exclude

They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.

But yet do not you, O bishop, presently abhor any person who has fallen into one or two offenses, nor shall you exclude him from the word of the Lord, nor reject him from common intercourse, since neither did the Lord refuse to eat with publicans and sinners; and when He was accused by the Pharisees on this account, He said: They that are well have no need of the physician, but they that are sick. Do you, therefore, live and dwell with those who are separated from you for their sins; and take care of them, comforting them, and confirming them, and saying to them: Be strengthened, you weak hands and feeble knees. For we ought to comfort those that mourn, and afford encouragement to the fainthearted, lest by immoderate sorrow they degenerate into distraction, since he that is fainthearted is exceedingly distracted.

When Simon and Jonathan had finished these affairs, they returned to Jerusalem, where Jonathan gathered all the people together, and took counsel to restore the walls of Jerusalem, and to rebuild the wall that encompassed the temple, which had been thrown down, and to make the places adjoining stronger by very high towers; and besides that, to build another wall in the midst of the city, in order to exclude the market-place from the garrison, which was in the citadel, and by that means to hinder them from any plenty of provisions; and moreover, to make the fortresses that were in the country much stronger and more defensible than they were before. And when these things were approved of by the multitude, as rightly proposed, Jonathan himself took care of the building that belonged to the city, and sent Simon away to make the fortresses in the country more secure than formerly. But Demetrius passed over [Euphrates], and came into Mesopotamia, as desirous to retain that country still, as well as Babylon; and when he should have obtained the dominion of the upper provinces, to lay a foundation for recovering his entire kingdom; for those Greeks and Macedonians who dwelt there frequently sent ambassadors to him, and promised, that if he would come to them, they would deliver themselves up to him, and assist him in fighting against Arsaces, the king of the Parthians. So he was elevated with these hopes, and came hastily to them, as having resolved, that if he had once overthrown the Parthians, and gotten an army of his own, he would make war against Trypho, and eject him out of Syria; and the people of that country received him with great alacrity. So he raised forces, with which he fought against Arsaces, and lost all his army, and was himself taken alive, as we have elsewhere related.

About this time news was brought that Tigranes, the king of Armenia, had made an irruption into Syria with five hundred thousand soldiers, and was coming against Judea. This news, as may well be supposed, terrified the queen and the nation. Accordingly, they sent him many and very valuable presents, as also ambassadors, and that as he was besieging Ptolemais; for Selene the queen, the same that was also called Cleopatra, ruled then over Syria, who had persuaded the inhabitants to exclude Tigranes. So the Jewish ambassadors interceded with him, and entreated him that he would determine nothing that was severe about their queen or nation. He commended them for the respects they paid him at so great a distance, and gave them good hopes of his favor. But as soon as Ptolemais was taken, news came to Tigranes, that Lucullus, in his pursuit of Mithridates, could not light upon him, who was fled into Iberia, but was laying waste Armenia, and besieging its cities. Now when Tigranes knew this, he returned home.

But the inhabitants of this city having determined to continue in their allegiance to the Romans, were afraid of my coming to them, and tried, by putting me upon another action, to divert me, that they might be freed from the terror they were in. Accordingly, they sent to Jesus, the captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, and promised to give him a great deal of money, if he would come with those forces he had with him, which were in number eight hundred, and fight with us. Accordingly, he complied with what they desired, upon the promises they had made him, and was desirous to fall upon us when we were unprepared for him, and knew nothing of his coming beforehand. So he sent to me, and desired that I would give him leave to come and salute me. When I had given him that leave, which I did without the least knowledge of his treacherous intentions beforehand, he took his band of robbers, and made haste to come to me. Yet did not this his knavery succeed well at last; for as he was already nearly approaching, one of those with him deserted him, and came to me, and told me what he had undertaken to do. When I was informed of this, I went into the market-place, and pretended to know nothing of his treacherous purpose. I took with me many Galileans that were armed, as also some of those of Tiberias; and, when I had given orders that all the roads should be carefully guarded, I charged the keepers of the gates to give admittance to none but Jesus, when he came, with the principal of his men, and to exclude the rest; and in case they aimed to force themselves in, to use stripes [in order to repel them]. Accordingly, those that had received such a charge did as they were bidden, and Jesus came in with a few others; and when I had ordered him to throw down his arms immediately, and told him, that if he refused so to do, he was a dead man, he seeing armed men standing all round about him, was terrified, and complied; and as for those of his followers that were excluded, when they were informed that he was seized, they ran away. I then called Jesus to me by himself, and told him, "that I was not a stranger to that treacherous design he had against me, nor was I ignorant by whom he was sent for; that, however, I would forgive him what he had done already, if he would repent of it, and be faithful to me hereafter." And thus, upon his promise to do all that I desired, I let him go, and gave him leave to get those whom he had formerly had with him together again. But I threatened the inhabitants of Sepphoris, that, if they would not leave off their ungrateful treatment of me, I would punish them sufficiently.

Now, as soon as Jonathan and his companions heard of my coming, they took all their own friends, and John with them, and retired to the house of Jesus, which indeed was a large castle, and no way unlike a citadel; so they privately laid a band of armed men therein, and shut all the other doors but one, which they kept open, and they expected that I should come out of the road to them, to salute them. And indeed they had given orders to the armed men, that when I came they should let nobody besides me come in, but should exclude others; as supposing that, by this means, they should easily get me under their power: but they were deceived in their expectation; for I perceived what snares they had laid for me. Now, as soon as I was got off my journey, I took up my lodgings over against them, and pretended to be asleep; so Jonathan and his party, thinking that I was really asleep and at rest, made haste to go down into the plain, to persuade the people that I was an ill governor. But the matter proved otherwise; for, upon their appearance, there was a cry made by the Galileans immediately, declaring their good opinion of me as their governor; and they made a clamor against Jonathan and his partners for coming to them when they had suffered no harm, and as though they would overturn their happy settlement; and desired them by all means to go back again, for that they would never be persuaded to have any other to rule over them but myself. When I heard of this, I did not fear to go down into the midst of them; I went, therefore, myself down presently to hear what Jonathan and his companions said. As soon as I appeared, there was immediately an acclamation made to me by the whole multitude, and a cry in my commendation by them, who confessed their thanks was owing to me for my good government of them.

Now Jesus, who was the ruler, commanded that they should exclude all that came with me, for he kept the door himself, and suffered none but his friends to go in. And while we were engaged in the duties of the day, and had betaken ourselves to our prayers, Jesus got up, and inquired of me what was become of the vessels that were taken out of the king's palace, when it was burnt down [and] of that uncoined silver; and in whose possession they now were? This he said, in order to drive away time till John should come. I said that Capellus, and the ten principal men of Tiberias, had them all; and I told him that they might ask them whether I told a lie or not. And when they said they had them, he asked me, What is become of those twenty pieces of gold which thou didst receive upon the sale of a certain weight of uncoined money? I replied, that I had given them to those ambassadors of theirs, as a maintenance for them, when they were sent by them to Jerusalem. So Jonathan and his colleagues said that I had not done well to pay the ambassadors out of the public money. And when the multitude were very angry at them for this, for they perceived the wickedness of the men, I understood that a tumult was going to arise; and being desirous to provoke the people to a greater rage against the men, I said, "But if I have not done well in paying our ambassadors out of the public stock, leave off your anger at me, for I will repay the twenty pieces of gold myself."

Yet did that Antiochus, who was also called Dionysius, become an origin of troubles again. This man was the brother of Demetrius, and the last of the race of the Seleucidae. Alexander was afraid of him, when he was marching against the Arabians; so he cut a deep trench between Antipatris, which was near the mountains, and the shores of Joppa; he also erected a high wall before the trench, and built wooden towers, in order to hinder any sudden approaches. But still he was not able to exclude Antiochus, for he burnt the towers, and filled up the trenches, and marched on with his army. And as he looked upon taking his revenge on Alexander, for endeavoring to stop him, as a thing of less consequence, he marched directly against the Arabians, whose king retired into such parts of the country as were fittest for engaging the enemy, and then on the sudden made his horse turn back, which were in number ten thousand, and fell upon Antiochus's army while they were in disorder, and a terrible battle ensued. Antiochus's troops, so long as he was alive, fought it out, although a mighty slaughter was made among them by the Arabians; but when he fell, for he was in the forefront, in the utmost danger, in rallying his troops, they all gave ground, and the greatest part of his army were destroyed, either in the action or the flight; and for the rest, who fled to the village of Cana, it happened that they were all consumed by want of necessaries, a few only excepted.

Thus spake Jesus; yet did not the multitude of the Idumeans give any attention to what he said, but were in a rage, because they did not meet with a ready entrance into the city. The generals also had indignation at the offer of laying down their arms, and looked upon it as equal to a captivity, to throw them away at any man's injunction whomsoever. But Simon, the son of Cathlas, one of their commanders, with much ado quieted the tumult of his own men, and stood so that the high priests might hear him, and said as follows: "I can no longer wonder that the patrons of liberty are under custody in the temple, since there are those that shut the gates of our common city to their own nation, and at the same time are prepared to admit the Romans into it; nay, perhaps are disposed to crown the gates with garlands at their coming, while they speak to the Idumeans from their own towers, and enjoin them to throw down their arms which they have taken up for the preservation of its liberty. And while they will not intrust the guard of our metropolis to their kindred, profess to make them judges of the differences that are among them; nay, while they accuse some men of having slain others without a legal trial, they do themselves condemn a whole nation after an ignominious manner, and have now walled up that city from their own nation, which used to be open to even all foreigners that came to worship there. We have indeed come in great haste to you, and to a war against our own countrymen; and the reason why we have made such haste is this, that we may preserve that freedom which you are so unhappy as to betray. You have probably been guilty of the like crimes against those whom you keep in custody, and have, I suppose, collected together the like plausible pretenses against them also that you make use of against us; after which you have gotten the mastery of those within the temple, and keep them in custody, while they are only taking care of the public affairs. You have also shut the gates of the city in general against nations that are the most nearly related to you; and while you give such injurious commands to others, you complain that you have been tyrannized over by them, and fix the name of unjust governors upon such as are tyrannized over by yourselves. Who can bear this your abuse of words, while they have a regard to the contrariety of your actions, unless you mean this, that those Idumeans do now exclude you out of your metropolis, whom you exclude from the sacred offices of your own country? One may indeed justly complain of those that are besieged in the temple, that when they had courage enough to punish those tyrants whom you call eminent men, and free from any accusations, because of their being your companions in wickedness, they did not begin with you, and thereby cut off beforehand the most dangerous parts of this treason. But if these men have been more merciful than the public necessity required, we that are Idumeans will preserve this house of God, and will fight for our common country, and will oppose by war as well those that attack them from abroad, as those that betray them from within. Here will we abide before the walls in our armor, until either the Romans grow weary in waiting for you, or you become friends to liberty, and repent of what you have done against it."

Thus spake Jesus; yet did not the multitude of the Idumeans give any attention to what he said, but were in a rage, because they did not meet with a ready entrance into the city. The generals also had indignation at the offer of laying down their arms, and looked upon it as equal to a captivity, to throw them away at any man's injunction whomsoever. But Simon, the son of Cathlas, one of their commanders, with much ado quieted the tumult of his own men, and stood so that the high priests might hear him, and said as follows: "I can no longer wonder that the patrons of liberty are under custody in the temple, since there are those that shut the gates of our common city to their own nation, and at the same time are prepared to admit the Romans into it; nay, perhaps are disposed to crown the gates with garlands at their coming, while they speak to the Idumeans from their own towers, and enjoin them to throw down their arms which they have taken up for the preservation of its liberty. And while they will not intrust the guard of our metropolis to their kindred, profess to make them judges of the differences that are among them; nay, while they accuse some men of having slain others without a legal trial, they do themselves condemn a whole nation after an ignominious manner, and have now walled up that city from their own nation, which used to be open to even all foreigners that came to worship there. We have indeed come in great haste to you, and to a war against our own countrymen; and the reason why we have made such haste is this, that we may preserve that freedom which you are so unhappy as to betray. You have probably been guilty of the like crimes against those whom you keep in custody, and have, I suppose, collected together the like plausible pretenses against them also that you make use of against us; after which you have gotten the mastery of those within the temple, and keep them in custody, while they are only taking care of the public affairs. You have also shut the gates of the city in general against nations that are the most nearly related to you; and while you give such injurious commands to others, you complain that you have been tyrannized over by them, and fix the name of unjust governors upon such as are tyrannized over by yourselves. Who can bear this your abuse of words, while they have a regard to the contrariety of your actions, unless you mean this, that those Idumeans do now exclude you out of your metropolis, whom you exclude from the sacred offices of your own country? One may indeed justly complain of those that are besieged in the temple, that when they had courage enough to punish those tyrants whom you call eminent men, and free from any accusations, because of their being your companions in wickedness, they did not begin with you, and thereby cut off beforehand the most dangerous parts of this treason. But if these men have been more merciful than the public necessity required, we that are Idumeans will preserve this house of God, and will fight for our common country, and will oppose by war as well those that attack them from abroad, as those that betray them from within. Here will we abide before the walls in our armor, until either the Romans grow weary in waiting for you, or you become friends to liberty, and repent of what you have done against it."

Now Placidus's concern was to exclude them in their flight from getting into the village; and causing his horse to march continually on that side of them, he then turned short upon them, and at the same time his men made use of their darts, and easily took their aim at those that were the nearest to them, as they made those that were further off turn back by the terror they were in, till at last the most courageous of them brake through those horsemen and fled to the wall of the village. And now those that guarded the wall were in great doubt what to do; for they could not bear the thoughts of excluding those that came from Gadara, because of their own people that were among them; and yet, if they should admit them, they expected to perish with them, which came to pass accordingly; for as they were crowding together at the wall, the Roman horsemen were just ready to fall in with them. However, the guards prevented them, and shut the gates, when Placidus made an assault upon them, and fighting courageously till it was dark, he got possession of the wall, and of the people that were in the city, when the useless multitude were destroyed; but those that were more potent ran away, and the soldiers plundered the houses, and set the village on fire. As for those that ran out of the village, they stirred up such as were in the country, and exaggerating their own calamities, and telling them that the whole army of the Romans were upon them, they put them into great fear on every side; so they got in great numbers together, and fled to Jericho, for they knew no other place that could afford them any hope of escaping, it being a city that had a strong wall, and a great multitude of inhabitants. But Placidus, relying much upon his horsemen, and his former good success, followed them, and slew all that he overtook, as far as Jordan; and when he had driven the whole multitude to the river-side, where they were stopped by the current, [for it had been augmented lately by rains, and was not fordable,] he put his soldiers in array over against them; so the necessity the others were in provoked them to hazard a battle, because there was no place whither they could flee. They then extended themselves a very great way along the banks of the river, and sustained the darts that were thrown at them, as well as the attacks of the horsemen, who beat many of them, and pushed them into the current. At which fight, hand to hand, fifteen thousand of them were slain, while the number of those that were unwillingly forced to leap into Jordan was prodigious. There were besides two thousand and two hundred taken prisoners. A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen.

And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether Christians do not exhort multitudes to the practice of virtue in a greater and better degree than they. For the philosophers who converse in public do not pick and choose their hearers, but he who likes stands and listens. The Christians, however, having previously, so far as possible, tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and having previously instructed them in private, when they appear (before entering the community) to have sufficiently evinced their desire towards a virtuous life, introduce them then, and not before, privately forming one class of those who are beginners, and are receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained the mark of complete purification; and another of those who have manifested to the best of their ability their intention to desire no other things than are approved by Christians; and among these there are certain persons appointed to make inquiries regarding the lives and behaviour of those who join them, in order that they may prevent those who commit acts of infamy from coming into their public assembly, while those of a different character they receive with their whole heart, in order that they may daily make them better. And this is their method of procedure, both with those who are sinners, and especially with those who lead dissolute lives, whom they exclude from their community, although, according to Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places perform the most shameful tricks. Now the venerable school of the Pythagoreans used to erect a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from their system of philosophy, treating them as dead; but the Christians lament as dead those who have been vanquished by licentiousness or any other sin, because they are lost and dead to God, and as being risen from the dead (if they manifest a becoming change) they receive them afterwards, at some future time, after a greater interval than in the case of those who were admitted at first, but not placing in any office or post of rank in the church of God those who, after professing the gospel, lapsed and fell.

But since he reproaches us with too great an anxiety about the body, let him know that when that feeling is a wrong one we do not share in it, and when it is indifferent we only long for that which God has promised to the righteous. But Celsus considers that we are inconsistent with ourselves when we count the body worthy of honour from God, and therefore hope for its resurrection, and yet at the same time expose it to tortures as though it were not worthy of honour. But surely it is not without honour for the body to suffer for the sake of godliness, and to choose afflictions on account of virtue: the dishonourable thing would be for it to waste its powers in vicious indulgence. For the divine word says: “What is an honourable seed? The seed of man. What is a dishonourable seed? The seed of man.” Moreover, Celsus thinks that he ought not to reason with those who hope for the good of the body, as they are unreasonably intent upon an object which can never satisfy their expectations. He also calls them gross and impure men, bent upon creating needless dissensions. But surely he ought, as one of superior humanity, to assist even the rude and depraved. For society does not exclude from its pale the coarse and uncultivated, as it does the irrational animals, but our Creator made us on the same common level with all mankind. It is not an undignified thing, therefore, to reason even with the coarse and unrefined, and to try to bring them as far as possible to a higher state of refinement—to bring the impure to the highest practicable degree of purity—to bring the unreasoning multitude to reason, and the diseased in mind to spiritual health.

It is forbidden to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of a clean animal or to derive any benefit from it. But it is permitted to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of an unclean animal or the meat of an unclean animal in the milk of a clean animal and to derive benefit from it. Rabbi Akiva says: wild animals and fowls are not included in the prohibition of the Torah, for it is written three times, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;” to exclude wild animals, fowl, and unclean animals. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, it is said, “You shall not eat any nevelah” and [in the same verse] it says, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21) anything that is prohibited because of nevelah it is forbidden to cook in milk. Fowl which is prohibited because of nevelah, it might also be forbidden to cook in milk, Scripture says, “In its mother’s milk;” this excludes fowl which has no mother's milk.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

HALAKHAH: They of the school of Hillel are able to explain both parts of the verse. How do those of the school of Shammai explain “when you sit in your house or go on the road”? “When you sit in your house”, to exclude those who are occupied with other religious commandments, “or go on the road” to exclude bridegrooms.

HALAKHAH: They of the school of Hillel are able to explain both parts of the verse. How do those of the school of Shammai explain “when you sit in your house or go on the road”? “When you sit in your house”, to exclude those who are occupied with other religious commandments, “or go on the road” to exclude bridegrooms.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He who puts on tefillin in the night transgresses a positive commandment. What is the reason? (Ex. 13:10) “ “You shall keep this law in its time, from day to day;” “days” not night, “to days” to exclude Sabbaths and holidays. But Rebbi Abbahu sat studying at night with his tefillin on his head! He put them on the side; they were like a deposit in his keeping. Some want to say, he only meant not to put them on, but when they were on him during daytime it would be permitted. Some want to say, let us hear it from there (Ex. 13:9): “It shall be for you a sign,” when you need it for a sign, but not holiday or Sabbaths that are all sign. But is it not written “to days”? You have only what Rebbi Yoḥanan said: Everything that is not clear one supports from many places.

Samuel said: I do not want to exclude myself from the group. They objected: look at the benediction for the Torah where he says “praise!” Rebbi Abun said, since he will conclude by “the Praised One”, he does not exclude himself from the group.

Samuel said: I do not want to exclude myself from the group. They objected: look at the benediction for the Torah where he says “praise!” Rebbi Abun said, since he will conclude by “the Praised One”, he does not exclude himself from the group.

If it is correct that we have stated “a private road,” what is the need for “a public road?” I tell you, even a public road does not separate for trees, only a fence does. Since we have stated “a private path,” what is the need for “a public path?” To exclude one that is permanent in summer but is not permanent in winter.

Some want to understand it from the verse (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “abandon,” put before them grain in its straw, fenugreek in bundles, dates in brooms. I might think that this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “them.” What argument do you have to include these and to exclude those? After the verse included, it excluded. I include those that are not dangerous and exclude those that are dangerous.

Some want to understand it from the verse (Lev. 19:10, 23:22) “abandon,” put before them grain in its straw, fenugreek in bundles, dates in brooms. I might think that this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “them.” What argument do you have to include these and to exclude those? After the verse included, it excluded. I include those that are not dangerous and exclude those that are dangerous.

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

There we have stated: “If someone sets fire to a stack in which were hidden vessels, Rebbi Jehudah says, he pays for all that was in it. But the Sages say, he only pays for a stack of wheat or barley.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted; there he says to include the hidden things, but here he says to exclude the hidden things. There (Ex. 22:5) “and a stack or standing grain was consumed.” I understand that since it says “standing grain” it includes a stack. Why does the verse add “a stack?” In order to include the hidden things. But here (Deut. 24:10) “your field,” in the open, to exclude anything hidden. The argument of the rabbis is inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “or standing grain or a field,” just as a field is in the open, so all must be in the open. But here, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. That is a restriction after a restriction and every restriction after a restriction is only to add the hidden things.

“Only wool and linen can become impure by mold disease,” for it is written (Lev. 13:47) “on woolen cloth or on linen cloth.” I could think they can become impure whether dyed or natural; the verse says “woolen cloth or linen cloth.” Just as linen is in its natural state so wool must also be in its natural state. I might exclude what was dyed by humans but not what was dyed by nature; the verse says (Lev. 13:48): “For the linen and for the wool”, just as linen is white so wool has to be white.

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7): “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it.

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed.

It was stated: “With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind, the verse says (Lev. 5:4): “To articulate”. But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obliged until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “(Ex. 35:5) Everyone who volunteers in his mind,” that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says (Deut. 23:24): “What comes out from your lips you have to keep,” that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “every one who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice.

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food, so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start, what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought, what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food, so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start, what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought, what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

“Even though it was kept to grow it is subject to tithes small or large.” Does this imply that if it was not kept to grow it is not subject to tithes small or large? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To exclude the words of Rabban Gamliel as we have stated there: “Rabban Gamliel says, flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans are subject to tithes.” Rebbi Yasa said, did Rabban Gamliel obligate them because of food? If it were so, what about their greenery? But Rabban Gamliel says, they are important as food, but the rabbis say, they are not important as food. In addition, from what we are stating: “Rebbi Joshua said, I never wanted to tell anybody go, collect flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans and cook them, to free them from tithes.”

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.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21): “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk.” Is not milk comparable to its being dead? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his maternal brother’s wife. It is said here his aunt, and it is said there, either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free him. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal sister. Also his brother’s wife can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there, a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah. Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his paternal brother’s wife may be permitted after being forbidden. This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir.The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir.The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”, and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”, and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth.

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.” Therefore, not a carcass_. An argument de minore ad maius. Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat.

It was stated: Ben Bag-bag says, a perfect lamb, shorn is not perfect. But was it not stated, of small cattle, to exclude the smooth of them. Rebbi Abun said, to exclude those which the Torah separated, the male or female used for bestiality, one dedicated for idolatrous worship, and one worshipped.

It was stated: Ben Bag-bag says, a perfect lamb, shorn is not perfect. But was it not stated, of small cattle, to exclude the smooth of them. Rebbi Abun said, to exclude those which the Torah separated, the male or female used for bestiality, one dedicated for idolatrous worship, and one worshipped.

“All lodges which were in the Temple were not liable for mezuzah except for the Palhedrin lodge which was the abode of the High Priest for seven days every year. Rebbi Jehudah said, also this is a decree which was decreed about it.” In your gates. There are Tannaim who state, to exclude the gates of the Temple Mount and the Courtyards. There are Tannaim who state, to include. He who said to exclude, Rebbi Jehudah. He who said to include, the rabbis. Rebbi Jehudah says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? In your gates, are these lodgings? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, but did we not state, in your gates, to include city gates? Are these lodgings? But through them one enters lodgings, so also here through them one enters lodgings.

“All lodges which were in the Temple were not liable for mezuzah except for the Palhedrin lodge which was the abode of the High Priest for seven days every year. Rebbi Jehudah said, also this is a decree which was decreed about it.” In your gates. There are Tannaim who state, to exclude the gates of the Temple Mount and the Courtyards. There are Tannaim who state, to include. He who said to exclude, Rebbi Jehudah. He who said to include, the rabbis. Rebbi Jehudah says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? In your gates, are these lodgings? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, but did we not state, in your gates, to include city gates? Are these lodgings? But through them one enters lodgings, so also here through them one enters lodgings.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so: “A human, to include the proselytes. From among you, to exclude the apostates.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “One does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth.” Do there exist nests of sufferers from gonorrhea and flux among Gentiles? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans. So it is, the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: “It is written, and brook-willows. I admit not only from a brook, from where also from an unirrigated place or from mountains? The verse says, and willows. Abba Shaul says, brook-willows, two. A willow twig for the lulav and a willow twig for the Temple.” Then why was it written and brook-willows? To exclude the osier. “What is an osier? If its is like a sickle. It was stated: Like a sickle it is disqualified, like a plane it is (qualified) [disqualified]. What is a disqualified willow twig? The leaf is round and the stem white. What is a qualified willow twig? The leaf is long and the stem red.”

HALAKHAH: Therefore not at thank? To exclude also at please, Eternal, please give success.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

“Everything is brought on an altar, domestic and wild animals, large and small birds, male and female, whole [but not] (and) defective, pure but not impure. All are brought as elevation sacrifice and do not need stripping and partitioning. Gentiles today are permitted to do this.” From where male and female? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: and the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal. From where whole [but not] (and) defective? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from integer flesh, that they should be complete in their limbs. Plucked? Rebbi Eleazar made it clear, any bird, any wing, to exclude plucked ones. From where pure but not impure? Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: Noah pondered a lesson from the Torah. He said, it already was said to me, like vegetables from the field I gave you everything. Why did Scripture increase the pure ones? For sacrifices. And Gentiles today are permitted to do this. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, it is forbidden to a Jew to help him and it is forbidden to become his agent.

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir. The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. This excludes thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir which may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and (goats) [wafers] of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Ezrah asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a private altar. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir. The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. This excludes thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir which may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and (goats) [wafers] of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Ezrah asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a private altar. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite. There, we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains male. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite. There, we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains male. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.

“Each man”, to exclude the minor. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he said, it is on me to bring a festival offering worth five tetradrachmas, but he brought for two; did he fulfill his obligation or is he already fixed Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If somebody said, it is on me to bring a reparation sacrifice for five tetradrachmas, is he not fixed? And here he is fixed.

HALAKHAH: “If he performed ḥaliṣah with both of them, performed ḥaliṣah and ‘bespoke’,” etc. “If he performed ḥaliṣah and ‘bespoke’,” etc. There, they say: The words of Rebbi Neḥemiah that an improper copulation frees. In the opinion of the rabbis there copulation frees, whether after “bespeaking” or after a bill of divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, intercourse after “bespeaking” frees; after a bill of divorce it does not free. They did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Neḥemiah, Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Ismael all said the same. As it was stated: “If there were three sisters-in-law for one levir, he ‘bespoke’ one, copulated with the second, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the first one needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah, but after copulation there is nothing. An argument de minore ad majus. If nothing comes after ḥalîṣah, which excludes her from the priesthood, whether she copulated or performed ḥalîṣah, then it is only logical that nothing should come after intercourse which does not exclude her from the priesthood, whether she copulated or performed ḥalîṣah. But for the rabbis he is forbidden the relatives of all three of them and they need three bills of divorce and ḥalîṣah for one of them.”

A sister injured by a piece of wood, Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon say, he shall not defile himself for her, but the Sages say, he must defile himself for her. Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon follow well what they have stated, but the argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “a girl”, not an adult, “a virgin”, not one injured by a piece of wood; and here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. There, “and for his virgin sister”, that excludes the raped and the seduced one. Or maybe I should exclude the one injured by a piece of wood? The verse says, “who had not been a man’s.” Who became [deflowered] through the action of a man, not one who became it through something else. “The close one”, to include the betrothed one. “To him”, to include the adult. The argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “the close one”, to exclude the betrothed one, “to him”, to exclude the divorcee. And here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. “His sister” is always inside [the family] until she leaves; his betrothed is always outside until she enters.

A sister injured by a piece of wood, Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon say, he shall not defile himself for her, but the Sages say, he must defile himself for her. Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon follow well what they have stated, but the argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “a girl”, not an adult, “a virgin”, not one injured by a piece of wood; and here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. There, “and for his virgin sister”, that excludes the raped and the seduced one. Or maybe I should exclude the one injured by a piece of wood? The verse says, “who had not been a man’s.” Who became [deflowered] through the action of a man, not one who became it through something else. “The close one”, to include the betrothed one. “To him”, to include the adult. The argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “the close one”, to exclude the betrothed one, “to him”, to exclude the divorcee. And here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. “His sister” is always inside [the family] until she leaves; his betrothed is always outside until she enters.

A sister injured by a piece of wood, Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon say, he shall not defile himself for her, but the Sages say, he must defile himself for her. Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon follow well what they have stated, but the argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “a girl”, not an adult, “a virgin”, not one injured by a piece of wood; and here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. There, “and for his virgin sister”, that excludes the raped and the seduced one. Or maybe I should exclude the one injured by a piece of wood? The verse says, “who had not been a man’s.” Who became [deflowered] through the action of a man, not one who became it through something else. “The close one”, to include the betrothed one. “To him”, to include the adult. The argument of Sages seems inverted. There, they say “the close one”, to exclude the betrothed one, “to him”, to exclude the divorcee. And here, they say so? Rebbi Hila said, every interpretation follows its context. “His sister” is always inside [the family] until she leaves; his betrothed is always outside until she enters.

HALAKHAH: “The fetus, the levir, the betrothal,” etc. Rebbi Simeon said, here the logic is deficient, for if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to disable it also should not be action to enable. Rebbi Simeon is correct; what is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat. They objected: there is the bastard who may not eat and he enables to eat! There is a difference, since it is written “born in the house”. Then the born should enable, the not born should not enable! There is a difference, since it is written “and she returns to her father’s house”, to exclude the one waiting for the levir, “in her youth”, to exclude the pregnant one. Rebbi Yose said, that means that they considered pregnancy to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat. The words of the rabbis disagree since Ze‘ira said, there they state that the betrothed, the one waiting for the levir, and the pregnant, pay the capital but not the fifth. What are we speaking about? If about the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, even if she had children from him she is not an outsider for it. But we must deal with the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen. If you say, they considered the fetus to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat, why does she pay the capital but not the fifth, should she not pay capital and fifth?

HALAKHAH: “The fetus, the levir, the betrothal,” etc. Rebbi Simeon said, here the logic is deficient, for if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to disable it also should not be action to enable. Rebbi Simeon is correct; what is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat. They objected: there is the bastard who may not eat and he enables to eat! There is a difference, since it is written “born in the house”. Then the born should enable, the not born should not enable! There is a difference, since it is written “and she returns to her father’s house”, to exclude the one waiting for the levir, “in her youth”, to exclude the pregnant one. Rebbi Yose said, that means that they considered pregnancy to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat. The words of the rabbis disagree since Ze‘ira said, there they state that the betrothed, the one waiting for the levir, and the pregnant, pay the capital but not the fifth. What are we speaking about? If about the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, even if she had children from him she is not an outsider for it. But we must deal with the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen. If you say, they considered the fetus to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat, why does she pay the capital but not the fifth, should she not pay capital and fifth?

There, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite.” What says Rebbi Jehudah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “also the blind one.” Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised”, why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains “male”, why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male. But here, “all your maleness”, that excludes the hermaphrodite.

From where that no betrothal is valid for a married woman? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s.” When she leaves his house she may be with another. And from where that no betrothal is valid for incestual relations? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s.” Why does the verse say “another”? To exclude the list of incest relations.

There are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid. And there are Tannaim who state that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is valid follows him who says “in Israel” to include converts. He who says that ḥalîṣah in front of converts is invalid follows him who says “in Israel” to exclude converts.

Here, you say, to exclude converts. But there, you say, to include converts. There, “the citizen” to exclude converts, “in Israel” to exclude converts; an exclusion after an exclusion to include converts. But here, “in Israel”, not converts.

Here, you say, to exclude converts. But there, you say, to include converts. There, “the citizen” to exclude converts, “in Israel” to exclude converts; an exclusion after an exclusion to include converts. But here, “in Israel”, not converts.

Here, you say, to exclude converts. But there, you say, to include converts. There, “the citizen” to exclude converts, “in Israel” to exclude converts; an exclusion after an exclusion to include converts. But here, “in Israel”, not converts.

There, we have stated: “A hyssop which was used to sprinkle is acceptable [to be used] to purify the sufferer from skin disease.” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That [was stated] to exclude the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, as it was stated: If he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease. If he sprinkled with it for the sufferer from skin disease, it is disqualified for purifying. Rebbi Yose said, would that not be an argument de minore ad majus? Since for the sufferer from skin disease, for whose ceremony use does not disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, it is disqualified for the sufferer from skin disease; purifying, for whose ceremony use does disable, if he sprinkled with it for purifying, is it not logical that it should be disqualified for purifying?

Blessed in general and blessed in particular; cursed in general and cursed in particular. Sixteen covenants on every detail, to study, to teach, to keep, and to do; and the same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab. Rebbi Simeon does exclude that of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal and instead includes that of the Tent of Meeting. Also Rebbi Simeon did say, there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 576 covenants were concluded. Twelve in blessing, twelve in cursing. Twelve in general, twelve in detail. That makes 48 covenants. To study, to teach, to keep, and to do, that makes 192 covenants. The same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab, that makes 576 covenants. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from the village of Emmaus says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: 603’550. Rebbi says, if one follows the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from the village of Emmaus who said in the name of Rebbi Simeon, then there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 48 times 603’550 covenants were concluded.

The argument of the rabbis seems inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. It is a restriction after a restriction to add the hidden things. But here, “on the land,” not floating on the water.

The argument of the rabbis seems inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. It is a restriction after a restriction to add the hidden things. But here, “on the land,” not floating on the water.

The argument of the rabbis seems inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things, but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. It is a restriction after a restriction to add the hidden things. But here, “on the land,” not floating on the water.

It is written: “If a man takes a wife, comes to her, and hates her.” He is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “He puts a libel on her”; I could think even if she spoiled a dish? It says here “a libel” and it says later “a libel”. Since “a libel” later implies whoring, so also here it means whoring. Since “a libel” later implies from the place of virginity, so also here? From where if he came upon her otherwise? The verse says, “and he calumniates her”, in any way. “He said, I took this wife and came to her,” that excludes assignations; “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir; “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one.

It is written: “If a man takes a wife, comes to her, and hates her.” He is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “He puts a libel on her”; I could think even if she spoiled a dish? It says here “a libel” and it says later “a libel”. Since “a libel” later implies whoring, so also here it means whoring. Since “a libel” later implies from the place of virginity, so also here? From where if he came upon her otherwise? The verse says, “and he calumniates her”, in any way. “He said, I took this wife and came to her,” that excludes assignations; “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir; “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one.

“I took”, that excludes assignations. Rebbi Jonah said, even following him who says that the money from the start was given for assignation. “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir; not only for the earlier teachings that the obligation of the levirate precedes that of ḥalîṣah, but even according to the later teachings that the obligation of ḥalîṣah precedes the obligation of levirate. “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one.

“I took”, that excludes assignations. Rebbi Jonah said, even following him who says that the money from the start was given for assignation. “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir; not only for the earlier teachings that the obligation of the levirate precedes that of ḥalîṣah, but even according to the later teachings that the obligation of ḥalîṣah precedes the obligation of levirate. “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one.

“With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind; the verse says (Lev. 5:4): “To articulate”. But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obligated until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “(Ex. 35:5) Everyone who volunteers in his mind,” that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says (Deut. 23:24): “What comes out from your lips you have to keep,” that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “every one who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice.

There, we have stated: “If he called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all three are sanctified. The ninth may be eaten when it develops a defect, the tenth is tithe, the eleventh is brought as well-being sacrifice.” “It shall be holy”, this teaches that holiness falls on the ninth and the eleventh. I could think that both of them should be sacrificed, the verse says “cattle”, “cattle” to include the eleventh. “From the cattle”, to exclude the ninth. What reason do you have to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After the verse included, it excluded. You can argue, when are sanctified [animals] subject to substitution? Before or after? One has to say, afterwards. I am including the eleventh which is after sanctification and I am excluding the ninth which is before sanctification.

There, we have stated: “If he called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all three are sanctified. The ninth may be eaten when it develops a defect, the tenth is tithe, the eleventh is brought as well-being sacrifice.” “It shall be holy”, this teaches that holiness falls on the ninth and the eleventh. I could think that both of them should be sacrificed, the verse says “cattle”, “cattle” to include the eleventh. “From the cattle”, to exclude the ninth. What reason do you have to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After the verse included, it excluded. You can argue, when are sanctified [animals] subject to substitution? Before or after? One has to say, afterwards. I am including the eleventh which is after sanctification and I am excluding the ninth which is before sanctification.

But here, skins and seeds were understood in the principle, and were listed separately. Should they not be separate rather than common? But there, the principle is at one place and the details are at another place. But did not the colleagues say: It makes no difference: Whether he stated the principle and then a detail or the detail and after that the principle. And here, he stated the principle and then a detail. But did not Rebbi Yose say, there is no difference whether He gave principle, detail, and principle, it is the principle and then a detail, it is counted as the principle and then a detail. There, the detail was not necessary. Why were they detailed? To exclude leaves and twigs. But was it not stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “From anything coming from the wine-vine, from skins to seeds, he shall not eat;” leaves and twigs are also understood. There, they are mentioned for a need, but here, they are mentioned without need. Why? For additions.

What is decayed matter? Flesh of the corpse which was separated and fluid that coagulated. Therefore not when it is still mashed? Did not Rebbi Ḥanina say in the name of Rebbi: Fat from a corpse which was melted remains impure; if he cut it and then melted it, it is pure. Rebbi Yudan and Rebbi Yose, one says to exclude the fluid in the flesh; the other says that if it will fill the volume of an olive when congealed, it will be impure when still mashed.

There, we have stated: “The Non-Jew, Rebbi Meїr says, is evaluated but does not evaluate; Rebbi Jehudah says, he evaluates but is not evaluated. Both agree that they make vows and are objects of vows.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: For him who says there that he evaluates, here can he declare a nazir? For him who says there that he is evaluated, here can he be declared a nazir? How would it be possible for him to [be declared a nazir]? A Israelite can declare a Gentile to be a nazir. Would he listen to him? But the Israelite said, “I am a nazir,” the Gentile heard it and said, “I am responsible for what this one said.” It is only as if he paid a debt. How would it be possible for him to [declare a nazir]? A Gentile can declare an Israelite to be nazir. Since an Israelite cannot declare [another] Israelite to be a nazir, a Gentile cannot declare an Israelite to be a nazir. But it must be that the Gentile said, “I am a nazir”, the Israelite heard it and said, “I am taking upon me what this one said.” What did you exclude from him? An Israelite is subject to “not to desecrate”, a Gentile is not subject to “not to desecrate”. Rebbi Jonah said, Israelites can be relieved by a Sage, Gentiles cannot be relieved by a Sage. Rebbi Yose said, Israelites need a Sage to be relieved, Gentiles do not need a Sage to be relieved. It follows that Rebbi (Jonah) [Yose] follows Rebbi Abbahu. A Gentile woman came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said to Abime bar Tobi: Go and find her an opening by unforeseen circumstances. And Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Aḥa, who said that Laban was Kushan-Riš‘ataim. Why was he called “Kushan the doubly bad”? Because he committed two evils. One that he desecrated his oath, the other that he subjugated Israel for eight years.

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.” Therefore, not a carcass. Would it not be a conclusion de minore ad majus? Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written: “If a person give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.” If to teach that the court will not act on less that a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?) From there, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two perutot, that the claim should be about a perutah’s worth and the confession about a perutah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two oboli’s worth.

From where even if he fell ill? The verse says, “in the seventh year he shall leave into freedom gratis.” I could think, even if he fled; the verse says, “six years he shall work.” What did you see to include this and to exclude that? After the verse included, it excluded. I am including the one who remains in his power and am exluding the one who is not in his power. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said that Rav Hoshaia asked: I understand that if he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up [the time lost]. If he fled and then fell ill? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, let us hear from the following: “If a woman rebels against her husband, one writes him a bill of rebellion on her ketubah.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married one and one waiting for her levir. Where do we hold? If she rebelled against him while she was menstruating, the Torah instructed her to rebel. But we must hold that she rebelled when she was not menstruating and then started menstruating. Here she is unable to rebel, nevertheless you say, one writes. Here also, if he rebelled and then fell ill he has to make up. For he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would not have become sick. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that argument even works in the first case. If he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up, since he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would have recuperated sooner.

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”