identical

Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily substance of ours will be brought, when all things shall be re-established in a state of unity, and when God shall be all in all. And this result must be understood as being brought about, not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection, while others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings who are being reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the last enemy is finally reached, who is called death, so that he also may be destroyed, and no longer be an enemy. When, therefore, all rational souls shall have been restored to a condition of this kind, then the nature of this body of ours will undergo a change into the glory of a spiritual body. For as we see it not to be the case with rational natures, that some of them have lived in a condition of degradation owing to their sins, while others have been called to a state of happiness on account of their merits; but as we see those same souls who had formerly been sinful, assisted, after their conversion and reconciliation to God, to a state of happiness; so also are we to consider, with respect to the nature of the body, that the one which we now make use of in a state of meanness, and corruption, and weakness, is not a different body from that which we shall possess in incorruption, and in power, and in glory; but that the same body, when it has cast away the infirmities in which it is now entangled, shall be transmuted into a condition of glory, being rendered spiritual, so that what was a vessel of dishonour may, when cleansed, become a vessel unto honour, and an abode of blessedness. And in this condition, also, we are to believe, that by the will of the Creator it will abide for ever without any change, as is confirmed by the declaration of the apostle, when he says, “We have a house, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” For the faith of the church does not admit the view of certain Grecian philosophers, that there is besides the body, composed of four elements, another fifth body, which is different in all its parts, and diverse from this our present body; since neither out of sacred Scripture can any produce the slightest suspicion of evidence for such an opinion, nor can any rational inference from things allow the reception of it, especially when the holy apostle manifestly declares, that it is not new bodies which are given to those who rise from the dead, but that they receive those identical ones which they had possessed when living, transformed from an inferior into a better condition. For his words are: “It is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body: it is sown in corruption, it will arise in incorruption: it is sown in weakness, it will arise in power: it is sown in dishonour, it will arise in glory.” As, therefore, there is a kind of advance in man, so that from being first an animal being, and not understanding what belongs to the Spirit of God, he reaches by means of instruction the stage of being made a spiritual being, and of judging all things, while he himself is judged by no one; so also, with respect to the state of the body, we are to hold that this very body which now, on account of its service to the soul, is styled an animal body, will, by means of a certain progress, when the soul, united to God, shall have been made one spirit with Him (the body even then ministering, as it were, to the spirit), attain to a spiritual condition and quality, especially since, as we have often pointed out, bodily nature was so formed by the Creator, as to pass easily into whatever condition He should wish, or the nature of the case demand.

I find in your letter yet another objection in these words: “And add, that among all the many prophets who had been before, there is no one who has quoted from another word for word. For they had no need to go a-begging for words, since their own were true. But this one, in rebuking one of these men, quotes the words of the Lord, ‘The innocent and righteous shalt thou not slay.’” I cannot understand how, with all your exercise in investigating and meditating on the Scriptures, you have not noticed that the prophets continually quote each other almost word for word. For who of all believers does not know the words in Esaias? “And in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, and the house of the Lord on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall come unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, unto the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us His way, and we will walk in it: for out of Zion shall go forth a law, and a word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” But in Micah we find a parallel passage, which is almost word for word: “And in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall hasten unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and they will teach us His way, and we will walk in His paths: for a law shall go forth from Zion, and a word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Again, in First Chronicles, the psalm which is put in the hands of Asaph and his brethren to praise the Lord, beginning, “Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon His name,” is in the beginning almost identical with Ps. civ., down to “and do my prophets no harm;” and after that it is the same as Ps. xcv., from the beginning of that psalm, which is something like this, “Praise the Lord all the earth,” down to “For He cometh to judge the earth.” (It would have taken up too much time to quote more fully; so I have given these short references, which are sufficient for the matter before us.) And you will find the law about not bearing a burden on the Sabbath-day in Jeremia, as well as in Moses. And the rules about the passover, and the rules for the priests, are not only in Moses, but also at the end of Ezekiel. I would have quoted these, and many more, had I not found that from the shortness of my stay in Nicomedia my time for writing you was already too much restricted. Your last objection is, that the style is different. This I cannot see. This, then, is my defence. I might, especially after all these accusations, speak in praise of this history of Susanna, dwelling on it word by word, and expounding the exquisite nature of the thoughts. Such an encomium, perhaps, some of the learned and able students of divine things may at some other time compose. This, however, is my answer to your strokes, as you call them. Would that I could instruct you! But I do not now arrogate that to myself. My lord and dear brother Ambrosius, who has written this at my dictation, and has, in looking over it, corrected as he pleased, salutes you. His faithful spouse, Marcella, and her children, also salute you. Also Anicetus. Do you salute our dear father Apollinarius, and all our friends.

But Celsus perhaps has misunderstood certain of those whom he has termed “worms,” when they affirm that “God exists, and that we are next to Him.” And he acts like those who would find fault with an entire sect of philosophers, on account of certain words uttered by some rash youth who, after a three days’ attendance upon the lectures of a philosopher, should exalt himself above other people as inferior to himself, and devoid of philosophy. For we know that there are many creatures more honourable than man; and we have read that “God standeth in the congregation of gods,” but of gods who are not worshipped by the nations, “for all the gods of the nations are idols.” We have read also, that “God, standing in the congregation of the gods, judgeth among the gods.” We know, moreover, that “though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many and lords many), but to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.” And we know that in this way the angels are superior to men; so that men, when made perfect, become like the angels. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but the righteous are as the angels in heaven,” and also become “equal to the angels.” We know, too, that in the arrangement of the universe there are certain beings termed “thrones,” and others “dominions,” and others “powers,” and others “principalities;” and we see that we men, who are far inferior to these, may entertain the hope that by a virtuous life, and by acting in all things agreeably to reason, we may rise to a likeness with all these. And, lastly, because “it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like God, and shall see Him as He is.” And if any one were to maintain what is asserted by some (either by those who possess intelligence or who do not, but have misconceived sound reason), that “God exists, and we are next to Him,” I would interpret the word “we,” by using in its stead, “We who act according to reason,” or rather, “We virtuous, who act according to reason.” For, in our opinion, the same virtue belongs to all the blessed, so that the virtue of man and of God is identical. And therefore we are taught to become “perfect,” as our Father in heaven is perfect. No good and virtuous man, then, is a “worm rolling in filth,” nor is a pious man an “ant,” nor a righteous man a “frog;” nor could one whose soul is enlightened with the bright light of truth be reasonably likened to a “bird of the night.”

If a new rose has been preserved in old oil, the rose may be taken out. But if an old rose was preserved in new oil, it is subject to the law of removal. New carobs preserved in old wine, or old carobs in new wine, are subject to the law of removal. This is the general principle: Any thing that imparts taste, he must remove it if it is one kind mixed with a different kind. But if it is mixed with the identical kind, then [the whole is subject to removal] even if only the smallest quantity exists. Sabbatical year produce renders similar kinds prohibited even [if it exists] in the smallest quantity. But if of different species only when it imparts taste.

Two men sent two identical gittin [to their wives] and they became mixed up they give both of them to this wife and both of them to this wife. Therefore, if one of them was lost the other is void. If five men wrote jointly in the same get, “So-and-so divorces so-and-so and so-and-so [divorces] so-and-so and the witnesses [signed] below, all are valid and the get is to be given to each [of the women]. If the scribe wrote out the formula for each one and the witnesses signed below, only the one with which the signatures are read is valid.

HALAKHAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening?. We have stated: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah”. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “From the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal.” We have stated: “Their opinions are almost identical.” Come and see: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah” is still daylight and the stars start to appear, “from the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal” is one or two hours into the night. You want to say that the two opinions are almost identical? Rebbi Yose said: Explain it by people in hamlets who usually leave the roads when there still is some daylight because they are afraid of wild beasts.

HALAKHAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening?. We have stated: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah”. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “From the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal.” We have stated: “Their opinions are almost identical.” Come and see: “From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah” is still daylight and the stars start to appear, “from the time that people enter their houses Friday evening to eat their meal” is one or two hours into the night. You want to say that the two opinions are almost identical? Rebbi Yose said: Explain it by people in hamlets who usually leave the roads when there still is some daylight because they are afraid of wild beasts.

Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, we do not interrupt even for the recitation of Shema‘.” Rebbi Yoḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, we do interrupt even for prayer.” This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Yoḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Yoḥanan says: “if only a man would pray the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain!” Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said: “If I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that he should create two mouths for man; one for him to exert himself in Torah and the other one for his other needs.” But he changed his mind and said: “With one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of its denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be? Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Yoḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabiah, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shema‘ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabiah said: just as they interrupt for Shema‘, so they interrupt for prayer, tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah”. Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies in order to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Yoḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the afterbirth he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and he does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not formulate: “He is like a man reading in the Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. One is like the other. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was permanently studying Torah, did not prefer Shema‘ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not formulate: “He who reads (Shema‘) after that did not lose, he is only like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said: He who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

“Nor over lamp and spices set before an idol.” Is not that of Gentiles identical with that of idolatry? Explain it with the idol of a Jew.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov.5:6): “She does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully all which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them will life come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away the mother. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for something that is repayment of debt it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov.30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks, “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah, according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah, according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

“And not a Libyan donkey.” Some Tannaïm state: “Not a nybrqvs.” He who says libdĕqēs on the name of Lybian and (Dan. 11:43) “Lybians and Nubians in His train.” He who says nybrqvs ‘bhṭs, What is ‘bḥṭs? A mounting donkey. Rebbi Jonah: Rav Hoshaia asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations, it means that Libya is identical with Egypt.

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.

They said in the name of four elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: The arguments of Rav seem to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. 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 Mana said before Rebbi Judan, are the rules different for a wick and an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

It was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. Similarly, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that they did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years,, similarly there was no fourth-year orchard until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

HALAKHAH: “With what may one kindle and with what may one not kindle? One kindles neither with bast.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, λύγος. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Lia, δάδινον. They said, these two are identical.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rav Hoshaia asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations? Rebbi Jonah (Ben Ṣeruya) [from Bostra] said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations; it means that Libyan is identical with Egyptian. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are one.

MISHNAH: One who brings out straw filling the mouth of a cow, wood shavings filling the mouth of a camel, grain filling the mouth of a sheep, grasses filling the mouth of a goat. Moist garlic leaves and onion leaves the volume of a dried fig, if dry filling the mouth of a goat; they are not combined since their measures are not identical. One who brings out foodstuffs in the volume of a dried fig; they are combined since their measures are the same except for their shells, and their pits, and their stalks, and their grit, and their bran. Rebbi Jehudah says except for pods of lentils which are cooked with them.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: 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 Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: 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 Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: 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 Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: 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 Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: 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 Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: 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 Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: 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 Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: 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 Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

If he was born on the eightieth day, he eliminates ten. If he was born on the ninetieth day, he eliminates twenty. If he finished his nezirut and came to complete his son’s nezirut and became impure within the first ten days, he eliminates everything. Within the last twenty days? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rab and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, he eliminates thirty. Rebbi Samuel said, he eliminates seven only. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Joḥanan think that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical with substantial eliminating? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if Rebbi Joḥanan thought that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical to substantial eliminating, why would he say that he eliminates thirty? Should he not invalidate everything? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he was born on a day unsuitable to bring a sacrifice. Think of it, if he was born in the night, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the night caused it. Think of it, if he was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave when [the son] was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave before his son was born, he celebrates one shaving for both. If he had dedicated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before his son was born. There, they say that he celebrates one shaving for both. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he shaves and then shaves a second time. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “They asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Assume that he was both a nazir and a sufferer from scale disease, may he shave once and have it counted for his nezirut and his scale disease? He said to them: If he shaved to remove hair, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves to remove hair whereas the sufferer from scale disease shaves to have hair grow. They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave to remove hair. (They said to him. If both of them shaved before the sprinkling of the blood, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before the sprinkling of the blood and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after the sprinkling of the blood! They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave before the sprinkling of the blood!) He said to them, if both shaved before they immerse themselves in water, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before he immerses himself in water and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after he immerses himself in water. They said to him, the matter is settled. It cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, it cannot be counted for the days of his count. It cannot be counted for purification; it cannot be counted for impurity. That is, if he was a nazir and sufferer from scale disease. But if he was a nazir and nazir, he may shave once for both.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains that they disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

If he was born on the eightieth day, he eliminates ten. If he was born on the ninetieth day, he eliminates twenty. If he finished his nezirut and came to complete his son’s nezirut and became impure within the first ten days, he eliminates everything. Within the last twenty days? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rab and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, he eliminates thirty. Rebbi Samuel said, he eliminates seven only. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Joḥanan think that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical with substantial eliminating? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if Rebbi Joḥanan thought that eliminating by a shaving knife is identical to substantial eliminating, why would he say that he eliminates thirty? Should he not invalidate everything? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he was born on a day unsuitable to bring a sacrifice. Think of it, if he was born in the night, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the night caused it. Think of it, if he was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave when [the son] was born on the Sabbath, is that not unsuitable to bring a sacrifice? It is suitable; the Sabbath caused it. If he had finished his nezirut but did not manage to shave before his son was born, he celebrates one shaving for both. If he had dedicated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before his son was born. There, they say that he celebrates one shaving for both. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he shaves and then shaves a second time. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “They asked Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Assume that he was both a nazir and a sufferer from scale disease, may he shave once and have it counted for his nezirut and his scale disease? He said to them: If he shaved to remove hair, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves to remove hair whereas the sufferer from scale disease shaves to have hair grow. They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave to remove hair. (They said to him. If both of them shaved before the sprinkling of the blood, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before the sprinkling of the blood and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after the sprinkling of the blood! They said to him, if it cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, should it not be counted for the days of his count? Both of them shave before the sprinkling of the blood!) He said to them, if both shaved before they immerse themselves in water, you would be correct. But the nazir shaves before he immerses himself in water and the sufferer from scale disease shaves after he immerses himself in water. They said to him, the matter is settled. It cannot be counted for the days of his completeness, it cannot be counted for the days of his count. It cannot be counted for purification; it cannot be counted for impurity. That is, if he was a nazir and sufferer from scale disease. But if he was a nazir and nazir, he may shave once for both.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains that they disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

MISHNAH: Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife is invalid. How? If one was walking in the market and heard the scribes dictating “Mr. X divorces his wife Y from place Z” and said, these are mine and my wife’s names, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he wrote [a bill] to divorce his wife but had second thoughts, and a fellow townsman came and said to him, my name is identical with yours and my wife’s name is identical with your wife’s, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he had two wives with identical names and wrote a document to divorce the older one by, he cannot use it to divorce the younger. In addition, if he said to the scribe: write that I may divorce either one I wish, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce either one.

MISHNAH: Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife is invalid. How? If one was walking in the market and heard the scribes dictating “Mr. X divorces his wife Y from place Z” and said, these are mine and my wife’s names, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he wrote [a bill] to divorce his wife but had second thoughts, and a fellow townsman came and said to him, my name is identical with yours and my wife’s name is identical with your wife’s, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he had two wives with identical names and wrote a document to divorce the older one by, he cannot use it to divorce the younger. In addition, if he said to the scribe: write that I may divorce either one I wish, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce either one.

MISHNAH: Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife is invalid. How? If one was walking in the market and heard the scribes dictating “Mr. X divorces his wife Y from place Z” and said, these are mine and my wife’s names, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he wrote [a bill] to divorce his wife but had second thoughts, and a fellow townsman came and said to him, my name is identical with yours and my wife’s name is identical with your wife’s, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he had two wives with identical names and wrote a document to divorce the older one by, he cannot use it to divorce the younger. In addition, if he said to the scribe: write that I may divorce either one I wish, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce either one.

Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose asked before Rebbi Yose: Concerning what you say that one bill of divorce is invalid for two women, should not two bills of divorce be invalid for two women? He asked him, what is the question? He answered, did we not state: “If two people sent two [identical] bills of divorce which were intermingled, he gives both documents to both women.” There, it is a divorce for this one and a divorce for the other one; the mix-up caused [the problem]. But here, neither this one is divorced in her name nor is that one divorced in her name.

MISHNAH: If two men sent two identical bills of divorce which became mixed up, one delivers both to both women. Therefore, if one of them was lost, the second became unusable.

HALAKHAH: “If two men sent two identical bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose: Just as you say that a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce is invalid in the case of two wives, similarly two bills of divorce should be invalid for two women. He answered, that is correct. He said to him, but did we not state: “If two men sent two identical bills of divorce and they became mixed up, one delivers both to both women”? There, each of the bills was written in the name of the respective wife; the mix-up caused the problem. But here, neither one was written as divorce in her name; when it was delivered, could it be considered as divorce in her name from the start?

HALAKHAH: “If two men sent two identical bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose: Just as you say that a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce is invalid in the case of two wives, similarly two bills of divorce should be invalid for two women. He answered, that is correct. He said to him, but did we not state: “If two men sent two identical bills of divorce and they became mixed up, one delivers both to both women”? There, each of the bills was written in the name of the respective wife; the mix-up caused the problem. But here, neither one was written as divorce in her name; when it was delivered, could it be considered as divorce in her name from the start?

“She leaves gratis,” these are the days of adulthood; “without money,” these are the indicators [of adolescence.] Could He not have mentioned only one of them? If only one of them were mentioned, would I not have said that if she leaves with indicators [of adolescence], then certainly in the days of adulthood? But in that case I would have said that they are identical with the days of adulthood. Would this not be logical? She is emancipated from the power of the father and she is emancipated from the power of the master; since she is emancipated from the power of the father by some indicators [of adulthood], she is emancipated from the power of the master by the same indicators. Therefore, it was necessary to say, “she leaves gratis,” these are the days of adulthood, “without money,” these are the indicators [of adolescence.] Or maybe the other way around? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: “Without money.” At a place where there is money for the father, there is no money for the master.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov. 5:6): “She does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully everything which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all the things you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them life will come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away [the mother] from the nest. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for anything that is repayment of debt it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov. 30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks, “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

HALAKHAH: “If one says to two people, I robbed,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here if they complain, there if they are silent. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. There, they say in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, an officer of the court determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Other Tannaїm stated, a court which determined that one was robbed, [as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed,] not a court which determined that one was a robber. Rebbi Ila said, we also have stated that the rules are identical for robbery, intercourse, and loan. Everbody agrees about the deposit mentioned in the Mishnah, from the following: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you it was.”

HALAKHAH: “How is this? If he collected the produce from him,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written: “For the earth was filled with oppression because of them.” What was their oppression? If a person came carrying a box full of lupines they all asembled and each one was taking less than the worth of a peruṭah, a case which cannot be brought before the judges. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, “much, much”. The acts of these were identical to the acts of those.

MISHNAH: Two brothers, one poor and one rich, to whom their father left a bath house and an olive press. If they were built to be rented out, the rental fees are common property. If he built them for his own use, the rich one tells the poor, buy yourself slaves and have them bathe in the bathhouse, buy yourself olives and process them in the olive press. If two people lived in the same town, both called Yose ben Simeon, they cannot write a bond one on the other or a third party on one of them. If somebody found between his bonds a bond of Yose ben Simeon which was paid off, the bonds of both of them are paid off. What can they do? They write three generations. If their names were identical for three generations, they should write a characteristic mark. If they had identical charateristic marks, they should write “Cohen”. If somebody said to his son, a bond among my bonds is paid, but it is not known which one it is, all his bonds are paid. If one finds there two [bonds] given by the same [debtor], the larger one is paid, the smaller one is not paid.

MISHNAH: Two brothers, one poor and one rich, to whom their father left a bath house and an olive press. If they were built to be rented out, the rental fees are common property. If he built them for his own use, the rich one tells the poor, buy yourself slaves and have them bathe in the bathhouse, buy yourself olives and process them in the olive press. If two people lived in the same town, both called Yose ben Simeon, they cannot write a bond one on the other or a third party on one of them. If somebody found between his bonds a bond of Yose ben Simeon which was paid off, the bonds of both of them are paid off. What can they do? They write three generations. If their names were identical for three generations, they should write a characteristic mark. If they had identical charateristic marks, they should write “Cohen”. If somebody said to his son, a bond among my bonds is paid, but it is not known which one it is, all his bonds are paid. If one finds there two [bonds] given by the same [debtor], the larger one is paid, the smaller one is not paid.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following open your mouth for the dumb.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element.

“And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him,” etc. To proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings Who from one die coins all seals and no one is like the other, as it is said: The seal turns around like clay. Why did He change their looks? That no man should jump and go to another’s wife or another’s field. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Three things did the Holy One, praise to Him, diversify in humans: looks of the face, understanding, and voice. Looks and understanding because of the robbers, voice because of forbidden women. Rebbi Isaac said, even a fig tree or a wheat plant is not identical to any other. Man was created Sabbath Eve so from the start he should enter with a commandment. Another explanation: Why was he created last? A parable of a king who made a banquet. After he had ordered the meal, he invited the guests. So wisdom built her house, that is the Holy One, praise to Him, Who created the world in wisdom, as it is said, the Eternal in wisdom based the earth, etc. She quarried its seven pillars, these are the seven days of creation. She slaughtered her slaughtering, mixed her wine, these are seas and rivers and all the needs of the world. Any silly one shall come here, that is Adam and Eve.

Do not worship them. Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them. Prostration was included; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.

Rebbi Tanḥum ben Yudan said, even though Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical to the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action. From where that if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action? As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.

Rebbi Tanḥum ben Yudan said, even though Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical to the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action. From where that if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action? As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.

So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rebbi Simeon.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate. Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate. Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry, therefore if he married he would not desecrate? What about it? Ḥizqiah said, this person would be extirpated from the community. One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community. They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community? It is equal on the day of Atonement. But his brothers the priests are not equal on the day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside.

HALAKHAH: “Under which circumstances did they say that her timing is exact,” etc. Samuel said, they taught only about a virgin and an old woman. But to a pregnant or nursing woman they give all during preganncy and nursing time. Both Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan say, the rules are identical for virgin, post-menopausal, pregnant, or nursing woman. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan parallel Rebbi Ḥanina’s and they all disagree with Samuel’s opinion, since Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Once Rebbi instructed following the leniencies both of Rebbi Meïr and of Rebbi Yose. How was this? If the fetus was noticed and after that she bled, Rebbi Meïr says, her timing is exact; Rebbi Yose says, she retroactively makes impure for 24 hours. If she then bled frequently, interrupted for three periods, and then bled, Rebbi Meïr says, she retroactively makes impure for 24 hours; Rebbi Yose says, her timing is exact. If you say, one gives her all the time during pregnancy, why would we need Rebbi Yose’s leniency? Is not that of Rebbi Meïr less weighty than that of Rebbi Yose? Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Might we say, following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose of milk? He said to him, it was said so explicitly.

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarries a sexless, or a hermaphrodite, and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female. If it was a sexless and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female. A sexless and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe for a female exclusively. If it came out in pieces or defective, it is born as soon as most of its body came out. If it was a regular birth, when most of its head came out. When is it most of its head? If the forehead came out. If a woman miscarries and it is not known what it was, she shall observe for a male and a female. If it is not known whether there was a fetus, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation. If she miscarries on the 40 day, she gives no thought to a child. On the 41 day, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation. Rebbi Ismael says, on the 41st day, she shall observe for a male and menstruation, on the 81st day, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation for the male is fully formed by the 41st day and the female by the 81st. But the Sages say, the creation of males and females is identical, both on the 41st.

The thought has occurred to thee that the poor man and people generally have the same standard of time. Shouldest thou, however, maintain that the poor man and the priest have the same standard of time, then the opinion of the Sages and R. Meir would be identical !

Come and hear : A woman who during intercourse experiences the flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts her therefrom. Behold, a woman in these circumstances is identical with a Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow ; and since R. Judah exempts her, conclude [that he exempts him also]. R. Hiyya taught explicitly : A Ba'al Keri who experienced a flow requires immersion ; but R. Judah exempts him therefrom.

GEMARA R. Judah is identical with the first Tanna's view ! There is a difference between them, viz. : an individual who lives in a place where there is no local Congregation. The first Tanna holds that he is exempt [from the additional Tefillah], but R. Judah holds that he is under the obligation.

But is not this principle identical with the former one? One might have thought that we apply the rule of the ‘curved wall’ on one side only, but not on every side, therefore we were taught [that we apply it to all sides also].

If so, read the concluding [part:] R. Meir ruled, he should remove one from between two, but not loosen. Is not R. Meir's view thus identical with that of Beth Shammai?

Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir, while the Sages say that it is liable? Can we say that the following supports [this view]! It is the identical statement!

On the twentieth, by the family of Pahath-Moab from the tribe of Judah. Our Rabbis have taught: The sons of Pahath-Moab of the tribe of Judah are identical with the sons of David of the tribe of Judah; this is the opinion of R. Meir, but R. Jose said they are identical with the sons of Joab, the son of Zerujah.

On the twentieth, by the family of Pahath-Moab from the tribe of Judah. Our Rabbis have taught: The sons of Pahath-Moab of the tribe of Judah are identical with the sons of David of the tribe of Judah; this is the opinion of R. Meir, but R. Jose said they are identical with the sons of Joab, the son of Zerujah.

On the twentieth of Elul, by the family of Adin of the tribe of Judah. Our Rabbis have taught: The sons of Adin of the tribe of Judah are identical with the sons of David of the tribe of Judah; this is the opinion of R. Judah; R. Jose said they are identical with the sons of Joab, the son of Zerujah.

On the twentieth of Elul, by the family of Adin of the tribe of Judah. Our Rabbis have taught: The sons of Adin of the tribe of Judah are identical with the sons of David of the tribe of Judah; this is the opinion of R. Judah; R. Jose said they are identical with the sons of Joab, the son of Zerujah.

Bar He He said to Hillel, What is that which is written, "Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not" (Mal. iii. 18)? The righteous and he that serveth God are identical terms, the wicked and he that serveth Him not are identical terms. He said to him, He that serveth Him and he that serveth Him not are both absolutely righteous, but he that repeateth his portion a hundred times is not like him that repeateth his portion a hundred and one times. He said to him, Then by reason of one time is he called "him that serveth Him not"? He said to him, Yes, go and learn from the mule-drivers' market how they say, Ten parasangs for a zouza, but eleven parasangs for two zouzas.

Bar He He said to Hillel, What is that which is written, "Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not" (Mal. iii. 18)? The righteous and he that serveth God are identical terms, the wicked and he that serveth Him not are identical terms. He said to him, He that serveth Him and he that serveth Him not are both absolutely righteous, but he that repeateth his portion a hundred times is not like him that repeateth his portion a hundred and one times. He said to him, Then by reason of one time is he called "him that serveth Him not"? He said to him, Yes, go and learn from the mule-drivers' market how they say, Ten parasangs for a zouza, but eleven parasangs for two zouzas.

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

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

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