earlier

Fifteen days after, when I had fasted and prayed much to the Lord, the knowledge of the writing was revealed to me. Now the writing was to this effect: “Your seed, O Hermas, has sinned against God, and they have blasphemed against the Lord, and in their great wickedness they have betrayed their parents. And they passed as traitors of their parents, and by their treachery did they not reap profit. And even now they have added to their sins lusts and iniquitous pollutions, and thus their iniquities have been filled up. But make known these words to all your children, and to your wife, who is to be your sister. For she does not restrain her tongue, with which she commits iniquity; but, on hearing these words, she will control herself, and will obtain mercy. For after you have made known to them these words which my Lord has commanded me to reveal to you, then shall they be forgiven all the sins which in former times they committed, and forgiveness will be granted to all the saints who have sinned even to the present day, if they repent with all their heart, and drive all doubts from their minds. For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has limits. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints; but to the heathen, repentance will be possible even to the last day. You will tell, therefore, those who preside over the church, to direct their ways in righteousness, that they may receive in full the promises with great glory. Stand stedfast, therefore, ye who work righteousness, and doubt not, that your passage may be with the holy angels. Happy ye who endure the great tribulation that is coming on, and happy they who shall not deny their own life. For the Lord hath sworn by His Son, that those who denied their Lord have abandoned their life in despair, for even now these are to deny Him in the days that are coming. To those who denied in earlier times, God became gracious, on account of His exceeding tender mercy.”

And Moses was on the Mount forty days and forty nights, and God taught him the earlier and the later history of the division of all the days of the law and of the testimony.

The above were the more eminent visions of the blessed martyrs Saturus and Perpetua themselves, which they themselves committed to writing. But God called Secundulus, while he has yet in the prison, by an earlier exit from the world, not without favour, so as to give a respite to the beasts. Nevertheless, even if his soul did not acknowledge cause for thankfulness, assuredly his flesh did.

(And even before this time large numbers of Jews had come into Egypt with the Persian, and in an earlier period still others had been sent to Egypt to help Psammetichus in his campaign against the king of the Ethiopians. But these were nothing like so numerous as the captives whom Ptolemy the son of Lagus transported.)

He said that he had heard from Theopompus that he had been driven out of his mind for more than thirty days because he intended to insert in his history some of the incidents from the earlier and somewhat unreliable translations of the law.

Came upon earlier men. And Cronos reigned,

No earlier of all the kings together.

The riches which the earlier men had seized.

For from the time when on the earlier men

Revolving earlier plans, shall place their neck

It was now that Isaac's affairs increased, and in a flourishing condition; and this his great riches. But Abimelech, thinking in opposition to him, while their living made them suspicious of each other, and retiring showing a secret enmity also, he afraid that his former friendship with Isaac would not secure him, if Isaac should endeavor the injuries he had formerly offered him; he therefore renewed his friendship with him, Philoc, one of his generals. And when he had obtained every thing he desired, by reason of Isaac's good nature, who preferred the earlier friendship Abimelech had shown to himself and his father to his later wrath against him, he returned home.

Now Solomon the king was at this time engaged in building these cities. But if any inquire why all the kings of Egypt from Menes, who built Memphis, and was many years earlier than our forefather Abraham, until Solomon, where the interval was more than one thousand three hundred years, were called Pharaohs, and took it from one Pharaoh that lived after the kings of that interval, I think it necessary to inform them of it, and this in order to cure their ignorance, and to make the occasion of that name manifest. Pharaoh, in the Egyptian tongue, signifies a king but I suppose they made use of other names from their childhood; but when they were made kings, they changed them into the name which in their own tongue denoted their authority; for thus it was also that the kings of Alexandria, who were called formerly by other names, when they took the kingdom, were named Ptolemies, from their first king. The Roman emperors also were from their nativity called by other names, but are styled Cæsars, their empire and their dignity imposing that name upon them, and not suffering them to continue in those names which their fathers gave them. I suppose also that Herodotus of Halicarnassus, when he said there were three hundred and thirty kings of Egypt after Menes, who built Memphis, did therefore not tell us their names, because they were in common called Pharaohs; for when after their death there was a queen reigned, he calls her by her name Nicaule, as thereby declaring, that while the kings were of the male line, and so admitted of the same nature, while a woman did not admit the same, he did therefore set down that her name, which she could not naturally have. As for myself, I have discovered from our own books, that after Pharaoh, the father-in-law of Solomon, no other king of Egypt did any longer use that name; and that it was after that time when the forenamed queen of Egypt and Ethiopia came to Solomon, concerning whom we shall inform the reader presently; but I have now made mention of these things, that I may prove that our books and those of the Egyptians agree together in many things.

But I omit any further discourse about these affairs; for there have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero; some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favor, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bare him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies, that they justly deserve to be condemned. Nor do I wonder at such as have told lies of Nero, since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history as to those facts that were earlier than his time, even when the actors could have no way incurred their hatred, since those writers lived a long time after them. But as to those that have no regard to truth, they may write as they please; for in that they take delight: but as to ourselves, who have made truth our direct aim, we shall briefly touch upon what only belongs remotely to this undertaking, but shall relate what hath happened to us Jews with great accuracy, and shall not grudge our pains in giving an account both of the calamities we have suffered, and of the crimes we have been guilty of. I will now therefore return to the relation of our own affairs.

This is what the Egyptians relate about the Jews, with much more, which I omit for the sake of brevity. But still Manetho goes on, that "after this, Amenophis returned back from Ethiopia with a great army, as did his son Ahampses with another army also, and that both of them joined battle with the shepherds and the polluted people, and beat them, and slew a great many of them, and pursued them to the bounds of Syria." These and the like accounts are written by Manetho. But I will demonstrate that he trifles, and tells arrant lies, after I have made a distinction which will relate to what I am going to say about him; for this Manetho had granted and confessed that this nation was not originally Egyptian, but that they had come from another country, and subdued Egypt, and then went away again out of it. But that those Egyptians who were thus diseased in their bodies were not mingled with us afterward, and that Moses who brought the people out was not one of that company, but lived many generations earlier, I shall endeavor to demonstrate from Manetho's own accounts themselves.

It now remains that I debate with Manetho about Moses. Now the Egyptians acknowledge him to have been a wonderful and a divine person; nay, they would willingly lay claim to him themselves, though after a most abusive and incredible manner, and pretend that he was of Heliopolis, and one of the priests of that place, and was ejected out of it among the rest, on account of his leprosy; although it had been demonstrated out of their records that he lived five hundred and eighteen years earlier, and then brought our forefathers out of Egypt into the country that is now inhabited by us. But now that he was not subject in his body to any such calamity, is evident from what he himself tells us; for he forbade those that had the leprosy either to continue in a city, or to inhabit in a village, but commanded that they should go about by themselves with their clothes rent; and declares that such as either touch them, or live under the same roof with them, should be esteemed unclean; nay, more, if any one of their disease be healed, and he recover his natural constitution again, he appointed them certain purifications, and washings with spring water, and the shaving off all their hair, and enjoins that they shall offer many sacrifices, and those of several kinds, and then at length to be admitted into the holy city; although it were to be expected that, on the contrary, if he had been under the same calamity, he should have taken care of such persons beforehand, and have had them treated after a kinder manner, as affected with a concern for those that were to be under the like misfortunes with himself. Nor was it only those leprous people for whose sake he made these laws, but also for such as should be maimed in the smallest part of their body, who yet are not permitted by him to officiate as priests; nay, although any priest, already initiated, should have such a calamity fall upon him afterward, he ordered him to be deprived of his honor of officiating. How can it then be supposed that Moses should ordain such laws against himself, to his own reproach and damage who so ordained them? Nor indeed is that other notion of Manetho at all probable, wherein he relates the change of his name, and says that "he was formerly called Osarsiph;" and this a name no way agreeable to the other, while his true name was Mosses, and signifies a person who is preserved out of the water, for the Egyptians call water Moil. I think, therefore, I have made it sufficiently evident that Manetho, while he followed his ancient records, did not much mistake the truth of the history; but that when he had recourse to fabulous stories, without any certain author, he either forged them himself, without any probability, or else gave credit to some men who spake so out of their ill-will to us.

Now although I cannot but think that I have already demonstrated, and that abundantly more than was necessary, that our fathers were not originally Egyptians, nor were thence expelled, either on account of bodily diseases, or any other calamities of that sort; yet will I briefly take notice of what Apion adds upon that subject; for in his third book, which relates to the affairs of Egypt, he speaks thus: "I have heard of the ancient men of Egypt, that Moses was of Heliopolis, and that he thought himself obliged to follow the customs of his forefathers, and offered his prayers in the open air, towards the city walls; but that he reduced them all to be directed towards sun-rising, which was agreeable to the situation of Heliopolis; that he also set up pillars instead of gnomons, under which was represented a cavity like that of a boat, and the shadow that fell from their tops fell down upon that cavity, that it might go round about the like course as the sun itself goes round in the other." This is that wonderful relation which we have given us by this grammarian. But that it is a false one is so plain, that it stands in need of few words to prove it, but is manifest from the works of Moses; for when he erected the first tabernacle to God, he did himself neither give order for any such kind of representation to be made at it, nor ordain that those that came after him should make such a one. Moreover, when in a future age Solomon built his temple in Jerusalem, he avoided all such needless decorations as Apion hath here devised. He says further, how he had "heard of the ancient men, that Moses was of Hellopolis." To be sure that was, because being a younger man himself, he believed those that by their elder age were acquainted and conversed with him. Now this grammarian, as he was, could not certainly tell which was the poet Homer's country, no more than he could which was the country of Pythagoras, who lived comparatively but a little while ago; yet does he thus easily determine the age of Moses, who preceded them such a vast number of years, as depending on his ancient men's relation, which shows how notorious a liar he was. But then as to this chronological determination of the time when he says he brought the leprous people, the blind, and the lame out of Egypt, see how well this most accurate grammarian of ours agrees with those that have written before him! Manetho says that the Jews departed out of Egypt, in the reign of Tethmosis, three hundred ninety-three years before Danaus fled to Argos; Lysimaehus says it was under king Bocchoris, that is, one thousand seven hundred years ago; Molo and some others determined it as every one pleased: but this Apion of ours, as deserving to be believed before them, hath determined it exactly to have been in the seventh olympiad, and the first year of that olympiad; the very same year in which he says that Carthage was built by the Phoenicians. The reason why he added this building of Carthage was, to be sure, in order, as he thought, to strengthen his assertion by so evident a character of chronology. But he was not aware that this character confutes his assertion; for if we may give credit to the Phoenician records as to the time of the first coming of their colony to Carthage, they relate that Hirom their king was above a hundred and fifty years earlier than the building of Carthage; concerning whom I have formerly produced testimonials out of those Phoenician records, as also that this Hirom was a friend of Solomon when he was building the temple of Jerusalem, and gave him great assistance in his building that temple; while still Solomon himself built that temple six hundred and twelve years after the Jews came out of Egypt. As for the number of those that were expelled out of Egypt, he hath contrived to have the very same number with Lysimaehus, and says they were a hundred and ten thousand. He then assigns a certain wonderful and plausible occasion for the name of Sabbath; for he says that "when the Jews had traveled a six days' journey, they had buboes in their groins; and that on this account it was that they rested on the seventh day, as having got safely to that country which is now called Judea; that then they preserved the language of the Egyptians, and called that day the Sabbath, for that malady of buboes on their groin was named Sabbatosis by the Egyptians." And would not a man now laugh at this fellow's trifling, or rather hate his impudence in writing thus? We must, it seems, fake it for granted that all these hundred and ten thousand men must have these buboes. But, for certain, if those men had been blind and lame, and had all sorts of distempers upon them, as Apion says they had, they could not have gone one single day's journey; but if they had been all able to travel over a large desert, and, besides that, to fight and conquer those that opposed them, they had not all of them had buboes on their groins after the sixth day was over; for no such distemper comes naturally and of necessity upon those that travel; but still, when there are many ten thousands in a camp together, they constantly march a settled space [in a day]. Nor is it at all probable that such a thing should happen by chance; this would be prodigiously absurd to be supposed. However, our admirable author Apion hath before told us that "they came to Judea in six days' time;" and again, that "Moses went up to a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia, which was called Sinai, and was concealed there forty days, and that when he came down from thence he gave laws to the Jews." But, then, how was it possible for them to tarry forty days in a desert place where there was no water, and at the same time to pass all over the country between that and Judea in the six days? And as for this grammatical translation of the word Sabbath, it either contains an instance of his great impudence or gross ignorance; for the words Sabbo and Sabbath are widely different from one another; for the word Sabbath in the Jewish language denotes rest from all sorts of work; but the word Sabbo, as he affirms, denotes among the Egyptians the malady of a bubo in the groin.

Let us see now what is the meaning of the expression which is found in the Wisdom of Solomon, where it is said of Wisdom that “it is a kind of breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux of the glory of the Omnipotent, and the splendour of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the working or power of God, and the image of His goodness.” These, then, are the definitions which He gives of God, pointing out by each one of them certain attributes which belong to the Wisdom of God, calling wisdom the power, and the glory, and the everlasting light, and the working, and the goodness of God. He does not say, however, that wisdom is the breath of the glory of the Almighty, nor of the everlasting light, nor of the working of the Father, nor of His goodness, for it was not appropriate that breath should be ascribed to any one of these; but, with all propriety, he says that wisdom is the breath of the power of God. Now, by the power of God is to be understood that by which He is strong; by which He appoints, restrains, and governs all things visible and invisible; which is sufficient for all those things which He rules over in His providence; among all which He is present, as if one individual. And although the breath of all this mighty and immeasurable power, and the vigour itself produced, so to speak, by its own existence, proceed from the power itself, as the will does from the mind, yet even this will of God is nevertheless made to become the power of God. Another power accordingly is produced, which exists with properties of its own,—a kind of breath, as Scripture says, of the primal and unbegotten power of God, deriving from Him its being, and never at any time non-existent. For if any one were to assert that it did not formerly exist, but came afterwards into existence, let him explain the reason why the Father, who gave it being, did not do so before. And if he shall grant that there was once a beginning, when that breath proceeded from the power of God, we shall ask him again, why not even before the beginning, which he has allowed; and in this way, ever demanding an earlier date, and going upwards with our interrogations, we shall arrive at this conclusion, that as God was always possessed of power and will, there never was any reason of propriety or otherwise, why He may not have always possessed that blessing which He desired. By which it is shown that that breath of God’s power always existed, having no beginning save God Himself. Nor was it fitting that there should be any other beginning save God Himself, from whom it derives its birth. And according to the expression of the apostle, that Christ “is the power of God,” it ought to be termed not only the breath of the power of God, but power out of power.

It is with a certain eloquence, indeed, that he appears to advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their death, in the following words: “And I do not maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that account, he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions.” And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that “he who holds a certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it.” And here Celsus must be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, and says that “they in whom this element, viz. the soul, is in a healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, meaning God, and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to remembrance.” Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a little before, that “the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown it,” he now involves himself in all manner of contradictions. For he knew that if he acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he would not obtain any credit when accusing those who, in any degree, introduce the doctrine of Providence, and who place a God over the world. And we have heard that there were two individuals of the name of Celsus, both of whom were Epicureans; the earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, but this one in that of Adrian, and later.

They said a general principle concerning tithes: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, is liable for tithes. And they have further stated another general principle [concerning tithes]: whatever is considered food both at the beginning and at the conclusion [of its growth] even though he holds on to it in order to increase the quantity of food, is liable [to tithe] whether [it is harvested] in its earlier or later stages. But whatever is not considered food in the earlier stages [of its growth] but only in its later stages, is not liable [to tithe] until it can be considered food.

They said a general principle concerning tithes: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, is liable for tithes. And they have further stated another general principle [concerning tithes]: whatever is considered food both at the beginning and at the conclusion [of its growth] even though he holds on to it in order to increase the quantity of food, is liable [to tithe] whether [it is harvested] in its earlier or later stages. But whatever is not considered food in the earlier stages [of its growth] but only in its later stages, is not liable [to tithe] until it can be considered food.

With regard to when vegetables [are liable to tithes]: Cucumbers, gourds, water-melons, cucumber-melons, apples and etrogs are liable [for tithes], whether gathered in the earlier or later stages of ripening. Rabbi Shimon exempts the etrog in the earlier stages. The condition in which bitter almonds are liable [to tithes] is exempt in the case of sweet almonds, and the condition in which sweet almonds are liable [to tithe] is exempt in the case of bitter almonds.

With regard to when vegetables [are liable to tithes]: Cucumbers, gourds, water-melons, cucumber-melons, apples and etrogs are liable [for tithes], whether gathered in the earlier or later stages of ripening. Rabbi Shimon exempts the etrog in the earlier stages. The condition in which bitter almonds are liable [to tithes] is exempt in the case of sweet almonds, and the condition in which sweet almonds are liable [to tithe] is exempt in the case of bitter almonds.

After the Ark had been taken away, there was a stone from the days of the earlier prophets, called “shtiyah”, three fingers above the ground, on which he would place [the pan of burning coals].

Concerning every act of Yom Hakippurim mentioned in the prescribed order [in the mishnah]: if he performed one [later] act before an [earlier] one, it is as if it had not been done at all. If he dealt with the blood of the goat before the blood of the bull, he must start over again, and sprinkle the blood of the goat after the blood of the bull. If before he had finished the sprinklings within [the Holy of Holies] the blood was poured away, he must bring other blood, and start over again and sprinkle again within [the Holy of Holies]. Similarly, in the Hekhal and the golden altar, since they are each a separate act of atonement. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: wherever he stopped, there he may begin again.

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].

The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth, Except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.

What is considered a large town? One which has in it ten idle men. One that has fewer is considered a village. In respect of these they said that they should be moved up but not postponed. But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah, and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up. Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.

They release vows by reference to the sabbaths and festivals. The earlier ruling was that for these days the vow is cancelled, but for others it is binding, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: a vow which is partially released is entirely released.

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving, and products of the vine. All products of the vine join together [to add up to a minimum measure], and he is not liable until he eats an olive’s worth of grapes. According to the earlier mishnah, until he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine. Rabbi Akiba says: even if he soaked his bread in wine and it is enough to make an olive’s worth he is liable.

Just as the laws of fraud apply to buying and selling, so to do they apply to the spoken word. One may not say, “How much is this object?, if he does not wish to buy it. If one had repented, another should not say to him, “Remember your earlier deeds”. If one descended from converts, another should not say to him, “Remember the deeds of your ancestors”. For it is said (Exodus 22:21), “And a stranger you shall not wrong or oppress.”

The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day. The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day. [Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom Kippur).

The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day. The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day. [Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom Kippur).

There is no evaluation less than one sela, nor more than fifty selas. How so? If one paid a sela and became rich, he need not give any [more]. But if he gave less than a sela and became rich, he must pay fifty selas. If he had five selas in his possession: Rabbi Meir says: he need not give more than one; The sages say he must give them all. There is no evaluation less than one sela, nor more than fifty selas. If a woman makes a mistake in her reckoning there is no re-opening for her [of the niddah count] earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days. No signs of leprosy are shut up for less than one week and none more than three weeks.

There are never less than four full months in the year, nor did it seem right to have more than eight. Two loaves were eaten, never earlier than the second day, nor later than the third day. The shewbread was eaten never earlier than the ninth day, nor later than the eleventh day. An infant may never be circumcised earlier than the eighth nor later than the twelfth day.

There are never less than four full months in the year, nor did it seem right to have more than eight. Two loaves were eaten, never earlier than the second day, nor later than the third day. The shewbread was eaten never earlier than the ninth day, nor later than the eleventh day. An infant may never be circumcised earlier than the eighth nor later than the twelfth day.

There are never less than four full months in the year, nor did it seem right to have more than eight. Two loaves were eaten, never earlier than the second day, nor later than the third day. The shewbread was eaten never earlier than the ninth day, nor later than the eleventh day. An infant may never be circumcised earlier than the eighth nor later than the twelfth day.

If the [last] day of the twelve months has arrived and it was not redeemed, it becomes his permanent [possession]. This applies whether he bought it or received it as a gift, as it is said: “beyond reclaim” (Leviticus 25:30). In earlier times, he [the buyer] would hide on the last day of the twelve months, so that [the house] might become his permanent [possession]. Hillel enacted that he [the seller] could deposit his money in the chamber and break down the door and enter, and that the other [the buyer], whenever he wanted, might come and take his money.

Houses in courtyards - we accord to them the advantages of houses in a walled city and the advantages given to fields: They can be redeemed at once, and at any time within the twelve months like houses [in a walled city], and they return [to the owners] in the Jubilee or [at an earlier time] by [payment of a] reduced price like fields. The following are considered houses in courtyards: [a city which has] two courtyards, each having two houses, even though they have been encompassed by a wall since the days of Joshua ben Nun, they count as houses in courtyards.

Metal vessels remain unclean and become clean even when broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: they can be made clean only when they are whole. How so? If they were sprinkled upon and on the same day they were broken and then they were recast and sprinkled upon on the same day, they are clean, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: there can be no effective sprinkling earlier than on the third and the seventh day.

Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.

Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.

Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.

Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.

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.

In earlier times they used to say: a woman who is dwelling in clean blood may pour out water for [washing] the pesah sacrifice. They changed their minds and said: in respect of consecrated food she is like one who came in contact with a person that was subject to corpse uncleanness, this is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: even as one who is subject to corpse uncleanness.

Ben Zoma said: There will be a future time when Israel will no longer mention the Exodus. What is the reason? (Jer. 23:7–8) “Therefore, days will come, says the Eternal, that one no longer will say, by the Eternal Who brought the Children of Israel up from Egypt, but rather, by the Eternal Who raised and brought the descendants of the House of Israel from the Northern land …” They said to him, not that the Exodus will be eliminated but the Exodus will be additional to the Kingdoms. The Kingdoms will be principal and the Exodus additional. And similarly it was said (Gen. 35:10): :Your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” Not that the name Jacob will be taken away but Jacob will be additional to Israel. Israel will be principal and Jacob additional. And so it says (Is. 43:18–19): “Do not remember the first things”; this means the Egyptians, “And what was earlier do not dwell on”; this means the Kingdoms, “Behold, I create something new, now it will grow”; this refers to Gog. They gave a simile: to what can this be compared? To someone who encountered a wolf and was saved from it. He started telling about the wolf when he encountered a lion and was saved from it. He forget about the wolf and started telling about the lion.After that, he encountered a snake and was saved from it. He forgot about both of them and started telling about the snake. So it is with Israel, the last troubles make them forget the earlier ones.

Ben Zoma said: There will be a future time when Israel will no longer mention the Exodus. What is the reason? (Jer. 23:7–8) “Therefore, days will come, says the Eternal, that one no longer will say, by the Eternal Who brought the Children of Israel up from Egypt, but rather, by the Eternal Who raised and brought the descendants of the House of Israel from the Northern land …” They said to him, not that the Exodus will be eliminated but the Exodus will be additional to the Kingdoms. The Kingdoms will be principal and the Exodus additional. And similarly it was said (Gen. 35:10): :Your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” Not that the name Jacob will be taken away but Jacob will be additional to Israel. Israel will be principal and Jacob additional. And so it says (Is. 43:18–19): “Do not remember the first things”; this means the Egyptians, “And what was earlier do not dwell on”; this means the Kingdoms, “Behold, I create something new, now it will grow”; this refers to Gog. They gave a simile: to what can this be compared? To someone who encountered a wolf and was saved from it. He started telling about the wolf when he encountered a lion and was saved from it. He forget about the wolf and started telling about the lion.After that, he encountered a snake and was saved from it. He forgot about both of them and started telling about the snake. So it is with Israel, the last troubles make them forget the earlier ones.

It is stated: “One should pray neither out of conversation, nor out of jokes, nor out of frivolities, nor out of idle occupations, but out of words of Torah. Similarly, one should not take leave from one’s friend either out of conversation, or out of jokes, or out of frivolities, or out of idle occupations, but out of words of Torah, since we find that the earlier prophets were closing their words with expressions of praise and consolation.” Rebbi Eleazar said, except for Jeremiah who closed with words of reprobation. Rebbi Yoḥanan said to him, still he closed with words of consolation and said (Jer. 51:64) “So Babylon shall sink.” Because Jeremiah continued to prophesy about the Temple. One could think that he closed with the destruction of the Temple, but the verse states (Jer. 51:64) “So far the words of Jeremiah,” he finished with the downfall of its destroyers, he did not close with words of reprobation. But is it not written (Is. 66:24): “They will be a horror for all flesh?” That verse deals with Gentiles. But is it not written (Lament. 5:22): “But You much despised us”? (Lament. 5:21) “Make us return” replaces “But You much despised us”. Also Elijah did take leave from Elisha only out of words of Torah, (2Kings 2:11) “they walked talking.” What did they talk of? Rebbi Aḥawa the son of Rebbi Zeïra said, they discussed the recitation of Shema‘, (Deut. 6:7) “you should talk about them.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, they were discussing Creation, (Ps. 33:6) “through the word of the Eternal the heavens were made.” Rebbi Yudan, the son of Rebbi Ayvu, said, they were occupied with the consolations of Jerusalem, as you say (Is. 40:2) “Speak to Jerusalem’s heart.” But the rabbis say, they were occupied with the Divine Chariot, as you say (2Kings 2:11) “behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire, etc.”

It happened that Rebbi Yeshebab went and let his entire property be distributed to the poor. Rabban Gamliel sent to him: Did they not say one fifth of one’s property for good deeds? And was not Rabban Gamliel before Usha? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Levi: That was the current practice, they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones, to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end, just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: If a person was perfectly just all his days and at the end he rebelled, he lost all he worked for his entire life. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:18) “If a just person reverts from his justness and does mischief.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wonders about his earlier deeds. If a person was perfectly evil all his days and at the end he repents, the Holy One, praise to Him, receives him. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:27) “If a sinner returns from his wickedness.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only that but all transgressions are counted as merits for him. What is the reason? (Ps. 45:9) “Myrrh, aloe, cassia, all your faithlessness.” All faithless acts in which you were faithless towards Me are like myrrh, aloe, and cassia.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year. It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order, but now that years are not in order, the Sabbatical year is like any other year.

Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. One said, one checks out before giving clothing but one does not check out for necessities of life. The other said, even before giving clothing one does not check out, because of the covenant of the patriarch Abraham. A baraita disagrees with him who says that even before giving clothing one does not check out. He explains it for giving him according to his status, as we have stated: “When has this been said? If they do not know him. But if they know him, they also clothe him, everything befitting his status.” But was it not stated: “For food thirty days, for clothing six months.” Explain it, to contribute. But was it not stated: “For food thirty days, for assessments and charity twelve months?” This means to contribute, the earlier must mean to receive. It still means to contribute; what does it mean, for assessments and charity twelve months? For the salaries of scribes and teachers.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

Rebbi Jeremiah sent Rebbi Zeïra a basket of figs that were not put in order. Rebbi Jeremiah said to himself, would Rebbi Zeïra eat anything that was not put in order? Rebbi Zeïra said to himself, it is impossible that Rebbi Jeremiah would send me anything that was not put in order. In the meantime, ṭevel was eaten. The next day, when he was with him, he asked him: Was that basket you sent me put in order? He answered him, I said, would Rebbi Zeïra eat anything that was not put in order? He answered, I also said, would Rebbi Jeremiah send me anything that was not put in order? Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr.

Rebbi Mana said, what you enumerate was earlier. But now there [are other towns that were held by Israel and they are forbidden. “ These are the towns forbidden in district] Susita: Al ‘Awaniš, Eyn Tara‘, the heights of Barin, the spring Ya‘riṭ, Kefar Yaḥrib, Nab, Ḥasfin, and Kefar Ẓemaḥ. Rebbi permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ.” Rebbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers? Rebbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.

“In earlier times, they said: One removes from fellowship a ḥaver who became tax collector. They changed to say, one removes him from fellowship for the entire time he acts as tax collector. Once he left his collectorship, he is again treated as a ḥaver.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One does not pass by foodstuffs.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That means, in earlier times. But now it is permitted because of sorcery.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Is our Mishnah from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose? As it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine on vinegar but not from vinegar on wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one on the other.” He was looking at him. He said to him, what are you staring at me? Bring a lash for yourself; there it is for tithing, here it is for kilaim. Rebbi Jonah said, he should not have stared at him since the earlier rabbis wanted to understand this matter and understood that there it refers to tithing but here to kilaim.

“If it shrank it is in order.” Rebbi Immi said, that means for the seeds that were already on it; hence, it is forbidden to sow anew. If one transgressed and sowed, since the earlier ones are permitted, so are the new ones. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is acceptable that if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, what is the status of the later ones? Let us hear from the following: “If the two long boards of a bed were removed and one made two new ones in their stead but did not change the holes, if the new boards were broken, it is impure, if the old ones, it is pure, since all goes after the prior status.” That means, if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, the later ones are forbidden.

“If it shrank it is in order.” Rebbi Immi said, that means for the seeds that were already on it; hence, it is forbidden to sow anew. If one transgressed and sowed, since the earlier ones are permitted, so are the new ones. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is acceptable that if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, what is the status of the later ones? Let us hear from the following: “If the two long boards of a bed were removed and one made two new ones in their stead but did not change the holes, if the new boards were broken, it is impure, if the old ones, it is pure, since all goes after the prior status.” That means, if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, the later ones are forbidden.

“If it shrank it is in order.” Rebbi Immi said, that means for the seeds that were already on it; hence, it is forbidden to sow anew. If one transgressed and sowed, since the earlier ones are permitted, so are the new ones. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is acceptable that if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, what is the status of the later ones? Let us hear from the following: “If the two long boards of a bed were removed and one made two new ones in their stead but did not change the holes, if the new boards were broken, it is impure, if the old ones, it is pure, since all goes after the prior status.” That means, if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, the later ones are forbidden.

“If it shrank it is in order.” Rebbi Immi said, that means for the seeds that were already on it; hence, it is forbidden to sow anew. If one transgressed and sowed, since the earlier ones are permitted, so are the new ones. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is acceptable that if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, what is the status of the later ones? Let us hear from the following: “If the two long boards of a bed were removed and one made two new ones in their stead but did not change the holes, if the new boards were broken, it is impure, if the old ones, it is pure, since all goes after the prior status.” That means, if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, the later ones are forbidden.

“If it shrank it is in order.” Rebbi Immi said, that means for the seeds that were already on it; hence, it is forbidden to sow anew. If one transgressed and sowed, since the earlier ones are permitted, so are the new ones. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is acceptable that if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, what is the status of the later ones? Let us hear from the following: “If the two long boards of a bed were removed and one made two new ones in their stead but did not change the holes, if the new boards were broken, it is impure, if the old ones, it is pure, since all goes after the prior status.” That means, if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, the later ones are forbidden.

“They do not have to be checked.” That means in earlier times when flax was not found everywhere. But today, when flax is found everywhere, they need to be checked.

Rebbi Abba bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institutions of the early prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

MISHNAH: In earlier times they said a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property, but only large pieces. But after transgressors became numerous they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s without reciprocity and it goes without saying that he does not have to allot him food.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times they said,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah has to be stated as follows: In earlier times they said, a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces. When they suspected that people were collecting but were saying, we took only large pieces, they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s property without reciprocity. When they suspected that people were collecting in reciprocity but saying, we collected without reciprocity, they decreed that one may collect only from close by and from what is in ample supply.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times they said,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah has to be stated as follows: In earlier times they said, a person may collect wood, stones, and grasses on his own property, but only large pieces, in the way he may collect on somebody else’s property both large and small pieces. When they suspected that people were collecting but were saying, we took only large pieces, they decreed that everybody only collect from somebody else’s property without reciprocity. When they suspected that people were collecting in reciprocity but saying, we collected without reciprocity, they decreed that one may collect only from close by and from what is in ample supply.

“A document dated on a Sabbath or on the Tenth of Tishrē, Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid and Rebbi Yose invalid. Rebbi Jehudah said to him, a case came before you in Sepphoris and you declared it valid. He said to him, I did not declare it valid, but if I did it, I did it.” They wanted to say that he who holds it invalid [does so] because it might be later, and he who holds it valid [does so] because it might be earlier; but he who holds it invalid [does so] because it might be forged.

MISHNAH: One does not give heave from pure produce for impure, but if heave was given it is heave. In truth, they said if a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part, and similarly for a bunch of vegetable or a heap [of grain]. If there were two cakes, two bundles, two heaps, one pure and one impure, one should not give heave from one for the other. Rebbi Eliezer says, one may give heave from pure produce for impure. One may not give heave from impure produce for pure, but if he gave in error, his heave is heave, if intentionally, he did not do anything. Similarly, a Levite who has ṭevel tithe which he continually uses to give, if he is in error, what he did is done, if intentionally, he did nothing. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he had known of it earlier, even if he did it in error, he did not do anything. He who immerses vessels on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may use them, if intentionally he may not use them. He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten. He who plants on the Sabbath, if unintentionally he may keep it, if intentionally it must be uprooted. In the Sabbatical year it must be uprooted, whether in error or intentionally.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

“One lights ‘oil to burn’ in synagogues, houses of study; etc.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.” That means, the earlier parts of the Mishnah even without the permission of a Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Sickbed visits have no measure.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says so: “and near the sick with permission of the Cohen.”

Rebbi Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah brought the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Ilaї saw them and said, look what the difference is between you and the earlier generations. Rebbi Aqiba bought three different kinds for a peruṭah in order to tithe every kind separately but you bring the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs! Why over the back of the roofs, even if he brings them into his courtyard with the intention to eat them on the roof! Is that not the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Because of Rebbi who was with him. An old man saw them and said to them, would you give me some of these? They said, yes. He said to them, you did not give to your father in Heaven, only to me!

Our Mishnah follows the House of Shammai who say, all has the status of inside. It was stated: If he turned the crown towards the inside, all is counted as inside. The earlier Tannaїm follow the House of Shammai.13

A coin out of circulation which the government will accept, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is like a blank. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A coin of the earlier kings, if it is currently accepted because of its coinage one exchanges, otherwise one does not exchange. A revolutionary coin like that of Bar Koziba one does not exchange. If he had dangerous coins: such a case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, one should carry its yield to the Dead Sea. If one had coins difficult to determine: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi: One exchanges at the value given by the tremissarius. If he wants to spend the coins, he exchanges in his usual way.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

In earlier times, they were doing so with coins. They took them and fled. They instituted that one does it with produce. Nevertheless, they took and ate it. They instituted that he should give him the right to one in ten on the ground.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times they sent to the rural farmers, speed up your produce before the time of removal, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that any produce which did not reach the time of tithing is exempt from removal. If somebody’s produce was far from him, he has to give it a name. It happened that Rabban Gamliel was on a ship with the elders when Rabban Gamliel said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Joshua and its place is rented to him; another tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Aqiba; he should distribute it to the poor, and its place is rented to him. Rebbi Joshua said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Eleazar ben Azariah and its place is rented to him. They paid the rent to each other.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

MISHNAH: The fife beats before them until they arrive at the Temple Mount. Arrived at the Temple Mount, even king Agrippas takes the basket on his own shoulder and enters until he arrives at the Temple courtyard. When they arrived at the Temple courtyard, the Levites sang (Ps. 30:2): “I shall elevate You, Eternal, for You drew me up and You did not make my enemies happy because of me.” The pigeons on the baskets were elevation sacrifices and what was in their hands they gave to the Cohanim. As long as the basket is still on his shoulder he reads from (Deut. 26:3) “I am declaring today before the Eternal, your God” until he finishes the entire paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says, until (v. 5): “My father was a wandering Aramean.” When he comes to “my father was a wandering Aramean”, he takes the basket down from his shoulder, holds it by its rim, and the Cohen puts his hand under it and weaves it. Then he reads from “my father was a wandering Aramean” until he finishes the entire paragraph, he puts it down next to the altar, prostrates himself, and leaves. In earlier times, everybody who knew how to read, read, and everybody who did not know how to read, had someone read before him. When they refrained from bringing they instituted that one read before him who knew and him who did not know. Rich people bring their First Fruits in bowls of silver and gold but poor people bring them in baskets of stripped willow twigs. Baskets and First Fruits are given to the Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: “One does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” etc. Therefore one kindles with all those mentioned earlier.

“Rebbi Tarphon says, one kindles only with olive oil.” “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri got on his feet and said, if it is so what should the people of Babylonia do who have only sesame oil? What should the people of Media do who have only nut oil? What should the people of Alexandria do who have only radish oil? What should the people of Kappadokia do who have neither one nor the other (but naphtha)? But you have only what the earlier ones permitted.”

If he covered it with ashes and it started burning, what? The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went to his house and instructed: it is permitted. They asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Hoshaia, and Rebbi Ḥanania the colleagues of the rabbis, “it started burning”, in the past. Rebbi Immi passed by; the colleagues were scattered; then they wanted to return to it. Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis said to them, as the case happened so it happened. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisartai said, it is questionable for the future. Rebbi Mana said, I objected before Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios: If you say for the past, even if he did not cook on it earlier.

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rebbi Meïr; in public he instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Mana said, earlier we were of the opinion to say, where do they disagree? When it was extinguished, if the rats had dragged the wick away, when it was compressed. But you may even say if the rats had not dragged the wick away, when it was not compressed, if it contained oil.

HALAKHAH: “With what may a woman go out,” etc. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, because she loosens them because they separate for her period and she forgets and walks with them for four cubits. Rebbi Mana said, earlier we were saying because she opens what is sewn but we were not saying anything, as Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates one may tear and open but only one may not tie. There, we have stated: “The following separate on a human: threads of wool or of linen and the ribbons on the head of girls.” Samuel said, there is no hair here; in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, but only wool. Therefore hair does not separate in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of the rabbis: One hair separates, two are in doubt, three do not separate.

“If he does not have a wound on his foot.” Therefore if he has a wound on his foot he may wear one. On which foot does he wear it? Samuel said, he wears it on the one which has no wound. If you would say that he wears it on the one which has the wound, how does he tie it that he could not put it on the other? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he wears it on the one which has the wound. Simeon bar Abba served Rebbi Joḥanan; he brought him his sandals as it was stated in Derekh Ereṣ: When he puts them on, he puts the right foot one on first and after this the left foot one, when he removes them he removes the left foot one and after this the right foot one. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, Babylonian, you should not act in this way for the earlier generations did not do this. But when he puts them on, he puts the left foot one on first and after this the right foot one, that the right side one should not look deficient. This implies that he wears it on the one which has the wound. He told him, yes, Babylonian, you got it.

What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? You should treat it as an abomination, like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? You should detest it, like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rebbi Aqiba’s reason, you should treat it as abomination? Treat it as excrement, make it vile. How does Rebbi Aqiba uphold the rabbis’ reason, you should treat it as abomination? Call it feces, treat it as excrement, make it vile. From where “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: you shall call it excrement; treat it as excrement, make it vile What is called King’s Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune Place of Undress. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel. Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, there one calls a good deed ˋomda but the flow of urine ‘amida. How does Rebbi Aqiba interpret you shall call it excrement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin, Rav Huna in the name of Rav Joseph: from here that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body.

“To a belt but not to a rope, but Rebbi Jehudah permits it.” Therefore the rabbis do not? But because the earlier statement was in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, so also this is in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Rebbi Jehudah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So is the Mishnah: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent and which is temporary.

“One does not save benedictions which contain pentateuchal materials from a fire. Because of this, they said: Writers of benedictions are burners of the Torah. It happened that there was a writer of benedictions; Rebbi Ismael went to check him out. When he noticed Rebbi Ismael’s steps, he took a bundle of benedictions and threw them into a bowl of water. In the following formulation he spoke to him: The punishment for the later deed is worse than the one for the earlier.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, one who writes down sermons has no part, one who preaches them is going to be singed, one who listens to him is not rewarded.

HALAKHAH: “Straw on a bed.” Our Mishnah: if he did not sleep on it yesterday; but if he slept on it yesterday it is like its body. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, the earlier generations were asking, may he stir it by his fingertips? Rebbi Yannai said, the balding is bald, the deprived is deprived, pour cold water on the shivering, the house fell on the dweller in it. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, this is the rule for the poor man.

Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the House of Shammai say, a door on each side. When he enters he closes and locks. But the House of Hillel say, a door on one side and a door frame on the other side. Samuel said, practice follows Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother. Is that not the same as the earlier statement? Rebbi Abba said, if there is a door it can be locked. Rebbi Aḥa instructed one who made a door frame that he had to make it inside of four cubits. Rebbi Aybun instructed in this sense.

It was stated: “Gentiles who attack villages near the border to rob, even straw or even wood, one goes out against them armed and brings the weapon back to its place. If they attack interior villages one goes out only if it is a matter of life. In earlier times they stored the weapons in a house close to the wall. Once they were attacked by enemies; they were in a crush to get their weapons and they killed one another more than what the enemies killed. They instituted that everybody should take from his house.”

One understands this for Shilo and the Temple, as Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Samuel bar Rav Isaac, how much did the earlier prophets exercise themselves to make the Eastern gate so that the sun be exactly on it on the summer solstice and the winter solstice. It was called by seven names: the gate “desist”, the foundation gate, the sun gate, the entrance gate, the middle gate the new gate, the upper gate. The gate “desist” since there the impure separate; that is what is written, desist, impure one calls them. The foundation gate, for there practice was founded. The sun gate, since it was directed towards sunrise, as you are saying, Who says to the sun not to shine. The entrance gate, since it serves as entry and exit. The middle gate, since it is fixed between two gates. The new gate, for there the Sopherim renewed practice. The upper gate, since it was higher than the courtyard of Israel and the courtyard of women. The Temple had another distinction.

Is a city counted in the measure of 2’000? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A city is not counted in the measure of 2’000. Rebbi Eleazar said, a city is counted in the measure of 2’000. In earlier times the people of Tiberias were walking through all its hot springs but the people of its hot springs came only to the cupola. But today for the people of Tiberias and the people of its hot springs it is one city. Rebbi Jeremiah said, “it happened that an old shepherd came and said before Rebbi, I remember the people of Magdala walking up to its hot springs, walking through its hot springs and coming up to the outer courtyard close to the bridge; and Rebbi permitted that the people of Magdala walk up to its hot springs, walking through its hot springs and come up to the outer courtyard up to the bridge. In addition, Rebbi permitted that the people of Gadara descend to their hot springs and return to Gadara but the people of the hot springs may not ascend to Gadara.” Rebbi Mana said, because of the authorities. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this but because we have stated “the people of a large town walk through all of a small town, the people of a small town do not walk through all of a large town.”

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any commandment which the Samaritans keep they are much more exact with them than Jews. Rebbi Simeon said, that means earlier when they were concentrated in their villages. But today, when they have no commandments nor remainders of commandments they are suspect and degenerate.

“Edomite vinegar,” Southern aromatic. In earlier times, when one made wine in purity for libations, wine did not turn sour. One had to spike it with barley to make it sour; one did call it “Southern aromatic.”

Who is the Tanna of “whether it be weekday or Sabbath”? Rebbi Ismael, as it was stated: “As its order is on a weekday so its order is on a Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, as its order is on a Friday so is its order on a Sabbath.” This means that Rebbi Ismael makes it an hour later for its arguments, and Rebbi Aqiba makes it an hour earlier to occupy oneself with it, so they would not fulfill the commandment while inebriated. Could not the Pesaḥ be brought first and the daily sacrifice afterwards? If you are saying so, you are eliminating between the evenings of the Pesaḥ. If you are keeping between the evenings of the Pesaḥ, are you not eliminating between the evenings of the daily sacrifice? If you are neglecting between the evenings of the daily sacrifice now, you can observe it at other times. If you are neglecting it now for the Pesaḥ, when can you ever observe it? Could not Pesaḥ be brought first, followed by the daily sacrifice? The one about which is written in the evening and between the evenings shall be delayed more than one about which is written [only] between the evenings.