exchange

And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.

He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.

The gold and the crystal cannot equal it: and the exchange of it shall not be for jewels of fine gold.

And they shall not sell of it, neither exchange, nor alienate the firstfruits of the land: for it is holy unto the LORD.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Neither consult with a woman touching her of whom she is jealous; neither with a coward in matters of war; nor with a merchant concerning exchange; nor with a buyer of selling; nor with an envious man of thankfulness; nor with an unmerciful man touching kindness; nor with the slothful for any work; nor with an hireling for a year of finishing work; nor with an idle servant of much business: hearken not unto these in any matter of counsel.

Noah was found perfect and righteous; in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange [for the world;] therefore was he left as a remnant unto the earth, when the flood came.

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.

And having so said he came down from the chariot. The apostle therefore began to say: Jesu Christ, that art blasphemed by the ignorance of thee in this country; Jesu, the report of whom is strange in this city; Jesu, that receivest all; Jesu, that didst take a form and become as a man, and wert seen of all us that thou mightest not separate us from thine own love: thou, Lord, art he that gavest thyself for us, and with thy blood hast purchased us and gained us as a possession of great price: and what have we to give thee, Lord, in exchange for thy life which thou gavest for us? for that which we would give, thou gavest us: and this is, that we should entreat of thee and live.

And Mygdonia hearing this said unto the apostle: In truth, my lord, I have received the seed of thy words, and I will bear fruit like unto such seed. The apostle saith: Our souls give praise and thanks unto thee, O Lord, for they are thine: our bodies give thanks unto thee, which thou hast accounted worthy to become the dwelling-place of thy heavenly gift. And he said also to them that stood by: Blessed are the holy, whose souls have never condemned them, for they have gained them and are not divided against themselves: blessed are the spirits of the pure, and they that have received the heavenly crown whole from the world (age) which hath been appointed them: blessed are the bodies of the holy, for they have been made worthy to become temples of God, that Christ may dwell in them: blessed are ye, for ye have power to forgive sins: blessed are ye if ye lose not that which is committed unto you, but rejoicing and departing bear it away with you: blessed are ye the holy, for unto you it is given to ask and receive: blessed are ye meek for you hath God counted worthy to become heirs of the heavenly kingdom. Blessed are ye meek, for ye are they that have overcome the enemy: blessed are ye meek, for ye shall see the face of the Lord. Blessed are ye that hunger for the Lord's sake for for you is rest laid up, and your souls rejoice from henceforth. Blessed are ye that are quiet, (for ye have been counted worthy) to be set free from sin and from the exchange of clean and unclean beasts. And when the apostle had said these things in the hearing of all the multitude, Mygdonia was the more confirmed in the faith and glory and greatness of Christ.

For I too, would exchange the torpor of death for the sustenance of my body".

HOW SATAN INTRODUCED DIVISIONS AND ENMITIES INTO THE CHURCH EVEN AS HE DID OF OLD IN THE CASE OF THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Behold, then, see and understand the craft and deeds of Satan, the enemy of all good, how he caused divisions and unbelief and ungodliness in the midst of the people. [vi., 7.) The first division which he caused was with Simon in the city called Gitthae Now this man was a sorcerer, and by his own impure craft, he clothed himself with Satan as with a garment, and served him as a slave, performing all the evil of his will. And Philip the Apostle our brother wrought mighty works and great signs, and healed the sick in the city of Samaria by the grace of the Lord and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. And when the men of Samaria saw all his deeds, they became strong in their faith, and believed in God, and were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ. And when Simon the sorcerer saw the signs and wonders which were not done by magic art, amazement seized him, and straightway he believed and was baptized, and after that he fasted and prayed. And when we heard this, we gave thanks to God for that the men of Samaria had believed by the preaching of Philip. And then we arose and came unto them, and taught them carefully the word of admonition; and on-all those who had received baptism we laid hands; and bestowed on them by prayer the gift of the Holy Spirit. And when Simon saw that when we laid on our hands the Holy Spirit descended on those who believed, he came to us, bringing bribes (and) saying, Give me also this authority, that when I lay on my hands the Holy Spirit may descend on them. For Satan desired to seduce those who desired to believe, even as he seduced Adam—and he ate of the tree, and (God) put him forth from the garden and brought on him the judgment of death. And in like manner he laid a snare for us that we might take bribes. And if we had taken (them) we should have been deprived of the Holy Spirit, which we had received without price, (and should have had) in exchange the wealth that waxeth old and perisheth. Then we feared and were troubled. And when I, Peter, saw this evil deed, I said unto Simon, Thy gold and thy silver be with thee unto perdition. Dost thou think that with gold thou mayest purchase the gift of God? For thy heart is not right before God. Turn from the evil of thy deeds, and pray to God that He pardon the sin on which thy heart hath thought, for I see that thou art as bitter gall in doing evil. ‘Then Simon feared exceedingly, and said unto us, Pray ye for me to the Lord that there come on me nothing of all this that ye have said unto me. [vi., 8.) Then we went forth to preach in all the world the word of life, but Satan sent after us false apostles, and he raised up also those that caused the preaching of the Gospel to cease, and that wrought lies and vanity. Then they set up one from among them whose name was Cleobius,t and they joined him with Simon, and these became disciples of him who was called Dositheus, and they removed him from his place. And moreover they took counsel with others, and made a place, and assembled together therein to do what was full of blasphemy. These were Cerinthus, Marcus, and Menander, and Basilides, and Saturnilus And again there are others who say that there are many gods, and others that (there are) three orders; (and others that they are gathered together and are at variance among themselves]; and there are some who worship many gods whom they know not, and some who teach, saying that marriage is not from God; and others who despise and abhor the union of the sexes; and others who commit fornication without shame; and others who deny () the law and their teacher is Nicolas.t: [vi., 9. Moreover (it was) I, Peter, to whom Simon came in Caesarea, the city of Cornelius, the faithful in Jesus Christ. But Simon took counsel to seduce the blessed and holy children, Zacchaeus, who was once a publican, and Barnabas, and Nicetas, and Aquila, the brother of Clement, who was ordained bishop in the city of Rome, (and) who was the disciple of Paul the righteous in the doctrine of the holy Gospel. And spake unto him before them thrice by the word of prophecy, and overcame him by the power of the Lord. Then he fled away, and went into Italy. And when he came to the city of Rome, he disturbed the Church, and destroyed the faith of many, and perverted the Gentiles, and turned them to himself; and taught them to use sorcery and (do) the work of accursed demons. And after this he went to the house of their gods at midday, and made an oration unto them looking up into the skies, and all the people did reverence unto him. Then he was carried up by the demons and flew up into the air. But I, Peter, stood, and prayed, and beheld him flying in the air; and he said, I will ascend into heaven, and he promised the people every (kind of) benefit. And they believed (him) and accounted him as a god. But I stretched forth my hands and prayed to God with all my heart to bring him down to earth, and to Break the power of the demons, who were seducing and destroying the people. And again I prayed to God not to kill him, but to break him as a potter’s vessel. Then I turned to Simon, and said unto him, If thou art a man of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, and teachest His commandments and His truth, come not down; but if thou art a seducer and a destroyer, O Simon—I command you. demons that bear up Simon the Sorcerer, be ye far from him, and forsake him that he may fall down, and be made a mockery before those whom he hath seduced. And when I had spoken thus, the unclean spirits fled away and forsook Simon. Then he fell to the earth, and was bruised with a great [amazement]; and his limbs were broken. Then all the people cried out with a loud voice, and said, There is one Lord, the God of Peter, whom he hath preached to us in truth, And forthwith the people forsook Simon, and from that day the ungodliness and divisions amongst the Simonians were increased. Then Satan entered into the hearts of the false prophets who led men astray, [vi., 10] and caused them o utter words of blasphemy against God Almighty, (saying) that He is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, they said that He is not the Creator of the world, but that He is invisible and unknown and unnamed, and not begotten. And again, they said that it was not He who had sent down the Law and the prophets; and they believed not in the resurrection of the dead, and (said that) there shall be no retribution at the last day, and that the soul will return to its nature; and they take pleasure in (their) lusts, and turn to evil habits. And there are others who say that there are many gods, and say that there are three orders, and others that there are two orders. And others forbid to marry, and command to drink no wine, and count as impure and abhor marriage and the begetting of children, and the eating of fruits; and they make themselves out as pure, and receive an evil wisdom, and feign to be righteous and faithful. And there are some of them who command (men) not to eat flesh, and say of the beasts [that they have no reason or soul]; moreover they say that whosoever injureth a beast is as a murderer. And there are some who say that the flesh of a clean swine is not clean, but unclean, (and that) we ought to keep far from every such thing; but that men may eat of whatsoever was clean under the law. And there are some who practise circumcision, and shame openly teach lust, and do the pleasure of the flesh, and are completely given over to every deed of uncleanness. Now these are as instruments (whom) the devil hath led captive, and children of wrath.

But he that denies himself to be a Christian, that he may not be hated of men, and so loves his own life more than he does the Lord, in whose hand his breath is, is wretched and miserable, as being detestable and abominable, who desires to be the friend of men, but is the enemy of God, having no longer his portion with the saints, but with those that are accursed; choosing instead of the kingdom of the blessed, that eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: not being any longer hated by men, but rejected by God, and cast out from His presence. For of such a one our Lord declared, saying: Whosoever shall deny me before men, and shall be ashamed of my name, I also will deny and be ashamed of him before my Father which is in heaven. And again He speaks thus to us ourselves, His disciples: He that loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loves son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. He that finds his life, shall lose it; and he that loses his life for my sake, shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? And afterwards: Fear not those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Now the original of the new heresies began this way: the devil entered into one Simon, of a village called Gitthæ, a Samaritan, by profession a magician, and made him the minister of his wicked design. For when Philip our fellow-apostle, by the gift of the Lord and the energy of His Spirit, performed the miracles of healing in Samaria, insomuch that the Samaritans were affected, and embraced the faith of the God of the universe, and of the Lord Jesus, and were baptized into His name; nay, and that Simon himself, when he saw the signs and wonders which were done without any magic ceremonies, fell into admiration, and believed, and was baptized, and continued in fasting and prayer — we heard of the grace of God which was among the Samaritans by Philip, and came down to them; and enlarging much upon the word of doctrine, we laid our hands upon all that were baptized, and we conferred upon them the participation of the Spirit. But when Simon saw that the Spirit was given to believers by the imposition of our hands, he took money, and offered it to us, saying, Give me also the power, that on whomsoever I also shall lay my hand, he may receive the Holy Ghost; being desirous that as the devil deprived Adam by his tasting of the tree of that immortality which was promised him, so also that Simon might entice us by the receiving of money, and might thereby cut us off from the gift of God, that so by exchange we might sell to him for money the inestimable gift of the Spirit. But as we were all troubled at this offer, I Peter, with a fixed attention on that malicious serpent which was in him, said to Simon: Let your money go with you to perdition, because you have thought to purchase the gift of God with money. You have no part in this matter, nor lot in this faith; for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray to the Lord, if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I perceive you are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity. But then Simon was terrified, and said: I entreat you, pray to the Lord for me, that none of those things which you have spoken come upon me.

And Terah saw that the anger of the king was kindled against him, and he answered the king, saying, All that I have is in the king's power; whatever the king desireth to do to his servant, that let him do, yea, even my son, he is in the king's power, without value in exchange, he and his two brothers that are older than he.

I think, indeed, that Jeremiah the prophet, also, understanding what was the nature of the wisdom of God in him, which was the same also which he had assumed for the salvation of the world, said, “The breath of our countenance is Christ the Lord, to whom we said, that under His shadow we shall live among the nations.” And inasmuch as the shadow of our body is inseparable from the body, and unavoidably performs and repeats its movements and gestures, I think that he, wishing to point out the work of Christ’s soul, and the movements inseparably belonging to it, and which accomplished everything according to His movements and will, called this the shadow of Christ the Lord, under which shadow we were to live among the nations. For in the mystery of this assumption the nations live, who, imitating it through faith, come to salvation. David also, when saying, “Be mindful of my reproach, O Lord, with which they reproached me in exchange for Thy Christ,” seems to me to indicate the same. And what else does Paul mean when he says, “Your life is hid with Christ in God;” and again in another passage, “Do you seek a proof of Christ, who speaketh in me?” And now he says that Christ was hid in God. The meaning of which expression, unless it be shown to be something such as we have pointed out above as intended by the prophet in the words “shadow of Christ,” exceeds, perhaps, the apprehension of the human mind. But we see also very many other statements in holy Scripture respecting the meaning of the word “shadow,” as that well-known one in the Gospel according to Luke, where Gabriel says to Mary, “The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” And the apostle says with reference to the law, that they who have circumcision in the flesh, “serve for the similitude and shadow of heavenly things.” And elsewhere, “Is not our life upon the earth a shadow?” If, then, not only the law which is upon the earth is a shadow, but also all our life which is upon the earth is the same, and we live among the nations under the shadow of Christ, we must see whether the truth of all these shadows may not come to be known in that revelation, when no longer through a glass, and darkly, but face to face, all the saints shall deserve to behold the glory of God, and the causes and truth of things. And the pledge of this truth being already received through the Holy Spirit, the apostle said, “Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.” The above, meanwhile, are the thoughts which have occurred to us, when treating of subjects of such difficulty as the incarnation and deity of Christ. If there be any one, indeed, who can discover something better, and who can establish his assertions by clearer proofs from holy Scriptures, let his opinion be received in preference to mine.

Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner, when he compares the mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that the former is more liable to corruption than the latter. For, to speak correctly, that which is incorruptible is not more free from corruption than another thing which is incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible more liable to corruption than another corruptible thing. But, admitting that there are degrees of corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if it is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to exchange some of them, how should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to exchange qualities, and to become such as it was proper for a body to be which had its abode in the ether and the regions above it, and possessing no longer the infirmities belonging to the flesh, and those properties which Celsus terms “impurities,” and in so terming them, speaks unlike a philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so because of its wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in so far as it is bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the generative principle of impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the answer which we would return, he says with respect to the change of the body of Jesus, “Well, after he has laid aside these qualities, he will be a God:” [and if so], why not rather Æsculapius, and Dionysus, and Hercules? To which we reply, “What great deed has Æsculapius, or Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?” And what individuals will they be able to point out as having been improved in character, and made better by their words and lives, so that they may make good their claim to be gods? For let us peruse the many narratives regarding them, and see whether they were free from licentiousness, or injustice, or folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of that kind be found in them, the argument of Celsus might have force, which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that, although some things are reported of them as reputable, they are recorded, nevertheless, to have done innumerable things which are contrary to right reason, how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?

Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner, when he compares the mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that the former is more liable to corruption than the latter. For, to speak correctly, that which is incorruptible is not more free from corruption than another thing which is incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible more liable to corruption than another corruptible thing. But, admitting that there are degrees of corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if it is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to exchange some of them, how should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to exchange qualities, and to become such as it was proper for a body to be which had its abode in the ether and the regions above it, and possessing no longer the infirmities belonging to the flesh, and those properties which Celsus terms “impurities,” and in so terming them, speaks unlike a philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so because of its wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in so far as it is bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the generative principle of impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the answer which we would return, he says with respect to the change of the body of Jesus, “Well, after he has laid aside these qualities, he will be a God:” [and if so], why not rather Æsculapius, and Dionysus, and Hercules? To which we reply, “What great deed has Æsculapius, or Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?” And what individuals will they be able to point out as having been improved in character, and made better by their words and lives, so that they may make good their claim to be gods? For let us peruse the many narratives regarding them, and see whether they were free from licentiousness, or injustice, or folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of that kind be found in them, the argument of Celsus might have force, which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that, although some things are reported of them as reputable, they are recorded, nevertheless, to have done innumerable things which are contrary to right reason, how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?

We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we do desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to young men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to slaves how they may recover freedom of thought, and be ennobled by the word. And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently declare that they are debtors to Greeks and barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not deny their obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that as far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to obtain greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon: “Oh, ye fools, be of an understanding heart,” and “Who is the most simple among you, let him turn unto me;” and wisdom exhorts those who are devoid of understanding in the words, “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake folly that ye may live, and correct understanding in knowledge.” This too would I say (seeing it bears on the point), in answer to the statement of Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and do they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and do they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then, with philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue? with Pythagoras for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and with those who recently encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy? Is it indeed permissible for you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves and foolish persons to the study of philosophy, but if we do so, we do not act from philanthropic motives in wishing to heal every rational nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring them into fellowship with God, the Creator of all things? These remarks, then, may suffice in answer to what are slanders rather than accusations on the part of Celsus.

The top of a single ear of grain [that remained] after the harvesting and its top touches the standing stalk: If it can be cut with the stalk, it belongs to the owner; But if not, it belongs to the poor. If an ear of grain of gleanings that became mixed up with a stack of grain, [the owner] must tithe one ear of grain and give it to him [the poor]. Rabbi Eliezer says: how can this poor man give in exchange something that had not yet become his? Rather, [the owner] must transfer to the poor man the ownership of the whole stack and then tithe one ear of grain and give it to him.

One who exchanges with the poor, [what they give in exchange] for his is exempt [from tithes] but what [he gives in exchange] for that of the poor is subject [to tithes]. Two who received a field as sharecroppers, this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe and this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe. One who receives a field in order to harvest it, he is forbidden to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When he receives it [in order to pay the owner] a half, third or quarter [of the crop]. But [if the owner] had said to him: “A third of that which you harvest belongs to you,” then he may take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah, but not the poor man’s tithe.

One who exchanges with the poor, [what they give in exchange] for his is exempt [from tithes] but what [he gives in exchange] for that of the poor is subject [to tithes]. Two who received a field as sharecroppers, this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe and this one may give to the other his share of the poor man’s tithe. One who receives a field in order to harvest it, he is forbidden to take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When he receives it [in order to pay the owner] a half, third or quarter [of the crop]. But [if the owner] had said to him: “A third of that which you harvest belongs to you,” then he may take gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah, but not the poor man’s tithe.

They may rent newly plowed land from a Gentile in the seventh year, but not from an Israelite. And they may encourage Gentiles during the seventh year, but not Israelites. They may exchange greetings with them because of the ways of peace.

Bet Shammai says: one must not sell him a plowing cow in the seventh year. But Bet Hillel permits, since he may slaughter it. One may sell him produce even at sowing time. And one may lend him a seah measure, even though he knows that he has a threshing-floor. One may exchange coins for him, even though he knows that he has workers. But all these things, if he expresses [that they will be used for unlawful purposes], then they are forbidden.

Second tithe: one may not sell it, use it as a pledge, exchange it, or use it as a weight. One may not say to his friend [even] in Jerusalem: “Here is [second tithe] wine, give me [in exchange] oil, and the same with all other produce. But people may give it to one another as a free gift.

Second tithe: one may not sell it, use it as a pledge, exchange it, or use it as a weight. One may not say to his friend [even] in Jerusalem: “Here is [second tithe] wine, give me [in exchange] oil, and the same with all other produce. But people may give it to one another as a free gift.

One who changes copper coins of second tithe for a sela: Bet Shammai says: he may change copper coins for a whole sela. But Bet Hillel says: a shekel of silver and a shekel’s worth of copper coins [can be exchanged for the sela]. Rabbi Meir says: one may not exchange silver and produce for silver. But the sages allow it.

One who exchanges a sela of second tithe in Jerusalem: Bet Shammai says: he may exchange the whole sela for copper coins. Bet Hillel says: a shekel of silver and a shekel’s worth of copper coins [can be exchanged for the sela]. Those discussing before the sages say: silver for three dinars and copper coins for one denar. Rabbi Akiva says: silver for three denars and copper coins for a fourth [of the fourth denar]. Rabbi Tarfon says: four aspers in silver. Shammai says: he must leave it in a shop and eat as much as it is worth.

One who had produce at this time and the time of removal arrived: Bet Shammai says: he must exchange it for money. But Bet Hillel says: it is all the same whether it becomes money or it remains fruit.

What was done with the surplus of the incense? They would separate from it the wages of the craftsmen, and they would exchange it for the wages of the craftsmen, and they would give it to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they would buy it back again out of a new appropriation. If the new month had arrived in time they would bring it with the new appropriation, but if not, they from the old one.

If one dedicated his possessions to the Temple, and there was among them things which was fit for public offerings, they should be given to the craftsmen as their wages; the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: this method is not correct. Rather, they separate from them the wages of the craftsmen, and then they exchange them for the money due to the craftsmen, and then they give them to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they buy them back again out of a new appropriation.

Whatever can be used as payment for another object, as soon as this one takes possession [of the object], the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, as soon as this one takes possession, the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. The sanctuary’s title to property [is acquired] by money; the title of an ordinary person to property by hazakah. Dedication to the sanctuary is equal to delivery to an ordinary person.

Whatever can be used as payment for another object, as soon as this one takes possession [of the object], the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, as soon as this one takes possession, the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. The sanctuary’s title to property [is acquired] by money; the title of an ordinary person to property by hazakah. Dedication to the sanctuary is equal to delivery to an ordinary person.

One may evaluate cows and donkeys and anything that works and eats [and give them to one’s fellow to raise] in order to share the profit. Where the custom is to share the offspring immediately at birth, they do so; and where the custom is to first rear them [and then give them over to the owner], they do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “One may evaluate a calf with its mother, and a foal with its mother [and give them to one’s fellow to raise in order to share the profit.] A tenant may offer increased rent in exchange for a loan to improve his field, without fearing that this is usury.

If a man’s debt document was erased, he must have witnesses testify with regards to the loan, and come before the court to make this attestation: “So and so, the son of so and so, his debt document was erased on such and such a day, and so and so and so and so are his witnesses.” If a man had paid part of his debt, Rabbi Judah says: “He should exchange the debt document for a new one.” Rabbi Yose says: “He should write a receipt.” Rabbi Judah said: “It turns out that this one (the debtor) will have to guard his receipt from mice.” Rabbi Yose said to him: “That’s good for him, as long as the rights of the other (the creditor) have not been damaged.

Food which is in separate pieces does not combine together [to receive impurity], according to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. But the Sages say: “It does combines together.” One may exchange [ produce of] second tithe for uncoined metal, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “One may not so exchange it.” The hands [alone] need to be immersed for the waters of purification according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “If his hands have become unclean his whole body becomes unclean.”

Food which is in separate pieces does not combine together [to receive impurity], according to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. But the Sages say: “It does combines together.” One may exchange [ produce of] second tithe for uncoined metal, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “One may not so exchange it.” The hands [alone] need to be immersed for the waters of purification according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “If his hands have become unclean his whole body becomes unclean.”

If a non-Jew sent to Jewish craftsmen a cask of yen nesekh as their wages, they are allowed to say to him, “give us its value in money”; But after [the wine] has come into their possession [the exchange] is prohibited. If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew, should he have set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted; But should he have measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited. If [a Jew] took a funnel and measured [wine] into a non-Jew’s flask and then measured some into a Jew’s flask, should a drop of the [first] wine have remained [in the funnel], then [the wine measured into the second flask] is prohibited. If he poured from [his own] vessel into [a non-Jew’s] vessel, [the wine in the vessel] from which he poured is permitted and [the wine in the vessel] into which he poured is prohibited.

All sacrifices which became mixed up with hatats that must be left to die, or with an ox that is to be stoned, even one in ten thousand, all must be left to die. If they were mixed up with: an ox with which a transgression had been committed [for instance]: one that had killed a man on the testimony of one witness or of its owner; or [an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, [In all of these cases] they must graze until they become defected, then they are sold, and one brings [a sacrifice] of the same kind at the price of the better of them. If they were mixed up with unblemished [animals] of hullin, the hullin must be sold to those who need that kind [for a sacrifice].

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

[As for an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or a terefah; or an animal born through caesarean section, if one offered any of these outside, he is not liable, because it says, “Before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable on its account. [As for] blemished animals, whether with permanent blemishes or with passing blemishes, if one offers them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] animals with permanent blemishes, he is exempt; [if one offers] animals with passing blemishes, he violates a negative commandment. [As for] turtledoves before their time and young pigeons after their time, if one offered them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] young pigeons after their time, he is exempt; turtledoves before their time, he violates a negative commandment. [One who offers] an animal together with its young [on the same day], and [one who offers] an animal before its time, is not liable. Rabbi Shimon says: he violates a negative commandment. For Rabbi Shimon would say: whatever is eligible to come [onto the altar] later entails a negative commandment, but does not entail karet. But the sages say: whatever does not entail karet also does not entail a negative commandment.

One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (ibid), just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.

All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are. [These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside (muktzeh) [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’evad) [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted. And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.

It was stated: “Entering a bathhouse, in the room where everybody is fully clothed one may read the Bible, pray, and needless to say, one may greet people. One may put on tefillin, and needless to say, one does not remove them. In the room where most people are naked one may not exchange greetings and needless to say, there is no Bible reading or prayer; one removes one’s tefillin and needless to say, one does not put them on. Where some are naked and some are clothed there is greeting, no Bible reading and no prayer, one does not remove tefillin and one does not put them on. But one does not put them on again until he has completely left the grounds of that bathhouse.” This supports what Rebbi Isaac said about Rebbi Yoḥanan, that he wore them until he came to Jacob, the bath master.

MISHNAH: : A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain that is still standing, if it can be cut together with standing grain, it belongs to the owner, otherwise it is for the poor. An ear of gleanings that was mixed up in a stack of grain, he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him. Rebbi Eliezer said, how can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives it to him.

Rebbi Zeïra stated: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted! There he makes him acquire, and here he says thus? He answered “according to your reasoning,” in your reasoning that you say it is by exchange. “How can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor man rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.”

Rebbi Zeïra stated: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted! There he makes him acquire, and here he says thus? He answered “according to your reasoning,” in your reasoning that you say it is by exchange. “How can the poor man exchange something that never was in his possession? But he has to give the poor man rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.”

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he exchanged the coin he has to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody gives coins to another person to exchange them, when they are lost the recipient is answerable for their alienation.

MISHNAH: These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical: A plough and all its implements, a yoke, a winnowing fork and an axe. But he may sell a hand sickle, a grain sickle, a carriage and all its implements. This is the principle: Everything that is used only for its work is forbidden; [if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted. The seller may sell five oil amphoras and fifteen wine amphoras because so much one brings from ownerless property. If he brought more than that amount, it is permitted. He may sell to Gentiles in the Land and to Jews outside of the Land. The House of Shammai say, one may not sell to him a ploughing cow during the Sabbatical but the House of Hillel permit it because he might slaughter it. One may sell him produce even during the sowing season and lend him one's measuring device even though one knows that he has workers, and one may exchange coins for him even though one knows that he has workers. In all cases it is forbidden if specified.

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

MISHNAH: One does not sell Second Tithe, one does not take it as a pledge, one does not barter it, and one does not weigh corresponding to it. One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, but they may give free gifts to one another. One may not sell animal tithe unblemished alive, or blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One does not exchange Second Tithe by a blank, or by a coin not in circulation, or on money not in his possession.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts, it is logical that it should be permitted to sell Second Tithe since with it one may liquidate one’s debts. We find that one may liquidate one’s debts with Second Tithe, following what we stated: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference since from the start the value of Second Tithe was due. If he had owed before, it would be an argument. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there: “If intentional, he married, if in error, he did not marry.” If you say that he may sell it, he should be able to use it for marriage but anything he may not sell he may not use for marriage. But did we not state: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. Otherwise, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures.

Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “One may exchange Second Tithe for a blank, the words of Rebbi Dosa, but the Sages forbid it.” What is Rebbi Dosa’s reason? (Deut. 14:25) “You should bundle the money;” something which is bundled together, or which has a form and is current because of its form. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Yose that one exchanges [Second] Tithe for a pound of silver. If he had [only] said “silver”, we would have said just as he said silver, so he said gold. If he had [only] said “silver”, we would have taught to exclude broken pots and baskets from which one could get a pound of silver.

“For a blank”. Everybody agrees that one does not exchange for the coins given to the olearius. That is, the way they are used for the olearius. But the way they are used by the tremissarius one may exchange.

“For a blank”. Everybody agrees that one does not exchange for the coins given to the olearius. That is, the way they are used for the olearius. But the way they are used by the tremissarius one may exchange.

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

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

“ One does not exchange it for money in Babylonia nor for Babylonian money here.” Not for money from here in Babylonia if he is in Babylonia; nor for Babylonian money here when he is here. If he had Babylonian money in Babylonia but he is here, let us say that he may exchange if the road was open; but otherwise he cannot exchange and put in order here.

“ One does not exchange it for money in Babylonia nor for Babylonian money here.” Not for money from here in Babylonia if he is in Babylonia; nor for Babylonian money here when he is here. If he had Babylonian money in Babylonia but he is here, let us say that he may exchange if the road was open; but otherwise he cannot exchange and put in order here.

“ One does not exchange it for money in Babylonia nor for Babylonian money here.” Not for money from here in Babylonia if he is in Babylonia; nor for Babylonian money here when he is here. If he had Babylonian money in Babylonia but he is here, let us say that he may exchange if the road was open; but otherwise he cannot exchange and put in order here.

I could think that if someone had money on King’s Mountain or in a castle he might exchange based on it. The verse says (Deut. 14:25): “take the silver in your hand;” what means “in your hand”? In your possession! Rebbi Jonah asked, if his wallet with 1’000’000 [denars] fell into a cistern and he could spend 500’000 to get them out, is that as if 500’000 were in his possession?

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah said that one does not exchange coins for fruits far from the Place. He said that before Rebbi Abinna who praised him, before Rebbi Jeremiah who needled him: Did we not state, “coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside”? There is a difference because it was in one place. When Rebbi Ḥaggai left, he found it stated: coins and produce in Jerusalem, coins and produce in the countryside. He said, if Rebbi Jeremiah had heard this, he would have needled me justly. He wanted to change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not change your mind since Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis [disagree] about demay; therefore not for certain [produce]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, it follows that demay and certain are equal.

Rebbi Zevida was sitting and teaching his son: “if somebody wants to exchange [tithe] money for produce today, both these and those are consecrated, the words of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, the money is as it was and the produce is as it was.” Rebbi Crispus passed by and told him, do not state it so but say “produce for money.” Therefore, everybody agrees that money for produce was not consecrated. But did we not state: “if there is no Temple they should be left to rot”? Explain it if he dedicated it when there was a Temple and the Temple was destroyed.

Ben Vivian stated: (Deut. 14:25) “Turn it into money”, far from the Place you redeem it, near the Place you cannot redeem it. (Deut. 14:26) “Spend the money”, near the Place you exchange it, far from the Place you do not exchange it.

Ben Vivian stated: (Deut. 14:25) “Turn it into money”, far from the Place you redeem it, near the Place you cannot redeem it. (Deut. 14:26) “Spend the money”, near the Place you exchange it, far from the Place you do not exchange it.

MISHNAH: Of profane and Second Tithe coins that were strewn around, what one collected goes to Second Tithe until complete, the remainder is profane. If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is in proportion. That is the principle: What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together by proportion. If a tetradrachma of Second Tithe was mixed up with a profane one, one brings coins in the value of a tetradrachma and says: The tetradrachma of Second Tithe, wherever it may be, is exchanged for these coins. Then he chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them since they said, one exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency, not that it should stay so but that he should exchange them for silver. The House of Shammai say, a person should not turn his tetradrachmas into gold denars but the House of Hillel permit it. Rebbi Aqiba said, for Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua I turned their silver coins into gold denars.

It was stated: Ben Azai says, two. Rebbi Zeïra said, in a dream I had Ulla bar Ismael ate fat meat. The next day he came and asked him, he said to him, why two? He said to him, since you tell him so, he will push himself to exchange it.

Did it not become profane anyhow? Rebbi Jonah said, he should not intend to make it totally profane. You should understand that this is so since we have stated: “not that it should stay so but that he should exchange it for silver”.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says one exchanges gold for silver just as one exchanges silver for bronze. Rebbi said to him: Why does one exchange silver for bronze? Because one exchanges silver for gold! Should one exchange gold for silver? One does not exchange gold for bronze! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon answered him: Certainly one exchanges Second Tithe gold for small coins in Jerusalem!” From the arguments of both of them one exchanges silver for silver and one does not exchange silver for bronze.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says one exchanges gold for silver just as one exchanges silver for bronze. Rebbi said to him: Why does one exchange silver for bronze? Because one exchanges silver for gold! Should one exchange gold for silver? One does not exchange gold for bronze! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon answered him: Certainly one exchanges Second Tithe gold for small coins in Jerusalem!” From the arguments of both of them one exchanges silver for silver and one does not exchange silver for bronze.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says one exchanges gold for silver just as one exchanges silver for bronze. Rebbi said to him: Why does one exchange silver for bronze? Because one exchanges silver for gold! Should one exchange gold for silver? One does not exchange gold for bronze! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon answered him: Certainly one exchanges Second Tithe gold for small coins in Jerusalem!” From the arguments of both of them one exchanges silver for silver and one does not exchange silver for bronze.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says one exchanges gold for silver just as one exchanges silver for bronze. Rebbi said to him: Why does one exchange silver for bronze? Because one exchanges silver for gold! Should one exchange gold for silver? One does not exchange gold for bronze! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon answered him: Certainly one exchanges Second Tithe gold for small coins in Jerusalem!” From the arguments of both of them one exchanges silver for silver and one does not exchange silver for bronze.

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure, he puts down the tetradrachma and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher.

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure, he puts down the tetradrachma and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, one redeems Second Tithe only up to thirty six times [the coin’s] worth. And Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one who exchanges should not exchange for half a peruṭah so he should not be like one who exchanges for a blank; it must be worth a peruṭah.

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

And Rebbi Yose said: The threshold about which they spoke is four wide but not ten high. If you would say, ten high and four wide, it is a domain by itself . If you would say, ten high but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Assi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high.

“The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths].” Where do we hold? If ten high (and four wide, it is a domain by itself. Ten high) but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Issi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways; on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high. But did not Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, say, anything which hinders access in the public domain is called karmelit? Rebbi Yudan said, what Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said refers to the middle, but on the side the public domain invalidates it.

HALAKHAH: 3. Who taught “signs”? Rebbi Yose! What means “of any language”? Even אα. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them upside down or bottom up? They were made similar to reed pens. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them inside out or outside in? The rings did prove. Should one not be concerned that maybe one would exchange? Rebbi Aḥa said, it was written slanted. Why could they not be switched? Rebbi Immi said, You shall erect the Tabernacle according to its ruling. Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.

Rebbi Zeˋira asked, what kind of threshold? Like a permitted threshold or a forbidden threshold? Rebbi Zeˋira said, when I was still there it was questionable for me, but when I came here I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a threshold is ten [hand-breadths] high but less than four wide it is permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, look what he is saying! He only said, if it is less than four wide. But if it is four wide it is forbidden. He said to him, is that not the case of a cross-beam? Is it not permitted under a cross-beam? Rebbi Zeˋira said, Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan. Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Everybody agrees that between laths it is forbidden, and it was stated thus: If an alley is made of laths, if between one and the next are four hand-breadths one carries up to the outer one; otherwise one carries up to the inner one. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Uqba, unless the outer one is wider. But if the outer one was wider one carries up to the outer one.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they permitted the planks of wells only to draw water. If water came on the Sabbath, the Sabbath already came with prohibition. If the well dried out, the Sabbath already came with permission. Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Nasa asked, may one carry between the planks? We should say that if there are four hand-breadths between one and the other it is like a prohibited threshold, otherwise like a permitted threshold, permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

HALAKHAH: It speaks only about one, but two are forbidden, for two domains cannot use one domain. If it is not four wide. But if it is four wide, that is what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange.

HALAKHAH: “One consolidates sheqalim to darics,” etc. Should one exchange them for a pearl? Perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. As we have stated there, “All can be redeemed by money or monies-worth except for sheqalim” [and one does not redeem by implements;] and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, perhaps the implements would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. Also here, perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

HALAKHAH: “Guaranteed properties,” etc. In earlier times, transfer of possession was effected by taking off a shoe. That is what is written: “This was earlier in Israel about redemption and exchange, a person would take off his shoe.” Who took it off? There, they say Rav and Levi, one said the acquirer, and one said the transferer. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the following disagreement which was stated: Boaz was giving to the redeemer; Rebbi Jehudah said that the redeemer gave to Boaz.

MISHNAH: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. How is this? If an ox was exchanged for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. Possession of Heaven is by money, possession of an individual by taking hold. A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.

MISHNAH: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. How is this? If an ox was exchanged for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange. Possession of Heaven is by money, possession of an individual by taking hold. A promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.