borrow

But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver and jewels of gold.

And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.

For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.

The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.

Then he said, Go, borrow thee vessels abroad of all thy neighbours, even empty vessels; borrow not a few.

Then he said, Go, borrow thee vessels abroad of all thy neighbours, even empty vessels; borrow not a few.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

And he said unto him: I am a reptile of the reptile nature and noxious son of the noxious father: of him that hurt and smote the four brethren which stood upright I am son to him that sitteth on a throne over all the earth that receiveth back his own from them that borrow: I am son to him that girdeth about the sphere: and I am kin to him that is outside the ocean, whose tail is set in his own mouth: I am he that entered through the barrier (fence) into paradise and spake with Eve the things which my father bade me speak unto her: I am he that kindled and inflamed Cain to kill his own brother, and on mine account did thorns and thistles grow up in the earth: I am he that cast down the angels from above and bound them in lusts after women, that children born of earth might come of them and I might work my will in them: I am he that hardened Pharaoh's heart that he should slay the children of Israel and enslave them with the yoke of cruelty: I am he that caused the multitude to err in the wilderness when they made the calf: I am he that inflamed Herod and enkindled Caiaphas unto false accusation of a lie before Pilate; for this was fitting to me: I am he that stirred up Judas and bribed him to deliver up the Christ: I am he that inhabiteth and holdeth the deep of hell (Tartarus), but the Son of God hath wronged me, against my will, and taken (chosen) them that were his own from me: I am kin to him that is to come from the east, unto whom also power is given to do what he will upon the earth.

. . . do thou, O my son, borrow corn and wheat that thou mayest eat and be filled and give to thy children with thee.

A heavy loan and from a wicked man, borrow not, and if thou borrow take no rest to thy soul till

A heavy loan and from a wicked man, borrow not, and if thou borrow take no rest to thy soul till

OF TOIL AND THANKSGIVING. [vii., 1.] Moses the prophet said plainly unto the people, even unto the people of Israel, ‘And behold shew you plainly the way of death, and (the way of) life; choose life for yourselves, that ye may live.” And Elijah the prophet said unto the people, “How long halteth your heart concerning the Lord—the Lord is One; seek Him.” Our Lord Jesus Christ said, “A servant cannot serve two masters; otherwise he will obey one, and disobey the other. Ye cannot then serve God and wealth. We have followed our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath mercy on the whole world. (vii., 2.] We say then that there are two ways, one of death, and one of life: separate and having no connection one with the other; one which leadeth unto death, and one (which leadeth) unto life. The first is the way of life concerning which the Law hath spoken, and said, “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strength and with (all) thy soul, besides whom there is no other god,” and, “love thy neighbour as thyself,” and “what thou desirest not for thyself, that do not to thy neighbour,” “‘ Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that oppress you,” and “ Love your enemies,” “What then is your reward, if ye do good to them that do good to you?” Take heed then and hate no man. And again it is said, “Thou shalt not hate any man, neither an Egyptian, nor an Edomite "; for they are all creatures of God. Keep far from evil men and from the desires of this world. “And to him that striketh thee on the right cheek, turn the other.”! For David saith, “If I have rendered a return to them that rendered evil to me, let thine enemies cause me to fall naked.” And again it is said, “If any man compel thee to go one mile, go (with him) twain”; and, “If any man take thy coat, leave to him thy cloak (also); and, “Prevent not him that taketh thy goods”; and, “Give to him that asketh of thee, and shut not thy door against him that desireth to borrow of thee.” For God is merciful (and) a lover of men, and giveth all things to him that asketh of Him. And the Father “maketh the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the righteous and the sinful.” Ye ought to give to all men of the labour of your hands; and honour ye the saints. For it is said, ‘Thou shalt do no murder.” (Everyman) is thine image and thy likeness; and there is nothing worse than murder. And, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” nor separate (what is) thy flesh, nor make two parts (thereof); for it is said, “They twain shall be one flesh,” and one spirit; and in form (only) are they separate; and “Thou shalt not steal,” for when Achan the Israelite stole, they stoned him with stones, and he perished; and in like manner. Gehazi stole and lied and was clad with the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian; and Judas Iscariot also stole the purse of alms (from) which alms were given to the poor, and betrayed the Lord of Glory into the hands of the Jews, and then repented, and hanged himself, and his bowels gushed out, and he died; ‘Ananias and Sapphira his wife kept back part of the price of their possessions, and lied to the Holy Spirit, and died by (the sentence of) our beloved brother Peter the Apostle. [vii., 3-] Thou shalt not practise magic, nor use divination, nor consult wizards, for it is said, ‘Ye shall not trust in wizards.” And, Thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, for it is the image and spirit of God. And, “Thou shalt not covet the possessions of thy brother, nor his wife, nor his servant, nor his maid, nor his ass, nor his ox.” Moreover, thou shalt never swear falsely, but if thou swearest, swear truly. And again it is said, “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” for “he that speaketh lies against the poor provoketh his creator to anger.” [vii., 4.] And the way of evildoers leadeth unto death. Thou shalt not be of a double heart, or of a double tongue, for “the snare of a man is the word of his mouth,” ” and, “a talkative man shall not prosper upon earth.” And let not your words be idle, for everyone that speaketh thoughtlessly shall be condemned. And, Thou shalt not be rapacious, for it is said, “Woe unto them that wrong their neighbours.” [vii., 5.] And ye shall not accept persons, nor be deceitful in heart, nor proud, for ‘God humbleth the proud.” And, Thou shalt not hate any man, nor curse thy brother, nor do evil unto him. And abstain from all evil, and be not passionate, nor envious, lest that befall thee that befell Cain, and Saul, and Joab. For Cain slew Abel his brother, and God chose Abel and accepted his sacrifice; and Saul persecuted David, when he overcame Goliath the Philistine, (and) was envious of him because of the songs which the women sang; and Joab, also slew Abner the Israelite, and Amasa of Judah. [vii., 6.) And, Thou shalt not be an augur, for it leadeth to idolatry, and concerning this Samuel saith, “This thing is sin,” and it shall not be thus in Israel, for all these things are rejected in the law. [vii., 7.] And, Thou shalt not be a murmurer, for ye have heard what befell those who murmured against Moses. Be meek like Moses and David, for the meek shall inherit the earth. [vii., 8.] Be ye therefore merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Accept every toil that cometh upon thee, like Job and Lazarus, that thou mayest receive a reward from God. [vii., 9.] And honour him that teacheth thee the word of God, and be mindful of him day and night, for where instruction is, there God is. (vii., 10.] And reconcile those who are at variance, and judge uprightly, for the judgment is the Lord’s. [vii., 11.) And when thou prayest, be not of a double heart. Peter said, He said to me while I] was on the sea, Wherefore dost thou doubt, and makest for thyself a double heart? vii., 12.) And if thou givest alms to the poor, Doubt not; know thou then who it is that will render the reward; is it not the Lord? Give, then, to everyone that asketh of thee that which he needeth. [vii., 14.] And forget not any of the commandments of the Lord; and confess thy trespass before Him, and sin no more, that thou mayest find (that which is) good before the Lord thy God, for He desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn to repentance. [vii., 15.] And honour thy father and thy mother; forsake not thy brethren and thy kinsmen. [vii., 16.] And fear the King, and know that his position is from the Lord; and honour rulers, for they are ministers of God. [vii., 17.] And offer not a sacrifice whilst thou doest evil, before thou repentest of the evil of thy doings. This is the way of death and (the way) of life; and may God make you worthy to follow the way of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The first way, therefore, is that of life; and is this, which the law also does appoint: To love the Lord God with all your mind, and with all your soul, who is the one and only God, besides whom there is no other; and your neighbour as yourself. And whatsoever you would not should be done to you, do not do to another. Bless them that curse you; pray for them that despitefully use you. Love your enemies; for what thanks is it if you love those that love you? For even the Gentiles do the same. But love those that hate you, and you shall have no enemy. For says He, You shall not hate any man; no, not an Egyptian, nor an Edomite; for they are all the workmanship of God. Avoid not the persons, but the sentiments, of the wicked. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If any one gives you a stroke on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Not that revenge is evil, but that patience is more honourable. For David says, If I have made returns to them that repaid me evil. If anyone compels you to go one mile, go with him two. And, He that will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And from him that takes your goods, require them not again. Give to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you do not shut your hand. For the righteous man is pitiful, and lends. For your Father would have you give to all, who Himself makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends His rain on the just and on the unjust. It is therefore reasonable to give to all out of your own labours; for says He, Honour the Lord out of your righteous labours, but so that the saints be preferred. You shall not kill; that is, you shall not destroy a man like yourself: for you dissolve what was well made. Not as if all killing were wicked, but only that of the innocent: but the killing which is just is reserved to the magistrates alone. You shall not commit adultery: for you divide one flesh into two. They two shall be one flesh: for the husband and wife are one in nature, in consent, in union, in disposition, and the conduct of life; but they are separated in sex and number. You shall not corrupt boys: for this wickedness is contrary to nature, and arose from Sodom, which was therefore entirely consumed with fire sent from God. Let such a one be accursed: and all the people shall say, So be it. You shall not commit fornication: for says He, There shall not be a fornicator among the children of Israel. You shall not steal: for Achan, when he had stolen in Israel at Jericho, was stoned to death; and Gehazi, who stole, and told a lie, inherited the leprosy of Naaman; and Judas, who stole the poor's money, betrayed the Lord of glory to the Jews, and repented, and hanged himself, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; and Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, who stole their own goods, and tempted the Spirit of the Lord, were immediately, at the sentence of Peter our fellow-apostle, struck dead.

Thou shalt lend unto many peoples, but thou shalt not borrow.

For they say that the widow of Obadiah Ahab's steward, came to him, and said, that he was not ignorant how her husband had preserved the prophets that were to be slain by Jezebel, the wife of Ahab; for she said that he hid a hundred of them, and had borrowed money for their maintenance, and that, after her husband's death, she and her children were carried away to be made slaves by the creditors; and she desired of him to have mercy upon her on account of what her husband did, and afford her some assistance. And when he asked her what she had in the house, she said, "Nothing but a very small quantity of oil in a cruse." So the prophet bid her go away, and borrow a great many empty vessels of her neighbors, and when she had shut her chamber door, to pour the oil into them all; for that God would fill them full. And when the woman had done what she was commanded to do, and bade her children bring every one of the vessels, and all were filled, and not one left empty, she came to the prophet, and told him that they were all full; upon which he advised her to go away, and sell the oil, and pay the creditors what was owing them, for that there would be some surplus of the price of the oil, which she might make use of for the maintenance of her children. And thus did Elisha discharge the woman's debts, and free her from the vexation of her creditors.

Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cæsarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Cæsar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, [though not for his good,] that he was a god; and they added, "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; for he reigned four years under Caius Cæsar, three of them were over Philip's tetrarchy only, and on the fourth he had that of Herod added to it; and he reigned, besides those, three years under the reign of Claudius Cæsar; in which time he reigned over the forementioned countries, and also had Judea added to them, as well as Samaria and Cæsarea. The revenues that he received out of them were very great, no less than twelve millions of drachmae. Yet did he borrow great sums from others; for he was so very liberal that his expenses exceeded his incomes, and his generosity was boundless.

Now Herod did the more zealously pursue his journey into Arabia, as making haste to get money of the king, while his brother was yet alive; by which money alone it was that he hoped to prevail upon the covetous temper of the barbarians to spare Phasaelus; for he reasoned thus with himself:--that if the Arabian king was too forgetful of his father's friendship with him, and was too covetous to make him a free gift, he would however borrow of him as much as might redeem his brother, and put into his hands, as a pledge, the son of him that was to be redeemed. Accordingly he led his brother's son along with him, who was of the age of seven years. Now he was ready to give three hundred talents for his brother, and intended to desire the intercession of the Tyrians, to get them accepted; however, fate had been too quick for his diligence; and since Phasaelus was dead, Herod's brotherly love was now in vain. Moreover, he was not able to find any lasting friendship among the Arabians; for their king, Malichus, sent to him immediately, and commanded him to return back out of his country, and used the name of the Parthians as a pretense for so doing, as though these had denounced to him by their ambassadors to cast Herod out of Arabia; while in reality they had a mind to keep back what they owed to Antipater, and not be obliged to make requitals to his sons for the free gifts the father had made them. He also took the impudent advice of those who, equally with himself, were willing to deprive Herod of what Antipater had deposited among them; and these men were the most potent of all whom he had in his kingdom.

And now let us say something regarding those who maintain the existence of a diversity of spiritual natures, that we may avoid falling into the silly and impious fables of such as pretend that there is a diversity of spiritual natures both among heavenly existences and human souls, and for that reason allege that they were called into being by different creators; for while it seems, and is really, absurd that to one and the same creator should be ascribed the creation of different natures of rational beings, they are nevertheless ignorant of the cause of that diversity. For they say that it seems inconsistent for one and the same creator, without any existing ground of merit, to confer upon some beings the power of dominion, and to subject others again to authority; to bestow a principality upon some, and to render others subordinate to rulers. Which opinions indeed, in my judgment, are completely rejected by following out the reasoning explained above, and by which it was shown that the cause of the diversity and variety among these beings is due to their conduct, which has been marked either with greater earnestness or indifference, according to the goodness or badness of their nature, and not to any partiality on the part of the Disposer. But that this may more easily be shown to be the case with heavenly beings, let us borrow an illustration from what either has been done or is done among men, in order that from visible things we may, by way of consequence, behold also things invisible. Paul and Peter are undoubtedly proved to have been men of a spiritual nature. When, therefore, Paul is found to have acted contrary to religion, in having persecuted the church of God, and Peter to have committed so grave a sin as, when questioned by the maid-servant, to have asserted with an oath that he did not know who Christ was, how is it possible that these—who, according to those persons of whom we speak, were spiritual beings—should fall into sins of such a nature, especially as they are frequently in the habit of saying that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits? And if a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, and as, according to them, Peter and Paul were sprung from the root of a good tree, how should they be deemed to have brought forth fruits so wicked? And if they should return the answer which is generally invented, that it was not Paul who persecuted, but some other person, I know not whom, who was in Paul; and that it was not Peter who uttered the denial, but some other individual in him; how should Paul say, if he had not sinned, that “I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God?” Or why did Peter weep most bitterly, if it were another than he who sinned? From which all their silly assertions will be proved to be baseless.

Celsus in the next place alleges, that “certain Christians, having misunderstood the words of Plato, loudly boast of a ‘super-celestial’ God, thus ascending beyond the heaven of the Jews.” By these words, indeed, he does not make it clear whether they also ascend beyond the God of the Jews, or only beyond the heaven by which they swear. It is not our purpose at present, however, to speak of those who acknowledge another god than the one worshipped by the Jews, but to defend ourselves, and to show that it was impossible for the prophets of the Jews, whose writings are reckoned among ours, to have borrowed anything from Plato, because they were older than he. They did not then borrow from him the declaration, that “all things are around the King of all, and that all exist on account of him;” for we have learned that nobler thoughts than these have been uttered by the prophets, by Jesus Himself and His disciples, who have clearly indicated the meaning of the spirit that was in them, which was none other than the spirit of Christ. Nor was the philosopher the first to present to view the “super-celestial” place; for David long ago brought to view the profundity and multitude of the thoughts concerning God entertained by those who have ascended above visible things, when he said in the book of Psalms: “Praise God, ye heaven of heavens; and ye waters that be above the heavens, let them praise the name of the Lord.” I do not, indeed, deny that Plato learned from certain Hebrews the words quoted from the Phœdrus, or even, as some have recorded, that he quoted them from a perusal of our prophetic writings, when he said: “No poet here below has ever sung of the super-celestial place, or ever will sing in a becoming manner,” and so on. And in the same passage is the following: “For the essence, which is both colourless and formless, and which cannot be touched, which really exists, is the pilot of the soul, and is beheld by the understanding alone; and around it the genus of true knowledge holds this place.” Our Paul, moreover, educated by these words, and longing after things “supra-mundane” and “super-celestial,” and doing his utmost for their sake to attain them, says in the second Epistle to the Corinthians: “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are unseen are eternal.”

On the present occasion, however, it is not our object to enter into an explanation of the subject of intelligent and sensible beings, nor of the manner in which the different kinds of days were allotted to both sorts, nor to investigate the details which belong to the subject, for we should need whole treatises for the exposition of the Mosaic cosmogony; and that work we had already performed, to the best of our ability, a considerable time before the commencement of this answer to Celsus, when we discussed with such measure of capacity as we then possessed the question of the Mosaic cosmogony of the six days. We must keep in mind, however, that the Word promises to the righteous through the mouth of Isaiah, that days will come when not the sun, but the Lord Himself, will be to them an everlasting light, and God will be their glory. And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some pestilent heresy which gave an erroneous interpretation to the words, “Let there be light,” as if they were the expression of a wish merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus made the remark: “The Creator did not borrow light from above, like those persons who kindle their lamps at those of their neighbours.” Misunderstanding, moreover, another impious heresy, he has said: “If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light?” So far are we from offering a defence of such puerilities, that we desire, on the contrary, distinctly to arraign the statements of these heretics as erroneous, and to undertake to refute, not those of their opinions with which we are unacquainted, as Celsus does, but those of which we have attained an accurate knowledge, derived in part from the statements of their own adherents, and partly from a careful perusal of their writings.

Celsus adds: “Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did—as Moses says—threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a messenger with counter instructions?” Celsus, with all his boasts of universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors, in supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper than that afforded by a literal rendering of the words. He does not see how manifestly incredible it is that worldly riches should be promised to those who lead upright lives, when it is a matter of common observation that the best of men have lived in extreme poverty. Indeed, the prophets themselves, who for the purity of their lives received the Divine Spirit, “wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented: they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.” For, as the Psalmist says, “many are the afflictions of the righteous.” If Celsus had read the writings of Moses, he would, I daresay, have supposed that when it is said to him who kept the law, “Thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou thyself shalt not borrow,” the promise is made to the just man, that his temporal riches should be so abundant, that he would be able to lend not only to the Jews, not only to two or three nations, but “to many nations.” What, then, must have been the wealth which the just man received according to the law for his righteousness, if he could lend to many nations? And must we not suppose also, in accordance with this interpretation, that the just man would never borrow anything? For it is written, “and thou shalt thyself borrow nothing.” Did then that nation remain for so long a period attached to the religion which was taught by Moses, whilst, according to the supposition of Celsus, they saw themselves so grievously deceived by that lawgiver? For nowhere is it said of any one that he was so rich as to lend to many nations. It is not to be believed that they would have fought so zealously in defence of a law whose promises had proved glaringly false, if they understood them in the sense which Celsus gives to them. And if any one should say that the sins which are recorded to have been committed by the people are a proof that they despised the law, doubtless from the feeling that they had been deceived by it, we may reply that we have only to read the history of the times in order to find it shown that the whole people, after having done that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, returned afterwards to their duty, and to the religion prescribed by the law.

Celsus adds: “Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did—as Moses says—threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a messenger with counter instructions?” Celsus, with all his boasts of universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors, in supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper than that afforded by a literal rendering of the words. He does not see how manifestly incredible it is that worldly riches should be promised to those who lead upright lives, when it is a matter of common observation that the best of men have lived in extreme poverty. Indeed, the prophets themselves, who for the purity of their lives received the Divine Spirit, “wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented: they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.” For, as the Psalmist says, “many are the afflictions of the righteous.” If Celsus had read the writings of Moses, he would, I daresay, have supposed that when it is said to him who kept the law, “Thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou thyself shalt not borrow,” the promise is made to the just man, that his temporal riches should be so abundant, that he would be able to lend not only to the Jews, not only to two or three nations, but “to many nations.” What, then, must have been the wealth which the just man received according to the law for his righteousness, if he could lend to many nations? And must we not suppose also, in accordance with this interpretation, that the just man would never borrow anything? For it is written, “and thou shalt thyself borrow nothing.” Did then that nation remain for so long a period attached to the religion which was taught by Moses, whilst, according to the supposition of Celsus, they saw themselves so grievously deceived by that lawgiver? For nowhere is it said of any one that he was so rich as to lend to many nations. It is not to be believed that they would have fought so zealously in defence of a law whose promises had proved glaringly false, if they understood them in the sense which Celsus gives to them. And if any one should say that the sins which are recorded to have been committed by the people are a proof that they despised the law, doubtless from the feeling that they had been deceived by it, we may reply that we have only to read the history of the times in order to find it shown that the whole people, after having done that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, returned afterwards to their duty, and to the religion prescribed by the law.

Celsus adds: “Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did—as Moses says—threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a messenger with counter instructions?” Celsus, with all his boasts of universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors, in supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper than that afforded by a literal rendering of the words. He does not see how manifestly incredible it is that worldly riches should be promised to those who lead upright lives, when it is a matter of common observation that the best of men have lived in extreme poverty. Indeed, the prophets themselves, who for the purity of their lives received the Divine Spirit, “wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented: they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.” For, as the Psalmist says, “many are the afflictions of the righteous.” If Celsus had read the writings of Moses, he would, I daresay, have supposed that when it is said to him who kept the law, “Thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou thyself shalt not borrow,” the promise is made to the just man, that his temporal riches should be so abundant, that he would be able to lend not only to the Jews, not only to two or three nations, but “to many nations.” What, then, must have been the wealth which the just man received according to the law for his righteousness, if he could lend to many nations? And must we not suppose also, in accordance with this interpretation, that the just man would never borrow anything? For it is written, “and thou shalt thyself borrow nothing.” Did then that nation remain for so long a period attached to the religion which was taught by Moses, whilst, according to the supposition of Celsus, they saw themselves so grievously deceived by that lawgiver? For nowhere is it said of any one that he was so rich as to lend to many nations. It is not to be believed that they would have fought so zealously in defence of a law whose promises had proved glaringly false, if they understood them in the sense which Celsus gives to them. And if any one should say that the sins which are recorded to have been committed by the people are a proof that they despised the law, doubtless from the feeling that they had been deceived by it, we may reply that we have only to read the history of the times in order to find it shown that the whole people, after having done that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, returned afterwards to their duty, and to the religion prescribed by the law.

When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus may follow the letter which killeth, and understand it of worldly riches, which blind men; but we say that it refers to those riches which enlighten the eyes, and which enrich a man “in all utterance and in all knowledge.” And in this sense we “charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate.” For, as Solomon says, “riches” are the true good, which “are the ransom of the life of a man;” but the poverty which is the opposite of these riches is destructive, for by it “the poor cannot bear rebuke.” And what has been said of riches applies to dominion, in regard to which it is said, “The just man shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.” Now if riches are to be taken in the sense we have just explained, consider if it is not according to God’s promise that he who is rich in all utterance, in all knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out of these treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many nations. It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited, “carrying the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum.” And as the divine knowledge was given to him by revelation, and his mind was illumined by the Divine Word, he himself therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required not the ministry of any man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been written, “Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have dominion over thee,” he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under the teaching of Jesus Christ; and he never “gave place by subjection to men, no, not for an hour,” as being himself mightier than they. And thus also he “filled the earth.”

A pre-dated prozbul is valid, but a post-dated one, is invalid. Pre-dated loan documents [of loans] are invalid, but post-dated one valid. If one borrows from five persons, then he writes a separate prozbul for each [creditor]. But if five borrow from the same person, then he writes only one prozbul for them all.

A man may borrow pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil from his neighbor, provided he does not say to him, “lend [them] to me”; And similarly a woman [may borrow] loaves from her neighbor. If he does not trust him he may leave his cloak with him [as a pledge] and squares up with him after Shabbat. Similarly, if the eve of Passover in Jerusalem falls on Shabbat, he may leave his cloak with him [the vendor] and take his paschal lamb and squares up with him after the festival.

A man may borrow pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil from his neighbor, provided he does not say to him, “lend [them] to me”; And similarly a woman [may borrow] loaves from her neighbor. If he does not trust him he may leave his cloak with him [as a pledge] and squares up with him after Shabbat. Similarly, if the eve of Passover in Jerusalem falls on Shabbat, he may leave his cloak with him [the vendor] and take his paschal lamb and squares up with him after the festival.

He who is forbidden by vow to benefit from his neighbor may not lend [objects] to him or borrow from him, lend [money] to him or receive from him a loan, sell to him or purchase from him. One says to another, “Lend me your cow.” [The other] says, “It is not available.” [The first one] says, “Konam, if I ever plow my field with it’. If he generally plowed himself, he is forbidden, but others are permitted. But if he did not generally plow himself, he and others are forbidden.

If a man stole from his father and swore [falsely] to him, and the father died, he must repay the value and the [added] fifth to the father’s sons or brothers. If he will not repay or if has does not have [with which to repay] he must borrow and the creditors come and are repaid.

One may say to his fellow, “Help me weed and I will help you weed” or “Help me hoe and I will help you hoe.” But one may not say, “Help me weed and I will help you hoe”, or “Help me hoe and I will help you weed”. All days of the dry season are accounted alike, and all days of the rainy season are accounted alike. One may not say to another, “Help me plow in the dry season and I will help you plow in the rainy season.” Rabban Gamaliel says: “There is interest that is paid in advance and interest that is paid afterward. How is this so? If a one intended to borrow from another and made him a present and said, “This is so that you will lend to me”, this is interest that is paid in advance. If one borrowed from another and repaid it to him, and then sent a present and said, “This is for your money of which you have not had use while it was with me”, this is interest that is paid afterward. Rabbi Shimon says: “There is interest paid in words: one may not say to his creditor, “Know that such and such a person has come form such and such a place.”

On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. Rabbi Judah says: we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them; But they [the Rabbis] said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently.

On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. Rabbi Judah says: we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them; But they [the Rabbis] said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently.

He [Rabban Yohanan] said unto them: go forth and observe which is the right way to which a man should cleave? Rabbi Eliezer said, a good eye; Rabbi Joshua said, a good companion; Rabbi Yose said, a good neighbor; Rabbi Shimon said, foresight. Rabbi Elazar said, a good heart. He [Rabban Yohanan] said to them: I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach, for in his words your words are included. He [Rabban Yohanan] said unto them: go forth and observe which is the evil way which a man should shun? Rabbi Eliezer said, an evil eye; Rabbi Joshua said, an evil companion; Rabbi Yose said, an evil neighbor; Rabbi Shimon said, one who borrows and does not repay for he that borrows from man is as one who borrows from God, blessed be He, as it is said, “the wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous deal graciously and give” (Psalms 37:21). Rabbi Elazar said, an evil heart. He [Rabban Yohanan] said to them: I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arach, for in his words your words are included.

He used to say: everything is given against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all the living; the store is open and the storekeeper allows credit, but the ledger is open and the hand writes, and whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent, and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment, and everything is prepared for the banquet.

He used to say: everything is given against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all the living; the store is open and the storekeeper allows credit, but the ledger is open and the hand writes, and whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent, and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment, and everything is prepared for the banquet.

If he sold it to the first for one hundred [denars] and the first sold it to the second for two hundred, then he need reckon only with the first, as it says, “With the man to whom he sold” (Leviticus 25:27). If he sold it to the first for two hundred, and the first sold it to the second for one hundred, then he need reckon only with the second, as it says: “With the man” (ibid) the man in possession of the field. One may not sell a distant field in order to redeem a near one, or a poor field in order to redeem a good one. One may not borrow [money] in order to redeem, nor redeem it in halves. But in the case of objects consecrated all these things are permitted. In this respect the laws concerning a person’s [property] are more stringent than those concerning sacred things.

If he finished the gathering but intended to buy some more, or if he had finished buying but intended to borrow some more, or if a time of mourning, a wedding feast or some other hindrance befell him then even if zavim and zavot trampled over them they remain clean. If any unclean liquids fell upon them, only the place where it touched them becomes unclean. Any liquid that comes out of them is clean.

It was stated: Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince did not disagree about produce bought on the field from a Gentile that it is subject to tithes because the Jew takes his place, nor about harvested produce bought from the Gentile that it is free from tithes. What did they disagree about? About him who buys harvested produce from his fellow in a year of tithes for the poor. Rebbi Judah the Prince said, one takes it from him whether he be poor or rich. But Rebbi said, one takes it from the rich, one does not take it from the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Just as nobody has any rights on the single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and the peah of his own field, so he should have no right to his tithe for the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi? Single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and peah do not cause tebel, but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy ; it is not in the power of the poor to buy. As Rebbi Jehudah the Prince says, he may take a loan; but Rebbi says that he will not be able to borrow.

HALAKHAH: What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “One should not say to another person, bring these fruits to Jerusalem to distribute, but he should say: bring them that we should eat and drink them there.” What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “bring them that we should eat and drink them in Jerusalem?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

HALAKHAH: What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “One should not say to another person, bring these fruits to Jerusalem to distribute, but he should say: bring them that we should eat and drink them there.” What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “bring them that we should eat and drink them in Jerusalem?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

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.”

HALAKHAH: “One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

HALAKHAH: “One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

MISHNAH: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use of food is passing through his real estate and vessels that cannot be used to prepare food. One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven. But he may borrow from him a robe or a stole, nose rings and finger rings, and anything that is not used to prepare food. At a place where one rents out any of these it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use of food is passing through his real estate and vessels that cannot be used to prepare food. One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven. But he may borrow from him a robe or a stole, nose rings and finger rings, and anything that is not used to prepare food. At a place where one rents out any of these it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.

HALAKHAH: “The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.

HALAKHAH: “The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.

HALAKHAH: “The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another,” etc. This means that vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow [not to have] usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill and to press is forbidden. Cutting is a problem, harvesting is a problem. What kind of usufruct? It was stated: But he may borrow a spade from him. We wanted to say, a spade of a digger. Explain it by a spade for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that ysṭ’, since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is forbidden to borrow from him.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Because it is as if he gave him money to buy a loaf with. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Then is it forbidden to borrow money from him, for it is as if he gave him money to buy a loaf with? Rebbi Abina said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: That jewellery on them, is it forbidden to lend to them?

MISHNAH: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow, he should not borrow from him nor ask him for anything, should not give him a loan nor take a loan for him, should not sell to him nor buy from him. If he said, lend me your cow, he says: she is not available. If he said, a qônam that I shall never plough with her, if he usually ploughs, he is forbidden, the rest of the world is permitted. If he does not usually plough, he and the rest of the world are forbidden.

The words of Rebbi Joḥanan imply that one may fast for hours, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, I shall fast until I finish studying this chapter, until I finish studying this text. The words of Rebbi Jonah imply that one may fast for hours, for Rebbi Jonah was in Tyre when he heard that Rebbi Yose’s son had died. Even though he had eaten cheese and drunk water, he finished that day fasting. The words of Rav imply that one may fast for hours, for Rav said, one may borrow his fast day and pay back. Samuel said to him, is that a vow? If he had vowed to fast but forgot and ate the volume of an olive, he lost his fast day. Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: That is, if he said simply “a day”. But if he said “this day”, he has to continue fasting until the end. He spoke only of eating; that excludes tasting. Rebbi Abba Ḥasida in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Tasting does not create obligations of benediction, robbery, nor of demay, nor of the interruption of a fast day.

Rebbi Aḥa said, the acts of a Gentile court are public knowledge. Then even if both [witnesses] are Samaritan? Did one not say that they are not conversant with the fine points in writing bills of divorce? But Rebbi Simeon validates their bills of divorce! Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: It turns out that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as Rebbi Eleazar said, even if no witnesses signed on it, it is valid, so Rebbi Simeon said, even if no witnesses signed on it, it is valid. But then even if it was made by private persons? This shows that it was necessary that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the acts of a Gentile court are public knowledge. A bond was executed in Bet Shean, whose witnesses were Gentiles. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree, one said it is invalid, the other said it is valid. Rebbi Abbahu explained: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is invalid, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is valid. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That a Jew should not lose money. But if that one would not lose money, the other would lose money! Rebbi Yudan said, it must be in order not to close the door before people, for tomorrow one would look to borrow but does not succeed.

” ‘For creditors, average quality,’ because of tricksters. That a man should not see a desirable field in his neighbor’s hand, lend him money, and contrives to take it from him. Then one should estimate only from the least quality! Rebbi Jehudah said, that is correct; but not to lock the door before people needing to borrow. For tomorrow he may need to borrow and does not find [a lender.]”

” ‘For creditors, average quality,’ because of tricksters. That a man should not see a desirable field in his neighbor’s hand, lend him money, and contrives to take it from him. Then one should estimate only from the least quality! Rebbi Jehudah said, that is correct; but not to lock the door before people needing to borrow. For tomorrow he may need to borrow and does not find [a lender.]”

MISHNAH: One who found letters of appraisal, letters of sustenance, or documents of ḥalîṣah or repudiation, or documents of arbitration, or any other court document, should return them. If he found in a basket or in a box a bundle or joined documents he should return them. How many are joined documents? Three documents connected one to the other. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if one persons borrows from three, he should return it to the borrower; if three persons borrow from one, he should return it to the lender. If he found a document among his documents whose nature was unknown to him, it should lie there until Elijah comes. If it has an agreement attached to it, he should follow the agreement.

MISHNAH: One may not receive mortmain property from a Jew because that is interest. But one may receive mortmain property from Gentiles, one may borrow from them and lend them on interest, and similarly from a sojourner. A Jew can lend a Gentile’s money on interest by the Gentile’s instruction but not by a Jew’s.

“One may borrow from them and lend them on interest, and similarly from a sojourner.” Rebbi said, I do not know the definition of “sojourner” quoted in reference to the Hebrew slave. I do not know the definition of “proselyte” quoted in reference to interest.

“A person may borrow from his sons or daughters on interest, but he educates them for interest.” Rav said, e. g., I from Rabba bar bar Ḥana or Rabba bar bar Ḥana from me. “A person may not borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma; but a Gentile may borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma.”

“A person may borrow from his sons or daughters on interest, but he educates them for interest.” Rav said, e. g., I from Rabba bar bar Ḥana or Rabba bar bar Ḥana from me. “A person may not borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma; but a Gentile may borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma.”

“A person may borrow from his sons or daughters on interest, but he educates them for interest.” Rav said, e. g., I from Rabba bar bar Ḥana or Rabba bar bar Ḥana from me. “A person may not borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma; but a Gentile may borrow for a šeqel and lend out for a tetradrachma.”

A Jew may borrow from a Gentile, and a Gentile from a Jew, and a Jew can become his guarantor without any worries about interest. If a Jew appointed a Gentile as guardian or steward, it is permitted to borrow from him on interest. But if a Gentile appointed a Jew as guardian or steward, it is prohibited to borrow from him on interest. It is forbidden to borrow on interest a Gentile’s money deposited with a Jew; it is permitted to borrow on interest a Jew’s money deposited with a Gentile. This is the principle: Anything which the Jew has to warrant is forbidden, what the Gentile has to warrant is permitted.

A Jew may borrow from a Gentile, and a Gentile from a Jew, and a Jew can become his guarantor without any worries about interest. If a Jew appointed a Gentile as guardian or steward, it is permitted to borrow from him on interest. But if a Gentile appointed a Jew as guardian or steward, it is prohibited to borrow from him on interest. It is forbidden to borrow on interest a Gentile’s money deposited with a Jew; it is permitted to borrow on interest a Jew’s money deposited with a Gentile. This is the principle: Anything which the Jew has to warrant is forbidden, what the Gentile has to warrant is permitted.

A Jew may borrow from a Gentile, and a Gentile from a Jew, and a Jew can become his guarantor without any worries about interest. If a Jew appointed a Gentile as guardian or steward, it is permitted to borrow from him on interest. But if a Gentile appointed a Jew as guardian or steward, it is prohibited to borrow from him on interest. It is forbidden to borrow on interest a Gentile’s money deposited with a Jew; it is permitted to borrow on interest a Jew’s money deposited with a Gentile. This is the principle: Anything which the Jew has to warrant is forbidden, what the Gentile has to warrant is permitted.

A Jew may borrow from a Gentile, and a Gentile from a Jew, and a Jew can become his guarantor without any worries about interest. If a Jew appointed a Gentile as guardian or steward, it is permitted to borrow from him on interest. But if a Gentile appointed a Jew as guardian or steward, it is prohibited to borrow from him on interest. It is forbidden to borrow on interest a Gentile’s money deposited with a Jew; it is permitted to borrow on interest a Jew’s money deposited with a Gentile. This is the principle: Anything which the Jew has to warrant is forbidden, what the Gentile has to warrant is permitted.

A Jew may borrow from a Gentile, and a Gentile from a Jew, and a Jew can become his guarantor without any worries about interest. If a Jew appointed a Gentile as guardian or steward, it is permitted to borrow from him on interest. But if a Gentile appointed a Jew as guardian or steward, it is prohibited to borrow from him on interest. It is forbidden to borrow on interest a Gentile’s money deposited with a Jew; it is permitted to borrow on interest a Jew’s money deposited with a Gentile. This is the principle: Anything which the Jew has to warrant is forbidden, what the Gentile has to warrant is permitted.

MISHNAH: A man may say to another, weed with me and I shall be weeding with you, hoe with me and I shall be hoeing with you, but he shall not tell him, weed with me and I shall be hoeing with you, hoe with me and I shall be weeding with you. All the dry season is one, all the wet season is not; one may not say to him, plough with me in the dry season and I shall be ploughing with you in the wet season. Rabban Gamliel says, there exists predated and postdated interest. How is this? If one indended to borrow from him and sent him [a gift] saying, so you should lend me; that is predated interest. If one had borrowed and returned the money when he sent him [a gift] saying, that is for your money which was not earning for you while it was with me; that is postdated interest. Rebbi Simeon says, there exists verbal interest. One should not say to him, you should know that X came from place Y. The following transgress prohibitions: The creditor, and the debtor, and the guarantor, and the witnesses; the Sages say, also the scribe. They transgress “do not give,” and “do not take from him,” and “do not be a creditor,” and “do not burden him with interest,” and “before a blind man do not put an obstacle; and fear your God, I am the Eternal.”

MISHNAH: Within three days before Gentile holidays one is forbidden to trade with them, to lend them and to borrow from them, to give them loans and to ask them for loans, to pay debts to them and to accept payment from them. Rebbi Jehudah says, one may accept payment from them because this hurts him. They told him, even though it hurts him now he will enjoy it later. Rebbi Ismael says, three days before and three days afterwards are forbidden but the Sages say, before their holidays it is forbidden, after their holidays it is permitted.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

R. Judah said in the name of Rab: One may borrow a fast and pay it on another day. When I made this statement in the presence of Samuel, he said: Has a resolution to fast the force of a vow, so that one must perforce pay it? It is merely self-affliction that one has taken upon himself. If he feels that he can endure the affliction let him do so, but if he cannot endure it, he need not! Some relate the above in the following form: R. Judah said in the name of Rab: One may borrow a fast and pay it on another day. When I made this statement before Samuel, he said to me: This is a matter of course! Let us assume that his intention has merely the force of a vow, is not one in duty bound to pay a vow the next day or at a later time?

R. Judah said in the name of Rab: One may borrow a fast and pay it on another day. When I made this statement in the presence of Samuel, he said: Has a resolution to fast the force of a vow, so that one must perforce pay it? It is merely self-affliction that one has taken upon himself. If he feels that he can endure the affliction let him do so, but if he cannot endure it, he need not! Some relate the above in the following form: R. Judah said in the name of Rab: One may borrow a fast and pay it on another day. When I made this statement before Samuel, he said to me: This is a matter of course! Let us assume that his intention has merely the force of a vow, is not one in duty bound to pay a vow the next day or at a later time?

There is a Baraitha, viz., At all events it is a matter which concerns thee as well as him; consequently we borrow them from him. But, it may be said, When we borrow them from him, we may dip them. But if so, the house of Hillel ought to have replied to the house of Shammai, When we borrow them, we dip them.

There is a Baraitha, viz., At all events it is a matter which concerns thee as well as him; consequently we borrow them from him. But, it may be said, When we borrow them from him, we may dip them. But if so, the house of Hillel ought to have replied to the house of Shammai, When we borrow them, we dip them.

There is a Baraitha, viz., At all events it is a matter which concerns thee as well as him; consequently we borrow them from him. But, it may be said, When we borrow them from him, we may dip them. But if so, the house of Hillel ought to have replied to the house of Shammai, When we borrow them, we dip them.

That which is unclean by reason of a dead body requires sprinkling on the third and on the seventh day. But men do not borrow a vessel for use at the end of seven days. And with regard to dipping, are we not to take a man's word? And yet there is the Baraitha, The word of a common person is taken with respect to the purification of washing of that which is unclean by reason of a dead body. Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one refers to his body, the other to his vessels. But Raba said, Both the one and the other teaching refer to his vessels. And even so there is no difficulty. The one is the case of a man who says, I have never dipped vessels in the midst of vessels; and the other is the case of a man who says, I have dipped, but I have not dipped in a vessel the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin. And this is borne out by a Baraitha, viz., A common person is believed when he says, Fruits have not been rendered predisposed to defilement. But he is not believed, when he says, The fruits have been rendered predisposed to defilement, but they have not been defiled. And with regard to his body, is he to be believed? Surely not, For lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., In the case of a learned and observant man who comes for sprinkling, he is to be sprinkled at once; in the case of a common person, who comes for sprinkling, he is not to be sprinkled, until he performs before us the things appertaining to the third and seventh days. But Abai says, As the result of thy severity towards him at the beginning, thou dealest gently with him at the end.