contradiction

And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

Let the husband not be insolent nor arrogant towards his wife; but compassionate, bountiful, willing to please his own wife alone, and treat her honourably and obligingly, endeavouring to be agreeable to her; (III.) not adorning yourself in such a manner as may entice another woman to you. For if you are overcome by her, and sinnest with her, eternal death will overtake you from God; and you will be punished with sensible and bitter torments. Or if you do not perpetrate such a wicked act, but shakest her off, and refusest her, in this case you are not wholly innocent, even though you are not guilty of the crime itself, but only in so far as through your adorning you enticed the woman to desire you. For you are the cause that the woman was so affected, and by her lusting after you was guilty of adultery with you: yet are you not so guilty, because you did not send to her, who was ensnared by you; nor did you desire her. Since, therefore, you did not deliver up yourself to her, you shall find mercy with the Lord your God, who has said, You shall not commit adultery, and, You shall not covet. For if such a woman, upon sight of you, or unseasonable meeting with you, was smitten in her mind, and sent to you, but you as a religious person refused her, if she was wounded in her heart by your beauty, and youth, and adorning, and fell in love with you, you will be found guilty of her transgressions, as having been the occasion of scandal to her, and shall inherit a woe. Wherefore pray to the Lord God that no mischief may befall you upon this account: for you are not to please men, so as to commit sin; but God, so as to attain holiness of life, and be partaker of everlasting rest. That beauty which God and nature has bestowed on you, do not further beautify; but modestly diminish it before men. Thus, do not permit the hair of your head to grow too long, but rather cut it short; lest by a nice combing your hair, and wearing it long, and anointing yourself, you draw upon yourself such ensnared or ensnaring women. Neither do you wear over-fine garments to seduce any; neither do you, with an evil subtlety, affect over-fine stockings or shoes for your feet, but only such as suit the measures of decency and usefulness. Neither do you put a gold ring upon your fingers; for all these ornaments are the signs of lasciviousness, which if you be solicitous about in an indecent manner, you will not act as becomes a good man: for it is not lawful for you, a believer and a man of God, to permit the hair of your head to grow long, and to brush it up together, nor to suffer it to spread abroad, nor to puff it up, nor by nice combing and platting to make it curl and shine; since that is contrary to the law, which says thus, in its additional precepts: You shall not make to yourselves curls and round rasures. Nor may men destroy the hair of their beards, and unnaturally change the form of a man. For the law says: You shall not mar your beards. For God the Creator has made this decent for women, but has determined that it is unsuitable for men. But if you do these things to please men, in contradiction to the law, you will be abominable with God, who created you after His own image. If, therefore, you will be acceptable to God, abstain from all those things which He hates, and do none of those things that are unpleasing to Him.

Observe, you who are our beloved sons, how merciful yet righteous the Lord our God is; how gracious and kind to men; and yet most certainly He will not acquit the guilty: though He welcomes the returning sinner, and revives him, leaving no room for suspicion to such as wish to judge sternly and to reject offenders entirely, and to refuse to vouchsafe to them exhortations which might bring them to repentance. In contradiction to such, God by Isaiah says to the bishops: Comfort, comfort my people, you priests: speak comfortably to Jerusalem. It therefore behooves you, upon hearing those words of His, to encourage those who have offended, and lead them to repentance, and afford them hope, and not vainly to suppose that you shall be partakers of their offenses on account of such your love to them. Receive the penitent with alacrity, and rejoice over them, and with mercy and bowels of compassion judge the sinners. For if a person was walking by the side of a river, and ready to stumble, and you should push him and thrust him into the river, instead of offering him your hand for his assistance, you would be guilty of the murder of your brother; whereas you ought rather to lend your helping hand as he was ready to fall, lest he perish without remedy, that both the people may take warning, and the offender may not utterly perish. It is your duty, O bishop, neither to overlook the sins of the people, nor to reject those who are penitent, that you may not unskilfully destroy the Lord's flock, or dishonour His new name, which is imposed on His people, and you yourself beest reproached as those ancient pastors were, of whom God speaks thus to Jeremiah: Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard; they have polluted my heritage. And in another passage: My anger is growing hot against the shepherds, and against the lambs shall I have indignation. And elsewhere: You are the priests that dishonour my name.

For when his master's wife was fallen in love with him, both on account of his beauty of body, and his dexterous management of affairs; and supposed, that if she should make it known to him, she could easily persuade him to come and lie with her, and that he would look upon it as a piece of happy fortune that his mistress should entreat him, as regarding that state of slavery he was in, and not his moral character, which continued after his condition was changed. So she made known her naughty inclinations, and spake to him about lying with her. However, he rejected her entreaties, not thinking it agreeable to religion to yield so far to her, as to do what would tend to the affront and injury of him that purchased him, and had vouchsafed him so great honors. He, on the contrary, exhorted her to govern that passion; and laid before her the impossibility of her obtaining her desires, which he thought might be conquered, if she had no hope of succeeding; and he said, that as to himself, he would endure any thing whatever before he would be persuaded to it; for although it was fit for a slave, as he was, to do nothing contrary to his mistress, he might well be excused in a case where the contradiction was to such sort of commands only. But this opposition of Joseph, when she did not expect it, made her still more violent in her love to him; and as she was sorely beset with this naughty passion, so she resolved to compass her design by a second attempt.

Now the young men were induced by the fondness they had for these women to think they spake very well; so they gave themselves up to what they persuaded them, and transgressed their own laws, and supposing there were many gods, and resolving that they would sacrifice to them according to the laws of that country which ordained them, they both were delighted with their strange food, and went on to do every thing that the women would have them do, though in contradiction to their own laws; so far indeed that this transgression was already gone through the whole army of the young men, and they fell into a sedition that was much worse than the former, and into danger of the entire abolition of their own institutions; for when once the youth had tasted of these strange customs, they went with insatiable inclinations into them; and even where some of the principal men were illustrious on account of the virtues of their fathers, they also were corrupted together with the rest.

Saul therefore sent for the high priest, and for all his kindred; and said to them, "What terrible or ungrateful tiring hast thou suffered from me, that thou hast received the son of Jesse, and hast bestowed on him both food and weapons, when he was contriving to get the kingdom? And further, why didst thou deliver oracles to him concerning futurities? For thou couldst not be unacquainted that he was fled away from me, and that he hated my family." But the high priest did not betake himself to deny what he had done, but confessed boldly that he had supplied him with these things, not to gratify David, but Saul himself: and he said, "I did not know that he was thy adversary, but a servant of thine, who was very faithful to thee, and a captain over a thousand of thy soldiers, and, what is more than these, thy son-in-law, and kinsman. Men do not choose to confer such favors on their adversaries, but on those who are esteemed to bear the highest good-will and respect to them. Nor is this the first time that I prophesied for him, but I have done it often, and at other times as well as now. And when he told me that he was sent by thee in great haste to do somewhat, if I had furnished him with nothing that he desired I should have thought that it was rather in contradiction to thee than to him; wherefore do not thou entertain any ill opinion of me, nor do thou have a suspicion of what I then thought an act of humanity, from what is now told thee of David's attempts against thee, for I did then to him as to thy friend and son-in-law, and captain of a thousand, and not as to thine adversary."

In these days a hard cause came before him in judgment, which it was very difficult to find any end of; and I think it necessary to explain the fact about which the contest was, that such as light upon my writings may know what a difficult cause Solomon was to determine, and those that are concerned in such matters may take this sagacity of the king for a pattern, that they may the more easily give sentence about such questions. There were two women, who were harlots in the course of their lives, that came to him; of whom she that seemed to be injured began to speak first, and said, "O king, I and this other woman dwell together in one room. Now it came to pass that we both bore a son at the same hour of the same day; and on the third day this woman overlaid her son, and killed it, and then took my son out of my bosom, and removed him to herself, and as I was asleep she laid her dead son in my arms. Now, when in the morning I was desirous to give the breast to the child, I did not find my own, but saw the woman's dead child lying by me; for I considered it exactly, and found it so to be. Hence it was that I demanded my son, and when I could not obtain him, I have recourse, my lord, to thy assistance; for since we were alone, and there was nobody there that could convict her, she cares for nothing, but perseveres in the stout denial of the fact." When this woman had told this her story, the king asked the other woman what she had to say in contradiction to that story. But when she denied that she had done what was charged upon her, and said that it was her child that was living, and that it was her antagonist's child that was dead, and when no one could devise what judgment could be given, and the whole court were blind in their understanding, and could not tell how to find out this riddle, the king alone invented the following way how to discover it. He bade them bring in both the dead child and the living child; and sent one of his guards, and commanded him to fetch a sword, and draw it, and to cut both the children into two pieces, that each of the women might have half the living and half the dead child. Hereupon all the people privately laughed at the king, as no more than a youth. But, in the mean time, she that was the real mother of the living child cried out that he should not do so, but deliver that child to the other woman as her own, for she would be satisfied with the life of the child, and with the sight of it, although it were esteemed the other's child; but the other woman was ready to see the child divided, and was desirous, moreover, that the first woman should be tormented. When the king understood that both their words proceeded from the truth of their passions, he adjudged the child to her that cried out to save it, for that she was the real mother of it; and he condemned the other as a wicked woman, who had not only killed her own child, but was endeavoring to see her friend's child destroyed also. Now the multitude looked on this determination as a great sign and demonstration of the king's sagacity and wisdom, and after that day attended to him as to one that had a divine mind.

Now when Cæsar was come to Rome, he was ready to sail into Africa to fight against Scipio and Cato, when Hyrcanus sent ambassadors to him, and by them desired that he would ratify that league of friendship and mutual alliance which was between them, And it seems to me to be necessary here to give an account of all the honors that the Romans and their emperor paid to our nation, and of the leagues of mutual assistance they have made with it, that all the rest of mankind may know what regard the kings of Asia and Europe have had to us, and that they have been abundantly satisfied of our courage and fidelity; for whereas many will not believe what hath been written about us by the Persians and Macedonians, because those writings are not every where to be met with, nor do lie in public places, but among us ourselves, and certain other barbarous nations, while there is no contradiction to be made against the decrees of the Romans, for they are laid up in the public places of the cities, and are extant still in the capitol, and engraven upon pillars of brass; nay, besides this, Julius Cæsar made a pillar of brass for the Jews at Alexandria, and declared publicly that they were citizens of Alexandria. Out of these evidences will I demonstrate what I say; and will now set down the decrees made both by the senate and by Julius Cæsar, which relate to Hyrcanus and to our nation.

Now some there are who stand amazed at the diversity of Herod's nature and purposes; for when we have respect to his magnificence, and the benefits which he bestowed on all mankind, there is no possibility for even those that had the least respect for him to deny, or not openly to confess, that he had a nature vastly beneficent; but when any one looks upon the punishments he inflicted, and the injuries he did, not only to his subjects, but to his nearest relations, and takes notice of his severe and unrelenting disposition there, he will be forced to allow that he was brutish, and a stranger to all humanity; insomuch that these men suppose his nature to be different, and sometimes at contradiction with itself; but I am myself of another opinion, and imagine that the occasion of both these sort of actions was one and the same; for being a man ambitious of honor, and quite overcome by that passion, he was induced to be magnificent, wherever there appeared any hopes of a future memorial, or of reputation at present; and as his expenses were beyond his abilities, he was necessitated to be harsh to his subjects; for the persons on whom he expended his money were so many, that they made him a very bad procurer of it; and because he was conscious that he was hated by those under him, for the injuries he did them, he thought it not an easy thing to amend his offenses, for that it was inconvenient for his revenue; he therefore strove on the other side to make their ill-will an occasion of his gains. As to his own court, therefore, if any one was not very obsequious to him in his language, and would not confess himself to be his slave, or but seemed to think of any innovation in his government, he was not able to contain himself, but prosecuted his very kindred and friends, and punished them as if they were enemies and this wickedness he undertook out of a desire that he might be himself alone honored. Now for this, my assertion about that passion of his, we have the greatest evidence, by what he did to honor Cæsar and Agrippa, and his other friends; for with what honors he paid his respects to them who were his superiors, the same did he desire to be paid to himself; and what he thought the most excellent present he could make another, he discovered an inclination to have the like presented to himself. But now the Jewish nation is by their law a stranger to all such things, and accustomed to prefer righteousness to glory; for which reason that nation was not agreeable to him, because it was out of their power to flatter the king's ambition with statues or temples, or any other such performances; And this seems to me to have been at once the occasion of Herod's crimes as to his own courtiers and counselors, and of his benefactions as to foreigners and those that had no relation to him.

Cherea consented to this delay; and when the shows were exhibited, it was resolved to do the work the first day. But fortune, which allowed a further delay to his slaughter, was too hard for their foregoing resolution; and as three days of the regular times for these shows were now over, they had much ado to get the business done on the last day. Then Cherea called the conspirators together, and spake thus to them: "So much time passed away without effort is a reproach to us, as delaying to go through such a virtuous design as we are engaged in; but more fatal will this delay prove if we be discovered, and the design be frustrated; for Caius will then become more cruel in his unjust proceedings. Do we not see how long we deprive all our friends of their liberty, and give Caius leave still to tyrannize over them? while we ought to have procured them security for the future, and, by laying a foundation for the happiness of others, gain to ourselves great admiration and honor for all time to come." Now while the conspirators had nothing tolerable to say by way of contradiction, and yet did not quite relish what they were doing, but stood silent and astonished, he said further, "O my brave comrades! why do we make such delays? Do not you see that this is the last day of these shows, and that Caius is about to go to sea? for he is preparing to sail to Alexandria, in order to see Egypt. Is it therefore for your honor to let a man go out of your hands who is a reproach to mankind, and to permit him to go, after a pompous manner, triumphing both at land and sea? Shall not we be justly ashamed of ourselves, if we give leave to some Egyptian or other, who shall think his injuries insufferable to free-men, to kill him? As for myself, I will no longer bear your slow proceedings, but will expose myself to the dangers of the enterprise this very day, and bear cheerfully whatsoever shall be the consequence of the attempt; nor, let them be ever so great, will I put them off any longer: for, to a wise and courageous man, what can be more miserable than that, while I am alive, any one else should kill Caius, and deprive me of the honor of so virtuous an action?"

This was the end of Caius, after he had reigned four years, within four months. He was, even before he came to be emperor, ill-natured, and one that had arrived at the utmost pitch of wickedness; a slave to his pleasures, and a lover of calumny; greatly affected by every terrible accident, and on that account of a very murderous disposition where he durst show it. He enjoyed his exorbitant power to this only purpose, to injure those who least deserved it, with unreasonable insolence and got his wealth by murder and injustice. He labored to appear above regarding either what was divine or agreeable to the laws, but was a slave to the commendations of the populace; and whatsoever the laws determined to be shameful, and punished, that he esteemed more honorable than what was virtuous. He was unmindful of his friends, how intimate soever, and though they were persons of the highest character; and if he was once angry at any of them, he would inflict punishment upon them on the smallest occasions, and esteemed every man that endeavored to lead a virtuous life his enemy. And whatsoever he commanded, he would not admit of any contradiction to his inclinations; whence it was that he had criminal conversation with his own sister; from which occasion chiefly it was also that a bitter hatred first sprang up against him among the citizens, that sort of incest not having been known of a long time; and so this provoked men to distrust him, and to hate him that was guilty of it. And for any great or royal work that he ever did, which might be for the present and for future ages, nobody can name any such, but only the haven that he made about Rhegium and Sicily, for the reception of the ships that brought corn from Egypt; which was indeed a work without dispute very great in itself, and of very great advantage to the navigation. Yet was not this work brought to perfection by him, but was the one half of it left imperfect, by reason of his want of application to it; the cause of which was this, that he employed his studies about useless matters, and that by spending his money upon such pleasures as concerned no one's benefit but his own, he could not exert his liberality in things that were undeniably of great consequence. Otherwise he was an excellent orator, and thoroughly acquainted with the Greek tongue, as well as with his own country or Roman language. He was also able, off-hand and readily, to give answers to compositions made by others, of considerable length and accuracy. He was also more skillful in persuading others to very great things than any one else, and this from a natural affability of temper, which had been improved by much exercise and pains-taking; for as he was the grandson of the brother of Tiberius, whose successor he was, this was a strong inducement to his acquiring of learning, because Tiberius aspired after the highest pitch of that sort of reputation; and Caius aspired after the like glory for eloquence, being induced thereto by the letters of his kinsman and his emperor. He was also among the first rank of his own citizens. But the advantages he received from his learning did not countervail the mischief he brought upon himself in the exercise of his authority; so difficult it is for those to obtain the virtue that is necessary for a wise man, who have the absolute power to do what they please without control. At the first he got himself such friends as were in all respects the most worthy, and was greatly beloved by them, while he imitated their zealous application to the learning and to the glorious actions of the best men; but when he became insolent towards them, they laid aside the kindness they had for him, and began to hate him; from which hatred came that plot which they raised against him, and wherein he perished.

However, he found it impossible to escape envy in such his prosperity; for the glory of these young men affected even Hyrcanus himself already privately, though he said nothing of it to any body; but what he principally was grieved at was the great actions of Herod, and that so many messengers came one before another, and informed him of the great reputation he got in all his undertakings. There were also many people in the royal palace itself who inflamed his envy at him; those, I mean, who were obstructed in their designs by the prudence either of the young men, or of Antipater. These men said, that by committing the public affairs to the management of Antipater and of his sons, he sat down with nothing but the bare name of a king, without any of its authority; and they asked him how long he would so far mistake himself, as to breed up kings against his own interest; for that they did not now conceal their government of affairs any longer, but were plainly lords of the nation, and had thrust him out of his authority; that this was the case when Herod slew so many men without his giving him any command to do it, either by word of mouth, or by his letter, and this in contradiction to the law of the Jews; who therefore, in case he be not a king, but a private man, still ought to come to his trial, and answer it to him, and to the laws of his country, which do not permit any one to be killed till he hath been condemned in judgment.

However, neither did Eleazar once think of flying away, nor would he permit any one else to do so; but when he saw their wall burned down by the fire, and could devise no other way of escaping, or room for their further courage, and setting before their eyes what the Romans would do to them, their children, and their wives, if they got them into their power, he consulted about having them all slain. Now as he judged this to be the best thing they could do in their present circumstances, he gathered the most courageous of his companions together, and encouraged them to take that course by a speech which he made to them in the manner following: "Since we, long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God himself, who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice. And let us not at this time bring a reproach upon ourselves for self-contradiction, while we formerly would not undergo slavery, though it were then without danger, but must now, together with slavery, choose such punishments also as are intolerable; I mean this, upon the supposition that the Romans once reduce us under their power while we are alive. We were the very first that revolted from them, and we are the last that fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God hath granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom, which hath not been the case of others, who were conquered unexpectedly. It is very plain that we shall be taken within a day's time; but it is still an eligible thing to die after a glorious manner, together with our dearest friends. This is what our enemies themselves cannot by any means hinder, although they be very desirous to take us alive. Nor can we propose to ourselves any more to fight them, and beat them. It had been proper indeed for us to have conjectured at the purpose of God much sooner, and at the very first, when we were so desirous of defending our liberty, and when we received such sore treatment from one another, and worse treatment from our enemies, and to have been sensible that the same God, who had of old taken the Jewish nation into his favor, had now condemned them to destruction; for had he either continued favorable, or been but in a lesser degree displeased with us, he had not overlooked the destruction of so many men, or delivered his most holy city to be burnt and demolished by our enemies. To be sure we weakly hoped to have preserved ourselves, and ourselves alone, still in a state of freedom, as if we had been guilty of no sins ourselves against God, nor been partners with those of others; we also taught other men to preserve their liberty. Wherefore, consider how God hath convinced us that our hopes were in vain, by bringing such distress upon us in the desperate state we are now in, and which is beyond all our expectations; for the nature of this fortress which was in itself unconquerable, hath not proved a means of our deliverance; and even while we have still great abundance of food, and a great quantity of arms, and other necessaries more than we want, we are openly deprived by God himself of all hope of deliverance; for that fire which was driven upon our enemies did not of its own accord turn back upon the wall which we had built; this was the effect of God's anger against us for our manifold sins, which we have been guilty of in a most insolent and extravagant manner with regard to our own countrymen; the punishments of which let us not receive from the Romans, but from God himself, as executed by our own hands; for these will be more moderate than the other. Let our wives die before they are abused, and our children before they have tasted of slavery; and after we have slain them, let us bestow that glorious benefit upon one another mutually, and preserve ourselves in freedom, as an excellent funeral monument for us. But first let us destroy our money and the fortress by fire; for I am well assured that this will be a great grief to the Romans, that they shall not be able to seize upon our bodies, and shall fail of our wealth also; and let us spare nothing but our provisions; for they will be a testimonial when we are dead that we were not subdued for want of necessaries, but that, according to our original resolution, we have preferred death before slavery."

One particular there is still remaining behind of what I at first proposed to speak to, and that is, to demonstrate that those calumnies and reproaches which some have thrown upon our nation, are lies, and to make use of those writers' own testimonies against themselves; and that in general this self-contradiction hath happened to many other authors by reason of their ill-will to some people, I conclude, is not unknown to such as have read histories with sufficient care; for some of them have endeavored to disgrace the nobility of certain nations, and of some of the most glorious cities, and have cast reproaches upon certain forms of government. Thus hath Theopompus abused the city of Athens, Polycrates that of Lacedemon, as hath he hat wrote the Tripoliticus [for he is not Theopompus, as is supposed by some] done by the city of Thebes. Timeils also hath greatly abused the foregoing people and others also; and this ill-treatment they use chiefly when they have a contest with men of the greatest reputation; some out of envy and malice, and others as supposing that by this foolish talking of theirs they may be thought worthy of being remembered themselves; and indeed they do by no means fail of their hopes, with regard to the foolish part of mankind, but men of sober judgment still condemn them of great malignity.

But let us now see what those heavy and wicked crimes are which Apion charges upon the Alexandrian Jews. "They came [says he] out of Syria, and inhabited near the tempestuous sea, and were in the neighborhood of the dashing of the waves." Now if the place of habitation includes any thing that is reproached, this man reproaches not his own real country, [Egypt,] but what he pretends to be his own country, Alexandria; for all are agreed in this, that the part of that city which is near the sea is the best part of all for habitation. Now if the Jews gained that part of the city by force, and have kept it hitherto without impeachment, this is a mark of their valor; but in reality it was Alexander himself that gave them that place for their habitation, when they obtained equal privileges there with the Macedonians. Nor call I devise what Apion would have said, had their habitation been at Necropolis? and not been fixed hard by the royal palace [as it is]; nor had their nation had the denomination of Macedonians given them till this very day [as they have]. Had this man now read the epistles of king Alexander, or those of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, or met with the writings of the succeeding kings, or that pillar which is still standing at Alexandria, and contains the privileges which the great [Julius] Caesar bestowed upon the Jews; had this man, I say, known these records, and yet hath the impudence to write in contradiction to them, he hath shown himself to be a wicked man; but if he knew nothing of these records, he hath shown himself to be a man very ignorant: nay, when lie appears to wonder how Jews could be called Alexandrians, this is another like instance of his ignorance; for all such as are called out to be colonies, although they be ever so far remote from one another in their original, receive their names from those that bring them to their new habitations. And what occasion is there to speak of others, when those of us Jews that dwell at Antioch are named Antiochians, because Seleucns the founder of that city gave them the privileges belonging thereto? After the like manner do those Jews that inhabit Ephesus, and the other cities of Ionia, enjoy the same name with those that were originally born there, by the grant of the succeeding princes; nay, the kindness and humanity of the Romans hath been so great, that it hath granted leave to almost all others to take the same name of Romans upon them; I mean not particular men only, but entire and large nations themselves also; for those anciently named Iberi, and Tyrrheni, and Sabini, are now called Romani. And if Apion reject this way of obtaining the privilege of a citizen of Alexandria, let him abstain from calling himself an Alexandrian hereafter; for otherwise, how can he who was born in the very heart of Egypt be an Alexandrian, if this way of accepting such a privilege, of which he would have us deprived, be once abrogated? although indeed these Romans, who are now the lords of the habitable earth, have forbidden the Egyptians to have the privileges of any city whatsoever; while this fine fellow, who is willing to partake of such a privilege himself as he is forbidden to make use of, endeavors by calumnies to deprive those of it that have justly received it; for Alexander did not therefore get some of our nation to Alexandria, because he wanted inhabitants for this his city, on whose building he had bestowed so much pains; but this was given to our people as a reward, because he had, upon a careful trial, found them all to have been men of virtue and fidelity to him; for, as Hecateus says concerning us, "Alexander honored our nation to such a degree, that, for the equity and the fidelity which the Jews exhibited to him, he permitted them to hold the country of Samaria free from tribute. Of the same mind also was Ptolemy the son of Lagus, as to those Jews who dwelt at Alexandria." For he intrusted the fortresses of Egypt into their hands, as believing they would keep them faithfully and valiantly for him; and when he was desirous to secure the government of Cyrene, and the other cities of Libya, to himself, he sent a party of Jews to inhabit in them. And for his successor Ptolemy, who was called Philadelphus, he did not only set all those of our nation free who were captives under him, but did frequently give money [for their ransom]; and, what was his greatest work of all, he had a great desire of knowing our laws, and of obtaining the books of our sacred Scriptures; accordingly, he desired that such men might be sent him as might interpret our law to him; and, in order to have them well compiled, he committed that care to no ordinary persons, but ordained that Demetrius Phalereus, and Andreas, and Aristeas; the first, Demetrius, the most learned person of his age, and the others, such as were intrusted with the guard of his body; should take care of this matter: nor would he certainly have been so desirous of learning our law, and the philosophy of our nation, had he despised the men that made use of it, or had he not indeed had them in great admiration.

Nevertheless we must not forget that a substance never exists without a quality, and that it is by an act of the understanding alone that this [substance] which underlies bodies, and which is capable of quality, is discovered to be matter. Some indeed, in their desire to investigate these subjects more profoundly, have ventured to assert that bodily nature is nothing else than qualities. For if hardness and softness, heat and cold, moisture and aridity, be qualities; and if, when these or other [qualities] of this sort be cut away, nothing else is understood to remain, then all things will appear to be “qualities.” And therefore also those persons who make these assertions have endeavoured to maintain, that since all who say that matter was uncreated will admit that qualities were created by God, it may be in this way shown that even according to them matter was not uncreated; since qualities constitute everything, and these are declared by all without contradiction to have been made by God. Those, again, who would make out that qualities are superimposed from without upon a certain underlying matter, make use of illustrations of this kind: e.g. Paul undoubtedly is either silent, or speaks, or watches, or sleeps, or maintains a certain attitude of body; for he is either in a sitting, or standing, or recumbent position. For these are “accidents” belonging to men, without which they are almost never found. And yet our conception of man does not lay down any of these things as a definition of him; but we so understand and regard him by their means, that we do not at all take into account the reason of his [particular] condition either in watching, or in sleeping, or in speaking, or in keeping silence, or in any other action that must necessarily happen to men. If any one, then, can regard Paul as being without all these things which are capable of happening, he will in the same way also be able to understand this underlying [substance] without qualities. When, then, our mind puts away all qualities from its conception, and gazes, so to speak, upon the underlying element alone, and keeps its attention closely upon it, without any reference to the softness or hardness, or heat or cold, or humidity or aridity of the substance, then by means of this somewhat simulated process of thought it will appear to behold matter clear from qualities of every kind.

It is with a certain eloquence, indeed, that he appears to advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their death, in the following words: “And I do not maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that account, he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions.” And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that “he who holds a certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it.” And here Celsus must be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, and says that “they in whom this element, viz. the soul, is in a healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, meaning God, and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to remembrance.” Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a little before, that “the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown it,” he now involves himself in all manner of contradictions. For he knew that if he acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he would not obtain any credit when accusing those who, in any degree, introduce the doctrine of Providence, and who place a God over the world. And we have heard that there were two individuals of the name of Celsus, both of whom were Epicureans; the earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, but this one in that of Adrian, and later.

After this the Jew makes another silly remark, saying, “How is it that, if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the perjurer, they did not fear him as a God, and cease, the one from his intended treason, and the other from his perjury?” Here the learned Celsus did not see the contradiction in his statement: for if Jesus foreknew events as a God, then it was impossible for His foreknowledge to prove untrue; and therefore it was impossible for him who was known to Him as going to betray Him not to execute his purpose, nor for him who was rebuked as going to deny Him not to have been guilty of that crime. For if it had been possible for the one to abstain from the act of betrayal, and the other from that of denial, as having been warned of the consequences of these actions beforehand, then His words were no longer true, who predicted that the one would betray Him and the other deny Him. For if He had foreknowledge of the traitor, He knew the wickedness in which the treason originated, and this wickedness was by no means taken away by the foreknowledge. And, again, if He had ascertained that one would deny Him, He made that prediction from seeing the weakness out of which that act of denial would arise, and yet this weakness was not to be taken away thus at once by the foreknowledge. But whence he derived the statement, “that these persons betrayed and denied him without manifesting any concern about him,” I know not; for it was proved, with respect to the traitor, that it is false to say that he betrayed his master without an exhibition of anxiety regarding Him. And this was shown to be equally true of him who denied Him; for he went out, after the denial, and wept bitterly.

But how is it that this Jew of Celsus could say that Jesus concealed Himself? For his words regarding Him are these: “And who that is sent as a messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make known his message?” Now, He did not conceal Himself, who said to those who sought to apprehend Him, “I was daily teaching openly in the temple, and ye laid no hold upon me.” But having once already answered this charge of Celsus, now again repeated, we shall content ourselves with what we have formerly said. We have answered, also, in the preceding pages, this objection, that “while he was in the body, and no one believed upon him, he preached to all without intermission; but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon companions.” Now it is not true that He showed Himself only to one woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to Matthew, that “in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and come and rolled back the stone.” And, shortly after, Matthew adds: “And, behold, Jesus met them”—clearly meaning the afore-mentioned Marys—“saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.” And we answered, too, the charge, that “while undergoing his punishment he was seen by all, but after his resurrection only by one,” when we offered our defence of the fact that “He was not seen by all.” And now we might say that His merely human attributes were visible to all men, but those which were divine in their nature—I speak of the attributes not as related, but as distinct—were not capable of being received by all. But observe here the manifest contradiction into which Celsus falls. For having said, a little before, that Jesus had appeared secretly to one woman and His own boon companions, he immediately subjoins: “While undergoing his punishment he was seen by all men, but after his resurrection by one, whereas the opposite ought to have happened.” And let us hear what he means by “ought to have happened.” The being seen by all men while undergoing His punishment, but after His resurrection only by one individual, are opposites. Now, so far as his language conveys a meaning, he would have that to take place which is both impossible and absurd, viz., that while undergoing His punishment He should be seen only by one individual, but after His resurrection by all men! or else how will you explain his words, “The opposite ought to have happened?”

And the charge of folly applies not only to those who offer prayers to images, but also to such as pretend to do so in compliance with the example of the multitude: and to this class belong the Peripatetic philosophers and the followers of Epicurus and Democritus. For there is no falsehood or pretence in the soul which is possessed with true piety towards God. Another reason also why we abstain from doing honour to images, is that we may give no support to the notion that the images are gods. It is on this ground that we condemn Celsus, and all others who, while admitting that they are not gods, yet, with the reputation of being wise men, render to them what passes for homage. In this way they lead into sin the multitude who follow their example, and who worship these images not simply out of deference to custom, but from a belief into which they have fallen that they are true gods, and that those are not to be listened to who hold that the objects of their worship are not true gods. Celsus, indeed, says that “they do not take them for gods, but only as offerings dedicated to the gods.” But he does not prove that they are not rather dedicated to men than, as he says, to the honour of the gods themselves; for it is clear that they are the offerings of men who were in error in their views of the Divine Being. Moreover, we do not imagine that these images are representations of God, for they cannot represent a being who is invisible and incorporeal. But as Celsus supposes that we fall into a contradiction, whilst on the one hand we say that God has not a human form, and on the other we profess to believe that God made man the image of Himself, and created man the image of God; our answer is the same as has been given already, that we hold the resemblance to God to be preserved in the reasonable soul, which is formed to virtue, although Celsus, who does not see the difference between “being the image of God,” and “being created after the image of God,” pretends that we said, “God made man His own image, and gave him a form like to His own.” But this also has been examined before.

“There is no contradiction here, for the one is said of the supernal beard, but the other of the inferior beard.

Rebbi Yudan asked: “I had been married but I was divorced at place X”; if two [witnesses] come and say, no woman was divorced at place X, do they contradict her? Rebbi Yose asked, if she said, I had been married but I was divorced at place X at a certain date,” and two came and said, a woman was divorced at that place, but two [others] came and said, no woman was divorced at that place? That is a contradiction of the essence of the testimony; we live off her mouth.

We set these verses one against the other and conclude there is no contradiction ; because the former passage refers to those children who continue in their fathers' ways, and the latter to those who do not continue in their fathers' ways.

There is no contradiction : R. Isaac speaks of one who is wicked in his personal affairs, the other of one who is wicked in religious matters.

Or if thou wilt, I can say that both refer to religious matters, and still there is no contradiction ; for R. Isaac may be taken to mean the wicked upon whom fortune smiles, and the other the wicked upon whom fortune does not smile.

Or if thou wilt, I can say that both refer to the wicked upon whom fortune smiles, and still there is no contradiction; for R. Johanan may be understood as speaking of a perfectly righteous man [contending with the wicked], and the other of one who is not perfectly righteous. For Rab Huna said : What means that which is written, "Wherefore lookest Thou, when they deal treacherously, and holdest Thy peace, when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he"? (Hab. i. 13). Does, then, the wicked swallow up the righteous? And lo, it is written, "The Lord will not leave him in his hand" (Ps. xxxvii. 33) and "There shall no mischief befall the righteous" (Prov. xii. 21)! Nay; "the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he," but a perfectly righteous man he doth not swallow up.

There is no contradiction ; the former referring to the pupil who submits to his master, the latter to him who does not.

Rab Joseph said : There is no contradiction ; the statement of the Mishnah being the view of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, the other the view of R. 'Akiba. For there is a teaching : "And they shall eat the flesh in that night" (Exod. xii. 8). R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said, "Here it is stated, 'in that night' and the same phrase occurs in 'For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night' (ibid. 5:12) ; as in the latter passage it means 'until midnight', so also in the former it means 'until midnight'."

Here is a self-contradiction ! The first clause declares such a man to be exempt from the obligation, and the latter imposes the obligation upon him !

There is no contradiction : the latter clause referring to where there are two, the former to one.

It is certainly in agreement with R. Judah, even though it be ab initio ; and there is no contradiction. The latter is his own opinion, the other the opinion of his teacher. For there is a teaching : R. Judah says in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah : When one reads the Shema' he must make it audible to his ear ; as it is said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. vi. 4). R. Meir said to him : Behold the Scriptures state, "And these words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy heart" (ibid. v. 6), i.e. the words depend on the Kawwanah of the heart. Since thou hast reached so far, thou mayest even suppose that

R. Judah agrees with his teacher's opinion, and there is no contradiction, one being R. Meir's view and the other R. Judah's.

It is certainly R. Judah's view, and even ab initio it is valid. Nor is there any contradiction ; the latter being R. Judah's own opinion, the other that of his teacher. For there is a teaching : R. Judah says in the name of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah : He who reads the Shema' must make it audible to his ear ; as it is said, "Hear O Israel." R. Meir said to him : Behold the Scriptures state, "And these words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy heart," i.e. the words depend upon the Kawwanah of the heart.

Since thou hast reached so far, thou mayest even suppose that R. Judah agrees with his teacher's opinion ; and there is no contradiction, one being R. Judah's view, the other R. Meir's.

There is no contradiction ; the former refers to the first paragraph [of the Shema'], the latter to the second.

But lo, there is a teaching: [Such men are to say] an abstract of the Eighteen Benedictions! Rab Sheshet said : There is no contradiction ; the first being Rabban Gamaliel's view, the latter R. Joshua's.

But [we have to assume that] both are Rabban Gamaliel's, and there is no contradiction; the latter treating of one who works for a wage, the former of one who works for his keep.

There is another teaching : If a man was standing in the Tefillah and saw some excrement opposite him, he should step forward until he has left it behind him a distance of four cubits. There is, however, a teaching [that in these circumstances he should step] sideways! There is no contradiction; [he should step forward] when that is possible, and [sideways] when he cannot do the other.

It may be taken that both these teachings apply to a male, and there is no contradiction : the former referring to the major function of nature, the other to the minor.

But how canst thou understand it in this way? For if the second teaching refers to the minor function, why uncover a handbreadth behind ? Nay ; they should both be referred to the major function, and there is no contradiction : the first teaching applying to a male, the other to a female.

There is no contradiction. The latter refers to one who has assigned [a place in his underwear in which to deposit his Tefillin]; the other refers to a man who has not assigned such a place. For Rab Hisda said : In the cloth in which one assigns to tie up his Tefillin one must not tie up coins, if he has already placed the Tefillin therein. If he assigned to tie up his Tefillin in it but has not bound them therein, or if he has bound up his Tefillin in the cloth without such assignment, he may tie up money therein.

This is quite right according to Rab Joseph and there is no contradiction [between the two teachings], the first referring to his wife, the second to somebody else. But with Samuel's view there is a contradiction.

This is quite right according to Rab Joseph and there is no contradiction [between the two teachings], the first referring to his wife, the second to somebody else. But with Samuel's view there is a contradiction.

There is no contradiction ; for this means one who hangs them up by the thongs, whereas Rabbi hung them up by the case.

But did Rab Huna really say that? For Rab Huna has said : A disciple of the wise is forbidden to stand in a filthy place, because it is impossible for him to stand anywhere without meditating upon Torah! There is no contradiction ; the latter refers to standing still, the former to walking.

But against this I quote : If one erred and did not mention the reference to rain in the benediction "Thou sustainest the living" or the request for rain in the benediction of "the Years," we make him repeat it ; but if he omitted the paragraph of "Division" in the benediction "Thou favourest man with knowledge," we do not make him repeat it, because he is able to say it over the cup [of wine]! The contradiction [remains unsolved].

Abbai said : Johanan is the same person as Januaeus. Raba said : They are different persons ; and Jannaeus was originally wicked, but Johanan originally righteous. That is quite right according to Abbai ; but it is in contradiction with Raba's view.

There is no contradiction, the latter referring to one praying alone, the former to one praying with a Congregation.

Nay, both the teachings refer to one praying alone and there is no contradiction ; the statement [of R. Tanhum] refers to one who reminds himself [that he had omitted the prayer for rain] before reaching the benediction "Who hearkenest unto prayer,"

But it is not so ! For R. Hiyya b. Abba has said in the name of R. Johanan : Whoever prolongs his prayer and calculates on it will eventually come to pain of heart ; as it is said, "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick" (Prov. xiii. 12). What is his remedy? Let him occupy himself with Torah; as it is said, "But desire fulfilled is a tree of life" (ibid.), and "tree of life" is nothing else than Torah, as it is said, "It is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon it" (Prov. iii. 18)! There is no contradiction; the latter teaching refers to one who prolongs his prayer and calculates on it, the former to one who prolongs his prayer without calculating on it.

There is no contradiction ; for this means where it is possible to shorten, he should shorten, but if not, he should interrupt.

There is no contradiction. This refers to one who repeats it word by word ; but the former refers to him who repeats it verse by verse.

There is no contradiction ; one referring to the beginning, the other to the end [of the benediction].

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel : Whoever enjoys anything of this world without a benediction is as though he had partaken of the holy things of Heaven ; as it is said, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" (Ps. xxiv. 1). R. Levi asked : t is written, "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," and it is written, "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the children of men" (ibid. cxv. 16) ! There is no contradiction ; the former passage referring [[fol. 35 b.]] to before the benediction [has been uttered],

There is no contradiction; the latter referring to the time when Israel perform the will of the All-present, the former to when Israel neglect His will.

There is no contradiction; for Bet Shammai, being in doubt, take the stricter view in both cases. Nevertheless Bet Shammai have a doubt whether it is subject to 'Orlah; and we have a Mishnaic teaching: Where there is a doubt [whether a thing is subject to] 'Orlah — in the Land of Israel it is prohibited [to be used], in Syria it is permitted, and outside the Land one may go down and buy it,

There is no contradiction ; the latter refers to moist [pepper], the other to dried.

The Rabbis said to Maremar : He who chews ginger on the Day of Atonement is free [from guilt]. But lo, Raba declared : The preserved ginger which comes from India is permitted, and we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground" over it! There is no contradiction; the latter referring to moist [ginger], the other to dried.

The teacher stated : "He who chews wheat should say the benediction '...Who createst the fruit of the ground'." But there is a teaching: [He should say] "...Who createst divers kinds of seeds"! There is no contradiction; the latter being the opinion of R. Judah, the other of the Rabbis. For our Mishnah teaches : Over vegetables one says : "...Who createst the fruit of the ground" ; but R. Judah declares: "...Who createst divers kinds of herbs."

But there is a teaching: After partaking thereof no benediction is required ! Rab Sheshet said : There is no contradiction : one being the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel, the other of the Rabbis. For there is a teaching : This is the general rule — Any food which belongs to the seven species, Rabban Gamaliel says : Three benedictions [are required after partaking thereof], whereas the Rabbis say : One benediction which is an abstract of three.

Rab Hamma b. R. Hannina said: He who makes it a habit to use black cumin will not suffer with pain of the heart. It is quoted in objection : Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : Black cumin is one of the sixty deadly poisons, and he who sleeps to the east of his store [of cumin], his blood is on his own head ! There is no contradiction ; the latter referring to its odour, the other to its taste. The mother of R. Jeremiah used to bake bread for him and sprinkle [black cumin] upon it, and then scrape it off.

Rab Hisda said : "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord,] for the land and its fruits." R. Johanan said: "For the land and for the fruits." R. 'Amram said : There is no contradiction, Rab Hisda's wording being customary with us [in Babylon] and R. Johanan's with them [in Palestine].

There is no contradiction; the former refers to "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem," the latter to the other benedictions.

Rab Joseph said : There is no contradiction, the latter being the statement of R. Jose of Galilee, the other of R. 'Akiba. For the Mishnah declares : R. Jose of Galilee says : According to the numerical size of the assembly do they bless; as it is said, "Bless ye God in full assemblies." R. 'Akiba said : What do we find in the Synagogue ?

There is, however, no contradiction, one referring to that which becomes repugnant [by throwing], the other to that which does not become repugnant.

There is no contradiction ; the teaching that he should swallow it refers to liquids ; that he should spit it out refers to something that will not become repugnant; and that he should push it on one side refers to something which would become repugnant.

But there is a teaching : One should not support it except with bread ! There is no contradiction, the latter referring to [a brew] with wine, the other to [a brew] with beer.

One teacher states : For the heart, eyes and milt it is beneficial but injurious to the head, bowels and piles ; whereas there is another teaching : It is beneficial for the head, bowels and piles but injurious to the heart, eyes and milt ! There is no contradiction ; the latter referring to [a brew] with wine, the other to [a brew] with beer.

One teacher states : If he expectorates after drinking it he will be smitten [with illness]; and there is another teaching ; If he does not expectorate after drinking it he will be smitten ! There is no contradiction ; the latter referring to [a brew] with wine, the other to [a brew] with beer.

There is no contradiction ; because the latter refers to the beginning [of its kindling], the other subsequently.

There is no contradiction ; because the latter refers to the beginning [of its kindling], the other subsequently.

There is no contradiction ; the latter referring to a case where there is a distinguished person present, the other to a case where there is no distinguished person present.

But if thou wilt I can say that both refer to where a distinguished person is present, and still there is no contradiction ; the one referring to where there is a beadle, the other to where there is no beadle. Or if thou wilt I can say that

both refer to where there is a beadle, and still there is no contradiction ; the one referring to where there is moonlight and the other to where there is no moonlight.

There is no contradiction, one referring to a heavy meal, the other to a light meal.

There is no contradiction ; the latter refers to where one calculates [on the prolongation of his prayer], the other to where he does not calculate upon it. So how should one act ? He makes many supplications.

There is no contradiction ; the latter refers to one who stays and strains, the other to one who stays long but does not strain.

Raba asked : It is written, "I do speak with him in a dream," and it is written, "The dreams speak falsely" ! There is no contradiction ; the former being through an angel, the latter through an evil spirit.

[One who dreams of] riding upon an ox will die ! There is no contradiction, the former referring [to a dream wherein] he rides upon the ox, the latter to when the ox rides on him.

But there is a teaching : To dream of all kinds of animals is a good omen with the exception of the elephant and ape ! There is no contradiction ;

To dream of any species of animal is a good omen with the exception of the elephant, monkey and long-tailed ape. But a teacher has said : Who dreams of an elephant, a miracle will be wrought for him ! There is no contradiction ; the latter refers to where it is bridled and the other to where it is not bridled.

There is no contradiction ; the large ones [are injurious], the small ones [beneficial].

There is no contradiction ; the former refers to one suffering thus from his mother's womb, the other to one suffering thus after birth. This is also proved from the fact that he teaches that [the man afflicted with leprous eruption] is like the person with an amputated limb. Deduce from this [that the leper referred to in the Baraita is one who became diseased after birth].

Rab Samuel b. Isaac said : There is no significance in morning-clouds ; for it is written, "Your goodness is as a morning cloud" (Hosea vi. 4). Rab Pappa said to Abbai : But there is a proverbial expression, "If on opening the door [in the morning] there is rain, set down thy sack, O ass-driver, and lie on it"! There is no contradiction ; for this refers to [a sky] covered with heavy clouds, whereas the former refers to [a sky] covered with light clouds.

Still there is a contradiction! No, there is not; [the formula in the Mishnah] applies when he heard [that it had been raining], the other when he actually sees it.

Nay, they both refer to when he actually sees it ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying when little rain fell, the other when there was a heavy downpour. Or if thou wilt I can say that both refer to a heavy downpour ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying to a landowner, the other to one who is not.

Nay, they both refer to when he actually sees it ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying when little rain fell, the other when there was a heavy downpour. Or if thou wilt I can say that both refer to a heavy downpour ; and there is no contradiction, [the formula in the Mishnah] applying to a landowner, the other to one who is not.

There is no contradiction; one refers to where there is a partnership, the other to where there is no partnership. And there is a teaching : The summary of the matter is : Over things of his own he says "Blessed... Who hast kept us in life and preserved us" etc. ; over things which belong to him and another he says "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good."

Rab Ashe said : Even if thou retainest the words "the same place" [there is no contradiction, because it means,] it is only necessary [to proceed] to a corner.

While in another [Baraitha] it has been taught: Rabbi says: Any Sukkah which is not four amos square is invalid, while the Sages say: Even if it can contain only his head, and the greater part of his body it is kosher. Whereas of ‘his table’ there is no mention. Does a contradiction not arise between the two [Baraisas]? We must consequently infer therefrom that: One is from Bais Shammai, and one is from Bais Hillel.

Some put it in the form of a contradiction. We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].

And when we pointed to the following contradiction: [If a priest said to his wife,] ‘Here is your get [to take effect] one hour before my death’, she is forbidden to eat of terumah immediately.

[But there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Meir? R. Meir can answer you Death is of frequent occurrence, but the splitting of a wineskin is infrequent, since one might give it in charge of a guardian.

[But there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Judah?

GEMARA. Does the case come to serve as a contradiction! Rather, there is something missing in the mishnah, and it should be taught thus: But if he wishes to be strict with himself, he may do so, and it does not constitute presumption and so it also happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel

There are those who say: Rav ruled that "goodly" since R. Hanina tasted a part [of an etrog] and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]. But is not our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina? There is no contradiction since the former refers to the first day of the Festival, while the latter refers to the second day.

GEMARA. You said that he should take it [even if he is] at his table. That is to say that he must interrupt [his meal]. But there is a contraction: If they have begun they need not interrupt [it]? R. Safra replied: There is no contradiction: here is refers to where there is still time [to perform the commandment] during the day, while the former refers to where there is [otherwise] no time.

R. Sheshet objected: And [if one buys] from what is ownerless, [may he buy] three meals and no more? But there is a contradiction: Rue, asparagus, fenugreek, coriander of the mountains, water-parsley and meadow-eruca are always exempt from tithe and may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical Year, since the like of these is not guarded.

I can answer: For them also it does not override [Shabbat]. Does not then a contradiction arise between those two mishnayot, since one teaches “all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount,” and the other mishnah teaches... that they brought them] to the synagogue, and we answered, that the one referred to Temple times and the other to the time after the destruction of the Temple? No; both refer to Temple times, but there is nevertheless no contradiction