entitled

But I would not that ye should please men, but God whom also ye do please. For neither shall I hereafter have such an opportunity of going unto God; nor will you if ye shall now be silent, ever be entitled to a better work. For if you shall be silent in my behalf, I shall be made partaker of God.

This I found in an old book, entitled the third to the Corinthians, though it is not in the Canon.

And I summoned again to stand before me Beelzeboul, the prince of demons, and I sat him down on a raised seat of honour, and said to him: "Why art thou alone, prince of the demons?" And he said to me: "Because I alone am left of the angels of heaven that came down. For I was first angel in the first heaven being entitled Beelzeboul. And now I control all those who are bound in Tartarus. But I too have a child, and he haunts the Red Sea. And on any suitable occasion he comes up to me again, being subject to me; and reveals to me what he has done, and I support him.

I know that very many of the brethren, induced by their thirst for a knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested some distinguished men, well versed in Greek learning, to translate Origen into Latin, and so make him accessible to Roman readers. Among these, when our brother and colleague had, at the earnest entreaty of Bishop Damasus, translated two of the Homilies on the Song of Songs out of Greek into Latin, he prefixed so elegant and noble a preface to that work, as to inspire every one with a most eager desire to read and study Origen, saying that the expression, “The King hath brought me into his chamber,” was appropriate to his feelings, and declaring that while Origen in his other works surpassed all writers, he in the Song of Songs surpassed even himself. He promises, indeed, in that very preface, that he will present the books on the Song of Songs, and numerous others of the works of Origen, in a Latin translation, to Roman readers. But he, finding greater pleasure in compositions of his own, pursues an end that is attended with greater fame, viz. in being the author rather than the translator of works. Accordingly we enter upon the undertaking, which was thus begun and approved of by him, although we cannot compose in a style of elegance xiiequal to that of a man of such distinguished eloquence; and therefore I am afraid lest, through my fault, the result should follow, that that man, whom he deservedly esteems as the second teacher of knowledge and wisdom in the church after the apostles, should, through the poverty of my language, appear far inferior to what he is. And this consideration, which frequently recurred to my mind, kept me silent, and prevented me from yielding to the numerous entreaties of my brethren, until your influence, my very faithful brother Macarius, which is so great, rendered it impossible for my unskilfulness any longer to offer resistance. And therefore, that I might not find you too grievous an exactor, I gave way, even contrary to my resolution; on the condition and arrangement, however, that in my translation I should follow as far as possible the rule observed by my predecessors, and especially by that distinguished man whom I have mentioned above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homilies, and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief. His example, therefore, we follow, to the best of our ability; if not with equal power of eloquence, yet at least with the same strictness of rule, taking care not to reproduce those expressions occurring in the works of Origen which are inconsistent with and opposed to each other. The cause of these variations we have explained more freely in the Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen, where we added a brief tract, in which we showed, I think, by unmistakeable proofs, that his books had been corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons, and especially those books of which you now require me to undertake the translation, i.e. the books which may be entitled De Principiis or De Principatibus, and which are indeed in other respects full of obscurities and difficulties. For he there discusses those subjects with respect to which philosophers, xiiiafter spending all their lives upon them, have been unable to discover anything. But here our author strove, as much as in him lay, to turn to the service of religion the belief in a Creator, and the rational nature of created beings, which the latter had degraded to purposes of wickedness. If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward, agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself. If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.

Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those [words] which are written are the forms of certain mysteries, and the images of divine things. Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the whole church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge. The term ἀσώματον, i.e. incorporeal, is disused and unknown, not only in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one should quote it to us out of the little treatise entitled The Doctrine of Peter, in which the Saviour seems to say to His disciples, “I am not an incorporeal demon,” I have to reply, in the first place, that that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we can show that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired by the Spirit of God. But even if the point were to be conceded, the word ἀσώματον there does not convey the same meaning as is intended by Greek and Gentile authors when incorporeal nature is discussed by philosophers. For in the little treatise referred to he used the phrase “incorporeal demon” to denote that that form or outline of demoniacal body, whatever it is, does not resemble this gross and visible body of ours; but, agreeably to the intention of the author of the treatise, it must be understood to mean that He had not such a body as demons have, which is naturally fine, and thin as if formed of air (and for this reason is either considered or called by many incorporeal), but that He had a solid and palpable body. Now, according to human custom, everything which is not of that nature is called by the simple or ignorant incorporeal; as if one were to say that the air which we breathe was incorporeal, because it is not a body of such a nature as can be grasped and held, or can offer resistance to pressure.

Now, in the same way in which we have understood that Wisdom was the beginning of the ways of God, and is said to be created, forming beforehand and containing within herself the species and beginnings of all creatures, must we understand her to be the Word of God, because of her disclosing to all other beings, i.e. to universal creation, the nature of the mysteries and secrets which are contained within the divine wisdom; and on this account she is called the Word, because she is, as it were, the interpreter of the secrets of the mind. And therefore that language which is found in the Acts of Paul, where it is said that “here is the Word a living being,” appears to me to be rightly used. John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, “And God was the Word, and this was in the beginning with God.” Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled.

Let us look next at the passage: “So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” For they who find fault say: If “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” salvation does not depend upon ourselves, but upon the arrangement made by Him who has formed us such as we are, or on the purpose of Him who showeth mercy when He pleases. Now we must ask these persons the following questions: Whether to desire what is good is virtuous or vicious; and whether the desire to run in order to reach the goal in the pursuit of what is good be worthy of praise or censure? And if they shall say that it is worthy of censure, they will return an absurd answer; since the saints desire and run, and manifestly in so acting do nothing that is blameworthy. But if they shall say that it is virtuous to desire what is good, and to run after what is good, we shall ask them how a perishing nature desires better things; for it is like an evil tree producing good fruit, since it is a virtuous act to desire better things. They will give [perhaps] a third answer, that to desire and run after what is good is one of those things that are indifferent, and neither beautiful nor wicked. Now to this we must say, that if to desire and to run after what is good be a thing of indifference, then the opposite also is a thing of indifference, viz. to desire what is evil, and to run after it. But it is not a thing of indifference to desire what is evil, and to run after it. And therefore also, to desire what is good, and to run after it, is not a thing of indifference. Such, then, is the defence which I think we can offer to the statement, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” Solomon says in the book of Psalms (for the song of Degrees is his, from which we shall quote the words): “Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh in vain:” not dissuading us from building, nor teaching us not to keep watch in order to guard the city in our soul, but showing that what is built without God, and does not receive a guard from Him, is built in vain and watched to no purpose, because God might reasonably be entitled the Lord of the building; and the Governor of all things, the Ruler of the guard of the city. As, then, if we were to say that such a building is not the work of the builder, but of God, and that it was not owing to the successful effort of the watcher, but of the God who is over all, that such a city suffered no injury from its enemies, we should not be wrong, it being understood that something also had been done by human means, but the benefit being gratefully referred to God who brought it to pass; so, seeing that the [mere] human desire is not sufficient to attain the end, and that the running of those who are, as it were, athletes, does not enable them to gain the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus—for these things are accomplished with the assistance of God—it is well said that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” As if also it were said with regard to husbandry what also is actually recorded: “I planted, Apollos watered; and God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” Now we could not piously assert that the production of full crops was the work of the husbandman, or of him that watered, but the work of God. So also our own perfection is brought about, not as if we ourselves did nothing; for it is not completed by us, but God produces the greater part of it. And that this assertion may be more clearly believed, we shall take an illustration from the art of navigation. For in comparison with the effect of the winds, and the mildness of the air, and the light of the stars, all co-operating in the preservation of the crew, what proportion could the art of navigation be said to bear in the bringing of the ship into harbour?—since even the sailors themselves, from piety, do not venture to assert often that they had saved the ship, but refer all to God; not as if they had done nothing, but because what had been done by Providence was infinitely greater than what had been effected by their art. And in the matter of our salvation, what is done by God is infinitely greater than what is done by ourselves; and therefore, I think, is it said that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” For if in the manner which they imagine we must explain the statement, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” the commandments are superfluous; and it is in vain that Paul himself blames some for having fallen away, and approves of others as having remained upright, and enacts laws for the churches: it is in vain also that we give ourselves up to desire better things, and in vain also [to attempt] to run. But it is not in vain that Paul gives such advice, censuring some and approving of others; nor in vain that we give ourselves up to the desire of better things, and to the chase after things that are pre-eminent. They have accordingly not well explained the meaning of the passage.

We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human race, inciting and instigating men to sin. And in the first place, in the book of Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of Adam and Eve’s transgression. This also is made a subject of inquiry by some, viz. who the angel was that, speaking from heaven to Abraham, said, “Now I know that thou fearest God, and on my account hast not spared thy beloved son, whom thou lovedst.” For he is manifestly described as an angel who said that he knew then that Abraham feared God, and had not spared his beloved son, as the Scripture declares, although he did not say that it was on account of God that Abraham had done this, but on his, that is, the speaker’s account. We must also ascertain who that is of whom it is stated in the book of Exodus that he wished to slay Moses, because he was taking his departure for Egypt; and afterwards, also, who he is that is called the destroying angel, as well as he who in the book of Leviticus is called Apopompæus, i.e. Averter, regarding whom Scripture says, “One lot for the Lord, and one lot for Apopompæus, i.e. the Averter.” In the first book of Kings, also, an evil spirit is said to strangle Saul; and in the third book, Micaiah the prophet says, “I saw the Lord of Israel sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him, on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, Who will deceive Achab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will deceive him. And the Lord said to him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt deceive him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so quickly. And now therefore the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all thy prophets: the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” Now by this last quotation it is clearly shown that a certain spirit, from his own [free] will and choice, elected to deceive [Achab], and to work a lie, in order that the Lord might mislead the king to his death, for he deserved to suffer. In the first book of Chronicles also it is said, “The devil, Satan, stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number the people.” In the Psalms, moreover, an evil angel is said to harass certain persons. In the book of Ecclesiastes, too, Solomon says, “If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for soundness will restrain many transgressions.” In Zechariah we read that the devil stood on the right hand of Joshua, and resisted him. Isaiah says that the sword of the Lord arises against the dragon, the crooked serpent. And what shall I say of Ezekiel, who in his second vision prophesies most unmistakeably to the prince of Tyre regarding an opposing power, and who says also that the dragon dwells in the rivers of Egypt? Nay, with what else are the contents of the whole work which is written regarding Job occupied, save with the [doings] of the devil, who asks that power may be given him over all that Job possesses, and over his sons, and even over his person? And yet the devil is defeated through the patience of Job. In that book the Lord has by His answers imparted much information regarding the power of that dragon which opposes us. Such, meanwhile, are the statements made in the Old Testament, so far as we can at present recall them, on the subject of hostile powers being either named in Scripture, or being said to oppose the human race, and to be afterwards subjected to punishment. Let us now look also to the New Testament, where Satan approaches the Saviour, and tempts Him: wherein also it is stated that evil spirits and unclean demons, which had taken possession of very many, were expelled by the Saviour from the bodies of the sufferers, who are said also to be made free by Him. Even Judas, too, when the devil had already put it in his heart to betray Christ, afterwards received Satan wholly into him; for it is written, that after the sop “Satan entered into him.” And the Apostle Paul teaches us that we ought not to give place to the devil; but “put on,” he says, “the armour of God, that ye may be able to resist the wiles of the devil:” pointing out that the saints have to “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Nay, he says that the Saviour even was crucified by the princes of this world, who shall come to nought, whose wisdom also, he says, he does not speak. By all this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves. Whence, also, the more simple among the believers in the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which men have committed are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers exerted upon the minds of sinners, because in that invisible struggle these powers are found to be superior [to man]. For if, for example, there were no devil, no single human being would go astray.

What are we to say, moreover, regarding those prophecies of Christ contained in the Psalms, especially the one with the superscription, “A song for the Beloved;” in which it is stated that “His tongue is the pen of a ready writer; fairer than the children of men;” that “grace is poured into His lips?” Now, the indication that grace has been poured upon His lips is this, that, after a short period had elapsed—for He taught only during a year and some months—the whole world, nevertheless, became filled with His doctrine, and with faith in His religion. There arose, then, “in His days righteous men, and abundance of peace,” abiding even to the end, which end is entitled “the taking away of the moon;” and “His dominion shall extend from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” There was a sign also given to the house of David. For a virgin conceived, and bare Emmanuel, which, when interpreted, signifies, “God with us: know it, O nations, and be overcome.” For we are conquered and overcome, who are of the Gentiles, and remain as a kind of spoils of His victory, who have subjected our necks to His grace. Even the place of His birth was predicted in the prophecies of Micah, who said, “And thou, Bethlehem, land of Judah, art by no means small among the leaders of Judah: for out of thee shall come forth a Leader, who shall rule my people Israel.” The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled. Moreover, He is at hand, who in the book of Job is said to be about to destroy the huge beast, who also gave power to His own disciples to tread on serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy, without being injured by him. But if any one will consider the journeys of Christ’s apostles throughout the different places, in which as His messengers they preached the gospel, he will find that both what they ventured to undertake is beyond the power of man, and what they were enabled to accomplish is from God alone. If we consider how men, on hearing that a new doctrine was introduced by these, were able to receive them; or rather, when desiring often to destroy them, they were prevented by a divine power which was in them, we shall find that in this nothing was effected by human strength, but that the whole was the result of the divine power and providence,—signs and wonders, manifest beyond all doubt, bearing testimony to their word and doctrine.

Now, truly, it is proper that we should feel elated because afflictions, or those other causes enumerated by Paul, do not separate us [from Christ]; but not that Paul and the other apostles, and any other resembling them, [should entertain that feeling], because they were far exalted above such things when they said, “In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us,” which is a stronger statement than that they are simply “conquerors.” But if it be proper for apostles to entertain a feeling of elation in not being separated from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, that feeling will be entertained by them because neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor any of the things that follow, can separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. And therefore I do not congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus—who no longer shares the common life of men, but has long since departed—or by any apparent plausibility of argument. For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith, and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a “True Discourse,” as Celsus has entitled it.

The first book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled A True Discourse, which concluded with the representation of the Jew addressing Jesus, having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend the present part as a reply to the charges brought by him against those who have been converted from Judaism to Christianity. And we call attention, in the first place, to this special question, viz. why Celsus, when he had once resolved upon the introduction of individuals upon the stage of his book, did not represent the Jew as addressing the converts from heathenism rather than those from Judaism, seeing that his discourse, if directed to us, would have appeared more likely to produce an impression. But probably this claimant to universal knowledge does not know what is appropriate in the matter of such representations; and therefore let us proceed to consider what he has to say to the converts from Judaism. He asserts that “they have forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously deceived, and that they have become deserters to another name and to another mode of life.” Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites. Nay, Peter himself seems to have observed for a considerable time the Jewish observances enjoined by the law of Moses, not having yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law that is regulated according to the letter, to that which is interpreted according to the spirit,—a fact which we learn from the Acts of the Apostles. For on the day after the angel of God appeared to Cornelius, suggesting to him “to send to Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter,” Peter “went up into the upper room to pray about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common.” Now observe how, by this instance, Peter is represented as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and unclean animals. And from the narrative that follows, it is manifest that he, as being yet a Jew, and living according to their traditions, and despising those who were beyond the pale of Judaism, stood in need of a vision to lead him to communicate to Cornelius (who was not an Israelite according to the flesh), and to those who were with him, the word of faith. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states that Peter, still from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of James to eat with the Gentiles, and “separated himself from them, fearing them that were of the circumcision;” and the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas also, followed the same course. And certainly it was quite consistent that those should not abstain from the observance of Jewish usages who were sent to minister to the circumcision, when they who “seemed to be pillars” gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, in order that, while devoting themselves to the circumcision, the latter might preach to the Gentiles. And why do I mention that they who preached to the circumcision withdrew and separated themselves from the heathen, when even Paul himself “became as a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews?” Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law. Now, if Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the converts from Judaism: “What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law of your fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him with whom we have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so as to become deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of another life?”

In the first book of our answer to the work of Celsus, who had boastfully entitled the treatise which he had composed against us A True Discourse, we have gone through, as you enjoined, my faithful Ambrosius, to the best of our ability, his preface, and the parts immediately following it, testing each one of his assertions as we went along, until we finished with the tirade of this Jew of his, feigned to have been delivered against Jesus. And in the second book we met, as we best could, all the charges contained in the invective of the said Jew, which were levelled at us who are believers in God through Christ; and now we enter upon this third division of our discourse, in which our object is to refute the allegations which he makes in his own person.

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.

But if you depreciate the littleness of man, not on account of his body, but of his soul, regarding it as inferior to that of other rational beings, and especially of those who are virtuous; and inferior, because evil dwells in it,—why should those among Christians who are wicked, and those among the Jews who lead sinful lives, be termed a collection of bats, or ants, or worms, or frogs, rather than those individuals among other nations who are guilty of wickedness?—seeing, in this respect, any individual whatever, especially if carried away by the tide of evil, is, in comparison with the rest of mankind, a bat, and worm, and frog, and ant. And although a man may be an orator like Demosthenes, yet, if stained with wickedness like his, and guilty of deeds proceeding, like his, from a wicked nature; or an Antiphon, who was also considered to be indeed an orator, yet who annihilated the doctrine of providence in his writings, which were entitled Concerning Truth, like that discourse of Celsus,—such individuals are notwithstanding worms, rolling in a corner of the dung-heap of stupidity and ignorance. Indeed, whatever be the nature of the rational faculty, it could not reasonably be compared to a worm, because it possesses capabilities of virtue. For these adumbrations towards virtue do not allow of those who possess the power of acquiring it, and who are incapable of wholly losing its seeds, to be likened to a worm. It appears, therefore, that neither can men in general be deemed worms in comparison with God. For reason, having its beginning in the reason of God, cannot allow of the rational animal being considered wholly alien from Deity. Nor can those among Christians and Jews who are wicked, and who, in truth, are neither Christians nor Jews, be compared, more than other wicked men, to worms rolling in a corner of a dunghill. And if the nature of reason will not permit of such comparisons, it is manifest that we must not calumniate human nature, which has been formed for virtue, even if it should sin through ignorance, nor liken it to animals of the kind described.

Immediately after this, Celsus, assailing the contents of the first book of Moses, which is entitled “Genesis,” asserts that “the Jews accordingly endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and deceivers, appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words, whose meaning was veiled in obscurity, and which they misinterpreted to the unlearned and ignorant, and that, too, when such a point had never been called in question during the long preceding period.” Now Celsus appears to me in these words to have expressed very obscurely the meaning which he intended to convey. It is probable, indeed, that his obscurity on this subject is intentional, inasmuch as he saw the strength of the argument which establishes the descent of the Jews from their ancestors; while again, on the other hand, he wished not to appear ignorant that the question regarding the Jews and their descent was one that could not be lightly disposed of. It is certain, however, that the Jews trace their genealogy back to the three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the names of these individuals possess such efficacy, when united with the name of God, that not only do those belonging to the nation employ in their prayers to God, and in the exorcising of demons, the words, “God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” but so also do almost all those who occupy themselves with incantations and magical rites. For there is found in treatises on magic in many countries such an invocation of God, and assumption of the divine name, as implies a familiar use of it by these men in their dealings with demons. These facts, then—adduced by Jews and Christians to prove the sacred character of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Jewish race—appear to me not to have been altogether unknown to Celsus, but not to have been distinctly set forth by him, because he was unable to answer the argument which might be founded on them.

For we inquire of all those who employ such invocations of God, saying: Tell us, friends, who was Abraham, and what sort of person was Isaac, and what power did Jacob possess, that the appellation “God,” when joined with their name, could effect such wonders? And from whom have you learned, or can you learn, the facts relating to these individuals? And who has occupied himself with writing a history about them, either directly magnifying these men by ascribing to them mysterious powers, or hinting obscurely at their possession of certain great and marvellous qualities, patent to those who are qualified to see them? And when, in answer to our inquiry, no one can show from what history—whether Greek or barbarian—or, if not a history, yet at least from what mystical narrative, the accounts of these men are derived, we shall bring forward the book entitled “Genesis,” which contains the acts of these men, and the divine oracles addressed to them, and will say, Does not the use by you of the names of these three ancestors of the race, establishing in the clearest manner that effects not to be lightly regarded are produced by the invocation of them, evidence the divinity of the men? And yet we know them from no other source than the sacred books of the Jews! Moreover, the phrases, “the God of Israel,” and “the God of the Hebrews,” and “the God who drowned in the Red Sea the king of Egypt and the Egyptians,” are formulæ frequently employed against demons and certain wicked powers. And we learn the history of the names and their interpretation from those Hebrews, who in their national literature and national tongue dwell with pride upon these things, and explain their meaning. How, then, should the Jews attempt to derive their origin from the first race of those whom Celsus supposed to be jugglers and deceivers, and shamelessly endeavour to trace themselves and their beginning back to these?—whose names, being Hebrew, are an evidence to the Hebrews, who have their sacred books written in the Hebrew language and letters, that their nation is akin to these men. For up to the present time, the Jewish names belonging to the Hebrew language were either taken from their writings, or generally from words the meaning of which was made known by the Hebrew language.

After this, selecting from all the treatises which contain allegorical explanations and interpretations, expressed in a language and style not to be despised, the least important, such as might contribute, indeed, to strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers, but were not adapted to impress those of more intelligent mind, he continues: “Of such a nature do I know the work to be, entitled Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason, which is fitted to excite pity and hatred instead of laughter. It is not my purpose, however, to confute the statements contained in such works; for their fallacy is manifest to all, especially if any one will have the patience to read the books themselves. Rather do I wish to show that Nature teaches this, that God made nothing that is mortal, but that His works, whatever they are, are immortal, and theirs mortal. And the soul is the work of God, while the nature of the body is different. And in this respect there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man; for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part is alike.” Nevertheless I could wish that every one who heard Celsus declaiming and asserting that the treatise entitled Controversy between Jason and Papiscus regarding Christ was fitted to excite not laughter, but hatred, could take the work into his hands, and patiently listen to its contents; that, finding in it nothing to excite hatred, he might condemn Celsus out of the book itself. For if it be impartially perused, it will be found that there is nothing to excite even laughter in a work in which a Christian is described as conversing with a Jew on the subject of the Jewish Scriptures, and proving that the predictions regarding Christ fitly apply to Jesus; although the other disputant maintains the discussion in no ignoble style, and in a manner not unbecoming the character of a Jew.

After this, selecting from all the treatises which contain allegorical explanations and interpretations, expressed in a language and style not to be despised, the least important, such as might contribute, indeed, to strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers, but were not adapted to impress those of more intelligent mind, he continues: “Of such a nature do I know the work to be, entitled Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason, which is fitted to excite pity and hatred instead of laughter. It is not my purpose, however, to confute the statements contained in such works; for their fallacy is manifest to all, especially if any one will have the patience to read the books themselves. Rather do I wish to show that Nature teaches this, that God made nothing that is mortal, but that His works, whatever they are, are immortal, and theirs mortal. And the soul is the work of God, while the nature of the body is different. And in this respect there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man; for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part is alike.” Nevertheless I could wish that every one who heard Celsus declaiming and asserting that the treatise entitled Controversy between Jason and Papiscus regarding Christ was fitted to excite not laughter, but hatred, could take the work into his hands, and patiently listen to its contents; that, finding in it nothing to excite hatred, he might condemn Celsus out of the book itself. For if it be impartially perused, it will be found that there is nothing to excite even laughter in a work in which a Christian is described as conversing with a Jew on the subject of the Jewish Scriptures, and proving that the predictions regarding Christ fitly apply to Jesus; although the other disputant maintains the discussion in no ignoble style, and in a manner not unbecoming the character of a Jew.

It appears to me, indeed, that Celsus has misunderstood some of the deeper reasons relating to the arrangement of terrestrial affairs, some of which are touched upon even in Grecian history, when certain of those who are considered to be gods are introduced as having contended with each other about the possession of Attica; while in the writings of the Greek poets also, some who are called gods are represented as acknowledging that certain places here are preferred by them before others. The history of barbarian nations, moreover, and especially that of Egypt, contains some such allusions to the division of the so-called Egyptian nomes, when it states that Athena, who obtained Saïs by lot, is the same who also has possession of Attica. And the learned among the Egyptians can enumerate innumerable instances of this kind, although I do not know whether they include the Jews and their country in this division. And now, so far as testimonies outside the word of God bearing on this point are concerned, enough have been adduced for the present. We say, moreover, that our prophet of God and His genuine servant Moses, in his song in the book of Deuteronomy, makes a statement regarding the portioning out of the earth in the following terms: “When the Most High divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God; and the Lord’s portion was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance.” And regarding the distribution of the nations, the same Moses, in his work entitled Genesis, thus expresses himself in the style of a historical narrative: “And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech; and it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.” A little further on he continues: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men had built. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they have begun to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. And the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore is the name of it called Confusion; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” In the treatise of Solomon, moreover, on “Wisdom,” and on the events at the time of the confusion of languages, when the division of the earth took place, we find the following regarding Wisdom: “Moreover, the nations. in their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she found out the righteous, and preserved him blameless unto God, and kept him strong in his tender compassion towards his son.” But on these subjects much, and that of a mystical kind, might be said; in keeping with which is the following: “It is good to keep close the secret of a king,”—in order that the doctrine of the entrance of souls into bodies (not, however, that of the transmigration from one body into another) may not be thrown before the common understanding, nor what is holy given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such a procedure would be impious, being equivalent to a betrayal of the mysterious declarations of God’s wisdom, of which it has been well said: “Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in a body subject to sin.” It is sufficient, however, to represent in the style of a historic narrative what is intended to convey a secret meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity may work out for themselves all that relates to the subject.

If one wished to obtain means for a profounder contemplation of the entrance of souls into divine things, not from the statements of that very insignificant sect from which he quoted, but from books—partly those of the Jews, which are read in their synagogues, and adopted by Christians, and partly from those of Christians alone—let him peruse, at the end of Ezekiel’s prophecies, the visions beheld by the prophet, in which gates of different kinds are enumerated, which obscurely refer to the different modes in which divine souls enter into a better world; and let him peruse also, from the Apocalypse of John, what is related of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and of its foundations and gates. And if he is capable of finding out also the road, which is indicated by symbols, of those who will march on to divine things, let him read the book of Moses entitled Numbers, and let him seek the help of one who is capable of initiating him into the meaning of the narratives concerning the encampments of the children of Israel; viz. of what sort those were which were arranged towards the east, as was the case with the first; and what those towards the south-west and south; and what towards the sea; and what the last were, which were stationed towards the north. For he will see that there is in the respective places a meaning not to be lightly treated, nor, as Celsus imagines, such as calls only for silly and servile listeners: but he will distinguish in the encampments certain things relating to the numbers that are enumerated, and which are specially adapted to each tribe, of which the present does not appear to us to be the proper time to speak. Let Celsus know, moreover, as well as those who read his book, that in no part of the genuine and divinely accredited Scriptures are “seven” heavens mentioned; neither do our prophets, nor the apostles of Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself, repeat anything which they borrowed from the Persians or the Cabiri.

Our noble [friend], moreover, not satisfied with the objections which he has drawn from the Diagram, desires, in order to strengthen his accusations against us, who have nothing in common with it, to introduce certain other charges, which he adduces from the same [heretics], but yet as if they were from a different source. His words are: “And that is not the least of their marvels, for there are between the upper circles—those that are above the heavens—certain inscriptions of which they give the interpretation, and among others two words especially, ‘a greater and a less,’ which they refer to Father and Son.” Now, in the Diagram referred to, we found the greater and the lesser circle, upon the diameter of which was inscribed “Father and Son;” and between the greater circle (in which the lesser was contained) and another composed of two circles,—the outer one of which was yellow, and the inner blue,—a barrier inscribed in the shape of a hatchet. And above it, a short circle, close to the greater of the two former, having the inscription “Love;” and lower down, one touching the same circle, with the word “Life.” And on the second circle, which was intertwined with and included two other circles, another figure, like a rhomboid, [entitled] “The foresight of wisdom.” And within their point of common section was “The nature of wisdom.” And above their point of common section was a circle, on which was inscribed “Knowledge;” and lower down another, on which was the inscription, “Understanding.” We have introduced these matters into our reply to Celsus, to show to our readers that we know better than he, and not by mere report, those things, even although we also disapprove of them. Moreover, if those who pride themselves upon such matters profess also a kind of magic and sorcery,—which, in their opinion, is the summit of wisdom,—we, on the other hand, make no affirmation about it, seeing we never have discovered anything of the kind. Let Celsus, however, who has been already often convicted of false witness and irrational accusations, see whether he is not guilty of falsehood in these also, or whether he has not extracted and introduced into his treatise, statements taken from the writings of those who are foreigners and strangers to our Christian faith.

Much more (if he seeketh to touch) the supernal beard. For the inferior light, taking its rise from the supernal light which existeth within the benignity (thus the beard of Macroprosopus is entitled), is called in Microprosopus the benignity in a more simple manner; but when it hath its action within the light, and it shineth; then is it called abounding in benignity. (Others read this passage thus:—He who dreameth that he toucheth the moustache of a man with his hand, he may be sure that he hath peace with his Lord, and that his enemies are subject unto him. If that happeneth because he beholdeth in sleep such a thing as this only, much more shall it occur if he be found sufficiently worthy to behold what the supernal beard may be. For this, seeing that it is the superior, and is called the benignity, irradiateth the inferior. But in Microprosopus, &c.)

Once in thirty days prices were fixed [on behalf of] the chamber. Anyone who had accepted upon himself to supply fine flours at four [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at three [se'ahs for a sela] he must [still] supply four. [If he had accepted to supply fine flours] at three [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at four, he must [also] supply at four, for the sanctified property has the upper hand. If the fine flour became worm-eaten the loss is his; if the wine became sour the loss is his. For he is not entitled to his money until the altar has accepted [the offering].

[Concerning] relatives of the second degree [of incest laws who are forbidden] by the words of the scribes: [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the husband but not a second degree of kinship to the yavam, is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam; [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the yavam but not a second degree of kinship to the husband is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband; [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the one and to the other is forbidden to the one as well as to the other. She cannot claim her ketubah or usufruct or support money, or her worn clothes. The child is fit [to marry a priest], but the husband is compelled to divorce her. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorcee or halutzah who was married to an ordinary priest, a mamzer or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a natin or a mamzer is entitled to her ketubah.

A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and they came and told her, “Your husband died”, married, and then her husband returned: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. Rabbi Yose said: her ketubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband. Rabbi Elazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she may find, and what she makes with her hands, and also has the right to invalidate her vows. Rabbi Shimon said: intercourse or halitzah with the brother of the first husband exempts her rival, and the child from him is not a bastard. If she married without an authorization, she may return to him.

A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and they came and told her, “Your husband died”, married, and then her husband returned: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. Rabbi Yose said: her ketubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband. Rabbi Elazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she may find, and what she makes with her hands, and also has the right to invalidate her vows. Rabbi Shimon said: intercourse or halitzah with the brother of the first husband exempts her rival, and the child from him is not a bastard. If she married without an authorization, she may return to him.

A father has authority over his daughter in her betrothal [whether it was effected] by money, document or intercourse. He is entitled to anything she finds, to her handiwork and to annul her vows. He receives her get but he has no usufruct [from her property] during her lifetime. When she marries, the husband surpasses him [in his rights] in that he has usufruct during her lifetime. And he is obligated to feed her, to pay a ransom for her and to provide for her burial. Rabbi Judah says: even the poorest man in Israel must provide no less than two flutes and one lamenting woman.

Although [the Sages] have said: a virgin collects two hundred and a widow one maneh, if he wishes to add, even a hundred maneh, he may do so. If she was widowed or divorced, either after betrothal or after marriage, she is entitled to collect the entire amount. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: [a woman widowed or divorced] after marriage receives the entire amount; After betrothal [but before marriage], a virgin collects two hundred zuz and a widow only one maneh, for the man wrote her [the additional amount] in order to marry her. Rabbi Judah says: if he wishes he may write for a virgin a document for two hundred zuz and she writes “I have received from you a maneh”, or for a widow [he may write a document for] a maneh and she writes, “I have received from you fifty zuz”. Rabbi Meir says: Any man who gives a virgin less than two hundred zuz or a widow less than a maneh is engaging in licentious sex.

A virgin is given twelve months from the [time her intended] husband claimed her, [in which] to prepare herself for marriage. Just as [such a period] is given to the woman, so is it given to the man to prepare himself. A widow is given thirty days. If the time has come and they were not married they are entitled to receive maintenance from the man’s estate and [if he is a priest] they may eat terumah. Rabbi Tarfon says: They give her [all of her food] in terumah. Rabbi Akiva says: One half unconsecrated food and one half terumah.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

If his brother left money, land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If the his brother left] produce that was detached from the ground, land shall be bought [out of the proceeds] and he enjoys the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband but that which is detached from the ground belongs to the first person who takes it: [If it was] produce attached to the ground: If he [seized it] first he acquires ownership; and if she [seized it] first land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. If he married her she is his wife in every respect save that her ketubah remains a debt on her first husband’s estate.

He cannot say to her, “Behold your ketubah lies on the table’, rather all of his property has on it a lien from her kethubah. So too, a man may not say to his wife, behold your ketubah lies on the table, but all of his property has on it a lien from her ketubah. If he divorced her she is entitled only to her ketubah. If he remarried her she is like all other wives, and is entitled only to her ketubah.

He cannot say to her, “Behold your ketubah lies on the table’, rather all of his property has on it a lien from her kethubah. So too, a man may not say to his wife, behold your ketubah lies on the table, but all of his property has on it a lien from her ketubah. If he divorced her she is entitled only to her ketubah. If he remarried her she is like all other wives, and is entitled only to her ketubah.

A widow, whether [her husband died] after betrothal or after marriage may sell [her husband's estate] without [permission from] a court. Rabbi Shimon says: [If her husband died] after marriage she may sell without [permission from] a court, but if after betrothal, she may not sell except with [permission from] a court, since she is not entitled to maintenance, and anyone who is not entitled to maintenance may not sell except with [permission from] a court.

A widow, whether [her husband died] after betrothal or after marriage may sell [her husband's estate] without [permission from] a court. Rabbi Shimon says: [If her husband died] after marriage she may sell without [permission from] a court, but if after betrothal, she may not sell except with [permission from] a court, since she is not entitled to maintenance, and anyone who is not entitled to maintenance may not sell except with [permission from] a court.

[A minor] who refused her husband, a secondary incest prohibition, or an aylonit is not entitled to a ketubah or to the usufruct [of her dowry] or to maintenance, or to the worn-out articles [of her dowry]. If from the outset he had married on the understanding that she is an aylonit she is entitled to a ketubah. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah who was married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a Natin or a mamzer is entitled to a ketubah.

[A minor] who refused her husband, a secondary incest prohibition, or an aylonit is not entitled to a ketubah or to the usufruct [of her dowry] or to maintenance, or to the worn-out articles [of her dowry]. If from the outset he had married on the understanding that she is an aylonit she is entitled to a ketubah. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah who was married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a Natin or a mamzer is entitled to a ketubah.

[A minor] who refused her husband, a secondary incest prohibition, or an aylonit is not entitled to a ketubah or to the usufruct [of her dowry] or to maintenance, or to the worn-out articles [of her dowry]. If from the outset he had married on the understanding that she is an aylonit she is entitled to a ketubah. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah who was married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a Natin or a mamzer is entitled to a ketubah.

If the get was dated by an unfit kingship, by the empire of Medea, by the empire of Greece, by the building of the Temple or by the destruction of the Temple, Or if being in the east he wrote “in the west”, or being in the west he wrote “in the east”, She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. If his name or her name or the name of his town or the name of her town was wrongly given, she must leave both husbands and all the above consequences apply to her.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

The sages spoke of [the physical development of] a woman in a parable: an unripe fig, a fig in its early ripening stage and a ripe fig. "An unripe fig": while she is yet a child; "A fig in its early ripening stage": when she is in her youth (naarut). In both ages her father is entitled to anything she finds and to her handiwork and to the right of invalidating her vows. "A ripe fig" as soon as she becomes of majority age (bogeret), her father has no longer any right over her.

If a zav or a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves clean and on the seventh day and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other intervening, days: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are in a presumptive condition of cleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: they are entitled [to count as clean] only the first day and the seventh day. Rabbi Akiva says: they are entitled to reckon as clean the seventh day alone.

If a zav or a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves clean and on the seventh day and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other intervening, days: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are in a presumptive condition of cleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: they are entitled [to count as clean] only the first day and the seventh day. Rabbi Akiva says: they are entitled to reckon as clean the seventh day alone.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: (Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him.

The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there: “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich. And even if you say, after he became rich, when he was an administrator, and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there: “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich. And even if you say, after he became rich, when he was an administrator, and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

HALAKHAH: The members of a group of which one had beautiful hands were entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone Not only Pesaḥ, but even if they made a meal by contributions they are entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone, if they did know him, since this was a stipulation from the start.

HALAKHAH: The members of a group of which one had beautiful hands were entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone Not only Pesaḥ, but even if they made a meal by contributions they are entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone, if they did know him, since this was a stipulation from the start.

MISHNAH: The High Priest comes to read. If he wants to read in the byssus garments he may read; otherwise in his own while stole. The beadle of the synagogue takes the Torah scroll and hands it to the president of the synagogue, the president of the synagogue hands it to the executive officer of the Temple, the executive officer of the Temple hands it to the High Priest. The High Priest receives it standing, and reads standing. He reads after the death and but on the tenth day, rolls up the Torah, keeps it in his bosom, and says: More than what I read before you is written here. On the tenth day in Numbers he recites by heart, and pronounces eight benedictions: For the Torah, for the Service, for thanksgiving, for the remission of sin, for the Temple, for Israel, for the priests, and general prayer. He who sees the High Priest reading does not see the burning of the bull and the ram; he who sees the burning of the bull and the ram does not see the High Priest reading. Not because he would not be entitled to it but because the distance was large and the actions happened simultaneously.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The heirs of her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has a ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The heirs of her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has a ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose says, her ketubah is from the property of her first husband. Rebbi Eleazar says, the first [husband] is entitled to what she finds and earns and may annul her vows. Rebbi Simeon says, copulation with her or ḥaliṣah with her by a brother of the first [husband] frees her co-wives and a child from him is not a bastard; if she was married without permission she is permitted to return to him. If she married by a decision of the court, she must leave but is free from the sacrifice; without a decision of the court, she must leave but must bring the sacrifice. The power of the court frees her from the sacrifice. If the court instructed her to marry but she misbehaved, she must bring a sacrifice since they permitted her only to marry.

What does Rebbi Eleazar say about ketubah? If you say that he is entitled to things that come to him in prohibition, then ketubah that came to him in permission certainly!

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Her heirs, those who inherit her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has no ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Her heirs, those who inherit her ketubah are obliged to bury her. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, we would have had a problem. If she had no ketubah, do they not have to bury her? This is difficult. If a woman has no ketubah, does she not have to be buried? A wife, even if she has no ketubah, must be buried. This one, if she has a ketubah, is entitled to burial costs. But here, if she does not have a ketubah, she is not entitled to burial costs.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Yossi ben Shaul said in the name of Rebbi: A person who had given up hope to recover his slave is not entitled to enslave him but has to write him a bill of manumission. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi taught us that correctly. Did they not infer the rules of a bill of manumission from women? Just as a woman is not freed if [the husband] has given up hope, but she needs a bill of divorce from him, so a slave is not freed if [the master] has given up hope, but he needs a bill of manumission.

If a convert died and Jews plundered his property, if there were slaves, either adult or underage, they gain their freedom. Abba Shaul said, the adults gain their freedom, the minors do not become free. Why? They are no longer property after their owner’s death. Then even adults? Rebbi Abba said, since adults are competent to acquire themselves, they gain their freedom. Minors, who are not competent to acquire for themselves, do not gain their freedom. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Abba Shaul. The opinions of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi are contradictory. There, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi said: A person who has given up hope to recover his slave is not entitled to enslave him. They said, what Rebbi Joshua said about enslaving, if he did not give, he did not give; perhaps practice would be to enslave him, therefore he has to write him a bill of manumission. And here, he says so! We heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi taught us that correctly, perhaps practice follows Abba Shaul. The slave girl of Rabba bar Zuṭra ran away and he gave up hope to recover her. He went to ask Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They said, he is not entitled to enslave her. How is it to write her a bill of manumission? They said to him, if you wrote, you did the right thing. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: A slave who married as a free person in the presence of his master gained his freedom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and formulating: If somebody writes a document of preliminary marriage for his slave or a document of definitive marriage for his girl slave, Rebbi says, they acquired, but the Sages say, they did not acquire. The first Tanna follows Rebbi: he acquired.

If a convert died and Jews plundered his property, if there were slaves, either adult or underage, they gain their freedom. Abba Shaul said, the adults gain their freedom, the minors do not become free. Why? They are no longer property after their owner’s death. Then even adults? Rebbi Abba said, since adults are competent to acquire themselves, they gain their freedom. Minors, who are not competent to acquire for themselves, do not gain their freedom. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Abba Shaul. The opinions of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi are contradictory. There, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi said: A person who has given up hope to recover his slave is not entitled to enslave him. They said, what Rebbi Joshua said about enslaving, if he did not give, he did not give; perhaps practice would be to enslave him, therefore he has to write him a bill of manumission. And here, he says so! We heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi taught us that correctly, perhaps practice follows Abba Shaul. The slave girl of Rabba bar Zuṭra ran away and he gave up hope to recover her. He went to ask Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They said, he is not entitled to enslave her. How is it to write her a bill of manumission? They said to him, if you wrote, you did the right thing. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: A slave who married as a free person in the presence of his master gained his freedom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was sitting and formulating: If somebody writes a document of preliminary marriage for his slave or a document of definitive marriage for his girl slave, Rebbi says, they acquired, but the Sages say, they did not acquire. The first Tanna follows Rebbi: he acquired.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: (Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: (Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another person came and grabbed it from before them, the one who grabbed is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, they did not say that our four cubits should acquire it for us.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody saw a find” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said [in the name of] Abba Cohen bar Delaiah: A person acquires a find within four cubits from himself. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it fell into his hand. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has nothing of it.” He answered: Explain it if the did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But does it not say afterwards: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” That is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it.” It is the same; he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If somebody saw a find and fell upon it when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it.” It is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.” Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks of the scribe’s fee. They objected: Is it not written: “I in my poverty did prepare”? How is that? If it was in his possession, he was rich. If it was not in his possession, how can a person dedicate what is not his? It must be that it was within four cubits from him. Rebbi Abin said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.

HALAKHAH: “How about a person robbed,” etc. “In another’s house,” not in his courtyard. “To take a pledge,” not for another purpose. Rebbi Issac said, and only by witnesses. If two entered to take pledges from him? It should come like the following: “If he was injured between the two …” But if both were entitled to take pledges? What should be seen there? If they saw two [men] hitting him with sticks.

I quote the following against our Mishnah : From what time may we begin to read the Shema' in the evening? From the time that people go home to eat their bread on the Sabbath-eve. These are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : From the time the priests are entitled to partake of their Terumah. A sign for the matter is the appearance of the stars, and although there is no proof of this, yet is there some indication ; as it is said, "So we wrought in the work : and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared" (Neh. iv. 15), and it continues "That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labour in the day" (ibid. v. 16).

Our Rabbis have taught: Not every one who wants to act as a distinguished individual may do so, but students may; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Jose says, everybody is entitled thereto and deserves to be well thought of, for so acting brings him no distinction, but rather causes him suffering.

Another Baraita reads: Not every one who wishes to act as a distinguished individual is entitled to do so; students, however, are entitled thereto: this is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, if it is a case where acting as a distinguished individual would bring him distinction, he may not do so, if it would bring him suffering, he is well entitled to it.

Another Baraita reads: Not every one who wishes to act as a distinguished individual is entitled to do so; students, however, are entitled thereto: this is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, if it is a case where acting as a distinguished individual would bring him distinction, he may not do so, if it would bring him suffering, he is well entitled to it.

Another Baraita reads: Not every one who wishes to act as a distinguished individual is entitled to do so; students, however, are entitled thereto: this is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, if it is a case where acting as a distinguished individual would bring him distinction, he may not do so, if it would bring him suffering, he is well entitled to it.

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

The inhabitants of Nawe sent the following question to Rabbi: Inasmuch as we are in need of rain at the time of the solstice of Tammuz, are we to be compared to individuals and hence to include our prayer for rain in the benediction "Who hearest Prayer," or are we regarded as a community and should insert it in the "Blessing of the Years"? Rabbi replied: You are regarded as individuals, and should insert your prayer in the benediction: "Who hearest Prayer." An objection was raised: R. Judah says, the given order of fasts applies only to times when the seasons of the year were divided on the basis of their normal recurrence and Israel was dwelling in its land, but in the present time all depends upon the nature of the seasons and upon the nature of the localities! What! You quote a Baraita to contradict Rabbi! Rabbi is an authority of the Mishnah and is entitled to differ.