doesnt

Jesus said, "Whoever has something in hand will be given more, but whoever doesn't have anything will lose even what little they do have."

Jesus said, "Whoever doesn't hate their father and mother can't become my disciple, and whoever doesn't hate their brothers and sisters and take up their cross like I do isn't worthy of me."

Jesus said, "Whoever doesn't hate their father and mother can't become my disciple, and whoever doesn't hate their brothers and sisters and take up their cross like I do isn't worthy of me."

Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom can be compared to a merchant with merchandise who found a pearl. The merchant was wise; they sold their merchandise and bought that single pearl for themselves. "You, too, look for the treasure that doesn't perish but endures, where no moths come to eat and no worms destroy."

"Whoever doesn't hate their [father] and mother as I do can't become my [disciple], and whoever [doesn't] love their [father] and mother as I do can't become my [disciple]. For my mother […], but [my] true [Mother] gave me Life."

"Whoever doesn't hate their [father] and mother as I do can't become my [disciple], and whoever [doesn't] love their [father] and mother as I do can't become my [disciple]. For my mother […], but [my] true [Mother] gave me Life."

Jesus said, "How awful for the Pharisees who are like a dog sleeping in a feeding trough for cattle, because the dog doesn't eat, and [doesn't let] the cattle eat either."

Jesus said, "How awful for the Pharisees who are like a dog sleeping in a feeding trough for cattle, because the dog doesn't eat, and [doesn't let] the cattle eat either."

Jesus said, "The heavens and the earth will roll up in front of you, and whoever lives from the Living One won't see death." Doesn't Jesus say, "Whoever finds themselves, of them the world isn't worthy"?

A Hebrew creates a Hebrew, and [those] of this kind are called "a proselyte." But a [proselyte] doesn't create (another) proselyte. They're like […] and they create others […] it's good enough for them that they come into being.

The slave seeks only freedom; they don't seek their master's property. But the son isn't just a son; he claims his father's inheritance for himself. Those who inherit the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who inherit the living are themselves alive, and they inherit (both) the living and the dead. The dead can't inherit anything, because how can the dead inherit? If the dead inherits the living they won't die, but the dead will live even more! A gentile doesn't die, because they've never lived in order that they may die. Whoever has believed in the Truth has lived, and is at risk of dying, because they're alive since the day Christ came. The world is created, the cities gentrified, and the dead carried out.

Those who sow in the winter reap in the summer. The winter is the world, the summer the other age. Let's sow in the world so that we may reap in the summer. Because of this, it's not right for us to pray in the winter. The summer follows the winter. But if someone reaps in the winter they won't reap, but uproot, as this kind won't produce fruit […] it doesn't just come out […] but in the other Sabbath […] it's fruitless.

The names that are given to those who are worldly are very deceptive, because they turn the heart away from what's right to what's not right, and someone who hears "God" doesn't think of what's right but thinks of what's not right. So also with "the Father," "the Son," "the Holy Spirit," "the life," "the light," "the resurrection," "the church," and all the others – they don't think of [what's right] but think of what's [not] right, [unless] they've learned what's right. The [names that were heard] exist in the world […] [deceive. If they existed] in the (eternal) age they wouldn't have been used as names in the world, nor would they have been placed among worldly things. They have an end in the (eternal) age.

Those who say that the Lord died first and then arose are wrong, because he arose first and (then) he died. Anyone who doesn't first acquire the resurrection won't die. As God lives, that one would /die\!

Some are afraid that they'll arise naked. So they want to arise in the flesh, and [they] don't know that those who wear the [flesh] are naked. Those […] to strip themselves naked [are] not naked. "Flesh [and blood won't] inherit [God's] kingdom." What is it that won't inherit? That which is on us. But what is it, too, that will inherit? It is Jesus' (flesh) and blood. Because of this, he said, "Whoever doesn't eat my flesh and drink my blood doesn't have life in them." What's his flesh? It's the Word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. Whoever has received these have food, drink, and clothing.

Some are afraid that they'll arise naked. So they want to arise in the flesh, and [they] don't know that those who wear the [flesh] are naked. Those […] to strip themselves naked [are] not naked. "Flesh [and blood won't] inherit [God's] kingdom." What is it that won't inherit? That which is on us. But what is it, too, that will inherit? It is Jesus' (flesh) and blood. Because of this, he said, "Whoever doesn't eat my flesh and drink my blood doesn't have life in them." What's his flesh? It's the Word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. Whoever has received these have food, drink, and clothing.

The apostles said to the disciples, "May our entire offering acquire salt." They called […] "salt." Without it, the offering doesn't [become] acceptable. But Wisdom [is] childless; because of this [she's] called […], this of salt, the place they'll […] in their own way. The Holy Spirit […] […] many children.

Faith receives; love gives. [No one will be able to] [receive] without faith, and no one will be able to give without love. So we believe in order that we may receive, but we give in order that we may love, since anyone who doesn't give with love doesn't get anything out of it. Whoever hasn't received the Lord is still a Hebrew.

Faith receives; love gives. [No one will be able to] [receive] without faith, and no one will be able to give without love. So we believe in order that we may receive, but we give in order that we may love, since anyone who doesn't give with love doesn't get anything out of it. Whoever hasn't received the Lord is still a Hebrew.

A pearl doesn't become less valuable if it's cast down into the mud, nor will it become more valuable if it's anointed with balsam; but it's valuable to its owner all the time. That's what it's like with God's children: no matter where they are, they're still valuable to their Father.

If someone goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says, "I'm a Christian," they've borrowed the name at interest. But if they receive the Holy Spirit, they have the gift of the name. Whoever has received a gift doesn't have it taken away, but whoever has borrowed it at interest has to give it back. That's what it's like when someone comes into being in a mystery.

Truth didn't come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. It (the world) won't receive it in any other way. There's a rebirth, and an image of rebirth. It's truly necessary to be begotten again through the image. What's the resurrection and the image? Through the image it's necessary for it to arise. The bridal chamber and the image? Through the image it's necessary for them to enter the truth, which is the restoration. It's not only necessary for those who acquire the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but they too have been acquired for you. If someone doesn't acquire them, the name will also be taken from them. But they're received in the chrism of the […] of the power of the cross. The apostles called this "[the] right and the left," because this person is no longer a [Christian], but a Christ.

Whoever knows the truth is a free person, and the free person doesn't sin, because "whoever sins is the slave of sin." Truth is the Mother, but knowledge is the joining. Those who aren't given to sin are called "free" by the world. These who aren't given to sin are made proud by the knowledge of the truth. That's what makes them free and exalts them over everything. But "love builds up," and whoever has been made free through knowledge is a slave because of love for those who aren't yet able to attain [the] freedom of knowledge, [but] knowledge makes them able [to] become free. Love […] anything its own […] it […] its own. It never [says "…"] or "this is mine," [but "…] are yours." Spiritual love is wine with fragrance. All those who will anoint themselves with it enjoy it. While those who are anointed stay around, those who are nearby also enjoy it. If those who are anointed with ointment leave them and go, those who aren't anointed but are only nearby remain in their stench. The Samaritan didn't give anything to the wounded man except wine with oil. It wasn't anything but the ointment, and it healed the wounds, because "love covers a multitude of sins."

If anyone becomes a child of the bridal chamber, they'll receive the light. If anyone doesn't receive it while they're here, they won't be able to receive it in the other place. Whoever will receive that light won't be seen or bound, and no one will be able to trouble someone like this even while they dwell in the world. Moreover, when they leave the world, they've already received the Truth in the images. The world has become the (eternal) ages, because the (eternal) age is the fullness for them, and it's like this: it's revealed to them alone. It's not hidden in the darkness and the night, but it's hidden in a perfect day and a holy light.

The Savior said, "Sin doesn't exist, but you're the ones who make sin when you act in accordance with the nature of adultery, which is called 'sin.' That's why the Good came among you, up to the things of every nature in order to restore it within its root."

Now when Jesus heard this, he laughed. He said to them, "Why are you wondering in your hearts about the strong and holy generation? Truly I say to you, no one born [of] this realm will see that [generation], no army of angels from the stars will rule over it, and no person of mortal birth will be able to join it, because that generation doesn't come from […] that has become […] the generation of the people among [them] is from the generation of the great people […] the powerful authorities who […] nor the powers […] those by which you rule."

Judas said, "Master, surely my seed doesn't dominate the rulers, does it?"

If a boy the age of nine years and one day had relations with his yevamah, he acquires her thereby; But he cannot divorce her until he is of majority age. He contracts uncleanness through intercourse with a menstruant so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood. But he doesn't give her the right to eat terumah. He renders a beast invalid for the altar, and it is stoned on his account. If he had intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah, she is to be executed on his account, but he is exempt from punishment.

If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.

If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.

If the lower sign appears before the upper sign, she can perform halitzah or yibbum. If the upper sign appears before the lower sign, even though this is impossible: Rabbi Meir says: she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. And the sages say: she can perform halitzah or yibbum. For they have said: it is possible for the lower sign to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign.

If a woman regularly observed [menstrual blood] on the fifteenth of the month, and then she changed and observed it on the twentieth both become prohibited. If she changed twice and observed it on the twentieth both [are still] prohibited. If she changed it three times to observe it on the twentieth then the fifteenth becomes permitted and the twentieth is set [as her regular day], for a woman does not establish a regular cycle until she sets it three times, and she doesn't lose her regular cycle until she is free from it three times.

There are seven ways in which a zav is examined as long as he had not become subject to zivah: With regard to food, drink, as [to what] he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been ill, what he had seen, or what he had thought. [It doesn't matter] whether he had thoughts before seeing [a woman], or whether he had seen [a woman] before his thoughts. Rabbi Judah says: even if he had watched beasts, wild animals or birds having intercourse with each other, and even when he had seen a woman's dyed garments. Rabbi Akiva says: even if he had eaten any kind of food, be it good or bad, or had drunk any kind of liquid. They said to him: Then there will be no zavim in the world!’ He replied to them: you are not held responsible for the existence of zavim!’ Once he had become subject to zivah, no further examination takes place. [Zov] resulting from an accident, or that was at all doubtful, or an issue of semen, these are unclean, since there are grounds for the assumption [that it is zivah]. If he had at a first [issue] they examine him; On the second [issue] they examine him, but on the third [issue] they don't examine him. Rabbi Eliezer says: even on the third [issue] they examine him because of the sacrifice.

The nail shaped knob on the back of the loaf, or the small globule of salt, or the burnt crust less than a finger's breadth: Rabbi Yose says: whatever is eaten with the loaf becomes unclean [when touched by the tevul yom]. And one doesn't need to say, this is so [when touched] by other unclean things.

From the Torah if it is majority of one's hair and he does mind it, it interposes but if he doesn't mind it does not interpose. But they decreed concerning a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind, and [they also decreed] concerning a case where it is a minority and he does mind it on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind.

From the Torah if it is majority of one's hair and he does mind it, it interposes but if he doesn't mind it does not interpose. But they decreed concerning a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind, and [they also decreed] concerning a case where it is a minority and he does mind it on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind.

Let us also decree concerning a case where it is not a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is not a majority and he does mind, or on account of a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind.

Let us also decree concerning a case where it is not a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is not a majority and he does mind, or on account of a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind.

But doesn't Bet Hillel agree with the statement of Rav Judah in the name of Rav for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If a man made [tzitzit] from the hanging web or woof, or sewing threads, they are invalid; but if he made them from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are valid.

And what about the rabbis? Like a normal dwelling place. Just as in a normal if he wants to eat he eats, and if he doesn't want to eat he doesn't eat, so too with the Sukkah; if he wants he eats, and if he does not want he does not eat.

And what about the rabbis? Like a normal dwelling place. Just as in a normal if he wants to eat he eats, and if he doesn't want to eat he doesn't eat, so too with the Sukkah; if he wants he eats, and if he does not want he does not eat.

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

And he doesn't require beauty? And isn't it taught, "We only bind the Lulav with its species; the words of Rabbi Yehudah [presumably because it looks nice]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

If he doesn't find the four species, he would be sitting and doing nothing while the Torah said, "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days"-- implying a Sukkah of whatever material. And so with Ezra it says, "Go forth to the mountain, and bring olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches and palm-branches, and branches of thick trees to make Sukkoth, as it is written" (Nehemiah 8:15).

GEMARA. What happens if he doesn't want to give it to him as a gift? R. Huna said: He should include the price of the etrog in that of the lulav. But why should he not pay him directly?

If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn't understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

Has it not been said, he says to his fellow, [I will lend] on condition that you have no refund of a fraud. Rav says, he does have a refund and Shmuel says he doesn't have a refund.

A Tanna taught, 'A loan to his fellow without any conditions, he may not demand it back less than thirty days.' Rava b. Bar Chana explained in the presence of Rav here it refers to a written loan because a person doesn't bother to write a loan for less than thirty days but not a verbal loan. Rav said to him, my beloved uncle has said [elsewhere], 'a written loan and a verbal loan [are equivalent]'

What [can be derived] from the common characteristic of the sins, that is a penalty. This isn't a question, because Rebbi Yehuda doesn't hold like Rebbi Akiva [who says that false witnesses is penalty].

Rather what [can be derived] from the common characteristic of the sins that possesses a stringency? Rebbi Yehuda doesn't consider a stringency to be a question.

GEMARA: From ever do we know these words [that witnesses need to be personally disqualified to become zomemim]? Rav Ada says, The Torah says, (Deuteronomy 19: 18) "And behold, a false witness, he has testified falsely", [we derive that they doesn't become zomemim] until the body of the testimony [the witnesses themselves] get contradicted.

Illah and Tuvia were relatives of the guarantor. Rav Papa had thought to say, [They should be valid witnesses because] regarding the creditor and the borrower they are unrelated. Rab Huna brei dRav Yehushua said to Rav Papa, If the borrower doesn't have [the funds] won't the creditor go to the guarantor?

Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rava: "Is every case where it's written 'when (asher)' an optional action? From this [reasoning], 'When (asher) anyone has become impure fails to purify himself [they will be cut off from their people]' (Numbers 19:20)—if he wants to [touch a corpse], he can be impure, and if he doesn't want to he isn't impure; and a mitzvah corpse (of an unknown stranger) where it is not possible that [the finder] would become impure—would he be exempt [from the penalty of entering the Sanctuary while impure]?"

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound

Rava said to him: And is it not a kal vahomer (logical inference from a light to serious case)!? [This kal vahomer will show that your argument doesn't work]. Just as [in the case of] a downward motion an Israelite would be exiled, exile should be enough for a resident foreigner too; then [in the case of] an upward motion, an Israelite is an exempt, should [the resident foreigner really] be killed?!

And Rebbi Elezar also said, a city that has no elders does not provide protection because we need "elders of the city", and they are lacking. It was said, a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It provides protection. And one says, It does not provide protection. According to the opinion that it doesn't provide protection, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it does provide protection, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And [what is] Rebbi Yehudah['s reason]? The Torah says elsewhere (Numbers 35, 32) "to dwell in the dwellings of the land until the death of the priest etc.". And [what does] the other opinion [do with this verse]? From the fact that it doesn't say "high", it must be referring to one of [the three already mentioned].

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav, A curse of a sage even if in vain will be fulfilled. From where [is this derived]? From Achitofel. That at the time when Dovid was digging the foundation [for the beis hamikdash], the [water of the] deeps rose up and threatened to destroy the world. [Dovid] asked, Is it permissible to write [God's] name on a shard and throw it into the deeps in order that [the water] should remain in its place? There was no one who said anything to him. [Dovid] said, Whoever knows this matter and doesn't speak shall strangle by their throat.

GEMARA: What is the reason [that he doesn't go to exile if the high priest dies before he gets there]? Abaye says it's a fortiori, And just as someone who was already in exile goes out [with the death the high priest], then now, someone who never went to exile should certainly not be exiled. But maybe the one was exiled got an atonement, and the one who wasn't exiled didn't [get his atonement]? Is exile the thing that grants atonement? The death of the high priest is what grants atonement.

But with regards to cities of refuge [going after the branches doesn't always result in a stringency], it is understandable if the trunk is outside and the branches inside, just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may not kill him [the murderer], so too on the trunk he may not kill him. But if the trunk is inside and the branches outside [then it won't result in a stringency to say that] just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may kill him, so too on the trunk he may kill him, Because he is inside [the boundary]!?

There [by Pesach and circumcision] that isn't the reason [why one doesn't bring a sacrifice], rather it's because the whole Torah is compared to [the prohibition of] idolatry. Just as idolatry is a "sit and don't do" [a passive prohibition] so to all [times that one is obligated to bring a conciliatory sacrifice] is by a "sit and don't do", which excludes these [Peasch and circumcision] which are each a "get up and do" [an active commandment]

So rather, what is the reason that [Rebbi Yochanon] retracted [his veiw]? Because he found [his veiw point] problematic with the case of a rapist [Ohneis] For it was taught in a barasiah An Ohneis who divorced his wife [in violation of the Torah's commandment], If he is a Yisroel [i.e. a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not receive malkus. If he is a Kohen, he receives malkus and doesn't take her back.

If he is a Yisroel he takes her back and doesn't receive malkus? Why? This is a case of a lo saseh sh'kadmu asseh, and [according to Rebbi Yochanon's original ruling] he should get malkus.

So rather "she shall be to him for a wife" should not have been stated by Motzei Shem Rah, and it could have been derived from Oneis. If by Oneis which doesn't have [the double punishment] of malkus and monetary payment, the Torah says, "she shall be to him for a wife", then is not Motzei Shem Rah even more so? Why then is it repeated [by Motzei Shem Rah, if it can just be derived from Oneis]? If it is not needed to teach us anything by Motzei Shem Rah, then apply this commandment by Oneis. If it is not needed before [he divorces her], apply it afterwards.

which means, that regarding any "holy" that got disqualified, the verse comes to add a prohibition against eating it. [Why doesn't Rava say he incurs malkus for that]. These words only apply in a case where they are fit [for consumption] before becoming disqualified, but here [by ollah] before being disqualified they are also not fit.

Rav Ashi says, granted that their is no requirement [for recital], but is there not at least a mitzvah? Let him say the mitzvah and ask [from that]! Rather, Rav Ashi says, Since there is the Bikorim of a proselyte, where since he would need to say (Deuteronomy 26, 3) "That Hashem swore to our forefather" and is unable to say it, he doesn't mention it as a the proof.

But doesn't it? There is Hekdesh? [The mishna] is refering to a Bechor [firstling], But there is still Nazir? [The mishna] is refering to a Nazir Shimshon.

Dovid came and established them on eleven, as it is written, (Psalms 15,1) "A psalm of Dovid. Hashem, who shall dwell in your live? Who will dwell upon your holy mountain? One who walks upright, and works righteously, and speaks truth in his heart, That has no slander upon his tongue, nor does evil to his fellow, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor; In whose eyes a vile person is despised, But he honors those that fear Hashem; He swears to his own hurt, and does not changes; one who doesn't lend out his money on interest, Nor take a bribe against the innocent. He that does these things shall never falter.

"Has done no evil to his fellow" that he doesn't enter his fellows trade.

"Who doesn't lend out his money on interest" even with interest to an idol worshiper.