equivalent

I said to him, “Sir, explain this also to me.” “What is it you ask?” he said. “Whether, sir,” I continued, “they who indulge in luxury, and who are deceived, are tortured for the same period of time that they have indulged in luxury and deceit?” He said to me, “They are tortured in the same manner.” [“They are tormented much less, sir,” I replied;] “for those who are so luxurious and who forget God ought to be tortured seven-fold.” He said to me, “You are foolish, and do not understand the power of torment.” “Why, sir,” I said, “if I had understood it, I would not have asked you to show me.” “Hear,” he said, “the power of both. The time of luxury and deceit is one hour; but the hour of torment is equivalent to thirty days. If, accordingly, a man indulge in luxury for one day, and be deceived and be tortured for one day, the day of his torture is equivalent to a whole year. For all the days of luxury, therefore, there are as many years of torture to be undergone. You see, then,” he continued, “that the time of luxury and deceit is very short, but that of punishment and torture long.”

I said to him, “Sir, explain this also to me.” “What is it you ask?” he said. “Whether, sir,” I continued, “they who indulge in luxury, and who are deceived, are tortured for the same period of time that they have indulged in luxury and deceit?” He said to me, “They are tortured in the same manner.” [“They are tormented much less, sir,” I replied;] “for those who are so luxurious and who forget God ought to be tortured seven-fold.” He said to me, “You are foolish, and do not understand the power of torment.” “Why, sir,” I said, “if I had understood it, I would not have asked you to show me.” “Hear,” he said, “the power of both. The time of luxury and deceit is one hour; but the hour of torment is equivalent to thirty days. If, accordingly, a man indulge in luxury for one day, and be deceived and be tortured for one day, the day of his torture is equivalent to a whole year. For all the days of luxury, therefore, there are as many years of torture to be undergone. You see, then,” he continued, “that the time of luxury and deceit is very short, but that of punishment and torture long.”

"But now, O Lord, behold, we have endured all these days, and have borne sufferings. Make these forty-three days an equivalent for the one hour in which we transgressed."

And he replied, 'If he constantly set justice before him in everything and thought that injustice was equivalent to deprivation of life. For God always promises the highest blessings to the just!'

But David, though still burning with the thirst, considered that such a draught, reckoned as equivalent to blood, was a grievous danger to his soul.

Now the law requires, both in private and public sacrifices, that the finest flour be also brought; for a lamb the measure of one tenth deal,—for a ram two,—and for a bull three. This they consecrate upon the altar, when it is mingled with oil; for oil is also brought by those that sacrifice; for a bull the half of an hin, and for a ram the third part of the same measure, and one quarter of it for a lamb. This hin is an ancient Hebrew measure, and is equivalent to two Athenian choas [or congiuses]. They bring the same quantity of oil which they do of wine, and they pour the wine about the altar; but if any one does not offer a complete sacrifice of animals, but brings fine flour only for a vow, he throws a handful upon the altar as its first-fruits, while the priests take the rest for their food, either boiled or mingled with oil, but made into cakes of bread. But whatsoever it be that a priest himself offers, it must of necessity be all burnt. Now the law forbids us to sacrifice any animal at the same time with its dam; and, in other cases, not till the eighth day after its birth. Other sacrifices there are also appointed for escaping distempers, or for other occasions, in which meat-offerings are consumed, together with the animals that are sacrificed; of which it is not lawful to leave any part till the next day, only the priests are to take their own share.

Now Joshua, when he had thus spoken to them, found that the multitude approved of his proposal. So he sent men to measure their country, and sent with them some geometricians, who could not easily fail of knowing the truth, on account of their skill in that art. He also gave them a charge to estimate the measure of that part of the land that was most fruitful, and what was not so good: for such is the nature of the land of Canaan, that one may see large plains, and such as are exceeding fit to produce fruit, which yet, if they were compared to other parts of the country, might be reckoned exceedingly fruitful; yet, if it be compared with the fields about Jericho, and to those that belong to Jerusalem, will appear to be of no account at all; and although it so falls out that these people have but a very little of this sort of land, and that it is, for the main, mountainous also, yet does it not come behind other parts, on account of its exceeding goodness and beauty; for which reason Joshua thought the land for the tribes should be divided by estimation of its goodness, rather than the largeness of its measure, it often happening that one acre of some sort of land was equivalent to a thousand other acres. Now the men that were sent, which were in number ten, traveled all about, and made an estimation of the land, and in the seventh month came to him to the city of Shiloh, where they had set up the tabernacle.

And now Herod having overcome his enemies, his care was to govern those foreigners who had been his assistants, for the crowd of strangers rushed to see the temple, and the sacred things in the temple; but the king, thinking a victory to be a more severe affliction than a defeat, if any of those things which it was not lawful to see should be seen by them, used entreaties and threatenings, and even sometimes force itself, to restrain them. He also prohibited the ravage that was made in the city, and many times asked Sosius whether the Romans would empty the city both of money and men, and leave him king of a desert; and told him that he esteemed the dominion over the whole habitable earth as by no means an equivalent satisfaction for such a murder of his citizens'; and when he said that this plunder was justly to be permitted the soldiers for the siege they had undergone, he replied, that he would give every one their reward out of his own money; and by this means be redeemed what remained of the city from destruction; and he performed what he had promised him, for he gave a noble present to every soldier, and a proportionable present to their commanders, but a most royal present to Sosius himself, till they all went away full of money.

But the interpretation is “spiritual,” when one is able to show of what heavenly things the Jews “according to the flesh” served as an example and a shadow, and of what future blessings the law contains a shadow. And, generally, we must investigate, according to the apostolic promise, “the wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world for the glory” of the just, which “none of the princes of this world knew.” And the same apostle says somewhere, after referring to certain events mentioned as occurring in Exodus and Numbers, “that these things happened to them figuratively, but that they were written on our account, on whom the ends of the world are come.” And he gives an opportunity for ascertaining of what things these were patterns, when he says: “For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.” And in another epistle, when sketching the various matters relating to the tabernacle, he used the words: “Thou shalt make everything according to the pattern showed thee in the mount.” Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, as if upbraiding those who think that they read the law, and yet do not understand it, judging that those do not understand it who do not reflect that allegories are contained under what is written, he says: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, Abraham had two sons; the one by the bond maid, the other by the free woman. But he who was by the bond maid was born according to the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants,” and so on. Now we must carefully observe each word employed by him. He says: “Ye who desire to be under the law,” not “Ye that are under the law;” and, “Do ye not hear the law?”—“hearing” being understood to mean “comprehending” and “knowing.” And in the Epistle to the Colossians, briefly abridging the meaning of the whole legislation, he says: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, and in drink, or in respect of a festival, or of a new moon, or of Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come.” Moreover, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, discoursing of those who belong to the circumcision, he writes: “who serve for an ensample and shadow of heavenly things.” Now it is probable that, from these illustrations, those will entertain no doubt with respect to the five books of Moses, who have once given in their adhesion to the apostle, as divinely inspired; but do you wish to know, with regard to the rest of the history, if it also happened as a pattern? We must note, then, the expression in the Epistle to the Romans, “I have left to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal,” quoted from the third book of Kings, which Paul has understood as equivalent [in meaning] to those who are Israelites according to election, because not only were the Gentiles benefited by the advent of Christ, but also certain of the race of God.

And in answer to the Greeks we shall quote the following oracular response to Laius, as recorded by the tragic poet, either in the exact words of the oracle or in equivalent terms. Future events are thus made known to him by the oracle: “Do not try to beget children against the will of the gods. For if you beget a son, your son shall murder you; and all your household shall wade in blood.” Now from this it is clear that it was within the power of Laius not to try to beget children, for the oracle would not have commanded an impossibility; and it was also in his power to do the opposite, so that neither of these courses was compulsory. And the consequence of his not guarding against the begetting of children was, that he suffered from so doing the calamities described in the tragedies relating to Œdipus and Jocasta and their sons. Now that which is called the “idle argument,” being a quibble, is such as might be applied, say in the case of a sick man, with the view of sophistically preventing him from employing a physician to promote his recovery; and it is something like this: “If it is decreed that you should recover from your disease, you will recover whether you call in a physician or not; but if it is decreed that you should not recover, you will not recover whether you call in a physician or no. But it is certainly decreed either that you should recover, or that you should not recover; and therefore it is in vain that you call in a physician.” Now with this argument the following may be wittily compared: “If it is decreed that you should beget children, you will beget them, whether you have intercourse with a woman or not. But if it is decreed that you should not beget children, you will not do so, whether you have intercourse with a woman or no. Now, certainly, it is decreed either that you should beget children or not; therefore it is in vain that you have intercourse with a woman.” For, as in the latter instance, intercourse with a woman is not employed in vain, seeing it is an utter impossibility for him who does not use it to beget children; so, in the former, if recovery from disease is to be accomplished by means of the healing art, of necessity the physician is summoned, and it is therefore false to say that “in vain do you call in a physician.” We have brought forward all these illustrations on account of the assertion of this learned Celsus, that “being a God he predicted these things, and the predictions must by all means come to pass.” Now, if by “by all means” he means “necessarily,” we cannot admit this. For it was quite possible, also, that they might not come to pass. But if he uses “by all means” in the sense of “simple futurity,” which nothing hinders from being true (although it was possible that they might not happen), he does not at all touch my argument; nor did it follow, from Jesus having predicted the acts of the traitor or the perjurer, that it was the same thing with His being the cause of such impious and unholy proceedings. For He who was amongst us, and knew what was in man, seeing his evil disposition, and foreseeing what he would attempt from his spirit of covetousness, and from his want of stable ideas of duty towards his Master, along with many other declarations, gave utterance to this also: “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.”

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.

We would say, moreover, that death ceases in the world when the sin of the world dies, referring the saying to the mystical words of the apostle, which run as follows: “When He shall have put all enemies under His feet, then the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” And also: “When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.” The “strait descent,” again, may perhaps be referred by those who hold the doctrine of transmigration of souls to that view of things. And it is not incredible that the gates which are said to open spontaneously are referred obscurely by some to the words, “Open to me the gates of righteousness, that I may go into them, and praise the Lord; this gate of the Lord, into it the righteous shall enter;” and again, to what is said in the ninth psalm, “Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death, that I may show forth all Thy praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion.” The Scripture further gives the name of “gates of death” to those sins which lead to destruction, as it terms, on the contrary, good actions the “gates of Zion.” So also “the gates of righteousness,” which is an equivalent expression to “the gates of virtue,” and these are ready to be opened to him who follows after virtuous pursuits. The subject of the “tree of life” will be more appropriately explained when we interpret the statements in the book of Genesis regarding the paradise planted by God. Celsus, moreover, has often mocked at the subject of a resurrection,—a doctrine which he did not comprehend; and on the present occasion, not satisfied with what he has formerly said, he adds, “And there is said to be a resurrection of the flesh by means of the tree;” not understanding, I think, the symbolical expression, that “through the tree came death, and through the tree comes life,” because death was in Adam, and life in Christ. He next scoffs at the “tree,” assailing it on two grounds, and saying, “For this reason is the tree introduced, either because our teacher was nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter by trade;” not observing that the tree of life is mentioned in the Mosaic writings, and being blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

Moreover, we are to despise ingratiating ourselves with kings or any other men, not only if their favour is to be won by murders, licentiousness, or deeds of cruelty, but even if it involves impiety towards God, or any servile expressions of flattery and obsequiousness, which things are unworthy of brave and high-principled men, who aim at joining with their other virtues that highest of virtues, patience and fortitude. But whilst we do nothing which is contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so mad as to stir up against us the wrath of kings and princes, which will bring upon us sufferings and tortures, or even death. For we read: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” These words we have in our exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, to the best of our ability, explained at length, and with various applications; but for the present we have taken them in their more obvious and generally received acceptation, to meet the saying of Celsus, that “it is not without the power of demons that kings have been raised to their regal dignity.” Here much might be said on the constitution of kings and rulers, for the subject is a wide one, embracing such rulers as reign cruelly and tyrannically, and such as make the kingly office the means of indulging in luxury and sinful pleasures. We shall therefore, for the present, pass over the full consideration of this subject. We will, however, never swear by “the fortune of the king,” nor by aught else that is considered equivalent to God. For if the word “fortune” is nothing but an expression for the uncertain course of events, as some say, although they seem not to be agreed, we do not swear by that as God which has no existence, as though it did really exist and was able to do something, lest we should bind ourselves by an oath to things which have no existence. If, on the other hand (as is thought by others, who say that to swear by the fortune of the king of the Romans is to swear by his demon), what is called the fortune of the king is in the power of demons, then in that case we must die sooner than swear by a wicked and treacherous demon, that ofttimes sins along with the man of whom it gains possession, and sins even more than he.

And whence is this obtained? Because it is written (in the preceding passage): MN HShMIM, Men Ha-Shamayim, out of heaven. (But the word HShMIM, Ha-Shamayim, is equivalent to) ASh VMIM, Ash Ve-Mim, fire and water, Mercy and Judgment, in the antithesis of that (condition) wherein no Judgment is found at all.

The Angels consist of nine classes and three orders, upper, middle and lower. The upper order is composed of Cherubim, Seraphim, and Thrones: these are called ‘ priests ’ (kumre), and ‘ chief priests/ and ‘ bearers of God’s throne.’ The middle order is composed of Lords, Powers and Rulers: these are called ‘priests’ (kahne), because they receive revelations from those above them. The lower order consists of Principalities, Archangels and Angels: and these are the ministers who wait upon created things. The Cherubim are an intellectual motion which bears the throne of the holy Trinity, and is the chief of all motions; they are ever watchful of the classes of themselves and those beneath them. As concerning the epithet ‘full of eyes,’ which is applied to them, the eyes indicate the mystery of the revelations of the Trinity. Their head, and the foremost and highest among them, is Gabriel, who is the mediator between God and His creation. The Seraphim are a fiery motion, which warms those below it with the fire of the divine love. The six wings which each of them is said to possess indicate the revelations which they receive from the Creator and transmit to mankind. The Thrones are a fixed motion, which is not shaken by the trials which come upon it. The Lords are a motion which is entrusted with the government of the motions beneath it; and it is that which prevents the demons from injuring created things. The Powers are a mighty motion, the minister of the will of the Lord; and it is that which gives victory to some rulers in battle and defeat to others. The Rulers are a motion which has power over the spiritual treasures, to distribute them to its companions according to the will of the Creator. This class of angels governs the luminaries, the sun, moon, and stars. The Principalities are a defined motion which possesses the direction of the upper ether, of rain, clouds, lightning, thunder, whirlwinds, tempests, winds, and other ethereal disturbances. The Archangels are a swift operative motion, into whose hands is entrusted the government of the wild beasts, cattle, winged fowl, reptiles, and everything that hath life, from the gnat to the elephant, except man. The Angels are a motion which has spiritual knowledge of everything that is on earth and in heaven. With each and every one of us is an angel of this group — called the guardian angel — who directs man from his conception until the general resurrection. The number of each one of these classes of angels is equal to the number of all mankind from Adam to the resurrection. Hence it is handed down that the number of people who are going to enter the world is equal to the number of all the heavenly hosts; but some say that the number is equal to that of one of the classes only, that they may fill the place of those of them who have fallen through transgressing the law; because the demons fell from three classes (of angels), from each class a third part. If then it is an acknowledged fact that there are three orders of angels, and in each order there are three classes, and in every class a number equivalent to that of all mankind, what is the total number of the angels? Some say that when the angels were created, and were arranged in six divisions — Cherubim, Seraphim, Thrones, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels — the three lower divisions reflected (saying), ‘ What is the reason that these are set above, and we below? for they have not previously done anything more than we, neither do we fall short of them.’ On account of this reflection as a cause, according to the custom of the (divine) government, Justice took from both sides, and established three other middle classes of angels — Lords, Powers, and Rulers— that the upper might not be (unduly) exalted, nor the lower think themselves wronged. As for the dwelling-place of the angels, some say that above the firmament there are waters, and above them another heaven in the form of infinite light, and that this is the home of the angels. Here too is God without limit, and the angels, invisible to bodily eyes, surround the throne of His majesty, where they minister to ‘the tabernacle not made with hands.’ Others say that, from the beginning, when God created the angels, until the second day, in which the firmament was made, all the classes of angels dwelt in the upper heavens; but when the firmament was made, they all came down below it, with the exception of three classes — the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Thrones — who remained above it. These surrounded and supported the Shechinah of God from the beginning of the world until our Lord ascended unto heaven; and after the Ascension, behold, they surround and support the throne of the Christ God, who is over all, until the end of the world. The Expositor and his companions say: ‘The tabernacle which Moses made is a type of the whole world.’ The outer tabernacle is the likeness of this world, but the inner tabernacle is the similitude of the place that is above the firmament. And as the priests ministered in the outer tabernacle daily, while the high priest alone entered into the inner tabernacle once a year; so of all rational beings, angels and men, no one has entered (the place) above the firmament, save the High Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ. The fathers, when they have been deemed worthy at any time to see our Lord in a revelation, have seen Him in heaven, surrounded by the Cherubim and Seraphim. Hence some say that there are angels above the heavens. All these celestial hosts have revelations both of sight and of hearing; but the Cherubim have revelations by sight only, because there is no mediator between them and God. The angels have an intellect superior to that of the rest of rational beings; man has stronger desire, and the demons a greater degree of anger.

One who is praying and makes a mistake, it is a bad sign for him. And if he is the messenger of the congregation (the prayer leader) it is a bad sign for those who have sent him, because one’s messenger is equivalent to one’s self. They said about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and say, “This one will die, this one will live.” They said to him: “How do you know?” He replied: “If my prayer comes out fluently, I know that he is accepted, but if not, then I know that he is rejected.”

The [second tithe of] demai is not subject to [the rules of adding a] fifth. It has no mandated time of removal. It may be eaten by an onen. It may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. They may allow a small amount to be lost on the road. One may give it to an am haaretz and consume its equivalent in Jerusalem. [Second tithe money of demai] may be redeemed silver [coins] for [other] silver [coins], copper [coins] for [other] copper [coins], silver for copper, and copper for produce, provided that the produce is again redeemed for money, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the produce itself must be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.

One might not buy slaves, land, or an unclean beast with sheviit money. If he did buy he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent. One may not bring the bird-offerings of a zav or a zavah, or of a woman after childbirth with sheviit money. If he did bring he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent. One may not anoint vessels with oil of seventh year produce. If he did anoint he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent.

One might not buy slaves, land, or an unclean beast with sheviit money. If he did buy he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent. One may not bring the bird-offerings of a zav or a zavah, or of a woman after childbirth with sheviit money. If he did bring he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent. One may not anoint vessels with oil of seventh year produce. If he did anoint he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent.

One might not buy slaves, land, or an unclean beast with sheviit money. If he did buy he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent. One may not bring the bird-offerings of a zav or a zavah, or of a woman after childbirth with sheviit money. If he did bring he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent. One may not anoint vessels with oil of seventh year produce. If he did anoint he must [buy and] eat [food] for their equivalent.

A hide which they oiled with seventh year oil: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be burnt; But the sages say: he must [buy and] eat [food] for its equivalent. They said in front of Rabbi Akiba: Rabbi Eliezer used to say, A hide which they smeared with seventh year oil must be burnt. He replied: Silence! I won’t tell you what Rabbi Eliezer actually said in this connection.

One who uproots turnips and radishes from within his own [property] and plants [them elsewhere] within his own [property] for the purpose of seed, he is liable to tithe, since this is [equivalent to] their threshing floor. If onions take root in an upper story they become clean from any impurity. If some debris fell upon them and they are uncovered, they are regarded as though they were planted in the field.

If one eats [an amount] the size of a large date, like it and its seed, or if he drank [an amount equivalent to a] mouthful, he is liable. All foods add up to make an amount equivalent to a date, and all the liquids add up to make a mouthful. Food and drink do not add up.

If one eats [an amount] the size of a large date, like it and its seed, or if he drank [an amount equivalent to a] mouthful, he is liable. All foods add up to make an amount equivalent to a date, and all the liquids add up to make a mouthful. Food and drink do not add up.

A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.

A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.

The oath of the judges [is imposed when] the claim is [at least] two silver coins, and the admission the equivalent of a perutah. And if the admission is not of the same kind as the claim, he is exempt. How is this so? “Two silver ma’ahs of mine are in your possession,” [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is exempt. “Two silver ma’ahs of mine and a perutah are in your possession,” [and the other replies,] “I have nothing of yours in my possession except a perutah,” he is liable. “A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have nothing of yours,” he is exempt. “A hundred denarii of mine are in your possession”, [and the other replies], “I have of yours only fifty denarii,” he is liable. “You have of my father’s a hundred denarii”, [and the other replies], “I have of his only fifty denarii”, he is exempt, because it is as if he restores a lost object.

The todah required five Jerusalem seahs [of flour], which are six wilderness seahs; This is the equivalent to two ephahs, for an ephah is three seahs, or to twenty tenths [of an ephah], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the matzot. “Ten for the leavened cakes” one tenth for each cake; “And ten for the matzot” –there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were three and a third tenths of flour for each kind, three cakes to every tenth. By Jerusalem measure they were thirty kavs, fifteen for the leavened cakes and fifteen for the matzot. “Fifteen for the leavened cakes”, one kav and a half for each cake. “And fifteen for the matzot” there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were five kavs for each kind, two cakes to every kav.

If one cut one [of the organs of the throat] in the case of a bird, or both organs in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is valid. The greater part of an organ is equivalent to [the whole of] it. Rabbi Judah says: he must cut through the veins. [If one cut] half of one organ in the case of a bird, or one and a half organs in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is invalid. [If one man cut] the greater part of one organ in the case of a bird, or the greater part of each organ in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is valid.

The five selas of a first-born [are paid in] the standard of Tyrian maneh. As regards the thirty shekels of a slave and likewise the fifty shekels of the rapist and seducer and the one hundred shekels for one who spreads an evil name in all these cases the payment is in the holy shekel, in the standard of Tyrian maneh. All of these are redeemed with money or the equivalent of money with the exception of shekel payments.

If one consecrated his field at a time when the [law of the] Jubilee was no longer observed, they say to him: “You open [the bidding]!” because the owner must pay an added fifth, whereas others do not pay an additional fifth. It happened that one consecrated his field because it was bad. They said to him: “You open the bidding.” He said: “I will acquire it for an issar.” Rabbi Yose said: he did say that, but rather “for an egg,” because consecrated objects may be redeemed by either money or money's equivalent. He [the Temple treasurer] said to him: It’s yours. It turns out he lost an issar and the field was his again.

A woman who has had several births. If she miscarried a female within eighty days of the birth of a girl, and then she again miscarried a female within eighty days of the previous [miscarriage]; or if she miscarried twins. Rabbi Judah says: she brings an offering for the first and not for the second, for the third again but not for the fourth. The following persons bring an offering of higher or lesser value: One who hears the voice (see Leviticus 5:1); One who has broken the word of his lips (Leviticus 5:4); One who while unclean has entered the sanctuary or [has partaken] of holy things, A woman after childbirth And a metzora. What is the difference between [intercourse] with a female slave and the other forbidden sexual relations? For they are not equivalent in regard to the punishment nor the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations a hatat is brought, in that of a female slave an asham; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations a female animal is brought, in that of the female slave a male; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations man and woman are alike with respect to lashes and the sacrifice; in that of the female slave the man is unlike the woman regarding the lashes, and the woman is unlike the man regarding the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations sexual contact is punishable as well as consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse separately. For in this the case of the female slave is more stringent in that intentional transgression is of the same status as unwitting transgression.

If he removed a stone or a beam belonging to Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty. If he built it into his house he is not guilty of sacrilege until he lives beneath it and benefits the equivalent of a perutah. If he took a perutah from Temple property he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty. If he gave it to the bathhouse keeper, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he has not bathed, for he can say to him, “Behold the bath is ready for you, go in and bathe.”

All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (mikveh), for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (mikveh), for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent. The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food.

Superior to such [water] is [the water of] the mikveh containing forty seahs, for in it people may immerse themselves and immerse other [things]. Superior to such [water] is [the water of] a spring whose own water is little but has been increased by a greater quantity of drawn water. It is equivalent to the mikveh in as much as it may render clean by standing water, and to an [ordinary] spring in as much as one may immerse in it whatever the quantity of its contents.

All seas are equivalent to a mikveh, for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a mikveh, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

All seas are equivalent to a mikveh, for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a mikveh, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

Correspondingly, there are four things that a person has to pay for in this world and the principal remains for him in the future world: Idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder. But slander is equivalent to all of these. Idolatry from where? (Num. 15:31) “This soul shall certainly be cut off, its sin is inside it.” Why does the verse say “its sin is inside it?” This teaches that the soul is destroyed and its sin is still inside it. And it is written (Ex.32:21): “Please, this people has committed a grave sin, they made for themselves golden gods.” Incest and adultery from where? (Gen. 39:9) “How can I commit that grave evil and sin before God.” Murder from where? (Gen. 4:13) “Cain said to the Eternal, my sin is grave, it cannot be removed.” When he comes to calumny, it does not say in the singular “grave” or “the grave” but in the plural “grave” (Ps. 12:4): “May the Eternal cut off all slippery lips, all tongues peaking grave words.”

Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, it is forbidden. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent. As Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, his flesh touches the excrement.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it is never subject to ḥallah unless it contain the full measure of grain. The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, Bar Lolita in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Mana said, even though my teacher Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent: that Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. In this case, since the bran was removed and then put in again, it is not the way dough is made.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.

We find that the Temple was destroyed the first time only because they were active idolators, and uncoverers of nakedness, and spillers of blood. And so the second time. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Torta said, we find that Shiloh was destroyed only because they slighted the holidays and desecrated the sancta. We find that the Temple was destroyed the first time only because they were active idolators, and uncoverers of nakedness, and spillers of blood. But of the second we know that they toiled in the Torah, were careful about the commandments and tithes, and every good custom was in them; only they loved money and hated one another without reason. Hate without reason is hard for it is the equivalent if idolatry, and uncovering nakedness, and spilling of blood. An example. Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Abuna, were sitting and saying, it is worse since the first time it was rebuilt but the second time it was not rebuilt. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the first ones repented, the second ones did not repent. Rebbi Eleazar said, the first time their sin was brought into the open and so was their end; the second time their sin was brought into the open but their end was not brought into the open. They asked Rebbi Eliezer, are the later generations more qualified than the first? He told them, your witness, the Temple, shall prove it. Our forefathers removed the ceiling, the curtain of Jehudah was lifted, but we blew out the walls, who are saying, make bare, make bare, up to its foundations. They said, any generation in which it is not rebuilt is debited as if it had destroyed it.

It was stated, “a full gulp.” Does this disagree? A full gulp, what is possible as one gulp. It was stated in the name of the House of Shammai, a full gulp is equivalent to a quartarius. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, why was this not stated as one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and restrictions of the House of Hillel? He told him, because of the gulp of Ben Avatiah which contained more than a quartarius.

MISHNAH: He came to Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos, who said to him, if we came to investigate the Court of Rabban Gamliel, we would have to investigate every single Court which was formed since the times of our teacher Moses up to today, as it is said, Moses and Aaron, Adav and Avihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel ascended. Why were the names of the seventy Elders not given? To teach that any three who formed a Court for Israel are equivalent to the Court of Moses. He took his staff and his money in his hands and went to Rabban Gamliel at Jabneh on the day that was the day of Atonement according to his computation. Rabban Gamliel rose, kissed him on his head, and said to him, come in peace, my teacher and my student. My teacher in wisdom, and my student since you accepted my words.

The House of Shammai are saying, heaven was created first and afterwards earth. But the House of Hillel are saying, earth was created first and afterwards heaven. These are bringing proof for their assertion, and those are bringing proof for their assertion. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. {A parable} of a king who made a chair. After he had made it he made its footstool: the Heavens are My throne and the Earth My footstool. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? On the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven {A parable} of a king who made a palace. After he built the foundations he built the upper structure: also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, also the following supports the House of Hillel: in earlier times You founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of Your hands. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the place from where the House of Shammai prove their assertion, from there the House of Hillel remove them. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. From there the House of Hillel remove them: and the earth was, it already was. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of the Sages: As for creation, the heaven preceded. As for perfecting, the earth preceded. As for creation, the heaven preceded, in the Beginning God created. As for perfecting, the earth preceded, on the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven. According to the House of Shammai, the heaven after the First waited three days, First, Second, Third, to have offspring. On the Fourth, there shall be lights. According to the House of Shammai, the sea after the Second waited three days, Second, Third, Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. According to the House of Shammai, the earth after the Third waited three days, Third, Fourth, Fifth, to have offspring. On the Sixth, the earth shall produce. According to the House of Hillel, the earth after the First waited two days, First and Second, to have offspring. On the Third, the earth shall be covered with grass. According to the House of Hillel, the sea after the Third waited two days, Third and Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai said, I am wondering how the fathers of the world could disagree about the creation of the world. Heaven and earth were only created like a pan and its cover. What is the reason? Also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, following this, my father’s opinion, sometimes heaven precedes earth, sometimes earth precedes heaven, which teaches that they are equivalent one to another.

MISHNAH: If she decided to bring him 1’000 denars, he decides as equivalent fifteen minas. Corresponding to estimates he decides one-fifth less. If it was appraised for a mina and it is worth a mina, he has only a mina. For the estimate of a mina she gives him 31 [tetradrachmas and one] denar. For 400 she gives 500, for what the groom decides, he decides one-fifth less.

MISHNAH: If somebody marries a woman and contracts with her to sustain her daughter for five years, he is obligated to sustain her for five years. If [the mother] was married to another man who contracted with her to sustain her daughter for five years, he is obligated to sustain her for five years. The first one cannot say, if she will come to live with me I shall sustain her, but he has to bring her support to her place. Similarly, the two cannot say we shall support her in common, but one of them sustains her and the other gives the money equivalent to her sustenance.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who says, accept this bill of divorce for my wife,” etc. Everywhere you say that “accept” is the equivalent of “obtain,” but here you say that “accept” is the equivalent of “bring”? There is a difference, for one can obtain something for a person without him being present. Rebbi Shammai objected: Think of it, if she was shouting to obtain a divorce? I say, maybe she changed her mind. But did we not state: “A woman herself may bring her bill of divorce”? Could you say that she may have changed her mind? There, she is damaging herself; here it is to her detriment.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who says, accept this bill of divorce for my wife,” etc. Everywhere you say that “accept” is the equivalent of “obtain,” but here you say that “accept” is the equivalent of “bring”? There is a difference, for one can obtain something for a person without him being present. Rebbi Shammai objected: Think of it, if she was shouting to obtain a divorce? I say, maybe she changed her mind. But did we not state: “A woman herself may bring her bill of divorce”? Could you say that she may have changed her mind? There, she is damaging herself; here it is to her detriment.

The same situation obtains for bills of manumission. “This is your bill of manumission valid after 30 days from now.” In Rebbi’s opinion, it is a bill; in the rabbi’s opinion, it is no bill. The same situation obtains for abandoning. “My field shall be abandoned after 30 days from now.” In Rebbi’s opinion, it is abandoned; in the rabbi’s opinion, it is not abandoned. Is it the same for dedications? Everybody agrees that “my speaking to Heaven is equivalent to my delivering to a person.” Is it the same for preliminary marriage? It was found stated: Rebbi says, she is completely preliminarily married.

HALAKHAH: “If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole. But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole, or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate according to the ruling of the Court. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.” Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.”

HALAKHAH: “If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole. But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole, or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate according to the ruling of the Court. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.” Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.”

HALAKHAH: “If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole. But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole, or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate according to the ruling of the Court. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.” Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.”

GEMARA Rabina said : [The statement of the Mishnah] means to say that meditation is the equivalent of speech ; for if it enter thy mind that it is not the equivalent of speech,

GEMARA Rabina said : [The statement of the Mishnah] means to say that meditation is the equivalent of speech ; for if it enter thy mind that it is not the equivalent of speech,

why should he meditate! How is it then? Meditation is the equivalent of speech. Let him, then, utter the words with his lips !

But Rab Hisda said : Meditation is not the equivalent of speech ; for if it enter thy mind that it is the equivalent of speech, let him utter the words with his lips !

But Rab Hisda said : Meditation is not the equivalent of speech ; for if it enter thy mind that it is the equivalent of speech, let him utter the words with his lips !

How is it then ? Meditation is not the equivalent of speech. Why, then, should he meditate? R. Eleazar said : So that the whole world should not be engaged upon the reading of the Shema', whereas he sits idle.

He replied, "Dost thou think that the quantity equivalent to a large olive is necessary [to constitute the minimum] ? About the size of an average olive is sufficient ; and there was that quantity, because the olive which they brought to R. Johanan was of a large size, so that although the stone was removed, the minimum still remained."

But consider: If the side of a square is a cubit, its diagonal is approximately one and two fifths cubits. Should not then [a circumference equivalent to] sixteen and four fifths [cubits] suffice? [R. Johanan] gave only an approximate figure.

Rav said: On account of four things the property of householders is confiscated by the state treasury: On account of those who hold back the wages of a laborer; on account of those who completely keep the wages of a laborer; on account of those who remove the yoke from off their necks and place it on [the necks] of others and on account of arrogance. And the sin of arrogance is equivalent to all [the others]. Whereas the humble it is written, "But the humble shall inherit the land, and delight themselves in the abundance of peace" (Psalms 37:11).

The first benediction he closes with the words: He who answered Abraham, etc. It was taught: There are some that reverse the order, putting the word "crying" in the benediction referring to Elijah, and the word "prayer" in the one referring to Samuel. This would be correct so far as Samuel is concerned, because in connection with him crying as well as prayer are found in the Bible, but in the case of Elijah, the expression used is 'prayer', not 'crying'. Answer. The words (I Kings, 18. 37) "Hear me, O Lord, hear me," are equivalent to crying.

R. Nahman said: The reading of the Megillah is equivalent to Hallel. Rava said: There is a good reason in that case [of the Exodus from Egypt] because it says [in the Hallel], “Praise you O servants of the Lord,” and not servants of Pharaoh. But can we say in this case, “Praise you, servants of the Lord” and not servants of Ahashverosh? We are still servants of Ahashverosh.

[With regard to a synagogue which has been made] a gift, R. Aha and Ravina disagree, one forbids [it to be used for secular purposes] and one permits. The one who forbade—how is its sanctity removed? While the one who permitted if the giver [the giver] did not derive some benefit from the act he would not give it, so that in the end the gift is equivalent to a sale.

Many peace-offerings—whence does he bring them? For behold, he has them not. R. Chasda said, He supplements, and brings a large bullock. R. Shesheth said to him, Behold, they say, Men supplement beast with beast. What did he mean? If you say, He meant this, viz., Behold, they say, Men supplement beast with beast, but not money with money, then he ought to have said to him, Men do not supplement money with money. But this is what he meant, viz., Behold, they say, Men also supplement beast with beast. To whose teaching is this to be attached? For it does not accord with Hezekiah, and it does not accord with R. Jochanan. And if you say, It is Gemaric teachers who are at variance, but the Mishnic teachers are not at variance, I reply that there is a teaching which says, The first meal shall come from things not previously consecrated. In what sense is the expression "the first meal" used here? It means, The money equivalent of the first meal shall come from things not previously consecrated.

Things unclean. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to determine that a creeping thing should be the size of a lentil; for this is not determined in Holy Writ. For there is a Baraitha, "In them" (Lev. xi. 26, 43). One might have thought it meant among them all, but that the teaching says, "of them" (Lev. xi. 32, 33). One might have thought it meant from a portion of them, but that the teaching says, "among them." But how is this? It is to include the case of a man's touching the extremity of it, for this is equivalent to the whole of it. Wise men calculated that a lentil should be the minimum for comparison. For a snail at first is about the size of a lentil. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, As the tail of a lizard.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

What are we to say of the word "heavens"? R. Jose bar Chănina said, It means the place where there is water. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah it is explained as equivalent to fire and water, thus teaching that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them and mingled them one with the other, and made from them the firmament.

A certain passage says, "And as for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man; and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side, etc." (Ezek. i. 10) and it is written, "And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14). And lo, the ox is not reckoned in. Resh Lakish said, Ezekiel besought the Merciful One with regard to him, and He changed him into a cherub. He addressed Him thus, Lord of the Universe, shall an accuser become an advocate? What is the meaning of cherub? R. Abohu said, It is equivalent to a growing child. For so in Babylon a young child is called Rabya. R. Papa said to Abohu, But, as it is written, "The first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14), this shews that the face of a cherub is the same thing as the face of a man. There are large faces and there are small faces.

R. Ami and R. Isaac Naphcha sat at the portico of R. Isaac Naphcha. One began and said, What is the meaning of the words, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Every one's hand has been handling it, and dost thou say, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Nay, but hitherto as well has not every one's hand been handling it? He said to him, That is quite true; yet hitherto the uncleanness of a common person in a festival the Merciful One cleanseth. But now it is a case of uncleanness. Shall we say so? For we have one Baraitha which teaches, He shall leave it for another festival, and another Baraitha, He shall not leave it for another festival. Is not this a non-canonical Mishnah? Nay, it is older. Lo, the Baraitha, "He shall leave it," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah, and the Baraitha, "he shall not leave it," with that of our Rabbis. But bring your reasoning powers to bear. Lo, R. Jehudah said, Let him finish; but this, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him not leave," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah; and the other, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him leave," is identical with the teaching of our Rabbis. And why shall he not leave it? Because it is not necessary to leave it.

R. Ami and R. Isaac Naphcha sat at the portico of R. Isaac Naphcha. One began and said, What is the meaning of the words, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Every one's hand has been handling it, and dost thou say, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Nay, but hitherto as well has not every one's hand been handling it? He said to him, That is quite true; yet hitherto the uncleanness of a common person in a festival the Merciful One cleanseth. But now it is a case of uncleanness. Shall we say so? For we have one Baraitha which teaches, He shall leave it for another festival, and another Baraitha, He shall not leave it for another festival. Is not this a non-canonical Mishnah? Nay, it is older. Lo, the Baraitha, "He shall leave it," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah, and the Baraitha, "he shall not leave it," with that of our Rabbis. But bring your reasoning powers to bear. Lo, R. Jehudah said, Let him finish; but this, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him not leave," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah; and the other, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him leave," is identical with the teaching of our Rabbis. And why shall he not leave it? Because it is not necessary to leave it.

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

By a cohabitation related crime what would they do? Abaye and Rava said together, Did you see [the equivalent] of a brush being out into a tube? And what would the Rabbis do [to execute in such a case]? They would go like Shmuel, that Shmuel says, They are sinners when they act in a manner like sinners.