improve

But go to the warm bath, and shave thy head, and cut thy nails, and change thy clothes, and amuse thyself for the space of forty days, that thou mayst do good to thyself and improve thy condition and the colour of thy face may come back to thee.'

When matters were come to this state, Og, the king of Gilead and Gaulanitis, fell upon the Israelites. He brought an army with him, and in haste to the assistance of his friend Sihon: but though he found him already slain, yet did he resolve still to come and fight the Hebrews, supposing he should be too hard for them, and being desirous to try their valor; but failing of his hope, he was both himself slain in the battle, and all his army was destroyed. So Moses passed over the river Jabbok, and overran the kingdom of Og. He overthrew their cities, and slew all their inhabitants, who yet exceeded in riches all the men in that part of the continent, on account of the goodness of the soil, and the great quantity of their wealth. Now Og had very few equals, either in the largeness of his body, or handsomeness of his appearance. He was also a man of great activity in the use of his hands, so that his actions were not unequal to the vast largeness and handsome appearance of his body. And men could easily guess at his strength and magnitude when they took his bed at Rabbath, the royal city of the Ammonites; its structure was of iron, its breadth four cubits, and its length a cubit more than double thereto. However, his fall did not only improve the circumstances of the Hebrews for the present, but by his death he was the occasion of further good success to them; for they presently took those sixty cities, which were encompassed with excellent walls, and had been subject to him, and all got both in general and in particular a great prey.

When David had cast the Jebusites out of the citadel, he also rebuilt Jerusalem, and named it The City of David, and abode there all the time of his reign; but for the time that he reigned over the tribe of Judah only in Hebron, it was seven years and six months. Now when he had chosen Jerusalem to be his royal city, his affairs did more and more prosper, by the providence of God, who took care that they should improve and be augmented. Hiram also, the king of the Tyrians, sent ambassadors to him, and made a league of mutual friendship and assistance with him. He also sent him presents, cedar-trees, and mechanics, and men skillful in building and architecture, that they might build him a royal palace at Jerusalem. Now David made buildings round about the lower city: he also joined the citadel to it, and made it one body; and when he had encompassed all with walls, he appointed Joab to take care of them. It was David, therefore, who first cast the Jebusites out of Jerusalem, and called it by his own name, The City of David: for under our forefather Abraham it was called [Salem, or] Solyma; but after that time, some say that Homer mentions it by that name of Solyma, [for he named the temple Solyma, according to the Hebrew language, which denotes security.] Now the whole time from the warfare under Joshua our general against the Canaanites, and from that war in which he overcame them, and distributed the land among the Hebrews, [nor could the Israelites ever cast the Canaanites out of Jerusalem until this time, when David took it by siege,] this whole time was five hundred and fifteen years.

When Alexander had thus spoken, Cæsar, who did not before believe so gross a calumny, was still more moved by it, and looked intently upon Herod, and perceived he was a little confounded: the persons there present were under an anxiety about the young men, and the fame that was spread abroad made the king hated, for the very incredibility of the calumny, and the commiseration of the flower of youth, the beauty of body, which were in the young men, pleaded for assistance, and the more so on this account, that Alexander had made their defense with dexterity and prudence; nay, they did not themselves any longer continue in their former countenances, which had been bedewed with tears, and cast downwards to the ground, but now there arose in them hope of the best; and the king himself appeared not to have had foundation enough to build such an accusation upon, he having no real evidence wherewith to correct them. Indeed he wanted some apology for making the accusation; but Cæsar, after some delay, said, that although the young men were thoroughly innocent of that for which they were calumniated, yet had they been so far to blame, that they had not demeaned themselves towards their father so as to prevent that suspicion which was spread abroad concerning them. He also exhorted Herod to lay all such suspicions aside, and to be reconciled to his sons; for that it was not just to give any credit to such reports concerning his own children; and that this repentance on both sides might still heal those breaches that had happened between them, and might improve that their good-will to one another, whereby those on both sides, excusing the rashness of their suspicions, might resolve to bear a greater degree of affection towards each other than they had before. After Cæsar had given them this admonition, he beckoned to the young men. When therefore they were disposed to fall down to make intercession to their father, he took them up, and embraced them, as they were in tears, and took each of them distinctly in his arms, till not one of those that were present, whether free-man or slave, but was deeply affected with what they saw.

Now Herod brought up his sons' children with great care; for Alexander had two sons by Glaphyra; and Aristobulus had three sons by Bernice, Salome's daughter, and two daughters; and as his friends were once with him, he presented the children before them; and deploring the hard fortune of his own sons, he prayed that no such ill fortune would befall these who were their children, but that they might improve in virtue, and obtain what they justly deserved, and might make him amends for his care of their education. He also caused them to be betrothed against they should come to the proper age of marriage; the elder of Alexander's sons to Pheroras's daughter, and Antipater's daughter to Aristobulus's eldest son. He also allotted one of Aristobulus's daughters to Antipater's son, and Aristobulus's other daughter to Herod, a son of his own, who was born to him by the high priest's daughter; for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time. Now the king made these espousals for the children, out of commiseration of them now they were fatherless, as endeavoring to render Antipater kind to them by these intermarriages. But Antipater did not fail to bear the same temper of mind to his brothers' children which he had borne to his brothers themselves; and his father's concern about them provoked his indignation against them upon this supposal, that they would become greater than ever his brothers had been; while Archelaus, a king, would support his daughter's sons, and Pheroras, a tetrarch, would accept of one of the daughters as a wife to his son. What provoked him also was this, that all the multitude would so commiserate these fatherless children, and so hate him [for making them fatherless], that all would come out, since they were no strangers to his vile disposition towards his brethren. He contrived, therefore, to overturn his father's settlements, as thinking it a terrible thing that they should be so related to him, and be so powerful withal. So Herod yielded to him, and changed his resolution at his entreaty; and the determination now was, that Antipater himself should marry Aristobulus's daughter, and Antipater's son should marry Pheroras's daughter. So the espousals for the marriages were changed after this manner, even without the king's real approbation.

But these sons were not able to bear this change in their affairs; but when they saw him that was born of a mother of no family, the nobility of their birth made them unable to contain their indignation; but whensoever they were uneasy, they showed the anger they had at it. And as these sons did day after day improve in that their anger, Antipater already exercised all his own abilities, which were very great, in flattering his father, and in contriving many sorts of calumnies against his brethren, while he told some stories of them himself, and put it upon other proper persons to raise other stories against them, till at length he entirely cut his brethren off from all hopes of succeeding to the kingdom; for he was already publicly put into his father's will as his successor. Accordingly, he was sent with royal ornaments, and other marks of royalty, to Caesar, excepting the diadem. He was also able in time to introduce his mother again into Mariamne's bed. The two sorts of weapons he made use of against his brethren were flattery and calumny, whereby he brought matters privately to such a pass, that the king had thoughts of putting his sons to death.

Now no place of Galilee remained to be taken but the small city of Gischala, whose multitude yet were desirous of peace; for they were generally husbandmen, and always applied themselves to cultivate the fruits of the earth. However, there were a great number that belonged to a band of robbers, that were already corrupted, and had crept in among them, and some of the governing part of the citizens were sick of the same distemper. It was John, the son of a certain man whose name was Levi, that drew them into this rebellion, and encouraged them in it. He was a cunning knave, and of a temper that could put on various shapes; very rash in expecting great things, and very sagacious in bringing about what he hoped for. It was known to every body that he was fond of war, in order to thrust himself into authority; and the seditious part of the people of Gischala were under his management, by whose means the populace, who seemed ready to send ambassadors in order to surrender, waited for the coming of the Romans in battle-array. Vespasian sent against them Titus, with a thousand horsemen, but withdrew the tenth legion to Scythopolis, while he returned to Cesarea with the two other legions, that he might allow them to refresh themselves after their long and hard campaign, thinking withal that the plenty which was in those cities would improve their bodies and their spirits, against the difficulties they were to go through afterwards; for he saw there would be occasion for great pains about Jerusalem, which was not yet taken, because it was the royal city, and the principal city of the whole nation, and because those that had run away from the war in other places got all together thither. It was also naturally strong, and the walls that were built round it made him not a little concerned about it. Moreover, he esteemed the men that were in it to be so courageous and bold, that even without the consideration of the walls, it would be hard to subdue them; for which reason he took care of and exercised his soldiers beforehand for the work, as they do wrestlers before they begin their undertaking.

Thus did the Romans spend four days in bringing this subsistence-money to the several legions. But on the fifth day, when no signs of peace appeared to come from the Jews, Titus divided his legions, and began to raise banks, both at the tower of Antonia and at John's monument. Now his designs were to take the upper city at that monument, and the temple at the tower of Antonia; for if the temple were not taken, it would be dangerous to keep the city itself; so at each of these parts he raised him banks, each legion raising one. As for those that wrought at John's monument, the Idumeans, and those that were in arms with Simon, made sallies upon them, and put some stop to them; while John's party, and the multitude of zealots with them, did the like to those that were before the tower of Antonia. These Jews were now too hard for the Romans, not only in direct fighting, because they stood upon the higher ground, but because they had now learned to use their own engines; for their continual use of them one day after another did by degrees improve their skill about them; for of one sort of engines for darts they had three hundred, and forty for stones; by the means of which they made it more tedious for the Romans to raise their banks. But then Titus, knowing that the city would be either saved or destroyed for himself, did not only proceed earnestly in the siege, but did not omit to have the Jews exhorted to repentance; so he mixed good counsel with his works for the siege. And being sensible that exhortations are frequently more effectual than arms, he persuaded them to surrender the city, now in a manner already taken, and thereby to save themselves, and sent Josephus to speak to them in their own language; for he imagined they might yield to the persuasion of a countryman of their own.

Nay, indeed, in case it had so fallen out, that our nation had not been so thoroughly known among all men as they are, and our voluntary submission to our laws had not been so open and manifest as it is, but that somebody had pretended to have written these laws himself, and had read them to the Greeks, or had pretended that he had met with men out of the limits of the known world, that had such reverent notions of God, and had continued a long time in the firm observance of such laws as ours, I cannot but suppose that all men would admire them on a reflection upon the frequent changes they had therein been themselves subject to; and this while those that have attempted to write somewhat of the same kind for politic government, and for laws, are accused as composing monstrous things, and are said to have undertaken an impossible task upon them. And here I will say nothing of those other philosophers who have undertaken any thing of this nature in their writings. But even Plato himself, who is so admired by the Greeks on account of that gravity in his manners, and force in his words, and that ability he had to persuade men beyond all other philosophers, is little better than laughed at and exposed to ridicule on that account, by those that pretend to sagacity in political affairs; although he that shall diligently peruse his writings will find his precepts to be somewhat gentle, and pretty near to the customs of the generality of mankind. Nay, Plato himself confesseth that it is not safe to publish the true notion concerning God among the ignorant multitude. Yet do some men look upon Plato's discourses as no better than certain idle words set off with great artifice. However, they admire Lycurgus as the principal lawgiver, and all men celebrate Sparta for having continued in the firm observance of his laws for a very long time. So far then we have gained, that it is to be confessed a mark of virtue to submit to laws. But then let such as admire this in the Lacedemonians compare that duration of theirs with more than two thousand years which our political government hath continued; and let them further consider, that though the Lacedemonians did seem to observe their laws exactly while they enjoyed their liberty, yet that when they underwent a change of their fortune, they forgot almost all those laws; while we, having been under ten thousand changes in our fortune by the changes that happened among the kings of Asia, have never betrayed our laws under the most pressing distresses we have been in; nor have we neglected them either out of sloth or for a livelihood. if any one will consider it, the difficulties and labors laid upon us have been greater than what appears to have been borne by the Lacedemonian fortitude, while they neither ploughed their land, nor exercised any trades, but lived in their own city, free from all such pains-taking, in the enjoyment of plenty, and using such exercises as might improve their bodies, while they made use of other men as their servants for all the necessaries of life, and had their food prepared for them by the others; and these good and humane actions they do for no other purpose but this, that by their actions and their sufferings they may be able to conquer all those against whom they make war. I need not add this, that they have not been fully able to observe their laws; for not only a few single persons, but multitudes of them, have in heaps neglected those laws, and have delivered themselves, together with their arms, into the hands of their enemies.

Let us look also at the declaration in Ezekiel, which says, “I shall take away their stony hearts, and will put in them hearts of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my precepts.” For if God, when He wills, takes away the stony hearts, and implants hearts of flesh, so that His precepts are obeyed and His commandments are observed, it is not in our power to put away wickedness. For the taking away of the stony hearts is nothing else than the taking away of the wickedness, according to which one is hardened, from him from whom God wills to take it; and the implanting of a heart of flesh, so that a man may walk in the precepts of God and keep His commandments, what else is it than to become somewhat yielding and unresistent to the truth, and to be capable of practising virtues? And if God promises to do this, and if, before He takes away the stony hearts, we do not lay them aside, it is manifest that it does not depend upon ourselves to put away wickedness; and if it is not we who do anything towards the production within us of the heart of flesh, but if it is God’s doing, it will not be our own act to live agreeably to virtue, but altogether [the result of] divine grace. Such will be the statements of him who, from the mere words [of Scripture], annihilates free-will. But we shall answer, saying, that we ought to understand these passages thus: That as a man, e.g., who happened to be ignorant and uneducated, on perceiving his own defects, either in consequence of an exhortation from his teacher, or in some other way, should spontaneously give himself up to him whom he considers able to introduce him to education and virtue; and, on his yielding himself up, his instructor promises that he will take away his ignorance, and implant instruction, not as if it contributed nothing to his training, and to the avoiding of ignorance, that he brought himself to be healed, but because the instructor promised to improve him who desired improvement; so, in the same way, the word of God promises to take away wickedness, which it calls a stony heart, from those who come to it, not if they are unwilling, but [only] if they submit themselves to the Physician of the sick, as in the Gospels the sick are found coming to the Saviour, and asking to obtain healing, and so are cured. And, let me say, the recovery of sight by the blind is, so far as their request goes, the act of those who believe that they are capable of being healed; but as respects the restoration of sight, it is the work of our Saviour. Thus, then, does the word of God promise to implant knowledge in those who come to it, by taking away the stony and hard heart, which is wickedness, in order that one may walk in the divine commandments, and keep the divine injunctions.

But those who, in the opinion of Celsus, resemble the workers in wool in private houses, and the leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated rustics, will, he alleges, in the presence of father or teachers be unwilling to speak, or unable to explain to the boys anything that is good. In answer to which, we would say, What kind of father, my good sir, and what kind of teacher, do you mean? If you mean one who approves of virtue, and turns away from vice, and welcomes what is better, then know, that with the greatest boldness will we declare our opinions to the children, because we will be in good repute with such a judge. But if, in the presence of a father who has a hatred of virtue and goodness, we keep silence, and also before those who teach what is contrary to sound doctrine, do not blame us for so doing, since you will blame us without good reason. You, at all events, in a case where fathers deemed the mysteries of philosophy an idle and unprofitable occupation for their sons, and for young men in general, would not, in teaching philosophy, make known its secrets before worthless parents; but, desiring to keep apart those sons of wicked parents who had been turned towards the study of philosophy, you would observe the proper seasons, in order that the doctrines of philosophy might reach the minds of the young men. And we say the same regarding our teachers. For if we turn [our hearers] away from those instructors who teach obscene comedies and licentious iambics, and many other things which neither improve the speaker nor benefit the hearers (because the latter do not know how to listen to poetry in a philosophic frame of mind, nor the former how to say to each of the young men what tends to his profit), we are not, in following such a course, ashamed to confess what we do. But if you will show me teachers who train young men for philosophy, and who exercise them in it, I will not from such turn away young men, but will try to raise them, as those who have been previously exercised in the whole circle of learning and in philosophical subjects, to the venerable and lofty height of eloquence which lies hid from the multitude of Christians, where are discussed topics of the greatest importance, and where it is demonstrated and shown that they have been treated philosophically both by the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus.

He accuses the Christian teacher, moreover, of “seeking after the unintelligent.” In answer, we ask, Whom do you mean by the “unintelligent?” For, to speak accurately, every wicked man is “unintelligent.” If then by “unintelligent” you mean the wicked, do you, in drawing men to philosophy, seek to gain the wicked or the virtuous? But it is impossible to gain the virtuous, because they have already given themselves to philosophy. The wicked, then, [you try to gain;] but if they are wicked, are they “unintelligent?” And many such you seek to win over to philosophy, and you therefore seek the “unintelligent.” But if I seek after those who are thus termed “unintelligent,” I act like a benevolent physician, who should seek after the sick in order to help and cure them. If, however, by “unintelligent” you mean persons who are not clever, but the inferior class of men intellectually, I shall answer that I endeavour to improve such also to the best of my ability, although I would not desire to build up the Christian community out of such materials. For I seek in preference those who are more clever and acute, because they are able to comprehend the meaning of the hard sayings, and of those passages in the law, and prophecies, and Gospels, which are expressed with obscurity, and which you have despised as not containing anything worthy of notice, because you have not ascertained the meaning which they contain, nor tried to enter into the aim of the writers.

But as he afterwards says that “the teacher of Christianity acts like a person who promises to restore patients to bodily health, but who prevents them from consulting skilled physicians, by whom his ignorance would be exposed,” we shall inquire in reply, “What are the physicians to whom you refer, from whom we turn away ignorant individuals? For you do not suppose that we exhort those to embrace the gospel who are devoted to philosophy, so that you would regard the latter as the physicians from whom we keep away such as we invite to come to the word of God.” He indeed will make no answer, because he cannot name the physicians; or else he will be obliged to betake himself to those of them who are ignorant, and who of their own accord servilely yield themselves to the worship of many gods, and to whatever other opinions are entertained by ignorant individuals. In either case, then, he will be shown to have employed to no purpose in his argument the illustration of “one who keeps others away from skilled physicians.” But if, in order to preserve from the philosophy of Epicurus, and from such as are considered physicians after his system, those who are deceived by them, why should we not be acting most reasonably in keeping such away from a dangerous disease caused by the physicians of Celsus,—that, viz., which leads to the annihilation of providence, and the introduction of pleasure as a good? But let it be conceded that we do keep away those whom we encourage to become our disciples from other philosopher-physicians,—from the Peripatetics, for example, who deny the existence of providence and the relation of Deity to man,—why shall we not piously train and heal those who have been thus encouraged, persuading them to devote themselves to the God of all things, and free those who yield obedience to us from the great wounds inflicted by the words of such as are deemed to be philosophers? Nay, let it also be admitted that we turn away from physicians of the sect of the Stoics, who introduce a corruptible god, and assert that his essence consists of a body, which is capable of being changed and altered in all its parts, and who also maintain that all things will one day perish, and that God alone will be left; why shall we not even thus emancipate our subjects from evils, and bring them by pious arguments to devote themselves to the Creator, and to admire the Father of the Christian system, who has so arranged that instruction of the most benevolent kind, and fitted for the conversion of souls, should be distributed throughout the whole human race? Nay, if we should cure those who have fallen into the folly of believing in the transmigration of souls through the teaching of physicians, who will have it that the rational nature descends sometimes into all kinds of irrational animals, and sometimes into that state of being which is incapable of using the imagination, why should we not improve the souls of our subjects by means of a doctrine which does not teach that a state of insensibility or irrationalism is produced in the wicked instead of punishment, but which shows that the labours and chastisements inflicted upon the wicked by God are a kind of medicines leading to conversion? For those who are intelligent Christians, keeping this in view, deal with the simple-minded, as parents do with very young children. We do not betake ourselves then to young persons and silly rustics, saying to them, “Flee from physicians.” Nor do we say, “See that none of you lay hold of knowledge;” nor do we assert that “knowledge is an evil;” nor are we mad enough to say that “knowledge causes men to lose their soundness of mind.” We would not even say that any one ever perished through wisdom; and although we give instruction, we never say, “Give heed to me,” but “Give heed to the God of all things, and to Jesus, the giver of instruction concerning Him.” And none of us is so great a braggart as to say what Celsus put in the mouth of one of our teachers to his acquaintances, “I alone will save you.” Observe here the lies which he utters against us! Moreover, we do not assert that “true physicians destroy those whom they promise to cure.”

And he continues: “What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part of God?” not observing that, according to our teaching, the meaning of the descent is pre-eminently to convert what are called in the Gospel the lost “sheep of the house of Israel;” and secondly, to take away from them, on account of their disobedience, what is called the “kingdom of God,” and to give to other husbandmen than the ancient Jews, viz. to the Christians, who will render to God the fruits of His kingdom in due season (each action being a “fruit of the kingdom”). We shall therefore, out of a greater number, select a few remarks by way of answer to the question of Celsus, when he says, “What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part of God?” And Celsus here returns to himself an answer which would have been given neither by Jews nor by us, when he asks, “Was it in order to learn what goes on amongst men?” For not one of us asserts that it was in order to learn what goes on amongst men that Christ entered into this life. Immediately after, however, as if some would reply that it was “in order to learn what goes on among men,” he makes this objection to his own statement: “Does he not know all things?” Then, as if we were to answer that He does know all things, he raises a new question, saying, “Then he does know, but does not make [men] better, nor is it possible for him by means of his divine power to make [men] better.” Now all this on his part is silly talk; for God, by means of His word, which is continually passing from generation to generation into holy souls, and constituting them friends of God and prophets, does improve those who listen to His words; and by the coming of Christ He improves, through the doctrine of Christianity, not those who are unwilling, but those who have chosen the better life, and that which is pleasing to God. I do not know, moreover, what kind of improvement Celsus wished to take place when he raised the objection, asking, “Is it then not possible for him, by means of his divine power, to make [men] better, unless he send some one for that special purpose?” Would he then have the improvement to take place by God’s filling the minds of men with new ideas, removing at once the [inherent] wickedness, and implanting virtue [in its stead]? Another person now would inquire whether this was not inconsistent or impossible in the very nature of things; we, however, would say, “Grant it to be so, and let it be possible.” Where, then, is our free will? and what credit is there in assenting to the truth? or how is the rejection of what is false praiseworthy? But even if it were once granted that such a course was not only possible, but could be accomplished with propriety [by God], why would not one rather inquire (asking a question like that of Celsus) why it was not possible for God, by means of His divine power, to create men who needed no improvement, but who were of themselves virtuous and perfect, evil being altogether non-existent? These questions may perplex ignorant and foolish individuals, but not him who sees into the nature of things; for if you take away the spontaneity of virtue, you destroy its essence. But it would need an entire treatise to discuss these matters; and on this subject the Greeks have expressed themselves at great length in their works on providence. They truly would not say what Celsus has expressed in words, that “God knows [all things] indeed, but does not make [men] better, nor is able to do so by His divine power.” We ourselves have spoken in many parts of our writings on these points to the best of our ability, and the Holy Scriptures have established the same to those who are able to understand them.

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

If a man left elder sons and younger sons, and the elder sons improved the property, they improve it to the common benefit. If they said, “See, what our father has left us, lo, we will work and from that we will eat”, they improve it to their own benefit. So, too, if a woman (a widow) improved the property, she improves it to the common benefit. If she had said, “See, what my husband left to me, lo, I will work and from that I will eat”, she improves it to her own benefit.

If a man left elder sons and younger sons, and the elder sons improved the property, they improve it to the common benefit. If they said, “See, what our father has left us, lo, we will work and from that we will eat”, they improve it to their own benefit. So, too, if a woman (a widow) improved the property, she improves it to the common benefit. If she had said, “See, what my husband left to me, lo, I will work and from that I will eat”, she improves it to her own benefit.

We have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even more is permitted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even less is forbidden.” Rebbi Vivian said, Rebbi Assi taught following the Tanna who is lenient.

We have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even more is permitted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even less is forbidden.” Rebbi Vivian said, Rebbi Assi taught following the Tanna who is lenient.

We have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even more is permitted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even less is forbidden.” Rebbi Vivian said, Rebbi Assi taught following the Tanna who is lenient.

We have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even more is permitted. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that is if he did not intend to improve his field; but if he intended to improve his field even less is forbidden.” Rebbi Vivian said, Rebbi Assi taught following the Tanna who is lenient.

MISHNAH: Shoulder stones come from anywhere. The contractor may bring them from anywhere. These are shoulder stones: Any which cannot be taken up with one hand, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says shoulder stones are what their name indicates; all that can be carried on the shoulder by three’s or two’s. Somebody building a fence between his property and the public domain may dig down to the bedrock. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps in the public domain and then uses it to improve [the public domain], the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as one may not damage the public domain, so one may not improve it. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps on his own property in the way of those who manure. The same rule applies to somebody digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave.

MISHNAH: Shoulder stones come from anywhere. The contractor may bring them from anywhere. These are shoulder stones: Any which cannot be taken up with one hand, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says shoulder stones are what their name indicates; all that can be carried on the shoulder by three’s or two’s. Somebody building a fence between his property and the public domain may dig down to the bedrock. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps in the public domain and then uses it to improve [the public domain], the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as one may not damage the public domain, so one may not improve it. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps on his own property in the way of those who manure. The same rule applies to somebody digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave.

“ They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden, deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish better the more it shrinks? Cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of turnips and leeks as dishes better the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found eggs and forbade them, hot water and permitted it. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like ḥizrar apples and they tasted delicious like sweet bread.

Somebody was worried about his father’s monies; it appeared to him in a dream that they were so and so much and at place X. This case came before the rabbis who said, dreams do not improve or detract. Rebbi Jonah asked: He is worried and you say so? Rebbi Yose said, is it not reasonable that it does not apply to somebody who is not worried but sees; but here, what the person is he sees. Rebbi Avin said, whoever wants to act, should act following Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, there are three kinds of imparting taste. Anything a common person tastes and says, this dish is not missing anything, if it fell in, it may improve the taste but is permitted. Even if he says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is permitted. But if a professional tastes it and says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is forbidden.

“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden; a dish which will deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish which improves the more it shrinks? For example cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of beets and heads of of leeks as dishes which improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found hot water and permitted it, eggs and forbade them. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like crab apples and they tasted delicious like sweetbread.

“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden; a dish which will deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish which improves the more it shrinks? For example cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of beets and heads of of leeks as dishes which improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found hot water and permitted it, eggs and forbade them. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like crab apples and they tasted delicious like sweetbread.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

MISHNAH: He who ploughs any amount, who weeds, who prunes, or who thins anything is liable. One who collects wood, if to improve in any amount, or if as firewood to cook an easily cooked egg. One who collects grasses, if to improve in any amount, if for animals to fill a kid goat’s mouth.

MISHNAH: He who ploughs any amount, who weeds, who prunes, or who thins anything is liable. One who collects wood, if to improve in any amount, or if as firewood to cook an easily cooked egg. One who collects grasses, if to improve in any amount, if for animals to fill a kid goat’s mouth.

Why do I need “to improve in any amount,” why do I need “to fill a kid goat’s mouth”?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Explanation. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai, and Rebbi Joshia came to the fast. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda preached: Let us lift our hearts on the palms. Is this possible? May a person take his heart and put it on his hand? So what means “let us lift”? Let us treat our hearts equal to our hands, and then to God in Heaven. So if somebody would hold a crawling animal in his hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of Siloam or of the ocean, he never can become pure. But if he throws it from his hand he immediately is pure. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai preached: The ministers of Israel and the King submitted and said, the Eternal is just. And when the Eternal saw that they submitted, the Eternal’s word was to Shemaya as oracle. It is not written “their fast” but they submitted, I shall not destroy them. Rebbi Joshia preached: Become improved and improve, let us purify ourselves before we purify others. Since here are people present who calumniate me before Rebbi Joḥanan. But every single one is called to justice. Attending were Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Issy, and Rebbi Immi. They got up and left.

MISHNAH: “ Who is the man who became betrothed to a woman and did not take her,” etc. Not only one betrothed to a virgin, even one betrothed to a widow, even to one who waits for her brother-in-law. Even if he heard that his brother had died in the war he then returns and leaves. All those who listen to the Cohen in the front lines return and provide food and water and improve the roads.

MISHNAH: But the following do not leave at all: If he built a house and inaugurated it, planted a vineyard and redeemed it, he who married his preliminarily married spouse, he who took in his sister-in-law, for it is said: “Free he shall be for his house for one year”. “His house”, that is his house; “shall be”, that is his vineyard; “and give pleasure to his wife”, that is his wife; “whom he took”, to include his sister-in-law. These do not provide food and water and do not improve the roads.

HALAKHAH: “If he built a house and inaugurated it,” but did not use it for twelve months. “If he planted a vineyard and redeemed it,” but did not use it for twelve months. And all are derived from the wife: Since the wife needs twelve months, also all of them need twelve months. It was stated: All those mentioned remain unoccupied in town, [do not pay city taxes], and do not provide food and water nor improve the roads, as it is said: “nor should anything be imposed on him,” but it may be imposed on others.

The conditions which Joshua imposed. Rebbi Levi ben Birai in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: four. One may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. There, we have stated: “Or fenugreek where grasses appeared, one does not require him to weed.” So is the Mishnah: One does not require him to uproot. As one of Joshua’s conditions you say, one may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. This implies that he does not want them. He said, there if he sowed it to make sheaves, but here when he sowed it for seeds. Did Joshua made conditions for the benefit of sinners? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him. And he mentions a vineyard field, as Rebbi Yannai said: all spontaneous growth is forbidden except for what appears on a fallow field, or a field ready to be ploughed under, a vineyard or a field grown for seeds. A fallow field, for he does not care. A field ready to be ploughed under, for he wants to improve his field. A vineyard, not to forbid his vineyard. A field grown for seeds, for he does not want it; and if you say he does, he would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell on grapes, one should wash it off and they are permitted; but if they were split they are forbidden. If happened that Boetius ben Zenon brought dried figs in a boat when amphoras of libation wine broke over them. The case came before the Sages and they permitted. This is the principle: Anything where the taste improves the use is forbidden; anything where the taste does not improve its use is permitted, such as vinegar on broken beans.

but he did not heed them. Towards evening he was picking up chips of wood and, on his way home, carried the chips on one shoulder and his cloak on the other. The whole way long he did not put on his shoes, but when he had to cross the water he put them on. When he came across thorns and shrubs he lifted up his garments, and when he reached the city, his wife came to meet him bedecked with her finery. When he arrived at the door of his house, he let her enter first, then he followed. He sat down to eat, but did not invite the scholars to join him. Distributing cakes to the children, he gave to the older child one and to the younger two. Turning to his wife, he said: "I know that these scholars came to see me on account of rain; let us go up to the roof and pray; the Holy One, blessed be He, will, perhaps, accept our prayer and there will be rain." When on the roof, he stood praying in one corner and she in another. The clouds appeared first over the corner where his wife stood. He came down and asked the scholars: "Why did the Rabbis come?" "The Rabbis sent us to the Master, that you might pray for rain to come," they replied. Said he: "Blessed be the Lord who put you beyond the need of Abba Hilkiah's prayer!" They, however, replied: "We know well that this rain is come through you, but be that as it may, we should like you to explain to us those actions of yours that greatly surprised us: Why, when we greeted you, did you not heed us?" "I hired myself out for the day, so I thought I had no right to interrupt my work." "Why did you carry the chips of wood on one shoulder and your cloak on the other?" "It is a borrowed garment," he said, "and it was loaned to me for the purpose of wearing, but not for the purpose of placing wood on it." "Why did you not put on your shoes the entire way," the scholars continued, "but when you had to cross the water you put them on?" "Because the entire way," he replied, "I could see (what I was stepping on), in the water I could not see." "Why did you lift up your garments when you came upon thorns and shrubs?" "Because the one (a scratch on the body) heals up, the other (a rent in the garment) does not heal up." "Why did your wife come to meet you so well dressed?" "In order that I should not cast an eye upon another woman." "Why did your wife enter the house first and you after her?" "Because ye are not known to me". "Why did you not invite us to eat with you?" "Because there was not enough food and I did not want to get your thanks for nothing." "Why did you give one cake to the older child and two to the younger?" "The older one stays at home, while the younger goes to school." "Why did the clouds appear first over the corner where your wife was standing?" "Because the woman is usually in the house, and the good she does is direct. (Or it may be because there were some highwaymen living in my neighborhood; I prayed that they should die, while she prayed that they should improve their ways)."