basis

For by the punishment of them in one body we perceive that we have found the only means of establishing our affairs for the future on a firm and satisfactory basis.

The basis of the foot on the ground consisted of a ruby and measured a hand's breadth high all round.

I therefore, having heard this, glorified the Lord God, and again I questioned the demon, saying: "Tell me how ye can ascend into heaven, being demons, and amidst the stars and holy angels intermingle." And he answered: "Just as things are fulfilled in heaven, so also on earth (are fulfilled) the types of all of them. For there are principalities, authorities, world-rulers, and we demons fly about in the air; and we hear the voices of the heavenly beings, and survey all the powers. And as having no ground (basis) on which to alight and rest, we lose strength and fall off like leaves from trees. And men seeing us imagine that the stars are falling from heaven. But it is not really so, O king; but we fall because of our weakness, and because we have nowhere anything to lay hold of; and so we fall down like lightnings in the depth of night and suddenly. And we set cities in flames and fire the fields. For the stars have firm foundations in the heavens like the sun and the moon."

Now between this candlestick and the table, which, as we said, were within the sanctuary, was the altar of incense, made of wood indeed, but of the same wood of which the foregoing vessels were made, such as was not liable to corruption; it was entirely crusted over with a golden plate. Its breadth on each side was a cubit, but the altitude double. Upon it was a grate of gold, that was extant above the altar, which had a golden crown encompassing it round about, whereto belonged rings and bars, by which the priests carried it when they journeyed. Before this tabernacle there was reared a brazen altar, but it was within made of wood, five cubits by measure on each side, but its height was but three, in like manner adorned with brass plates as bright as gold. It had also a brazen hearth of network; for the ground underneath received the fire from the hearth, because it had no basis to receive it. Hard by this altar lay the basins, and the vials, and the censers, and the caldrons, made of gold; but the other vessels, made for the use of the sacrifices, were all of brass. And such was the construction of the tabernacle; and these were the vessels thereto belonging.

When the Philistines had taken the ark of the Hebrews captive, as I said a little before, they carried it to the city of Ashdod, and put it by their own god, who was called Dagon, as one of their spoils; but when they went into his temple the next morning to worship their god, they found him paying the same worship to the ark, for he lay along, as having fallen down from the basis whereon he had stood: so they took him up, and set him on his basis again, and were much troubled at what had happened; and as they frequently came to Dagon and found him still lying along, in a posture of adoration to the ark, they were in very great distress and confusion. At length God sent a very destructive disease upon the city and country of Ashdod, for they died of the dysentery or flux, a sore distemper, that brought death upon them very suddenly; for before the soul could, as usual in easy deaths, be well loosed from the body, they brought up their entrails, and vomited up what they had eaten, and what was entirely corrupted by the disease. And as to the fruits of their country, a great multitude of mice arose out of the earth and hurt them, and spared neither the plants nor the fruits. Now while the people of Ashdod were under these misfortunes, and were not able to support themselves under their calamities, they perceived that they suffered thus because of the ark, and that the victory they had gotten, and their having taken the ark captive, had not happened for their good; they therefore sent to the people of Askelon, and desired that they would receive the ark among them. This desire of the people of Ashdod was not disagreeable to those of Askelon, so they granted them that favor. But when they had gotten the ark, they were in the same miserable condition; for the ark carried along with it the disasters that the people of Ashdod had suffered, to those who received it from them. Those of Askelon also sent it away from themselves to others: nor did it stay among those others neither; for since they were pursued by the same disasters, they still sent it to the neighboring cities; so that the ark went round, after this manner, to the five cities of the Philistines, as though it exacted these disasters as a tribute to be paid it for its coming among them.

When the Philistines had taken the ark of the Hebrews captive, as I said a little before, they carried it to the city of Ashdod, and put it by their own god, who was called Dagon, as one of their spoils; but when they went into his temple the next morning to worship their god, they found him paying the same worship to the ark, for he lay along, as having fallen down from the basis whereon he had stood: so they took him up, and set him on his basis again, and were much troubled at what had happened; and as they frequently came to Dagon and found him still lying along, in a posture of adoration to the ark, they were in very great distress and confusion. At length God sent a very destructive disease upon the city and country of Ashdod, for they died of the dysentery or flux, a sore distemper, that brought death upon them very suddenly; for before the soul could, as usual in easy deaths, be well loosed from the body, they brought up their entrails, and vomited up what they had eaten, and what was entirely corrupted by the disease. And as to the fruits of their country, a great multitude of mice arose out of the earth and hurt them, and spared neither the plants nor the fruits. Now while the people of Ashdod were under these misfortunes, and were not able to support themselves under their calamities, they perceived that they suffered thus because of the ark, and that the victory they had gotten, and their having taken the ark captive, had not happened for their good; they therefore sent to the people of Askelon, and desired that they would receive the ark among them. This desire of the people of Ashdod was not disagreeable to those of Askelon, so they granted them that favor. But when they had gotten the ark, they were in the same miserable condition; for the ark carried along with it the disasters that the people of Ashdod had suffered, to those who received it from them. Those of Askelon also sent it away from themselves to others: nor did it stay among those others neither; for since they were pursued by the same disasters, they still sent it to the neighboring cities; so that the ark went round, after this manner, to the five cities of the Philistines, as though it exacted these disasters as a tribute to be paid it for its coming among them.

Now, therefore, the king laid the foundations of the temple very deep in the ground, and the materials were strong stones, and such as would resist the force of time; these were to unite themselves with the earth, and become a basis and a sure foundation for that superstructure which was to be erected over it; they were to be so strong, in order to sustain with ease those vast superstructures and precious ornaments, whose own weight was to be not less than the weight of those other high and heavy buildings which the king designed to be very ornamental and magnificent. They erected its entire body, quite up to the roof, of white stone; its height was sixty cubits, and its length was the same, and its breadth twenty. There was another building erected over it, equal to it in its measures; so that the entire altitude of the temple was a hundred and twenty cubits. Its front was to the east. As to the porch, they built it before the temple; its length was twenty cubits, and it was so ordered that it might agree with the breadth of the house; and it had twelve cubits in latitude, and its height was raised as high as a hundred and twenty cubits. He also built round about the temple thirty small rooms, which might include the whole temple, by their closeness one to another, and by their number and outward position round it. He also made passages through them, that they might come into on through another. Every one of these rooms had five cubits in breadth, and the same in length, but in height twenty. Above these there were other rooms, and others above them, equal, both in their measures and number; so that these reached to a height equal to the lower part of the house; for the upper part had no buildings about it. The roof that was over the house was of cedar; and truly every one of these rooms had a roof of their own, that was not connected with the other rooms; but for the other parts, there was a covered roof common to them all, and built with very long beams, that passed through the rest, and through the whole building, that so the middle walls, being strengthened by the same beams of timber, might be thereby made firmer: but as for that part of the roof that was under the beams, it was made of the same materials, and was all made smooth, and had ornaments proper for roofs, and plates of gold nailed upon them. And as he enclosed the walls with boards of cedar, so he fixed on them plates of gold, which had sculptures upon them; so that the whole temple shined, and dazzled the eyes of such as entered, by the splendor of the gold that was on every side of them, Now the whole structure of the temple was made with great skill of polished stones, and those laid together so very harmoniously and smoothly, that there appeared to the spectators no sign of any hammer, or other instrument of architecture; but as if, without any use of them, the entire materials had naturally united themselves together, that the agreement of one part with another seemed rather to have been natural, than to have arisen from the force of tools upon them. The king also had a fine contrivance for an ascent to the upper room over the temple, and that was by steps in the thickness of its wall; for it had no large door on the east end, as the lower house had, but the entrances were by the sides, through very small doors. He also overlaid the temple, both within and without, with boards of cedar, that were kept close together by thick chains, so that this contrivance was in the nature of a support and a strength to the building.

Now of the cisterns of gold there were two, whose sculpture was of scale-work, from its basis to its belt-like circle, with various sorts of stones enchased in the spiral circles. Next to which there was upon it a meander of a cubit in height; it was composed of stones of all sorts of colors. And next to this was the rod-work engraven; and next to that was a rhombus in a texture of net-work, drawn out to the brim of the basin, while small shields, made of stones, beautiful in their kind, and of four fingers' depth, filled up the middle parts. About the top of the basin were wreathed the leaves of lilies, and of the convolvulus, and the tendrils of vines in a circular manner. And this was the construction of the two cisterns of gold, each containing two firkins. But those which were of silver were much more bright and splendid than looking-glasses, and you might in them see the images that fell upon them more plainly than in the other. The king also ordered thirty vials; those of which the parts that were of gold, and filled up with precious stones, were shadowed over with the leaves of ivy and of vines, artificially engraven. And these were the vessels that were after an extraordinary manner brought to this perfection, partly by the skill of the workmen, who were admirable in such fine work, but much more by the diligence and generosity of the king, who not only supplied the artificers abundantly, and with great generosity, with what they wanted, but he forbade public audiences for the time, and came and stood by the workmen, and saw the whole operation. And this was the cause why the workmen were so accurate in their performance, because they had regard to the king, and to his great concern about the vessels, and so the more indefatigably kept close to the work.

Now upon his observation of a place near the sea, which was very proper for containing a city, and was before called Strato's Tower, he set about getting a plan for a magnificent city there, and erected many edifices with great diligence all over it, and this of white stone. He also adorned it with most sumptuous palaces and large edifices for containing the people; and what was the greatest and most laborious work of all, he adorned it with a haven, that was always free from the waves of the sea. Its largeness was not less than the Pyrmum [at Athens], and had towards the city a double station for the ships. It was of excellent workmanship; and this was the more remarkable for its being built in a place that of itself was not suitable to such noble structures, but was to be brought to perfection by materials from other places, and at very great expenses. This city is situate in Phoenicia, in the passage by sea to Egypt, between Joppa and Dora, which are lesser maritime cities, and not fit for havens, on account of the impetuous south winds that beat upon them, which rolling the sands that come from the sea against the shores, do not admit of ships lying in their station; but the merchants are generally there forced to ride at their anchors in the sea itself. So Herod endeavored to rectify this inconvenience, and laid out such a compass towards the land as might be sufficient for a haven, wherein the great ships might lie in safety; and this he effected by letting down vast stones of above fifty feet in length, not less than eighteen in breadth, and nine in depth, into twenty fathom deep; and as some were lesser, so were others bigger than those dimensions. This mole which he built by the sea-side was two hundred feet wide, the half of which was opposed to the current of the waves, so as to keep off those waves which were to break upon them, and so was called Procymatia, or the first breaker of the waves; but the other half had upon it a wall, with several towers, the largest of which was named Drusus, and was a work of very great excellence, and had its name from Drusus, the son-in-law of Cæsar, who died young. There were also a great number of arches where the mariners dwelt. There was also before them a quay, [or landing place,] which ran round the entire haven, and was a most agreeable walk to such as had a mind to that exercise; but the entrance or mouth of the port was made on the north quarter, on which side was the stillest of the winds of all in this place: and the basis of the whole circuit on the left hand, as you enter the port, supported a round turret, which was made very strong, in order to resist the greatest waves; while on the right hand, as you enter, stood two vast stones, and those each of them larger than the turret, which were over against them; these stood upright, and were joined together. Now there were edifices all along the circular haven, made of the politest stone, with a certain elevation, whereon was erected a temple, that was seen a great way off by those that were sailing for that haven, and had in it two statues, the one of Rome, the other of Cæsar. The city itself was called Cæsarea, which was also itself built of fine materials, and was of a fine structure; nay, the very subterranean vaults and cellars had no less of architecture bestowed on them than had the buildings above ground. Some of these vaults carried things at even distances to the haven and to the sea; but one of them ran obliquely, and bound all the rest together, that both the rain and the filth of the citizens were together carried off with ease, and the sea itself, upon the flux of the tide from without, came into the city, and washed it all clean. Herod also built therein a theater of stone; and on the south quarter, behind the port, an amphitheater also, capable of holding a vast number of men, and conveniently situated for a prospect to the sea. So this city was thus finished in twelve years; during which time the king did not fail to go on both with the work, and to pay the charges that were necessary.

Now in the western quarters of the enclosure of the temple there were four gates; the first led to the king's palace, and went to a passage over the intermediate valley; two more led to the suburbs of the city; and the last led to the other city, where the road descended down into the valley by a great number of steps, and thence up again by the ascent for the city lay over against the temple in the manner of a theater, and was encompassed with a deep valley along the entire south quarter; but the fourth front of the temple, which was southward, had indeed itself gates in its middle, as also it had the royal cloisters, with three walks, which reached in length from the east valley unto that on the west, for it was impossible it should reach any farther: and this cloister deserves to be mentioned better than any other under the sun; for while the valley was very deep, and its bottom could not be seen, if you looked from above into the depth, this further vastly high elevation of the cloister stood upon that height, insomuch that if any one looked down from the top of the battlements, or down both those altitudes, he would be giddy, while his sight could not reach to such an immense depth. This cloister had pillars that stood in four rows one over against the other all along, for the fourth row was interwoven into the wall, which [also was built of stone]; and the thickness of each pillar was such, that three men might, with their arms extended, fathom it round, and join their hands again, while its length was twenty-seven feet, with a double spiral at its basis; and the number of all the pillars [in that court] was a hundred and sixty-two. Their chapiters were made with sculptures after the Corinthian order, and caused an amazement [to the spectators], by reason of the grandeur of the whole. These four rows of pillars included three intervals for walking in the middle of this cloister; two of which walks were made parallel to each other, and were contrived after the same manner; the breadth of each of them was thirty feet, the length was a furlong, and the height fifty feet; but the breadth of the middle part of the cloister was one and a half of the other, and the height was double, for it was much higher than those on each side; but the roofs were adorned with deep sculptures in wood, representing many sorts of figures. The middle was much higher than the rest, and the wall of the front was adorned with beams, resting upon pillars, that were interwoven into it, and that front was all of polished stone, insomuch that its fineness, to such as had not seen it, was incredible, and to such as had seen it, was greatly amazing. Thus was the first enclosure. In the midst of which, and not far from it, was the second, to be gone up to by a few steps: this was encompassed by a stone wall for a partition, with an inscription, which forbade any foreigner to go in under pain of death. Now this inner enclosure had on its southern and northern quarters three gates [equally] distant one from another; but on the east quarter, towards the sun-rising, there was one large gate, through which such as were pure came in, together with their wives; but the temple further inward in that gate was not allowed to the women; but still more inward was there a third [court of the] temple, whereinto it was not lawful for any but the priests alone to enter. The temple itself was within this; and before that temple was the altar, upon which we offer our sacrifices and burnt-offerings to God. Into none of these three did king Herod enter, for he was forbidden, because he was not a priest. However, he took care of the cloisters and the outer enclosures, and these he built in eight years.

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Now it is impossible to describe the multitude of the shows as they deserve, and the magnificence of them all; such indeed as a man could not easily think of as performed, either by the labor of workmen, or the variety of riches, or the rarities of nature; for almost all such curiosities as the most happy men ever get by piece-meal were here one heaped on another, and those both admirable and costly in their nature; and all brought together on that day demonstrated the vastness of the dominions of the Romans; for there was here to be seen a mighty quantity of silver, and gold, and ivory, contrived into all sorts of things, and did not appear as carried along in pompous show only, but, as a man may say, running along like a river. Some parts were composed of the rarest purple hangings, and so carried along; and others accurately represented to the life what was embroidered by the arts of the Babylonians. There were also precious stones that were transparent, some set in crowns of gold, and some in other places, as the workmen pleased; and of these such a vast number were brought, that we could not but thence learn how vainly we imagined any of them to be rarities. The images of the gods were also carried, being as well wonderful for their largeness, as made very artificially, and with great skill of the workmen; nor were any of these images of any other than very costly materials; and many species of animals were brought, every one in their own natural ornaments. The men also who brought every one of these shows were great multitudes, and adorned with purple garments, all over interwoven with gold; those that were chosen for carrying these pompous shows having also about them such magnificent ornaments as were both extraordinary and surprising. Besides these, one might see that even the great number of the captives was not unadorned, while the variety that was in their garments, and their fine texture, concealed from the sight the deformity of their bodies. But what afforded the greatest surprise of all was the structure of the pageants that were borne along; for indeed he that met them could not but be afraid that the bearers would not be able firmly enough to support them, such was their magnitude; for many of them were so made, that they were on three or even four stories, one above another. The magnificence also of their structure afforded one both pleasure and surprise; for upon many of them were laid carpets of gold. There was also wrought gold and ivory fastened about them all; and many resemblances of the war, and those in several ways, and variety of contrivances, affording a most lively portraiture of itself. For there was to be seen a happy country laid waste, and entire squadrons of enemies slain; while some of them ran away, and some were carried into captivity; with walls of great altitude and magnitude overthrown and ruined by machines; with the strongest fortifications taken, and the walls of most populous cities upon the tops of hills seized on, and an army pouring itself within the walls; as also every place full of slaughter, and supplications of the enemies, when they were no longer able to lift up their hands in way of opposition. Fire also sent upon temples was here represented, and houses overthrown, and falling upon their owners: rivers also, after they came out of a large and melancholy desert, ran down, not into a land cultivated, nor as drink for men, or for cattle, but through a land still on fire upon every side; for the Jews related that such a thing they had undergone during this war. Now the workmanship of these representations was so magnificent and lively in the construction of the things, that it exhibited what had been done to such as did not see it, as if they had been there really present. On the top of every one of these pageants was placed the commander of the city that was taken, and the manner wherein he was taken. Moreover, there followed those pageants a great number of ships; and for the other spoils, they were carried in great plenty. But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews. After these spoils passed by a great many men, carrying the images of Victory, whose structure was entirely either of ivory or of gold. After which Vespasian marched in the first place, and Titus followed him; Domitian also rode along with them, and made a glorious appearance, and rode on a horse that was worthy of admiration.

[The laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nothing to rest on. The laws concerning Shabbat, hagigot, and trespassing are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many halakhot. [The laws concerning] civil cases and [Temple] worship, purity and impurity, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and they that are the essentials of the Torah.

One who lends money to his fellow may not dwell in his courtyard for free or rent it from him at a reduced rate, since that counts as usury. One may increase rent-charge [not paid in advance] but not purchase price [not paid in advance]. How so? If his fellow rented him his courtyard, and said to him, “If you pay me now the cost is 10 selas per year, but if you pay me on a monthly basis, the rent is one sela per month”, this is permitted. However, if he sold him his field, and said to him, “If you pay me now it is yours for 1,000 zuz, but if you pay me at the time of threshing it will be 1,200 zuz”, it is forbidden.

Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi is (Ps. 119:62): “At midnight I get up to thank You for Your just laws.” And it is written (Ps. 119:148): “My eyes preceded night watches.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Abba, one explained the reason of Rebbi, the other the reason of Rebbi Nathan. He who explained the reason of Rebbi: “at midnight”. He who explained the reason of Rebbi Nathan (Jud. 7:19): “at the start of the middle watch.” How does Rebbi Nathan uphold the basis of Rebbi’s reason, “at midnight”? Sometimes “at midnight,” sometimes “my eyes preceded night watches.” How is that? When David had a state dinner, “at midnight.” When he ate by himself, “my eyes preceded night watches.” In no case did dawn come and found David asleep. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9): “Wake up, my honor, wake up, o harp and lute, I shall awake dawn.” My honor has to be awake because of the honor of my Creator. My honor counts for nothing before the honor of my Creator. I shall awake dawn, dawn will not awake me. His evil instinct was trying to seduce him and told him: David, usually dawn awakes kings and you say “I shall awake dawn!” Usually kings sleep until three hours into the day and you say “at midnight I get up!” But he answers, “for Your just laws.” What did David do? Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Menaḥem: He took a harp, put it on his headboard, got up at midnight and started playing on it so that his companions in the study of Torah should hear it. What were his companions in the study of Torah saying? When king David studies Torah, certainly we have to do it also! Rebbi Levi said: a lute was hanging in David’s window and in the night the North wind was blowing and moving it and it was playing by itself. This refers to what is written (2Kings 3:15): “It happened when the musical instrument was playing.” It does not say “when he played on the musical instrument” but “when the instrument was playing”; it was playing by itself.

How does Rebbi uphold the basis of Rebbi Nathan’s reason, “at the start of the middle watch”? Rebbi Huna said: the end of the second and the start of the third split the night into two. Rebbi Mana said: Is this true? Does it say “watches”? No, it says “watch”! The first watch does not count since there the creatures are still awake.

“ That all tithes should be mine as long as you own it, he gets its tithes as long as the buyer owns it.” When he sold it to a third party, he has no tithes. If the buyer then bought it back from the third party, Rebbi Ḥiyya states that he has no tithes, Rebbi Hoshaia states that the tithes are his. This disagreement turns out like the other disagreement, as we have stated there “that he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah.” Rebbi Ḥanin stated before Rebbi La: Two Amoraïm, one says for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, and the other says, both for ketubah and individual stipulations. For him who says, for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, he has the tithes. For him who says, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations, he has no tithes. But did we not state: “If somebody received (as sharecropper) from the daughter of a Cohen, she has the tithes. If she married an Israel, they split the tithes. If she was widowed or divorced, she returns to her prior status.” There when he sold, here when he received. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “When she sold?” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there it left the power of both parties; here, it left the power of the seller but not that of the buyer.

On which basis did they rule that for vegetables their collection is the time of tithing? (Deut. 16:16) “From your threshing-floor and from your wine-press.” Threshing-floor and wine-press are sustained by the waters of the preceding year, you go for them after the past. These live from the waters of the coming year, you go for them to the future. They objected, but Egyptian beans, if one sowed them for the beans, are tithed for the past, but if he sowed for vegetable, they are tithed for the future. Does it hold a charm [to know that] if one sowed them for the beans, they drink from the past year, but if he sowed them as vegetable, they drink from the future year?

MISHNAH: A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid. Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. If one person borrows from five, one writes a prozbol for each single [creditor]. If five persons borrow from one, he writes only one prozbol for all of them. One writes prozbol only on the basis of real estate. If he has none, [the other party] gives him the right to a minute area of their field. If he had a field mortgaged in town, one writes a prozbol on it. Rebbi Ḥuẓpit says, one writes for a man on his wife’s properties and for orphans on those of the guardians. A bee hive. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is like real estate: one may write a prozbol on it, it is not subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is guilty. But the Sages say, it is not like real estate, one may not write a prozbol on it, it is subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is not sanctionable. If somebody returns a debt in the Sabbatical, he [the lender] says to him: “I am remitting.” If he [the borrower] says “anyway”, he [the lender] should accept it, for it is said (Deut. 15:2): “This is the word of remission”. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them: I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept it, for it is said (Deut. 19:4): “This is the word of a homicide.”

Who stated “a minor”? This does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “A minor whom his father put in a melon field where he was giving heave and his father sold on that basis, his heave is heave. He did not give heave but his father confirmed his action.” When the father came and confirmed his action, is heave made retroactively or for the future? Rebbi Shammai said, let us hear from the following: “When the owner came and found him standing on his property, if he said to him, take from these nice [fruits], if they are nice he does not worry about robbery, otherwise he has to worry. But if he collected and gave to him, in no case does he have to worry about robbery.” Can you say it became heave retroactively? No, from now into the future! Here also, it will be made heave from now on into the future.

What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

A Samaritan said, I shall make fun of this elder of the Jews. He went to him and said, I saw in my dream four cedars, four sycamores, a stand, the skin of a cow, and this man sits and steps on it. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, this is no dream! Nevertheless, you should not go away empty-handed. The four cedars are the four sides of his bed, the four sycomores the four legs of his bed, the stand with a skin, the basis for straw, and the rows the fingers. And this man sits and steps on it: this man lies on them, he cannot live and cannot die. And that happened to him.

The Mishnah is about new sheqalim, but not about old sheqalim. And it was stated so: Old ones in the Temple, no old ones in the countryside. The Mishnah is about an unpaid trustee, but not about a paid keeper. Rav Abba said, even if you say about a paid keeper, if they were stolen, by an armed robber, if the were lost, as when his ship sank at sea. Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon said, it follows him who said, one disburses on the account of what was collected and what was to be collected, but not following him who said one does not disburse on basis of what was collected nor what was secured by pledges.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, their width was (like an engraver’s cubit) [in an expansive cubit], and its width (a dwarf) [an excessive] cubit. Rebbi Onias in the name of Rebbi Immi: Like scales. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because the place of the fire was only one cubit square, therefore they only could be a (dwarf) [excessive] cubit. It was stated thus: One cubit the basis, one cubit the walkway, one cubit the enclosure, and one cubit the horns, and one cubit the fire place.

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, the basis was perforated down to the abyss. What is the reason? He turned it up, removed its stones, planted precious vine, and built a tower in its midst, this is the Temple, and a wine-press he excavated in it, this is the altar. And also an altar, that is the basis.” Rebbi Simeon says, it was work of Heaven. Since it was work of Heaven, maybe it was not beautiful like artist’s work? The verse says, the roundnesses of your hips are like hoops, formed by artist’s hands; they were more beautiful than those formed by artist’s hands. It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, a small opening was between the Temple Hall and the altar. Once in seventy years young priests climb down and bring it up in sanctity since it was congealed like fig cakes; they come and burn it in sanctity. Just as its pouring was in sanctity, so its burning was in sanctity.” Rebbi said, the Torah let you grasp an expression of love, an expression of fullness, and an expression of inebriation. Rebbi Judah bar Laqqara in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Since the Temple was destroyed, congealing wine disappeared, and white glass disappeared. What is white glass? It was flexible.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, the basis was perforated down to the abyss. What is the reason? He turned it up, removed its stones, planted precious vine, and built a tower in its midst, this is the Temple, and a wine-press he excavated in it, this is the altar. And also an altar, that is the basis.” Rebbi Simeon says, it was work of Heaven. Since it was work of Heaven, maybe it was not beautiful like artist’s work? The verse says, the roundnesses of your hips are like hoops, formed by artist’s hands; they were more beautiful than those formed by artist’s hands. It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, a small opening was between the Temple Hall and the altar. Once in seventy years young priests climb down and bring it up in sanctity since it was congealed like fig cakes; they come and burn it in sanctity. Just as its pouring was in sanctity, so its burning was in sanctity.” Rebbi said, the Torah let you grasp an expression of love, an expression of fullness, and an expression of inebriation. Rebbi Judah bar Laqqara in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Since the Temple was destroyed, congealing wine disappeared, and white glass disappeared. What is white glass? It was flexible.

“Golden candelabra were there.” Bar Qappara said, their height was 100 cubits. But did we not state, anything reaching 100 cubits needs a basis of 33? A ladder on one side and 33, and a ladder on the other side and 33; but was it not stated, the entire courtyard was only 187 long by 135 wide? It was found stated: Their place was by a wonder.

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday falls on a Friday,” etc. It is written, what you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. Rebbi Eliezer says, one bakes on the basis of the baked, and one cooks on the basis of the cooked. Rebbi Joshua says, one bakes and cooks on the basis of the cooked. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? What you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? What you will bake and what you will cook cook. Rebbi Eliezer said, this follows him who said that the Sabbath was given at Mara. But following him who said that at Alush the Sabbath was given, they are at Alush and the warning is given at Alush. Come and look, from the Torah it is forbidden and an eruv tavshilin makes it permitted? Rebbi Abbahu said, it would be logical that one should bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. If you would say so, one would bake and cook on the holiday for a weekday. Come and look, one makes the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath, but one does not bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, why may one make the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath? Since one may make the beds on Friday night for the Sabbath day. Could one bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath? One may not bake and cook on the night of the Sabbath for the Sabbath day.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday falls on a Friday,” etc. It is written, what you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. Rebbi Eliezer says, one bakes on the basis of the baked, and one cooks on the basis of the cooked. Rebbi Joshua says, one bakes and cooks on the basis of the cooked. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? What you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? What you will bake and what you will cook cook. Rebbi Eliezer said, this follows him who said that the Sabbath was given at Mara. But following him who said that at Alush the Sabbath was given, they are at Alush and the warning is given at Alush. Come and look, from the Torah it is forbidden and an eruv tavshilin makes it permitted? Rebbi Abbahu said, it would be logical that one should bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. If you would say so, one would bake and cook on the holiday for a weekday. Come and look, one makes the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath, but one does not bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, why may one make the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath? Since one may make the beds on Friday night for the Sabbath day. Could one bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath? One may not bake and cook on the night of the Sabbath for the Sabbath day.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday falls on a Friday,” etc. It is written, what you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. Rebbi Eliezer says, one bakes on the basis of the baked, and one cooks on the basis of the cooked. Rebbi Joshua says, one bakes and cooks on the basis of the cooked. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? What you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? What you will bake and what you will cook cook. Rebbi Eliezer said, this follows him who said that the Sabbath was given at Mara. But following him who said that at Alush the Sabbath was given, they are at Alush and the warning is given at Alush. Come and look, from the Torah it is forbidden and an eruv tavshilin makes it permitted? Rebbi Abbahu said, it would be logical that one should bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. If you would say so, one would bake and cook on the holiday for a weekday. Come and look, one makes the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath, but one does not bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, why may one make the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath? Since one may make the beds on Friday night for the Sabbath day. Could one bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath? One may not bake and cook on the night of the Sabbath for the Sabbath day.

Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not Ezra institute that one reads in the Torah Mondays, Thursdays, and Sabbath afternoon? And Mordocai and Esther institute on basis of what Ezra will institute in the future? He said to him, he who ordered the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, city and city, town and town.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

MISHNAH: One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice. It happened that one stood on a hilltop and called out that the man X from place Y died. They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry. It also happened at Ṣalmon that somebody said, I am X, son of Y; a snake bit me and I am dying. They went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rebbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “By the mouth of witnesses,” not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness.” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rebbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “By the mouth of witnesses,” not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness.” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property.

Rebbi Jehudah asked: As you say, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife, similarly, “under your husband,” even if he is only partially your husband. How is that? If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise she has to leave without ketubah. [If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise without ketubah.] If her husband declared his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who married her, then she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of [the first husband’s] declaration of jealousy. If her husband did not declare his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who declared his jealousy but did not manage to take her in before he died and she became destined for his brother, the latter cannot make her drink since she became destined for him only because of the first brother. But if her brother-in-law declared his jealousy, took her in, and died, then she became destined for a brother-in-law who took her in, when she went to a secluded place he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy.

Rebbi Jehudah asked: As you say, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife, similarly, “under your husband,” even if he is only partially your husband. How is that? If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise she has to leave without ketubah. [If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise without ketubah.] If her husband declared his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who married her, then she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of [the first husband’s] declaration of jealousy. If her husband did not declare his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who declared his jealousy but did not manage to take her in before he died and she became destined for his brother, the latter cannot make her drink since she became destined for him only because of the first brother. But if her brother-in-law declared his jealousy, took her in, and died, then she became destined for a brother-in-law who took her in, when she went to a secluded place he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy.

Rebbi Jehudah asked: As you say, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife, similarly, “under your husband,” even if he is only partially your husband. How is that? If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise she has to leave without ketubah. [If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise without ketubah.] If her husband declared his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who married her, then she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of [the first husband’s] declaration of jealousy. If her husband did not declare his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who declared his jealousy but did not manage to take her in before he died and she became destined for his brother, the latter cannot make her drink since she became destined for him only because of the first brother. But if her brother-in-law declared his jealousy, took her in, and died, then she became destined for a brother-in-law who took her in, when she went to a secluded place he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy.

Rebbi Jehudah asked: As you say, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” even if she is only partially his wife, similarly, “under your husband,” even if he is only partially your husband. How is that? If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he wed her, and she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy. If he declared his jealousy to her while she was preliminarily married, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise she has to leave without ketubah. [If he declared his jealousy to her while she was waiting for her brother-in-law, then he took her in, she went to a secluded place, and after that he had sex with her, she has to leave with her ketubah; otherwise without ketubah.] If her husband declared his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who married her, then she went to a secluded place, he makes her drink on the basis of [the first husband’s] declaration of jealousy. If her husband did not declare his jealousy and died, she became destined for her brother-in-law who declared his jealousy but did not manage to take her in before he died and she became destined for his brother, the latter cannot make her drink since she became destined for him only because of the first brother. But if her brother-in-law declared his jealousy, took her in, and died, then she became destined for a brother-in-law who took her in, when she went to a secluded place he makes her drink on the basis of his declaration of jealousy.

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons,” but only if it is a first marriage. This follows what Rebbi Ḥanania said: If somebody definitively married off his son in a house, the latter acquired the house, but only if it is a first marriage. Rebbi Hoshaia said, she acquired movables but did not acquire the house. Do they disagree? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it that his father used it for storage. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is needed in case what was stored was borrowed from the market. Rebbi Abbahu said, if he said it is loaned, he did not acquire it. There came a case before Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun and he instructed following Rebbi Abbahu. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, essentialy this has no basis but the rabbis build and add to it!

MISHNAH: Two bills of divorce and two ketubot, she collects two ketubot. Two ketubot and one bill of divorce, or one ketubah and two bills of divorce, or one ketubah, and a bill of divorce, and death; she collects only one ketubah since a person who divorces his wife and takes her back, takes her back on the basis of her prior ketubah. If a minor was married off by his father, [his wife’s] ketubah is valid since he kept her by that understanding. If a proselyte converted together with his wife, her ketubah is valid since he kept her by that understanding.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was thrown into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jonathan taught us, only if they saw a man’s shadow. There we have stated: “One testifies by the light of a candle or by the light of the moon and one permits to remarry on the basis of a disembodied voice”, and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow. Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That means, in the fields, but in town even without a man’s shadow. But did we not state: “If somebody had been thrown into a cistern,” and Rebbi Jonathan said, only if they saw a man’s shadow? Rebbi Abin said, damaging spirits were as frequent in cisterns as they are frequent on the fields.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother [on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother] on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother [on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother] on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother [on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother] on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother [on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother] on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother [on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother] on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

MISHNAH: One who found documents of indebtedness containing an alienation clause should not return them since the court will foreclose on their basis. If they do not contain an alienation clause, he should return them since the court will not foreclose on their basis, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in no case should he return them since the court will foreclose on their basis.

MISHNAH: One who found documents of indebtedness containing an alienation clause should not return them since the court will foreclose on their basis. If they do not contain an alienation clause, he should return them since the court will not foreclose on their basis, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in no case should he return them since the court will foreclose on their basis.

MISHNAH: One who found documents of indebtedness containing an alienation clause should not return them since the court will foreclose on their basis. If they do not contain an alienation clause, he should return them since the court will not foreclose on their basis, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in no case should he return them since the court will foreclose on their basis.

HALAKHAH: “Any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership,” etc. But it needs proof of undisturbed possession. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua agrees that if somebody says to anothet, ‘this field’, etc.” As the following. Reuben ate from a field claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands it over to Simeon. Reuben went and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to him. Rav said, when you gave it to him, you gave it on the basis of a court decree. From there on the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: This implies that one proceeds on the basis of a doubt. How is this? “X killed a person.” One proceeds to try him until his witnesses come. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one arrest a person in the market and insult him? But is it as follows: “X killed a person, and there are witnesses.” Let him be put under arrest until his witnesses come.

If somebody produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Rebbi says, it should be judged by the document. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A case came before Rebbi Jehudah following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: How? Did Rebbi switch his opinion? There he said, it should be judged by the document. But here he said it should be judged by ḥazaqah. Would we say, before he changed his opinion? Even if you say, after he changed his opinion. Rebbi only wanted to determine the truth of the matter. “If somebody occupied real estate on the basis of a document of sale and it was found invalid, this is not ḥazaqah.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, in dispute. Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abinna: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose said, there if one produced both a document and ḥazaqah. Here if he came with a document. Rebbi Yudan said, there if he presented two groups of witnesses; here one who contradicts his own proofs.

“And like mixed wine.” Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: As one sees a cup of mixed wine from the outside. They wanted to say, in a Tiberian cup. Rebbi Eudaimon from Sepphoris said before Rebbi Mana: As in a small phial whose walls do not cast a shadow. Samuel said, anybody who has no experience in seeing kinds of pure blood should not judge kinds of impure blood. Rav said, only if he is competent about them and their names. The words of Rebbi Joḥanan say so: I know all kinds of pure blood and of impure blood. The pure is the most red; the impure is like earth water. “If he has no experience,” therefore, if he has experience he can judge it. In addition, from what we have stated: clear but not turbid. Rebbi Ḥanina used it turbid. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Ḥanina uses it turbid, but you said, not turbid. He said to them, Rebbi Ḥanina drinks old [wine], Rebbi Joḥanan does not drink old [wine], Rebbi Ḥanina drinks oldest [wine]. Rebbi Hoshaiah said: Since Rebbi Hoshaiah’s eye is full of happenings, even turbid is not disqualified for him. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Ḥanina estimated with a lump of earth. Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Since we know that Rebbi Ḥanina is competent, do we follow his precedents? Rebbi Ḥanina was living in Sepphoris, they brought cases before him and he decided on the basis of three precedents. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were there but he did not invite them to sit with him. They said, the old man is a Sage since his irons are sharp! Once he invited them to sit with him. They said, for what reason do you take notice of us this time? He said, so should come over me if I had not heard every single case from Rebbi in theory as many times as there are hairs on my head, and in a practical way three times; but the present case did come before Rebbi only twice. Therefore, I adjoined you with me.

And R. Jose [ — where does he find a basis in the Torah for this regulation] ? Both are to be derived from the word "Hear."

We might suppose that this is a refutation of R. Jose b. R. Hannina! But he could reply : I certainly maintain that the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, but the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices. For if thou sayest not so, who instituted the additional Tefillah, according to R. Jose b. R. Hannina? But the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, and the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices.

We might suppose that this is a refutation of R. Jose b. R. Hannina! But he could reply : I certainly maintain that the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, but the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices. For if thou sayest not so, who instituted the additional Tefillah, according to R. Jose b. R. Hannina? But the Patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, and the Rabbis subsequently found a basis for them in the sacrifices.

Why this other reason ? Thus said Bet Hillel to Bet Shammai : Should you ask what difference is there that in the case of food we are concerned [about defilement] but in the case of the hands we have no concern ? Even so [our view] is better because the washing of the hands for non-holy food is not ordained by the Torah ; therefore it is preferable that the hands should be defiled, since that has no basis in the Torah, rather than food should be defiled, for which there is a basis in the Torah.

Why this other reason ? Thus said Bet Hillel to Bet Shammai : Should you ask what difference is there that in the case of food we are concerned [about defilement] but in the case of the hands we have no concern ? Even so [our view] is better because the washing of the hands for non-holy food is not ordained by the Torah ; therefore it is preferable that the hands should be defiled, since that has no basis in the Torah, rather than food should be defiled, for which there is a basis in the Torah.

GEMARA. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah, for it has been taught: R. Judah ruled, The minimum number of blasts is seven, and the maximum sixteen. What is the basis of their dispute? R. Judah holds that tekiah, teruah and tekia are counted as one, whereas the Rabbis hold that the tekiah and the teruah are separate and distinct notes.

It has been said above: "R. Eliezer said, it gets sweetened in the clouds"—whence did he derive this? He derived it in the way reported by R. Isaac b. Joseph in the name of R. Johanan: In one passage we find it written (Ps., 18.12): "darkness (ḥeshkat) of waters," in another we find (II Sam., 22.12): "gathering (ḥashrat) of waters"; take the kaf (of ḥeshkat) and add it to the resh (in ḥashrat) and then read hakshārat (=improvement) of waters. What use does R. Joshua make of these two verses? He explains the matter on the basis of what was later reported by R. Dimi who, upon returning from Palestine to Babylon, said that the Palestinians used to say: when the clouds are dark they contain much water, but when they are light they contain little water.

The inhabitants of Nawe sent the following question to Rabbi: Inasmuch as we are in need of rain at the time of the solstice of Tammuz, are we to be compared to individuals and hence to include our prayer for rain in the benediction "Who hearest Prayer," or are we regarded as a community and should insert it in the "Blessing of the Years"? Rabbi replied: You are regarded as individuals, and should insert your prayer in the benediction: "Who hearest Prayer." An objection was raised: R. Judah says, the given order of fasts applies only to times when the seasons of the year were divided on the basis of their normal recurrence and Israel was dwelling in its land, but in the present time all depends upon the nature of the seasons and upon the nature of the localities! What! You quote a Baraita to contradict Rabbi! Rabbi is an authority of the Mishnah and is entitled to differ.

On the first three fast days the priests of the guard fast, but not to the end of the day, etc. The Rabbis have taught: Why was it decreed that the priests of the guard might drink wine by night, but not by day? Because the day-work might become too heavy for those in the sub-division, so that the priests of the guard would have to assist them; why was it decreed that the members of the sub-division should not drink either by day or by night? Because they are usually at work. On the basis of this law it was decreed that every priest who can trace his pedigree to his division and sub-division and knows that the members of that sub-division were appointed to the work, is not allowed to drink wine during that particular day, but if he can trace his pedigree to the chief division, but not to the sub-division, while knowing that the latter was appointed to the work, he is not allowed to drink wine during that entire week; if, however, he is unable to trace his pedigree either to the chief division or the sub-division, but knows that the latter was appointed to the work, he is not allowed to drink wine during that entire year. Rabbi says: I say that from this point of view the priest should never be allowed to drink wine, but what can I do (in favor of such an injunction) seeing that his misfortune has turned out to his benefit. Said 'Abbayi: In accordance with whose view do the priests drink wine now-a-days? According to whose opinion? Of course according to that of Rabbi!

The bulk of the Israelites belonging to that division assembled in the synagogues of their respective towns and read the Chapter on Creation. What is the basis for this provision? Said R. Jacob b. 'Aḥa in the name of R. 'Asi: Were it not for the Ma'amadot, heaven and earth would not exist, as it is said (Gen., 15. 8): "And he (Abraham) said, O Lord, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" Abraham said to the Holy One, blessed be He: "Master of the world! Peradventure the Israelites will sin before Thee, and Thou wilt then do unto them as Thou hast done unto the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion!" The Holy One replied: "No" (I will not do so unto them)! Whereupon Abraham said: "Master of the world! Whereby shall I know it?" The Holy One then said to him (ibid., 15. 9): "Take me a heifer of three years old." Abraham again said: "Master of the world! This may well be done when the Temple is in existence, but what shall become of them when the Temple is not in existence?" Said the Holy One: "I have already ordained for them the recitation of the order of sacrifices. Whenever they will recite it, I will account it unto them as if they offered up the sacrifices themselves and thus forgive them all their sins."

Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, the Israelites never had such joyous holidays as the fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement. This is quite right so far as the Day of Atonement is concerned, which is a day of pardon and forgiveness, a day on which the second Tables were given, but why the fifteenth of Ab? Said R. Judah in the name of Samuel, the fifteenth of Ab is the day on which the (twelve) tribes were given permission to intermarry. What was the Scriptural basis for this permission? The verse (Numb., 36. 6): "This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad," etc., which means that 'this thing' (forbidding intermarriage) shall apply only to this generation (of Moses).

The one who throws the stone, etc. One of the rabbis said to Rava: From what [basis are we stating the case] that he is cutting wood because it is optional? Perhaps he is cutting wood because [it is for a] sukkah or cutting wood [for the altar] (which would be a requirement and not an option), and even this, Scripture said, he should be exiled [for doing something required]?! He (Rava) said to him: since he found it cut and he does not cut [it himself], it is not a mitzvah, also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah.