enters

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

“Hear, then,” says he, “foolish man, how grief crushes out the Holy Spirit, and on the other hand saves. When the doubting man attempts any deed, and fails in it on account of his doubt, this grief enters into the man, and grieves the Holy Spirit, and crushes him out. Then, on the other hand, when anger attaches itself to a man in regard to any matter, and he is embittered, then grief enters into the heart of the man who was irritated, and he is grieved at the deed which he did, and repents that he has wrought a wicked deed. This grief, then, appears to be accompanied by salvation, because the man, after having done a wicked deed, repented. Both actions grieve the Spirit: doubt, because it did not accomplish its object; and anger grieves the Spirit, because it did what was wicked. Both these are grievous to the Holy Spirit—doubt and anger. Wherefore remove grief from you, and crush not the Holy Spirit which dwells in you, lest he entreat God against you, and he withdraw from you. For the Spirit of God which has been granted to us to dwell in this body does not endure grief nor straitness. Wherefore put on cheerfulness, which always is agreeable and acceptable to God, and rejoice in it. For every cheerful man does what is good, and minds what is good, and despises grief; but the sorrowful man always acts wickedly. First, he acts wickedly because he grieves the Holy Spirit, which was given to man a cheerful Spirit. Secondly, Grieving the Holy Spirit, he works iniquity, neither entreating the Lord nor confessing to Him. For the entreaty of the sorrowful man has no power to ascend to the altar of God.” “Why,” say I, “does not the entreaty of the grieved man ascend to the altar?” “Because,” says he, “grief sits in his heart. Grief, then, mingled with his entreaty, does not permit the entreaty to ascend pure to the altar of God. For as vinegar and wine, when mixed in the same vessel, do not give the same pleasure [as wine alone gives], so grief mixed with the Holy Spirit does not produce the same entreaty [as would be produced by the Holy Spirit alone]. Cleanse yourself from this wicked grief, and you will live to God; and all will live to God who drive away grief from them, and put on all cheerfulness.”

“Hear, then,” says he, “foolish man, how grief crushes out the Holy Spirit, and on the other hand saves. When the doubting man attempts any deed, and fails in it on account of his doubt, this grief enters into the man, and grieves the Holy Spirit, and crushes him out. Then, on the other hand, when anger attaches itself to a man in regard to any matter, and he is embittered, then grief enters into the heart of the man who was irritated, and he is grieved at the deed which he did, and repents that he has wrought a wicked deed. This grief, then, appears to be accompanied by salvation, because the man, after having done a wicked deed, repented. Both actions grieve the Spirit: doubt, because it did not accomplish its object; and anger grieves the Spirit, because it did what was wicked. Both these are grievous to the Holy Spirit—doubt and anger. Wherefore remove grief from you, and crush not the Holy Spirit which dwells in you, lest he entreat God against you, and he withdraw from you. For the Spirit of God which has been granted to us to dwell in this body does not endure grief nor straitness. Wherefore put on cheerfulness, which always is agreeable and acceptable to God, and rejoice in it. For every cheerful man does what is good, and minds what is good, and despises grief; but the sorrowful man always acts wickedly. First, he acts wickedly because he grieves the Holy Spirit, which was given to man a cheerful Spirit. Secondly, Grieving the Holy Spirit, he works iniquity, neither entreating the Lord nor confessing to Him. For the entreaty of the sorrowful man has no power to ascend to the altar of God.” “Why,” say I, “does not the entreaty of the grieved man ascend to the altar?” “Because,” says he, “grief sits in his heart. Grief, then, mingled with his entreaty, does not permit the entreaty to ascend pure to the altar of God. For as vinegar and wine, when mixed in the same vessel, do not give the same pleasure [as wine alone gives], so grief mixed with the Holy Spirit does not produce the same entreaty [as would be produced by the Holy Spirit alone]. Cleanse yourself from this wicked grief, and you will live to God; and all will live to God who drive away grief from them, and put on all cheerfulness.”

Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail, And she has pain in bringing forth When her child enters the mouth of the womb, And she has pain in bringing forth.

And it returns to the east and enters into the sixth portal, and rises and sets in the sixth portal one-and-thirty mornings on account of its sign.

And the sun mounts up to make the day shorter and the night longer, and the sun returns to the east and enters into the sixth portal, and rises from it and sets thirty mornings.

And the sun has (therewith) traversed the divisions of his orbit and turns again on those divisions of his orbit, and enters that portal thirty mornings and sets also in the west opposite to it.

She goes forth for seven days, and turns about and returns again through the portal where the sun rises, and accomplishes all her light: and she recedes from the sun, and in eight days enters the sixth portal from which the sun goes forth.

And when the sun goes forth from the fourth portal she goes forth seven days, until she goes forth from the fifth and turns back again in seven days into the fourth portal and accomplishes all her light: and she recedes and enters into the first portal in eight days.

When Eve was [in] Adam, death didn't exist. When she separated from him, death came into being. If he [enters] again and receives it for himself, there will be no death.

There were three houses of offering in Jerusalem. The one which opens to the west is called "the Holy." The other one, which opens to the south, is called "the Holy of the Holy." The third, which opens to the east, is called "the Holy of the Holies," the place where the high priest enters alone. Baptism is "the Holy" house. [Redemption] is "the Holy of the Holy." "The [Holy] of the Holies" is the bridal chamber. The [baptism] includes the resurrection [with] the redemption. The redemption is in the bridal chamber. But [the] bridal chamber is better than […] You won't find its […] those who pray […] Jerusalem. […] Jerusalem who [… Jerusalem], being seen […] these that are called "[the Holies] of the Holies" [… the] veil torn […] bridal chamber except the image [… which] [is above. So] its veil was torn from top to bottom, because it was necessary for some from below to go up above.

And the gates which it enters, these are the great gates of the computation of the hours of the year; for this reason the sun is a great creation, whose circuit lasts twenty-eight years, and begins again from the beginning.

And Abraham said to the chief-captain, My Lord the chief-captain, the soul which the angel held in his hand, why was it adjudged to be set in the midst? The chief-captain said, Listen, righteous Abraham. Because the judge found its sins. and its righteousnesses equal, he neither committed it to judgment nor to be saved, until the judge of all shall come. Abraham said to the chief-captain, And what yet is wanting for the soul to be saved? The chief-captain said, If it obtains one righteousness above its sins, it enters into salvation. Abraham said to the chief-captain, Come hither, chief-captain Michael, let us make prayer for this soul, and see whether God will hear us. The chief-captain said, Amen, be it so; and they made prayer and entreaty for the soul, and God heard them, and when they rose up from their prayer they did not see the soul standing there. And Abraham said to the angel, Where is the soul that you held in the midst? And the angel answered, It has been saved by your righteous prayer, and behold an angel of light has taken it and carried it up into Paradise. Abraham said, I glorify the name of God, the Most High, and his immeasurable mercy. And Abraham said to the chief-captain, I beseech you, archangel, hearken to my prayer, and let us yet call upon the Lord, and supplicate his compassion, and entreat his mercy for the souls of the sinners whom I formerly, in my anger, cursed and destroyed, whom the earth devoured, and the wild beasts tore in pieces, and the fire consumed through my words. Now I know that I have sinned before the Lord our God. Come then, O Michael, chief-captain of the hosts above, come, let us call upon God with tears that he may forgive me my sin, and grant them to me. And the chief-captain heard him, and they made entreaty before the Lord, and when they had called upon him for a long space, there came a voice from heaven saying, Abraham, Abraham, I have hearkened to your voice and your prayer, and forgive you your sin, and those whom you think that I destroyed I have called up and brought them into life by my exceeding kindness, because for a season I have requited them in judgment, and those whom I destroy living upon earth, I will not requite in death.

Sedrach says to him: Of your will Adam was beguiled, my Lord: You command your angels to make approach to Adam, and the first of the angels himself transgressed your commandment and did not make approach to him, and You banished him, because he transgressed your commandment and did not make any approach to the work of your hands: if you loved man, why did You not slay the devil, the worker of unrighteousness? Who is able to fight an invisible spirit? And he enters like smoke into the hearts of men and teaches them every sin: he fights against you, the immortal God, and what can wretched man then do to him? But have mercy, O Lord, and stop the chastisements: but if not, count me also with the sinners: if you will have no mercy on the sinners, where are your mercies, where is your compassion, O Lord?

Every believer who enters the Christian church and hears the Scriptures, and does not stand while they pronounce the prayers and does not receive the holy eucharist — over such an one they shall not pray, and it is their duty that he be expelled ; for he has caused contention and disturbance in the Christian church.

And if one of the priests or a layman who have been expelled goes into a city just as if he had not been expelled, and he enters this city without permission [of the bishop] and is ordained, then let both he and the one who ordained him be expelled. For if he had been driven outside [of the congregation], let him be driven out a still greater length of days, for he has lied to the Church of God.

If one of the clergy or a layman enters the synagogue of the Jews or the place of the heretic in order to pray, let the priest be deposed and the layman be expelled.

If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended.

Thus did Balaam speak by inspiration, as not being in his own power, but moved to say what he did by the Divine Spirit. But then Balak was displeased, and said he had broken the contract he had made, whereby he was to come, as he and his confederates had invited him, by the promise of great presents: for whereas he came to curse their enemies, he had made an encomium upon them, and had declared that they were the happiest of men. To which Balaam replied, "O Balak, if thou rightly considerest this whole matter, canst thou suppose that it is in our power to be silent, or to say any thing, when the Spirit of God seizes upon us?—for he puts such words as he pleases in our mouths, and such discourses as we are not ourselves conscious of. I well remember by what entreaties both you and the Midianites so joyfully brought me hither, and on that account I took this journey. It was my prayer, that I might not put any affront upon you, as to what you desired of me; but God is more powerful than the purposes I had made to serve you; for those that take upon them to foretell the affairs of mankind, as from their own abilities, are entirely unable to do it, or to forbear to utter what God suggests to them, or to offer violence to his will; for when he prevents us and enters into us, nothing that we say is our own. I then did not intend to praise this army, nor to go over the several good things which God intended to do to their race; but since he was so favorable to them, and so ready to bestow upon them a happy life and eternal glory, he suggested the declaration of those things to me: but now, because it is my desire to oblige thee thyself, as well as the Midianites, whose entreaties it is not decent for me to reject, go to, let us again rear other altars, and offer the like sacrifices that we did before, that I may see whether I can persuade God to permit me to bind these men with curses." Which, when Balak had agreed to, God would not, even upon second sacrifices, consent to his cursing the Israelites. Then fell Balaam upon his face, and foretold what calamities would befall the several kings of the nations, and the most eminent cities, some of which of old were not so much as inhabited; which events have come to pass among the several people concerned, both in the foregoing ages, and in this, till my own memory, both by sea and by land. From which completion of all these predictions that he made, one may easily guess that the rest will have their completion in time to come.

Now I think they must, in the first place, be required to show, if they can, agreeably to their own definition, that the Creator is just in punishing according to their deserts, either those who perished at the time of the deluge, or the inhabitants of Sodom, or those who had quitted Egypt, seeing we sometimes behold committed crimes more wicked and detestable than those for which the above-mentioned persons were destroyed, while we do not yet see every sinner paying the penalty of his misdeeds. Will they say that He who at one time was just has been made good? Or will they rather be of opinion that He is even now just, but is patiently enduring human offences, while that then He was not even just, inasmuch as He exterminated innocent and sucking children along with cruel and ungodly giants? Now, such are their opinions, because they know not how to understand anything beyond the letter; otherwise they would show how it is literal justice for sins to be visited upon the heads of children to the third and fourth generation, and on children’s children after them. By us, however, such things are not understood literally; but, as Ezekiel taught when relating the parable, we inquire what is the inner meaning contained in the parable itself. Moreover, they ought to explain this also, how He is just, and rewards every one according to his merits, who punishes earthly-minded persons and the devil, seeing they have done nothing worthy of punishment. For they could not do any good if, according to them, they were of a wicked and ruined nature. For as they style Him a judge, He appears to be a judge not so much of actions as of natures; and if a bad nature cannot do good, neither can a good nature do evil. Then, in the next place, if He whom they call good is good to all, He is undoubtedly good also to those who are destined to perish. And why does He not save them? If He does not desire to do so, He will be no longer good; if He does desire it, and cannot effect it, He will not be omnipotent. Why do they not rather hear the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels, preparing fire for the devil and his angels? And how shall that proceeding, as penal as it is sad, appear to be, according to their view, the work of the good God? Even the Saviour Himself, the Son of the good God, protests in the Gospels, and declares that “if signs and wonders had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” And when He had come near to those very cities, and had entered their territory, why, pray, does He avoid entering those cities, and exhibiting to them abundance of signs and wonders, if it were certain that they would have repented, after they had been performed, in sackcloth and ashes? But as He does not do this, He undoubtedly abandons to destruction those whom the language of the Gospel shows not to have been of a wicked or ruined nature, inasmuch as it declares they were capable of repentance. Again, in a certain parable of the Gospel, where the king enters in to see the guests reclining at the banquet, he beheld a certain individual not clothed with wedding raiment, and said to him, “Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment?” and then ordered his servants, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Let them tell us who is that king who entered in to see the guests, and finding one amongst them with unclean garments, commanded him to be bound by his servants, and thrust out into outer darkness. Is he the same whom they call just? How then had he commanded good and bad alike to be invited, without directing their merits to be inquired into by his servants? By such procedure would be indicated, not the character of a just God who rewards according to men’s deserts, as they assert, but of one who displays undiscriminating goodness towards all. Now, if this must necessarily be understood of the good God, i.e. either of Christ or of the Father of Christ, what other objection can they bring against the justice of God’s judgment? Nay, what else is there so unjust charged by them against the God of the law as to order him who had been invited by His servants, whom He had sent to call good and bad alike, to be bound hand and foot, and to be thrown into outer darkness, because he had on unclean garments?

Since, then, as reason teaches, we must repose faith in some one of those who have been the introducers of sects among the Greeks or barbarians, why should we not rather believe in God who is over all things, and in Him who teaches that worship is due to God alone, and that other things are to be passed by, either as non-existent, or as existing indeed, and worthy of honour, but not of worship and reverence? And respecting these things, he who not only believes, but who contemplates things with the eye of reason, will state the demonstrations that occur to him, and which are the result of careful investigation. And why should it not be more reasonable, seeing all human things are dependent upon faith, to believe God rather than them? For who enters on a voyage, or contracts a marriage, or becomes the father of children, or casts seed into the ground, without believing that better things will result from so doing, although the contrary might and sometimes does happen? And yet the belief that better things, even agreeably to their wishes, will follow, makes all men venture upon uncertain enterprises, which may turn out differently from what they expect. And if the hope and belief of a better future be the support of life in every uncertain enterprise, why shall not this faith rather be rationally accepted by him who believes on better grounds than he who sails the sea, or tills the ground, or marries a wife, or engages in any other human pursuit, in the existence of a God who was the Creator of all these things, and in Him who with surpassing wisdom and divine greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine to men in every part of the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death considered infamous, which He underwent for the sake of the human race; having also taught those who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at the first, to proceed, under the peril of every danger, and of ever impending death, to all quarters of the world to ensure the salvation of men?

And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom are to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and in arguments which prove that such a worship of God is in conformity with reason, and of a secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians, then, when they boastfully give their own account of the divinity of animals, are to be considered wise; but if any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law and the lawgiver, refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the only God, he is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal animals, but even to that of irrational also!—a view which goes far beyond the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the soul falls down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of brute beasts, both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!

And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having “invented his birth from a virgin,” and upbraids Him with being “born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.” Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.

Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit named Æsculapius, who used to cure the bodies of men, I would say to those who are astonished at such an occurrence, or at the prophetic knowledge of Apollo, that since the cure of bodies is a thing indifferent, and a matter within the reach not merely of the good, but also of the bad; and as the foreknowledge of the future is also a thing indifferent—for the possessor of foreknowledge does not necessarily manifest the possession of virtue—you must show that they who practise healing or who foretell the future are in no respect wicked, but exhibit a perfect pattern of virtue, and are not far from being regarded as gods. But they will not be able to show that they are virtuous who practise the art of healing, or who are gifted with foreknowledge, seeing many who are not fit to live are related to have been healed; and these, too, persons whom, as leading improper lives, no wise physician would wish to heal. And in the responses of the Pythian oracle also you may find some injunctions which are not in accordance with reason, two of which we will adduce on the present occasion; viz. when it gave commandment that Cleomedes—the boxer, I suppose—should be honoured with divine honours, seeing some great importance or other attaching to his pugilistic skill, but did not confer either upon Pythagoras or upon Socrates the honours which it awarded to pugilism; and also when it called Archilochus “the servant of the Muses”—a man who employed his poetic powers upon topics of the most wicked and licentious nature, and whose public character was dissolute and impure—and entitled him “pious,” in respect of his being the servant of the Muses, who are deemed to be goddesses! Now I am inclined to think that no one would assert that he was a “pious” man who was not adorned with all moderation and virtue, or that a decorous man would utter such expressions as are contained in the unseemly iambics of Archilochus. And if nothing that is divine in itself is shown to belong either to the healing skill of Æsculapius or the prophetic power of Apollo, how could any one, even were I to grant that the facts are as alleged, reasonably worship them as pure divinities?—and especially when the prophetic spirit of Apollo, pure from any body of earth, secretly enters through the private parts the person of her who is called the priestess, as she is seated at the mouth of the Pythian cave! Whereas regarding Jesus and His power we have no such notion; for the body which was born of the Virgin was composed of human material, and capable of receiving human wounds and death.

The belief, then, in Antinous, or any other such person, whether among the Egyptians or the Greeks, is, so to speak, unfortunate; while the belief in Jesus would seem to be either a fortunate one, or the result of thorough investigation, having the appearance of the former to the multitude, and of the latter to exceedingly few. And when I speak of a certain belief being, as the multitude would call it, unfortunate, I in such a case refer the cause to God, who knows the reasons of the various fates allotted to each one who enters human life. The Greeks, moreover, will admit that even amongst those who are considered to be most largely endowed with wisdom, good fortune has had much to do, as in the choice of teachers of one kind rather than another, and in meeting with a better class of instructors (there being teachers who taught the most opposite doctrines), and in being brought up in better circumstances; for the bringing up of many has been amid surroundings of such a kind, that they were prevented from ever receiving any idea of better things, but constantly passed their life, from their earliest youth, either as the favourites of licentious men or of tyrants, or in some other wretched condition which forbade the soul to look upwards. And the causes of these varied fortunes, according to all probability, are to be found in the reasons of providence, though it is not easy for men to ascertain these; but I have said what I have done by way of digression from the main body of my subject, on account of the proverb, that “such is the power of faith, because it seizes that which first presents itself.” For it was necessary, owing to the different methods of education, to speak of the differences of belief among men, some of whom are more, others less fortunate in their belief; and from this to proceed to show that what is termed good or bad fortune would appear to contribute, even in the case of the most talented, to their appearing to be more fully endowed with reason, and to give their assent on grounds of reason to the majority of human opinions. But enough on these points.

But as it is in mockery that Celsus says we speak of “God coming down like a torturer bearing fire,” and thus compels us unseasonably to investigate words of deeper meaning, we shall make a few remarks, sufficient to enable our hearers to form an idea of the defence which disposes of the ridicule of Celsus against us, and then we shall turn to what follows. The divine word says that our God is “a consuming fire,” and that “He draws rivers of fire before Him;” nay, that He even entereth in as “a refiner’s fire, and as a fuller’s herb,” to purify His own people. But when He is said to be a “consuming fire,” we inquire what are the things which are appropriate to be consumed by God. And we assert that they are wickedness, and the works which result from it, and which, being figuratively called “wood, hay, stubble,” God consumes as a fire. The wicked man, accordingly, is said to build up on the previously-laid foundation of reason, “wood, and hay, and stubble.” If, then, any one can show that these words were differently understood by the writer, and can prove that the wicked man literally builds up “wood, or hay, or stubble,” it is evident that the fire must be understood to be material, and an object of sense. But if, on the contrary, the works of the wicked man are spoken of figuratively under the names of “wood, or hay, or stubble,” why does it not at once occur [to inquire] in what sense the word “fire” is to be taken, so that “wood” of such a kind should be consumed? for [the Scripture] says: “The fire will try each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work be burned, he shall suffer loss.” But what work can be spoken of in these words as being “burned,” save all that results from wickedness? Therefore our God is a “consuming fire” in the sense in which we have taken the word; and thus He enters in as a “refiner’s fire,” to refine the rational nature, which has been filled with the lead of wickedness, and to free it from the other impure materials, which adulterate the natural gold or silver, so to speak, of the soul. And, in like manner, “rivers of fire” are said to be before God, who will thoroughly cleanse away the evil which is intermingled throughout the whole soul. But these remarks are sufficient in answer to the assertion, “that thus they were made to give expression to the erroneous opinion that God will come down bearing fire like a torturer.”

But when Celsus speaks of heroes and demons, he starts a deeper question than he is aware of. For after the statement which he made in regard to service among men, that “the first master is injured when any of his servants wishes at the same time to serve another,” he adds, that “the same holds true of heroes, and other demons of that kind.” Now we must inquire of him what nature he thinks those heroes and demons possess of whom he affirms that he who serves one hero may not serve another, and he who serves one demon may not serve another, as though the former hero or demon would be injured in the same way as men are injured when they who serve them first afterwards give themselves to the service of others. Let him also state what loss he supposes those heroes or demons will suffer. For he will be driven either to plunge into endless absurdities, and first repeat, then retract his previous statements; or else to abandon his frivolous conjectures, and confess that he understands nothing of the nature of heroes and demons. And in regard to his statement, that men suffer injury when the servant of one man enters the service of a second master, the question arises: “What is the nature of the injury which is done to the former master by a servant who, while serving him, wishes at the same time to serve another?”

When the time of the Passover came, He sent two of His disciples to a man with whom they were not acquainted, saying, ‘When ye enter the city, behold, there will meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water; follow him, and wheresoever he entereth, say ye to the master of the house, “ Our Master saith. Where is the guest-chamber, where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?” and behold, he will shew you a large upper chamber made ready and prepared; there make ye ready for us.’ And because at that time crowds of people were flocking thickly into Jerusalem to keep the feast of the Passover, so that all the houses of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were filled with people by reason of the great crowd which was resorting thither, our Lord, by the power of His Godhead, worked upon the master of the house to make ready a large upper chamber without his being aware for whom he was preparing it, but he thought that perhaps some great man among the nobles and grandees of the Jews was about to come to him, and that it was right to keep a room for him furnished with all things (needful); because all those who came from other places to Jerusalem were received into their houses by the people of the city, and whatsoever they required for the use of the feast of the Passover they supplied. Hence the master of the house made ready that upper chamber with all things (needful), and permitted no man to enter therein, being restrained by the power of our Lord. Because a mystical thing was about to be done in it, it was not meet for Him.to perform the hidden mystery when others were near, Mar Basil says: ‘ On the eve of the Passion, after the disciples had received the body and blood of our Lord, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the feet of His disciples; this was baptism to the apostles. They were not all made perfect, because they were not all pure, for Judas, the son of perdition, was not sanctified; and because that basin of washing was in truth baptism, as our Lord said to Simon Peter, “ If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me,” that is to say, “ If I baptise thee not, thou art not able to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Therefore, every one who is not baptised by the priests, and receives not the body and blood of Christ our Lord, enters not into the kingdom of heaven.’ Mar Dad-isho' says in his commentary on Abba Isaiah: ‘ When our Lord at the Passover had washed the feet of His disciples, He kissed the knees of Judas, and wiped the soles of his feet with the napkin which was girt round His loins, like a common slave; for everything which our Lord did, He did for our teaching.’ Mar Basil in his ‘ Questions ’ advises Christians to eat oil, drink wine., and break their fast on this evening; for in it was the old covenant finished, and the new one inaugurated; and in it was the (chosen) people stripped of holiness, and the nations were sanctified and pardoned. Although this saint permits (this), yet the other fathers do not give leave (to do) this, neither do we, nor those of our confession.

One who enters into a large city should say two prayers, one on entering and one on leaving. Ben Azzai says: four two on entering and two on leaving, he gives thanks for the past and cries out for the future.

One enters a city and doesn’t know anyone. He says: “Who here is trustworthy? Who gives tithes here?” One person one responds: “I am.” He may not be trusted. [But if] he replied: “So-and-so is trustworthy,” he may be trusted. He went to buy from so-and-so, and he asked him: “Who here sells aged produce?” and so-and-so replied: “He sent you to me,” though they appear to be repaying each other, they may be trusted.

If a deer enters a house and one person shuts [the door] before it, he is liable. If two shut it, they are exempt. If one could not shut it, and both shut it, they are liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts them.

Bundles of straw, bundles of twigs, or bundles of young shoots, if they were prepared as animal food, they may be carried; if not, they may not be carried. One may overturn a basket before young birds, so that they will get up and then get down. A chicken which has run away, they may push her until she re-enters. One may make calves and foals walk in the public domain. And a woman may make her son walk. Rabbi Judah says: when is this so? If he lifts one [foot] and places [another] down; but if he drags them it is forbidden.

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118:1), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.” One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.

One may not take wood from a sukkah but only from [what is] next to it. One may bring in from the field wood that is gathered together, and from a karpef [an enclosure] even though it is scattered about. What is a karpef? Any [enclosure] next to the town, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: Any [enclosure] which one enters with a key, even if it is [only just] within the Shabbat border.

There were five events that happened to our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av. On the seventeenth of Tammuz: The tablets were shattered; The tamid (daily) offering was cancelled; The [walls] of the city were breached; And Apostomos burned the Torah, and placed an idol in the Temple. On the ninth of Av It was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the land, The Temple was destroyed the first And the second time, Betar was captured, And the city was plowed up. When Av enters, they limit their rejoicing.

She remains in the domain of her father until she enters the domain of her husband [by going into the bridal chamber] at marriage. If her father delivered her to the agents of the husband she passes into the domain of her husband. If her father went with the husband’s agents or if the father’s agents went with the husband’s agents she remains in the domain of her father. If her father’s agents delivered her to the husband’s agents she passes into the domain of her husband.

If joint owners [of a courtyard] made a vow not to benefit from one another, they may not enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: This one enters his own property and this one enters his own property. And both are forbidden to set up a mill-stone or an oven or raise chickens. If [only] one was forbidden by vow to benefit from the other, he may not enter the court. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: He can say to the other, “I am entering into my own, and I am not entering into yours.’ They force the one who vowed to sell his share [of the courtyard].

If joint owners [of a courtyard] made a vow not to benefit from one another, they may not enter the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: This one enters his own property and this one enters his own property. And both are forbidden to set up a mill-stone or an oven or raise chickens. If [only] one was forbidden by vow to benefit from the other, he may not enter the court. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: He can say to the other, “I am entering into my own, and I am not entering into yours.’ They force the one who vowed to sell his share [of the courtyard].

It is the practice of scholars, before the daughter of one of them departs from him, he says to her, “All the vows which you vowed in my house are annulled.” Likewise the husband, before she enters into his domain would say to her, “All the vows which you vowed before you entered my domain are annulled,” because once she enters into his domain he cannot annul them.

It is the practice of scholars, before the daughter of one of them departs from him, he says to her, “All the vows which you vowed in my house are annulled.” Likewise the husband, before she enters into his domain would say to her, “All the vows which you vowed before you entered my domain are annulled,” because once she enters into his domain he cannot annul them.

[In the case of] a girl who has reached majority age who waited twelve months, or a widow [who waited] thirty days, Rabbi Eliezer says: since her [betrothed] husband is responsible for her maintenance, he may annul [her vows]. But the Sages say: the husband cannot annul [her vows] until she enters into his domain.

If one takes a nazirite vow while in a graveyard, then even if he remains there for thirty days, these do not count, and he does not have to bring the sacrifice [prescribed] for impurity. If he leaves it and re-enters, [the period] counts, and he must bring the sacrifice [prescribed] for impurity. Rabbi Eliezer says: not [if he re-enters] on the same day, for it says, “But the former days shall be void,” (Numbers 6:12) until there are former days.

If one takes a nazirite vow while in a graveyard, then even if he remains there for thirty days, these do not count, and he does not have to bring the sacrifice [prescribed] for impurity. If he leaves it and re-enters, [the period] counts, and he must bring the sacrifice [prescribed] for impurity. Rabbi Eliezer says: not [if he re-enters] on the same day, for it says, “But the former days shall be void,” (Numbers 6:12) until there are former days.

[The priest] takes an earthenware bowl and pours half a log of water into it from the laver. Rabbi Judah says: a quarter [of a log]. Just as [Rabbi Judah] reduces the amount of writing, so he reduces the quantity of water. [Then the priest] enters the temple and turns to his right and there was a place there [on the floor] that was a cubit by a cubit, and a marble tablet, to which a ring was attached. When he would lift this up, he would take some dust from beneath it which he puts [into the bowl] so that it would be seen on top of the water; as it is said, “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17).

It is the same whether one [while impure] enters the Temple court or the addition to the Temple court, for additions are not made to the city [of Jerusalem], or to the Temple courts except by the king, prophet, Urim and Thummim, the Sanhedrin of seventy one, and with two [loaves] of thanksgiving, and with song. And the court walks in a procession, the two [loaves] of thanksgiving [being carried] after them, and all Israel [following] behind them. The inner one is eaten, and the outer one is burnt. And as to any addition that was made without all these he who enters it [while impure] is not liable.

It is the same whether one [while impure] enters the Temple court or the addition to the Temple court, for additions are not made to the city [of Jerusalem], or to the Temple courts except by the king, prophet, Urim and Thummim, the Sanhedrin of seventy one, and with two [loaves] of thanksgiving, and with song. And the court walks in a procession, the two [loaves] of thanksgiving [being carried] after them, and all Israel [following] behind them. The inner one is eaten, and the outer one is burnt. And as to any addition that was made without all these he who enters it [while impure] is not liable.

If a garment was carried outside the curtains [of the Tabernacle], it must re-enter, and is washed it in the holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, one must tear it, then it re-enters, and is washed in the holy place. If an earthen vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is broken in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, a hole is made in it, then it re-enters and is broken in a holy place.

If a garment was carried outside the curtains [of the Tabernacle], it must re-enter, and is washed it in the holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, one must tear it, then it re-enters, and is washed in the holy place. If an earthen vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is broken in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, a hole is made in it, then it re-enters and is broken in a holy place.

If a garment was carried outside the curtains [of the Tabernacle], it must re-enter, and is washed it in the holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, one must tear it, then it re-enters, and is washed in the holy place. If an earthen vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is broken in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, a hole is made in it, then it re-enters and is broken in a holy place.

If a copper vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the hangings, it must be broken through, then it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place.

If a copper vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the hangings, it must be broken through, then it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place.

If one donkey had given birth before and one had not given birth before and they gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest. [If they gave birth to] a male and a female, he sets aside one lamb [which he keeps] for himself. For it says, “And the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:20), [the lamb can come either] from the sheep or the goats, male or female, large or small, unblemished or blemished. He can redeem with the same lamb many times. [And the lamb] enters the pen to be tithed. If it dies [before he gives it to the priest], he can benefit from it.

There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet: When one has intercourse with his mother, His father's wife; Or his daughter-in-law; When a man has intercourse with a male, Or with a beast, Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself; When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter; Or with a married woman; Or with his sister; Or with his father's sister; Or his mother's sister; Or his wife's sister; Or his brother's wife; Or the wife of his father's brother; Or with a menstruating woman; One who blasphemes [the Lord]; One who worships idols; Or dedicates his children to Molech; Or has a ba’al ov; Or desecrates the Shabbat; When an unclean person eats of sacred food; Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state; When one eats forbidden fat, Or blood; Notar; Or piggul; When one slaughters Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; One who eats Or works on Yom Kippur; One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Or compounds incense; Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah, And circumcision from among positive commandments.

Within what time must he eat them [for him to be liable]? [The time he would need] if he ate a similar amount of parched grains of corn, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the rabbis say: he must take from the beginning to the end [of his eating] no more time than is required for the eating of a peras (a half a loaf of bread) [to be liable]. If one eats unclean food or drinks unclean drinks, or if he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine and then enters the Temple [he is liable if it takes less time] than it takes to eat a peras. Rabbi Eliezer says: if the drinking was interrupted or if he diluted it, he is exempt.

The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.

What is the procedure for the inspection of a house? "The owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, "Something like a plague has appeared upon my house" (Leviticus 14:35). Even if he is a learned sage and knows that it is definitely a nega, he may not speak with certainty saying, "A plague has appeared upon my house," but rather, "Something like a plague has appeared upon my house." "The priest shall order the house cleared before the priest enters to examine the plague, so that nothing in the house may become unclean; after that the priest shall enter to examine the house." Even bundles of wood and even bundles of reeds [must be removed], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon said: clearing keeps him occupied. Rabbi Meir said: But which [of his goods] could become unclean? If you were to say, his articles of wood, of cloth or of metal, he could immerse them and they will become clean. What is it that the Torah has spared? His earthenware, even his cruse and his bucket. If the Torah thus spared a man's humble possessions, how much more so would it spare his cherished possessions! If for his material possessions, how much more so for the life of his sons and daughters! If for the possessions of a wicked man, how much more so for the possessions of a righteous one!

A house that has been isolated conveys uncleanness from its inside; And one that has been certified unclean, both from its inside and from its outside. Both convey uncleanness if one enters in.

If a house overshadowed a house with a nega and so also if a tree overshadowed a house with a nega, anyone who enters the outer [of the two] remains clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Elazar said: if one stone of it causes uncleanness by entering, should not the house itself cause uncleanness by entering?

If he enters a synagogue, a partition ten handbreadths high and four cubits wide must be made for him. He should enter first and come out last. Any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection by a tightly fitting cover in the house of one afflicted by a nega, And whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega; and whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse remains clean even when uncovered in a leprous house.

The following block [immersion] in the case of a person: threads of wool, threads of flax and the ribbons on the heads of girls. Rabbi Judah says: those of wool or of hair do not interpose, because water enters through them.

Bet Shammai say: hot water may not be immersed in cold, or cold in hot, foul in fresh or fresh in foul. But Bet Hillel say: it may be immersed. A vessel full of liquids which one immersed, it is as if it has not been immersed. If it was full of urine, this is reckoned as water. If it contained hatat waters, [it is unclean] unless the water [of the mikveh which enters the vessel] exceeds the hatat waters. Rabbi Yose says: even if a vessel with the capacity of a kor contains but a quarter-log, it is as if it had not been immersed.

If an unclean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, or a clean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, it becomes unclean. If part of an unclean person rests on an object fit to lie upon, or part of a clean person rests upon an object fit to lie upon, it remains clean. Thus we find that impurity enters it and goes out of it by its lesser part. Similarly, if a loaf of terumah was placed upon an object fit to lie upon [that was unclean] and there paper in between, whether it was above or below, it remains clean. Similarly, in the case of a stone with scale disease it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon pronounced such a case unclean.

Rebbi Lia, Rebbi Yasa in the name of the great Rebbi Aḥa: If he prayed and he found himself in “He Who hears prayer”, he may assume that he prayed with intent. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he prayed without intent and he knows that the second time he will pray with intent, he may pray a second time; otherwise he should not pray. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said: I never managed to pray with intent, but one time I made an effort to concentrate and I started to think and said to myself, who enters first before the king, the ἀργαπέτης or the Resh Galuta? Samuel said: I counted chicks. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: I counted stone rows. Rebbi Mattaniah said: I an thankful to my head that when I come to modim it bends down by itself.

Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: He who enters the synagogue and finds them standing and praying, if he knows that he could start and finish before the reader starts, so that he may answer “Amen”, he may pray, otherwise he should not pray. About which “Amen” did they talk? Two Amoraïm, one says the Amen of “the holy King” and the other says the Amen of “He Who listens to prayer”. Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said: the Amen of “the holy King”, on the Sabbath, and he who said: the Amen of “He Who listens to prayer” on weekdays.

It is stated: One removes himself four cubits from excrement and urine of a toddler who can eat grain the volume of an olive, but if he cannot yet eat grain the volume of an olive one does not need to remove himself four cubits either from his excrement or from his urine. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Why does one separate himself from his excrement and urine? He said to them, because his thoughts are evil. They said to him: But is not he too young? He said to them, is it not written (Gen. 8:21): “For the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth?” Rebbi Yudan said, it is written “from his awakening”, from the moment that the awakes and enters the world.

HALAKHAH: What does he say when he enters? May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that I should not be offended by my colleagues and my colleagues should not be offended by me; that we should not declare impure that which is pure, nor declare pure what is impure; that we should not forbid that which is permitted, nor permit what is forbidden and I would be ashamed in this world and the world to come. What does he say when he leaves? I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You ordained my lot with those who sit in the house of study and in synagogues and You did not ordain my lot in theaters and circuses. For I toil and they toil, I am diligent and they are diligent. I toil to inherit the Garden of Eden, but they toil for the pit of destruction as it is said (Ps. 16:10): “Certainly, You will not abandon my soul to the pit, You will not let Your pious ones see destruction.”

Rav Ḥisda said: He who enters the synagogue must enter inside two doors. What is the reason (Prov. 8:34) “Hail to the man who listens to Me, always to be diligent at My doors.” My doors and not my door. Doorposts and not doorpost. If he did that, what is written there? (Prov. 8:35) “Because he who found Me found life.”

They came back and asked him: What is that which is written (Deut. 4:8): “Where is a great people that has ĕlōhīm close to them?” He answered them, it is not written: “Like the Eternal, our ĕlōhīm, always when we call on them”, but “always when we call on Him.” His students told him: Teacher, these you pushed away with a stick, what can you answer us? He said to them, he is close in all kinds of closeness, as Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Yehudah bar Simon: Idolatry seems close but is very far. What is the reason? (Is. 46:7) “They take it on the shoulder, carry it, etc.” Finally, his god is with him in the house and he cries until he dies but that one will not hear and not save him from his distress. But the Holy One, praise to Him, seems to be far away when there is no one closer than Him, as Levi said: From the earth to the (first) heaven is a distance of 500 years’ walk. From one heaven to the next is a distance of 500 years’ walk. The thickness of each heaven is a distance of 500 years’ walk. And Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Red Rebbi Abba said, also the toes of the heavenly Ḥayot are a length of 515 years’ walk, the number YŠRH. See how much higher He is than His world! But a person enters the synagogue, stands behind a pillar, prays in a whisper, and the Holy One, praise to Him, listens to his prayer, as it has been said (1Sam. 1:13): “Hannah spoke to herself, only her lips were moving, but her voice was not heard.” But the Holy One, praise to Him, listened to her prayer. And so it is with all His creatures, as it has been said (Ps. 102:1): “Prayer of the poor when he wraps himself up,” just like a man whispering into the ear of his friend and the latter understands. Can you have a God who is closer than that to His creatures, from mouth to ear?”

“On lightning.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: It is enough once a day. Rebbi Yose said, what are we talking about? If it is permanent, once a day is enough. If it is intermittent, one recites the benediction for each occurrence. The force of Rebbi Yose from the following: If he was sitting in the perfumer’s store all day long, he would recite the benediction only once. But if he enters and leaves, enters and leaves, he recites a benediction every time. It came, it was said by Rebbi Aḥa (and) Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yose: If it is permanent, once a day is enough. If it is intermittent, one recites the benediction for each occurrence.

“On lightning.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: It is enough once a day. Rebbi Yose said, what are we talking about? If it is permanent, once a day is enough. If it is intermittent, one recites the benediction for each occurrence. The force of Rebbi Yose from the following: If he was sitting in the perfumer’s store all day long, he would recite the benediction only once. But if he enters and leaves, enters and leaves, he recites a benediction every time. It came, it was said by Rebbi Aḥa (and) Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yose: If it is permanent, once a day is enough. If it is intermittent, one recites the benediction for each occurrence.

He who makes a sukkah for himself, says: “He Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a sukkah.” For others: “to make a sukkah in that one’s name.” If he enters it, he says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to dwell in a sukkah.” After he recited the benediction in the first night of the holiday he does not have to recite it again. He who makes a lulav for himself, says: “He Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a lulav.” For others: “to make a lulav in that one’s name.” If he uses it, he says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to take a lulav,” and “He Who let us live.” He recites the benediction every time that he takes it.

MISHNAH: He who enters a fortified place prays two prayers, one when he enters and one when he leaves. Ben Azai said four, two when he enters and two when he leaves. He gives thanks for the past and implores for the future.

MISHNAH: He who enters a fortified place prays two prayers, one when he enters and one when he leaves. Ben Azai said four, two when he enters and two when he leaves. He gives thanks for the past and implores for the future.

MISHNAH: He who enters a fortified place prays two prayers, one when he enters and one when he leaves. Ben Azai said four, two when he enters and two when he leaves. He gives thanks for the past and implores for the future.

HALAKHAH: “He who enters a fortified place says two prayers, one when he enters and one when he leaves.” What does he say when he enters? May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will bring me into this fortress for peace. When he leaves, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, etc. “Ben Azai said four, two when he enters and two when he leaves.” When he is about to enter, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will bring me into this fortress for peace. After he entered, he says: I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that I entered in peace; so may it be Your pleasure that You will lead me out of it for peace. When he wants to leave, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will lead me out from this fortress in peace. When he left, he says: I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You made me leave in peace; so may it be Your pleasure that You will lead me to my house for peace (or, to place X for peace.) That means, if it is inhabited by Gentiles, but if it is inhabited by Jews, he does not have to recite the benedictions. But if it was a place where they kill, even in a Jewish dwelling he must recite the benediction.

HALAKHAH: “He who enters a fortified place says two prayers, one when he enters and one when he leaves.” What does he say when he enters? May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will bring me into this fortress for peace. When he leaves, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, etc. “Ben Azai said four, two when he enters and two when he leaves.” When he is about to enter, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will bring me into this fortress for peace. After he entered, he says: I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that I entered in peace; so may it be Your pleasure that You will lead me out of it for peace. When he wants to leave, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will lead me out from this fortress in peace. When he left, he says: I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You made me leave in peace; so may it be Your pleasure that You will lead me to my house for peace (or, to place X for peace.) That means, if it is inhabited by Gentiles, but if it is inhabited by Jews, he does not have to recite the benedictions. But if it was a place where they kill, even in a Jewish dwelling he must recite the benediction.

HALAKHAH: “He who enters a fortified place says two prayers, one when he enters and one when he leaves.” What does he say when he enters? May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will bring me into this fortress for peace. When he leaves, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, etc. “Ben Azai said four, two when he enters and two when he leaves.” When he is about to enter, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will bring me into this fortress for peace. After he entered, he says: I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that I entered in peace; so may it be Your pleasure that You will lead me out of it for peace. When he wants to leave, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will lead me out from this fortress in peace. When he left, he says: I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You made me leave in peace; so may it be Your pleasure that You will lead me to my house for peace (or, to place X for peace.) That means, if it is inhabited by Gentiles, but if it is inhabited by Jews, he does not have to recite the benedictions. But if it was a place where they kill, even in a Jewish dwelling he must recite the benediction.

HALAKHAH: “He who enters a fortified place says two prayers, one when he enters and one when he leaves.” What does he say when he enters? May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will bring me into this fortress for peace. When he leaves, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, etc. “Ben Azai said four, two when he enters and two when he leaves.” When he is about to enter, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will bring me into this fortress for peace. After he entered, he says: I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that I entered in peace; so may it be Your pleasure that You will lead me out of it for peace. When he wants to leave, he says: May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You will lead me out from this fortress in peace. When he left, he says: I thank You, o Eternal, my God and God of my fathers, that You made me leave in peace; so may it be Your pleasure that You will lead me to my house for peace (or, to place X for peace.) That means, if it is inhabited by Gentiles, but if it is inhabited by Jews, he does not have to recite the benedictions. But if it was a place where they kill, even in a Jewish dwelling he must recite the benediction.

If one enters the toilet, he recites two benedictions, one before and one after. When he enters, what does he say? Honor to you, honored, holy servants, this is the way of the world, let me go. Praise to the God of glory! When he leaves, what does he say? Praise to Him Who created man in wisdom.

If one enters the toilet, he recites two benedictions, one before and one after. When he enters, what does he say? Honor to you, honored, holy servants, this is the way of the world, let me go. Praise to the God of glory! When he leaves, what does he say? Praise to Him Who created man in wisdom.

When one enters the thermal bath, he prays twice; once on entering and once on leaving. When he enters, he says: “May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God, that You may save me from being burned in fire, damaged by hot water or from collapse. Nothing should happen to me, but if it happens let my death be atonement for all my sins; save me from this and from the similar one in the future world.” When he leaves, he says: “I thank You, o Eternal, my God, that You saved me from fire.” Rebbi Abbahu said, that is for a thermal bath which is heated. But in a thermal bath that is not heated, he says only “from damage by hot water”. Rebbi Ḥilqiah and Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The prayer at a bathhouse does not require standing.

When one enters the thermal bath, he prays twice; once on entering and once on leaving. When he enters, he says: “May it be Your pleasure, o Eternal, my God, that You may save me from being burned in fire, damaged by hot water or from collapse. Nothing should happen to me, but if it happens let my death be atonement for all my sins; save me from this and from the similar one in the future world.” When he leaves, he says: “I thank You, o Eternal, my God, that You saved me from fire.” Rebbi Abbahu said, that is for a thermal bath which is heated. But in a thermal bath that is not heated, he says only “from damage by hot water”. Rebbi Ḥilqiah and Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The prayer at a bathhouse does not require standing.

It was stated: If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Gentiles, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are obligated, be it demay or certain. If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Jews, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are free, be it demay or certain. If there is any doubt whether there is a majority of Gentiles or a majority of Jews, that is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

It was stated: If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Gentiles, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are obligated, be it demay or certain. If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Jews, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are free, be it demay or certain. If there is any doubt whether there is a majority of Gentiles or a majority of Jews, that is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

If the fig harvest was finished and he watches his field because of grapes, grape harvest and he watches his field because of vegetables, if a worker enters there and the owner is offended, they are forbidden because of robbery.

MISHNAH: If someone enters a town, does not know anybody there, and asks: Who is trustworthy here, who tithes? If somebody told him, I am not trustworthy, but Mr. X is trustworthy, he may be believed. If he went and bought there and asked, who is selling old produce here? If the seller said, the one who sent you to me, they may be believed even though they act as if they would do reciprocal favors to each other. Donkey drivers who entered a town and one of them said, my produce is new, my colleague’s is old, mine is not in order, my colleague’s is in order, are not to be believed. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are to be believed.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

“Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden”. How is this? If he took meat in exchange for Sabbatical fruits, both are subject to removal in the Sabbatical. If he exchanged the meat for fish, the meat is released and the fish are obligated. If he exchanged fish for oil, the fish are released and the oil enters [into the obligation.] Always the last substitute is obligated and the fruit remains forbidden.

“ How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

Is our Mishnah Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? “Also produce enters and leaves”! It is the opinion of everybody. Here they were very lenient for vetch, but only dough of vetch, only dough of Second Tithe.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so is the Mishnah: “Their insides are holy and their roofs (are profane), over the holy and in the direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.” “Built in the holy but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is holy. Built in the profane but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is profane. There, where you say the inside is holy one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices and the impure who enters is guilty.”

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One whips only for 187 length by 135 width. But did we not state: In a chamber built flush with the wall of the Temple courtyard one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices, but an impure person who enters there cannot be punished. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: “Rebbi Yose said, these are the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, they classified the chambers and all chambers follow their openings.”

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure.

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure.

How does Rebbi Aqiba explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, (Num. 15:18) “From the Land’s bread?” About a ship which entered the Land. If it made a crust in the oven inside the line it is obligated, outside the line it is exempt. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, the same rule applies to a ship, Gentile’s dough, and their entry; everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba when it enters the Land that everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. This is implied by what Rebbi Aqiba objected to Rebbi Eliezer and the latter accepted it.

“ When the patriarch enters, everybody stands and they may not sit down until he tells them: sit! For the chief judge one forms rows; he may choose through which one to enter. For the ḥakham, one person after another stands up and then sits down until he arrives at his place.” Rebbi Meïr was used to it that when he went to the assembly hall, the people saw him and stood up before him. When they heard a Tanna reciting this statement, they wanted to follow its rules. He got angry and left. He said to them, I heard than one promotes in dignity but does not demote.