forbids

And our law forbids us to injure any one either by word or deed.

For while we desire to bring the bones of his children back, he forbids us to do so saying: 'They have been taken and placed the keeping of their Maker'. Therefore prove unto us the truth".

For they began to hold a council against the Lord on the second day of the week, in the first month, which is Xanthicus; and the deliberation continued on the third day of the week; but on the fourth day they determined to take away His life by crucifixion. And Judas knowing this, who for a long time had been perverted, but was then smitten by the devil himself with the love of money, although he had been long entrusted with the purse, and used to steal what was set apart for the needy, yet was he not cast off by the Lord, through much long-suffering; nay, and when we were once feasting with Him, being willing both to reduce him to his duty and instruct us in His own foreknowledge, He said: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you will betray me; and every one of us saying, Is it I? And the Lord being silent, I, who was one of the twelve, and more beloved by Him than the rest, arose up from lying in His bosom, and besought Him to tell who it should be that should betray Him. Yet neither then did our good Lord declare His name, but gave two signs of the betrayer: one by saying, he that dips with me in the dish; a second, to whom I shall give the sop when I have dipped it. Nay, although he himself said, Master, is it I? the Lord did not say Yes, but, You have said. And being willing to affright him in the matter, He said: Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for him if he had never been born. Who, when he had heard that, went his way, and said to the priests, What will you give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they bargained with him for thirty pieces of silver. And the scripture was fulfilled, which said, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the house of the potter. And on the fifth day of the week, when we had eaten the passover with Him, and when Judas had dipped his hand into the dish, and received the sop, and had gone out by night, the Lord said to us: The hour has come that you shall be dispersed, and shall leave me alone; and every one vehemently affirming that they would not forsake Him, I Peter adding this promise, that I would even die with Him, He said, Verily I say unto you, Before the cock crows, you shall thrice deny that you know me. And when He had delivered to us the representative mysteries of His precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us, He went out to the Mount of Olives, near the brook Cedron, where there was a garden; and we were with Him, and sang an hymn according to the custom. And being separated not far from us, He prayed to His Father, saying: Father, remove this cup away from me; yet not my will, but Yours be done. And when He had done this thrice, while we out of despondency of mind were fallen asleep, He came and said: The hour has come, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. And behold Judas, and with him a multitude of ungodly men, to whom he shows the signal by which he was to betray Him — a deceitful kiss. But they, when they had received the signal agreed on, took hold of the Lord; and having bound Him, they led Him to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, wherein were assembled many, not the people, but a great rout, not an holy council, but an assembly of the wicked and council of the ungodly, who did many things against Him, and left no kind of injury untried, spitting upon Him, cavilling at Him, beating Him, smiting Him on the face, reviling Him, tempting Him, seeking vain divination instead of true prophecies from Him, calling Him a deceiver, a blasphemer, a transgressor of Moses, a destroyer of the temple, a taker away of sacrifices, an enemy to the Romans, an adversary to Cæsar. And these reproaches did these bulls and dogs in their madness cast upon Him, till it was very early in the morning, and then they lead Him away to Annas, who was father-in-law to Caiaphas; and when they had done the like things to Him there, it being the day of the preparation, they delivered Him to Pilate the Roman governor, accusing Him of many and great things, none of which they could prove. Whereupon the governor, as out of patience with them, said: I find no cause against Him. But they bringing two lying witnesses, wished to accuse the Lord falsely; but they being found to disagree, and so their testimony not conspiring together, they altered the accusation to that of treason, saying, This fellow says that He is a king, and forbids to give tribute to Cæsar. And themselves became accusers, and witnesses, and judges, and authors of the sentence, saying, Crucify Him, crucify Him; that it might be fulfilled which is written by the prophets concerning Him, Unjust witnesses were gathered together against me, and injustice lied to itself; and again, Many dogs compassed me about, the assembly of the wicked laid siege against me; and elsewhere, My inheritance became to me as a lion in a wood, and has sent forth her voice against me. Pilate therefore, disgracing his authority by his pusillanimity, convicts himself of wickedness by regarding the multitude more than this just person, and bearing witness to Him that He was innocent, yet as guilty delivering Him up to the punishment of the cross, although the Romans had made laws that no man unconvicted should be put to death. But the executioners took the Lord of glory and nailed Him to the cross, crucifying Him indeed at the sixth hour, but having received the sentence of His condemnation at the third hour. After this they gave to Him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall. Then they divided His garments by lot. Then they crucified two malefactors with Him, on each side one, that it might be fulfilled which was written: They gave me gall to eat, and when I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink. And again: They divided my garment among themselves, and upon my vesture have they cast lots. And in another place: And I was reckoned with the transgressors. Then there was darkness for three hours, from the sixth to the ninth, and again light in the evening; as it is written: It shall not be day nor night, and at the evening there shall be light. All which things, when those malefactors saw that were crucified with Him, the one of them reproached Him as though He was weak and unable to deliver Himself; but the other rebuked the ignorance of his fellow and turning to the Lord, as being enlightened by Him, and acknowledging who He was that suffered, he prayed that He would remember him in His kingdom hereafter. He then presently granted him the forgiveness of his former sins, and brought him into paradise to enjoy the mystical good things; who also cried out about the ninth hour, and said to His Father: My God! My God! Why have You forsaken me? And a little afterward, when He had cried with a loud voice, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do, and had added, Into Your hands I commit my spirit, He gave up the ghost, and was buried before sunset in a new sepulchre. But when the first day of the week dawned He arose from the dead, and fulfilled those things which before His passion He foretold to us, saying: The Son of man must continue in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. And when He was risen from the dead, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, then to Cleopas in the way, and after that to us His disciples, who had fled away for fear of the Jews, but privately were very inquisitive about Him. But these things are also written in the Gospel.

Because, indeed, they drew servitude upon themselves voluntarily, when they said, We have no king but Cæsar; and, If we do not slay Christ, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and will take away both our place and nation. And so they prophesied unwittingly. For accordingly the nations believed on Him, and they themselves were deprived by the Romans of their power, and of their legal worship; and they have been forbidden to slay whom they please, and to sacrifice when they will. Wherefore they are accursed, as not able to perform the things they are commanded to do. For says He: Cursed be he that does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. Now it is impossible in their dispersion, while they are among the heathen, for them to perform all things in their law. For the divine Moses forbids both to rear an altar out of Jerusalem, and to read the law out of the bounds of Judea. Let us therefore follow Christ, that we may inherit His blessings. Let us walk after the law and the prophets by the Gospel. Let us eschew the worshippers of many gods, and the murderers of Christ, and the murderers of the prophets, and the wicked and atheistical heretics. Let us be obedient to Christ as to our King, as having authority to change several constitutions, and having, as a legislator, wisdom to make new constitutions in different circumstances; yet so that everywhere the laws of nature be immutably preserved.

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

There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men well beloved by the people, because of their education of their youth; for all those that were studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day. These men, when they found that the king's distemper was incurable, excited the young men that they would pull down all those works which the king had erected contrary to the law of their fathers, and thereby obtain the rewards which the law will confer on them for such actions of piety; for that it was truly on account of Herod's rashness in making such things as the law had forbidden, that his other misfortunes, and this distemper also, which was so unusual among mankind, and with which he was now afflicted, came upon him; for Herod had caused such things to be made which were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. Now the law forbids those that propose to live according to it, to erect images or representations of any living creature. So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle; alleging, that although they should incur any danger, which might bring them to their deaths, the virtue of the action now proposed to them would appear much more advantageous to them than the pleasures of life; since they would die for the preservation and observation of the law of their fathers; since they would also acquire an everlasting fame and commendation; since they would be both commended by the present generation, and leave an example of life that would never be forgotten to posterity; since that common calamity of dying cannot be avoided by our living so as to escape any such dangers; that therefore it is a right thing for those who are in love with a virtuous conduct, to wait for that fatal hour by such behavior as may carry them out of the world with praise and honor; and that this will alleviate death to a great degree, thus to come at it by the performance of brave actions, which bring us into danger of it; and at the same time to leave that reputation behind them to their children, and to all their relations, whether they be men or women, which will be of great advantage to them afterward.

But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cæsarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Cæsar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cæsarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Cæsar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cæsarea.

But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is its punishment. It commands us also, when we marry, not to have regard to portion, nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her deceitfully and knavishly; but to demand her in marriage of him who hath power to dispose of her, and is fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred; for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband. A husband, therefore, is to lie only with his wife whom he hath married; but to have to do with another man's wife is a wicked thing, which, if any one ventures upon, death is inevitably his punishment: no more can he avoid the same who forces a virgin betrothed to another man, or entices another man's wife. The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean. Moreover, the law enjoins, that after the man and wife have lain together in a regular way, they shall bathe themselves; for there is a defilement contracted thereby, both in soul and body, as if they had gone into another country; for indeed the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death; on which account the law requires this purification to be entirely performed.

The law ordains also, that parents should be honored immediately after God himself, and delivers that son who does not requite them for the benefits he hath received from them, but is deficient on any such occasion, to be stoned. It also says that the young men should pay due respect to every elder, since God is the eldest of all beings. It does not give leave to conceal any thing from our friends, because that is not true friendship which will not commit all things to their fidelity: it also forbids the revelation of secrets, even though an enmity arise between them. If any judge takes bribes, his punishment is death: he that overlooks one that offers him a petition, and this when he is able to relieve him, he is a guilty person. What is not by any one intrusted to another ought not to be required back again. No one is to touch another's goods. He that lends money must not demand usury for its loan. These, and many more of the like sort, are the rules that unite us in the bands of society one with another.

However, there are other things which our legislator ordained for us beforehand, which of necessity we ought to do in common to all men; as to afford fire, and water, and food to such as want it; to show them the roads; not to let any one lie unburied. He also would have us treat those that are esteemed our enemies with moderation; for he doth not allow us to set their country on fire, nor permit us to cut down those trees that bear fruit; nay, further, he forbids us to spoil those that have been slain in war. He hath also provided for such as are taken captive, that they may not be injured, and especially that the women may not be abused. Indeed he hath taught us gentleness and humanity so effectually, that he hath not despised the care of brute beasts, by permitting no other than a regular use of them, and forbidding any other; and if any of them come to our houses, like supplicants, we are forbidden to slay them; nor may we kill the dams, together with their young ones; but we are obliged, even in an enemy's country, to spare and not kill those creatures that labor for mankind. Thus hath our lawgiver contrived to teach us an equitable conduct every way, by using us to such laws as instruct us therein; while at the same time he hath ordained that such as break these laws should be punished, without the allowance of any excuse whatsoever.

In the passages containing the commandments also, similar things are found. For in the law Moses is commanded to destroy every male that is not circumcised on the eighth day, which is exceedingly incongruous, since it would be necessary, if it were related that the law was executed according to the history, to command those parents to be punished who did not circumcise their children, and also those who were the nurses of little children. The declaration of Scripture now is, “The uncircumcised male, i.e. who shall not have been circumcised, shall be cut off from his people.” And if we are to inquire regarding the impossibilities of the law, we find an animal called the goat-stag, which cannot possibly exist, but which, as being in the number of clean beasts, Moses commands to be eaten; and a griffin, which no one ever remembers or heard of as yielding to human power, but which the legislator forbids to be used for food. Respecting the celebrated observance of the Sabbath also he thus speaks: “Ye shall sit, every one in your dwellings; no one shall move from his place on the Sabbath-day.” Which precept it is impossible to observe literally; for no man can sit a whole day so as not to move from the place where he sat down. With respect to each one of these points now, those who belong to the circumcision, and all who would have no more meaning to be found in sacred Scripture than what is indicated by the letter, consider that there should be no investigation regarding the goat-stag, and the griffin, and the vulture; and they invent some empty and trifling tales about the Sabbath, drawn from some traditional sources or other, alleging that every one’s place is computed to him within two thousand cubits. Others, again, among whom is Dositheus the Samaritan, censure indeed expositions of this kind, but themselves lay down something more ridiculous, viz. that each one must remain until the evening in the posture, place, or position in which he found himself on the Sabbath-day; i.e. if found sitting, he is to sit the whole day, or if reclining, he is to recline the whole day. Moreover, the injunction which runs, “Bear no burden on the Sabbath-day,” seems to me an impossibility. For the Jewish doctors, in consequence of these [prescriptions], have betaken themselves, as the holy apostle says, to innumerable fables, saying that it is not accounted a burden if a man wear shoes without nails, but that it is a burden if shoes with nails be worn; and that if it be carried on one shoulder, they consider it a burden; but if on both, they declare it to be none.

And if we come to the legislation of Moses, many of the laws manifest the irrationality, and others the impossibility, of their literal observance. The irrationality [in this], that the people are forbidden to eat vultures, although no one even in the direst famines was [ever] driven by want to have recourse to this bird; and that children eight days old, which are uncircumcised, are ordered to be exterminated from among their people, it being necessary, if the law were to be carried out at all literally with regard to these, that their fathers, or those with whom they are brought up, should be commanded to be put to death. Now the Scripture says: “Every male that is uncircumcised, who shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, shall be cut off from among his people.” And if you wish to see impossibilities contained in the legislation, let us observe that the goat-stag is one of those animals that cannot exist, and yet Moses commands us to offer it as being a clean beast; whereas a griffin, which is not recorded ever to have been subdued by man, the lawgiver forbids to be eaten. Nay, he who carefully considers [the famous injunction relating to] the Sabbath, “Ye shall sit each one in your dwellings; let no one go out from his place on the seventh day,” will deem it impossible to be literally observed: for no living being is able to sit throughout a whole day, and remain without moving from a sitting position. And therefore those who belong to the circumcision, and all who desire that no meaning should be exhibited, save the literal one, do not investigate at all such subjects as those of the goat-stag and griffin and vulture, but indulge in foolish talk on certain points, multiplying words and adducing tasteless traditions; as, for example, with regard to the Sabbath, saying that two thousand cubits is each one’s limit. Others, again, among whom is Dositheus the Samaritan, condemning such an interpretation, think that in the position in which a man is found on the Sabbath-day, he is to remain until evening. Moreover, the not carrying of a burden on the Sabbath-day is an impossibility; and therefore the Jewish teachers have fallen into countless absurdities, saying that a shoe of such a kind was a burden, but not one of another kind; and that a sandal which had nails was a burden, but not one that was without them; and in like manner what was borne on one shoulder [was a load], but not that which was carried on both.

All the arguments, indeed, which this Jew of Celsus advances against those who believe on Jesus, may, by parity of reasoning, be urged as ground of accusation against Moses: so that there is no difference in asserting that the sorcery practised by Jesus and that by Moses were similar to each other,—both of them, so far as the language of this Jew of Celsus is concerned, being liable to the same charge; as, e.g., when this Jew says of Christ, “But, O light and truth! Jesus with his own voice expressly declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers,” some one, either Greek or Egyptian, or any other party who disbelieved the Jew, might say respecting Moses, “But, O light and truth! Moses with his own voice expressly declares, as ye also have recorded, that there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law, ‘If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams,’” etc. Again, perverting the words of Jesus, he says, “And he terms him who devises such things, one Satan;” while one, applying this to Moses, might say, “And he terms him who devises such things, a prophet who dreams dreams.” And as this Jew asserts regarding Jesus, that “even he himself does not deny that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men;” so any one who disbelieves the writings of Moses might say, quoting what has been already said, the same thing, viz., that “even Moses does not deny that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men.” And he will do the same thing also with respect to this: “Being compelled by the force of truth, Moses at the same time both exposed the doings of others, and convicted himself of the same.” And when the Jew says, “Is it not a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one is a God, and the others sorcerers?” one might object to him, on the ground of those words of Moses already quoted, “Is it not then a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one is a prophet and servant of God, and the others sorcerers?” But when, in addition to those comparisons which I have already mentioned, Celsus, dwelling upon the subject, adduces this also: “Why from these works should the others be accounted wicked, rather than this man, seeing they have him as a witness against himself?”—we, too, shall adduce the following, in addition to what has been already said: “Why, from those passages in which Moses forbids us to believe those who exhibit signs and wonders, ought we to consider such persons as wicked, rather than Moses, because he calumniates some of them in respect of their signs and wonders?” And urging more to the same effect, that he may appear to strengthen his attempt, he says: “He himself acknowledged that these were not the works of a divine nature, but were the inventions of certain deceivers, and of very wicked men.” Who, then, is “himself?” You, O Jew, say that it is Jesus; but he who accuses you as liable to the same charges, will transfer this “himself” to the person of Moses.

But I should like, in answer to him who for some unknown reason advances such statements as the above, to make in a conversational way some such remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate to him. Are then those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and is there no power in Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes with the temple of Amphiaraus, nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor in Cilicia with Mopsus? Or is there in such persons some being, either a demon, or a hero, or even a god, working works which are beyond the reach of man? For if he answer that there is nothing either demoniacal or divine about these individuals more than others, then let him at once make known his own opinion, as being that of an Epicurean, and of one who does not hold the same views with the Greeks, and who neither recognises demons nor worships gods as do the Greeks; and let it be shown that it was to no purpose that he adduced the instances previously enumerated (as if he believed them to be true), together with those which he adds in the following pages. But if he will assert that the persons spoken of are either demons, or heroes, or even gods, let him notice that he will establish by what he has admitted a result which he does not desire, viz. that Jesus also was some such being; for which reason, too, he was able to demonstrate to not a few that He had come down from God to visit the human race. And if he once admit this, see whether he will not be forced to confess that He is mightier than those individuals with whom he classed Him, seeing none of the latter forbids the offering of honour to the others; while He, having confidence in Himself, because He is more powerful than all those others, forbids them to be received as divine because they are wicked demons, who have taken possession of places on earth, through inability to rise to the purer and diviner region, whither the grossnesses of earth and its countless evils cannot reach.

But I should like, in answer to him who for some unknown reason advances such statements as the above, to make in a conversational way some such remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate to him. Are then those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and is there no power in Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes with the temple of Amphiaraus, nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor in Cilicia with Mopsus? Or is there in such persons some being, either a demon, or a hero, or even a god, working works which are beyond the reach of man? For if he answer that there is nothing either demoniacal or divine about these individuals more than others, then let him at once make known his own opinion, as being that of an Epicurean, and of one who does not hold the same views with the Greeks, and who neither recognises demons nor worships gods as do the Greeks; and let it be shown that it was to no purpose that he adduced the instances previously enumerated (as if he believed them to be true), together with those which he adds in the following pages. But if he will assert that the persons spoken of are either demons, or heroes, or even gods, let him notice that he will establish by what he has admitted a result which he does not desire, viz. that Jesus also was some such being; for which reason, too, he was able to demonstrate to not a few that He had come down from God to visit the human race. And if he once admit this, see whether he will not be forced to confess that He is mightier than those individuals with whom he classed Him, seeing none of the latter forbids the offering of honour to the others; while He, having confidence in Himself, because He is more powerful than all those others, forbids them to be received as divine because they are wicked demons, who have taken possession of places on earth, through inability to rise to the purer and diviner region, whither the grossnesses of earth and its countless evils cannot reach.

But observe whether the principles of our faith, harmonizing with the general ideas implanted in our minds at birth, do not produce a change upon those who listen candidly to its statements; for although a perverted view of things, with the aid of much instruction to the same effect, has been able to implant in the minds of the multitude the belief that images are gods, and that things made of gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone are deserving of worship, yet common sense forbids the supposition that God is at all a piece of corruptible matter, or is honoured when made to assume by men a form embodied in dead matter, fashioned according to some image or symbol of His appearance. And therefore we say at once of images that they are not gods, and of such creations (of art) that they are not to be compared with the Creator, but are small in contrast with the God who is over all, and who created, and upholds, and governs the universe. And the rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship [to the divine], at once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and resumes its natural love for its Creator; and because of its affection towards Him, receives Him also who first presented these truths to all nations through the disciples whom He had appointed, and whom He sent forth, furnished with divine power and authority, to proclaim the doctrine regarding God and His kingdom.

From what has been said, it is clear then that Jesus, “the man of Nazareth,” did not promulgate laws opposed to those just considered in regard to riches, when He said, “It is hard for the rich man to enter into the kingdom of God;” whether we take the word “rich” in its simplest sense, as referring to the man whose mind is distracted by his wealth, and, as it were, entangled with thorns, so that he brings forth no spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who is rich in the sense of abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the Proverbs, “Better is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is false.” Perhaps it is the following passages which have led Celsus to suppose that Jesus forbids ambition to His disciples: “Whoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all;” “The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,” and “they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.” But there is nothing here inconsistent with the promise, “Thou shalt rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over thee,” especially after the explanation which we have given of these words. Celsus next throws in an expression in regard to wisdom, as though he thought that, according to the teaching of Christ, no wise man could come to the Father. But we would ask in what sense he speaks of a wise man. For if he means one who is wise in “the wisdom of this world,” as it is called, “which is foolishness with God,” then we would agree with him in saying that access to the Father is denied to one who is wise in that sense. But if by wisdom any one means Christ, who is “the power and wisdom of God,” far from such a wise man being refused access to the Father, we hold that he who is adorned by the Holy Spirit with that gift which is called “the word of wisdom,” far excels all those who have not received the same grace.

For that which is offered to idols is sacrificed to demons, and a man of God must not join the table of demons. As to things strangled, we are forbidden by Scripture to partake of them, because the blood is still in them; and blood, especially the odour arising from blood, is said to be the food of demons. Perhaps, then, if we were to eat of strangled animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us. And the reason which forbids the use of strangled animals for food is also applicable to the use of blood. And it may not be amiss, as bearing on this point, to recall a beautiful saying in the writings of Sextus, which is known to most Christians: “The eating of animals,” says he, “is a matter of indifference; but to abstain from them is more agreeable to reason.” It is not, therefore, simply on account of some traditions of our fathers that we refrain from eating victims offered to those called gods or heroes or demons, but for other reasons, some of which I have here mentioned. It is not to be supposed, however, that we are to abstain from the flesh of animals in the same way as we are bound to abstain from all vice and wickedness: we are indeed to abstain not only from the flesh of animals, but from all other kinds of food, if we cannot partake of them without incurring evil, and the consequences of evil. For we are to avoid eating for gluttony, or for the mere gratification of the appetite, without regard to the health and sustenance of the body. We do not believe that souls pass from one body to another, and that they may descend so low as to enter the bodies of the brutes. If we abstain at times from eating the flesh of animals, it is evidently, therefore, not for the same reason as Pythagoras; for it is the reasonable soul alone that we honour, and we commit its bodily organs with due honours to the grave. For it is not right that the dwelling-place of the rational soul should be cast aside anywhere without honour, like the carcases of brute beasts; and so much the more when we believe that the respect paid to the body redounds to the honour of the person who received from God a soul which has nobly employed the organs of the body in which it resided. In regard to the question, “How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?” we have already answered it briefly, as our purpose required.

A man may deposit in his field three dung-heaps for every bet seah [and even] more, the words of Rabbi Shimon. The sages forbid unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. A man may pile up all the manure into one [large] store. Rabbi Meir forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. If he had just a little, he may constantly add to it. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above or until he places them on a rock.

A man may deposit in his field three dung-heaps for every bet seah [and even] more, the words of Rabbi Shimon. The sages forbid unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. A man may pile up all the manure into one [large] store. Rabbi Meir forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above. If he had just a little, he may constantly add to it. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah forbids unless he [deposits them] three [handbreadths] below or three handbreadths above or until he places them on a rock.

One may burn terumah oil that has to be burnt in synagogues, houses of study, dark alleys, and for sick people with permission of the priest. If the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest regularly goes to her father's house, her father may burn [such oil] with her permission. One may also burn [such oil] in a house of celebration but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: in the house of mourning, but not in a house of celebration. Rabbi Meir forbids it in both places. But Rabbi Shimon permits it in both places.

A cake of pressed figs [is liable for tithes] from the moment it has been smoothed out [with fruit juice]. They may smooth them out with [the juice of] untithed figs or grapes. Rabbi Judah forbids this. If one smoothed with grapes, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Judah says it is susceptible. Dried figs [are liable to tithe] after they have been pressed [into a jar]. And [figs] stored in a bin [are liable to tithe] after they have been pressed. If one was pressing [the figs] into a jar, or pressing them in a storage bin, and the jar was broken or the storage bin opened, he may not make a chance meal of them. Rabbi Yose permits this.

In what things may they cover up [food], and in what things may they not cover it up? They may not cover up [food] in peat, compost, salt, lime, or sand, whether moist or dry; Nor in straw, grape-skins, rags or grasses, when they are moist; but they may cover up [food] in them when they are dry. They may cover up [food] in garments, produce, doves’ wings, carpenters’ sawdust and thoroughly beaten flax. Rabbi Judah forbids [storing] in fine [flax], but permits [it] in coarse [flax].

A donkey may go out with its saddle-cloth if it is tied to it. Rams may go out with hides tied to them. Ewes may go out with their tails tied up, tied down, or covered. Goats may go out [with their udders] tied up. Rabbi Yose forbids in all these cases, save ewes that are covered. Rabbi Judah says: goats may go out [with their udders] tied in order to dry them up, but not to save their milk.

A crippled person [lacking a leg] may go out with his wooden stump, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose forbids it. And if it has a receptacle for pads, it is unclean. His supports are unclean through midras, and one may go out with them on Shabbat, and enter the Temple court while wearing them. His chair and its supports are unclean through midras, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter the Temple court with them. An artificial arm is clean, but one may not go out with it [on Shabbat].

Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas says: one may spread a goat skin over a box, chest, or trunk which has caught fire, because he singes. And one may make a barrier with all vessels, whether full [of water] or empty, that the fire should not travel onward. Rabbi Yose forbids in the case of new earthen vessels filled with water, because since they cannot stand the heat, they will burst and extinguish the fire.

Two courtyards, this one inside the other: If the [residents] of the inner one prepared an eruv but those of the outer one did not prepare an eruv, the inner one is permitted but the outer one is forbidden. If the [residents] of the outer one prepared an eruv but not those of the inner one, they both are forbidden. If the [residents] of each [courtyard] prepared an eruv for themselves, each is permitted on its own. Rabbi Akiva forbids the outer one because the right to walk in it prohibits it. The sages say that the right of way does not prohibit it.

A bolt which has a knob at one end: Rabbi Eliezer forbids it [to be moved]; But Rabbi Yose permits it. Rabbi Eliezer said: It happened in a synagogue in Tiberias that they were customary to permit it, until Rabban Gamaliel and the elders came and forbade it to them. Rabbi Yose said: they treated it as forbidden, Rabban Gamaliel and the elders came and permitted it to them.

One may not put flour into haroset or into mustard; And if he did put [it], it must be eaten immediately; But Rabbi Meir forbids [it]. One may not boil the Pesah sacrifice, neither in liquids nor in fruit juice but one may baste and dip it in them. The water used by a baker must be poured out, because it causes leavening.

They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids. If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it.

They may not dig burial niches and graves during the festival. But they may adapt burial niches [to the size of the dead body] during the festival. And they may make a temporary grave during the festival, and a coffin, if a dead [body] is close by in the courtyard. Rabbi Judah forbids, unless there are sawn boards at hand.

A man is permitted to marry [the relative] of a woman [whom he has] raped or seduced. He who rapes or seduces [a relative] of his married wife, is guilty. A man may marry a woman whom his father has raped or seduced or a woman whom his son has raped or seduced. Rabbi Yehudah forbids [marriage] with a woman whom one’s father has raped or seduced.

If a man divorced his wife and remarried her, she is permitted to marry the yavam; Rabbi Elazar forbids. Similarly, if a man divorced an orphan and remarried her, she is permitted to marry the yavam; Rabbi Elazar forbids. If a minor was given in marriage by her father and was divorced she is like an orphan in her father’s lifetime and then her husband remarried her, all agree that she is forbidden to marry the yavam.

If a man divorced his wife and remarried her, she is permitted to marry the yavam; Rabbi Elazar forbids. Similarly, if a man divorced an orphan and remarried her, she is permitted to marry the yavam; Rabbi Elazar forbids. If a minor was given in marriage by her father and was divorced she is like an orphan in her father’s lifetime and then her husband remarried her, all agree that she is forbidden to marry the yavam.

If one says “A korban”, “A wholly burnt-offering”, “A meal-offering”, “A sin-offering”, “A thanksgiving-offering”, “A peace-offering, should be that which I eat from you” he is bound [by his vow]. Rabbi Judah permitted [him]. [If he says] “The korban”, “like a korban”, “korban”, should be that which I eat from you he is bound [by his vow]. If he says, “That which I shall not eat of yours should be a korban”, Rabbi Meir forbids [him]. If one says to his fellow, “Konam be my mouth which speaks with you”, “My hands which work for you” [or] “My feet which walk with you,’ he is forbidden.

He who vows [abstinence] from milk is permitted to eat curds. But Rabbi Yose forbids it. [He who vows abstinence] “from curds,” is permitted milk. Abba Shaul says: he who vows abstinence from cheese, is prohibited to eat [cheese], whether salted or unsalted.

Bet Shammai says: a man may divorce his wife with an old get, but Bet Hillel forbids this. What is meant by an old get? One where he was secluded with her after he wrote it.

All who are forbidden to enter into the assembly may intermarry with each other. Rabbi Judah forbids it. Rabbi Eliezer says: those who are certain [may marry] those who are certain, but those who are certain with those who are doubtful and those who are doubtful with those who are certain and those who are doubtful with others who are doubtful this is prohibited. Who are “those who are doubtful”? The shtuki, the asufi and the Samaritan.

If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow barley, he may not sow wheat; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] wheat, he may sow barley. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this. If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow grain, he may not sow beans; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] beans, he may sow grain. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this.

If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow barley, he may not sow wheat; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] wheat, he may sow barley. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this. If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow grain, he may not sow beans; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] beans, he may sow grain. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this.

A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. One who divorces his wife and she [afterwards] spends a night with him at the [same] inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When [does she require a second bill of divorcement]? When she was divorced after marriage. But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not [yet] familiar with her.

Beth Shammai permits the rival wives [of a deceased brother to be married] to the [surviving] brothers; But Beth Hillel forbids them. If they have performed halitzah, Beth Shammai pronounce them unfit to [marry into] the priesthood, But Beth Hillel pronounced them fit. If they have married their brother-in-law, Beth Shammai pronounce them fit [to marry into the priesthood], But Beth Hillel pronounced them unfit. And although these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Shammai. And in the case of all matters of purity and impurity in respect to which these pronounce pure and these pronounce impure, they did not refrain from preparing foods requiring a condition of purity each by means of [the vessels of] the other.

Rabbi Judah says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. The blood of a carcass: Beth Shammai pronounces it clean, And Beth Hillel pronounces it unclean. An egg found in a [bird’s] carcass: if the like of it were sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not, it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. And Beth Hillel forbids it. But they agree in the case of an egg found in a trefa [bird] that it is forbidden since it had its growth in a forbidden condition. 3+4) The blood of a non-Jewish woman and the blood of purity of a leprous woman: Beth Shammai pronounces clean; And Beth Hillel says: [it is] like her spittle and her urine. One may eat fruits of the seventh year with an expression of thanks and without an expression of thanks [to the owner of the field], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: one may not eat with an expression of thanks. Beth Shammai says: a waterskin [is liable to become impure only if it is] tied up and remains unimpaired. And the school of Hillel says: even if it is not tied up.

[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price. [If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it. [If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price. [If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it. One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy. If he had three, the middle one is holy. [If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.

[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price. [If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it. [If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price. [If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it. One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy. If he had three, the middle one is holy. [If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.

We do not redeem with a calf, a wild animal, an animal slaughtered, a terefah, kilayim (a mixed breed) or a koy. Rabbi Elazar permits [redemption] with kilayim because it is a lamb. But he forbids with a koy, because its nature is doubtful. If he gave [the first-born of a donkey] itself to the priest, the latter may not keep it, until he sets aside a lamb in its place.

“Anything a person is not permitted to sell as demay, he may not send to a friend as demay” Retail quantities which one is not permitted to sell as demay, one may not send to a friend as demay. Wholesale quantities which one is permitted to sell as demay, one may send to a friend as demay. “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce,” be it retail or wholesale quantities, but he forbids retail quantities that are demay.

MISHNAH: He who buys from the baker may tithe from the warm on the cold and from the cold on the warm, even from many types, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah forbids it; I say that the wheat of yesterday was from one source and today’s is from another. Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.

MISHNAH: He who buys from the baker may tithe from the warm on the cold and from the cold on the warm, even from many types, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah forbids it; I say that the wheat of yesterday was from one source and today’s is from another. Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah forbids.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Can a person make a proviso about something not in his possession? “But Rebbi Jehudah agrees that he may go, buy from the place from which his host bought, and tithe.” Can a person give for something that is not his? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they considered him as one who sold ṭevel produce to another person, as was stated: “He who sells ṭevel produce to another person has to run after him and put the produce in order. If he does not find him, if it is known that the produce still exists, he has to tithe for him; if not, he does not have to tithe for him. If it is doubtful whether the produce exists or not, he tithes for it and gives a name to the tithes.”

HALAKHAH: That is, if sown in the middle. If he sowed in front of a middle vine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, he forbids three parallel three. If he sowed in front of an interval in the middle, in the opinion of the House of Shammai, he forbids two on each side. What is said about the fifth? If the seeds were close to one vine, those are forbidden; if not, they are permitted. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, four parallel two are forbidden. If he sowed opposite the corner, which row is forbidden in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Both of them! In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail on each side are forbidden. If one sowed in an interval at the corner, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail are forbidden. What is the sixth? The third in the first row, the second in the third row.

HALAKHAH: That is, if sown in the middle. If he sowed in front of a middle vine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, he forbids three parallel three. If he sowed in front of an interval in the middle, in the opinion of the House of Shammai, he forbids two on each side. What is said about the fifth? If the seeds were close to one vine, those are forbidden; if not, they are permitted. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, four parallel two are forbidden. If he sowed opposite the corner, which row is forbidden in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Both of them! In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail on each side are forbidden. If one sowed in an interval at the corner, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail are forbidden. What is the sixth? The third in the first row, the second in the third row.

MISHNAH: A trellis coming from a terrace. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if someone standing on the ground can harvest all [vines] then it forbids four cubits in the field; otherwise it only forbids around it. Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one plants one row on the ground and one on a terrace, if the latter is ten hand-breadth. higher they do not combine; otherwise, they do combine.

MISHNAH: A trellis coming from a terrace. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if someone standing on the ground can harvest all [vines] then it forbids four cubits in the field; otherwise it only forbids around it. Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one plants one row on the ground and one on a terrace, if the latter is ten hand-breadth. higher they do not combine; otherwise, they do combine.

MISHNAH: Hand towels, scroll wraps, towels of the bath attendant are not subject to kilaim. Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Barber’s towels are forbidden for kilaim.

Rav said they are forbidden and practice follows him who forbids. Why does he not say one follows Rebbi Eliezer. There are Tannaïm who switch their statements.

“Scroll wraps.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Because he makes them into a kind of container and puts his Torah scroll on them. Rebbi Abba Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph in the name of Rav: Because he uses it to warm his hands. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Abba: Without that would it not be forbidden because of kilaim? He said to him, is not Rav the author? And Rav said they are forbidden and practice follows him who forbids. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Abba, and why did you not say to him that he removes it full. If he had said to him, would it not be forbidden for usufruct, what could you have said to him?

MISHNAH: If gourds kept for seeds became hard before the New Year and unusable as food, one may keep them in the Sabbatical year; otherwise, it is forbidden to keep them in the Sabbatical year. Their buds are forbidden in the Sabbatical year. One may sprinkle with water on white dust, the words of Rebbi Simeon; Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob forbids it. One may tear off rice in the Sabbatical year; the words of Rebbi Simeon are that one may not trim.

“One may sprinkle with water on white dust, the words of Rebbi Simeon; Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob forbids it.” Rebbi Simeon follows the rabbis and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is consistent, as we have stated there: “One may continue [to draw] water from tree to tree on condition not to water the entire field.” Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced, it is forbidden according to everybody, if they are tightly planted, it is permitted according to everybody. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob makes them widely spaced, the rabbis make them tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if they are widely spaced, it is forbidden to irrigate. May one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say it is permitted to continue but forbidden to irrigate. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced, it is forbidden; but is white dust not when they are widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday.

What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical year, because work is permitted they permitted work needing effort as well was work not needing much effort. On a holiday, because work is forbidden they only permitted work to prevent loss and only if it does not need much effort. Some want to understand it from this: During the Sabbatical year, which lasts for a long time, they permitted; during holiday, which is a short time, they forbade. But would it not be reasonable to make these other seven days equal to the seven days of the holiday, and should they not be forbidden? It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, the words of Rebbi Simeon; Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob forbids it.”

One may give two explanations: If he had little [manure] on his field, he may continuously add to it after the agricultural workers stopped; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place. One may give another explanation: If he had little [manure] in his house before the Sabbatical year and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the agricultural workers stopped; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place. Has it not been fertilized before the Sabbatical year? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamai: Because of the bad impression [it is forbidden] unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care for a bad impression? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap.

One may give two explanations: If he had little [manure] on his field, he may continuously add to it after the agricultural workers stopped; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place. One may give another explanation: If he had little [manure] in his house before the Sabbatical year and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the agricultural workers stopped; Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it will turn out that he fertilizes that place. Has it not been fertilized before the Sabbatical year? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamai: Because of the bad impression [it is forbidden] unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care for a bad impression? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black. Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large. Round fig cakes lift brick-shaped fig cakes and brick-shaped cakes lift round cakes. But Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known what fell in, they do not lift one another, but if it is not known what fell in, they do lift one another. How is this? If there are 50 black figs and 50 white, if a black one fell, the black are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white one fell, the white are forbidden but the black are permitted. If he does not know what fell, they lift one another. In the latter case, Rebbi Eliezer is stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient. And so Rebbi Eliezer is lenient and Rebbi Joshua stringent in case somebody presses a pound of cut figs into the mouth of a pitcher and does not remember which. Rebbi Eliezer says, one considers it as if they were separate and the lower ones help to lift the upper ones. But Rebbi Joshua says one may not lift unless there are 100 pitchers.

“ A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah, according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission.

“Five fluids are not endangered by being uncovered: Fish oil, muries, vinegar, olive oil, and honey. Rebbi Simeon forbids honey. The Sages agree with Rebbi Simeon if it was seen pecking.” Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos had an uncovered flask of honey in his hand. Before he could ask, it broke apart.

MISHNAH: If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine, Rebbi Meїr forbids and Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs. If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell of cumin.

MISHNAH: If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine, Rebbi Meїr forbids and Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs. If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell of cumin.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to laymen.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids. Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to laymen.”

MISHNAH: Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens. An Israel who rented a cow from a Cohen feeds it heave vetch. A Cohen who rented a cow from an Israel may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israel who received a cow from a Cohen by appraisal may not feed it heave vetch. A Cohen who received a cow from an Israel by appraisal may feed it heave vetch. One lights “oil to burn” in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the Cohen. If the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen is used to visit her father, her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meïr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.

“One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meїr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it. In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? In a house of mourning, since their garments are dirty, they will touch it. At a wedding, since they are unrestrained, they will touch it. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? In a house of mourning, since they are subdued, they will not touch it. At a wedding, since their garments are clean, they will not touch it. In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose from Sidon asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Otherwise, what would we say? Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, does practice not follow Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, it is from the preceding paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says similar to these two, Rebbi Yose says similar to those two, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice follows Rebbi Yose.

MISHNAH: The round fig cake when he smoothes it. One may smoothe ṭevel figs and grapes, Rebbi Jehudah forbids it. If one smoothes grapes they are not prepared; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are prepared. Dried figs when he presses them and in a bin if he planes with a roller. If, while he presses in an amphora or planes in a bin, the amphora broke or the bin collapsed, he may not eat from the contents as a snack, but Rebbi Yose permits it.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

“Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits.” Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since “Rebbi Jehudah says, one gives them only to a fellow for goodwill.”

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

MISHNAH: Some rules apply to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits since heave and tithe forbid on the threshing floor, they have a fixed measure, apply to all produce, are due whether the Temple exists or not, and apply to sharecroppers, tenant farmers, sicarii, and robbers. They apply to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits. Some rules apply to First Fruits but not to heave and tithe. For First Fruits acquire [hallowed status] when connected to the ground, a person may dedicate his entire field as First Fruits, he is responsible for them, and they need a sacrifice, song, weaving, and staying overnight. Heave of the tithe is similar to First Fruits in two ways and to heave in two ways. It may be taken from pure for impure and from produce not earmarked, like First Fruits. It forbids the threshing floor and it has a measure like heave.

“Uncovering is not a danger for oil and vinegar, brine, and muries, and honey, but Rebbi Simeon forbids. The Sages agree with Rebbi Simeon when it was seen pecking.” It was stated thus: “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there was sinking poison.”

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

MISHNAH: In what does one store away and in what may one not store away? One does not store away in olive cake, nor in manure, nor in salt, nor in lime, nor in sand, whether moist or dry. Not in straw, nor in fibers, nor in grape pits, nor in grasses when they are moist but one may store away in them when dry. One may store away in garments, and produce, and pigeon wings, and flax residue, and in fine sawdust. Rebbi Jehudah forbids if it is fine and permits coarse.

One may not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. If it was fixed on a wall, Rebbi permits and the Sages prohibit. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: The reason of him who forbids that occasionally she will see a white hair and tear it out which brings her to the obligation of a purification sacrifice. But for a man it is forbidden also on weekdays because it is not honorable. Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter because it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said, because he wants to teach his daughters he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abbahu heard this and said, it should come over me if I did not hear this from Rebbi Joḥanan.

MISHNAH: Boys go out with knots and princes with bells, and so may everybody, but the Sages spoke about what is. One may go out with a locust’s egg and a fox’s tooth and a nail of a crucified person because of healing, the words of Rebbi Yose. But Rebbi Meїr forbids on weekdays because of ways of the Emorite.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Nanas says, one spreads kid leather over a chest, a box, or a cupboard which are on fire since it is singed. One builds a wall out of vessels, whether full or empty, lest the fire cross over. Rebbi Yose forbids new clay vessels full of water since they cannot withstand the heat, spring leaks, and extinguish the fire.

MISHNAH: One may use anything for laths, even living things; Rebbi Meїr forbids this. And it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meїr declares it pure. One writes on it divorce documents but Rebbi Yose the Galilean disqualifies.

MISHNAH: If someone dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard or with one who rejects the notion of eruv, that one makes it forbidden for him. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that he never forbids unless there are two Jews who mutually forbid.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard,” etc. “A Non-Jew’s courtyard is like a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral.” The rabbis objected to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, would the animal not forbid? Just as an animal forbids so the Gentile forbids. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob objected to the rabbis: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, what would the animal forbid? Just as an animal does not forbid so the Gentile does not forbid.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard,” etc. “A Non-Jew’s courtyard is like a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral.” The rabbis objected to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, would the animal not forbid? Just as an animal forbids so the Gentile forbids. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob objected to the rabbis: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, what would the animal forbid? Just as an animal does not forbid so the Gentile does not forbid.

A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission.

A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission.

A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission.

A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they disagree about ceding rights. Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, but the rabbis are saying, he may not cede rights. Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rebbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Everybody agrees that he may cede rights. Where do they disagree? To change his mind. Rebbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, but the rabbis say, he may cede his rights and cannot retract it. Rebbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rebbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they disagree about ceding rights. Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, but the rabbis are saying, he may not cede rights. Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rebbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Everybody agrees that he may cede rights. Where do they disagree? To change his mind. Rebbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, but the rabbis say, he may cede his rights and cannot retract it. Rebbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rebbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid.

MISHNAH: When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say, as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark. If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out, whether in error or intentionally, he forbids, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, intentionally he forbids, in error he does not forbid.