comparable

The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!

Forsake not an old friend; for the new is not comparable to him: a new friend is as new wine; when it is old, thou shalt drink it with pleasure.

And Jesus answered and said unto Mary: "What is there in this world which is like unto them, or rather what region is there in this world which is comparable to them? Now, therefore, to what am I to liken them, or rather what am I to say concerning them? For nothing existeth in this world to which I shall be able to liken them, and no form existeth in it which is able to be like them. Now, therefore, nothing existeth in this world which is of the quality of the heaven. [But] amēn, I say unto you: Every one of the invisibles is nine times greater than the heaven and the sphere above it and the twelve æons all together, as I have already said unto you at another time. And no light existeth in this world which is more excellent than the light of the sun. Amēn, amēn, I say unto you: The four-and-twenty invisibles shine ten-thousand times more than the light of the sun which is in this world, as I have already said unto you at another time. For the light of the sun in its shape in truth is not in this world, for its light pierceth through many veils and regions. But the light of the sun in its shape in truth, which is in the region of the Virgin of Light, shineth ten-thousand times more than the four-and-twenty invisibles and the great invisible forefather and also the great triple-powered god, as I have already said unto you at another time.

"Now, therefore, Mary, there is no form in this world, nor any light, nor any shape, which is comparable to the four-and-twenty invisibles, so that I may liken it to them. But yet a little while and I will lead thee and thy brethren and fellow-disciples into all the regions of the Height and will lead you into the three spaces of the First Mystery, save only the regions of the space of the Ineffable, and ye shall see all their shapes in truth without similitude.

Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.

What is dusk? Rebbi Tanḥuma said (it is comparable) to a drop of blood on the tip of a sword. The drop splits here and there, that is dusk. What is dusk? From after sundown the time a man needs to walk half a mil, the words of Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Yose said: dusk is a moment and the sages could not determine it.

Rebbi Jeremiah sent Rebbi Zeïra a basket of figs that were not put in order. Rebbi Jeremiah said to himself, would Rebbi Zeïra eat anything that was not put in order? Rebbi Zeïra said to himself, it is impossible that Rebbi Jeremiah would send me anything that was not put in order. In the meantime, ṭevel was eaten. The next day, when he was with him, he asked him: Was that basket you sent me put in order? He answered him, I said, would Rebbi Zeïra eat anything that was not put in order? He answered, I also said, would Rebbi Jeremiah send me anything that was not put in order? Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr.

A holiday next to the Sabbath, be it before the Sabbath or after the Sabbath, and likewise the two holidays of the diaspora, according to him who says they are one sanctity, he may eat; according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may not eat. Even according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may eat as long as there was no possibility to tithe between them. It was stated: “If he asks him on the holiday, he eats on the Sabbath; if he asks him on the Sabbath, he eats on the holiday.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, explain it regarding produce he had intended to use on Sabbath eve. But produce he had not intended on Sabbath eve (to use during the Sabbath) is not included. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there: “He who takes a vow regarding his friend that he will eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage they permitted because of hatred. Is the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage not comparable to produce that on Sabbath eve he intended to use (later on the Sabbath)? Nevertheless, he only said “because of hatred.”

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food, so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start, what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought, what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21): “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk.” Is not milk comparable to its being dead? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

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

We have stated two principles which are not comparable one with the other. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt,” whether it is something eaten raw as is or something which is not eaten raw. “Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt,” but only something eaten raw as is. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt,” both according to Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael. “Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt,” according to Rebbi Aqiba. But according to Rebbi Ismael?

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: He roasts it on a metal spit. They said to him, is it not hot and heats? He said to them, just as the wooden one is not burned, so the metal one does not heat. They said to him, wood is not comparable to metal, for wood, if it is hot somewhere, is not hot everywhere, but metal if hot somewhere is hot everywhere.

If one slaughtered outside the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement, there are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said that he is liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for inside was sacrificed; he who said that he is not liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for outside was not sacrificed. Rebbi Yose said, Rav Ḥisda wants to compare it to Pesaḥ but it is not comparable. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, a Pesaḥ whose time passed is changed automatically, but here it changes by slaughter. How is it? He who said liable wanted to say that drawing lots is obstructive; he who said not liable wanted to say that drawing lots is not obstructive. There is only one here for Hashem. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, either one of them, after he drew lots is liable for the Eternal’s and is not liable for Azazel’s. Rebbi Abba said, only if he gave the bull’s gift. But if he did not give the bull’s gift he is not liable since the slaughter of the he-goat obstructs giving the bull’s blood.

“He shall sprinkle it, [in front of the cover], this teaches that he gives a single one upwards. In front of the cover, I do not know how many. So I am arguing: It mentions giving the bull’s blood downwards, and it mentions giving the he-goat’s blood downwards. Since giving the bull’s blood downwards as mentioned is seven times, so giving the he-goat’s blood downwards as mentioned must be seven times. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned upwards and blood is mentioned downwards. Since the blood mentioned upwards is once, so the blood mentioned downwards must be once. Let us see to what it is comparable. One argues downwards from downwards; one does not argue downwards from upwards. Or go in the following way: One argues he-goat’s blood from he-goat’s blood; but one does not argue he-goat’s blood from bull’s blood. The verse says, he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood. Since the bull’s blood is downwards seven times, also the he-goat’s blood is downwards seven times. But I do not know how many times to give the bull’s blood upwards. Giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the he-goat and giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the bull. Since giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the he-goat is once, so giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the bull is once. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned downwards; blood is mentioned upwards. Since the blood mentioned downwards is seven, so the blood mentioned upwards must be seven. Let us see to what it is similar. One argues upwards from upwards; one does not argue upwards from downwards. Or go in the following way: One argues bull’s blood from bull’s blood; but one does not argue bull’s blood from he-goat’s blood. The verse says, he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood, that all its works be the same. Since the bull’s blood is seven times downwards, also the he-goat’s blood is seven times downwards. Since the he-goat’s blood is once upwards, also the bull’s blood is once upwards.”

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. The earlier generations ploughed, and sowed, and weeded, and trimmed, and hoed, cut, made sheaves, threshed, winnowed, milled, sifted, made dough, kneaded, and baked. But we do not even have a mouth to eat. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the roof as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they are not comparable. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed poles are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing it is disqualified.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shade it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

HALAKHAH: “An egg was laid on a holiday,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? It is prepared in its mother’s body. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? It is like muqṣeh which dried without him realizing it, and is muqṣeh which dried without him realizing it not forbidden? But was it not stated, “if one slaughters a chicken and found eggs inside it, even if they are complete they are permitted”? Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana. One said, its taste when eaten from its inside is not comparable to its taste when eaten from the outside. But the other said, it is not completed for a chick until it comes outside. What are they with milk? Let us say, if they are connected to blood vessels they are forbidden, otherwise permitted.

“Rebbi Joshua said, since rain during Tabernacles is not a sign of blessing, why should he mention? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, he only says ‘He Who makes the wind blow and brings down the rain’, in its appropriate time.” In its time it is desirable like the resurrection of the dead. Rebbi Yose said, I am wondering how the rabbis could compare rainfall to the resurrection of the dead, but they are not comparable. A person prays all the time for the dead to become alive. Does a person pray for rain to fall all the time?

Rebbi Eliezer organized a fast but no rain fell. Rebbi Aqiba organized a fast and rain fell. He preached and said before them: I shall tell you a parable, to what the situation is comparable. To a king who had two daughters, one insolent and one well-behaved. When the insolent one wanted to come before him, he said, give her what she wants and let her go away. But when the well-behaved came before him, he was patient and liked to hear her request. Is it permitted to say this? Only not to desecrate the Name of Heaven through Rebbi Eliezer.

What is the second story of the Calf? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: From the answer Moses gave to Aaron up to for Aaron had let it become dissolute, a disgrace before their opponents. Ḥanania bar Shelemia in the name of Rav: From the answer Aaron gave Moses to up to for Aaron had let it become dissolute, a disgrace before their opponents. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: “And the Eternal smote the people because they made the Calf which Aaron made.” Rebbi Mar Uqban in the name of the rabbis there: the shame of a single person in the public is not comparable to the shame of the public in matters of the public.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, why can a deaf-mute woman be divorced but a deaf-mute man cannot divorce? They told him, a divorcing man is not comparable to a divorced woman since a woman can be divorced with or against her will but a man divorces only by his own will. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada testified about a deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father that she could be divorced by a bill of divorce. They said to him, that is an example.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Rebbi (Meïr) learned from the calumniator. Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning? Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if he calumniated her when she was an adolescent and now she is an adult? He said to him, we heard that he pays to her father. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how could the rabbis compare a ketubah to a fine when they are not comparable! For the ketubah is an obligation from the first hour but the fine is only at the end; and you say so? He said to him, who says that to you? Even the [obligation of the] fine is from the first moment. It turns out that Rebbi Mana is like Rebbi Jeremiah and (like Rebbi Yose ben Ze‘ira).

HALAKHAH: “ “I am a nazir and a nazir when a son is born to me,” etc. Rebbi Yose asked: If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Is that not the Mishnah? “He interrupts his own, counts for his son, and then finishes for himself.” Not even if his wife is in the process of giving birth? He said to him, his nezirut is not comparable to his son’s nezirut, but to the case that he said, “I am already a nazir and a nazir after twenty days.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say: If he finished his nezirut, his son’s nezirut cannot start for him before he was shaving with a sacrifice. About a nazir who became impure, the opinions of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seem contradictory. There, he says, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead made a vow of nazir, his seventh day is counted. If a nazir becomes impure, his seventh day is not counted. In our case, is he not like a person impure by the impurity of the dead, who made a vow of nazir? And is not the seventh day counted for a person impure by the impurity of the dead, who made a vow of nazir? Would this obligate him to bring a sacrifice for his impurity? But if a nazir who becomes impure, his seventh day is not counted; does it not obligate him to bring a sacrifice for his impurity? And here, because he is obligated to bring a sacrifice (of impurity), the seventh day is [not] counted for him.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks of a roof with a parapet when it descended lower than the parapet, or one without a parapet when it descended lower than within three handbreadths of the roof, since anything within three handbreadths of the roof is as if it were part of the roof. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: This refers to the rules of the Sabbath, where anything within three handbreadths of a partition is considered part of the partition. Rebbi Yasa said, they are not comparable, for bills of divorce are about the top, the rules of the Sabbath about the below. For bills of divorce even if it never came to rest, for the Sabbath only if it rested. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, here in the matter of bills of divorce it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work;” it may make itself automatically. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,” into her domain.

HALAKHAH: “Chickens are notorious,” etc. Rav Huna said, if it became tied by itself. But if he tied it, he pays full damages. It was stated: “If chickens scraped dough or fruit, or they pecked, he pays full damages. If they scraped dust on dough or on fruit, one pays half of the damages. If they were picking at a rope and the pail was separated or broke, he pays full damages. If one fell on another; for the uppermost he pays full damages; for the lower one half damages; it is not comparable to a pit at one place which causes damage at another place.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since it usually falls only into this cistern, it is as if it were his pit. It was stated: “If chickens fell in a garden, broke vegetables, and cut rosemary, he pays full damages. Symmachos said, for cutting he pays full damages, for breaking he pays half damages. If a chicken flew from one place to another and did damage with its body, he pays full damages. By the wind between its wings, he pays half damages; Symmachos says, full damages. If it blew at vessels and broke them, he pays full damages.

“If one accepts an animal for care from another person, how long does he have to care for it? Symmachos says, small asses twelve months, adult donkeys 24 months. If he terminates the care in the middle of the term, one estimates for him; after the term one does not estimate for him, but care for one year is not comparable to two years.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody said to his son,” etc. It was stated: The worry caused by a large bond is not comparable to the worry caused by a small bond.

“The Epicurean.” Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar, one said, like him who said “this book”, and one said, like him who said “these rabbis”. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Naḥman, one said, [it is comparable] to a stone cupola. If one stone is weakened, all are weakened. The other said, [it is comparable] to a house full of chaff. Even if one removes it from there one finds that it weakened the walls.

“The Epicurean.” Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar, one said, like him who said “this book”, and one said, like him who said “these rabbis”. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Naḥman, one said, [it is comparable] to a stone cupola. If one stone is weakened, all are weakened. The other said, [it is comparable] to a house full of chaff. Even if one removes it from there one finds that it weakened the walls.

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

May one claim extraordinary things? One may, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may be rich on the market place and poor in his house; rich in his house and poor in the market place. There is one who poses as richand has nothing, poses as poor and has great wealth. Rebbi Abba told: Bar Ziza’s sharecropper deposited a pound of gold with somebody. Bar Ziza and Bar Ziza’s sharecropper died; the case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Would one not say that all that Bar Ziza’s sharecropper had was Bar Ziza’s property? It should be given to Bar Ziza’s sons. Bar Ziza’s sons came. He said, the adult ones should take half and when the underage grow up they should take half. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose died; the case came before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who said, that argument means nothing since there are people who do not advertise themselves. It should be given to the sharecropper’s sons. The trustee told him, I already disbursed half of it. He told him, what you gave, you gave by court order and what you will give, you will give by court order. May the sharecropper’s sons say to Bar Ziza’s sons, give us what you took? They can tell them, what was done was done by court order. May the underage ones say to the adult, let us share with you? May they tell them, we found a find? Rebbi Isaac said, the case between the adult and underage ones is only comparable to a gift given to them.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “Grabbing” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “grabbing” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not comparable to “grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper. “Grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper does not make him liable unless he move it. “Grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper, he is liable from the moment he puts his staff and his bag on it. Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai heard this and said, I am not accepting this, but in any case he is not liable unless he move it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state it in this way? If “grabbing” had not been mentioned for the unpaid keeper as unnecessary, I would have inferred from the recipient of a fee. Since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, it is only logical that an unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, not be liable unless he move it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper since it was unnecessary? To be strict with the recipient of a fee; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, if you say so, you infer about the premise to restrict it. For one could say to him, since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, should not be liable even if he move it. But it must be the following: “Grabbing” should not have been mentioned for the paid keeper as unnecessary, for I would have inferred from the unpaid keeper. Since the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, is not liable unless he move it, the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, becomes liable when he moves it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the recipient of a fee since it was unnecessary? To be strict; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “One may be healed from the healing of property,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “healing of property,” his animal. “Healing of persons,” his body. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If it was scratched it is forbidden. As in the following case: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah the Prince to the hot springs of Gader. He hurt his finger and put a bandage on it. He saw it penetrate and cut it off. Did he not hear what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted? This is not comparable. There if it was scratched it is permitted, but here it was scratched and is forbidden.

One of the Patriarch’s court expired. The burial cave received him but people’s lives were endangered. Rebbi Yose came and held a funeral oration, “happy the man who leaves the world in peace.” When Rebbi Yasa died, the sacred fountain of Tiberias fell down and those of the Patriarch’s court were happy. Rebbi Zeˋira told them, it is not comparable. There people were in danger, here nobody was in danger. There no pagan worship was uprooted, here pagan worship was uprooted.

Let us then see to what it is more comparable. We should deduce a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day from a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day, and let no proof be adduced from something whose performance is only for one moment. Or take it another way: We might deduce a thing which is a mitzvah for future generations from something whose mitzvah is for future generations, but we will not deduce a proof from the preparations which were not for future generations.

Samuel said: A fast which one did not take upon oneself before sunset of the preceding day has not the validity of a fast. But what if one did fast? Said Rabbah b. R. Shila: Such a one is comparable to a bellows full of wind. What is the exact time for one to take a fast upon himself? Rab says, during the hours of Minḥah (afternoon); Samuel says, he must insert the vow in the Minḥah prayer itself. Said R. Joseph; Samuel's view is reasonable, because it is written in the Scroll of Fasts—"People for whom the time of fasting has arrived because of previous resolutions are required to fast only in case they bound themselves by a vow during prayer." Now, does that not mean that they have bound themselves to fast while praying? No, it means only they have bound themselves.

He said to him: Have you finished the praises of your Master? Even the first three, had it not been that Moses wrote them in the Torah and the Men of the Great Assembly came and established them, we would not say them; and you say all this. It is comparable to a man who had thousands of thousands of denarii of gold and people would praise him for having a thousand. Would this not be demeaning to him?

From here are we to conclude that fear is a small thing? Yes; for Moses our teacher it was a small thing. This is comparable to a man who was asked for a big vessel and who has it. To him it seems like a small thing, but if he is asked for a small vessel and he does not have it, it seems like a big thing.

They raised a contradiction [from a baraita]: Therefore, a resident foreigner and a idol worshiper who killed are put to death. This teaches that a resident foreigner is comparable to an idol worshiper! Just as in the case of an idol worshiper, there is no difference if he killed one of his own kind or if he killed one who was not his own kind—he is put to death; so too [in the case] of a resident foreigner, there is no difference if he killed one of his own kind or if he killed one who was not his own kind, he is put to death!

If his judgment was finalized and subsequently the [high] priest was found to be the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who received chalitzah, the matter is subject to a dispute between Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafkah. One says, [It is comparable to a case where] the priesthood died, and one says, [It is comparable to a case where] the priesthood got disqualified [retroactively].

If his judgment was finalized and subsequently the [high] priest was found to be the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who received chalitzah, the matter is subject to a dispute between Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafkah. One says, [It is comparable to a case where] the priesthood died, and one says, [It is comparable to a case where] the priesthood got disqualified [retroactively].

Now that we have arrived at this, all of the previous could have also [been answered by saying that they weren't] comparable to the prohibition of muzzling.