collect

Jesus said, "Someone was planning on having guests. When dinner was ready, they sent their servant to call the visitors. "The servant went to the first and said, 'My master invites you.' "They said, 'Some merchants owe me money. They're coming tonight. I need to go and give them instructions. Excuse me from the dinner.' "The servant went to another one and said, 'My master invites you.' "They said, "I've just bought a house and am needed for the day. I won't have time.' "The servant went to another one and said, 'My master invites you.' "They said, 'My friend is getting married and I'm going to make dinner. I can't come. Excuse me from the dinner.' "The servant went to another one and said, 'My master invites you.' "They said, "I've just bought a farm and am going to collect the rent. I can't come. Excuse me.' "The servant went back and told the master, 'The ones you've invited to the dinner have excused themselves.' "The master said to their servant, 'Go out to the roads and bring whomever you find so that they can have dinner.' "Buyers and merchants won't [enter] the places of my Father."

He said, "A [creditor] owned a vineyard. He leased it out to some sharecroppers to work it so he could collect its fruit. "He sent his servant so that the sharecroppers could give him the fruit of the vineyard. They seized his servant, beat him, and nearly killed him. "The servant went back and told his master. His master said, 'Maybe he just didn't know them.' He sent another servant, but the tenants beat that one too. "Then the master sent his son, thinking, 'Maybe they'll show some respect to my son.' "Because they knew that he was the heir of the vineyard, the sharecroppers seized and killed him. Anyone who has ears to hear should hear!"

If ancient illustrations of faith which both testify to God’s grace and tend to man’s edification are collected in writing, so that by the perusal of them, as if by the reproduction of the facts, as well God may be honoured, as man may be strengthened; why should not new instances be also collected, that shall be equally suitable for both purposes,—if only on the ground that these modern examples will one day become ancient and available for posterity, although in their present time they are esteemed of less authority, by reason of the presumed veneration for antiquity? But let men look to it, if they judge the power of the Holy Spirit to be one, according to the times and seasons; since some things of later date must be esteemed of more account as being nearer to the very last times, in accordance with the exuberance of grace manifested to the final periods determined for the world. For “in the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy. And upon my servants and my handmaidens will I pour out of my Spirit; and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” And thus we—who both acknowledge and reverence, even as we do the prophecies, modern visions as equally promised to us, and consider the other powers of the Holy Spirit as an agency of the Church for which also He was sent, administering all gifts in all, even as the Lord distributed to every one as well needfully collect them in writing, as commemorate them in reading to God’s glory; that so no weakness or despondency of faith may suppose that the divine grace abode only among the ancients, whether in respect of the condescension that raised up martyrs, or that gave revelations; since God always carries into effect what He has promised, for a testimony to unbelievers, to believers for a benefit. And we therefore, what we have heard and handled, declare also to you, brethren and little children, that as well you who were concerned in these matters may be reminded of them again to the glory of the Lord, as that you who know them by report may have communion with the blessed martyrs, and through them with the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and honour, for ever and ever. Amen.

And the rulers, having beheld what had happened, wept with a great weeping, saying: Woe unto us! What are we to do? And, behold, the devil appeared in the likeness of an old man, and began to say in the midst of all: Woe unto you! Because you are now dying, having no food; what can sheep and oxen do for you? They will not at all be enough for you. But rise up, and make a search here for one who has come to the city, a stranger named Andrew, and kill him; for if you do not, he will not permit you to carry on this practice longer: for it was he who let loose the men out of the prison. Assuredly the man is in this city, and you have not seen him. Now, therefore, rise and make search for him, in order that henceforward you may be able to collect your food.

And again I said: Lord, and what of those who have received baptism? And I heard a voice saying to me: Then the race of the Christians shall be examined, who have received baptism; and then the righteous shall come at my command, and the angels shall go and collect them from among the sinners, as the prophet David foretold: The Lord will not suffer the rod of the sinners in the lot of the righteous; and all the righteous shall be placed on my right hand, and shall shine like the sun. As you see, John, the stars of heaven, that they were all made together, but differ in light, so shall it be with the righteous and the sinners; for the righteous shall shine as lights and as the sun, but the sinners shall stand in darkness.

AND then I made firm the heavenly circle, and made that the lower water which is under heaven collect itself together, into one whole, and that the chaos become dry, and it became so.

And when Pharaoh saw that Haiqar had overcome him, and returned him his answers, he at once became excited, and commanded them to collect for him three years' taxes, and to bring them to Haiqar.

All the Lord's children will praise Him, and will collect the truth of His faith.

Destroyed in flame, even these shall he collect

And he said: "Take and collect the splinters of the wood out of which I made gods of pine-wood before thou camest; and make ready for me the food of the mid-day meal."

And Zepho enticed Angeas king of Africa to collect all his army to go and fight with the Egyptians, and with the sons of Jacob, and to avenge of them the cause of his brethren.

When king Antiochus heard of these things, he was very angry at what had happened; so he got together all his own army, with many mercenaries, whom he had hired from the islands, and took them with him, and prepared to break into Judea about the beginning of the spring. But when, upon his mustering his soldiers, he perceived that his treasures were deficient, and there was a want of money in them, for all the taxes were not paid, by reason of the seditions there had been among the nations he having been so magnanimous and so liberal, that what he had was not sufficient for him, he therefore resolved first to go into Persia, and collect the taxes of that country. Hereupon he left one whose name was Lysias, who was in great repute with him governor of the kingdom, as far as the bounds of Egypt, and of the Lower Asia, and reaching from the river Euphrates, and committed to him a certain part of his forces, and of his elephants, and charged him to bring up his son Antiochus with all possible care, until he came back; and that he should conquer Judea, and take its inhabitants for slaves, and utterly destroy Jerusalem, and abolish the whole nation. And when king Antiochus had given these things in charge to Lysias, he went into Persia; and in the hundred and forty-seventh year he passed over Euphrates, and went to the superior provinces.

This advice the people hearkened to, and went up into the temple with the king and Bernice, and began to rebuild the cloisters; the rulers also and senators divided themselves into the villages, and collected the tributes, and soon got together forty talents, which was the sum that was deficient. And thus did Agrippa then put a stop to that war which was threatened. Moreover, he attempted to persuade the multitude to obey Florus, until Caesar should send one to succeed him; but they were hereby more provoked, and cast reproaches upon the king, and got him excluded out of the city; nay, some of the seditious had the impudence to throw stones at him. So when the king saw that the violence of those that were for innovations was not to be restrained, and being very angry at the contumelies he had received, he sent their rulers, together with their men of power, to Florus, to Cesarea, that he might appoint whom he thought fit to collect the tribute in the country, while he retired into his own kingdom.

When any persons entered into the temple, its floor received them. This part of the temple therefore was in height sixty cubits, and its length the same; whereas its breadth was but twenty cubits: but still that sixty cubits in length was divided again, and the first part of it was cut off at forty cubits, and had in it three things that were very wonderful and famous among all mankind, the candlestick, the table [of shew-bread], and the altar of incense. Now the seven lamps signified the seven planets; for so many there were springing out of the candlestick. Now the twelve loaves that were upon the table signified the circle of the zodiac and the year; but the altar of incense, by its thirteen kinds of sweet-smelling spices with which the sea replenished it, signified that God is the possessor of all things that are both in the uninhabitable and habitable parts of the earth, and that they are all to be dedicated to his use. But the inmost part of the temple of all was of twenty cubits. This was also separated from the outer part by a veil. In this there was nothing at all. It was inaccessible and inviolable, and not to be seen by any; and was called the Holy of Holies. Now, about the sides of the lower part of the temple, there were little houses, with passages out of one into another; there were a great many of them, and they were of three stories high; there were also entrances on each side into them from the gate of the temple. But the superior part of the temple had no such little houses any further, because the temple was there narrower, and forty cubits higher, and of a smaller body than the lower parts of it. Thus we collect that the whole height, including the sixty cubits from the floor, amounted to a hundred cubits.

It remains that we inquire what is the “image of His goodness;” and here, I think, we must understand the same thing which we expressed a little ago, in speaking of the image formed by the mirror. For He is the primal goodness, doubtless, out of which the Son is born, who, being in all respects the image of the Father, may certainly also be called with propriety the image of His goodness. For there is no other second goodness existing in the Son, save that which is in the Father. And therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel, “There is none good save one only, God the Father,” that by such an expression it may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is rightly termed the image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness from that which is in the Father. Nor is there any dissimilarity or difference of goodness in the Son. And therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, “There is none good save one only, God the Father,” as if thereby it may be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit was good. But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived. And if there be any other things which in Scripture are called good, whether angel, or man, or servant, or treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are so termed catachrestically, having in them an accidental, not an essential goodness. But it would require both much time and labour to collect together all the titles of the Son of God, such e.g. as the true light, or the door, or the righteousness, or the sanctification, or the redemption, and countless others; and to show for what reasons each one of them is so given. Satisfied, therefore, with what we have already advanced, we go on with our inquiries into those other matters which follow.

It would be tedious to collect out of all the passages in the Gospels the proofs by which the God of the law and of the Gospels is shown to be one and the same. Let us touch briefly upon the Acts of the Apostles, where Stephen and the other apostles address their prayers to that God who made heaven and earth, and who spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, calling Him the “God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob;” the God who “brought forth His people out of the land of Egypt.” Which expressions undoubtedly clearly direct our understandings to faith in the Creator, and implant an affection for Him in those who have learned piously and faithfully thus to think of Him; according to the words of the Saviour Himself, who, when He was asked which was the greatest commandment in the law, replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And to these He added: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” How is it, then, that He commends to him whom He was instructing, and was leading to enter on the office of a disciple, this commandment above all others, by which undoubtedly love was to be kindled in him towards the God of that law, inasmuch as such had been declared by the law in these very words? But let it be granted, notwithstanding all these most evident proofs, that it is of some other unknown God that the Saviour says, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” etc. etc. How, in that case, if the law and the prophets are, as they say, from the Creator, i.e. from another God than He whom He calls good, shall that appear to be logically said which He subjoins, viz. that “on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets?” For how shall that which is strange and foreign to God depend upon Him? And when Paul says, “I thank my God, whom I serve in my spirit from my forefathers with pure conscience,” he clearly shows that he came not to some new God, but to Christ. For what other forefathers of Paul can be intended, except those of whom he says, “Are they Hebrews? so am I: are they Israelites? so am I.” Nay, will not the very preface of his Epistle to the Romans clearly show the same thing to those who know how to understand the letters of Paul, viz. what God he preaches? For his words are: “Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart to the gospel of God, which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of Christ Jesus our Lord,” etc. Moreover, also the following, “Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that plougheth should plough in hope, and he that thresheth in hope of partaking of the fruits.” By which he manifestly shows that God, who gave the law on our account, i.e. on account of the apostles, says, “Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn;” whose care was not for oxen, but for the apostles, who were preaching the gospel of Christ. In other passages also, Paul, embracing the promises of the law, says, “Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and that thy days may be long upon the land, the good land, which the Lord thy God will give thee.” By which he undoubtedly makes known that the law, and the God of the law, and His promises, are pleasing to him.

Of all things which move, some have the cause of their motion within themselves, others receive it from without: and all those things only are moved from without which are without life, as stones, and pieces of wood, and whatever things are of such a nature as to be held together by the constitution of their matter alone, or of their bodily substance. That view must indeed be dismissed which would regard the dissolution of bodies by corruption as motion, for it has no bearing upon our present purpose. Others, again, have the cause of motion in themselves, as animals, or trees, and all things which are held together by natural life or soul; among which some think ought to be classed the veins of metals. Fire, also, is supposed to be the cause of its own motion, and perhaps also springs of water. And of those things which have the causes of their motion in themselves, some are said to be moved out of themselves, others by themselves. And they so distinguish them, because those things are moved out of themselves which are alive indeed, but have no soul; whereas those things which have a soul are moved by themselves, when a phantasy, i.e. a desire or incitement, is presented to them, which excites them to move towards something. Finally, in certain things endowed with a soul, there is such a phantasy, i.e. a will or feeling, as by a kind of natural instinct calls them forth, and arouses them to orderly and regular motion; as we see to be the case with spiders, which are stirred up in a most orderly manner by a phantasy, i.e. a sort of wish and desire for weaving, to undertake the production of a web, some natural movement undoubtedly calling forth the effort to work of this kind. Nor is this very insect found to possess any other feeling than the natural desire of weaving; as in like manner bees also exhibit a desire to form honeycombs, and to collect, as they say, aerial honey.

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

But let us see what those statements of his are which follow next in these words: “Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather crowds around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, thither they thrust themselves in, and show themselves off.” Observe, now, how he slanders us in these words, comparing us to those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them! What disreputable tricks, pray, do we perform? Or what is there in our conduct that resembles theirs, seeing that by means of readings, and explanations of the things read, we lead men to the worship of the God of the universe, and to the cognate virtues, and turn them away from contemning Deity, and from all things contrary to right reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect together such hearers of their discourses as exhort men to virtue,—a practice which certain of the Cynics especially have followed, who converse publicly with those whom they happen to meet. Will they maintain, then, that these who do not gather together persons who are considered to have been educated, but who invite and assemble hearers from the public street, resemble those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them? Neither Celsus, however, nor any one who holds the same opinions, will blame those who, agreeably to what they regard as a feeling of philanthropy, address their arguments to the ignorant populace.

Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, “We see also those persons who in the market-places perform most disreputable tricks, and collect crowds around them,” whether a manifest falsehood has not been uttered, and things compared which have no resemblance. He says that these individuals, to whom he compares us, who “perform the most disreputable tricks in the market-places and collect crowds, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to show off their tricks before them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, thither do they thrust themselves in and make a display.” Now, in speaking thus he does nothing else than simply load us with abuse, like the women upon the public streets, whose object is to slander one another; for we do everything in our power to secure that our meetings should be composed of wise men, and those things among us which are especially excellent and divine we then venture to bring forward publicly in our discussions when we have an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we conceal and pass by in silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our audience is composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as is figuratively termed “milk.”

Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, “We see also those persons who in the market-places perform most disreputable tricks, and collect crowds around them,” whether a manifest falsehood has not been uttered, and things compared which have no resemblance. He says that these individuals, to whom he compares us, who “perform the most disreputable tricks in the market-places and collect crowds, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to show off their tricks before them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, thither do they thrust themselves in and make a display.” Now, in speaking thus he does nothing else than simply load us with abuse, like the women upon the public streets, whose object is to slander one another; for we do everything in our power to secure that our meetings should be composed of wise men, and those things among us which are especially excellent and divine we then venture to bring forward publicly in our discussions when we have an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we conceal and pass by in silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our audience is composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as is figuratively termed “milk.”

For it is impossible that the good which is the result of accident, or of communication, should be like that good which comes by nature; and yet the former will never be lost by him who, so to speak, partakes of the “living” bread with a view to his own preservation. But if it should fail any one, it must be through his own fault, in being slothful to partake of this “living bread” and “genuine drink,” by means of which the wings, nourished and watered, are fitted for their purpose, even according to the saying of Solomon, the wisest of men, concerning the truly rich man, that “he made to himself wings like an eagle, and returns to the house of his patron.” For it became God, who knows how to turn to proper account even those who in their wickedness have apostatized from Him, to place wickedness of this sort in some part of the universe, and to appoint a training-school of virtue, wherein those must exercise themselves who would desire to recover in a “lawful manner” the possession [which they had lost]; in order that being tested, like gold in the fire, by the wickedness of these, and having exerted themselves to the utmost to prevent anything base injuring their rational nature, they may appear deserving of an ascent to divine things, and may be elevated by the Word to the blessedness which is above all things, and so to speak, to the very summit of goodness. Now he who in the Hebrew language is named Satan, and by some Satanas—as being more in conformity with the genius of the Greek language—signifies, when translated into Greek, “adversary.” But every one who prefers vice and a vicious life, is (because acting in a manner contrary to virtue) Satanas, that is, an “adversary” to the Son of God, who is righteousness, and truth, and wisdom. With more propriety, however, is he called “adversary,” who was the first among those that were living a peaceful and happy life to lose his wings, and to fall from blessedness; he who, according to Ezekiel, walked faultlessly in all his ways, “until iniquity was found in him,” and who being the “seal of resemblance” and the “crown of beauty” in the paradise of God, being filled as it were with good things, fell into destruction, in accordance with the word which said to him in a mystic sense: “Thou hast fallen into destruction, and shalt not abide for ever.” We have ventured somewhat rashly to make these few remarks, although in so doing we have added nothing of importance to this treatise. If any one, however, who has leisure for the examination of the sacred writings, should collect together from all sources and form into one body of doctrine what is recorded concerning the origin of evil, and the manner of its dissolution, he would see that the views of Moses and the prophets regarding Satan had not been even dreamed of either by Celsus or any one of those whose soul had been dragged down, and torn away from God, and from right views of Him, and from His word, by this wicked demon.

Let us see what Celsus next goes on to say. It is as follows: “What need is there to collect all the oracular responses, which have been delivered with a divine voice by priests and priestesses, as well as by others, whether men or women, who were under a divine influence?—all the wonderful things that have been heard issuing from the inner sanctuary?—all the revelations that have been made to those who consulted the sacrificial victims?—and all the knowledge that has been conveyed to men by other signs and prodigies? To some the gods have appeared in visible forms. The world is full of such instances. How many cities have been built in obedience to commands received from oracles; how often, in the same way, delivered from disease and famine! Or again, how many cities, from disregard or forgetfulness of these oracles, have perished miserably! How many colonies have been established and made to flourish by following their orders! How many princes and private persons have, from this cause, had prosperity or adversity! How many who mourned over their childlessness, have obtained the blessing they asked for! How many have turned away from themselves the anger of demons! How many who were maimed in their limbs, have had them restored! And again, how many have met with summary punishment for showing want of reverence to the temples—some being instantly seized with madness, others openly confessing their crimes, others having put an end to their lives, and others having become the victims of incurable maladies! Yea, some have been slain by a terrible voice issuing from the inner sanctuary.” I know not how it comes that Celsus brings forward these as undoubted facts, whilst at the same time he treats as mere fables the wonders which are recorded and handed down to us as having happened among the Jews, or as having been performed by Jesus and His disciples. For why may not our accounts be true, and those of Celsus fables and fictions? At least, these latter were not believed by the followers of Democritus, Epicurus, and Aristotle, although perhaps these Grecian sects would have been convinced by the evidence in support of our miracles, if Moses or any of the prophets who wrought these wonders, or Jesus Christ Himself, had come in their way.

CAMIACH, CANTAC, EMIAL, MIAL, EMORE, BARCA, MARBAT, CACRAT, ZANDAC, VALAMACH; by these most holy names, and the other names of angels which are written in the book ASSAMAIAN, I conjure thee O bat (or whatever animal it may be) that thou assist me in this operation, by God the true, God the holy, the God who hath created thee, and by Adam, who hath imposed thy true name upon thee and upon all other animated beings. [then say, O angels ADONAY, ELOHY, AGLAY, AGLATHA: May you be our help, so that the speech (sermo) may be fulfilled through you.] After this, take the needle or other convenient instrument of art, as will be said later on, and pierce the bat in the vein which is in the right wing; and collect the blood in a small vessel over the which thou shalt say:—

And Moses said to the children of Israel, ‘ Because ye have wept and have asked for flesh, behold the Lord will give you flesh to eat; not one day, nor two, nor five, nor ten, but a month of days shall ye eat, until it goeth out of your nostrils, and becometh nauseous to you V Moses said (to the Lord), ‘ This people among whom I am is six hundred thousand men, and hast Thou promised to feed them with flesh for a month of days? If we slay sheep and oxen, it would not suffice for them; and if we collect for them (all) the fish that are in the sea, they would not satisfy them.’ And the Lord said to Moses, ‘ The hand of the Lord shall bring (this) to pass, and behold, thou shalt see whether this happens or not.’ By the command of God a wind blew and brought out quails from the sea, and they were gathered around the camp of the children of Israel about a day’s journey on all sides; and they were piled upon one another to the depth of two cubits. Each of the children of Israel gathered about ten cors; and they spread them out before the doors of their tents. And the Lord was angry with them, and smote them with death, and many died; and that place was called ‘ the graves of lust.’

The children of Israel gathered together unto Moses and Aaron and said to them, ‘Ye have destroyed the people of the Lord.’ And God said to Moses and Aaron in the tabernacle, ‘ Stand aloof from them, and I will destroy them in a moment.’ Moses said to Aaron, ‘ Take a censer and put fire and incense therein, and go to the people, that God may forgive their sins, for anger has gone forth against them from before the Lord.’ And Aaron put incense in a censer, and went to the people in haste, and he saw death destroying the people unsparingly; but with his censer he separated the living from the dead, and the plague was stayed from them. The number of men whom the plague destroyed at that time of the children of Israel was fourteen thousand and seven hundred, besides those who died with the children of Korah; and Aaron returned to Moses. And God said to Moses, * Let the children of Israel collect from every tribe a rod, and let them write the name of the tribe upon its rod, and the name of Aaron upon (that of) the tribe of Levi, and the rod of the man whom the Lord chooseth shall blossom.’ And they did as God had commanded them, and took the rods and placed them in the tabernacle that day. On the morrow Moses went into the tabernacle, and saw the rod of the house of Levi budding and bearing almonds. And Moses brought out all the rods to the children of Israel, and the sons of Levi were set apart for the service of the priesthood before the Lord.

And as we do not intend to write a complete history of the kings and judges, but only to collect a few matters which may serve for the consolation of the feeble in a time of despondency, behold we pass over them with brief notices. If however any one seeks to know these (things), let him read in the Torah and in the Beth-Mautebhe, whence he will understand clearly. Moses ruled the people in the desert forty years. Joshua ruled the people twenty-five years. Judah was ruler of the people forty-eight years. Eglon king of Moab oppressed the people eighteen years. Ahor (Ehud) was ruler of the people eighty years. Nabin (Jabin) oppressed Israel twenty years. Deborah and Barak were rulers of the people forty years. The Midianites oppressed Israel seven years. Gideon was ruler of the people forty years. He had seventy sons, who rode with him upon seventy ass colts. Abimelech the son of Gideon was ruler of the people sixty years u.

They may feed demai to the poor and to guests (alt. passing troops). Rabban Gamaliel used to feed demai to his workmen. [As for] charity collectors: Bet Shammai says: they should give tithed [produce] to one who doesn’t tithe, and untithed [produce] to one who does tithe. In this way it will turn out that every one will eat [produce] that has been fixed (tithed). But the sages say: they may collect indiscriminately and distribute indiscriminately. And one who wishes to fix [his produce by tithing it], let him fix it.

This is the formula of the prozbul: “I turn over to you, so-and-so, judges of such and such a place, that any debt that I may have outstanding, I shall collect it whenever I desire.” And the judges sign below, or the witnesses.

If a store-chamber was cleared of terumah wheat, they do not need to force him to sit down and collect each grain, but rather he may sweep it all up in his usual manner and then deposit hullin in it.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man may take a chip from that which is lying before him to pick his teeth with it, and he may collect [chips] from the court yard and make a fire, for everything in a court is prepared [for use on Yom Tov]. But the sages say: he may collect only from that which is before him and make a fire.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man may take a chip from that which is lying before him to pick his teeth with it, and he may collect [chips] from the court yard and make a fire, for everything in a court is prepared [for use on Yom Tov]. But the sages say: he may collect only from that which is before him and make a fire.

If a young girl was seduced [the compensation for] her embarrassment and blemish and the fine belong to her father; [and the compensation for] pain in the case of one who was raped. If the girl’s case was tried before her father died [all the forms of compensation] are her father’s. If her father [subsequently] died they are her brothers’. If her father died before her case was tried they are hers. If her case was tried before she became of majority age [all forms of compensation] are her father’s. If her father [subsequently] died they are her brothers’. If she became of majority age before her case was tried they are hers. Rabbi Shimon says if her father died before she could collect [the payments] they belong to her. Her handiwork and anything she finds, even if she had not collected [the proceeds] belong to her brothers if her father died.

Although [the Sages] have said: a virgin collects two hundred and a widow one maneh, if he wishes to add, even a hundred maneh, he may do so. If she was widowed or divorced, either after betrothal or after marriage, she is entitled to collect the entire amount. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: [a woman widowed or divorced] after marriage receives the entire amount; After betrothal [but before marriage], a virgin collects two hundred zuz and a widow only one maneh, for the man wrote her [the additional amount] in order to marry her. Rabbi Judah says: if he wishes he may write for a virgin a document for two hundred zuz and she writes “I have received from you a maneh”, or for a widow [he may write a document for] a maneh and she writes, “I have received from you fifty zuz”. Rabbi Meir says: Any man who gives a virgin less than two hundred zuz or a widow less than a maneh is engaging in licentious sex.

If a wife rebels against her husband her ketubah is reduced by seven denarii a week. Rabbi Judah says: seven tropaics. How long does he continue to reduce? Until the amount of her ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: he may continue to reduce, and if she receives an inheritance he may collect from it. Similarly, if a husband rebels against his wife, an addition of three denarii a week is made to her ketubah. Rabbi Judah said: three tropaics.

As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her kethubah at any time. As long as she lives in her husband’s house she may recover her ketubah, only within twenty-five years, because in the course of twenty-five years she has sufficient opportunities to give favors equal [in value to the amount of] her ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir who spoke in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. The Sages say: as long as she lives in her husband’s house she may collect her ketubah at any time. As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her ketubah only within twenty-five years. If [the widow] died, her heirs must mention her ketubah within twenty-five years.

As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her kethubah at any time. As long as she lives in her husband’s house she may recover her ketubah, only within twenty-five years, because in the course of twenty-five years she has sufficient opportunities to give favors equal [in value to the amount of] her ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir who spoke in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. The Sages say: as long as she lives in her husband’s house she may collect her ketubah at any time. As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her ketubah only within twenty-five years. If [the widow] died, her heirs must mention her ketubah within twenty-five years.

As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her kethubah at any time. As long as she lives in her husband’s house she may recover her ketubah, only within twenty-five years, because in the course of twenty-five years she has sufficient opportunities to give favors equal [in value to the amount of] her ketubah, the words of Rabbi Meir who spoke in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. The Sages say: as long as she lives in her husband’s house she may collect her ketubah at any time. As long as she lives in her father’s house she may collect her ketubah only within twenty-five years. If [the widow] died, her heirs must mention her ketubah within twenty-five years.

A widow is paid back [her kethubah] from the property of orphans only by taking an oath. [When the court] refrained from imposing an oath on her, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that she could take any vow which the orphans wanted and collect her kethubah. Witnesses sign their names on a get because of tikkun olam. Hillel instituted the prosbul because of tikkun olam.

[Creditors] do not collect from mortgaged property for produce consumed, for the improvement of property, [and payment] for the maintenance of a widow and daughters, because of tikkun olam. The finder of a lost article is not required to take an oath, because of tikkun olam.

There are three gittin which are invalid but if a woman marries [on the strength of one of them] the child is fit: If the husband wrote it with his own hand but there are no witnesses on it. If there are witnesses on it but no date. If it has a date but only one witness. These are three gittin which are invalid but if a woman marries [on the strength of one of them] the child is fit. Rabbi Elazar says even though there are no witnesses on it, as long as he gave it to her in the presence of witnesses it is valid, [and on the strength of it] she may collect her ketubah [even] from mortgaged property, since the witnesses only sign on the get because of tikkun olam.

So too they have said that she who impairs her kethubah [by admitting that it had already been partially paid] cannot receive [the remainder of the] payment except on oath; And that if one witness testifies against her that it [the kethubah] has been paid [in full], she cannot receive payment except on oath; And that from assigned property or orphans’ property she cannot exact payment [for her kethubah] except on oath; And that if she claims [her kethubah] not in his presence, she cannot receive payment except on oath. So, too, orphans cannot receive payment except on oath [namely]: “We swear that our father did not enjoin in his will, neither did our father say unto us, nor did we find [written] among the documents of our father that this document is paid.” Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: “Even if the son was born after his father’s death he may take an oath, and collect his claim.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “If there are witnesses that the father said at the time of his death that this document was not paid, he receives [his claim] without an oath.”

A man who dedicates his possessions to the sanctuary while he is still liable for his wife's kethubah or in debt to a creditor, the wife cannot collect her ketubah from the consecrated property nor the creditor his debt. Rather he who redeems them must redeem for the purpose of paying the wife her ketubah or the creditor his debt. If he had dedicated ninety maneh, worth of property, and he owed one hundred maneh, then he [the creditor] must add one dinar more and he redeems the property for the purpose of paying the ketubah to the wife or the debt to the creditor.

If one said: I will acquire it for ten selas, and another, [for] twenty, and another for thirty, and another for forty, and another for fifty, If he [that bid] fifty reneged, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he [that bid] forty reneged, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he [that bid] thirty reneged, they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he that bid twenty reneged they take pledges from his property up to ten selas. If he that bid ten reneged they sell [the field] for what it is worth, and collect what remains from him who bid ten. If the owner bid twenty and any other man bid twenty, then the owner comes first, because he must add one fifth.

If one immersed a vessel for the hatat in water that is not fit for the mixing he must dry it; If in water that is fit for the mixing he need not dry it. But if [he intended] to collect in it water that was already mixed with the ashes, he must dry it in either case.

If a pumpkin shell was immersed in water that was not fit for the mixing, it is permissible to mix in it the ashes with the water, as long as it had not been defiled. If it has been defiled, one cannot mix in it the ashes with the water. Rabbi Joshua says: if one is allowed to mix in it the ashes and water at the beginning, one should also be allowed to do so at the end; and if one is not allowed to do this at the end one should not be allowed to do it at the beginning. In either case it is not permissible to collect in it water that has already had ashes mixed in.

It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.

It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.

If one makes a hollow in a water-spout to collect pebbles, its water disqualifies the mikveh; In the case of a wooden [spout] if it holds even a little, But in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it will hold a quarter-log. Rabbi Yose says: also in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it holds even a little: they have spoken of "a quarter-log" only in the case of broken sherds of an earthenware utensil. If the pieces of gravel moved about inside [the hollow], it disqualifies the mikveh. If dirt went down into it and was pressed down, [the mikveh continues to be] valid. If the spout was narrow at each end and wide in the middle, it does not disqualify [the mikveh] invalid, because it had not been made to gather anything in it.

When Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada, the nephew of Bar Qappara, died did Resh Laqish accept for him since he was his teacher and a student is beloved as a son. He went and eulogized him: (Song of Songs 6:2) “My friend descended to his garden, to the spice patch, to shepherd in the gardens.” It would have been necessary only to say “ “My friend descended to shepherd in the gardens.” But “my friend” is the Holy One, praise to Him. “He descended to His garden”, that is the world. “To the spice patch”, that is Israel. “To shepherd in the gardens”, these are the peoples of the world. “And to collect lilies”, these are the just ones whom He removes from their midst. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To a king who had a son whom he loved very much. What did the king do? He planted a garden for him. When the son did the will of his father, the father searched in the entire world for a nice plant and planted it in his garden. When the son was making him angry, he cut down all his plants. So when Israel does the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, he searches the entire world and observes the just person, brings him and attaches him to Israel, like Jethro and Rahab. And when they are making him angry he removes the just ones from amongst them.

A clarification. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and his group, some say Rebbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta and his group, and some say Rebbi Jacob and his group, were sitting to study Torah under a fig tree. The owner of the fig tree was coming every morning at sunrise and collected figs. They said, maybe he mistrusts us, let us change place. The next day, the owner of the fig tree came to them; he said to them: the one miẓwah that you used to do with me you are withholding from me. They said to him: We thought that maybe you mistrust us. During the morning he came and informed them that if the sun shines on ripe figs they get wormy. At that time they said, the owner of the fig tree knows the best time to collect figs and he collects them. Likewise, the Holy One, praise to Him, knows the time of the just ones to be removed from the world and He removes them.

Hillel the elder used to say: When they collect, spread. And when they spread, collect. So Hillel used to say, if you see that the Torah is beloved by Israel and everybody enjoys it, spread. And if not, collect.Rebbi Eleazar said, just as the baby needs to suckle at all times of the day, so every Jew needs to exert himself in Torah all all times of the day. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Gezirah, all small talk is bad but small talk of Torah is good. All lies are good and the lies of Torah are bad.

Hillel the elder used to say: When they collect, spread. And when they spread, collect. So Hillel used to say, if you see that the Torah is beloved by Israel and everybody enjoys it, spread. And if not, collect.Rebbi Eleazar said, just as the baby needs to suckle at all times of the day, so every Jew needs to exert himself in Torah all all times of the day. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Gezirah, all small talk is bad but small talk of Torah is good. All lies are good and the lies of Torah are bad.

Hillel the elder used to say: When they collect, spread. And when they spread, collect. So Hillel used to say, if you see that the Torah is beloved by Israel and everybody enjoys it, spread. And if not, collect.Rebbi Eleazar said, just as the baby needs to suckle at all times of the day, so every Jew needs to exert himself in Torah all all times of the day. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Gezirah, all small talk is bad but small talk of Torah is good. All lies are good and the lies of Torah are bad.

From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones, and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain.

From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones, and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain.

What is the difference between them? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah. If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him. If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he may collect money from him.

What is the difference between them? If the buyer transgressed and separated peah. If you say, it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, what he gave he gave. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, he gave and may collect money from him. If the part of the seller burned, if it is because the obligation of the harvest falls on the standing grain, if it is burned it is burned. But if you say that because he sold to him, excluding his obligation, if it is burned he may collect money from him.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For five reasons one should give peah only at the end of one’s field, because of robbing the poor, because of idling the poor, because of cheats, because of bad impression, and because the Torah said (Lev. 19:9): “Do not finish off the corner of your field.” Because of robbing the poor, that no man should see a free hour and say to his poor relative: Come, and take this peah for yourself. Because of idling the poor, that the poor should not sit around, watch the entire day, and say: Now he is giving peah, now he is giving peah, but rather they should go, collect on another field, and come at the moment of finishing. Because of the cheats, that one should not say: I already gave, and then he chooses the good and brings out the bad. Because of bad impression, that the passers-by should not say: Look, this man harvested his field and did not leave peah for the poor. And because the Torah said: “Do not finish off the corner of your field.”

MISHNAH: If someone sells his field, the seller is permitted but the buyer is barred. Nobody should hire a worker on condition that his son may collect gleanings after him. He who does not let the poor collect gleanings, or who lets one person collect but not the other, or helps one of them, robs the poor. On him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.”

MISHNAH: If someone sells his field, the seller is permitted but the buyer is barred. Nobody should hire a worker on condition that his son may collect gleanings after him. He who does not let the poor collect gleanings, or who lets one person collect but not the other, or helps one of them, robs the poor. On him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.”

MISHNAH: If someone sells his field, the seller is permitted but the buyer is barred. Nobody should hire a worker on condition that his son may collect gleanings after him. He who does not let the poor collect gleanings, or who lets one person collect but not the other, or helps one of them, robs the poor. On him it was said (Prov. 22:28, 23:10): “Do not displace an eternal boundary.”

MISHNAH: When is everybody permitted to take gleanings of grain? After the second wave of seekers is gone. Single grapes and gleanings of grapes, after the poor have come to the vineyard and gone. Olives after the second wave of rainfall. Rebbi Jehudah said, are there not people who do not harvest their olives until after the second wave of rainfall? Rather when a poor man goes out and does not collect more than the value of four assarii.

It was stated: One does not sow ṭevel, one may not cover ṭevel, but one covers ṭevel with a Gentile. If one forgot and sowed ṭevel, he is free, for it is already lost if it is something that usually is not collected; but for something that usually is collected, he is fined to collect it before it sprouts. But if it sprouted, it turns into something that usually is not collected.

“ The administrators of charity should not publicly announce on a holiday in the way they announce on weekdays, but they collect in private, carry it in their bosom, and distribute for each quarter separately. The administrators of the charity chest should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year. If one gave them bread it is permitted, because Jews are not suspected of giving anything other than money or eggs.” Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: That means, at a place where people sow but do not eat. Since they are not suspected to eat, a fortiori not to feed.

It was stated: “In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, the overseers of charity collect from Jews and Gentiles and provide for Jewish and Gentile poor, visit Jewish and Gentile sick, bury Jewish and Gentile dead, and console Gentile and Jewish mourners. Also, one takes in vessels from Gentiles and from Jews for the sake of peaceful coexistence.”

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

“But they are forbidden because of the bad impression.” Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room. A baraita contradicts Rav: “One should not make a visible fringe of linen dyed with soot, but for mattresses and pillows it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “If one’s coins were strewn before an idol he should not bow down to collect them lest he look as if he was prostrating himself before the idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “In a fortified place one should not put his face on gargoyles in the form of faces lest he look as if he was kissing an idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A Mishnah contradicts Rav: “One does not slaughter into a pit in the ground but he may dig a pit in his house so that the blood may be collected there. In public, he should not do it so as not to imitate the sectarians.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “Once he arrived at the outermost courtyard he may spread them out in the sun but not where it is generally visible.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “One does not pour water on the Sabbath into a sewage pipe covered the length of four cubits.” We have stated on this: If water was flowing in it it is permitted, in the winter it is permitted. If aquaeduct pipes spout it is forbidden. Bar Qappara stated that if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. All these statements contradict Rav and he cannot explain them.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This means that it is forbidden to collect pebbles from another person’s field, for if he weeds, he will put his grasses there. That is, in an agricultural area, but on mountains and rocks it is permitted and he will think of it a kindness.

MISHNAH: In earlier times they said a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property, but only large pieces. But after transgressors became numerous they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s without reciprocity and it goes without saying that he does not have to allot him food.

MISHNAH: In earlier times they said a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property, but only large pieces. But after transgressors became numerous they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s without reciprocity and it goes without saying that he does not have to allot him food.

MISHNAH: In earlier times they said a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property, but only large pieces. But after transgressors became numerous they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s without reciprocity and it goes without saying that he does not have to allot him food.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times they said,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah has to be stated as follows: In earlier times they said, a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces. When they suspected that people were collecting but were saying, we took only large pieces, they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s property without reciprocity. When they suspected that people were collecting in reciprocity but saying, we collected without reciprocity, they decreed that one may collect only from close by and from what is in ample supply.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times they said,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah has to be stated as follows: In earlier times they said, a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces. When they suspected that people were collecting but were saying, we took only large pieces, they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s property without reciprocity. When they suspected that people were collecting in reciprocity but saying, we collected without reciprocity, they decreed that one may collect only from close by and from what is in ample supply.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times they said,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah has to be stated as follows: In earlier times they said, a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces. When they suspected that people were collecting but were saying, we took only large pieces, they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s property without reciprocity. When they suspected that people were collecting in reciprocity but saying, we collected without reciprocity, they decreed that one may collect only from close by and from what is in ample supply.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times they said,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah has to be stated as follows: In earlier times they said, a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces. When they suspected that people were collecting but were saying, we took only large pieces, they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s property without reciprocity. When they suspected that people were collecting in reciprocity but saying, we collected without reciprocity, they decreed that one may collect only from close by and from what is in ample supply.

If his animal was there, his animal is proof for him. If his cooking stove was there, his cooking stove proves for him. If he collected the coarse pieces, may he come back and collect the coarsest of the smaller ones? If you say so, he will collect his entire field.

If his animal was there, his animal is proof for him. If his cooking stove was there, his cooking stove proves for him. If he collected the coarse pieces, may he come back and collect the coarsest of the smaller ones? If you say so, he will collect his entire field.

Is it the same on the intermediate days of a holiday? A Tanna was found who stated: “A person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces, in a Sabbatical year but not during he intermediate days of a holiday.” Is it the same for stones? It was found stated “including stones”. “The heart knows whether it is straight or crooked.” Rebbi Yosah in the name of Menaḥem: Rebbi Aqiba followed his own rule. He saw a person pruning his vineyard. He said to him, is that not forbidden? He said to him, I need it to make basket weave. The heart knows whether it is for basket weave or for crookedness.

Is it the same on the intermediate days of a holiday? A Tanna was found who stated: “A person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces, in a Sabbatical year but not during he intermediate days of a holiday.” Is it the same for stones? It was found stated “including stones”. “The heart knows whether it is straight or crooked.” Rebbi Yosah in the name of Menaḥem: Rebbi Aqiba followed his own rule. He saw a person pruning his vineyard. He said to him, is that not forbidden? He said to him, I need it to make basket weave. The heart knows whether it is for basket weave or for crookedness.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi said before Rebbi Abbahu: Did not Rebbi Zeїra and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Libzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder he should transgress and not be killed. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Julianus and his brother Pappos whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, they do not intend to lead you to apostasy, they only want to collect annona. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written (Lev. 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.”

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or material for dye and cannot be preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical and its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is subject to removal and its proceeds are subject to removal. What are these? This is the leaf of wild arum, mint, endives, leeks, purslain and milk bud. Animal feed, thistles and thorns. Dyestuffs, the wild growth of isatis and safflower. These are subject to the Sabbatical and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; both they and their proceeds are subject to removal. They established another principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or dyestuff and is preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical; its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is not subject to removal nor are its proceeds subject to removal. What are these? These are the root of wild arum, the root of mint, ceterach, ḥalbiẓin, and wild nard. Kinds of dyestuffs: madder and campeachy-wood. These and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; these and their proceeds are not subject to removal. Rebbi Meïr says, their proceeds have to be removed before New Year’s Day. They said to him, they do not have to be removed, a fortiori their proceeds. Pomegranate skins and its peduncles, nut shells, and pits are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds. The dyer dyes for himself; he should not dye for payment because one does not treat the produce of the Sabbatical as merchandise, nor firstlings or heaves, carcasses, torn animals, abominations, and crawling things. One may not buy vegetables to sell them on the market but he may collect and his son sells for him. If he bought for himself and has leftovers, it is permitted to sell them. If somebody bought a first-born animal for his son’s wedding or for a holiday and now does not need it, he may sell it. Catchers of wild animals, birds, or fish who accidentally caught impure species may sell them. Rebbi Jehudah says, even one who incidentally has such an opportunity may take and sell them on condition that this not be his profession, but the Sages prohibit it.

It was stated: “There should not be five people collecting and one selling for them, but one may sell his own and that of a colleague. 50 brothers may collect and one sells for them.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but only should they not have a store, [i. e.], that he should not sell at the same place all year round; some say that he should not sell at all hours.

MISHNAH: Is 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.

MISHNAH: Is 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.

MISHNAH: Is 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.

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.

“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.” It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” What are we talking about? About one who says, give it to me and it is clear to me [where to find it], I shall bring it to you; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it because vegetables on the field are rare; but the Sages permit it because vegetables on the field are abundant.

MISHNAH: One may pluck green grasses until the colocynth dries up, and collect dry ones until the second rainfall, leaves of reeds and vines until they fall off from their stems, and collect dry ones until the second rainfall. But Rebbi Aqiba says, all until the second rainfall. Similarly, if one rents out a house until the rains, that is until the second rainfall. If somebody makes a vow not to have any profit from another person until the rains, that is until the second rainfall. Until when may the poor enter orchards? Until the second rainfall. Until when may one use and burn Sabbatical straw and chaff? Until the second rainfall.

MISHNAH: One may pluck green grasses until the colocynth dries up, and collect dry ones until the second rainfall, leaves of reeds and vines until they fall off from their stems, and collect dry ones until the second rainfall. But Rebbi Aqiba says, all until the second rainfall. Similarly, if one rents out a house until the rains, that is until the second rainfall. If somebody makes a vow not to have any profit from another person until the rains, that is until the second rainfall. Until when may the poor enter orchards? Until the second rainfall. Until when may one use and burn Sabbatical straw and chaff? Until the second rainfall.

Is Sabbatical straw forbidden as aftergrowth? Rebbi Levi from Sennabaris asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda and he permitted it. Rebbi Zeïra said, since I did not want to rely on myself I asked those from Beit Barsana and they said, we used to collect straw before the start of the Sabbatical and when we are running out, we bring it from the walls. Rebbi Jeremiah said, a baraita states that it is permitted, as it was stated: “Dyers and cattle feeders may buy coarse bran from everywhere without worry.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, even from one who is suspect. Rebbi Yose said to him, they said that only if he does not know whether he is suspect. Only if he might not be suspect; therefore if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden. Rebbi Shammai said, a Mishnah says that it is forbidden, as we have stated there: “In matters of Sabbatical, kilaim in a vineyard, or dedicated things, if there is enough in both seed and wood to give taste.”

“If somebody established a lien on a field for his wife but then went and sold it, if she wishes she collects from this field or she collects from any other property.” Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Eleazar instructed following this baraita. The colleagues asked: Should she not collect only from the properties that are under the lien? Rebbi Yose said to them, there are unencumbered properties and you say, those under the lien? The baraita [applies] if he did not say you shall be paid only from this. But when he said, you shall be paid only from this, she may collect only from this.

“If somebody established a lien on a field for his wife but then went and sold it, if she wishes she collects from this field or she collects from any other property.” Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Eleazar instructed following this baraita. The colleagues asked: Should she not collect only from the properties that are under the lien? Rebbi Yose said to them, there are unencumbered properties and you say, those under the lien? The baraita [applies] if he did not say you shall be paid only from this. But when he said, you shall be paid only from this, she may collect only from this.

It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days. Rav Jehudah came and explained (Deut. 15:9): “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say: “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close”? That you should not say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect; therefore, it must say that “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael (Deut. 15:9): “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does it have to say, “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close”? That you should not say, all six years long his field is before me, his vineyard is before me, but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect; therefore, it has to say “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.”

It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days. Rav Jehudah came and explained (Deut. 15:9): “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say: “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close”? That you should not say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect; therefore, it must say that “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael (Deut. 15:9): “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does it have to say, “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close”? That you should not say, all six years long his field is before me, his vineyard is before me, but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect; therefore, it has to say “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.”

MISHNAH: A prozbol does not remit. This is one of the ordinances of Hillel the elder. When he saw that the people refrained from giving loans to one another and transgressed what is written in the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 15:9): “Guard yourself, lest there be in your heart an unworthy thought saying, etc.”, he instituted the prozbol. This is the essence of prozbol: I declare before you, judges X and Y at place Z, that I shall collect any debt due me any time I wish. The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.

It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeїra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

How is this? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs.”

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.