diminishes

So also the blessed Diodorus, who says in the ‘ Book of the Dispensation V ‘A lasting reward, which is worthy of the justice of the Giver, is laid up for the good, in return for their labours; and torment for sinners, but not everlasting, that the immortality which is prepared for them may not be worthless. They must however be tormented for a short time, as they deserve, in proportion to the measure of their iniquity and wickedness, according to the amount of the wickedness of their deeds. This they will have to bear, that they suffer for a short time; but immortal and unending happiness is prepared for them. If it be then that the rewards of good deeds are as great (in proportion to them) as the times of the immortality which are prepared for them are longer than the times of the limited contests which take place in this world, the torments for many and great sins must be very much less than the greatness of mercy. So then it is not for the good only that the grace of the resurrection from the dead is intended, but also for the wicked; for the grace of God greatly honours the good, but chastises the wicked sparingly/ Again he says: ‘God pours out the wages of reward beyond the measure of the labours (wrought), and in the abundance of His goodness He lessens and diminishes the penalty of those who are to be tormented, and in His mercy He shortens and reduces the length of the time. But even thus He does not punish the whole time according to (the length of) the time of folly, seeing that He requites them far less than they deserve, just as He does the good beyond the measure and period (of their deserts); for the reward is everlasting. It has not been revealed whether the goodness of God wishes to punish without ceasing the blameworthy who have been found guilty of evil deeds (or not), as we have already said before.

But if punishment is to be weighed out according to sin, not even so would punishment be endless. For as regards that which is said in the Gospel, ‘These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal this word ‘ eternal ’ (IFdlam) is not definite: for if it be not so, how did Peter say to our Lord, ‘Thou shalt never wash my feet,’ and yet He washed him? And of Babylon He said, ‘ No man shall dwell therein for ever and ever,’ and behold many generations dwell therein. In the ‘ Book of Memorials ’ he says: ‘ I hold what the most celebrated of the holy Fathers say, that He cuts off a little from much. The penalty of Gehenna is a man’s mind; for the punishment there is of two kinds, that of the body and that of the mind. That of the body is perhaps in proportion to the degree of sin, and He lessens and diminishes its duration; but that of the mind is for ever, and the judgment is for ever.’ But in the New Testament le-dlam is not without end. To Him be glory and dominion and praise and exaltation and honour for ever and ever. Amen and Amen.

If one derived half a perutah's worth of benefit and impaired [the value of the used article] by another half a perutah, or if one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from one thing and diminished another thing by the value of a perutah, he had not committed sacrilege, until he benefits a perutah's worth and diminishes the value of a perutah of the same thing.

Rebbi Yoḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan went to make peace in the Southern settlements. They came to a place where they found the reader saying: “The great God, the strong and awe-inspiring, the noble and overpowering;” they stopped him and told him: you are not permitted to add to the formula the Sages coined for benedictions. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: (Job 37:23) “The All-powerful, we did not find for Him the fullness of His might,” we did not find out the might and strength of the Holy One, praise to Him! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: (Job 37:20) “Can it be told to Him if I should speak, if a man tells, he certainly will be swallowed up.” If a man comes to tell the strengths of the Holy One, praise to Him, he sets himself up to be swallowed away from the world. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said (Ps. 106:2) “Who can tell the strengths of the Eternal?” For example, I and my colleagues. Rebbi Abun said: “Who can ever tell the strengths of the Eternal?” Jacob of Kefar Naburaia explained in Tyre: (Ps. 65:2) “Silence is praise for You, God in Zion!” The medicine for everything is silence; like a priceless jewel: everyone who adorns himself with it, diminishes it.

“What is here on this side is profane ṭevel.” Why does he not say, what is here on this side is tithe? He would precede. Why does he not say, that on this side is heave? It would turn out that either he diminishes or increases the heave. Since he says, what is here on this side is profane ṭevel, whether he diminishes or increases the heave does not matter.

“What is here on this side is profane ṭevel.” Why does he not say, what is here on this side is tithe? He would precede. Why does he not say, that on this side is heave? It would turn out that either he diminishes or increases the heave. Since he says, what is here on this side is profane ṭevel, whether he diminishes or increases the heave does not matter.

HALAKHAH: “A predated prozbol is valid” because he diminishes its power, but “postdated it is invalid” because he increases its power. “Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid” because he increases their power, but “postdated they are valid” because he diminishes their power.

HALAKHAH: “A predated prozbol is valid” because he diminishes its power, but “postdated it is invalid” because he increases its power. “Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid” because he increases their power, but “postdated they are valid” because he diminishes their power.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

MISHNAH: One does not put a fig cake or figs into muries because he would destroy them but one may add wine to muries. One does not use olive oil as base for perfume but one may use wine as base for ὀινόμελι. One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes it; Rebbi Jehudah permits it because he improves it.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.

HALAKHAH: “If a window between two courtyards,” etc. Lattice work diminishes it for the laws of Sabbath, but it does not diminish for the laws of presumed possession. Straw and provender do not diminish in it; pebbles and provender do diminish in it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if grasses grew in it, they do not diminish it.

“You shall deprive yourselves. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers. From where to add ṭevel? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.] I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes} the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

MISHNAH: One does not sell public property to a private person because one diminishes its sanctity, the words of Rebbi Meïr. They said to him, if this be so, then not even from a large town to a small town.

HALAKHAH: The sacrifice of appearance is elevation offerings, but the festival sacrifice is well-being offerings. The House of Shammai are saying, one increases elevation offerings and diminishes well-being offerings. The House of Hillel are saying, one diminishes elevation offerings and increases well-being offerings. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The House of Shammai infer from the sacrifices [of Pentecost; the House of Hillel infer from the sacrifices] of the princes. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, is it not better to be instructed from a private offering about private offerings and not to be instructed from public offerings about a private offering? The House of Shammai said to them, it is better to be instructed by something applicable to the future; do not refer to the sacrifice of the princes which is not applicable to the future.

HALAKHAH: The sacrifice of appearance is elevation offerings, but the festival sacrifice is well-being offerings. The House of Shammai are saying, one increases elevation offerings and diminishes well-being offerings. The House of Hillel are saying, one diminishes elevation offerings and increases well-being offerings. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The House of Shammai infer from the sacrifices [of Pentecost; the House of Hillel infer from the sacrifices] of the princes. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, is it not better to be instructed from a private offering about private offerings and not to be instructed from public offerings about a private offering? The House of Shammai said to them, it is better to be instructed by something applicable to the future; do not refer to the sacrifice of the princes which is not applicable to the future.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted its end because of its beginning. Since if you would tell him that he may not finish he would not open. Let him not open! Then he diminishes the enjoyment of the holiday.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes for a virgin a contract of 200 [zuz] and she writes “I received 100 from you”, or for a widow a mina and she writes “I received 50 from you.” Rebbi Meïr says, anyone who diminishes [the ketubah] of a virgin below 200 or that of a widow below 100 is engaging in whoring copulation.

So is the Mishnah: And so those who provide for the orphan girl. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this means that one says to the overseers to take out a loan. For he explains it, if nothing is in the wallet one takes out a loan up to fifty. But if there is money in the wallet, one may add. Rebbi Yose said, this means that one does not say to the overseers to take out a loan. For he explains if there is money in the wallet. But if there is no money one diminishes. As the following, about a girl in the days of Rebbi Immi. He said, let it be held over for the holiday. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to him, you are causing a loss, but give everything, for the Lord of the holiday exists. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina holds with Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose with Rebbi Immi.

There, we have stated: “A judicial oath, for a claim of two silver pieces and a judicial acknowlegdment of a peruṭah. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolus, but the House of Hillel say, two obols.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolus. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, they say, “money” is a peruṭah, but here, they say that “money” is two obols. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The house of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said: “She leaves gratis, without silver.” Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, “without silver”? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus. So why is it not an obolus? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolus and leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left, and at the end of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolus, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah.

If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

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.

It was stated: In truth, they permitted for wine even though it diminishes it because it improves it. Rav Hoshaia when he heard this statement put his wine in the attic of the bath house. His wine became foul-smelling. He said, the Mishnah led me astray. But the Mishnah did not lead him astray; the smell of the bath house made his wine foulsmelling.

HALAKHAH: “A judicial oath,” etc. The claim, the House of Shammai say, an obolos, but the House of Hillel say, two oboloi. The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted. There, they say, “silver” is a denar, but here, they say that “silver” is an obolos. The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. There, they say that “money” is a peruṭah but here, they say that “money” is two oboloi. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The House of Shammai learn from the initial sale of a Hebrew girl. Since her initial sale was by [at least] a denar, so her preliminary marriage is by [at least] a denar. The House of Hillel learn from the end of her diminution. Since the end of her diminution is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? As it is said, she leaves gratis, without silver. Would we not know that it is without money? Why does the verse say, without silver? From there, that she is sold for more than silver. And what is more than silver? A denar. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: For if she wants to diminish, she diminishes every year by an obolos and leaves. Could she not diminish by a peruṭah? Rebbi Abun said, think of it. If she wanted to compute the diminution at the start of the sixth year, there would be a peruṭah left. But the start of the diminution must be an obolos, the end of the diminution a peruṭah. If there is only one peruṭah left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage should be a peruṭah! What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since her last diminished amount is a peruṭah, you know that her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah. Think of it, if there is only one peruṭah’s worth left, can she not pay the diminished amount and leave? Just as the last diminished amount is a peruṭah, so her preliminary marriage is by a peruṭah.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar. One says because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, it was not inverted, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.

So far if she checked and found herself dry. If she checked and found herself pure? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If she checked and found herself pure she is forbidden to her husband until her [blood’s] source dries up. One Rebbi Tobi said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, she is forbidden to her house for 24 hours. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, when I immigrated here, I heard from all rabbis that she is immediately permitted to her husband. They wanted to say that for him who says, she is permitted to her husband, this is a check which diminishes from 24 hours, but for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is not counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours. But even for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours. Why is she forbidden to her husband? Because she is used to pure blood, she might get used to impure blood.

So far if she checked and found herself dry. If she checked and found herself pure? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If she checked and found herself pure she is forbidden to her husband until her [blood’s] source dries up. One Rebbi Tobi said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, she is forbidden to her house for 24 hours. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, when I immigrated here, I heard from all rabbis that she is immediately permitted to her husband. They wanted to say that for him who says, she is permitted to her husband, this is a check which diminishes from 24 hours, but for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is not counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours. But even for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours. Why is she forbidden to her husband? Because she is used to pure blood, she might get used to impure blood.

So far if she checked and found herself dry. If she checked and found herself pure? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If she checked and found herself pure she is forbidden to her husband until her [blood’s] source dries up. One Rebbi Tobi said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, she is forbidden to her house for 24 hours. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, when I immigrated here, I heard from all rabbis that she is immediately permitted to her husband. They wanted to say that for him who says, she is permitted to her husband, this is a check which diminishes from 24 hours, but for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is not counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours. But even for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours. Why is she forbidden to her husband? Because she is used to pure blood, she might get used to impure blood.

If it was of clean terumah, he should not take it. R. Ammi and R. Assi disagree: One explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], while the other explains because he diminishes it

What is the practical difference between them? For instance in a case where he called it terumah except for its outer peel. According to the one who explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], the prohibition does apply. According to the one who explains, because he diminishes it, the prohibition does not apply.

If it was of second tithe in Jerusalem. According to him who explained: Because he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness], behold he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness]; according to him who explained because he diminishes it, behold he diminishes it

If it was of second tithe in Jerusalem. According to him who explained: Because he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness], behold he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness]; according to him who explained because he diminishes it, behold he diminishes it

And he also opened his mouth and expounded the passage, "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails planted are the words of the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd" (Eccles. xii. 11). Wherefore are the words of the Law likened to goads? It is to tell thee, that as a goad is what keeps the heifer in her furrows, so as to produce sustenance for the world, so the words of the Law keep the learners of them from the ways of death for the ways of life. If you say, that as a goad is what moves, so the words of the Law will move; no, for the teaching says "nails." If you say, that as a nail is a thing which diminishes and does not add, so the words of the Law diminish and do not add; no, for the teaching says "planted." As planting is a thing which is fruitful and multiplies, so too the words of the Law are fruitful and multiply. "Masters of assemblies." These are the disciples of wise men, who sit by companies and study in the Law, some declaring unclean and others declaring clean, some binding and others loosing, some disqualifying and others pronouncing ceremonially pure. Perhaps a man may say, How under those circumstances am I to learn the Law? The teaching says, All of them "are given from one shepherd." One God gave them, one pastor uttered them from the mouth of the Lord of all that is made, blessed be He, for it is written, "and God spake all these words" (Ex. xx. 1). Also do thou make thine ear as the upper millstone, and procure for thyself an understanding heart to hear the words of those who declare unclean and the words of those who declare clean, the words of those who bind and the words of those who loose, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who pronounce ceremonially pure. On the same occasion he said to them, It is not an orphan generation in the midst of which El'azar ben Azariah lives. And why did they not tell him without hesitation? It was on account of the matter that occurred. For there is a Baraitha, A matter occurred with regard to R. Jose, son of a Damascene woman, viz., that he went to visit R. El'azar in Lod. He said to him, What was there new in the College to day?