iii

Acher cut the plants. It is of him that the Scripture says, "Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin" (Eccles. v. 6). What was the matter referred to? He saw the Metatron, to whom is given the permission to sit to record the merits of Israel. He said, We are taught that in heaven there is no sitting down nor anger nor back nor weariness. Are there—God forbid!—two First Principles? They brought out the Metatron and gave him sixty strokes with a lash of fire. They said to him, What is the reason that, when thou sawest him, thou didst not rise up before him? He was given permission to strike out the merits of Acher. There came out a Bath-Kol and said, "'Return, O backsliding children' (Jer. iii. 14), except Acher." He said, Inasmuch as that man is excluded from yonder world, let him go and enjoy himself in this world. Acher went forth into evil courses. He went forth and met a loose woman. He solicited her. She said to him, Art not thou Elisha ben Abuyah? He pulled up a radish from the garden on the Sabbath and gave it to her. She said, He is another.

Acher asked this question of R. Meir, after he had gone forth into evil courses. What is the meaning of the passage, "Gold and glass cannot equal it: neither shall the exchange thereof be vessels of fine gold" (Job xxviii. 17). He said to him, These are the words of the Law, which are difficult to buy as vessels of gold and vessels of pure gold, and are easily lost as vessels of glass. He said to him, R. Akiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that as vessels of gold and vessels of glass, although they are broken, may be mended, so a disciple of the wise, although he have sinned, may be mended. He said to him, Do thou also turn thyself back. He said to him, I have already heard from behind the curtain, "'Return, O backsliding children' (Jer. iii. 14), except Acher."

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Nachmani the interpreter of Resh Lakish expounded this question, viz., What is the meaning of that which is written, "Trust ye not in an evil one, put ye not confidence in a guide?" (Mic. vii. 5) It means, if the evil imagination say to thee, Do thou sin and the Lord will forgive, be not persuaded, as it is said, "Thou shalt not trust in an evil one," and "an evil one" is nothing but the evil imagination, as it is said, "for that the imagination of man's heart is evil," (Gen. viii. 21) and there is no "guide" but the Lord, as it is said, "Thou art the guide of my youth" (Jer. iii. 4). Perhaps thou wilt say, Who witnesseth against me? The stones of a man's house and the timbers of his house, these witness against him, as it is said, "For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it" (Hab. ii. 11). And wise men say, The spirit of a man witnesseth against him, as it is said, "Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom" (Mic. vii. 5). What is this that lieth in a man's bosom? One says, This is his spirit; R. Zarika says, The two angels of the ministry which lead him, these witness against him, as it is said, "For he shall give his angels charge of thee, to keep thee in all thy ways" (Ps. xci. 11). And wise men say, A man's limbs testify against him, as it is said, "Therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and I am God" (Is. xliii. 12).

III. (1) Weightier rules hold in hallowed things than in a heave-offering; for we may cleanse vessels in the midst of vessels for a heave-offering but not for hallowed things. The outsides and the inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct in the heave-offering but not in the hallowed things. He that takes up that which has been made unclean by pressure may offer the heave-offering but not the hallowed things. The garments of those that eat the heave-offering are unclean through pressure with regard to hallowed things. The manner of the heave-offering is not as the manner of the hallowed things. For in the case of hallowed things one loosens a knot and wipes and cleanses and afterwards ties up again, but in the case of a heave-offering he ties up and afterwards cleanses.

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

And to shew that there are things which can disqualify without rendering unclean, here is a teaching. For there is a canonical Mishnah, All that disqualifies for a heave-offering, renders the hands unclean, so as to be of secondary impurity. And a hand renders its fellow unclean. These are the words of R. Joshua. And other wise men say, The hands themselves are only of secondary uncleanness, and that which is secondary does not produce a second in the case of ordinary things (Yadaim, iii. 2). Do you think that it cannot make a second? Nay, you say, it makes a third. Or perhaps it makes neither a second nor a third. But moreover we have a Baraitha to quote on our side. For there is a Baraitha, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to render unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rabbi. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, With that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean.

III. (4) Weightier rules on the other hand hold in a heave-offering, for in Judea people are believed with regard to the purity of wine and oil all the days of the year, but, at the time of the vintage and the oil pressing, with regard to the heave-offering also. When the vintage and the oil pressing are over, and they bring to him a cask of wine for heave-offering, he does not receive it from him, but he leaves it for the next vintage. But if he say to him, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed. In the case of vessels of wine and vessels of oil

III. (5) From Modiim and inwards men are believed with regard to earthenware vessels; from Modiim and outwards they are not believed. How is that made out? The potter who is selling the pots goes inwards from Modiim. That is the potter, and those are the pots, and those are the buyers. He is believed. If he goes out, he is not believed.

III. (6) The tax-collectors who have gone into the midst of a house, and so too the thieves who have restored the vessels, are believed, when they say, We have not touched. And in Jerusalem they are believed as regards hallowed things, and at the time of a Feast as regards heave-offering also.

III. (7 a) He that opens his cask and he that commences his dough at the time of a festival, R. Jehudah says, he shall finish it, but wise men say, He shall not finish it.

III. (7 b) As soon as the festival is over, they make them pass on to the cleansing of the court. But if the festival is over on the sixth day, they do not make them pass on, on account of the honour of the Sabbath. R. Jehudah says, Also not on the fifth day, for the priests are not at leisure.

III. (8) How is that made out, that they make them pass on to the cleansing of the court? They dip the vessels which were in the sanctuary, and say to them, Be ye clean

All the vessels that were in the sanctuary had second and third sets etc. The altar of bronze, how had this a counterpart? Because it is written, "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me" (Ex. xx. 24). The altar of gold, how had this a counterpart? Because it is written, "the lamp and the altars" (Numb. iii. 31). The altars are placed in comparison one with the other. But wise men say, Because they are overlaid. So much the worse for your argument. Since they are overlaid, they may become unclean. I will tell you the true explanation, viz., the wise men pronounced them capable of becoming unclean, because they were overlaid; or, if you like, our Rabbis said to R. Eliezer, What is thine opinion? Is it because they are covered over? No, their covering is of no avail in respect of them.