details

For since the king did not wish to add to its size he expended on the details the same sum of money which would have been required if the table could have been of larger dimensions.

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.

Now, that miraculous appearances have sometimes been witnessed by human beings, is related by the Greeks; and not only by those of them who might be suspected of composing fabulous narratives, but also by those who have given every evidence of being genuine philosophers, and of having related with perfect truth what had happened to them. Accounts of this kind we have read in the writings of Chrysippus of Soli, and also some things of the same kind relating to Pythagoras; as well as in some of the more recent writers who lived a very short time ago, as in the treatise of Plutarch of Chæronea “on the Soul,” and in the second book of the work of Numenius the Pythagorean on the “Incorruptibility of the Soul.” Now, when such accounts are related by the Greeks, and especially by the philosophers among them, they are not to be received with mockery and ridicule, nor to be regarded as fictions and fables; but when those who are devoted to the God of all things, and who endure all kinds of injury, even to death itself, rather than allow a falsehood to escape their lips regarding God, announce the appearances of angels which they have themselves witnessed, they are to be deemed unworthy of belief, and their words are not to be regarded as true! Now it is opposed to sound reason to judge in this way whether individuals are speaking truth or falsehood. For those who act honestly, only after a long and careful examination into the details of a subject, slowly and cautiously express their opinion of the veracity or falsehood of this or that person with regard to the marvels which they may relate; since it is the case that neither do all men show themselves worthy of belief, nor do all make it distinctly evident that they are relating to men only fictions and fables. Moreover, regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we have this remark to make, that it is not at all wonderful if, on such an occasion, either one or two angels should have appeared to announce that Jesus had risen from the dead, and to provide for the safety of those who believed in such an event to the advantage of their souls. Nor does it appear to me at all unreasonable, that those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and who manifest, as a fruit of their faith not to be lightly esteemed, their possession of a virtuous life, and their withdrawal from the flood of evils, should not be unattended by angels who lend their help in accomplishing their conversion to God.

On the present occasion, however, it is not our object to enter into an explanation of the subject of intelligent and sensible beings, nor of the manner in which the different kinds of days were allotted to both sorts, nor to investigate the details which belong to the subject, for we should need whole treatises for the exposition of the Mosaic cosmogony; and that work we had already performed, to the best of our ability, a considerable time before the commencement of this answer to Celsus, when we discussed with such measure of capacity as we then possessed the question of the Mosaic cosmogony of the six days. We must keep in mind, however, that the Word promises to the righteous through the mouth of Isaiah, that days will come when not the sun, but the Lord Himself, will be to them an everlasting light, and God will be their glory. And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some pestilent heresy which gave an erroneous interpretation to the words, “Let there be light,” as if they were the expression of a wish merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus made the remark: “The Creator did not borrow light from above, like those persons who kindle their lamps at those of their neighbours.” Misunderstanding, moreover, another impious heresy, he has said: “If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light?” So far are we from offering a defence of such puerilities, that we desire, on the contrary, distinctly to arraign the statements of these heretics as erroneous, and to undertake to refute, not those of their opinions with which we are unacquainted, as Celsus does, but those of which we have attained an accurate knowledge, derived in part from the statements of their own adherents, and partly from a careful perusal of their writings.

Afterwards he says: “If it were possible,” implying at the same time that he thought it most desirable, “that all the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and barbarians, all to the uttermost ends of the earth, were to come under one law;” but judging this quite impossible, he adds, “Any one who thinks this possible, knows nothing.” It would require careful consideration and lengthened argument to prove that it is not only possible, but that it will surely come to pass, that all who are endowed with reason shall come under one law. However, if we must refer to this subject, it will be with great brevity. The Stoics, indeed, hold that, when the strongest of the elements prevails, all things shall be turned into fire. But our belief is, that the Word shall prevail over the entire rational creation, and change every soul into His own perfection; in which state every one, by the mere exercise of his power, will choose what he desires, and obtain what he chooses. For although, in the diseases and wounds of the body, there are some which no medical skill can cure, yet we hold that in the mind there is no evil so strong that it may not be overcome by the Supreme Word and God. For stronger than all the evils in the soul is the Word, and the healing power that dwells in Him; and this healing He applies, according to the will of God, to every man. The consummation of all things is the destruction of evil, although as to the question whether it shall be so destroyed that it can never anywhere arise again, it is beyond our present purpose to say. Many things are said obscurely in the prophecies on the total destruction of evil, and the restoration to righteousness of every soul; but it will be enough for our present purpose to quote the following passage from Zephaniah: “Prepare and rise early; all the gleanings of their vineyards are destroyed. Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, on the day that I rise up for a testimony; for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kings, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, shall bring my offering. In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride; and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain. I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.” I leave it to those who are able, after a careful study of the whole subject, to unfold the meaning of this prophecy, and especially to inquire into the signification of the words, “When the whole earth is destroyed, there will be turned upon the peoples a language according to their race,” as things were before the confusion of tongues. Let them also carefully consider the promise, that all shall call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him with one consent; also that all contemptuous reproach shall be taken away, and there shall be no longer any injustice, or vain speech, or a deceitful tongue. And thus much it seemed needful for me to say briefly, and without entering into elaborate details, in answer to the remark of Celsus, that he considered any agreement between the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, as well Greeks as barbarians, was impossible. And perhaps such a result would indeed be impossible to those who are still in the body, but not to those who are released from it.

Whatever is more frequent than another takes precedence over that other; And whatever is more sacred than another takes precedence over that other. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed priest precedes that of the congregation in all its details.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

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

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal, a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune, detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard, not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

“also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”, “the Bet there” by ’’from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph.

Rebbi Jonah said, it is written: Therefore, I shall distribute to him in public, and with the powerful he shall have part in booty, that is Rebbi Aqiba who organized interpretation of Scripture, practice, and homiletics. But some say, this refers to the men of the Great Assembly, who organized principles and details.

How were the tablets written? Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel says, five on one tablet each. But the rabbis say, ten on each tablet, as it is written: He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words, ten on each tablet. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, twenty on each tablet, as it is written: He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words, twenty on each tablet. Rebbi Simai says, forty on each tablet, as it is written, on each side they were written, a square. Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, says: Between every two commandments, the details and the letters [of the Torah] were written. Filled with tarsis, like the Great Sea. When Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had occasion to discuss this verse, he said, Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, did teach us correctly. Just as in the sea there are small waves between a large wave and the next, so between any two commandments there are the details and the letters of the Torah.

How were the tablets written? Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel says, five on one tablet each. But the rabbis say, ten on each tablet, as it is written: He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words, ten on each tablet. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, twenty on each tablet, as it is written: He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words, twenty on each tablet. Rebbi Simai says, forty on each tablet, as it is written, on each side they were written, a square. Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, says: Between every two commandments, the details and the letters [of the Torah] were written. Filled with tarsis, like the Great Sea. When Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had occasion to discuss this verse, he said, Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, did teach us correctly. Just as in the sea there are small waves between a large wave and the next, so between any two commandments there are the details and the letters of the Torah.

There, we have stated: “Also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”; “the Bet there” by “from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph: Why water, dust, and writing? Water, from the place she came; dust, the place she goes to; writing, before Whom she will have to be accountable in the future.

How were the tablets written? Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel says, five on one tablet each. But the rabbis say, ten on each tablet, as it is written: “He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words”, ten on each tablet. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, twenty on each tablet, as it is written: “He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words”, twenty on each tablet. Rebbi Simai says, forty on each tablet, as it is written, “on each side they were written,” a square Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, says: Between every two commandments, the details and the letters [of the Torah] were written. “Filled with taršiš”, like the Great Sea. When Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had occasion to discuss this verse, he said, Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, did teach us correctly. Just as in the sea there are small waves between a large wave and the next, so between any two commandments there are the details and the letters of the Torah.

How were the tablets written? Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel says, five on one tablet each. But the rabbis say, ten on each tablet, as it is written: “He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words”, ten on each tablet. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, twenty on each tablet, as it is written: “He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words”, twenty on each tablet. Rebbi Simai says, forty on each tablet, as it is written, “on each side they were written,” a square Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, says: Between every two commandments, the details and the letters [of the Torah] were written. “Filled with taršiš”, like the Great Sea. When Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had occasion to discuss this verse, he said, Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, did teach us correctly. Just as in the sea there are small waves between a large wave and the next, so between any two commandments there are the details and the letters of the Torah.

You say that the father dissolves the husband’s part. If he wanted to confirm, he says, it is confirmed for you, without details, (it is confirmed for you, without details); the husband’s part is dissolved for you. The following is obvious: If the father did not dissolve his part and she violated her vow, she is whipped. If the father dissolved but the husband did not, would she be whipped? Or since if the husband died and his part became void in favor of the father, would she not be whipped? This follows him who said, death does not force [dissolution]. But following him who said, death does force dissolution, and here since he did not dissolve for her and she violated her vow, she is whipped. It was stated: If the father dissolved his part but the husband died before he could dissolve, the last husband dissolves the part of the first one. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Her father and her last husband dissolve her vows”.

You say that the father dissolves the husband’s part. If he wanted to confirm, he says, it is confirmed for you, without details, (it is confirmed for you, without details); the husband’s part is dissolved for you. The following is obvious: If the father did not dissolve his part and she violated her vow, she is whipped. If the father dissolved but the husband did not, would she be whipped? Or since if the husband died and his part became void in favor of the father, would she not be whipped? This follows him who said, death does not force [dissolution]. But following him who said, death does force dissolution, and here since he did not dissolve for her and she violated her vow, she is whipped. It was stated: If the father dissolved his part but the husband died before he could dissolve, the last husband dissolves the part of the first one. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Her father and her last husband dissolve her vows”.

Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. Also here: “Do not worship them,” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether [He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven.

Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. Also here: “Do not worship them,” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether [He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven.

But here, skins and seeds were understood in the principle, and were listed separately. Should they not be separate rather than common? But there, the principle is at one place and the details are at another place. But did not the colleagues say: It makes no difference: Whether he stated the principle and then a detail or the detail and after that the principle. And here, he stated the principle and then a detail. But did not Rebbi Yose say, there is no difference whether He gave principle, detail, and principle, it is the principle and then a detail, it is counted as the principle and then a detail. There, the detail was not necessary. Why were they detailed? To exclude leaves and twigs. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “From anything coming from the wine-vine, from skins to seeds, he shall not eat;” leaves and twigs are also understood. There, they are mentioned for a need, but here, they are mentioned without need. Why? For additions.

“If somebody gives money to another to buy produce with it for half the gain and one says, here you have a mina for I cannot be bothered with the details, that is forbidden. But if he saw that grain was going up in price, it is permitted.

General Antoninus asked Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai: The sum is deficient, the details are excessive. He told him, these 300 were firstborn of the priesthood; no holy one redeems a holy one.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal, a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune, detail. The sower and the pruner were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since the sower and the pruner are particular in that they perform work on the ground or on a tree, I have only what is work on the ground or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion they do not divide. But he holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, they are not for making inferences. There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow your field, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard, not in the Sabbatical. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. But is it not written that the Land shall rest as a repose for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

“Give me the wheat, and the barley,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah imply collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. How is this? A detail wheat, a detail barley, a detail spelt. Collectively one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Detail a third wheat, detail a third barley, detail a third spelt, are these taken together? Come and see; although he holds many details, even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. In which respect? To make him liable for sacrifices. If he held four kinds, two kinds in one detail, two kinds on two details. even so they can be formulated collectively or in detail. As Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything. What means “collectively”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “X divorces Y and Z U.” What means “collectively”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately that he needs the typical text and witnesses for each one separately. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit from this one; a qorban for this one and a qorban for that one.’ Each single one needs a separate opening.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.”

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

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

R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Yohanan: What is the meaning of what is written, And on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the Mount” (Deuteronomy 9:10)? It teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses the minute details of the Torah, and the minute details of the Scribes, and the innovations which would be introduced by the Scribes; and what are these? The reading of the Megillah.

R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Yohanan: What is the meaning of what is written, And on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the Mount” (Deuteronomy 9:10)? It teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses the minute details of the Torah, and the minute details of the Scribes, and the innovations which would be introduced by the Scribes; and what are these? The reading of the Megillah.

and the details afterwards in the Tabernacle of the Congregation. But R. Akiba said, General directions and details were alike given him on Sinai, and they were repeated in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and given for the third time in the plains of Moab. And if thou dost imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering," how should there be anything, which at the first did not need to be flayed and divided, but at the end did need to be flayed and divided? R. El'azar agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., In commenting on the passage, "continual burnt-offering, which was ordained in Mount Sinai" (Numb. xxviii. 6), R. El'azar says, Its ordinances were told in Mount Sinai, but it was not itself offered. R. Akiba says, It was offered and never ceased again. But how then am I to explain the passage, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?" (Amos v. 25) The explanation is that the tribe of Levi, which had not served idols, they offered them.

and the details afterwards in the Tabernacle of the Congregation. But R. Akiba said, General directions and details were alike given him on Sinai, and they were repeated in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and given for the third time in the plains of Moab. And if thou dost imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering," how should there be anything, which at the first did not need to be flayed and divided, but at the end did need to be flayed and divided? R. El'azar agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., In commenting on the passage, "continual burnt-offering, which was ordained in Mount Sinai" (Numb. xxviii. 6), R. El'azar says, Its ordinances were told in Mount Sinai, but it was not itself offered. R. Akiba says, It was offered and never ceased again. But how then am I to explain the passage, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?" (Amos v. 25) The explanation is that the tribe of Levi, which had not served idols, they offered them.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.