with a chain. It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty ris from an inhabited place.

It is forbidden to rear small herd animals in the Land of Israel, but it is permitted to rear them in Syria or in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel. It is forbidden to rear fowls in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, nor may priests rear them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] clean foods. It is forbidden to rear pigs anywhere. One should not rear a dog unless it is tied with a chain. It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty ris from an inhabited place.

Rabbi Yose ben Kisma said: Once I was walking by the way when a man met me, and greeted me and I greeted him. He said to me, “Rabbi, where are you from?” I said to him, “I am from a great city of sages and scribes”. He said to me, “Rabbi, would you consider living with us in our place? I would give you a thousand thousand denarii of gold, and precious stones and pearls.” I said to him: “My son, even if you were to give me all the silver and gold, precious stones and pearls that are in the world, I would not dwell anywhere except in a place of Torah; for when a man passes away there accompany him neither gold nor silver, nor precious stones nor pearls, but Torah and good deeds alone, as it is said, “When you walk it will lead you. When you lie down it will watch over you; and when you are awake it will talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). “When you walk it will lead you” in this world. “When you lie down it will watch over you” in the grave; “And when you are awake it will talk with you” in the world to come. And thus it is written in the book of Psalms by David, king of Israel, “I prefer the teaching You proclaimed to thousands of pieces of gold and silver” (Psalms 119:72), And it says: “Mine is the silver, and mine the gold, says the Lord of Hosts” (Haggai 2:8).

The todah and the nazirite's ram are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four; And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any manner, the same day and the night following, until midnight. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.

Before the Tabernacle was set up bamot (local altars) were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. After the Tabernacle was set up bamot were forbidden and the service was performed by priests. Most holy sacrifices were [then] eaten within the curtains, and lesser sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere in the camp of the Israelites.

When they came to Gilgal, bamot (local altars) were [again] permitted. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere.

A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean. If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it becomes clean. A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean. A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot. A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible. All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness, except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean.

If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. [If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness.

If there is uncleanness in a wall, in a space of one cubic handbreadth, all upper stories above it, even if there are ten of them, are unclean. If there was a single upper story [built] over two houses, that one becomes unclean but all upper stories above it remain clean. [In a] beach-wall, uncleanness cleaves upwards and downward. [With regard to] a solid tomb monument, a person who touches it from the side remains clean, since [its] uncleanness cleaves upwards and downwards. But if there was a [free] space of a cubic handbreadth in the place where the uncleanness was, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, because it is like a closed grave. If he supported sukkot on [the monument] they become unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean.

A coffin which is broad below and narrow above, and has a corpse within it: A person touching it below remains clean; But above becomes unclean. If it is broad above and narrow below, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. If it was the same [above and below], a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: a handbreadth and more below is clean, but from that handbreadth upwards is unclean. If it was made like a clothes-chest, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. If it was made like a case, a person touching it anywhere remains clean, except at the place where it opens.

A coffin which is broad below and narrow above, and has a corpse within it: A person touching it below remains clean; But above becomes unclean. If it is broad above and narrow below, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. If it was the same [above and below], a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: a handbreadth and more below is clean, but from that handbreadth upwards is unclean. If it was made like a clothes-chest, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. If it was made like a case, a person touching it anywhere remains clean, except at the place where it opens.

A coffin which is broad below and narrow above, and has a corpse within it: A person touching it below remains clean; But above becomes unclean. If it is broad above and narrow below, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. If it was the same [above and below], a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: a handbreadth and more below is clean, but from that handbreadth upwards is unclean. If it was made like a clothes-chest, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. If it was made like a case, a person touching it anywhere remains clean, except at the place where it opens.

A coffin which is broad below and narrow above, and has a corpse within it: A person touching it below remains clean; But above becomes unclean. If it is broad above and narrow below, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. If it was the same [above and below], a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: a handbreadth and more below is clean, but from that handbreadth upwards is unclean. If it was made like a clothes-chest, a person touching it anywhere becomes unclean. If it was made like a case, a person touching it anywhere remains clean, except at the place where it opens.

[The priest] must not go into his own house to isolate it, nor may he stand within the house in which there is a nega. Rather, he must stand at the door of the house in which is there is a nega, and isolate it from there, as it is said, "The priest shall come out of the house to the entrance of the house, and close up the house for seven days" (Leviticus 14:38). He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the sign to see if it spread. "The priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out and cast outside the city into an unclean place" (v.. "They shall take other stones and replace those stones with them, and take other dirt and plaster the house" (v.. He must not take stones from the one side and bring them to the other; nor earth from the one side and bring it to the other; nor lime from anywhere. He must not bring one stone to replace two, nor two to replace one. But he can bring two to replace two or to replace three or to replace four. From here they have said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor. Both must take out the stones, both must scrape the walls, and both must bring the new stones. He alone, however, brings the earth, as it is said, "And he shall take other coating and plaster the house." His neighbor need not join with him in the plastering.

The two hairs spoken of in regard to the red heifer and in regard to leprosy as well as those spoken of anywhere else must be long enough for their tips to be bent to their roots, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Elazar says: long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail. Rabbi Akiva says: long enough to be taken off with scissors.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

: Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the grain wholesaler. He explains the Mishnah: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and that part of his which could be spread anywhere as demay. Rebbi Jonah objected: He sells it as certain and tithes only demay? It is only possible in the way Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is the word of everybody: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and his part anywhere as demay; that means one half of his part in his partner’s hand as demay.

: Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the grain wholesaler. He explains the Mishnah: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and that part of his which could be spread anywhere as demay. Rebbi Jonah objected: He sells it as certain and tithes only demay? It is only possible in the way Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is the word of everybody: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and his part anywhere as demay; that means one half of his part in his partner’s hand as demay.

MISHNAH: Shoulder stones come from anywhere. The contractor may bring them from anywhere. These are shoulder stones: Any which cannot be taken up with one hand, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says shoulder stones are what their name indicates; all that can be carried on the shoulder by three’s or two’s. Somebody building a fence between his property and the public domain may dig down to the bedrock. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps in the public domain and then uses it to improve [the public domain], the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as one may not damage the public domain, so one may not improve it. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps on his own property in the way of those who manure. The same rule applies to somebody digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave.

MISHNAH: Shoulder stones come from anywhere. The contractor may bring them from anywhere. These are shoulder stones: Any which cannot be taken up with one hand, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says shoulder stones are what their name indicates; all that can be carried on the shoulder by three’s or two’s. Somebody building a fence between his property and the public domain may dig down to the bedrock. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps in the public domain and then uses it to improve [the public domain], the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as one may not damage the public domain, so one may not improve it. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps on his own property in the way of those who manure. The same rule applies to somebody digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave.

HALAKHAH: “Shoulder stones come from anywhere,” even from his own [property] and “the contractor may bring from anywhere,” even smaller than shoulder stones.

HALAKHAH: “Shoulder stones come from anywhere,” even from his own [property] and “the contractor may bring from anywhere,” even smaller than shoulder stones.

MISHNAH: Five [persons] cannot give heave and if they gave it is not heave: the deaf and dumb, the insane, the minor, and one who gives heave from what is not his. The Gentile who gave heave for a Jew’s property, even with the latter’s authorization his heave is not heave. A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave, but if he did, his heave is heave. A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute. Rebbi Jehudah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. Rebbi Yose says, before he came to the time of vows, his heave is not heave. After he has reached the time of vows, his heave is heave.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not ḥereš. But we have stated: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

MISHNAH: What is their threshing floor for tithes? Green melon and pumpkins from when they are cleaned; if they are not cleaned, when one makes a heap. Water melons, when they are cleaned; if they are not cleaned, when he puts them in storage. Vegetables sold in bundles, when they are bundled. When he makes no bundles, when he is finished filling the vessel; if he does not fill the vessel, when he is finished harvesting. A fig basket when he covers it; if he does not cover it when the vessel is completely filled; if he does not completely fill the vessel, when he has collected all he wants. When has this been said? When he brings it to market. But if he brings it to his house, he may eat snacks from it until he reaches his house. Dried pomegranate cells, raisins, and carob when he makes them into a pile. Onions when they are cleaned, if he does not clean when he makes them into a pile. Grain when it is in smooth piles, if he does not smoothe when he makes it into a pile. Legumes when they are sifted, if he does not sift when he makes smooth piles. Even though he made smooth piles, he may take from the broken ones, from the sides, and from what is in the chaff and eat. Wine after he cleaned it. Even after he cleaned it he may collect from the upper part of the winepress or the pipe and drink. Oil after it descended into the barrel. Even after it descended, he may take from the press, the weight, and between the beams and put it on a pizza or into a bowl but he should not add it to a hot pan or pot. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may put it anywhere except into anything containing vinegar or fish sauce.

That means that the house creates ṭevel for its owner but not for others. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah said the same thing as we have stated: “Rebbi Neḥemiah says, every [courtyard] in which a person is not ashamed to eat obligates.” Rebbi Yose said, we thought that Rebbi Neḥemiah and the other rabbis disagree about a courtyard in which he would be ashamed to eat anywhere. That means, not one in which he would be ashamed at some place but not at another. Since Rebbi Eleazar said Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah said the same thing, this implies that a place where he would be ashamed is free and one where he would not be ashamed is obligated.

Everybody agrees that staying overnight does not induce ṭevel. What is the difference between staying overnight and staying during the Sabbath? A person happens to stay overnight, nobody happens to stay during the Sabbath. A person will stay anywhere overnight, nobody stays everywhere during the Sabbath.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree with us that Second Tithe of not fully processed produce may be redeemed and eaten anywhere? Also with fully processed produce it is the same. The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce which one may abandon and thereby free from tithes, what can you say about fully processed produce which one cannot abandon and thereby free from tithes. The House of Hillel replied to them: Even fully processed produce one may abandon and thereby free from tithes; are not baskets of eating figs or grapes fully processed?” This proves that baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing. “The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce for which one may take Second Tithe from another place, what can you say about fully processed produce for which one cannot take Second Tithe from another place!” This answers the question simply.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

Anywhere one stated categories there are derivatives. There, we have stated: “There are four categories of damages. The ox”, this is the horn. Goring and pushing are main categories. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If it bit, lay down, kicked, these are derivatives of the horn. There, we have stated: “The categories of impurity, the crawling animal and semen.” What are derivatives of crawling animals? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Naḥum: pushings. What are pushings? Touching. The main category of impurity makes everything impure, derivative impurity transmits impurity only to food and drink, or clay vessels. Food and drink and [clay] vessels cannot become main categories of impurity to transmit impurity. Gonorrhea. And here, we have stated: “The categories of work are 39.” Ploughing is a category. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, these are derivatives of ploughing.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

Rebbi Yannai said, one is permitted to kill a wasp on the Sabbath. And it was stated thus: “Five are killed on the Sabbath: an Egyptian fly, and a wasp in Niniveh, and a scorpion in Adiabene, and a snake in the Land of Israel, and a rabid dog anywhere. It happened that a snake fell on the Sabbath, when a Nabatean got up and killed it. Rebbi said, it met its match.” But are they not of the ones which are killed on the Sabbath? Explain it if they come to do damage. It was stated, Rebbi Jacob says, he who sees a snake or a scorpion within four cubits was destined to die by them, only that the mercy of the Omnipresent is abundant. Rabban Simeon said, when has this been said? If he did not kill them. But if he killed them they appeared to him so he could kill them. In any case they appeared to him only by merit.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

MISHNAH: One surrounds with sticks, on condition that between one stick and the next there be less than three hand-breadths. They spoke about a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say that the Sages mentioned a caravan only as an example. Any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; but the Sages say, one of these two. Of four matters they freed a military camp: One may bring wood from anywhere, and they are not liable for washing their hands, and from demay, and from making an eruv.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

The roof of a tower is considered [part of] the town. The roof of a cave is considered as fields. What, really dwellers? Or maybe just inhabitable? Since Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: one considers it as if filled by water and clay, this means even inhabitable. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, this implies (a city) which has two exits, if between one and the other there are 3’999 cubits one walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, 4’000 cubits he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rabbi Aḥa said; Rebbi Ze`ira explained it. If he would put his sandal anywhere he could go outside and put it on; and if he would put his sandal anywhere he could go outside and put it on. What is the difference from which side he comes? From one side it is forbidden, from both sides it is permitted.

The roof of a tower is considered [part of] the town. The roof of a cave is considered as fields. What, really dwellers? Or maybe just inhabitable? Since Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: one considers it as if filled by water and clay, this means even inhabitable. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, this implies (a city) which has two exits, if between one and the other there are 3’999 cubits one walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, 4’000 cubits he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rabbi Aḥa said; Rebbi Ze`ira explained it. If he would put his sandal anywhere he could go outside and put it on; and if he would put his sandal anywhere he could go outside and put it on. What is the difference from which side he comes? From one side it is forbidden, from both sides it is permitted.

They asked before Rebbi Yasa: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard, one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yasa said, each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street. Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move it only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains as one.

They asked before Rebbi Yasa: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard, one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yasa said, each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street. Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move it only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains as one.

They asked before Rebbi Yasa: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard, one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yasa said, each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street. Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move it only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains as one.

MISHNAH: A person may not stand in a private domain and drink in the public domain, in the public domain and drink in a private domain, unless he put his head and most of his body there where he drinks; the same holds for a wine press. A person may collect from a leader lower than ten hand-breadths, and drink anywhere from a gutter.

The burning of the parts on leavening. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

If one broke a bird’s neck on leavening. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. This excludes the bird which is not slaughtered as sacrifice. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Him who said “liable” one understands as you are saying for freeing from liability. What is the reason of him who frees from liability? He said to him, one may infer punishment from punishment but one may not infer punishment from exemption.

HALAKHAH: They shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; I could think, two hundred. Rebbi Aqiba said, anywhere you could understand many or you could understand few, if you took the many you took nothing, if you took few you took. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, two measures; one finite, the other infinite. Everybody measures with the finite measure, but nobody measures with the infinite measure. Rebbi Nehemiah said, does the verse come to open or to lock in? It does not come to lock in but to open. If you are saying days are ten, they could be 100 or 200 or 1’000 or 10’000. But if you say days are two, you did unlock. Rebbi Muna said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah. Days are two. I could think that days are many. If they are many, why is it said, many? Therefore the verse only spoke of few days. How much are they? It means two; many are three. I could think that many (days) means ten. It says days and it says many. Since the minimum of days are two, so for many, the minimum of many are three. I could think that two and three make five. But is it said, days [and many]? It only is said, many days. How is this? These many should be more than two. How many are they? It implies three.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday of the New Year,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Pappos said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were sitting and questioning. They said, we have stated: “if the holiday of the New Year falls on a Sabbath, at the Temple they were blowing but not in the countryside.” If it is a word of the Torah, in the countryside it also should push aside; if it is not a word of the Torah also in the Temple it should not push aside. Cahana passed by. They said, this is a [an important] man whom we may ask. They went and asked him. He said to them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Rebbi Ze`ira told the colleagues to go and listen to Rebbi Levi preaching since it would be impossible that he would let a weekly reading go by without enlightenment. He came and said before them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Then also in the Temple it should not push aside. It was stated, on the first of the month. Then also anywhere they know that it is the first of the month it should push aside. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, and you shall sacrifice, at the place where the sacrifices are offered. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah. Is it not written, you shall convey a sounding shofar in the seventh month, etc? He said to them, this one you convey in all your Land, therefore not another one. They said to him, or we might say, this one you convey in your Land, therefore another one both in your Land and outside the Land. Rebbi Jonah said, if it were written “convey a shofar in your Land”, I would have said that here he restricted and at another place he extended. But in all your Land, here he extended and at another place he restricted.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said: In addition, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that even if the head of the court be anywhere, the witnesses should only go to the seat of the council.

One verse says, in front of the cover, but another verse says, in front of the holy gobelin. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Abbahu and the rabbis disagree. One said, if the Patriarch sins, majesty remains in place. If the community sinned, majesty is not in place. But the other one said, because teacher and student sinned, they have to go public and be noticed, following and he shall remove the bull to outside the camp. Ḥizqiah stated: it is a hint. Anywhere there is an anointed one there is the Ark. Anywhere there is no anointed one there is no Ark. This follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Aina said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written: I shall be pleased with it and I will be honored. It is written I will be honored, without the letter he. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The {heavenly} fire, the Ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil, and the Holy Spirit.

One verse says, in front of the cover, but another verse says, in front of the holy gobelin. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Abbahu and the rabbis disagree. One said, if the Patriarch sins, majesty remains in place. If the community sinned, majesty is not in place. But the other one said, because teacher and student sinned, they have to go public and be noticed, following and he shall remove the bull to outside the camp. Ḥizqiah stated: it is a hint. Anywhere there is an anointed one there is the Ark. Anywhere there is no anointed one there is no Ark. This follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Aina said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written: I shall be pleased with it and I will be honored. It is written I will be honored, without the letter he. These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The {heavenly} fire, the Ark, Urim and Tummim, anointing oil, and the Holy Spirit.

MISHNAH: Anywhere it is written in the Scroll “not to deliver eulogies”, before it is forbidden, afterwards is permitted. Rebbi Yose says, before and after are forbidden. “Not to fast”, before and after it is permitted; Rebbi Yose says, before is forbidden, afterwards permitted

The deaf-mute. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should hear and learn. So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should learn, so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks and does not hear should not give heave” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak is [not] ḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥaliṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or by a woman for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say he shall say, she shall say. We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

“But for sancta one immerses.” Anywhere we state “immerses” it means in 40 seah. But did we not state, “he who washes his hands in the Temple needs a quartarius”? Rebbi Eleazar said, here for impure hands, there fore pure hands. [Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, even if you are saying here and there for pure hands, here and there for impure hands.] Here for dedicated Temple sancta, there for profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.

MISHNAH: Any [male] who has a brother anywhere makes his brother’s wife a candidate for levirate and he is his brother in every respect, except if he were from a slave woman or a non-Jew.

MISHNAH: Any person who has a child anywhere frees [the child’s] father’s wife from levirate; [the child] would be guilty for wounding or cursing [the father]; he is his child in every respect except if he were from a slave woman or a non-Jew.

HALAKHAH: “Any person who has a child anywhere”, etc. Rebbi Avin asked: “His child in every respect”, even for being fruitful and multiplying? Is there no difference between a Gentile who came to a Jewish woman and she gave birth and a Jew who came to a Gentile woman and she gave birth? “When she became Jewish and gave birth it is a first-born for inheritance but not a first-born for the Cohen.”

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak isḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥalîṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

HALAKHAH: “if she says ‘my husband died’,” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that he died, and a woman says that he did not die; a woman said that he died and a witness said that he did not die.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

HALAKHAH: “If a man declares his jealousy to his wife,” etc. It is written: “A spirit of jealousy overcame him and he declared his jealousy to his wife;” this implies that he should not declare his jealousy jokingly, or in the middle of a conversation, or lightly, or in a friendly manner but in a way that inspires fear. If he transgressed and declared his jealousy in one of the aforementioned ways: was this said as an obligation or as a necessity? If you say as an obligation, his declaration of jealousy is valid. If you say as a necessity, his declaration of jealousy is invalid. This is resolved referring to the statement: Anywhere “law” or “teaching” is mentioned, it is an absolute necessity.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, he declares his jealousy by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony; he takes her to drink on the testimony of two witnesses.” It is said here: “For he found in her a word of nakedness”; “finding” anywhere has to be validated by witnesses. How does Rebbi Eliezer explain “a word”? A circumstance that brings into the habit of nakedness. May a single witness let him take her to drink? His own testimony can never obligate him to swear in money matters but it will let him take her to drink, a single witness who will obligate him to swear in money matters not so much more? May a relative bring her to drink? Who is a closer relative than her husband? May a hearsay witness bring her to drink? What is the difference between him and a relative? A relative may be disabled today but he might be enabled later, a hearsay witness is not acceptable either today or later.

Does one shame out of a doubt? Rebbi Simlai said, anywhere one finds whoring, mass destruction comes to the world.

“And from the dust.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House.

HALAKHAH: “There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony,” etc. Gidul bar Miniamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. Then one should state: “A witness says that she became impure, and a woman says that she did not become impure; a woman said that she became impure and a witness said that she did not become impure.” In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

HALAKHAH: “The calf whose neck was broken,” etc. It is reasonable only from “they begin and say”. He starts from the beginning of the paragraph. “If there be found,” not in a time when they are frequent. “If there be found,” not that you have to search. “If there be found,” finding anywhere is only by witnesses. “It is not known who killed him”, therefore if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck. There, you say, if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, and here, you say so? One for the killer, one for the victim. And that which you say that if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, [is it only] if they say that if we see him we will be able to identify him. Even those who say, if we see him we will not be able to identify him, one did not break the neck since it is written: “Our eyes did not see.” But somebody did see!

HALAKHAH: Gidul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. One should state: “A witness says that he saw the murderer, and a woman says that she did not see; a woman said that he saw and a witness said that he did not see,” as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

The Mishnah: “Possession of Heaven is by money, possession of any individual by taking hold.” How? If the treasurer paid with Temple money for movables, they are in the Temple’s possession anywhere they are, for it is written: “The Eternal’s are the earth and what fills it, dry land and its inhabitants.”

Rebbi Meïr says: A person can earn his livelihood from anywhere. Blessed is he who sees his parents in an esteemed trade; woe to him who sees his parents in a degrading trade.

HALAKHAH: “He who leases a dwelling to another person,” etc. It was stated: “Anywhere they mention 30 days or twelve months it does not mean that one has to dwell there 30 days or twelve months but notice must be given before 30 days or twelve months. An oil press, the entire period it is in use. A wine press, the entire period it is in use. A potter’s atelier no less than twelve months. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For those who work with black earth. But one who works with white earth collects his stock and leaves.”

“Son.” Not only a son, from where a daughter’s son? The verse says, “a son”, from anywhere. “Daughter.” Not only a daughter, from where a daughter’s son, a son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, a son’s son? The verse says, “a daughter”, from anywhere. “Brothers.” Not only brothers, from where brothers’ sons, brothers’ daughters, brothers’ sons’ daughters? The verse says, “his flesh’s relatives”, from anywhere.