include

Shall include horsemen of Phœnicia

Reubel said these and many other things, and used entreaties to them, and thereby endeavored to divert them from the murder of their brother. But when he saw that his discourse had not mollified them at all, and that they made haste to do the fact, he advised them to alleviate the wickedness they were going about, in the manner of taking Joseph off; for as he had exhorted them first, when they were going to revenge themselves, to be dissuaded from doing it; so, since the sentence for killing their brother had prevailed, he said that they would not, however, be so grossly guilty, if they would be persuaded to follow his present advice, which would include what they were so eager about, but was not so very bad, but, in the distress they were in, of a lighter nature. He begged of them, therefore, not to kill their brother with their own hands, but to cast him into the pit that was hard by, and so to let him die; by which they would gain so much, that they would not defile their own hands with his blood. To this the young men readily agreed; so Reubel took the lad and tied him to a cord, and let him down gently into the pit, for it had no water at all in it; who, when he had done this, went his way to seek for such pasturage as was fit for feeding his flocks.

Accordingly, I shall now first describe this form of government which was agreeable to the dignity and virtue of Moses; and shall thereby inform those that read these Antiquities, what our original settlements were, and shall then proceed to the remaining histories. Now those settlements are all still in writing, as he left them; and we shall add nothing by way of ornament, nor any thing besides what Moses left us; only we shall so far innovate, as to digest the several kinds of laws into a regular system; for they were by him left in writing as they were accidentally scattered in their delivery, and as he upon inquiry had learned them of God. On which account I have thought it necessary to premise this observation beforehand, lest any of my own countrymen should blame me, as having been guilty of an offense herein. Now part of our constitution will include the laws that belong to our political state. As for those laws which Moses left concerning our common conversation and intercourse one with another, I have reserved that for a discourse concerning our manner of life, and the occasions of those laws; which I propose to myself, with God's assistance, to write, after I have finished the work I am now upon.

Now, therefore, the king laid the foundations of the temple very deep in the ground, and the materials were strong stones, and such as would resist the force of time; these were to unite themselves with the earth, and become a basis and a sure foundation for that superstructure which was to be erected over it; they were to be so strong, in order to sustain with ease those vast superstructures and precious ornaments, whose own weight was to be not less than the weight of those other high and heavy buildings which the king designed to be very ornamental and magnificent. They erected its entire body, quite up to the roof, of white stone; its height was sixty cubits, and its length was the same, and its breadth twenty. There was another building erected over it, equal to it in its measures; so that the entire altitude of the temple was a hundred and twenty cubits. Its front was to the east. As to the porch, they built it before the temple; its length was twenty cubits, and it was so ordered that it might agree with the breadth of the house; and it had twelve cubits in latitude, and its height was raised as high as a hundred and twenty cubits. He also built round about the temple thirty small rooms, which might include the whole temple, by their closeness one to another, and by their number and outward position round it. He also made passages through them, that they might come into on through another. Every one of these rooms had five cubits in breadth, and the same in length, but in height twenty. Above these there were other rooms, and others above them, equal, both in their measures and number; so that these reached to a height equal to the lower part of the house; for the upper part had no buildings about it. The roof that was over the house was of cedar; and truly every one of these rooms had a roof of their own, that was not connected with the other rooms; but for the other parts, there was a covered roof common to them all, and built with very long beams, that passed through the rest, and through the whole building, that so the middle walls, being strengthened by the same beams of timber, might be thereby made firmer: but as for that part of the roof that was under the beams, it was made of the same materials, and was all made smooth, and had ornaments proper for roofs, and plates of gold nailed upon them. And as he enclosed the walls with boards of cedar, so he fixed on them plates of gold, which had sculptures upon them; so that the whole temple shined, and dazzled the eyes of such as entered, by the splendor of the gold that was on every side of them, Now the whole structure of the temple was made with great skill of polished stones, and those laid together so very harmoniously and smoothly, that there appeared to the spectators no sign of any hammer, or other instrument of architecture; but as if, without any use of them, the entire materials had naturally united themselves together, that the agreement of one part with another seemed rather to have been natural, than to have arisen from the force of tools upon them. The king also had a fine contrivance for an ascent to the upper room over the temple, and that was by steps in the thickness of its wall; for it had no large door on the east end, as the lower house had, but the entrances were by the sides, through very small doors. He also overlaid the temple, both within and without, with boards of cedar, that were kept close together by thick chains, so that this contrivance was in the nature of a support and a strength to the building.

"You are not unacquainted, my fellow soldiers, that we have had, not long since, many accidents that have put a stop to what we are about, and it is probable that even those that are most distinguished above others for their courage can hardly keep up their spirits in such circumstances; but since we cannot avoid fighting, and nothing that hath happened is of such a nature but it may by ourselves be recovered into a good state, and this by one brave action only well performed, I have proposed to myself both to give you some encouragement, and, at the same time, some information; both which parts of my design will tend to this point; that you may still continue in your own proper fortitude. I will then, in the first place, demonstrate to you that this war is a just one on our side, and that on this account it is a war of necessity, and occasioned by the injustice of our adversaries; for if you be once satisfied of this, it will be a real cause of alacrity to you; after which I will further demonstrate, that the misfortunes we are under are of no great consequence, and that we have the greatest reason to hope for victory. I shall begin with the first, and appeal to yourselves as witnesses to what I shall say. You are not ignorant certainly of the wickedness of the Arabians, which is to that degree as to appear incredible to all other men, and to include somewhat that shows the grossest barbarity and ignorance of God. The chief things wherein they have affronted us have arisen from covetousness and envy; and they have attacked us in an insidious manner, and on the sudden. And what occasion is there for me to mention many instances of such their procedure? When they were in danger of losing their own government of themselves, and of being slaves to Cleopatra, what others were they that freed them from that fear? for it was the friendship I had with Antony, and the kind disposition he was in towards us, that hath been the occasion that even these Arabians have not been utterly undone, Antony being unwilling to undertake any thing which might be suspected by us of unkindness: but when he had a mind to bestow some parts of each of our dominions on Cleopatra, I also managed that matter so, that by giving him presents of my own, I might obtain a security to both nations, while I undertook myself to answer for the money, and gave him two hundred talents, and became surety for those two hundred more which were imposed upon the land that was subject to this tribute; and this they have defrauded us of, although it was not reasonable that Jews should pay tribute to any man living, or allow part of their land to be taxable; but although that was to be, yet ought we not to pay tribute for these Arabians, whom we have ourselves preserved; nor is it fit that they, who have professed [and that with great integrity and sense of our kindness] that it is by our means that they keep their principality, should injure us, and deprive us of what is our due, and this while we have been still not their enemies, but their friends. And whereas observation of covenants takes place among the bitterest enemies, but among friends is absolutely necessary, this is not observed among these men, who think gain to be the best of all things, let it be by any means whatsoever, and that injustice is no harm, if they may but get money by it: is it therefore a question with you, whether the unjust are to be punished or not? when God himself hath declared his mind that so it ought to be, and hath commanded that we ever should hate injuries and injustice, which is not only just, but necessary, in wars between several nations; for these Arabians have done what both the Greeks and barbarians own to be an instance of the grossest wickedness, with regard to our ambassadors, which they have beheaded, while the Greeks declare that such ambassadors are sacred and inviolable. And for ourselves, we have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our law, by angels or ambassadors; for this name brings God to the knowledge of mankind, and is sufficient to reconcile enemies one to another. What wickedness then can be greater than the slaughter of ambassadors, who come to treat about doing what is right? And when such have been their actions, how is it possible they can either live securely in common life, or be successful in war? In my opinion, this is impossible; but perhaps some will say, that what is holy, and what is righteous, is indeed on our side, but that the Arabians are either more courageous or more numerous than we are. Now, as to this, in the first place, it is not fit for us to say so, for with whom is what is righteous, with them is God himself; now where God is, there is both multitude and courage. But to examine our own circumstances a little, we were conquerors in the first battle; and when we fought again, they were not able to oppose us, but ran away, and could not endure our attacks or our courage; but when we had conquered them, then came Athenion, and made war against us without declaring it; and pray, is this an instance of their manhood? or is it not a second instance of their wickedness and treachery? Why are we therefore of less courage, on account of that which ought to inspire us with stronger hopes? and why are we terrified at these, who, when they fight upon the level, are continually beaten, and when they seem to be conquerors, they gain it by wickedness? and if we suppose that any one should deem them to be men of real courage, will not he be excited by that very consideration to do his utmost against them? for true valor is not shown by fighting against weak persons, but in being able to overcome the most hardy. But then if the distresses we are ourselves under, and the miseries that have come by the earthquake, hath affrighted any one, let him consider, in the first place, that this very thing will deceive the Arabians, by their supposal that what hath befallen us is greater than it really is. Moreover, it is not right that the same thing that emboldens them should discourage us; for these men, you see, do not derive their alacrity from any advantageous virtue of their own, but from their hope, as to us, that we are quite cast down by our misfortunes; but when we boldly march against them, we shall soon pull down their insolent conceit of themselves, and shall gain this by attacking them, that they will not be so insolent when we come to the battle; for our distresses are not so great, nor is what hath happened all indication of the anger of God against us, as some imagine; for such things are accidental, and adversities that come in the usual course of things; and if we allow that this was done by the will of God, we must allow that it is now over by his will also, and that he is satisfied with what hath already happened; for had he been willing to afflict us still more thereby, he had not changed his mind so soon. And as for the war we are engaged in, he hath himself demonstrated that he is willing it should go on, and that he knows it to be a just war; for while some of the people in the country have perished, all you who were in arms have suffered nothing, but are all preserved alive; whereby God makes it plain to us, that if you had universally, with your children and wives, been in the army, it had come to pass that you had not undergone any thing that would have much hurt you. Consider these things, and, what is more than all the rest, that you have God at all times for your Protector; and prosecute these men with a just bravery, who, in point of friendship, are unjust, in their battles perfidious, towards ambassadors impious, and always inferior to you in valor."

I will now, therefore, pass from these records, and come to those that belong to the Phoenicians, and concern our nation, and shall produce attestations to what I have said out of them. There are then records among the Tyrians that take in the history of many years, and these are public writings, and are kept with great exactness, and include accounts of the facts done among them, and such as concern their transactions with other nations also, those I mean which were worth remembering. Therein it was recorded that the temple was built by king Solomon at Jerusalem, one hundred forty-three years and eight months before the Tyrians built Carthage; and in their annals the building of our temple is related; for Hirom, the king of Tyre, was the friend of Solomon our king, and had such friendship transmitted down to him from his forefathers. He thereupon was ambitious to contribute to the splendor of this edifice of Solomon, and made him a present of one hundred and twenty talents of gold. He also cut down the most excellent timber out of that mountain which is called Libanus, and sent it to him for adorning its roof. Solomon also not only made him many other presents, by way of requital, but gave him a country in Galilee also, that was called Chabulon. But there was another passion, a philosophic inclination of theirs, which cemented the friendship that was betwixt them; for they sent mutual problems to one another, with a desire to have them unriddled by each other; wherein Solomon was superior to Hirom, as he was wiser than he in other respects: and many of the epistles that passed between them are still preserved among the Tyrians. Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will produce for a witness Dius, one that is believed to have written the Phoenician History after an accurate manner. This Dius, therefore, writes thus, in his Histories of the Phoenicians: "Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom. This king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold. He moreover went up to Libanus, and had timber cut down for the building of temples. They say further, that Solomon, when he was king of Jerusalem, sent problems to Hirom to be solved, and desired he would send others back for him to solve, and that he who could not solve the problems proposed to him should pay money to him that solved them. And when Hirom had agreed to the proposals, but was not able to solve the problems, he was obliged to pay a great deal of money, as a penalty for the same. As also they relate, that one OEabdemon, a man of Tyre, did solve the problems, and propose others which Solomon could not solve, upon which he was obliged to repay a great deal of money to Hirom." These things are attested to by Dius, and confirm what we have said upon the same subjects before.

This is that novel account which the Egyptian Apion gives us concerning the Jews' departure out of Egypt, and is no better than a contrivance of his own. But why should we wonder at the lies he tells about our forefathers, when he affirms them to be of Egyptian original, when he lies also about himself? for although he was born at Oasis in Egypt, he pretends to be, as a man may say, the top man of all the Egyptians; yet does he forswear his real country and progenitors, and by falsely pretending to be born at Alexandria, cannot deny the pravity of his family; for you see how justly he calls those Egyptians whom he hates, and endeavors to reproach; for had he not deemed Egyptians to be a name of great reproach, he would not have avoided the name of an Egyptian himself; as we know that those who brag of their own countries value themselves upon the denomination they acquire thereby, and reprove such as unjustly lay claim thereto. As for the Egyptians' claim to be of our kindred, they do it on one of the following accounts; I mean, either as they value themselves upon it, and pretend to bear that relation to us; or else as they would draw us in to be partakers of their own infamy. But this fine fellow Apion seems to broach this reproachful appellation against us, [that we were originally Egyptians,] in order to bestow it on the Alexandrians, as a reward for the privilege they had given him of being a fellow citizen with them: he also is apprized of the ill-will the Alexandrians bear to those Jews who are their fellow citizens, and so proposes to himself to reproach them, although he must thereby include all the other Egyptians also; while in both cases he is no better than an impudent liar.

In reply to these, we ask of those who accept such aspersions as are scattered against us, Do you regard all men as a collection of bats, or as frogs, or as worms, in consequence of the pre-eminence of God? or do you not include the rest of mankind in this proposed comparison, but on account of their possession of reason, and of the established laws, treat them as men, while you hold cheap Christians and Jews, because their opinions are distasteful to you, and compare them to the animals above mentioned? And whatever answer you may return to our question, we shall reply by endeavouring to show that such assertions are most unbecoming, whether spoken of all men in general, or of us in particular. For, let it be supposed that you say justly that all men, as compared with God, are [rightly] likened to these worthless animals, since their littleness is not at all to be compared with the superiority of God, what then do you mean by littleness? Answer me, good sirs. If you refer to littleness of body, know that superiority and inferiority, if truth is to be judge, are not determined by a bodily standard. For, on such a view, vultures and elephants would be superior to us men; for they are larger, and stronger, and longer-lived than we. But no sensible person would maintain that these irrational creatures are superior to rational beings, merely on account of their bodies: for the possession of reason raises a rational being to a vast superiority over all irrational creatures. Even the race of virtuous and blessed beings would admit this, whether they are, as ye say, good demons, or, as we are accustomed to call them, the angels of God, or any other natures whatever superior to that of man, since the rational faculty within them has been made perfect, and endowed with all virtuous qualities.

After these matters, then, he thinks that he can make us acquainted in a few words with the questions regarding the nature of evil, which have been variously discussed in many important treatises, and which have received very opposite explanations. His words are: “There neither were formerly, nor are there now, nor will there be again, more or fewer evils in the world [than have always been]. For the nature of all things is one and the same, and the generation of evils is always the same.” He seems to have paraphrased these words from the discussions in the Theœtetus, where Plato makes Socrates say: “It is neither possible for evils to disappear from among men, nor for them to become established among the gods,” and so on. But he appears to me not to have understood Plato correctly, although professing to include all truth in this one treatise, and giving to his own book against us the title of A True Discourse. For the language in the Timœus, where it is said, “When the gods purify the earth with water,” shows that the earth, when purified with water, contains less evil than it did before its purification. And this assertion, that there at one time were fewer evils in the world, is one which we make, in harmony with the opinion of Plato, because of the language in the Theœtetus, where he says that “evils cannot disappear from among men.”

It appears to me, indeed, that Celsus has misunderstood some of the deeper reasons relating to the arrangement of terrestrial affairs, some of which are touched upon even in Grecian history, when certain of those who are considered to be gods are introduced as having contended with each other about the possession of Attica; while in the writings of the Greek poets also, some who are called gods are represented as acknowledging that certain places here are preferred by them before others. The history of barbarian nations, moreover, and especially that of Egypt, contains some such allusions to the division of the so-called Egyptian nomes, when it states that Athena, who obtained Saïs by lot, is the same who also has possession of Attica. And the learned among the Egyptians can enumerate innumerable instances of this kind, although I do not know whether they include the Jews and their country in this division. And now, so far as testimonies outside the word of God bearing on this point are concerned, enough have been adduced for the present. We say, moreover, that our prophet of God and His genuine servant Moses, in his song in the book of Deuteronomy, makes a statement regarding the portioning out of the earth in the following terms: “When the Most High divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God; and the Lord’s portion was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance.” And regarding the distribution of the nations, the same Moses, in his work entitled Genesis, thus expresses himself in the style of a historical narrative: “And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech; and it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.” A little further on he continues: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men had built. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they have begun to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. And the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore is the name of it called Confusion; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” In the treatise of Solomon, moreover, on “Wisdom,” and on the events at the time of the confusion of languages, when the division of the earth took place, we find the following regarding Wisdom: “Moreover, the nations. in their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she found out the righteous, and preserved him blameless unto God, and kept him strong in his tender compassion towards his son.” But on these subjects much, and that of a mystical kind, might be said; in keeping with which is the following: “It is good to keep close the secret of a king,”—in order that the doctrine of the entrance of souls into bodies (not, however, that of the transmigration from one body into another) may not be thrown before the common understanding, nor what is holy given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such a procedure would be impious, being equivalent to a betrayal of the mysterious declarations of God’s wisdom, of which it has been well said: “Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in a body subject to sin.” It is sufficient, however, to represent in the style of a historic narrative what is intended to convey a secret meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity may work out for themselves all that relates to the subject.

After these remarks of Celsus, which we have done our best to refute, he goes on to address us thus: “Seeing you are so eager for some novelty, how much better it would have been if you had chosen as the object of your zealous homage some one of those who died a glorious death, and whose divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his memory! Why, if you were not satisfied with Hercules or Æsculapius, and other heroes of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was confessedly a divinely inspired man, who died a violent death. But perhaps some others have taken him up before you. You may then take Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a mortar, and beaten most barbarously, showed a noble contempt for his suffering, and said, ‘Beat, beat the shell of Anaxarchus, for himself you do not beat,’—a speech surely of a spirit truly divine. But others were before you in following his interpretation of the laws of nature. Might you not, then, take Epictetus, who, when his master was twisting his leg, said, smiling and unmoved, ‘You will break my leg;’ and when it was broken, he added, ‘Did I not tell you that you would break it?’ What saying equal to these did your god utter under suffering? If you had said even of the Sibyl, whose authority some of you acknowledge, that she was a child of God, you would have said something more reasonable. But you have had the presumption to include in her writings many impious things, and set up as a god one who ended a most infamous life by a most miserable death. How much more suitable than he would have been Jonah in the whale’s belly, or Daniel delivered from the wild beasts, or any of a still more portentous kind!”

The seventh (the millennium, and the seventh space, namely, the Kingdom), above that One which alone is powerful—(i.e., when the six degrees of the members denote mercies and judgments, the seventh degree tendeth alone to judgment and rigour). And the whole is desolate (that is, the Kingdom, MLKVTH, Malkuth, in the higher powers, is the antitype of the sanctuary, and like as this is destroyed, so also the Schechinah, or Kingdom, is itself exiled) for twelve hours (for the Hebrews include all this time of their exile in the space of one day). Like as it is written: “It was formless and void, &c.” (for from the word “it was formless,” down to “upon the faces of,” are twelve words in the Hebrew text of Genesis.)

“And those two apples which are the seventh conformation include all the six conformations before mentioned.

Among them some are hard (rigorous) and some soft (merciful), as (belonging unto) the Lord of the equilibrium (or, the Lord of mercy, who is an equilibrium between these); and therefore is He (Microprosopus) said to include right and left.

For as the Most Holy Ancient One is found to include equally in Himself the Three Heads, so all things are symbolized under the form of the Three Heads, as we have stated.

How do they make extensions for cities [for the purpose of defining the Shabbat limit]? If one house recedes and another projects, Or if one turret [of the wall] recedes and another projects, If there were ruins ten handbreadths high, or bridges, or sepulchral monuments that contained dwelling places, they extend the boundary of the town is to include them. And they make it [the Shabbat limit] like a square tablet in order that the use of the corners might be gained.

The following do not move from their place: He who built a new house and dedicated it, He who planted a vineyard and used its fruit, He who married his betrothed, Or brought in his yevamah; As it is said, “He shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household [to give happiness to the woman he married]” (Deuteronomy 24:5) “His household,” this refers to his house; “Shall be” refers to his vineyard; “To give happiness to the wife” refers to his wife; “He married” to include his yevamah’s widow. These do not supply water and food and repair the roads [for the army].

The three (fingerbreadths) square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square. If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected. If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected. If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Then the Mishnah might be Rebbi Yehudah’s. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is no terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Then the Mishnah might be Rebbi Yehudah’s. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is no terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

Why does one finish with “the Land”? It is similar to Grace for day laborers. As has been stated: “Workers who were doing work with the owner shall recite the first benediction, include Jerusalem in the benediction for the Land and finish with ‘the Land.’ But if they were working for their food or if the employer was eating with them, then they recite four benedictions.” In the school of Rebbi Yannai they treated it as a formula of benediction.

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

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

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

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

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

A family from Nevallat in Jerusalem traced its descent from Oman the Yebusite. Once the Sages alotted them six hundred talents of gold to avoid causing them to leave Jerusalem, since they interpreted “in your gates, in your gates,” to include Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, our Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim, and about guests following Rebbi Joshua. It was stated: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Beror Ḥayil, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if they stay overnight, we are obliged to tithe; otherwise, we are not obliged to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor. If you restrict to poor ḥaverim, you lock the door before am haäreẓ poor. How does Rebbi Yose hold about “the stranger?” Following what was stated: “(Lev. 25:45) ‘Those who dwell among you,’ to include the stranger; Rebbi Eliezer said, that means the Gentile stranger.”

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if Egyptian pumpkin whose leaves form roofs is permitted, green melon and Egyptian beans so much more. Rebbi Abba Mari said, Rebbi Mana did not say so. Rebbi said, all those about which we did state “green melon and Egyptian beans,” also include Egyptian pumpkin. What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” That none of these form roofs like Greek gourd.

Rebbi Simon and Rebbi Abbahu were sitting. He said, is it not written (Jud. 1:18) “Jehudah conquered Gaza and its territory”? Include Gaza. “Ascalon and its territory”, include Ascalon. If it is so, what about the brook of Egypt? Include the brook of Egypt.

Rebbi Simon and Rebbi Abbahu were sitting. He said, is it not written (Jud. 1:18) “Jehudah conquered Gaza and its territory”? Include Gaza. “Ascalon and its territory”, include Ascalon. If it is so, what about the brook of Egypt? Include the brook of Egypt.

Rebbi Simon and Rebbi Abbahu were sitting. He said, is it not written (Jud. 1:18) “Jehudah conquered Gaza and its territory”? Include Gaza. “Ascalon and its territory”, include Ascalon. If it is so, what about the brook of Egypt? Include the brook of Egypt.

It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, everything that depends on fertility extends until the second rainfall, if it is not dependent on fertility, until the expected time of the second rainfall. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if rains came for seven uninterrupted days, they include the second rainfall. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: Why is it called רביעה? Because it fertilizes the land.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “They declared a principle for tithes, etc.” It is written (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe all produce of your seed.” I would say, everything is subject to tithes. The verse says, “all produce of your seed,” this includes. Does it include garden seeds that are not eaten? It is written: “produce of your seed,” and it is written: “which your field produces every year.” How is that? Take from among them anything that is food and is guarded.

Some want to understand it from the following: (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe,” a general statement. “All grain of your seed,” a detail. For every general statement followed by a detail, the general statement only implies the detail. That means, only grain. From where legumes? The verse says (Lev. 27:30): “All tithe from the earth, from seeds of the earth, from the fruit of the tree, belongs to the Eternal.” This includes seeds of garlic, cress and rocket. I might think to add the upper part of arum and the seeds of vetch, the seeds of onions, the seeds of turnips and radishes, and all other garden seeds that are not eaten; the verse says, “from seeds of the earth,” and not all seeds of the earth. (Lev. 27:30) “From fruits of trees,” to include all fruits of trees. I might think to add acacia and ṣalmona pods, and carobs from dry land; the verse says, “from fruits of trees,” not all fruits of trees.

There, we have stated: “Everything inside the wall is like houses of a walled city except fields. Rebbi Meïr says, including fields.” “ What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 25:30) ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, and towers? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’. I could think, also fields? The verse says, ‘the house.’ The house is special in that it is a dwelling, that excludes fields which are not for dwelling. What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, towers, and fields? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’.”

There, we have stated: “Everything inside the wall is like houses of a walled city except fields. Rebbi Meïr says, including fields.” “ What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 25:30) ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, and towers? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’. I could think, also fields? The verse says, ‘the house.’ The house is special in that it is a dwelling, that excludes fields which are not for dwelling. What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, towers, and fields? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’.”

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.” ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together!

HALAKHAH: “Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave for the Eternal.” I could think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Num. 15:20,21) “the first of your dough,” this includes. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Rebbi Ismael stated this.

HALAKHAH: “One does not bring First Fruits”, etc. If it were written (Deut. 26:2): “You shall take the First Fruits of your land”, I would have said that all kinds should be obligated for First Fruits. The verse says,“from the First Fruits”, not all firsts. If “from the first” and not all first, then you have only wheat and barley. The verse says “fruits of your land”; this is inclusive. Does it include everything? Here “your land” has been said; at another place “the Land of wheat and barley” has been said. Since “land” mentioned there deals with the Seven Kinds, so also “land” mentioned in this verse must deal with the Seven Kinds.

MISHNAH: The koy in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals. How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal; one does not slaughter it on a holiday but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal; that impurity is one of doubt. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey. How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]. Rebbi Eleazar frees since the claimant has to bring proof. How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son, he did not include the koy. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish worked on this Chapter for three and one half years. They produced 39 derivatives for each single one. Where they found a way to include it they included it. Where they did not find a way to include it they classified it as “who hits with a hammer.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish worked on this Chapter for three and one half years. They produced 39 derivatives for each single one. Where they found a way to include it they included it. Where they did not find a way to include it they classified it as “who hits with a hammer.”

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar, this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says, on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says, as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship. (He retorted,) them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not) separate. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal, a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune, detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard, not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

It was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment. But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate, to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions? From where that there is a clear commandment? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: I did not give from it to the dead. Where do we hold? If not to bring a casket or shrouds for him, this is forbidden for the living, therefore certainly for the dead. What is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? I am saying that this is anointing.

MISHNAH: How does one complete towns? A house is recessed, a house is protruding, a superstructure is recessed, a superstructure is protruding. If there were walls of ruins ten hand-breadths high or bridges or mausoleums containing dwellings they extend the measure correspondingly and one makes it like a rectangular table, in order to include the corners.

Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male. What does the verse imply? Since it is said, she shall be impure for seven days,and on the eighth day one shall circumcise, I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument de minore ad majus. Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,] into a tent, the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,] into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother, also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument de minore ad majus, [therefore} the Torah said a male, to include the stillbirth.

HALAKHAH: It is written: It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heavefor the Eternal. I could think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread. If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough, this includes. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated.“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. And for these, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging.

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

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

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

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

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; with the anointing oil. From where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.”

A non-Cohen who removed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods.

The sons of Aaron shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange. [If the Cohen shall arrange,] I could think that a single Cohen should arrange all the limbs; the verse says, they shall arrange. How is this? One Cohen arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten, and one for the intestines. It turns out that the lamb comes up by six (priests}, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]

For the Eternal, to include the he-goat which is sent away that it can be disqualified for lacking time. This comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why is there said, lots? Should we not be concerned that maybe it is drawn for the Eternal? He explains it if he wants to draw lots.

“And all blood of the bull he shall pour, to include the blood of the bull of the Day of Atonement in pouring.” And why did he not say, “and the he-goat”? Rebbi Mana said, is it not required to be mixed? You conclude in saying, and all blood of the bull he shall pour, to include the blood of the bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement in pouring.

“And all blood of the bull he shall pour, to include the blood of the bull of the Day of Atonement in pouring.” And why did he not say, “and the he-goat”? Rebbi Mana said, is it not required to be mixed? You conclude in saying, and all blood of the bull he shall pour, to include the blood of the bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement in pouring.

And he who burns. Not the one who starts the fire, and not the one who prepares the stake. Who is he who burns? That is the one who helps during the burning. [Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the one who helps during the burning] makes his garments impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who turns over an olive-sized piece makes his garments impure. The problem is only one who stands inside and in his hand is a beam with which he turns over an olive-sized piece, [what is the rule]? Let us hear from the following: And he shall take out, and he shall burn. Since one who takes out, only after he took to the outside, also he who burns only if he burns outside. There Ḥizqiah said, he shall be impure until the evening; to include him who burns. Here it is the same.

“Anointing.” As it was stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted. But it was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the Day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate, to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions?

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

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

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

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua: Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished?

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua: Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished?

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua: Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished?

How did Beṣalel make the Ark? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he made three boxes, two of gold and one of wood. He put (the one of wood inside one of gold and) one of gold inside the one of wood, [and the one of wood inside the other one of gold] and covered it, as is written: You shall cover it with pure gold inside and out. Why does the verse say, you shall cover it? To include the upper rim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he made one box and gilded it, as is written: You shall cover it with pure gold inside and out. Why does the verse say, you shall cover it? Rebbi Phineas said, also between the planks.

HALAKHAH: “There are four New Year’s Days,” etc. It is written, this month shall be for you the head of the months. For you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for years nor for Sabbatical periods nor for Jubilees nor for planting nor for vegetables. And I could say, for you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for kings nor for holidays. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Or is it only the second in the month? Any place where the second day in the month is intended it is explicit. Or is it only the second in the week? We do not find this count in the Torah. But is it not written, it was evening and it was morning, the second day? One makes no inferences from the Creation of the World. Which one is the second of the months and which one is the second of the years? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana. One said, he started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. But the other one, even if you switch it does not change anything. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: This month is for you, an exclusion. The first it be for you, [an exclusion.] An exclusion after an exclusion is to include for kings and holidays. Could one include for years, or for Sabbatical periods, or for Jubilees, or for planting, or for vegetables? Following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: He started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. And when he says, in the fourth year of his reign, it bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Samuel stated and disagreed: In the third month of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. From here that one counts months from the exodus from Egypt. Not only months, from where years? The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year. Not only at that time, from where later? In the fortieth year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Not only temporarily, from where for later generations? It was in the 480th year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, etc. After the Temple had been built they started to count from its building: It was at the end of twenty years after Salomon built the two houses. They did not merit to count from its building, they started counting from its destruction: In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, on New Year’s Day, on the tenth of the month, etc. They did not merit to count for themselves, they started counting regnal years, [as it is written,] in year two of Darius; in year three of Cyrus, king of Persia. And I am saying, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan.

HALAKHAH: “There are four New Year’s Days,” etc. It is written, this month shall be for you the head of the months. For you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for years nor for Sabbatical periods nor for Jubilees nor for planting nor for vegetables. And I could say, for you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for kings nor for holidays. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Or is it only the second in the month? Any place where the second day in the month is intended it is explicit. Or is it only the second in the week? We do not find this count in the Torah. But is it not written, it was evening and it was morning, the second day? One makes no inferences from the Creation of the World. Which one is the second of the months and which one is the second of the years? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana. One said, he started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. But the other one, even if you switch it does not change anything. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: This month is for you, an exclusion. The first it be for you, [an exclusion.] An exclusion after an exclusion is to include for kings and holidays. Could one include for years, or for Sabbatical periods, or for Jubilees, or for planting, or for vegetables? Following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: He started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. And when he says, in the fourth year of his reign, it bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Samuel stated and disagreed: In the third month of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. From here that one counts months from the exodus from Egypt. Not only months, from where years? The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year. Not only at that time, from where later? In the fortieth year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Not only temporarily, from where for later generations? It was in the 480th year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, etc. After the Temple had been built they started to count from its building: It was at the end of twenty years after Salomon built the two houses. They did not merit to count from its building, they started counting from its destruction: In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, on New Year’s Day, on the tenth of the month, etc. They did not merit to count for themselves, they started counting regnal years, [as it is written,] in year two of Darius; in year three of Cyrus, king of Persia. And I am saying, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan.

“Anointing.” As it was stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted. But it was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the Day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate, to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions?

If it spread while in quarantine, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From the sufferer from skin disease; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds, (should not) [is it not logical that] one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure, one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity] depends on the count of his days. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day.

If it spread while in quarantine, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From the sufferer from skin disease; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds, (should not) [is it not logical that] one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure, one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity] depends on the count of his days. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day.

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

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

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court.”

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

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

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter.”

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