deposits

So he came to Apollonius, the governor of Syria and Phoenicia and Cilicia, and said, 'Being loyal to the king, I am here to inform you that in the treasuries of Jerusalem are stored many thousands of private deposits, not belonging to the temple account, and rightfully the property of King Seleucus.'

Apollonius having made inquiry into the details of the matter, praised Simon for his loyal service to the king, and hastening to the court of Seleucus, disclosed to him the valuable treasure; then, after receiving authority to deal with the matter, he promptly marched into our country, accompanied by the accursed Simon and a very powerful army, and announced that he was there by the king's command to take possession of the private deposits in the treasury.

Our people were deeply angered by this announcement, and protested strongly, considering it, an outrageous thing for those who had entrusted their deposits to the temple treasury to be robbed of them, and they threw all possible obstacles in his way.

I do not know, moreover, how Celsus could hear of the elephants’ [fidelity to] oaths, and of their great devotedness to our God, and of the knowledge which they possess of Him. For I know many wonderful things which are related of the nature of this animal, and of its gentle disposition. But I am not aware that any one has spoken of its observance of oaths; unless indeed to its gentle disposition, and its observance of compacts, so to speak, when once concluded between it and man, he give the name of keeping its oath, which statement also in itself is false. For although rarely, yet sometimes it has been recorded that, after their apparent tameness, they have broken out against men in the most savage manner, and have committed murder, and have been on that account condemned to death, because no longer of any use. And seeing that after this, in order to establish (as he thinks he does) that the stork is more pious than any human being, he adduces the accounts which are narrated regarding that creature’s display of filial affection in bringing food to its parents for their support, we have to say in reply, that this is done by the storks, not from a regard to what is proper, nor from reflection, but from a natural instinct; the nature which formed them being desirous to show an instance among the irrational animals which might put men to shame, in the matter of exhibiting their gratitude to their parents. And if Celsus had known how great the difference is between acting in this way from reason, and from an irrational natural impulse, he would not have said that storks are more pious than human beings. But further, Celsus, as still contending for the piety of the irrational creation, quotes the instance of the Arabian bird the phœnix, which after many years repairs to Egypt, and bears thither its parent, when dead and buried in a ball of myrrh, and deposits its body in the Temple of the Sun. Now this story is indeed recorded, and, if it be true, it is possible that it may occur in consequence of some provision of nature; divine providence freely displaying to human beings, by the differences which exist among living things, the variety of constitution which prevails in the world, and which extends even to birds, and in harmony with which He has brought into existence one creature, the only one of its kind, in order that by it men may be led to admire, not the creature, but Him who created it.

A man may deposit in his field three dung-heaps for every bet seah [and even] more, the words of Rabbi Shimon. The sages forbid unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. A man may pile up all the manure into one [large] store. Rabbi Meir forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. If he had just a little, he may constantly add to it. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above or until he places them on a rock.

A man may deposit in his field three dung-heaps for every bet seah [and even] more, the words of Rabbi Shimon. The sages forbid unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. A man may pile up all the manure into one [large] store. Rabbi Meir forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. If he had just a little, he may constantly add to it. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above or until he places them on a rock.

A man may deposit in his field three dung-heaps for every bet seah [and even] more, the words of Rabbi Shimon. The sages forbid unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. A man may pile up all the manure into one [large] store. Rabbi Meir forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. If he had just a little, he may constantly add to it. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above or until he places them on a rock.

While the basket was still on his shoulder he recites from: "I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us” (Deuteronomy 26:3) until he completes the passage. Rabbi Judah said: until [he reaches] “My father was a fugitive Aramean” (v.. When he reaches, “My father was a fugitive Aramean”, he takes the basket off his shoulder and holds it by its edges, and the priest places his hand beneath it and waves it. He then recites from “My father was a fugitive Aramean” until he completes the entire passage. He then deposits the basket by the side of the altar, bow and depart.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He who waters his field before a poor person had entered it, if his potential loss is greater than the poor man’s, it is permitted, but if the poor man’s loss is greater than his, it is prohibited. Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases he deposits them on the fence and the poor man comes and takes what is his.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Half a bunch of grapes are dropped berries. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Half a bunch of grapes or an entire bunch are dropped berries. But did we not state: “Two berries are dropped berries?” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: If he cuts and deposits them under the vine.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that Rebbi Jehudah changed his opinion. There he says, in both cases he takes them, deposits them on the fence and the poor comes and takes what is his; but here he says so! Because he squeezees them, they will produce more the next year. I should say also here, because he fertilizes it, it will produce more the next year. He said to him, it happens frequently that he will sow vegetables and shelter them from the poor.

Rebbi Taypha the Red in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect. How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave. You believe a Samaritan that he gave and you do not believe that he took. Rebbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haäreẓ should not be trusted. If he says, X took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

Rebbi Taypha the Red in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect. How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave. You believe a Samaritan that he gave and you do not believe that he took. Rebbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haäreẓ should not be trusted. If he says, X took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

MISHNAH: The Sabbatical remits any loan, with or without a document. Store credit is not remitted; if it is transformed into a loan it is remitted. Rebbi Jehudah says, any preceding one is remitted. Wages of a hired hand are not remitted; if they are transformed into a loan they are remitted; Rebbi Yose says, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted; if it does not stop they are not remitted. If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day, if the month was long it is subject to remission, otherwise it is not subject to remission. The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator, and all court documents are not subject to remission. If somebody gives loans on pledge, or deposits his documents with the court, they are not subject to remission.

MISHNAH: If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine, Rebbi Meїr forbids and Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs. If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell of cumin.

All categories of work they learned from the Tabernacle. What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout. There, we have stated: “Two green melon seeds make liable, two squash seeds, two Egyptian bean seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten. For everything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing: One who digs, who cuts, who inserts, who deposits dung, who hoes, who fertilizes, who sweeps, who sprinkles, who splits blocks, who clears forests, who sets fire to reed thickets or palm swamps, and following Rebbi Zeˋira a water canal prepares its banks for sowing, who removes stones, who builds terraces, who fills the rifts under olive trees, and who makes depressions for vines, and for anything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing.

It is written, hear this all nations, listen all who dwell like moles. Rebbi Aha said, Rebbi Abbahu and the rabbis. One said, why does he compare all creatures to a mole? Only because everything that exists on dry land exists in the sea, but there are many species in the sea which are not on land, and there is no mole in the sea. But the other said, why does he compare all creatures to a mole? Like this mole which drags and deposits and does not know for whom it deposits, so are the creatures, they always drag and collect and do not know for whom they collect; he piles up and does not know for whom he assembled it.

It is written, hear this all nations, listen all who dwell like moles. Rebbi Aha said, Rebbi Abbahu and the rabbis. One said, why does he compare all creatures to a mole? Only because everything that exists on dry land exists in the sea, but there are many species in the sea which are not on land, and there is no mole in the sea. But the other said, why does he compare all creatures to a mole? Like this mole which drags and deposits and does not know for whom it deposits, so are the creatures, they always drag and collect and do not know for whom they collect; he piles up and does not know for whom he assembled it.

Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it.

A town which was destroyed. Rebbi Eleazar says, he walks its entirety and outside 2’000 cubits. Samuel says, he only has 2’000 cubits [from] the place of his eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rab: If somebody deposits his eruv in a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral he walks its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits. Are a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral not as if houses and apartments were destroyed?

MISHNAH: If one deposits his eruv in a porter’s lodge, a porch, or a balcony, it is no eruv and any person who might dwell there does not forbid him. In a storage room for straw, in a cowshed, in a storage room for wood, or a general storage area, it is an eruv and any person who might dwell there does forbid him. Rebbi Jehusah says, if the householder retains rights of use he does not forbid him.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, to make a procession on the occasion. Rebbi said, could not the Cohen who was removing the ashes from the interior altar himself clean the candelabra? But to make a procession on the occasion. There, we have stated: “He deposits the flask on the second step and leaves;” “he takes the flask from the second step and leaves.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, why does he enter twice for incense? Only to make a procession on the occasion. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is a biblical command: in the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He could enter to clean and to burn incense.

HALAKHAH: “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow”, etc. “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her.” I would say, that was his intention from the start. “If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court”, because two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third. There, we have stated: “If somebody deposits fruit with another person, that one should not touch it even if it spoils. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of a court because one is obliged to return a find to its owners.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. What does one do with the money? Rav Jehudah said, the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ṭarphon. It is a condition that the members of the court cannot buy. Rebbi Aqiba said, Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Sabbatai asked: Here, you say, “if she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” and here, you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there, the buy could be in thirds, but here, two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third.

Does a court convene for repudiation? Was it not stated: Flee from three and cling to three. Cling to ḥalîṣah, annulling vows, and making peace. But flee from repudiations, from being a guarantor, and from receiving deposits. Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said, its name is not פקדון “deposit” but פק דון “go to court”. Rebbi Berekhiah said, “My son, if you became guanrantor for your neighbor.” Does a court convene for repudiation? Explain it that they were sitting in another matter and the case came before them.

HALAKHAH: “Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’,” etc. It was stated: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband. If one accepted from a slave, he should return it to him; if he died, he should return it to his master. From an underage child, he should return it to him, if he died he should return it to his father, and make it a safe investment. If any of these said at the moment of their death, it should be given to X because it is his property, one should follow his interpretation.” Rebbi Zebida in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Only before witnesses. As the following: When Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana’s wife was dying, she said, these rings belong to my daughter. But he said no, they are mine. The case came before Rav who said, people are not given to lying at the time of their death.

HALAKHAH: “One does not buy from shepherds,” etc. It was stated: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband.”

HALAKHAH: “One who found book-scrolls,” etc. It was stated: “One who found book-scrolls reads in them once every thirty days; if he is illiterate he rolls them up. He should not read a paragraph and repeat it, nor should he read a paragraph and translate it, nor should he open more than three pages, nor should three persons read from the same tome. When has this been said? For new ones. But for old ones twelve months. Silver vessels he may use cold but not hot because it blackens them. Brass vessels he may use hot but not on the fire because it diminishes them. Rakes and axes he may use on soft material but not on hard. With a rake he may receive mortar, wash it, and put it back in its place. With an ax he may split wood, but not stone-palm or olive wood. What has been said about a find is valid equally for deposits. If one deposits a garment with another person, he has to shake it out once every thirty days. If it is much work, he can collect his expenses from it.

HALAKHAH: “One who found book-scrolls,” etc. It was stated: “One who found book-scrolls reads in them once every thirty days; if he is illiterate he rolls them up. He should not read a paragraph and repeat it, nor should he read a paragraph and translate it, nor should he open more than three pages, nor should three persons read from the same tome. When has this been said? For new ones. But for old ones twelve months. Silver vessels he may use cold but not hot because it blackens them. Brass vessels he may use hot but not on the fire because it diminishes them. Rakes and axes he may use on soft material but not on hard. With a rake he may receive mortar, wash it, and put it back in its place. With an ax he may split wood, but not stone-palm or olive wood. What has been said about a find is valid equally for deposits. If one deposits a garment with another person, he has to shake it out once every thirty days. If it is much work, he can collect his expenses from it.

MISHNAH: If somebody deposits produce with another person, even if it is becoming unusable he should not touch it. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of the court as returning lost property to its owner.

HALAKHAH: If somebody deposits produce with another person,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu said, if you would say that he should not touch them even if they are going to spoil, he will invent situations. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. For example, Rebbi Joḥanan from Ḥaqoq deposited with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya a saddle bag full of leavened material. He came to ask Rebbi, who said it should be sold under the surpervision of the court when it would have to be destroyed. A person deposited with Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi an amphora full of kutaḥ. He came to ask Rav, who said it should be sold under the surpervision of the court when otherwise it would have to be destroyed.

MISHNAH: If somebody deposits produce with another person, the latter returns it deducting losses, for wheat and rice 9/2 qab per kor, for barley and millet nine qab per kor, for spelt and linseed three se‘ah per kor; everything proportional to quantity and time elapsed. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, do the rats care, do they not eat from much as from little? But he only deducts what corresponds to one kor. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was a large quantity, he does not deduct because of the surplus. He deducts one sixth of wine; Rebbi Jehudah says a fifth. He deducts three log of oil per hundred, a log and a half lees, a log and a half absorption. If it was refined oil, he does not deduct lees; if the vessels were old, he does not deduct absorption. Rebbi Jehudah says, also if somebody sells refined oil during the entire year, [the buyer] accepts a log and a half lees per hundred.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits produce with another person,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, they stated this at harvest time. There, they say that these evil rats, if they see plenty of produce, call their friends and eat with them; Rebbi Joḥanan said, they waste, they squander.

MISHNAH: If somebody deposits an amphora with another person without insisting on a separate place, when it was moved and broke in his hand, if [the moving] was for his needs, he is liable; for its needs he is not liable. If it broke after it was put down, whether it was for his or its needs, he is not liable. If its owner insisted on a separate place but it was moved and broke, whether in his hand or after it was put down, for his needs he is liable, for its needs he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits an amphora with another person,” etc. Did not Rebbi Eleazar say, to what can the situation be compared? One who steals an amphora from another person’s wine cellar. Even if the owner does not realize the theft, it is necessary that he know of its return. He said, there is a difference because [the trustee] has authority over it. Rebbi Eleazar said, some say because the trustee has authority over it. What means “for its needs”? If the owner insisted on a specified place, at another place, whether it is for his needs or its needs, he is (not) liable. There are those who say that the trustee is not authorized; there is no difference whether at this place or at another place; for his needs he is liable, for its needs he is not liable.

MISHNAH: If somebody deposits coins with another person who binds them together and carries them on his back or gives them to his underage son or daughter, or locks them insufficiently, he is liable because he did not take care the way people take care. But if he took care the way people take care, he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits coins with another person,” etc. Rebbi Yose said: One understands from this that in case a man gave plyṭvryn to another in the market place and that one handed it over to his underage son or daughter, if they were stolen or lost he is not liable since I say that nobody is in the market place because of plyṭvryn.

MISHNAH: “If somebody deposits coins with a money changer, if they are tied together, he may not use them, if loose, he may use them. With a householder, whether tied together or loose he may not use them. The storekeeper is like a householder, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, like a money changer.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits coins with a money changer,” etc. Rav Huna said that Rebbi Jeremiah asked how? Tied under seal or tied together without seal. If you say under seal, without seal he may. If you say without seal, so much more under seal.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative liable for an oath about testimony formulated by himself? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by himself for an oath about testimony only from oaths about deposits, and since there relatives are liable, so they also are here? Rebbi Yose said, can relatives here be inferred from relatives there?

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me,” etc. From where that this only refers to monetary claims? Rebbi Eliezer said, it uses here “or” and it uses “or” with a deposit. Since the “or” used with a deposit only refers to monetary claims, also the “or” used here only refers to monetary claims. The “or” of the homicide will disprove since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath from “or” accompanied by an oath; the “or” of the homicide cannot disprove since they are not accompanied by an oath. The “or” of the deviant woman will disprove since they are accompanied by an oath and do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath not accompanied by a Cohen from similar “or”; the “or” of the deviant woman cannot disprove since they are accompanied by a Cohen. The “or” of blurting lips will disprove since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” where He made intent equal to error from similar “or”; the “or” of blurting lips cannot disprove since there He did not make intent equal to error. Rebbi Aqiba says, for some of these one is liable, for some one is not liable. For monetary claims one is liable; for non-monetary claims one is not liable. Rebbi Simeon says, He made liable here and he made liable for a deposit. Since deposits only refer to monetary claims, so here also it only refers to monetary claims.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative not liable for an oath about deposits formulated by others? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by others for an oath about deposits only from oaths about testimony, and since there relatives are not liable, so they neither are here? Rebbi Yose said, relatives here can be inferred from non-relatives there.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a relative not liable for an oath about deposits formulated by others? Can we hear it from the following: since they inferred formulation by others for an oath about deposits only from oaths about testimony, and since there relatives are not liable, so they neither are here? Rebbi Yose said, relatives here can be inferred from non-relatives there.

HALAKHAH: “About the following one does not swear,” etc. If he transgressed and swore, Rebbi Joḥanan said he brings a sacrifice for the oath; Rebbi Eleazar says, he does not bring. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, so does Rebbi Johanan answer Rebbi Eleazar. No. If you pronounced about an oath about testimony which may apply to slaves, documents, and real estate, what can you say about oaths concerning deposits which do not apply to slaves, documents, and real estate? But an oath for testimony is not in court. Would the court admit an oath of a suspect person? Only when he transgressed and swore, you say that he brings a sacrifice for his oath; here also if he transgressed and swore, you say that he brings a sacrifice for his oath.

MISHNAH: And if the opposing party was suspect of perjury, how? Equally oaths about testimony, or oaths about deposits, or even vain oaths, if one of them was a dice-player, a lender on interest, a participant in pigeon contests, or a dealer in sabbatical produce, the opposing party swears and collects. If both of them were suspect, the oath returns to its place, the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Meїr says, they shall split.