depends

Jesus said, "How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on both."

Jesus said, "How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on both."

Jesus said, "How awful for the flesh that depends on the soul. How awful for the soul that depends on the flesh."

Jesus said, "How awful for the flesh that depends on the soul. How awful for the soul that depends on the flesh."

Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, delivered to us the great mystery of godliness, and called both Jews and Gentiles to the acknowledgment of the one and only true God His Father, as Himself somewhere says, when He was giving thanks for the salvation of those that had believed, I have manifested Your name to men, I have finished the work You gave me; and said concerning us to His Father, Holy Father, although the world has not known You, yet have I known You; and these have known You. With good reason did He say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from Him by the Spirit: Now these signs shall follow them that have believed in my name: they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them: they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover. These gifts were first bestowed on us the apostles when we were about to preach the Gospel to every creature, and afterwards were of necessity afforded to those who had by our means believed; not for the advantage of those who perform them, but for the conviction of the unbelievers, that those whom the word did not persuade, the power of signs might put to shame: for signs are not for us who believe, but for the unbelievers, both for the Jews and Gentiles. For neither is it any profit to us to cast out demons, but to those who are so cleansed by the power of the Lord; as the Lord Himself somewhere instructs us, and shows, saying: Rejoice not because the spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. Since the former is done by His power, but this by our good disposition and diligence, yet (it is manifest) by His assistance. It is not therefore necessary that every one of the faithful should cast out demons, or raise the dead, or speak with tongues; but such a one only who is vouchsafed this gift, for some cause which may be advantage to the salvation of the unbelievers, who are often put to shame, not with the demonstration of the world, but by the power of the signs; that is, such as are worthy of salvation: for all the ungodly are not affected by wonders; and hereof God Himself is a witness, as when He says in the law: With other tongues will I speak to this people, and with other lips, and yet will they by no means believe. For neither did the Egyptians believe in God, when Moses had done so many signs and wonders; nor did the multitude of the Jews believe in Christ, as they believed Moses, who yet had healed every sickness and every disease among them. Nor were the former shamed by the rod which was turned into a living serpent, nor by the hand which was made white with leprosy, nor by the river Nile turned into blood; nor the latter by the blind who recovered their sight, nor by the lame who walked, nor by the dead who were raised. The one was resisted by Jannes and Jambres, the other by Annas and Caiaphas. Thus signs do not shame all into belief, but only those of a good disposition; for whose sake also it is that God is pleased, as a wise steward of a family, to appoint miracles to be wrought, not by the power of men, but by His own will. Now we say these things, that those who have received such gifts may not exalt themselves against those who have not received them; such gifts, we mean, as are for the working of miracles. For otherwise there is no man who has believed in God through Christ, that has not received some spiritual gift: for this very thing, having been delivered from the impiety of polytheism, and having believed in God the Father through Christ, this is a gift of God. And the having cast off the veil of Judaism, and having believed that, by the good pleasure of God, His only begotten Son, who was before all ages, was in the last time born of a virgin, without the company of a man, and that He lived as a man, yet without sin, and fulfilled all that righteousness which is of the law; and that, by the permission of God, He who was God the Word endured the cross, and despised the shame; and that He died, and was buried, and rose within three days; and that after His resurrection, having continued forty days with His apostles, and completed His whole constitutions, He was taken up in their sight to His God and Father, who sent Him: he who has believed these things, not at random and irrationally, but with judgment and full assurance, has received the gift of God. So also has He who is delivered from every heresy. Let not, therefore, any one that works signs and wonders judge any one of the faithful who is not vouchsafed the same: for the gifts of God which are bestowed by Him through Christ are various; and one man receives one gift, and another another. For perhaps one has the word of wisdom, and another the word of knowledge; another, discerning of spirits; another, foreknowledge of things to come; another, the word of teaching; another, long-suffering; another, continence according to the law: for even Moses, the man of God, when he wrought signs in Egypt, did not exalt himself against his equals: and when he was called a god, he did not arrogantly despise his own prophet Aaron. Nor did Joshua the Son of Nun, who was the leader of the people after him, though in the war with the Jebusites he had made the sun stand still over against Gibeon, and the moon over against the valley of Ajalon, because the day was not long enough for their victory, insult over Phineas or Caleb. Nor did Samuel, who had done so many surprising things, disregard David the beloved of God: yet they were both prophets, and the one was high priest, and the other was king. And when there were only seven thousand holy men in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal, Elijah alone among them, and his disciple Elisha, were workers of miracles. Yet neither did Elijah despise Obadiah the steward, who feared God, but wrought no signs; nor did Elisha despise his own disciple when he trembled at the enemies. Moreover, neither did the wise Daniel who was twice delivered from the mouths of the lions, nor the three children who were delivered from the furnace of fire, despise the rest of their fellow Israelites: for they knew that they had not escaped these terrible miseries by their own might; but by the power of God did they both work miracles, and were delivered from miseries. Wherefore let none of you exalt himself against his brother, though he be a prophet, or though he be a worker of miracles: for if it happens that there be no longer an unbeliever, all the power of signs will thenceforwards be superfluous. For to be pious is from any one's good disposition; but to work wonders is from the power of Him that works them by us: the first of which respects ourselves; but the second respects God that works them, for the reasons which we have already mentioned. Wherefore neither let a king despise his officers that are under him, nor the rulers those who are subject. For where there are none to be ruled over, rulers are superfluous; and where there are no officers, the kingdom will not stand. Moreover, let not a bishop be exalted against his deacons and presbyters, nor the presbyters against the people: for the subsistence of the congregation depends on each other. For the bishops and the presbyters are the priests with relation to the people; and the laity are the laity with relation to the clergy. And to be a Christian is in our own power; but to be an apostle, or a bishop, or in any other such office, is not in our own power, but at the disposal of God, who bestows the gifts. And thus much concerning those who are vouchsafed gifts and dignities.

But because almost all our constitution depends on the wisdom of Moses, our legislator, I cannot avoid saying somewhat concerning him beforehand, though I shall do it briefly; I mean, because otherwise those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass, that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy. The reader is therefore to know, that Moses deemed it exceeding necessary, that he who would conduct his own life well, and give laws to others, in the first place should consider the Divine nature; and, upon the contemplation of God's operations, should thereby imitate the best of all patterns, so far as it is possible for human nature to do, and to endeavor to follow after it: neither could the legislator himself have a right mind without such a contemplation; nor would any thing he should write tend to the promotion of virtue in his readers; I mean, unless they be taught first of all, that God is the Father and Lord of all things, and sees all things, and that thence he bestows a happy life upon those that follow him; but plunges such as do not walk in the paths of virtue into inevitable miseries. Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things: for as to other legislators, they followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human vices unto the gods, and afforded wicked men the most plausible excuses for their crimes; but as for our legislator, when he had once demonstrated that God was possessed of perfect virtue, he supposed that men also ought to strive after the participation of it; and on those who did not so think, and so believe, he inflicted the severest punishments. I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.

Now as soon as they were come before the walls, they pitched their camp, and sent messengers to Hezekiah, and desired that they might speak with him; but he did not himself come out to them for fear, but he sent three of his most intimate friends; the name of one was Eliakim, who was over the kingdom, and Shebna, and Joah the recorder. So these men came out, and stood over against the commanders of the Assyrian army; and when Rabshakeh saw them, he bid them go and speak to Hezekiah in the manner following: That Sennacherib, the great king, desires to know of him, on whom it is that he relies and depends, in flying from his lord, and will not hear him, nor admit his army into the city? Is it on account of the Egyptians, and in hopes that his army would be beaten by them? Whereupon he lets him know, that if this be what he expects, he is a foolish man, and like one who leans on a broken reed; while such a one will not only fall down, but will have his hand pierced and hurt by it. That he ought to know he makes this expedition against him by the will of God, who hath granted this favor to him, that he shall overthrow the kingdom of Israel, and that in the very same manner he shall destroy those that are his subjects also. When Rabshakeh had made this speech in the Hebrew tongue, for he was skillful in that language, Eliakim was afraid lest the multitude that heard him should be disturbed; so he desired him to speak in the Syrian tongue. But the general, understanding what he meant, and perceiving the fear that he was in, he made his answer with a greater and a louder voice, but in the Hebrew tongue; and said, that "since they all heard what were the king's commands, they would consult their own advantage in delivering up themselves to us; for it is plain the both you and your king dissuade the people from submitting by vain hopes, and so induce them to resist; but if you be courageous, and think to drive our forces away, I am ready to deliver to you two thousand of these horses that are with me for your use, if you can set as many horsemen on their backs, and show your strength; but what you have not you cannot produce. Why therefore do you delay to deliver up yourselves to a superior force, who can take you without your consent? although it will be safer for you to deliver yourselves up voluntarily, while a forcible capture, when you are beaten, must appear more dangerous, and will bring further calamities upon you."

"The present dread you are under seems to me to have seized upon you very unreasonably. It is true, you might justly be dismayed at that providential chastisement which hath befallen you; but to suffer yourselves to be equally terrified at the invasion of men is unmanly. As for myself, I am so far from being affrighted at our enemies after this earthquake, that I imagine that God hath thereby laid a bait for the Arabians, that we may be avenged on them; for their present invasion proceeds more from our accidental misfortunes, than that they have any great dependence on their weapons, or their own fitness for action. Now that hope which depends not on men's own power, but on others' ill success, is a very ticklish thing; for there is no certainty among men, either in their bad or good fortunes; but we may easily observe that fortune is mutable, and goes from one side to another; and this you may readily learn from examples among yourselves; for when you were once victors in the former fight, your enemies overcame you at last; and very likely it will now happen so, that these who think themselves sure of beating you will themselves be beaten. For when men are very confident, they are not upon their guard, while fear teaches men to act with caution; insomuch that I venture to prove from your very timorousness that you ought to take courage; for when you were more bold than you ought to have been, and than I would have had you, and marched on, Athenio's treachery took place; but your present slowness and seeming dejection of mind is to me a pledge and assurance of victory. And indeed it is proper beforehand to be thus provident; but when we come to action, we ought to erect our minds, and to make our enemies, be they ever so wicked, believe that neither any human, no, nor any providential misfortune, can ever depress the courage of Jews while they are alive; nor will any of them ever overlook an Arabian, or suffer such a one to become lord of his good things, whom he has in a manner taken captive, and that many times also. And do not you disturb yourselves at the quaking of inanimate creatures, nor do you imagine that this earthquake is a sign of another calamity; for such affections of the elements are according to the course of nature, nor does it import any thing further to men, than what mischief it does immediately of itself. Perhaps there may come some short sign beforehand in the case of pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes; but these calamities themselves have their force limited by themselves [without foreboding any other calamity]. And indeed what greater mischief can the war, though it should be a violent one, do to us than the earthquake hath done? Nay, there is a signal of our enemies' destruction visible, and that a very great one also; and this is not a natural one, nor derived from the hand of foreigners neither, but it is this, that they have barbarously murdered our ambassadors, contrary to the common law of mankind; and they have destroyed so many, as if they esteemed them sacrifices for God, in relation to this war. But they will not avoid his great eye, nor his invincible right hand; and we shall be revenged of them presently, in case we still retain any of the courage of our forefathers, and rise up boldly to punish these covenant-breakers. Let every one therefore go on and fight, not so much for his wife or his children, or for the danger his country is in, as for these ambassadors of ours; those dead ambassadors will conduct this war of ours better than we ourselves who are alive. And if you will be ruled by me, I will myself go before you into danger; for you know this well enough, that your courage is irresistible, unless you hurt yourselves by acting rashly."

But since such narratives are slow to secure assent, and are considered to be forced, let us see from the prophetical declarations also, what those persons say, who, although they have experienced the great kindness of God, have not lived virtuously, but have afterwards sinned. “Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy ways? Why hast Thou hardened our heart, so as not to fear Thy name? Return for Thy servants’ sake, for the tribes of Thine inheritance, that we may inherit a small portion of Thy holy mountain.” And in Jeremiah: “Thou hast deceived me, O Lord, and I was deceived; Thou wert strong, and Thou didst prevail.” For the expression, “Why hast Thou hardened our heart, so as not to fear Thy name?” uttered by those who are begging to receive mercy, is in its nature as follows: “Why hast Thou spared us so long, not visiting us because of our sins, but deserting us, until our transgressions come to a height?” Now He leaves the greater part of men unpunished, both in order that the habits of each one may be examined, so far as it depends upon ourselves, and that the virtuous may be made manifest in consequence of the test applied; while the others, not escaping notice from God—for He knows all things before they exist—but from the rational creation and themselves, may afterwards obtain the means of cure, seeing they would not have known the benefit had they not condemned themselves. It is of advantage to each one, that he perceive his own peculiar nature and the grace of God. For he who does not perceive his own weakness and the divine favour, although he receive a benefit, yet, not having made trial of himself, nor having condemned himself, will imagine that the benefit conferred upon him by the grace of Heaven is his own doing. And this imagination, producing also vanity, will be the cause of a downfall: which, we conceive, was the case with the devil, who attributed to himself the priority which he possessed when in a state of sinlessness. “For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased,” and “every one that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” And observe, that for this reason divine things have been concealed from the wise and prudent, in order, as says the apostle, that “no flesh should glory in the presence of God;” and they have been revealed to babes, to those who after childhood have come to better things, and who remember that it is not so much from their own effort, as by the unspeakable goodness [of God], that they have reached the greatest possible extent of blessedness.

But since the apostle in one place does not pretend that the becoming of a vessel unto honour or dishonour depends upon God, but refers back the whole to ourselves, saying, “If, then, a man purge himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work;” and elsewhere does not even pretend that it is dependent upon ourselves, but appears to attribute the whole to God, saying, “The potter hath power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to dishonour;” and as his statements are not contradictory, we must reconcile them, and extract one complete statement from both. Neither does our own power, apart from the knowledge of God, compel us to make progress; nor does the knowledge of God [do so], unless we ourselves also contribute something to the good result; nor does our own power, apart from the knowledge of God, and the use of the power that worthily belongs to us, make a man become [a vessel] unto honour or dishonour; nor does the will of God alone form a man to honour or dishonour, unless He hold our will to be a kind of matter that admits of variation, and that inclines to a better or worse course of conduct. And these observations are sufficient to have been made by us on the subject of free-will.

That there are certain sins, however, which do not proceed from the opposing powers, but take their beginnings from the natural movements of the body, is manifestly declared by the Apostle Paul in the passage: “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” If, then, the flesh lust against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, we have occasionally to wrestle against flesh and blood, i.e. as being men, and walking according to the flesh, and not capable of being tempted by greater than human temptations; since it is said of us, “There hath no temptation taken you, but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.” For as the presidents of the public games do not allow the competitors to enter the lists indiscriminately or fortuitously, but after a careful examination, pairing in a most impartial consideration either of size or age, this individual with that—boys, e.g., with boys, men with men, who are nearly related to each other either in age or strength; so also must we understand the procedure of divine providence, which arranges on most impartial principles all who descend into the struggles of this human life, according to the nature of each individual’s power, which is known only to Him who alone beholds the hearts of men: so that one individual fights against one temptation of the flesh, another against a second; one is exposed to its influence for so long a period of time, another only for so long; one is tempted by the flesh to this or that indulgence, another to one of a different kind; one has to resist this or that hostile power, another has to combat two or three at the same time; or at one time this hostile influence, at another that; at some particular date having to resist one enemy, and at another a different one; being, after the performance of certain acts, exposed to one set of enemies, after others to a second. And observe whether some such state of things be not indicated by the language of the apostle: “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able,” i.e. each one is tempted in proportion to the amount of his strength or power of resistance. Now, although we have said that it is by the just judgment of God that every one is tempted according to the amount of his strength, we are not therefore to suppose that he who is tempted ought by all means to prove victorious in the struggle; in like manner as he who contends in the lists, although paired with his adversary on a just principle of arrangement, will nevertheless not necessarily prove conqueror. But unless the powers of the combatants are equal, the prize of the victor will not be justly won; nor will blame justly attach to the vanquished, because He allows us indeed to be tempted, but not “beyond what we are able:” for it is in proportion to our strength that we are tempted; and it is not written that, in temptation, He will make also a way to escape so as that we should bear it, but a way to escape so as that we should be able to bear it. But it depends upon ourselves to use either with energy or feebleness this power which He has given us. For there is no doubt that under every temptation we have a power of endurance, if we employ properly the strength that is granted us. But it is not the same thing to possess the power of conquering and to be victorious, as the apostle himself has shown in very cautious language, saying, “God will make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear it,” not that you will bear it. For many do not sustain temptation, but are overcome by it. Now God enables us not to sustain [temptation], [otherwise there would appear to be no struggle], but to have the power of sustaining it. But this power which is given us to enable us to conquer may be used, according to our faculty of free-will, either in a diligent manner, and then we prove victorious, or in a slothful manner, and then we are defeated. For if such a power were wholly given us as that we must by all means prove victorious, and never be defeated, what further reason for a struggle could remain to him who cannot be overcome? Or what merit is there in a victory, where the power of successful resistance is taken away? But if the possibility of conquering be equally conferred on us all, and if it be in our own power how to use this possibility, i.e. either diligently or slothfully, then will the vanquished be justly censured, and the victor be deservedly lauded. Now from these points which we have discussed to the best of our power, it is, I think, clearly evident that there are certain transgressions which we by no means commit under the pressure of malignant powers; while there are others, again, to which we are incited by instigation on their part to excessive and immoderate indulgence. Whence it follows that we have to inquire how those opposing powers produce these incitements within us.

Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of doctrine, viz. Judaism, upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin. And with an appearance of fairness, he does not reproach Christianity because of its origin among barbarians, but gives the latter credit for their ability in discovering [such] doctrines. To this, however, he adds the statement, that the Greeks are more skilful than any others in judging, establishing, and reducing to practice the discoveries of barbarous nations. Now this is our answer to his allegations, and our defence of the truths contained in Christianity, that if any one were to come from the study of Grecian opinions and usages to the gospel, he would not only decide that its doctrines were true, but would by practice establish their truth, and supply whatever seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to their demonstration, and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to say, moreover, that the gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by the apostle the “manifestation of the Spirit and of power:” of “the Spirit,” on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who reads them, especially in those things which relate to Christ; and of “power,” because of the signs and wonders which we must believe to have been performed, both on many other grounds, and on this, that traces of them are still preserved among those who regulate their lives by the precepts of the gospel.

But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that, “if this at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly to have at once disappeared from the cross.” Now this seems to me to be like the argument of those who oppose the doctrine of providence, and who arrange things differently from what they are, and allege that the world would be better if it were as they arrange it. Now, in those instances in which their arrangement is a possible one, they are proved to make the world, so far as depends upon them, worse by their arrangement than it actually is; while in those cases in which they do not portray things worse than they really are, they are shown, to desire impossibilities; so that in either case they are deserving of ridicule. And here, accordingly, that there was no impossibility in His coming, as a being of diviner nature, in order to disappear when He chose, is clear from the very nature of the case; and is certain, moreover, from what is recorded of Him, in the judgment of those who do not adopt certain portions merely of the narrative that they may have ground for accusing Christianity, and who consider other portions to be fiction. For it is related in St. Luke’s Gospel, that Jesus after His resurrection took bread, and blessed it, and breaking it, distributed it to Simon and Cleopas; and when they had received the bread, “their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their sight.”

They should not leave peah of less than one-sixtieth [of the field]. But even though they said, “there is no measure for peah,” everything depends upon the size of the field, the number of poor people, and the extent of the yield.

From when may they no longer cut down trees in the seventh year? Bet Shammai says: every tree, after it has produced [fruit]. Bet Hillel says: carob trees after [the carobs] begin to droop, vines after the berries begin to be moist, olive-trees after they had blossomed, any other tree after it has produced [fruit]. And any tree as soon as it reaches the season for tithes it may be cut down. How much should be on an olive tree such that it may not be cut down? A quarter [kav]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: all depends on the olive-tree.

A convert who converted and had dough: if it was made before he became a convert, he is exempt [from hallah]. After he converted, he is liable. And if there is doubt, he is liable, but [a non-priest who has unwittingly eaten of such hallah] is not liable for the additional one-fifth. Rabbi Akiva said: it all depends on the [time of the] formation of the light crust in the oven.

One may pour water over lees in order to clarify them; and one may strain wine through cloths and through a basket made of palm twigs; and one may place an egg in a mustard strainer; and one may make anumlin on Shabbat. Rabbi Judah says: on Shabbat [it may only be made] in a cup; on festivals, in a jug; and on the intermediate days of festivals in a barrel. Rabbi Zadok says: it all depends on the [number of] guests.

How is [the compensation that is paid for] embarrassment [reckoned]? It all depends on the status of the offender and the offended. How is [the compensation that is paid for] blemish [reckoned]? She is regarded as if she were a slave to be sold in the market place [and it is estimated] how much she was worth then and how much she is worth now. The fine is the same for all. And any sum that is fixed in the Torah remains the same for all.

He who vows not to wear garments is permitted sack-cloth, curtain, and blanket wrapping. If he says, “Konam, if wool comes upon me,” he may cover himself with wool shearings; [Konam] if flax comes upon me”, he may cover himself with stalks of flax. Rabbi Judah says: It all depends upon the person who vows, [thus:] if he was bearing a burden [with wool or flax] and perspires and had bad odor, and he said “Konam if wool or flax come upon me,” he may wear them, but not throw them [as a bundle] over his back.

[If he says,] “Until the summer,” or, “Until the summer shall be,” [he is forbidden] until people begin to bring [the figs] home in baskets. “Until the summer [harvest] is past,” [he is forbidden] until the knives are folded up [and put away]. [If he vows,] “Until the harvest,” [he is forbidden] until the people begin reaping the wheat harvest, but not the barley harvest. It all depends on the place where he vowed: if in hill-country, the hill-country [harvest]; if in the valley, the valley harvest.

Shaving on account of defilement: How was it done? He would sprinkle [with purification water] on the third and seventh days, shave on the seventh day and bring his sacrifices on the eighth day. If he shaved on the eighth day, he would bring his sacrifices on that same day, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: what difference is there between this one and a person with scale disease? He said to him: the purification of this one depends on his days, whereas the purification of one with scale disease depends on his shaving, and he cannot bring a sacrifice unless the sun has set upon him [after his purification].

Shaving on account of defilement: How was it done? He would sprinkle [with purification water] on the third and seventh days, shave on the seventh day and bring his sacrifices on the eighth day. If he shaved on the eighth day, he would bring his sacrifices on that same day, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: what difference is there between this one and a person with scale disease? He said to him: the purification of this one depends on his days, whereas the purification of one with scale disease depends on his shaving, and he cannot bring a sacrifice unless the sun has set upon him [after his purification].

Rabbi Judah said: an unmarried man must not tend cattle, nor may two unmarried men sleep together under the same cover. But the sages permit it. One whose business is with women must not be alone with women. And one should not teach his son a woman’s trade. Rabbi Meir says: one should always teach his son a clean and easy profession, and pray to Him to whom wealth and property belong. For a profession does not contain [the potential for] poverty and wealth, for poverty is not due to one’s profession nor is wealth due to the profession, but all depends on merit. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: have you ever seen a wild beast or a bird with a profession? Yet they are sustained without trouble. Now, were they not created only to serve me, while I was created to serve my master: surely then I should make a living without trouble! But my evil acts have done me in and withheld my livelihood. Abba Gurion a man of Sidon says in the name of Abba Guria: one should not teach his son [to be] a donkey-driver, camel-driver, wagon-driver, sailor, shepherd, or shopkeeper, because their profession is the profession of robbers. Rabbi Judah says in his name: most donkey-drivers are wicked, while most camel-drivers are worthy men; and most sailors are pious. The best of doctors are destined for Gehenna, and the worthiest of butchers is Amalek’s partner. Rabbi Nehorai says: I will abandon every profession in the world and I will not teach my son anything but Torah, for a person enjoys its reward in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come. But all other professions are not so; for when a man comes to sickness or old age or suffering and cannot engage in his profession, he must die of starvation, whereas the Torah is not so, for it guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age. Of his youth what is said? “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength” (Isaiah 40:31). Of his old age what is said? “They shall still bring forth fruit in old age” (Psalms 92:15). And it is also said of our father Abraham, “And Abraham was old … And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1). We find that Abraham our father observed the whole Torah before it was given, for it is said, “Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5).

If a man sold to his fellow a place in which to make a tomb, so, too, if a man was commissioned by his fellow to make a tomb, he must make the inside of the vault four cubits by six, and open within it eight niches, three on this side, three on that side, and two opposite [the doorway]. The niches must be four cubits long, seven handbreadths high, and six handbreadths wide. Rabbi Shimon says: “He must make the inside of the vault four cubits by eight, and open within it thirteen niches, four on this side, four on that side, three opposite [the doorway] and one to the right of the doorway and one to the left. He must make a courtyard at the opening of the vault, six cubits by six, space enough for the bier and its bearers. And he may open within it two vaults, one on either side. Rabbi Shimon says: “Four, one on each of its sides.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “All depends on the nature of the rock.”

He also testified concerning a small village in the vicinity of Jerusalem in which there was an old man who used to lend to all the people of the village and write out [the bond] in his own handwriting and others signed it. And when the fact was brought before the Sages they pronounced it legal. Hence, incidentally, you may infer that a wife may write her own bill of divorcement, and a husband may write his own receipt; for the legality of a document depends only on those who sign it. And [he testified] concerning a needle which was found in flesh of a [sacrifice], that the knife and the hands [which had been employed on the flesh] are clean, but the flesh itself is defiled; and if it was found in the excrement, all are clean.

All love that depends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not depend on anything, will never cease. What is an example of love that depended on a something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.

If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!

[If one said] “The worth of my hand is upon me,” they estimate his worth with his hand and [what it would be] without his hand. In this respect vows of worth are more stringent than vows of value. There is an aspect of vows of value that is more stringent than vows of worth. How so? If one said: “My value is upon me” and then he dies, his heirs must pay it. [But if he said:] “My worth is upon me,” and then he dies, his heirs need not pay anything because dead persons have no worth. [If he said,] “The value of my hand or foot is upon me,” he has said nothing, [But if he said,] “The value of my head is upon me,” he must pay his whole value. This is the general rule: Anything upon which his life depends, he must pay his full value.

[If one said:] “Half my value is upon me,” he must pay half his evaluation. [But if he said,] “The value of one half of me he is upon me,” he must pay his full value. [If he said] “Half of my worth is upon me,” he must pay half his worth. [If he said,] “The worth of half of me is upon me,” he must pay his whole worth. This is the general rule: Anything on which his life depends, he must pay his whole worth.

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

All [wooden] vessels that belong to householder [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of pomegranates. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the size of the hole depends] on what it is used for. Gardeners’ vegetable baskets [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of bundles of vegetables. Baskets of householders [become clean if the holes in them are] the size of [bundles] of straws. Those of bath-keepers, if bundles of chaff [will drop through]. Rabbi Joshua says: in all these the size is that of pomegranates.

The egg of which they spoke it is one that is neither big nor small but of moderate size. Rabbi Judah says: the largest and the smallest must be brought and put in water and the displaced water is then divided. Rabbi Yose says: but who can tell me which is the largest and which is the smallest? Rather, it all depends on the observer's estimate.

If a mattress was wrapped around a bed and a corpse touched them, they are subject to a seven-day uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to a seven-day uncleanness. If a sheretz touched them they are subject to an evening uncleanness; If they are taken apart they are still subject to evening uncleanness. A bed from which the two longer sides were removed and two new ones were prepared for it but the original sockets were not changed: If the new sides were broken the bed retains its uncleanness, But if the old ones were broken it becomes clean, since all depends on the old ones.

A garment whose warp was colored and whose woof was white, or whose woof was colored and whose warp was white, all depends on what is most visible. Garments contract uncleanness if they are an intense green or an intense red. If [the nega] was green and it spread out red, or if it was red and it spread out green, it is unclean. If its color changed and then it spread, or if it changed and it did not spread, it is regarded as if it had not changed. Rabbi Judah says: let it be inspected as if it then appeared for the first time.

If a metzora brought his sacrifice as a poor man and he became rich, or as a rich man and he became poor, all depends on the sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah says: all depends on the guilt-offering.

If a metzora brought his sacrifice as a poor man and he became rich, or as a rich man and he became poor, all depends on the sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Judah says: all depends on the guilt-offering.

When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live. If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live. Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness.

Rebbi Yannai had made a proviso for certain produce. He asked the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one fix this on the Sabbath? He said to him (Deut. 14:23): “That you should learn to fear the Eternal, your God, all the days,” including the Sabbath. How did you see a way to be so lenient, my initiative depends on me! He said to him, in the future you will carry leadership in Israel.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, everything that depends on fertility extends until the second rainfall, if it is not dependent on fertility, until the expected time of the second rainfall. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if rains came for seven uninterrupted days, they include the second rainfall. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: Why is it called רביעה? Because it fertilizes the land.

“The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator.” Rav Jehudah said, Rav [said]: This follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, it depends on the one extending credit.

If he said, what is below is heave, above all is profane, or what is below is all profane, above is heave, it depends on his opinion. Also for a miqweh it is the same: If he said, all water below is usable, above is unusable, or all water below is unusable, above is usable, it depends on his opinion.

If he said, what is below is heave, above all is profane, or what is below is all profane, above is heave, it depends on his opinion. Also for a miqweh it is the same: If he said, all water below is usable, above is unusable, or all water below is unusable, above is usable, it depends on his opinion.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, I was robbed by the people of Qanah. He went to the assembly hall where Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking him repeatedly but he did not answer. He said, what happened? He said, what can you do? He said, all limbs depend on the heart and the heart depends on the wallet. He said, I was robbed by the people of Qanah. He said, what do you have? He said to him, show me their corner. He went out to show him. They saw him from afar and started to chirp. They said, if that is Rebbi Joḥanan, may he take half of it. He said to them, by your life I am taking all of it; he took all.

MISHNAH: An onion which one added to lentils, if whole it is permitted, if cut up it depends on transferring taste. Any other cooked food, whether whole or cut up, depends on transferring taste. Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants. If a mashed apple is added to dough and it soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.

MISHNAH: An onion which one added to lentils, if whole it is permitted, if cut up it depends on transferring taste. Any other cooked food, whether whole or cut up, depends on transferring taste. Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants. If a mashed apple is added to dough and it soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.

“If he had one basket and he intended to fill half of it, it became ṭevel once it was half filled. If he intended to fill it completely, it does not become ṭevel until it is completely filled. If there were two and he intended to fill both of them, they do not become ṭevel until he filled both of them. When has this been said? When he brings it to market. But if be brings it to his house, he may eat snacks from it until he reaches his house.” What is the difference between him who brings to market and him who brings to his house? When he brings to his house, it depends on his intention. But if he brings to market, it does not depend on his intention but on that of his customers. Maybe he will find a customer; therefore, it becomes ṭevel immediately.

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling? Following what we stated: “If men participate with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid”.

How does Rebbi Aqiba explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, (Num. 15:18) “From the Land’s bread?” About a ship which entered the Land. If it made a crust in the oven inside the line it is obligated, outside the line it is exempt. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, the same rule applies to a ship, Gentile’s dough, and their entry; everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba when it enters the Land that everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. This is implied by what Rebbi Aqiba objected to Rebbi Eliezer and the latter accepted it.

How does Rebbi Aqiba explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, (Num. 15:18) “From the Land’s bread?” About a ship which entered the Land. If it made a crust in the oven inside the line it is obligated, outside the line it is exempt. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, the same rule applies to a ship, Gentile’s dough, and their entry; everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba when it enters the Land that everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. This is implied by what Rebbi Aqiba objected to Rebbi Eliezer and the latter accepted it.

HALAKHAH: What is the difference between this and a dough of annona? Is the latter not obligated for ḥallah? There it is in the possession of the Jew until the Gentile decides to take it. But here it depends on the latter’s opinion.

Does Rebbi Yose follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? He might even hold with Rebbi! ‘Orlah depends on one’s intention, tithes do not depend on his intention.

HALAKHAH: “With hazeret”, lettuce. “With ˋulšin”, τρώξιμον. “And with tamka”, γιγγίδιον “With harhabina”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, יסי חלי. “And with maror”. A bitter vegetable turning grey and containing sap. They objected, is not lettuce sweet? Is it not called “lettuce” only if it be sweet? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaya: (Itself it depends only on change) [Itself it is only called “change”]. (As) hazeret is sweet at the beginning and bitter at the end, so did the Egyptians behave towards our forefathers in Egypt. At the start, in the best part of the land settle your father and your brothers, and after that they embittered their lives with hard labor, with mortar and bricks.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If of bulls and he-goats to be burned a limb left which completes a majority? His question implies that the matter depends on a majority. The following is obvious: If most of it left and after this a limb left which completes a majority. [This must be: It left limb by limb and after this a limb left which completes a majority..]

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

“About these it was said that one precedes and does not trail.” Reading the Scroll and paying the Sheqel tax one precedes and does not trail; the Meal of the New Moon and the Purim Meal one trails but does not precede. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Abbahu: then could one make it on the Sabbath? He answered him, to make them days of drinking and joy; those whose joy depends on the court; this excludes those whose joy depends on Heaven.

“About these it was said that one precedes and does not trail.” Reading the Scroll and paying the Sheqel tax one precedes and does not trail; the Meal of the New Moon and the Purim Meal one trails but does not precede. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Abbahu: then could one make it on the Sabbath? He answered him, to make them days of drinking and joy; those whose joy depends on the court; this excludes those whose joy depends on Heaven.

If it spread while in quarantine, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From the sufferer from skin disease; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds, (should not) [is it not logical that] one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure, one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity] depends on the count of his days. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day.

“Nor the Creation to two.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael one investigates what happened. Since Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was sitting and explaining that originally the world was water in water; this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was preaching: Originally the world was water in water. What is the reason? God’s wind was hovering over the water. Then He turned it into snow, He throws his ice like small breads. Then He turned it into land, for He will tell the snow, be land. And the land stands on water, to Him Who spreads the earth over the water. And the water stands on mountains, on mountains shall the water stand. And the mountains stand on wind, behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. And the wind depends on storm, the wind storm executes His word. And the Holy One, praise to Him, turned storm into a kind of amulet and hung it on His arm, as it is said, and below eternal arms.

When was it? She became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs. Could she have lived? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Rebbi Ismael follows RebbiJehudah, until the black covers most [and] Rebbi Simeon, that intercourse occurred with the idea of the prior qiddushin. Following the opinions of Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah who say that her status depends on the signs of development, it fits. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon who says, if he adds another act of acquisition, then even if she is an adult! Rebbi Isaac said, that is so. Only that the daughters of Israel should not be unbridled in breaking tabus.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

MISHNAH: How much is shame worth? Everything depends on the offender and the offended. For diminution of value one considers her as if she were a slave girl to be sold; how much would she have been worth before and how much would she be worth now. The fine is equal for everybody since everything determined by the Torah is equal for everybody.

HALAKHAH: “How much is shame worth? Everything depends on the offender and the offended,” etc. One cannot compare one who is offended by a person of high standing to one offended by a person of low standing. The shame for a person of high standing is great but the injury he incurs is small. The shame for a person of low standing is small but the injury he incurs is great.

From where comes this? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment; Rebbi Yose said, at the end. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai: In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here, everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

HALAKHAH: “If she did appear in court before she became an adult,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 silver pieces to the girl’s father;” this teaches that the father acquires only by handing over. Rebbi Simeon says, the matter depends on the collection, but the rabbis say, the matter depends on the court procedure. Rebbi Simeon treats it as court decrees but the rabbis treat it as a loan. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, he forecloses from the best land; in the opinion of the rabbis he forecloses from average land. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt; in the opinion of the rabbis the Sabbatical year cancels the debt. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon the firstborn takes a double portion; in the opinion of the rabbis the firstborn does not take a double portion.

HALAKHAH: “If she did appear in court before she became an adult,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 silver pieces to the girl’s father;” this teaches that the father acquires only by handing over. Rebbi Simeon says, the matter depends on the collection, but the rabbis say, the matter depends on the court procedure. Rebbi Simeon treats it as court decrees but the rabbis treat it as a loan. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, he forecloses from the best land; in the opinion of the rabbis he forecloses from average land. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt; in the opinion of the rabbis the Sabbatical year cancels the debt. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon the firstborn takes a double portion; in the opinion of the rabbis the firstborn does not take a double portion.

“If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here about an adult orphan, there about an underage orphan.

HALAKHAH: “A widow, whether after preliminary or definitive marriage,” etc. Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that everything depends on sustenance. If he had agreed to sustain her after preliminary marriage, she may sell without court supervision If he had agreed to sustain her after definitive marriage, she may sell only under court supervision. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person is concerned for his widow’s dignity whether after preliminary or after definitive marriage.

Rebbi Hoshaia, when he received witnesses at Kallirhoë, used to say to them: You should know the importance of the testimony that comes from your mouth, how much rent money depends on your mouths. Rebbi Abuna said, if it is so, it is even a matter of criminal law. If somebody sleeps with a girl three years and one day old, he is stoned. The Court decided to lengthen, if he sleeps with her he is not stoned. Rebbi Abun said: “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides with me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise it does not repair itself.

HALAKHAH: “An adult girl and one who had waited twelve months,” etc. Rebbi Eliezer holds that the matter depends on the support. If he preliminarily married a woman on condition to support her, the husband dissolves for her. If he completely married a woman on condition that he support her, the father dissolves for her. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The husband never dissolves before she enters his domain.

“My mouth [shall be nazir] from wine, my head from shaving, my hand from impurity, my foot from impurity; my head shall be nazir; my liver shall be nezirah,” he is a nazir. “My walking shall be nazir; my talking shall be nazir”; he did not say anything. Why? Because he referred the vow to something on which life depends. “Vow, vow.” Just as “vow” mentioned there refers to something on which life depends, so “vow” mentioned here refers to something on which life depends.

“My mouth [shall be nazir] from wine, my head from shaving, my hand from impurity, my foot from impurity; my head shall be nazir; my liver shall be nezirah,” he is a nazir. “My walking shall be nazir; my talking shall be nazir”; he did not say anything. Why? Because he referred the vow to something on which life depends. “Vow, vow.” Just as “vow” mentioned there refers to something on which life depends, so “vow” mentioned here refers to something on which life depends.

“My mouth [shall be nazir] from wine, my head from shaving, my hand from impurity, my foot from impurity; my head shall be nazir; my liver shall be nezirah,” he is a nazir. “My walking shall be nazir; my talking shall be nazir”; he did not say anything. Why? Because he referred the vow to something on which life depends. “Vow, vow.” Just as “vow” mentioned there refers to something on which life depends, so “vow” mentioned here refers to something on which life depends.

Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: If a man and his wife held on to a bill of divorce; she says, I acquired it, but he says, you did not acquire. Does this refer to the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? Since they disagreed: If creditor and borrower both hold on to the bond; the creditor says it is mine; I had lost it. The borrower says, it is mine because I paid it off. The document should be verified by its signatories, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they should split. Rebbi Eleazar said, everything depends on who actually holds the signatures of the witnesses. Where do they disagree? If it was written lengthwise and both hold part of the signatures of the witnesses. He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion that it is not a bill of divorce if all is in her hand but a thread is in his hand, for it is written: “He shall deliver it into her hand,” not unless all be in her hand.

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya, [this is Rebbi’s opinion.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, and it was stated so: “All conditions invalidate a bill of divorce, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, what invalidates orally invalidates in writing, and what does not invalidate orally does not invalidate in writing.” “You are permitted to marry anybody except Mr. X,” because this invalidates orally it invalidates in writing. “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz”; because this does not invalidate orally it does not invalidate in writing. Rebbi Yudan said, when do they disagree? If he rescinded his condition. But if he did nor rescind his condition, even Rebbi agrees. Otherwise, we would have to say that all conditions which were stated for bills of divorce do not follow Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥinena said, there when he writes “on condition,” here if he gives “on condition.” Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does this imply that Rebbi does not recognize formulaic texts? He answered him, about whom do you ask? About Rebbi! He follows Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulaic texts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, everybody agrees that all conditions invalidate a bill of divorce. There came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah and he acted following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one neglect Rebbi Joḥanan and act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered him, is Rebbi Joḥanan’s instruction an instruction but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s instruction not an instruction? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, but he understood a baraita and acted accordingly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish fights against Rebbi Joḥanan when he disagrees with him only to extract a ruling from him. If he finds a baraita, he depends on it; if he does not find a baraita, he retracts his opinion before Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: “One cannot collect for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only a document on which interest is due, and some say, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Yannai said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattaniah said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, it depends on the collection. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should be eager to marry her. Some say, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from an orphan’s property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated: If the son took his father’s place, one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there about an adult orphan, here about an underage orphan.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre. When he came before Rebbi Joḥanan, he asked him, what case did you handle? He said to him, a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not immersed himself. He asked him, why did you not injure him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told him, leave him alone, he acted correctly not to injure him. The argument of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. And here, he says so? Did we not state: If a proselyte was circumcised but not immersed, immersed but not circumcised, everything depends on circumcision, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, immersion also is necessary. But Rebbi Joshua ben Levi follows what Bar Qappara stated, as Bar Qappara stated: A proselyte who was circumcised but not immersed is qualified since there is no proselyte who did not immerse himself for his emission of semen. Is that not difficult? The cleansing from a minor impurity is counted for him for a major impurity? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, since either one is for the holiness of Israel, it is counted for him.

New paragraph. “Rebbi Meïr says that a man should try to teach his son a clean trade,” etc. What should a man do? A person should try and teach his son an unassuming trade and pray for mercy to Him to Whom riches belong since there is no trade in which poor and rich people are not found, for everything depends on a person’s merit. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Did you ever see a lion porter, a (lion) [deer] maker of fig cakes, a fox grocer, a wolf selling pots? And they sustain themselves without pain. Why were they created? Only to serve me, and I was created to serve my Maker. Is it not an argument de minore ad maius? Since they were created to serve me and sustain themselves so without pain, should it not be logical that I, who was created to serve my Maker, should be able to sustain myself without pain? What caused me to have to sustain myself with pain? One has to say, my sins. Because I worsened my deeds and destroyed my sustenance.

MISHNAH: If somebody starts a fire inside his property, how far does it have to spread? Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one looks at it as if he started it at the center of a bet kor Rebbi Eliezer says, sixteen cubits like a public road; and Rebbi Aqiba says, 50 cubits; and Rebbi Simeon says “the person setting the fire shall certainly pay,” everything depends on the setting of the fire.

MISHNAH: Loss of earnings. One considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins since he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot. Embarrassment. Everything depends on the person embarrassing and the one embarrassed. One who embarrassed a naked person, or embarrassed a blind person, or embarrassed a sleeping person is liable, but the sleeper who embarrassed is not liable. If a person fell from a roof and caused damage and embarrassed, he is liable for the damage but not liable for the embarrassment since is was said: “She reached out with her hand and grabbed him at his private parts;” one is not liable for embarrassment unless if was intended.

It was stated: “If two persons were holding a document and one said, it is mine but I had lost it; the other said, it is mine since I paid you. The document should be validated by its signatories, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, they should split.” Rabbi Eleazar said, it all depends on who is holding the signatures. Rav Ḥisda said, if this is true information, it follows Rabban Simeon.

MISHNAH: If a public way was passing through somebody’s field, he took it away and gave them [a road] to the side of his property, what he gave, he gave, but what he wanted for himself he did not get. A private way is four cubits wide, a public way sixteen cubits; a king’s highway has no limit; the way to the cemetary has no limit. The place for funeral orations, the judges of Sepphoris say an area of four qab. If somebody sells a plot to another to build a grave, or he contracts to build him a grave makes the cavity of the cavern four cubits by six and opens into it eight sepulchral chambers, three on each side and two at the back wall. The chambers are four cubits long, seven [handbreadths] high and six [handbreadths] wide. Rebbi Simeon says, he makes the cavity of the cavern six by eight [cubits] and opens into it thirteen sepulcral chambers, four on each side, three at the back wall, one to the right of the entrance and one to its left. In front of the cavern he excavates a courtyard of six by six [cubits] for the bier and its carriers. He opens into it two caverns, one at each side. Rebbi Simeon says four, each to each direction of the compass. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, all depends on the rock.

So far the son [inherits from] the father. The father from the son? Since the son only inherits by the father’s power, is it not logical that the father on whom the son depends inherit from him? The verse says, “close”; the closer relative has precedence.

Rebbi Hoshaia, when he received witnesses at Kallirhoë, used to say to them: you should know the importance of the testimony that comes from your mouths; how much rent money depends on your mouths. Rebbi Abuna said, if it is so, it is even a matter of criminal law. If somebody sleeps with a girl three years and one day old, he is stoned. The court decides to lengthen, if he sleeps with her he is not stoned. Rebbi Abun said, I am calling to Almighty God, to the God Who decides with me. If a girl is three years and one day old, if the court decides to lengthen her hymen does (not) repair itself, otherwise it does [not] repair itself.

The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve [the vow] for the first woman and she (remained) in her vow, she is whipped. Can the second he whipped? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi Yudan said, is this a stipulation of the court? Should not the second be treated as one who said, “a shall be a nezirah[after] thirty days”? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion, for he said, it depends on the collection.

HALAKHAH: “You raped or seduced my daughter,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Simeon [imply that] the main claim is for the fine, which is not so for the words of the Sages. Rebbi Illa said, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he claims the fine, shame and diminution; the words of the Sages if he claims shame, diminution, and fine. The rabbis say, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances three claims; the words of the Sages if he advances one claim. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, did you hear explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan, or from his word? Rebbi Yasa said, for he is of the rabbis’ opinion. Rebbi Mana said, even if he is of Rebbi Illa’s opinion, the words of Rebbi Simeon if he advances one claim; the words of the Sages if he advances three claims. “Not only matters for which he has to pay the capital, from where double payment, quadruple and quintuple payment, the rapist, and the seducer, and the calumniator? The verse says, everything about which one would swear falsely.” Is the calumniator’s not a fine? Rebbi Jeremiah says, this is Rebbi Simeon’s who said, all depends on the collection.

“Similarly, the orphans can collect only by an oath;” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One pays from an orphan’s property only if interest is due; Rebbi Nathan says, also a woman’s ketubah. Rebbi Mana said, because of her sustenance. Rebbi Mattania said, who is worried about sustenance? Rebbi Simeon! Since Rebbi Simeon said, all depends on the female. What about it? For attraction, that everybody should jump to marry her. Rebbi Nathan said, also for robbery and torts. Rebbi Yose said, we stated both of these. Robbery from the following: “If it was mortgageable, he has to pay.” For torts from the following: “One pays from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable.” So is the Mishnah: One pays for torts from minor orphans’ property only from the least valuable. But was it not stated, the son shall stand in the father’s place; one estimates torts from the most valuable land, creditors from average quality, and a woman’s ketubah from the least valuable? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it as everybody’s opinion about testamentary dispositions.

If one ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed, half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, half the volume of an olive after he was removed from office. Since [no] obligation of a sacrifice came in between, do they combine? Let us hear from the following: Before him were three [olive sized pieces]. He ate the first but did not realize it; the second (and the third) while he was oblivious of the first. He was informed of the first but was not informed of the second. [He ate] the third while oblivious of the second. Afterwards he was informed about all of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable for the first and the second but not liable for the third. Rebbi Yose said, the second depends on his intention. If he wishes, he atones for it with the first; if he wishes, he atones for it with the third. The colleagues compare it to four half-olives. If he was intelligent, he brings one sacrifice; otherwise, he brings two sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together; one for the third and fourth together. (Rebbi Yose compares it to full olive sizes. If he was intelligent, he brings two sacrifices; otherwise, he brings three sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together, and one for the third and fourth together.) If he brought for the middle ones, he is not liable for the first and the fourth. Rebbi Yose compares it to full olive sizes. If he was intelligent, he brings two sacrifices; otherwise, he brings three sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together, and one for the third and fourth together. If he brought for the middle ones, he is liable for the first separately and for the fourth separately.

The general rule in this matter is, therefore, that it depends upon the conclusion of the benediction.

Come and hear : From the latter clause [of the quoted Baraita] "The general rule in this matter is that it depends upon the conclusion of the benediction" — what does "the general rule in this matter" intend to include? Is it not to include what we have mentioned?

Likewise, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel does not contradict himself. In the case of the reading of the Shema', its validity depends on Kawwanah, and we testify that [the bridegroom] would not be able to concentrate his mind ; but here, if one saw [a man not working on the ninth of Ab] he would merely say "He has no work to do." Go out and see how many idle men there are in the street.

GEMARA Why are the reading of the Shema' and Tefillin different [from the others] ? Because they are commands the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class. Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals, being commands the observance of which does not depend upon a certain point of time, are obligatory upon women. That the reading of the Shema' [is not obligatory upon women] is self-evident, because it is a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class!

GEMARA Why are the reading of the Shema' and Tefillin different [from the others] ? Because they are commands the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class. Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals, being commands the observance of which does not depend upon a certain point of time, are obligatory upon women. That the reading of the Shema' [is not obligatory upon women] is self-evident, because it is a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class!

But they are under the obligation of Tefillah ; [obviously] because this is prayer! [not translated] But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "Evening and morning and at noonday" (Ps. lv. 18), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [the obligation is theirs].

And Grace after meals. This too is evident ! But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "When the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat and in the morning bread to the full" (Exod. xvi. 8), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [that it is obligatory].

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, Go, get thee down" (Exod. xxxii. 7). What means "Go, get thee down" ? R, Eleazar said : The Holy One, blessed be He, spake to Moses, "Moses, get thee down from thy greatness. Have I given thee greatness but for the sake of Israel? And now that Israel has sinned, what art thou to Me?" Immediately the strength of Moses was weakened, and he had not the power to speak. But when He said, "Let Me alone, that I may destroy them" (Deut. ix. 14), Moses said [to himself], "This matter depends upon me." He at once stood up and strengthened himself with prayer and besought mercy [for Israel].

A parable : [It may be likened] to a king who was enraged against his son, and he struck him a violent blow. His friend was sitting in his presence but was afraid to say anything to him. The king exclaimed, "Were it not that my friend were sitting in my presence, I would kill thee." [The friend] said [to himself], "This matter depends upon me." He at once stood up and rescued him.