includes

There were three houses of offering in Jerusalem. The one which opens to the west is called "the Holy." The other one, which opens to the south, is called "the Holy of the Holy." The third, which opens to the east, is called "the Holy of the Holies," the place where the high priest enters alone. Baptism is "the Holy" house. [Redemption] is "the Holy of the Holy." "The [Holy] of the Holies" is the bridal chamber. The [baptism] includes the resurrection [with] the redemption. The redemption is in the bridal chamber. But [the] bridal chamber is better than […] You won't find its […] those who pray […] Jerusalem. […] Jerusalem who [… Jerusalem], being seen […] these that are called "[the Holies] of the Holies" [… the] veil torn […] bridal chamber except the image [… which] [is above. So] its veil was torn from top to bottom, because it was necessary for some from below to go up above.

For not only is the subject generally necessary as a branch of knowledge, but it includes the praise of the greatest of virtues, whereby I mean self-control.

Now here one may wonder at the ill-will which men bear to us, and which they profess to bear on account of our despising that Deity which they pretend to honor; for if any one do but consider the fabric of the tabernacle, and take a view of the garments of the high priest, and of those vessels which we make use of in our sacred ministration, he will find that our legislator was a divine man, and that we are unjustly reproached by others; for if any one do without prejudice, and with judgment, look upon these things, he will find they were every one made in way of imitation and representation of the universe. When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the sea, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. And when he ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts, he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets; and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number. The veils, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the sea, because that color is dyed by the blood of a sea shell-fish; the blue is fit to signify the air; and the scarlet will naturally be an indication of fire. Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder. And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four elements; and as for the gold interwoven, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are enlightened. He also appointed the breastplate to be placed in the middle of the ephod, to resemble the earth, for that has the very middle place of the world. And the girdle which encompassed the high priest round, signified the ocean, for that goes round about and includes the universe. Each of the sardonyxes declares to us the sun and the moon; those, I mean, that were in the nature of buttons on the high priest's shoulders. And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning. And for the mitre, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it? That it was also illustrated with a crown, and that of gold also, is because of that splendor with which God is pleased. Let this explication suffice at present, since the course of my narration will often, and on many occasions, afford me the opportunity of enlarging upon the virtue of our legislator.

But now it is proper to satisfy the inquiry of those that disbelieve the records of barbarians, and think none but Greeks to be worthy of credit, and to produce many of these very Greeks who were acquainted with our nation, and to set before them such as upon occasion have made mention of us in their own writings. Pythagoras, therefore, of Samos, lived in very ancient times, and was esteemed a person superior to all philosophers in wisdom and piety towards God. Now it is plain that he did not only know our doctrines, but was in very great measure a follower and admirer of them. There is not indeed extant any writing that is owned for his but many there are who have written his history, of whom Hermippus is the most celebrated, who was a person very inquisitive into all sorts of history. Now this Hermippus, in his first book concerning Pythagoras, speaks thus: "That Pythagoras, upon the death of one of his associates, whose name was Calliphon, a Crotonlate by birth, affirmed that this man's soul conversed with him both night and day, and enjoined him not to pass over a place where an ass had fallen down; as also not to drink of such waters as caused thirst again; and to abstain from all sorts of reproaches." After which he adds thus: "This he did and said in imitation of the doctrines of the Jews and Thracians, which he transferred into his own philosophy." For it is very truly affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws of the Jews into his own philosophy. Nor was our nation unknown of old to several of the Grecian cities, and indeed was thought worthy of imitation by some of them. This is declared by Theophrastus, in his writings concerning laws; for he says that "the laws of the Tyrians forbid men to swear foreign oaths." Among which he enumerates some others, and particularly that called Corban: which oath can only be found among the Jews, and declares what a man may call "A thing devoted to God." Nor indeed was Herodotus of Halicarnassus unacquainted with our nation, but mentions it after a way of his own, when he saith thus, in the second book concerning the Colchians. His words are these: "The only people who were circumcised in their privy members originally, were the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians; but the Phoenicians and those Syrians that are in Palestine confess that they learned it from the Egyptians. And for those Syrians who live about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, and their neighbors the Macrones, they say they have lately learned it from the Colchians; for these are the only people that are circumcised among mankind, and appear to have done the very same thing with the Egyptians. But as for the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I am not able to say which of them received it from the other." This therefore is what Herodotus says, that "the Syrians that are in Palestine are circumcised." But there are no inhabitants of Palestine that are circumcised excepting the Jews; and therefore it must be his knowledge of them that enabled him to speak so much concerning them. Cherilus also, a still ancienter writer, and a poet, makes mention of our nation, and informs us that it came to the assistance of king Xerxes, in his expedition against Greece. For in his enumeration of all those nations, he last of all inserts ours among the rest, when he says, "At the last there passed over a people, wonderful to be beheld; for they spake the Phoenician tongue with their mouths; they dwelt in the Solymean mountains, near a broad lake: their heads were sooty; they had round rasures on them; their heads and faces were like nasty horse-heads also, that had been hardened in the smoke." I think, therefore, that it is evident to every body that Cherilus means us, because the Solymean mountains are in our country, wherein we inhabit, as is also the lake called Asphaltitis; for this is a broader and larger lake than any other that is in Syria: and thus does Cherilus make mention of us. But now that not only the lowest sort of the Grecians, but those that are had in the greatest admiration for their philosophic improvements among them, did not only know the Jews, but when they lighted upon any of them, admired them also, it is easy for any one to know. For Clearchus, who was the scholar of Aristotle, and inferior to no one of the Peripatetics whomsoever, in his first book concerning sleep, says that "Aristotle his master related what follows of a Jew," and sets down Aristotle's own discourse with him. The account is this, as written down by him: "Now, for a great part of what this Jew said, it would be too long to recite it; but what includes in it both wonder and philosophy it may not be amiss to discourse of. Now, that I may be plain with thee, Hyperochides, I shall herein seem to thee to relate wonders, and what will resemble dreams themselves. Hereupon Hyperochides answered modestly, and said, For that very reason it is that all of us are very desirous of hearing what thou art going to say. Then replied Aristotle, For this cause it will be the best way to imitate that rule of the Rhetoricians, which requires us first to give an account of the man, and of what nation he was, that so we may not contradict our master's directions. Then said Hyperochides, Go on, if it so pleases thee. This man then, [answered Aristotle,] was by birth a Jew, and came from Celesyria; these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, when he was hospitably treated by a great many, came down from the upper country to the places near the sea, and became a Grecian, not only in his language, but in his soul also; insomuch that when we ourselves happened to be in Asia about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us, and with other philosophical persons, and made a trial of our skill in philosophy; and as he had lived with many learned men, he communicated to us more information than he received from us." This is Aristotle's account of the matter, as given us by Clearchus; which Aristotle discoursed also particularly of the great and wonderful fortitude of this Jew in his diet, and continent way of living, as those that please may learn more about him from Clearchus's book itself; for I avoid setting down any more than is sufficient for my purpose. Now Clearchus said this by way of digression, for his main design was of another nature. But for Hecateus of Abdera, who was both a philosopher, and one very useful ill an active life, he was contemporary with king Alexander in his youth, and afterward was with Ptolemy, the son of Lagus; he did not write about the Jewish affairs by the by only, but composed an entire book concerning the Jews themselves; out of which book I am willing to run over a few things, of which I have been treating by way of epitome. And, in the first place, I will demonstrate the time when this Hecateus lived; for he mentions the fight that was between Ptolemy and Demetrius about Gaza, which was fought in the eleventh year after the death of Alexander, and in the hundred and seventeenth olympiad, as Castor says in his history. For when he had set down this olympiad, he says further, that "in this olympiad Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, beat in battle Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, who was named Poliorcetes, at Gaza." Now, it is agreed by all, that Alexander died in the hundred and fourteenth olympiad; it is therefore evident that our nation flourished in his time, and in the time of Alexander. Again, Hecateus says to the same purpose, as follows: "Ptolemy got possession of the places in Syria after that battle at Gaza; and many, when they heard of Ptolemy's moderation and humanity, went along with him to Egypt, and were willing to assist him in his affairs; one of whom [Hecateus says] was Hezekiah the high priest of the Jews; a man of about sixty-six years of age, and in great dignity among his own people. He was a very sensible man, and could speak very movingly, and was very skillful in the management of affairs, if any other man ever were so; although, as he says, all the priests of the Jews took tithes of the products of the earth, and managed public affairs, and were in number not above fifteen hundred at the most." Hecateus mentions this Hezekiah a second time, and says, that "as he was possessed of so great a dignity, and was become familiar with us, so did he take certain of those that were with him, and explained to them all the circumstances of their people; for he had all their habitations and polity down in writing." Moreover, Hecateus declares again, "what regard we have for our laws, and that we resolve to endure any thing rather than transgress them, because we think it right for us to do so." Whereupon he adds, that "although they are in a bad reputation among their neighbors, and among all those that come to them, and have been often treated injuriously by the kings and governors of Persia, yet can they not be dissuaded from acting what they think best; but that when they are stripped on this account, and have torments inflicted upon them, and they are brought to the most terrible kinds of death, they meet them after an extraordinary manner, beyond all other people, and will not renounce the religion of their forefathers." Hecateus also produces demonstrations not a few of this their resolute tenaciousness of their laws, when he speaks thus: "Alexander was once at Babylon, and had an intention to rebuild the temple of Belus that was fallen to decay, and in order thereto, he commanded all his soldiers in general to bring earth thither. But the Jews, and they only, would not comply with that command; nay, they underwent stripes and great losses of what they had on this account, till the king forgave them, and permitted them to live in quiet." He adds further, that "when the Macedonians came to them into that country, and demolished the [old] temples and the altars, they assisted them in demolishing them all but [for not assisting them in rebuilding them] they either underwent losses, or sometimes obtained forgiveness." He adds further, that "these men deserve to be admired on that account." He also speaks of the mighty populousness of our nation, and says that "the Persians formerly carried away many ten thousands of our people to Babylon, as also that not a few ten thousands were removed after Alexander's death into Egypt and Phoenicia, by reason of the sedition that was arisen in Syria." The same person takes notice in his history, how large the country is which we inhabit, as well as of its excellent character, and says, that "the land in which the Jews inhabit contains three millions of arourae, and is generally of a most excellent and most fruitful soil; nor is Judea of lesser dimensions." The same man describe our city Jerusalem also itself as of a most excellent structure, and very large, and inhabited from the most ancient times. He also discourses of the multitude of men in it, and of the construction of our temple, after the following manner: "There are many strong places and villages [says he] in the country of Judea; but one strong city there is, about fifty furlongs in circumference, which is inhabited by a hundred and twenty thousand men, or thereabouts; they call it Jerusalem. There is about the middle of the city a wall of stone, whose length is five hundred feet, and the breadth a hundred cubits, with double cloisters; wherein there is a square altar, not made of hewn stone, but composed of white stones gathered together, having each side twenty cubits long, and its altitude ten cubits. Hard by it is a large edifice, wherein there is an altar and a candlestick, both of gold, and in weight two talents: upon these there is a light that is never extinguished, either by night or by day. There is no image, nor any thing, nor any donations therein; nothing at all is there planted, neither grove, nor any thing of that sort. The priests abide therein both nights and days, performing certain purifications, and drinking not the least drop of wine while they are in the temple." Moreover, he attests that we Jews went as auxiliaries along with king Alexander, and after him with his successors. I will add further what he says he learned when he was himself with the same army, concerning the actions of a man that was a Jew. His words are these: "As I was myself going to the Red Sea, there followed us a man, whose name was Mosollam; he was one of the Jewish horsemen who conducted us; he was a person of great courage, of a strong body, and by all allowed to be the most skillful archer that was either among the Greeks or barbarians. Now this man, as people were in great numbers passing along the road, and a certain augur was observing an augury by a bird, and requiring them all to stand still, inquired what they staid for. Hereupon the augur showed him the bird from whence he took his augury, and told him that if the bird staid where he was, they ought all to stand still; but that if he got up, and flew onward, they must go forward; but that if he flew backward, they must retire again. Mosollam made no reply, but drew his bow, and shot at the bird, and hit him, and killed him; and as the augur and some others were very angry, and wished imprecations upon him, he answered them thus: Why are you so mad as to take this most unhappy bird into your hands? for how can this bird give us any true information concerning our march, who could not foresee how to save himself? for had he been able to foreknow what was future, he would not have come to this place, but would have been afraid lest Mosollam the Jew should shoot at him, and kill him." But of Hecateus's testimonies we have said enough; for as to such as desire to know more of them, they may easily obtain them from his book itself. However, I shall not think it too much for me to name Agatharchides, as having made mention of us Jews, though in way of derision at our simplicity, as he supposes it to be; for when he was discoursing of the affairs of Stratonice, "how she came out of Macedonia into Syria, and left her husband Demetrius, while yet Seleueus would not marry her as she expected, but during the time of his raising an army at Babylon, stirred up a sedition about Antioch; and how, after that, the king came back, and upon his taking of Antioch, she fled to Seleucia, and had it in her power to sail away immediately yet did she comply with a dream which forbade her so to do, and so was caught and put to death." When Agatharehides had premised this story, and had jested upon Stratonice for her superstition, he gives a like example of what was reported concerning us, and writes thus: "There are a people called Jews, and dwell in a city the strongest of all other cities, which the inhabitants call Jerusalem, and are accustomed to rest on every seventh day on which times they make no use of their arms, nor meddle with husbandry, nor take care of any affairs of life, but spread out their hands in their holy places, and pray till the evening. Now it came to pass, that when Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, came into this city with his army, that these men, in observing this mad custom of theirs, instead of guarding the city, suffered their country to submit itself to a bitter lord; and their law was openly proved to have commanded a foolish practice. This accident taught all other men but the Jews to disregard such dreams as these were, and not to follow the like idle suggestions delivered as a law, when, in such uncertainty of human reasonings, they are at a loss what they should do." Now this our procedure seems a ridiculous thing to Agatharehides, but will appear to such as consider it without prejudice a great thing, and what deserved a great many encomiums; I mean, when certain men constantly prefer the observation of their laws, and their religion towards God, before the preservation of themselves and their country.

But let us now see what those heavy and wicked crimes are which Apion charges upon the Alexandrian Jews. "They came [says he] out of Syria, and inhabited near the tempestuous sea, and were in the neighborhood of the dashing of the waves." Now if the place of habitation includes any thing that is reproached, this man reproaches not his own real country, [Egypt,] but what he pretends to be his own country, Alexandria; for all are agreed in this, that the part of that city which is near the sea is the best part of all for habitation. Now if the Jews gained that part of the city by force, and have kept it hitherto without impeachment, this is a mark of their valor; but in reality it was Alexander himself that gave them that place for their habitation, when they obtained equal privileges there with the Macedonians. Nor call I devise what Apion would have said, had their habitation been at Necropolis? and not been fixed hard by the royal palace [as it is]; nor had their nation had the denomination of Macedonians given them till this very day [as they have]. Had this man now read the epistles of king Alexander, or those of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, or met with the writings of the succeeding kings, or that pillar which is still standing at Alexandria, and contains the privileges which the great [Julius] Caesar bestowed upon the Jews; had this man, I say, known these records, and yet hath the impudence to write in contradiction to them, he hath shown himself to be a wicked man; but if he knew nothing of these records, he hath shown himself to be a man very ignorant: nay, when lie appears to wonder how Jews could be called Alexandrians, this is another like instance of his ignorance; for all such as are called out to be colonies, although they be ever so far remote from one another in their original, receive their names from those that bring them to their new habitations. And what occasion is there to speak of others, when those of us Jews that dwell at Antioch are named Antiochians, because Seleucns the founder of that city gave them the privileges belonging thereto? After the like manner do those Jews that inhabit Ephesus, and the other cities of Ionia, enjoy the same name with those that were originally born there, by the grant of the succeeding princes; nay, the kindness and humanity of the Romans hath been so great, that it hath granted leave to almost all others to take the same name of Romans upon them; I mean not particular men only, but entire and large nations themselves also; for those anciently named Iberi, and Tyrrheni, and Sabini, are now called Romani. And if Apion reject this way of obtaining the privilege of a citizen of Alexandria, let him abstain from calling himself an Alexandrian hereafter; for otherwise, how can he who was born in the very heart of Egypt be an Alexandrian, if this way of accepting such a privilege, of which he would have us deprived, be once abrogated? although indeed these Romans, who are now the lords of the habitable earth, have forbidden the Egyptians to have the privileges of any city whatsoever; while this fine fellow, who is willing to partake of such a privilege himself as he is forbidden to make use of, endeavors by calumnies to deprive those of it that have justly received it; for Alexander did not therefore get some of our nation to Alexandria, because he wanted inhabitants for this his city, on whose building he had bestowed so much pains; but this was given to our people as a reward, because he had, upon a careful trial, found them all to have been men of virtue and fidelity to him; for, as Hecateus says concerning us, "Alexander honored our nation to such a degree, that, for the equity and the fidelity which the Jews exhibited to him, he permitted them to hold the country of Samaria free from tribute. Of the same mind also was Ptolemy the son of Lagus, as to those Jews who dwelt at Alexandria." For he intrusted the fortresses of Egypt into their hands, as believing they would keep them faithfully and valiantly for him; and when he was desirous to secure the government of Cyrene, and the other cities of Libya, to himself, he sent a party of Jews to inhabit in them. And for his successor Ptolemy, who was called Philadelphus, he did not only set all those of our nation free who were captives under him, but did frequently give money [for their ransom]; and, what was his greatest work of all, he had a great desire of knowing our laws, and of obtaining the books of our sacred Scriptures; accordingly, he desired that such men might be sent him as might interpret our law to him; and, in order to have them well compiled, he committed that care to no ordinary persons, but ordained that Demetrius Phalereus, and Andreas, and Aristeas; the first, Demetrius, the most learned person of his age, and the others, such as were intrusted with the guard of his body; should take care of this matter: nor would he certainly have been so desirous of learning our law, and the philosophy of our nation, had he despised the men that made use of it, or had he not indeed had them in great admiration.

Some such opinions, we believe, ought to be entertained regarding the divine promises, when we direct our understanding to the contemplation of that eternal and infinite world, and gaze on its ineffable joy and blessedness. But as the preaching of the church includes a belief in a future and just judgment of God, which belief incites and persuades men to a good and virtuous life, and to an avoidance of sin by all possible means; and as by this it is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our own power to devote ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise, or to one that is worthy of censure, I therefore deem it necessary to say a few words regarding the freedom of the will, seeing that this topic has been treated by very many writers in no mean style. And that we may ascertain more easily what is the freedom of the will, let us inquire into the nature of will and of desire.

“We must,” he says, “observe the laws, not only because it has occurred to the mind of others to decide some things differently, but because it is a duty to protect what has been enacted for the public advantage, and also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on.” Thus Celsus, as if he had forgotten what he had said against the Jews, now includes them in the general eulogy which he passes upon all who observe their ancestral customs, remarking: “And whatever is done among each nation in this way, would be rightly done whenever agreeable to the wishes [of the superintendents].” And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far as he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of his own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act of impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: “It would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places.” Now I should like to ask him, and those who entertain his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of the earth from the beginning among the different superintending spirits; and especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted? Was it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and their country to a certain spirit or spirits? And was it his wish, to whom they were thus assigned, to enact among them the laws which prevail, or was it against his will that it was done? You will observe that, whatever be his answer, he is in a strait. But if the various quarters of the earth were not allotted by some one being to the various superintending spirits, then each one at random, and without the superintendence of a higher power, divided the earth according to chance; and yet such a view is absurd, and destructive in no small degree of the providence of the God who presides over all things.

It is our practice, indeed, to make use of the words of the prophets, who demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ predicted by them, and who show from the prophetic writings that the events in the Gospels regarding Jesus have been fulfilled. But when Celsus speaks of “circles upon circles,” [he perhaps borrowed the expression] from the aforementioned heresy, which includes in one circle (which they call the soul of all things, and Leviathan) the seven circles of archontic demons, or perhaps it arises from misunderstanding the preacher, when he says: “The wind goeth in a circle of circles, and returneth again upon its circles.” The expression, too, “effluents of an earthly church and of circumcision,” was probably taken from the fact that the church on earth was called by some an effluent from a heavenly church and a better world; and that the circumcision described in the law was a symbol of the circumcision performed there, in a certain place set apart for purification. The adherents of Valentinus, moreover, in keeping with their system of error, give the name of Prunicos to a certain kind of wisdom, of which they would have the woman afflicted with the twelve years’ issue of blood to be the symbol; so that Celsus, who confuses together all sorts of opinions—Greek, Barbarian, and Heretical—having heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from one Prunicos, a virgin. The “living soul,” again, is perhaps mysteriously referred by some of the followers of Valentinus to the being whom they term the psychic creator of the world; or perhaps, in contradistinction to a “dead” soul, the “living” soul is termed by some, not inelegantly, the soul of “him who is saved.” I know nothing, however, of a “heaven which is said to be slain,” or of an “earth slaughtered by the sword,” or of many persons slain in order that they might live; for it is not unlikely that these were coined by Celsus out of his own brain.

Celsus accordingly, as not understanding the doctrine relating to the Spirit of God (“for the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”), weaves together [such a web] as pleases himself, imagining that we, in calling God a Spirit, differ in no respect in this particular from the Stoics among the Greeks, who maintain that “God is a Spirit, diffused through all things, and containing all things within Himself.” Now the superintendence and providence of God does extend through all things, but not in the way that spirit does, according to the Stoics. Providence indeed contains all things that are its objects, and comprehends them all, but not as a containing body includes its contents, because they also are “body,” but as a divine power does it comprehend what it contains. According to the philosophers of the Porch, indeed, who assert that principles are “corporeal,” and who on that account make all things perishable, and who venture even to make the God of all things capable of perishing, the very Word of God, who descends even to the lowest of mankind, would be—did it not appear to them to be too gross an incongruity—nothing else than a “corporeal” spirit; whereas, in our opinion,—who endeavour to demonstrate that the rational soul is superior to all “corporeal” nature, and that it is an invisible substance, and incorporeal,—God the Word, by whom all things were made, who came, in order that all things might be made by the Word, not to men only, but to what are deemed the very lowest of things, under the dominion of nature alone, would be no body. The Stoics, then, may consign all things to destruction by fire; we, however, know of no incorporeal substance that is destructible by fire, nor [do we believe] that the soul of man, or the substance of “angels,” or of “thrones,” or “dominions,” or “principalities,” or “powers,” can be dissolved by fire.

The pursuit of human glory, we maintain, is forbidden not only by the teaching of Jesus, but also by the Old Testament. Accordingly we find one of the prophets, when imprecating upon himself certain punishments for the commission of certain sins, includes among the punishments this one of earthly glory. He says, “O Lord my God, if I have done this; if there be iniquity in my hands; if I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; (yea, rather, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy;) let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and set my glory up on high.” And these precepts of our Lord, “Take no thought what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink. Behold the fowls of the air, or behold the ravens: for they sow not, neither do they reap; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. How much better are ye than they! And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field;”—these precepts, and those which follow, are not inconsistent with the promised blessings of the law, which teaches that the just “shall eat their bread to the full;” nor with that saying of Solomon, “The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but the belly of the wicked shall want.” For we must consider the food promised in the law as the food of the soul, which is to satisfy not both parts of man’s nature, but the soul only. And the words of the Gospel, although probably containing a deeper meaning, may yet be taken in their more simple and obvious sense, as teaching us not to be disturbed with anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living in plainness, and desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in the providence of God.

They mention the Exodus from Egypt at night. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: "Behold, I am almost a seventy-year old man and I have not succeeded in [understanding why] the Exodus from Egypt should be mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma explained it from a verse (Deuteronomy 16:3): ‘In order that you may remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life.’ ‘The days of your life’ refers to the days. ‘All the days of your life’ refers to the nights. And the sages say: ‘the days of your life’ refers to this world. ‘All the days of your life’ includes the days of the Messiah.

If one has eaten grapes, figs or pomegranates he blesses after them three blessings, the words of Rabban Gamaliel. The sages say: one blessing which includes three. Rabbi Akiva says: even if one ate only boiled vegetables and that is his meal, he says after it the three blessings. If one drinks water to quench his thirst, he says “By Whose word all things exist.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Who creates many living things and their requirements.”

From where do we derive that first-fruits must precede terumah, seeing that this one is called “terumah” and “the first” and the other is [also] called “terumah” and “the first”? Rather first-fruits take precedence since they are the first fruits of all produce. And terumah comes before the first tithe also because it is called “first.” And first tithe [precedes second tithe,] because it includes that which is called “first.”

The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]: He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar]. Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them? Rather he says: “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.

The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]: He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar]. Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them? Rather he says: “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.

One who has two sets of witnesses testifying about him: one says that he vowed two [naziriteships] and the other that he vowed five: Beth Shammai says: the evidence is conflicting, and there is no naziriteship at all. But Beth Hillel says: “five” includes “two”, so that he becomes a nazirite for two [naziriteships].

He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one who serves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.” But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed]. He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment. He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped. He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.

If he gave her [a prostitute] money, it is permitted [for use for the altar.] [But if he gave her] wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar. If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar]. If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified. For one might have reasoned [as follows]: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, [the law] of [the prostitute’s] fee and price [of a dog] does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, is it not all the more reason that the law of [the prostitute’s] fee and the price [of a dog] should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,” (Deuteronomy 23:19) this includes a bird.

MISHNAH: One must mention the Exodus in the night. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to them: Here I am about 70 years old and I could not succed in proving that the Exodus must be mentioned every night until Ben Zoma derived it from the verse (Deut. 16:3): “… that you should remember the day of your leaving Egypt the entire days of your life.” The days of your life - the days. The entire days of your life - the nights. But the Sages say, the days of your life - this world; The entire days of your life - this includes the times of the Messiah.

Rebbi Jeremiah said: 120 elders, among them more than 80 prophets, instituted this prayer. Why did they follow “the holy God” by “He Who favors with knowledge”? Because (Is. 29:23–24) “they sanctify the Holy One of Jacob” is followed by “and those of erring spirit will know insight.” “Knowledge” followed by “Repentance”, (Is. 6:10) “Makefat the heart of this people, make it hard of hearing and its eyes sticky, that it should not see with its eyes, nor hear with its ears, nor understand with its heart, because if it would repent then it would be healed.” “Repentance” by “Forgiveness”, (Is. 55:7) “He should return to the Lord that He would have mercy on him, and to our God because He forgives much.” “Forgiveness” by “Redemption”, (Ps. 103:2–3) “He Who forgives all your sins, He Who hears all your maladies, He Who redeems your soul from destruction.” Then he should say “Healer of the sick” before that. Rebbi Aḥa said: why did they institute “Redeemer of Israel” as the seventh benediction? To teach you that Israel will be redeemed only in a Seventh Year. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: (Ps. 126) “A song of ascent. When the Eternal will return the returnees of Zion” is the seventh song, to show you that Israel will be redeemed only in a Seventh Year. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Why did they institute “Healer of the sick” as the eighth benediction? That is for circumcision which is done on the eighth, following (Maleachi 2:5) “My covenant was with him: Life”. Rebbi Alexander said: Why did they institute “He Who blesses the years” as the ninth benediction? Corresponding to (Ps. 29:5) “The sound of the Eternal breaks cedars”, since in the future He will break all market manipulators. Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina: Why did they follow “He Who blesses the years” by “Ingatherer of the dispersed of Israel”? Because of (Ez. 36:8) “you, mountains of Israel, sprout your branches and carry your fruits for my people Israel”, why? “because they will soon come.” When the dispersed are gathered in then justice will be done, the evildoers will succumb, and the just will be happy. It was stated: One includes the apostates and the wicked in “He Who subdues the evildoers”, the converts and the elders in “refuge of the just”, David in “Builder of Jerusalem”. (Hosea 3:5) “Then the children of Israel will repent, seek the Eternal, their God, and their king David.”

It is difficult in the opinion of the House of Shammai, how to proceed on Friday evening if someone was sitting and eating on Friday afternoon, it got dark, and there was only one cup of wine? You must say that he reserves the cup until after the recitation of Grace and includes all other benedictions. Obviously, if he would want to pronounce the benediction for the day, Grace has precedence. If he wants to recite the benediction over wine, the day has precedence. One may infer this from the following (Mishnah 8:9): “If wine was brought to them after the meal and there was only one cup.” Rebbi Abba said: Because it is a very short benediction, he might forget and drink. But here, he connects everything with the cup of wine and he will not forget. How should he proceed according to the House of Shammai? He should recite Grace first, after that he makes Qidddush, and only after that he recites the benediction over the wine.

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 23:22) “Do not finish off the corner of your field during your harvest.” This shows that peah is given standing on the ground. One might think this also includes climbing vine and date palms, but the verse says “harvest.” Harvest is special in that a small person can do it as well as a tall person; this excludes climbing vine and date palm where a small person cannot do it as well as a tall person.

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.

Rebbi Redifa: Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree. One says, he who may take may acquire; the other says, he who may give may acquire. He who says “he who may take” certainly includes him who may give. He who says “he who may give,” excludes him who may take.

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.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax, even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”.

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.

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

Rebbi Redifa said, Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose disagree. One says, he who may take may acquire; the other says, he who may give may acquire. He who says “he who may take” certainly includes him who may give. He who says “he who may give,” excludes him who may take.

MISHNAH: In the afternoon of the holiday they made the declaration. How was the declaration? (Deut. 26:13) “I removed the holy produce from the house,” is Second Tithe and fourth-year growth. “I gave it to the Levite,” is the Levite’s tithe. “Also I gave it,” includes heave and heave of the tithe. “To the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow,” is the tithe of the poor. “From the house,” is ḥallah. “Following Your entire Commandment which You commanded me;” therefore, if he gave Second Tithe before the First he cannot make the declaration. “I did not transgress Your Commandments,” I did not give from one kind for another, not from the harvested on the standing or from the standing on the harvested, not from new for old or from old for new. “And I did not forget,” to praise and mention Your Name over it. (Deut. 26:14) “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning;” therefore if he ate from it in deep mourning he cannot make the declaration. “I did not remove any of it in impurity;” therefore if he separtated it in impurity he cannot make the declaration. “I did not give from it to the dead,” I did not buy from it a casket or shrouds for a dead person nor did I give it to other deep mourners. “I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God,” I brought it to the Selected House. “I did all You commanded me,” I enjoyed and gave joy to others with it. (Deut. 26:15) “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven,” we did what You decided for us, You also do what You promised us: “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven, and bless Your people Israel” with sons and daughters, “and the land You gave us,” with dew, winds, rain and young of the domestic animals, “that You had sworn to our forefathers, a Land flowing with milk and honey” to give taste to the fruits. Because of this, they said that Israel persons and Mamzerim may make the declaration but not proselytes and freed slaves who have no part in the Land. Rebbi Meïr says, also excluding Cohanim or Levites who did not receive any part of the Land. Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities with surroundings. The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demay.

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.

“And grain not yet one-third ripe”. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Bread” is mentioned in connection with Passover and “bread” is mentioned in connection with ḥallah. “Bread” mentioned in connection with Passover includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened, [therefore] also “bread” mentioned in connection with ḥallah includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reasoning? (Num. 15:20) “You shall lift it like heave from the threshing floor.” Since heave from the threshing floor is only from produce at least one-third ripe, that also is only from produce at least one-third ripe. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have “bread, bread”? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is not subject to ḥallah and nobody can use it to fulfill his duty on Passover.

“And grain not yet one-third ripe”. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Bread” is mentioned in connection with Passover and “bread” is mentioned in connection with ḥallah. “Bread” mentioned in connection with Passover includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened, [therefore] also “bread” mentioned in connection with ḥallah includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reasoning? (Num. 15:20) “You shall lift it like heave from the threshing floor.” Since heave from the threshing floor is only from produce at least one-third ripe, that also is only from produce at least one-third ripe. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have “bread, bread”? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is not subject to ḥallah and nobody can use it to fulfill his duty on Passover.

HALAKHAH: “Leaves and shoots.” Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, as was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: (Num. 6:4) “Anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to skin he shall not eat,” that includes leaves and shoots.

There, we have stated: “ ‘Also I gave it,’ includes heave and heave of the tithe.” There, you say that heave needs declaration but here you say, heave does not need declaration. Rebbi Hila said, there they stated: Heave and First Fruits, both the one who gives and the one who takes need to declare. Rebbi Zeïra said, the rabbis there think, and the rabbis here say, if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only heave, he does not declare. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities of refuge.” Where do we hold? If about heave and tithe, they are his. But it must deal with heave. Rebbi Hila said, we [did] understand that if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only First Fruits, he declares. We [now] understand that if a person has only heave, he declares.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was taken out by Gentiles,” etc. Otherwise what would we say? He should be considered like someone who left with permission and he should have 2’000 cubits in every direction. Therefore [it is necessary] to say that “he only has four cubits.” From where the four cubits? Stay everybody at his spot. And from where 2’000 cubits? A person should not leave his place on the Seventh Day. Or switching, as (we have stated) [it was stated so:] “Issy ben Aqiba says “place, place”. It is said here place, and it is said there, I shall Give you a place. Since the place mentioned there includes 2’000 cubits, so the place mentioned here includes 2’000 cubits.” “The four cubits which they mentioned are his full length and outstretched arms. Rebbi Jehudah says, he and three cubits, so he can take an amphora from above his head and put it below his feet.” If he relieves himself, he relieves himself at the side; if he prays, he prays in the diagonal.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was taken out by Gentiles,” etc. Otherwise what would we say? He should be considered like someone who left with permission and he should have 2’000 cubits in every direction. Therefore [it is necessary] to say that “he only has four cubits.” From where the four cubits? Stay everybody at his spot. And from where 2’000 cubits? A person should not leave his place on the Seventh Day. Or switching, as (we have stated) [it was stated so:] “Issy ben Aqiba says “place, place”. It is said here place, and it is said there, I shall Give you a place. Since the place mentioned there includes 2’000 cubits, so the place mentioned here includes 2’000 cubits.” “The four cubits which they mentioned are his full length and outstretched arms. Rebbi Jehudah says, he and three cubits, so he can take an amphora from above his head and put it below his feet.” If he relieves himself, he relieves himself at the side; if he prays, he prays in the diagonal.

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today, even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.

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.

“Wearing shoes”. It was stated: In all cases where they said that one may not wear shoes, when he departs on a trip he puts them on, when he arrives at a walled city he takes them off; this includes the mourner and the person in the ban. There are Tannaim who state, one goes in slippers on the day of Atonement; and there are Tannaim who state, one does not. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one goes, in textile slippers, and he who said one does not go, in leather slippers. Rebbi Isaac bar Nahman visited Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the night of the Great Fast; he came to him wearing laced shoes. He asked him, what is this? He answered, I am asthenic. Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman visited Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the night of a fast day; he came to him wearing laced shoes. He asked him, what is this? He answered, I am asthenic. They saw Rebbi Simai walking in the night of a fast day in laced shoes. A student of Rebbi Mana permitted to a relative of the Patriarch to wear laced shoes. He asked him, from where this? He answered, from this of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, in the case of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi it was an asthenic.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird. And here, he says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If it was found in the countryside, limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted. Rebbi Simeon said, the Court stipulated seven things, and this was one of them: If a Gentile sent his elevation offering from overseas also sent its libations, they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. Similarly, if a proselyte died and the estate includes well-being offerings; if he also has flour offerings they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. It is a stipulation of the Court that the flour offering of a deceased High Priest be brought from public money; Rebbi Jehudah says, from his heirs, and it was brought whole. About salt and wood that the Cohanim may use them, and about the Cow that one does not commit larceny with its ashes. And about disqualified nests that they be charged to the public; Rebbi Yose says, he who provides the nests provides the disqualified ones.

MISHNAH: The order of benedictions: One recites “fathers”, “mightiness”, and “Sanctification of the Name” and includes Malkhiot but does not blow, “Sanctification of the Day” and blows, Zikhronot and blows, Shofarot and blows, and recites “Service”, “Thanks”, and Priestly Blessing, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if he does not blow for Malkhiot, why does he recite? But one recites “fathers”, “mightiness”, and “Sanctification of the Name”, includes Malkhiot with “Sanctification of the Day” and blows, Zikhronot and blows, Shofarot and blows, and recites “Service”, “Thanks”, and Priestly Blessing. One does not reduce to less than ten verses of Kingdom, ten verses of Remembrance, ten verses of Shofar. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, if he said three of each he fulfilled his obligation. One does not mention verses of Kingdom, Remembrance, or Shofar of calamity. One starts with Torah and ends with Prophets; Rebbi Yose says, if he finished with Torah he fulfilled his obligation.

“Wearing shoes”. It was stated: In all cases where they said that one may not wear shoes, when he departs on a trip he puts them on, when he arrives at a walled city he takes them off; this includes the mourner and the person in the ban. There are Tannaim who state, one goes in slippers on the day of Atonement; and there are Tannaim who state, one does not. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one goes, in textile slippers, and he who said one does not go, in leather slippers. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman visited Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the night of the Great Fast; he came to him wearing laced shoes. He asked him, what is this? He answered, I am asthenic. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman visited Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the night of a fast day; he came to him wearing laced shoes. He asked him, what is this? He answered, I am asthenic. They saw Rebbi Shammai walking in the night of a fast day in laced shoes. A student of Rebbi Mana instructed a relative of the Patriarch to wear laced shoes. He asked him, from where? From Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, I am asthenic.

The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: I heard from your fathers that all covers [which existed] only were in Benjamin’s part. What is the reason? He rests between his shoulders. But is it not written, He despised the Tent of Joseph and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah. Did he choose Judah? But choosing, choosing. Since choosing there includes Benjamin, so choosing here includes Benjamin. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. Sacral meat given to atonement is consumed in the part of Joseph. Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris said, like vertex of a trapezoid entered from Joseph’s part into Benjamin’s part; on it the altar was situated. What is the reason? The border turned eastward to Taanat-Shilo, up to the door-sill of Shilo. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. That the Divine Presence dwelt in the greatness of Joseph.

The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: I heard from your fathers that all covers [which existed] only were in Benjamin’s part. What is the reason? He rests between his shoulders. But is it not written, He despised the Tent of Joseph and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah. Did he choose Judah? But choosing, choosing. Since choosing there includes Benjamin, so choosing here includes Benjamin. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. Sacral meat given to atonement is consumed in the part of Joseph. Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris said, like vertex of a trapezoid entered from Joseph’s part into Benjamin’s part; on it the altar was situated. What is the reason? The border turned eastward to Taanat-Shilo, up to the door-sill of Shilo. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. That the Divine Presence dwelt in the greatness of Joseph.

“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.

Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.

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.

A slave may be a permanent sojourner. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat. Rebbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are [interpreted] as they are written. What does it mean, the words are [interpreted] as they are written? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it.” Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden idolatry and they do render profane? Rebbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israel in three respects, do not oppress, do not cheat, and he is exiled like an Israel, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.

“And from the dust.” One could think, from what lies in a chest. The verse says, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”. If “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think only that he has to dig with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. How is that? If there is nothing there, one brings and puts it there. Rebbi Abin said, “which will be on the floor of the Sanctuary”, one could think [the dust] qualified only if he digs with a pick-axe, the verse says “which will be”. From anywhere. “The Sanctuary”, that includes the Tabernacle, Nob, Gibeon, Shilo, and the Eternal House.

“If you deviated from under your husband and became defiled,” that excludes a castrate’s wife. “And a man ejaculated into you”, that includes a castrate. “Except for a minor and a non-man,” e. g., an ape.

Blessed in general and blessed in particular; cursed in general and cursed in particular. Sixteen covenants on every detail, to study, to teach, to keep, and to do; and the same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab. Rebbi Simeon does exclude that of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal and instead includes that of the Tent of Meeting. Also Rebbi Simeon did say, there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 576 covenants were concluded. Twelve in blessing, twelve in cursing. Twelve in general, twelve in detail. That makes 48 covenants. To study, to teach, to keep, and to do, that makes 192 covenants. The same on Sinai and the same in the prairie of Moab, that makes 576 covenants. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from the village of Emmaus says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: 603’550. Rebbi says, if one follows the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah from the village of Emmaus who said in the name of Rebbi Simeon, then there is no single detail in the Torah about which not 48 times 603’550 covenants were concluded.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a man who rapes or seduces an orphan girl does not have to pay. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai said, that is a disagreement, it follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rebbi Aqiba she can claim the fine and the fine becomes her property. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said “at less than three years and one day of age,” and is she not like an orphan? And did we not state: “Because he raped her,” that includes an orphan for a fine, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aḥai said, explain it that he had intercourse with her when her father was alive; when her father died, he already had the obligation to give to her father.

As it was stated: “Living married to a husband,” that includes one who had received her husband in her father’s house while preliminarily married; the one who comes after him is strangled. Not only a regular intercourse but even perverse. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband? As we have stated: If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled. The preliminarily married adolescent girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they are all stoned. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. If ten men “touched” her and then one penetrated, they are all stoned. If they all penetrated, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. A single girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they all pay the fine. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder is free. If she chose one of them, the others were freed from the prohibition. If she said, he is impossible, she repeatedly chooses. If he was married to her sister, he already is freed. If she died, he is freed. If he died, one does not force the levir.

Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law for him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law for him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading “an adolescent”, not an adult. Read “an adolescent”, not a minor! “‘Because he mistreated her’, that includes a minor for a fine”, read ‘because he mistreaded her’, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Jacob won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following: “The man who had lain with her alone should die.” Did we not know that “the girl has not committed a capital crime”? Then why does the verse say: “Do not do anything to the girl, the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who comes to a preliminarily married underage girl that he is stoned and she is free.

Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law for him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law for him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading “an adolescent”, not an adult. Read “an adolescent”, not a minor! “‘Because he mistreated her’, that includes a minor for a fine”, read ‘because he mistreaded her’, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Jacob won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following: “The man who had lain with her alone should die.” Did we not know that “the girl has not committed a capital crime”? Then why does the verse say: “Do not do anything to the girl, the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who comes to a preliminarily married underage girl that he is stoned and she is free.

Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law for him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law for him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading “an adolescent”, not an adult. Read “an adolescent”, not a minor! “‘Because he mistreated her’, that includes a minor for a fine”, read ‘because he mistreaded her’, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Jacob won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following: “The man who had lain with her alone should die.” Did we not know that “the girl has not committed a capital crime”? Then why does the verse say: “Do not do anything to the girl, the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who comes to a preliminarily married underage girl that he is stoned and she is free.

From where comes this? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment; Rebbi Yose said, at the end. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai: In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here, everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, anything depending on the fertilizing rain, until the second fertilizing rain comes. And anything not depending on the fertilizing rain, until the time of the second fertilizing rain. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if rain came down for seven days without interruption, that includes the second fertilizing rain.” Why is it called fertilizing? Because it fertilizes the land.

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: So far if she said, bring me, but [the agent] said [to the husband] “receive for me”. If she said, receive for me but [the agent] said [to the husband] “bring me”? If was found stated in both cases, this is a bill of divorce and if he wants to retract he cannot retract. But did we not state: “He shall deliver into her hand,” that includes not only her hand, from where through his agent’s hand, into her agent’s hand, from his agent to her agent, and from her agent to his agent; the verse says, “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.” Who said, “it is impossible for me”? Rebbi! As it was stated: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me: If he brought it to her, gave it to her, he acquired it for her, it was received for her; if he wants to retract, he may not retract, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ [if he wants to retract, he may retract; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to retract, he may not retract. Rebbi says, in any of these cases] he may not retract except if he says, ‘It is impossible for me that you accept it for her, but give it to her.’” It is difficult for Rebbi, “here you have it from my word”, if he wants to retract, he may retract. It is difficult for Rebbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word”, if he wants to retract, he may retract! Rav Ḥuna said, he becomes his and her agent. Assi said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent”, she is both divorced and not divorced.

New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” As it was stated: “These properties are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices. Abba Yose ben Dosai says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling.” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes. But he who says tithes excludes the firstling. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.

New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” As it was stated: “These properties are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices. Abba Yose ben Dosai says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling.” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes. But he who says tithes excludes the firstling. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.] Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof.

HALAKHAH: “The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent,” etc. From where does he get this? From “if being found it is found”. This includes not only ox, or donkey, or sheep: Since He says “alive”, it includes all living beings. “The stolen goods”, to include movables. Why “ox, or donkey, or sheep”? If it were restricted to anything useful for the altar, one should have stated “ox and sheep”. [If it were restricted to anything useful for the priests, one should have stated “ox and donkey.] Rebbi Ismael stated: It excludes real estate which is not movable; it excludes slaves from whom you only have service; it excludes documents which only are for proof.

One verse says five, the other verse says seven. The latter includes the two clerks of court.

So far only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Zeˋira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday does not have to mention the New Moon. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said, it was stated thus: “The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions], but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf, the House of Shammai say ten, but the House of Hillel say nine.” Should he not say eleven? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it. So he should mention it in “Service”. Rebbi Yose asked, since the two he-goats of New Year’s day come because of the New Moon, why do you say that he does not have to mention the New Moon? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost and the two he-goats of New Year’s Day.” If the first atoned, what does the second atone for? For impurity that happened between them. Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning. But if both of them were for the New Moon? Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do that, since it is written, in addition to the elevation offering of the month. In addition, from what we have stated, “twelve for the twelve months of the year.” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him. Rav Hoshaia asked: think of it, if they slaughtered both of them simultaneously? What impurity happened between them? Rebbi Bun said, if all of Israel are proper, would they not bring what the Torah prescribed for them?

So far only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Ze`ira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.

HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. The commandments of the Eternal. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? [Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have] to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court? Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court. It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi] Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.

No, the reason is that it contains the verse, "Thou openest Thy hand and satisfiest every living thing with favour" (Ps. cxlv. 16). Then let him say the Great Hallel which includes "Who giveth food to all flesh" (ibid. cxxxvi. 25)!

Rab Nahman reconciles them according to his opinion — Everybody agrees that [the Zimmun benediction extends] until "We will bless" ; that is quite right for him who said "Three or four," but as for him who said "Two or three," he could tell thee that we are here dealing with the Grace of the day-labourers ; for the teacher has said: Such an one opens with "Who feedest" and includes "Who ...rebuildest Jerusalem" in the benediction of "the land."

But is not the law relating to one's hair also from the Torah, since it was written, "And he shall wash [et] his body in water" and [the word] et includes that which is joined to his body. And what is that? His hair.

What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] rakbash, The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.

What does ‘any sukkah whatsoever’ include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic] is ganbak.

Gemara. From where do we know this? For our Rabbis taught: [If Scripture had said] "Homeborn" [it would have included] every homeborn [Jew], [but since it says] "the homeborn" it excludes women. "Every" includes minors.

The Master has said: ‘The homeborn’ excludes women. That is to say "homeborn" implies both men and women? But has it not been taught: "The homeborn" includes the homeborn women that they must afflict themselves [on Yom Kippur], which shows that [only] "homeborn" implies men [only]? Rabbah answered: They are traditions but the Rabbis applied a Scriptural verse to them.

(Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being invalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].

Scripture says: "On the day," implying, even on Shabbat. But what do the rabbis do with the words "on the day"? They need it to infer from it that on the day, [the lulav is taken] but not at night. And R. Eliezer, from where does he deduce that [the lulav is to be taken] by day, and not at night? He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days" "days" but not nights. And the Rabbis? If I learned it from that verse, I might have said that we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights.

Scripture says: "On the day," implying, even on Shabbat. But what do the rabbis do with the words "on the day"? They need it to infer from it that on the day, [the lulav is taken] but not at night. And R. Eliezer, from where does he deduce that [the lulav is to be taken] by day, and not at night? He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days" "days" but not nights. And the Rabbis? If I learned it from that verse, I might have said that we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights.

And with regard to the Sukkah itself from where do we derive [that days includes nights]? From what our Rabbis have taught: You shall dwell in booths for seven days,” (Leviticus 23:42) “days” includes the nights. You say that “days’ includes the nights. But maybe it means “days” but not the nights. And this would be logical. For the word “days” is used here, and it is also used in connection with lulav; just as there it means days and not nights, so here also it must mean days and not nights.

And with regard to the Sukkah itself from where do we derive [that days includes nights]? From what our Rabbis have taught: You shall dwell in booths for seven days,” (Leviticus 23:42) “days” includes the nights. You say that “days’ includes the nights. But maybe it means “days” but not the nights. And this would be logical. For the word “days” is used here, and it is also used in connection with lulav; just as there it means days and not nights, so here also it must mean days and not nights.

And with regard to the Sukkah itself from where do we derive [that days includes nights]? From what our Rabbis have taught: You shall dwell in booths for seven days,” (Leviticus 23:42) “days” includes the nights. You say that “days’ includes the nights. But maybe it means “days” but not the nights. And this would be logical. For the word “days” is used here, and it is also used in connection with lulav; just as there it means days and not nights, so here also it must mean days and not nights.

Scripture says “You shall dwell” “You shall dwell” in order to point an analogy (gezerah shavah). It is stated here, “You shall dwell,” and with regard to the [seven days of] preparation it is also stated, “You shall dwell,” so that just as in that case the word “days” includes also the nights, so here also “days” includes the nights.

Scripture says “You shall dwell” “You shall dwell” in order to point an analogy (gezerah shavah). It is stated here, “You shall dwell,” and with regard to the [seven days of] preparation it is also stated, “You shall dwell,” so that just as in that case the word “days” includes also the nights, so here also “days” includes the nights.

GEMARA. How do we know this? As our Rabbis taught, The verse], “And you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:15) includes the night of the last day of the Festival. But perhaps it only refers to [the night of] the first day of the Festival? When it says, “akh” it divides.

Rabbi applies the principle of the “general and particular:” “And you shall make a candlestick” is a general statement, “of pure gold” is a particular, “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again a general statement; [the instruction thus consists of] two general [statements] with a particular [statement between], in which case it includes only such things as are similar to the particular [statement], so that as the particular is specified to be of metal, so must all [vessels] be of metal.

R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘inclusion and exclusion [thus:] “And you shall make a candlestick” is an inclusion, “of pure gold” is an exclusion, “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again an inclusion. It includes, then excludes, then includes, in which case it includes everything. What does it include? All materials, and what does it exclude? [Only] earthenware.

R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘inclusion and exclusion [thus:] “And you shall make a candlestick” is an inclusion, “of pure gold” is an exclusion, “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again an inclusion. It includes, then excludes, then includes, in which case it includes everything. What does it include? All materials, and what does it exclude? [Only] earthenware.

R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘inclusion and exclusion [thus:] “And you shall make a candlestick” is an inclusion, “of pure gold” is an exclusion, “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again an inclusion. It includes, then excludes, then includes, in which case it includes everything. What does it include? All materials, and what does it exclude? [Only] earthenware.

The watch of priests whose period of service was fixed etc., and all other congregational sacrifices. What does [this] come to include? It includes the bull brought as a result of a transgression caused by the forgetfulness of the congregation and the he-goats brought as atonement for idolatry.

And it offered them all. What does this include? It includes the sacrifices offered when the altar was not otherwise occupied.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.