inherited

We will not return unto our houses, until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance.

And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them.

And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people;

O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land: but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance.

For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Where he became old with honour, and he buried his father and mother in law honourably, and he inherited their substance, and his father Tobit’s.

The same Saturus at the other entrance exhorted the soldier Pudens, saying, “Assuredly here I am, as I have promised and foretold, for up to this moment I have felt no beast. And now believe with your whole heart. Lo, I am going forth to that beast, and I shall be destroyed with one bite of the leopard.” And immediately at the conclusion of the exhibition he was thrown to the leopard; and with one bite of his he was bathed with such a quantity of blood, that the people shouted out to him as he was returning, the testimony of his second baptism, “Saved and washed, saved and washed.” Manifestly he was assuredly saved who had been glorified in such a spectacle. Then to the soldier Pudens he said, “Farewell, and be mindful of my faith; and let not these things disturb, but confirm you.” And at the same time he asked for a little ring from his finger, and returned it to him bathed in his wound, leaving to him an inherited token and the memory of his blood. And then lifeless he is cast down with the rest, to be slaughtered in the usual place. And when the populace called for them into the midst, that as the sword penetrated into their body they might make their eyes partners in the murder, they rose up of their own accord, and transferred themselves whither the people wished; but they first kissed one another, that they might consummate their martyrdom with the kiss of peace. The rest indeed, immoveable and in silence, received the sword-thrust; much more Saturus, who also had first ascended the ladder, and first gave up his spirit, for he also was waiting for Perpetua. But Perpetua, that she might taste some pain, being pierced between the ribs, cried out loudly, and she herself placed the wavering right hand of the youthful gladiator to her throat. Possibly such a woman could not have been slain unless she herself had willed it, because she was feared by the impure spirit.

[…] [His name (i.e. Judas's) hath been blotted out] from the Book of Life, his name hath been removed from the [roll] of the Saints, his inheritance hath been taken away from among the living, his tablet hath been broken in pieces, the oil of his jar hath been poured away to waste, his garment hath been rent asunder, Satan hath entered into judgement with him, and he hath come forth condemned utterly, his bishopric hath been taken out of his hands, his crown hath been snatched away, strangers have seized upon the [fruits of] his labours speedily, he is arrayed in cursing as with a garment, he is poured out like water, his glorious apparel hath been snatched away from him, the light of his lamp hath been extinguished, his house hath been left a desert, his day was shortened and the period of his life was diminished, and was without permanence. Suffering came upon him, the light departed and left him, and darkness came upon him, the worm inherited his substance, lice covered him over like a garment. The angels who are in the train of the Lord hurled him down headlong, his tongue hath been cut out, the light in his eye hath been destroyed, the hair of his head hath been plucked out. His mouth was filled (?) with thirty snakes so that they might devour him, and these were their names:—1st, Remoteness from [God]; 2nd, Evil jealousy; 3rd, …; 4th, …; 5th, Envy; 6th, Want of compassion; 7th, Haughtiness of heart; 8th, Constant strife; 9th, Vain chatter; 10th, …; 11th, Slander; 12th, Hypocrisy; 13th, …; 14th, …; 15th, Gluttony; 16th, Cursing; 17th, Wrath; 18th, Treachery; 19th, Leading [men] astray; 20th, The lying tongue; 21st, Arrogance; 22nd, Contempt; 23rd, Falsehood; 24th, Insidiousness; 25th, Want of sense; 26th, Carelessness; 27th, Stubbornness in respect of the truth; 28th, Cunning; 29th, Excessive greed; 30th, Godlessness. These are the thirty snakes [which were sent] to devour Judas Iscariot. These are the thirty terrors …

And He inherited and took possession of everything. And the thought of many was brought to nought.

I Solomon, on hearing this, sealed him, stretching out my hand against his chest. Whereon the demon leapt up, and threw himself down, and gave a groan, saying: "Woe is me! where am I come to? O traitor Ornias, I cannot see!" So I said to him: "I am Solomon. Tell me then how thou dost manage to see." And he answered me: "By means of my feelings." I then, Solomon, having heard his voice come up to me, asked him how he managed to speak. And he answered me: "I, O King Solomon, am wholly voice, for I have inherited the voices of many men. For in the case of all men who are called dumb, I it is who smashed their heads, when they were children and had reached their eighth day. Then when a child is crying in the night, I become a spirit, and glide by means of his voice. . . . In the crossways also I have many services to render, and my encounter is fraught with harm. For I grasp in all instant a man's head, and with my hands, as with a sword, I cut it off, and put it on to myself. And in this way, by means of the fire which is in me, through my neck it is swallowed up. I it is that sends grave mutilations and incurable on men's feet, and inflict sores."

OF THE MARTYRS WHO ARE BROUGHT TO TRIAL AND AFFLICTED WITH SORE PUNISHMENT. [OF THE FEASTS OF THE PASSOVER.]! [v., 1.] If there be any Christian who hath been brought before the judgment-seat of the ungodly, whether for execution, or banishment, or imprisonment, or that he may be given to the wild beasts for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and for the true faith and the love of God, turn not your face from them, but send them sustenance of your substance and of the sweat of your brow; and give sustenance besides to the soldiers who guard them, that they may not afflict them with sore torment. And spurn not a Christian your brother whom they have dragged before the judgment-seat for the name of the Lord our God. He is a holy martyr, the brother of our Lord, and the son of the Most High, and the habitation of the Holy Spirit. He is a faithful (witness) who hath kept the commandment of the Gospel and inherited the crown of life, and is a martyr for the sake of the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of His precious blood. Wherefore, ye faithful, with your labour and with your substance do service to the saints, and let such as have no money fast for their sakes, and let such as have give a portion of their substance to the saints. And if there be anyone who giveth all his substance as a ransom for them to save them, he is blessed and a friend of Christ. If there be anyone who giveth his substance to the poor, he is elect and holy; much more then he who freely giveth his substance for the martyrs’ sake. He is one that hath fulfilled the will of God, and hath imitated the saints who confessed our Lord before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel. For it is said, “ Whosoever shall confess me in the presence of men, him will I also confess in the presence of my Father who is in heaven.” Christ, then, shall bear witness before the Father to those who do thus. And as for you, it is not right that ye should be negligent and ashamed to go to the prison and visit the prisoners. Help them rather, and comfort them, and if ye do this, ye shall be reckoned with the martyrs. For as for them their witness is written, because they have suffered and been afflicted: and ye also have been reckoned with them, because ye have done them service with a ready heart and a good ministry without sloth. And of these our Lord saith, “Come unto me, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you before the world (was): for IT was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and ye received me: I was naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye spake unto me. And then shall the righteous answer and say, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and gave thee meat or thirsty, and gave thee to drink and when saw we thee a stranger, and received thee or naked, and clothed thee or sick, (and) visited thee or in prison, and spake unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye did unto one of these little ones, ye did unto me. And then he shall say to those on his left hand, Depart, ye cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for Satan and for his angels: for I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me not to drink: I was a stranger, and ye received me not: I was naked, and ye clothed me not: I was sick, and ye visited me not: I was in prison, and ye spake not unto me. Then shall those on the left hand answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? And then shall the King answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye did not to one of these little ones, ve did not to me. And these shall go away into eternal condemnation, but the righteous into eternal life.” [v., 2.] If there be anyone who saith, I am a Christian; and doeth evil, committeth fornication, and is impure; and they pass on him the sentence of death, from such a man keep far away. Christians ought not to transgress the law or break (it) by evil doing, but rather (ought) to turn aside from the ungodly and unbelieving and have no fellowship with them. But as for those whom the ungodly have imprisoned, or banished, or bound, or delivered up to death for Christ’s name’s sake, take heed to save your brethren and your fellow-members from the hands of the ungodly. And if there be a Christian who hath toiled for their sakes, blessed is he, for he shall be reckoned with the martyrs, because he hath suffered for Christ’s sake. And on us too in like manner came suffering and affliction from Caiaphas, and those with Alexander, and Annas the high-priest, and afterwards we went out from them rejoicing that we were worthy to endure the sufferings of Christ. In like manner do ye also endure patiently and rejoice concerning suffering, that ye may be blessed in that day. [v., 3.] But as for those who are persecuted for the sake of the faith, and go forth from city to city for the sake of the commandment of the Gospel of our Lord, receive them and give them rest and shelter with you as martyrs, rejoicing that ye are companions with them. Understand then that they are blessed of the Lord. For our Lord saith, “Blessed are ye when they revile you, and mock you, and speak all (manner of) evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.” And again He saith, “If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” And again He saith, “If they persecute you in this city, flee ye to the next. And, “In this world ye shall be sad and troubled,” for, “they shall deliver you up to the synagogue and their judges shall scourge you, and they shall bring you before rulers and Kings for my sake for a testimony ’’; and, “He who patiently endureth to the end, shall be saved.’’! He who is persecuted for Christ’s name’s sake, and by patient endurance becometh a martyr is in truth a man of God. [v., 4.] But he who consorteth with the ungodly, and hath denied Christ lest the unbelievers should hate him and loveth himself more than his Lord, in whose hand his breath is, is hated and despised and tormented of God, because he hath preferred the love of man, and hath become a hater of God, and taken part with the accursed, and not with the Saints. Instead of the Kingdom prepared for the blessed he hath chosen for himself the eternal fire of Gehenna prepared for Satan and his angels. And concerning such a one our Lord answered, and said, “ Whosoever denieth me in the presence of men, him will I also deny in the presence of my Father who is in heaven.” And again, He hath commanded, saying, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth his son or his daughter more than me is not worthy of me: and he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth not after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, let him lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. What doth it profit a man if he have gained the whole world and lost his life and what would he not give as a ransom for his life?” And again He saith, “ Fear not them that kill your bodies, but are not able to kill your souls; but fear him who is able to destroy soul and body in Gehenna.”! [v., 5-] For it is right that he who hath learned a craft should teach others, and if he teach not others he is not perfect as his master. Jesus Christ is our Saviour and our Master. How then shall we not love doctrine and admonition? For our Lord hated haughtiness, and pride, and luxury, and riches, and covetousness, and revenge; and moreover He lightly esteemed ” sister and mother for love of His Father and love of man. And again, He patiently endured suffering, and stripes, and reproach, and reviling, and mockery, and yet more He was wounded on the Cross to save all those who believe in Him. And if He patiently endured all this, and disdained not to be crucified on the Cross and patiently endured the sufferings of death, how then shall not we endure the sufferings of our Saviour? But if he suffered willingly for our sakes, yet we do not (suffer) for His sake, but rather hope for His mercy. But there is nothing which He desireth to receive from us, but only a belief in the right faith. v., 6.) Wherefore let us lightly esteem our parents, and our kinsfolk, and our friends, and our wives, and our children, and all the good things of this world. And if we love these, we shall not keep this commandment. However let us take heed that we enter not into temptation; and when we are called to (bear) witness, let us hold fast our faith in the precious name of our Saviour. Let us rejoice and patiently. endure, when we are persecuted, that we may inherit life eternal. Let us, then, not love honour and praise as the people of the Jews who rejected the miracles of Christ, and believed not on Him, because they feared the chief priests; but preferred praise from men, and not Nile from God. But we have believed in the right faith, that we may instruct the new (converts) who have received baptism, and may confirm the hearts of the catechumens. But if we keep the faith in our hearts, and speak not out boldly unto men through fear of condemnation and affliction, we shall forfeit life eternal; and (shall become) moreover a stumbling-block to others (and) a snare to many. And if we act thus we shall be requited with a twofold penalty. Let us take heed, then, lest we fall into affliction, and pray lest we enter into temptation. For the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Let us be wise, then, lest we fall away from this right faith through fear of the ungodly and unbelievers, for our years are but few. And if there be any one that abandons his hope in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, all his life long he shall be afflicted with suffering that hath no remedy, and with wrath that weakeneth the limbs and breaketh the bones, and hereafter he shall lose life eternal, and be punished in the fire of Gehenna, and in weeping and gnashing of teeth. But he who hath suffered for the Lord, and hath been a martyr, shall rejoice in God, because he hath chosen for himself the crown of the Kingdom, and his departure from this world hath been perfect in the right faith. And if a catechumen suffer and patiently endure affliction and die for Christ’s sake, his sufferings shall be to him instead of baptism, and he shall win-a good hope and life eternal. And others too who have fought a good fight, and died for Christ’s name's sake in the right faith, shall rejoice and be glad, for they have kept the admonition of their master. For He saith, “Be ye worthy as your master (is worthy).”! Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered for our sakes and patiently endured reviling and mockery, and bore the spitting of the unclean, reproach, and reviling and blows; and after this they scourged Him, and pierced Him on the Cross, and gave Him vinegar to drink (mingled) with gall, and when He had accomplished all that was written He said unto God, “ Father, behold into thy hand, I commend my soul.” And he who desireth to be a disciple, let him patiently endure sufferings and affliction, and bear stripes with a brave heart and (with) love. And if he be cast into the fire, there shall be nothing that shall touch him, even as the Three Children were saved from the furnace of fire. And everyone who hath suffered for His sake shall receive a reward, because he hath believed in one God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the great High-priest, our teacher and the guide of our souls, and the Giver of our life; to Him be glory for ever and ever. Amen. [v., 7.] He then is the Lord God Almighty, our Saviour Jesus Christ, who shall confirm us in His faith, and raise us up with those that have fallen asleep, and who) fulfilled His will perfectly without omission. And if we be drowned in the sea, or (if) beasts and birds devour our flesh, (yet) not one hair of our heads shall perish, for the world and all that is therein are holden in His hand. Wherefore He hath taught us, saying, “By your patience, ye shall possess your souls. For at the last day every creature shall rise again, righteous men and sinners. And concerning the resurrection of the dead, and the reward of the martyrs Gabriel said unto Daniel, ‘Many of those who have fallen asleep shall rise from the dust, some shall rise to life eternal, and some shall rise in shame and contempt; but the righteous shall shine as the sun and as the bright stars.” Behold the holy Gabriel foretold and said, And the saints shall shine as the bright stars. And again he bare witness concerning them that they knew the truth and understood His holy name. For he did not say this concerning the resurrection from the dead of the martyrs alone, but concerning the resurrection of all men, whether righteous or sinners, that they may be recompensed each one according to his deeds. For the Jews say, There is no resurrection of the dead. Behold our bones are dust and our flesh dried up.’’? And to those who think this our Lord answereth, saying, Behold I will open your graves, and bring you forth therefrom, and I will put my spirit upon you, and ye shall live. Now ye shall know that I am the Lord, (even I) who speak ” and perform.” And moreover Isaiah saith, ‘‘The dead shall arise, and those that are in the graves shall live, and those that (rest) in the earth shall rejoice, for the dew that is from thee is their‘life.” He hath told us much concerning the resurrection from the dead, and (their) abode in life eternal, which is full of grace and truth, which He hath prepared for those that love Him; and (concerning) the judgment of the ungodly, their fall, shame and misery; the fire that never shall be quenched, ant the worm that sleepeth not shall come upon them. But God desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live. Behold He hath told us that Enoch and Elijah did not taste of death, and hath revealed unto us that the dead shall rise in His time. Elijah raised the widow’s son, and Elisha raised (the son of) the Shunammite. Behold we understand that the death of the righteous is not a judgment of those saints who receive it with joy. In like manner Jesus Christ the Lord of the Apostles and the Life of the faithful shall raise the dead. And so let us also toil in this world, and after a brief while we shall enter into rest, and the race of Adam shall be renewed, and shall rise with him to life eternal. It is said, “All the dead shall hear his voice, and those that hear shall live. Wherefore we believe in the resurrection of the dead and the second coming of Christ. And moreover He who raised Lazarus from the grave on the fourth day raised from the dead both the daughter of Jairus and the widow’s son. And He Himself too rose from the dead on the third day by the will of His Father, and became.the Word of life. And He also it is who brought forth Jonah alive and unhurt from the whale’s belly on the third day, and saved the Three Children from the furnace of fire in the land of Babylon, and Daniel from the mouth of the lions. He, then, who hath authority and might will raise the dead at the last day. But if the ungodly who believe not the Holy Scriptures mock at us, behold the Sibyl their own prophetess maketh glad their hearts, and saith thus unto them, “When the flesh hath decayed, and is become dust, the fire shall consume it by the commandment of God, who waxeth not old and decayeth not; (and) God shall raise up again the bones which were burned in the fire and became ashes. Then shall God pronounce the sentence of judgment upon all the world. Such as have done evil shall descend to the depths of the earth, and those that have kept his commandment shall have eternal life, and God will give unto them the spirit of life; and those that are saved shall look one upon another.” And if they believe not in the resurrection, let them not refuse belief in () another creature. Behold that bird whose name is the phoenix will cause the ungodly to understand, who themselves say that it is alone of its kind. Of this bird they say that it lives for five hundred years, and then goes down to Egypt and brings with it cinnamon, and cassia, and aloe-wood.” And it alights on the image of the idol whose name is Ion, and looks towards the east, and worships the Sun, and then is consumed and turned to ashes. Then there comes forth from the ashes a small worm and it becomes a young phoenix, and, when it is grown, it returns to the land of Arabia.“ If then they know of the resurrection “ of this bird, how can they question with us of that which we say and believe? Cannot He who created man out of nothing raise the dead by His great power? Wherefore it is right that we should patiently endure the various sufferings and afflictions that come upon us. But if we believe not in the resurrection of the dead, our suffering and our affliction is in vain. We believe in what Moses saith, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.” There was not one thing that He needed, (and) knowing that all things are created by His Word, it was His pleasure that there should be heaven and earth, and light and darkness, and night, (and) day, and the stars, and birds, and whales, and beasts, and creeping things, and trees, and herbs. Thus He raised them up by His will, and needed no other helper. He it is who is able by His power to renew the world again and to raise the dead. Man, however, was not created first, but He created him from the four elements, and gave him a soul. And in like manner He will give back to this (soul) the body of flesh that is dissolved. For the resurrection is for those that have fallen asleep and not for those that have not been created. For He created (it) from what was fleshless, and put within it many marvels. And again He will raise up and save those that have fallen asleep, as He created flesh out of seed in the womb. As Jeremiah the prophet saith, “Before I created thee in the womb, I knew thee.” And again it is said, “I am the Lord who created the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth, and I create the soul in man.” Even as the Scripture saith concerning this, God the Father said to his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, “Let us make man in our image and in our likeness. And then God created them male and female.”! And furthermore the holy victor Job saith thus—he of whom the Scripture saith that ‘‘he will rise with those whom the Lord raises.” ‘Thou hast milked me like milk, and curdled me like cheese; thou hast clothed me with flesh and skin, and hast bound my bones with sinews; and thou hast shown me compassion and mercy, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit. I know this that is with thee, that thou canst do all things and that there is nothing that is impossible with thee.” And again, David, the lover of God, saith, ‘Thy hands have made me and fashioned me; give me understanding, and I will learn thy commandment.” And elsewhere he saith, ‘‘Thou hast created me and laid thy hand upon me. Marvellous is thy work, and (that) my soul knoweth right well. And my bones were not hidden from thee, which thou didst make in secret, nor my substance, (which was) beneath the earth. And that which I have done, thine eyes have seen, and all is written in thy book. Isaiah also saith, “We are the clay and thou hast created us." If, then, men are God’s creation, made by Christ, they shall be raised with Christ, and those that have done His will shall receive honour and the crown of life. Thus the ungodly and unbelieving, who have not received baptism and believe not in the resurrection, shall be condemned to eternal punishment, but those that have done good shall shine like the stars of light. For David saith, ‘The Lord is faithful in all his words and righteous in all his works.” He who created for Himself a body of a virgin (and) who is the Creator of the whole world is the only one who hath risen from the dead, and moreover He will make all the dead to rise. He who maketh the grain of wheat to shoot from the earth, and multiplieth its fruit; “and (who) is able to make shoot forth again the tree that is hewn down, and to multiply its branches; and (who) made Aaron’s dry rod to blossom, is able also in like manner to raise us up with Him in the glory wherewith He ascended. He who made straight the feet of the lame, and cured the palsied, and healed the man whose hand was withered; He who spat on the ground and made clay and anointed the eyes of the man who was born blind; He who healed the wasted limbs, shall He not be able to raise us up also? He who satisfied the souls of five thousand men with five barley loaves and two fishes —and they took up of what was left twelve baskets full —and (who) made water wine; who sent Peter, and he took a penny from the fish’s mouth. He it is who will raise the dead. Behold we are His witnesses concerning everything which the prophets proclaimed concerning Him. We, His companions, ate and drank with Him, and saw His miracles and His life. And again, we saw His sufferings, and His agony, and His death, and His resurrection. And we heard His words, and were His friends, and abode with Him forty days. And after He rose from the dead He charged us to publish the preaching of the holy Gospel in all the world, and commanded us to baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, who is the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, And when He had given this charge, He, in the flesh that He took of us, ascended into heaven to the Father who had sent Him. If ye thus believe, blessed are ye, but if ye believe not, ye are far from Him because ye have not kept His commandment.

That they shall not listen to the testimony of a heretic against a bishop, and shall not listen to a single person. The testimony of a heretic shall not be received against a bishop, and the testimony of a single person shall not be received ; for " everything shall stand by the mouth of two and three." Nor shall it be lawful for a bishop to bestow the office of bishop upon his brother or his son or his kindred, nor shall he ordain whomsoever he pleases ; for it is not right that the episcopal dignity shall be inherited : nor shall he give away the property of the Lord for the sake of the will of men, for it is not allowed to make the church of Christ an inheritance. For if they do thus, and thus take to themselves of the office, they will be as though they were naught ; and [the guilty one] himself shall be condemned by a punishment. He who is one-eyed or lame in his foot and is worthy of the episcopal honor, shall be ordained. For a defect of the body does not corrupt him, but a defect of the soul [does]. A deaf and a blind man, however, shall not be ordained as a bishop, not as being unclean, but less the property of the church be scattered. He who is possessed of a devil shall not be ordained, and he shall not pray with the believers. And if he is purified, they shall admit him ; and if he be worthy, he may be ordained as one of the clergy.

The first way, therefore, is that of life; and is this, which the law also does appoint: To love the Lord God with all your mind, and with all your soul, who is the one and only God, besides whom there is no other; and your neighbour as yourself. And whatsoever you would not should be done to you, do not do to another. Bless them that curse you; pray for them that despitefully use you. Love your enemies; for what thanks is it if you love those that love you? For even the Gentiles do the same. But love those that hate you, and you shall have no enemy. For says He, You shall not hate any man; no, not an Egyptian, nor an Edomite; for they are all the workmanship of God. Avoid not the persons, but the sentiments, of the wicked. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If any one gives you a stroke on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Not that revenge is evil, but that patience is more honourable. For David says, If I have made returns to them that repaid me evil. If anyone compels you to go one mile, go with him two. And, He that will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And from him that takes your goods, require them not again. Give to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you do not shut your hand. For the righteous man is pitiful, and lends. For your Father would have you give to all, who Himself makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends His rain on the just and on the unjust. It is therefore reasonable to give to all out of your own labours; for says He, Honour the Lord out of your righteous labours, but so that the saints be preferred. You shall not kill; that is, you shall not destroy a man like yourself: for you dissolve what was well made. Not as if all killing were wicked, but only that of the innocent: but the killing which is just is reserved to the magistrates alone. You shall not commit adultery: for you divide one flesh into two. They two shall be one flesh: for the husband and wife are one in nature, in consent, in union, in disposition, and the conduct of life; but they are separated in sex and number. You shall not corrupt boys: for this wickedness is contrary to nature, and arose from Sodom, which was therefore entirely consumed with fire sent from God. Let such a one be accursed: and all the people shall say, So be it. You shall not commit fornication: for says He, There shall not be a fornicator among the children of Israel. You shall not steal: for Achan, when he had stolen in Israel at Jericho, was stoned to death; and Gehazi, who stole, and told a lie, inherited the leprosy of Naaman; and Judas, who stole the poor's money, betrayed the Lord of glory to the Jews, and repented, and hanged himself, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; and Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, who stole their own goods, and tempted the Spirit of the Lord, were immediately, at the sentence of Peter our fellow-apostle, struck dead.

And the whole land of Canaan became an inheritance to the children of Israel for an everlasting inheritance, and Esau with all his children inherited the mountain of Seir.

And the children of Esau dwelt in Seir in the place of the children of Seir, and they inherited their land and took possession of it.

These are the nations whom they inherited: the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Jebusites, and the Girgasites; these are they whom Canaan seized by force from the seed of Shem.

And in like manner was it with Christ; those who paid no heed to Him and did not believe in Him perished in Sheol, and those who believed and hearkened unto Him inherited the land of everlasting life, where there will never be pain or suffering.

Now the censer is Mary, and Christ, the Son of God, the Godhead, is the coals, and the odour of the incense is the perfume of Christ, and through the perfume of Him Apostles, and Prophets, and Martyrs, and Monks, have rejected the world and inherited the kingdom of heaven.

Upon the death of Darius, Xerxes his son took the kingdom, who, as he inherited his father's kingdom, so did he inherit his piety towards God, and honor of him; for he did all things suitably to his father relating to Divine worship, and he was exceeding friendly to the Jews. Now about this time a son of Jeshua, whose name was Joacim, was the high priest. Moreover, there was now in Babylon a righteous man, and one that enjoyed a great reputation among the multitude. He was the principal priest of the people, and his name was Esdras. He was very skillful in the laws of Moses, and was well acquainted with king Xerxes. He had determined to go up to Jerusalem, and to take with him some of those Jews that were in Babylon; and he desired that the king would give him an epistle to the governors of Syria, by which they might know who he was. Accordingly, the king wrote the following epistle to those governors: "Xerxes, king of kings, to Esdras the priest, and reader of the Divine law, greeting. I think it agreeable to that love which I bear to mankind, to permit those of the Jewish nation that are so disposed, as well as those of the priests and Levites that are in our kingdom, to go together to Jerusalem. Accordingly, I have given command for that purpose; and let every one that hath a mind go, according as it hath seemed good to me, and to my seven counselors, and this in order to their review of the affairs of Judea, to see whether they be agreeable to the law of God. Let them also take with them those presents which I and my friends have vowed, with all that silver and gold that is found in the country of the Babylonians, as dedicated to God, and let all this be carried to Jerusalem to God for sacrifices. Let it also be lawful for thee and thy brethren to make as many vessels of silver and gold as thou pleasest. Thou shalt also dedicate those holy vessels which have been given thee, and as many more as thou hast a mind to make, and shall take the expenses out of the king's treasury. I have, moreover, written to the treasurers of Syria and Phoenicia, that they take care of those affairs that Esdras the priest, and reader of the laws of God, is sent about. And that God may not be at all angry with me, or with my children, I grant all that is necessary for sacrifices to God, according to the law, as far as a hundred cori of wheat. And I enjoin you not to lay any treacherous imposition, or any tributes, upon their priests or Levites, or sacred singers, or porters, or sacred servants, or scribes of the temple. And do thou, O Esdras, appoint judges according to the wisdom [given thee] of God, and those such as understand the law, that they may judge in all Syria and Phoenicia; and do thou instruct those also which are ignorant of it, that if any one of thy countrymen transgress the law of God, or that of the king, he may be punished, as not transgressing it out of ignorance, but as one that knows it indeed, but boldly despises and contemns it; and such may be punished by death, or by paying fines. Farewell."

Having sketched, then, so far as we could understand, these three opinions regarding the end of all things, and the supreme blessedness, let each one of our readers determine for himself, with care and diligence, whether any one of them can be approved and adopted. For it has been said that we must suppose either that an incorporeal existence is possible, after all things have become subject to Christ, and through Christ to God the Father, when God will be all and in all; or that when, notwithstanding all things have been made subject to Christ, and through Christ to God (with whom they formed also one spirit, in respect of spirits being rational natures), then the bodily substance itself also being united to most pure and excellent spirits, and being changed into an ethereal condition in proportion to the quality or merits of those who assume it (according to the apostle’s words, “We also shall be changed”), will shine forth in splendour; or at least that when the fashion of those things which are seen passes away, and all corruption has been shaken off and cleansed away, and when the whole of the space occupied by this world, in which the spheres of the planets are said to be, has been left behind and beneath, then is reached the fixed abode of the pious and the good situated above that sphere, which is called non-wandering (ἀπλανής), as in a good land, in a land of the living, which will be inherited by the meek and gentle; to which land belongs that heaven (which, with its more magnificent extent, surrounds and contains that land itself) which is called truly and chiefly heaven, in which heaven and earth, the end and perfection of all things, may be safely and most confidently placed,—where, viz., these, after their apprehension and their chastisement for the offences which they have undergone by way of purgation, may, after having fulfilled and discharged every obligation, deserve a habitation in that land; while those who have been obedient to the word of God, and have henceforth by their obedience shown themselves capable of wisdom, are said to deserve the kingdom of that heaven or heavens; and thus the prediction is more worthily fulfilled, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth;” and, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven;” and the declaration in the Psalm, “He shall exalt thee, and thou shalt inherit the land.” For it is called a descent to this earth, but an exaltation to that which is on high. In this way, therefore, does a sort of road seem to be opened up by the departure of the saints from that earth to those heavens; so that they do not so much appear to abide in that land, as to inhabit it with an intention, viz., to pass on to the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, when they have reached that degree of perfection also.

Mary said: "My Lord, 'Grace and truth met together,'--'grace' then is the spirit who hath come upon thee, when thou didst receive the baptism from John. 'Grace' then is the godly spirit who hath come upon thee; he hath had mercy on the race of men, hath come down and hath met with the power of Sabaōth, the Good which is in thee and which hath made proclamation concerning the regions of Truth. It hath said again: 'Righteousness and peace kissed each other,'--'righteousness' then is the spirit of the Light, which did come upon thee and hath brought the mysteries of the height, to give them unto the race of men. 'Peace' on the other hand is the power of Sabaōth, the Good, which is in thee,--he who hath baptized and hath forgiven the race of men,--and it hath made them at peace with the sons of the Light. And moreover as thy power hath said through David: 'Truth sprouted forth out of the earth,'--that is the power of Sabaōth, the Good, which sprouted forth out of Mary, thy mother, the dweller on earth. 'Righteousness,' which 'looked down from heaven,' on the other hand is the spirit in the height who hath brought all mysteries of the height and given them to the race of men; and they have become righteous and good, and have inherited the Light-kingdom."

Two men who rented a field [for a share in the produce], or inherited [a field], or became partners in it: the one [who tithes] may say to the other [who does not tithe], “You take the wheat which is in this place and I will take the wheat which is in that place.” Or, “You take the wine which is in this place and I will take the wine which is in that place.” But he may not say to him: “You take the wheat and I will take the barley,” or, “You take the wine and I will take the oil.”

A chaver (rabbinic associate) and an am haaretz who inherited [the property of] their father who was an am haaretz, he (the chaver) may say to him (the am haaretz): “You take the wheat which is in this place and I will take the wheat which is in that place.” Or, “You take the wine which is in this place and I will take the wine which is in that place.” But he may not say to him: “You take the wheat and I will take the barley,” or, “You take the wine and I will take the oil,” or: “You take the moist produce and I will take the dry produce.”

A convert and a gentile who inherited [the property of] their father, a gentile: he (the convert) can say [to his brother the gentile]: “You take the idols and I will take the money,” or: “You take the wine and I will take the produce.” But from the time [that any part of the inheritance] came into the possession of the convert, he is forbidden [to say so].

If one had inherited seventh year produce or had received them as a gift: Rabbi Eliezer says: they must be given to anyone who eats them. But the sages say: the sinner must not benefit, rather it should be sold to anyone who eats it, and its price divided among everyone. If one eats dough of seventh year [produce] before the hallah was taken from it, he has incurred thereby the death penalty [at the hands of heaven].

If she inherited old slaves or female slaves, they are to be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her father’s house. If she inherited old olive-trees or vines they must be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabbi Judah says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her paternal house. He who spent money in connection with his wife’s property, whether he spent much and consumed little, [or spent] little and consumed much, what he has spent he has spent, and what he has consumed he has consumed. If he spent but did not consume he may take an oath as to how much he has spent and receive compensation.

If she inherited old slaves or female slaves, they are to be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her father’s house. If she inherited old olive-trees or vines they must be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabbi Judah says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her paternal house. He who spent money in connection with his wife’s property, whether he spent much and consumed little, [or spent] little and consumed much, what he has spent he has spent, and what he has consumed he has consumed. If he spent but did not consume he may take an oath as to how much he has spent and receive compensation.

“Then the officers shall address the people saying: ‘Is there anyone who has built a new house but has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his home’” (Deuteronomy 20:5). It is the same whether he built a house for straw, a house for cattle, a house for wood, or a storehouse; It is the same whether he built, purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. “‘Is there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it?’” (vs.. It is the same whether he planted a vineyard or planted five fruit-trees and even of five different species; It is the same whether he planted, bent or grafted it, or whether he purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. “‘Is there anyone who has betrothed a woman [but who has not yet married her]?’” (vs. It is the same whether he had betrothed a virgin or a widow, or even a shomeret yavam, or even if a man heard that his brother had died in battle, he returns home. All these hear the priest’s words concerning the battles of war and return home, and they supply water and food and repair the roads.

“Then the officers shall address the people saying: ‘Is there anyone who has built a new house but has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his home’” (Deuteronomy 20:5). It is the same whether he built a house for straw, a house for cattle, a house for wood, or a storehouse; It is the same whether he built, purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. “‘Is there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it?’” (vs.. It is the same whether he planted a vineyard or planted five fruit-trees and even of five different species; It is the same whether he planted, bent or grafted it, or whether he purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present. “‘Is there anyone who has betrothed a woman [but who has not yet married her]?’” (vs. It is the same whether he had betrothed a virgin or a widow, or even a shomeret yavam, or even if a man heard that his brother had died in battle, he returns home. All these hear the priest’s words concerning the battles of war and return home, and they supply water and food and repair the roads.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value, because of the enactment to encourage repentance. And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.

If a man said, “This is my son”, he is believed. If [he said], “This is my brother”, he is not believed, yet the other may join him in his portion. If he died the property returns to its place. If he inherited property from elsewhere the other’s brothers inherit it together with him. If a man died and a testament was found bound to his thigh, this counts as nothing. But if [he had delivered it and] through it granted title to another, whether of his heirs or of those who are not his heirs, his words are valid.

Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.

If an Israelite inherited from his mother's father who was a Levite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here. Also if a Levite inherited from his mother's father who was an Israelite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here, As it says, “As for the houses of the cities of the Levites” (Leviticus 25:32) [this order does not apply] unless he is a Levite and in the cities of the Levites, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: these things apply to the cities of the Levites. One may not turn a field into pasture land, nor pasture land into a field, nor pasture land into a city, nor a city into pasture land. Rabbi Eliezer said: When is this so? When it comes to the cities of the Levites, but when it comes to cities of Israelites one may turn a field into pasture land, pasture land into a field, pasture land into a city, but not a city into pasture land, in order that they should not destroy the cities of Israel. Priests and Levites may sell [a house] at any time and redeem it at any time, as it is said: “The Levites shall forever have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32).

If an Israelite inherited from his mother's father who was a Levite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here. Also if a Levite inherited from his mother's father who was an Israelite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here, As it says, “As for the houses of the cities of the Levites” (Leviticus 25:32) [this order does not apply] unless he is a Levite and in the cities of the Levites, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: these things apply to the cities of the Levites. One may not turn a field into pasture land, nor pasture land into a field, nor pasture land into a city, nor a city into pasture land. Rabbi Eliezer said: When is this so? When it comes to the cities of the Levites, but when it comes to cities of Israelites one may turn a field into pasture land, pasture land into a field, pasture land into a city, but not a city into pasture land, in order that they should not destroy the cities of Israel. Priests and Levites may sell [a house] at any time and redeem it at any time, as it is said: “The Levites shall forever have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32).

Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac in the name of the older Rebbi Huna of Sepphoris: An individual must mention the occasion on the Ninth of Av. What does he say? “Have mercy, o Eternal, our God, in Your great mercy and your trusted kindness, towards us, Your people Israel, Your city Jerusalem, Zion the dwelling place of Your glory, and on the mourning, ruined, destroyed, and desolate city that is given into the hand of strangers, trampled down by haughty peoples, that was inherited by legions and desecrated by idol worshippers, when You had given her to Your people Israel as property, and let her be inherited by the seed of Yeshurun, for in fire You set her on fire and with fire You will build her in the future as it has been said (Zach. 2:9): “But I shall be for her, says the Eternal, a wall of fire around, and Glory I shall be in her midst.”

Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac in the name of the older Rebbi Huna of Sepphoris: An individual must mention the occasion on the Ninth of Av. What does he say? “Have mercy, o Eternal, our God, in Your great mercy and your trusted kindness, towards us, Your people Israel, Your city Jerusalem, Zion the dwelling place of Your glory, and on the mourning, ruined, destroyed, and desolate city that is given into the hand of strangers, trampled down by haughty peoples, that was inherited by legions and desecrated by idol worshippers, when You had given her to Your people Israel as property, and let her be inherited by the seed of Yeshurun, for in fire You set her on fire and with fire You will build her in the future as it has been said (Zach. 2:9): “But I shall be for her, says the Eternal, a wall of fire around, and Glory I shall be in her midst.”

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

There we have stated: “A woman who inherited property before she was betrothed, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel both are of the opinion that she may sell or give away and her actions are valid. If she inherited after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, she may sell, but the House of Hillel say, she may not sell.” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Yose, why did we not state it with the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel? He said to him, the Mishnaiot come only for circumstances that are either stringent on both sides or lenient on both sides. But here it is a stringency on one side and a leniency on the other side. But did we not state: “The House of Shammai say, property abandoned to the poor is abandoned?” Is this not lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder, and it was stated! It is lenient for the poor and not stringent for the householder, since it was abandoned by his intent. He said to him, did we not state: “The sheaf that was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten,” is this not lenient for the householder and stringent for the poor, and it was stated! He said to him, it is lenient for the householder but not stringent for the poor, because they did not acquire it yet. You may also say here, it is lenient for the woman and not stringent for the husband since he did not yet acquire property rights to it. He said to him, since he became betrothed to her, the inheritance fell to both of them.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody marries giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts’, water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer, she is married, even if the groom is Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen.

MISHNAH: If two people received a field as sharecroppers or inherited it or bought it as partners, one can say to his partner, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take your wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take the wheat and I shall take the barley, take the wine and I shall take the oil. If a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ inherited from their am haäreẓ father, the ḥaver may say, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take wheat and I shall take barley, take the moist produce and I shall take the dry.

MISHNAH: If two people received a field as sharecroppers or inherited it or bought it as partners, one can say to his partner, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take your wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take the wheat and I shall take the barley, take the wine and I shall take the oil. If a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ inherited from their am haäreẓ father, the ḥaver may say, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take wheat and I shall take barley, take the moist produce and I shall take the dry.

MISHNAH: If a proselyte and a Gentile inherited from their Gentile father, the proselyte may say, take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce. After they came into the proselyte’s possession, this is forbidden. He who sells produce in Syria and says: ‘They are from the Land of Israel,’ must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. ‘They are from my field,’ he must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. If it is known that he has a field in Syria, he must tithe.

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were exiled. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity made Sukkot and sat in tabernacles … something nobody had done since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers had inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers was no yoke of government, but you even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after 14 years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, you become obligated for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

How does Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina explain “In view of all this”? Since they accepted [the obligations] with good grace, the verse credits it to them as if they had accepted it voluntarily. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “more than your forefathers?” He explains it for the future since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your forefathers inherited the land of seven peoples, but you will in the future inherit the land of ten peoples. The three others are (Gen. 15:19) “the Qenites, the Qenizites and the Qadmonites.” Rebbi Jehudah said, [these are] Arabia, Salmaia and Nabataea. Rebbi Simeon says, Asia, Spain, and Damascus. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, Asia, Cartagena, and Thrace. Rebbi says, Edom, Moab, and the best of Ammon. “More than your forefathers”: Your forefathers, even though they were redeemed, were later subjugated again. But you when you are redeemed will not be subjugated again. What is the reason? (Jer. 30:6) “Inquire and see whether a male gives birth.” Just as a male cannot give birth so you, after you are redeemed, will not be subjugated again.

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would hold with Rebbi, but only for something he is obligated to give to a Cohen; but for something he is not obligated to give to a Cohen, even Rebbi will agree since that is a Mishnah: “If he separated the redemption of a first-born donkey and then it died, Rebbi Eliezer says one is responsible for alienation as for the five tetradrachmas of the [human] first-born; but the Sages say, he is not responsible for alienation, as for Second Tithe.” Rebbi Eliezer will agree about first-born donkeys he inherited from the estate of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, that he sanctified it when he separated it.

How does Rebbi Eliezer explain the reason of Rebbi Aqiba, (Num. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you?” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer: Do you not agree that when Israel entered the Land and found there coarse and fine flour that this was subject to ḥallah? Did it not grow while exempt? He accepted that. Rebbi Yose said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer and how could the latter accept it? There, before they entered they had inherited it retroactively, as Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: It is not written “to your posterity I shall give” but (Gen. 15:18): “to your posterity I gave”, I already gave it.

Rebbi Mana said, I heard from Rebbi Yudan and from all the rabbis, why does one honor the lower house? So that divisions should not grow in Israel. Three put down their crowns in this world and inherited the life of the Future World. And these are: Jonathan the son of Saul, and Eleazar ben Azariah, and the Elders of Bathyra. Jonathan the son of Saul. Rebbi La said, even the women behind the loom did know that David would rule in the future. Eleazar ben Azaria was Second in rank. There are among these only the Elders of Bathyra who freed themselves of the Patriarchate and appointed him Patriarch. The rabbis of Caesarea said, also Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris for Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai said, all my days I fled from authority. Now that I entered, anybody who would remove me I would treat like a water kettle. As the kettle burns, and injures, and chars, so I would treat him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, heaven forbid that he wanted this. But he said, who could tell me that he would sanctify the Name of Heaven as I am doing.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac in the name of the older Rebbi Huna of Sepphoris: An individual must mention the occasion on the Ninth of Av. What does he say? “Have mercy, Eternal, our God, in Your great mercy and your trusted kindness, towards us, Your people Israel, Your city Jerusalem, Zion the dwelling place of Your glory, and on the mourning, destroyed, and desolate city that is given into the hand of strangers, trampled down by haughty peoples, that was raped by legions and desecrated by idol worshippers, when You had given her to Your people Israel in love as property, and let her be inherited by the seed of Yeshurun, for in fire You destroyed her and in fire You will build her in the future as it has been said: But I shall be for her, says the Eternal, a wall of fire around, and Glory I shall be in her midst.”

If he separated his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there, “A woman who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice.” Samuel said, if it was separated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate, does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables, does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not] taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.

If he separated his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there, “A woman who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice.” Samuel said, if it was separated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate, does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables, does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not] taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.

If he separated his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there, “A woman who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice.” Samuel said, if it was separated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate, does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables, does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not] taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.

If he separated his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there, “A woman who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice.” Samuel said, if it was separated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate, does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables, does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not] taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.

HALAKHAH: “Who built a house”, not only who built; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”. From where he who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility, from where? The verse says, “who builds”. I could think that one who builds a portico, a covered walkway, and a verandah would return; the verse says “house”; the house is distinguished by the fact that it can be used as a dwelling. This excludes those items which cannot be dwellings. It also excludes a house which does not enclose four by four cubits. As it was stated: A house which does not enclose four by four cubits is free from the obligation of a parapet, or a mezuzah, or an erub. It also does not induce ṭevel for tithes and one does not give it four cubits in front of its door, and it is not counted as a connection to the town, and one who forswears any use of a house is permitted to sit in it, and it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee year, and it cannot become impure by disease, and its owner does not become exempt from the war because of it.

HALAKHAH: “Who planted”. Not only who planted; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”. From where about him who planted a vineyard but also who planted five fruit trees, even from five different kinds? The verse says, “who planted”, in any circumstance. I could think that one who planted four fruit trees or five futile trees may return? The verse says, “a vineyard.” Since a vineyard is special in that it is composed of five vines, this excludes the case where there are not five vines.

It was stated: “That we ate in X or Y’s clipping.” What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he bought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his realtives filled amphoras with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. Whe he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

MISHNAH: If a woman inherited property before she became preliminarily married, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel agree that if she sells or gives it away it is valid. If she inherited after she became preliminarily married, the House of Shammai say she may sell, the House of Hillel say she should not sell, but both of them agree that if she sold or gave it away it is valid. Rebbi Jehudah said: They said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, should he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new [properties] and you want to burden us with the old ones?

MISHNAH: If a woman inherited property before she became preliminarily married, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel agree that if she sells or gives it away it is valid. If she inherited after she became preliminarily married, the House of Shammai say she may sell, the House of Hillel say she should not sell, but both of them agree that if she sold or gave it away it is valid. Rebbi Jehudah said: They said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, should he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new [properties] and you want to burden us with the old ones?

HALAKHAH: “If a woman inherited property,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Before she was preliminarily married. What is the difference between before she was preliminarily married and after she was preliminarily married? Before she was preliminarily married, it fell to her; after she was preliminarily married it fell to her and him.

MISHNAH: If she inherited property after she was definitively married, both agree that if she sold or gave away the husband retrieves from the hand of the buyers. [If she interited] before she was definitively married and [sold] after she was definitively married, Rabban Gamliel said if she sold or gave away it is valid. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, they said before Rabban Gamliel: If he obtained the right to the woman, did he not also acquire the right to the property? He said to them, are we not ashamed about the new [properties], and you want to burden us with the old ones?

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She may sell or give away and it is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: She should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid. ”Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, that is not what Rabban Gamliel gave as answer, but the following was his argument: No, if you have an argument about a preliminarily married one, where he has rights neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to dissolve her vows, what can you say about a definitively married one where he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows? Let the proof be the case of one who [inherited] before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, in which case he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows, and you admit to us that she should not sell or give away. He said to them, I agree that she should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid..” There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, is not Rabban Gamliel’s an isolated opinion? One cannot rely on it. A baraita supports him and disagrees with him: ”Our teachers took up the case again, voted, and instructed about property which she inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, that she should not sell or give away, and if she sold or gave away it is invalid.” It disagrees that the sale is invalid. It agrees that our teachers took up the case again, instructed, and voted. Before they voted, they did not disagree with him.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She may sell or give away and it is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: She should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid. ”Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, that is not what Rabban Gamliel gave as answer, but the following was his argument: No, if you have an argument about a preliminarily married one, where he has rights neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to dissolve her vows, what can you say about a definitively married one where he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows? Let the proof be the case of one who [inherited] before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, in which case he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows, and you admit to us that she should not sell or give away. He said to them, I agree that she should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid..” There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, is not Rabban Gamliel’s an isolated opinion? One cannot rely on it. A baraita supports him and disagrees with him: ”Our teachers took up the case again, voted, and instructed about property which she inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, that she should not sell or give away, and if she sold or gave away it is invalid.” It disagrees that the sale is invalid. It agrees that our teachers took up the case again, instructed, and voted. Before they voted, they did not disagree with him.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited after she was definitively married,” etc. We did state: She may sell or give away and it is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: She should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid. ”Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqiba said, that is not what Rabban Gamliel gave as answer, but the following was his argument: No, if you have an argument about a preliminarily married one, where he has rights neither to what she finds, nor to her handiwork, nor to dissolve her vows, what can you say about a definitively married one where he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows? Let the proof be the case of one who [inherited] before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, in which case he has rights to what she finds, to her handiwork, and to dissolve her vows, and you admit to us that she should not sell or give away. He said to them, I agree that she should not sell or give away, but if she sold or gave away it is valid..” There came a case before Rebbi Immi. He said, is not Rabban Gamliel’s an isolated opinion? One cannot rely on it. A baraita supports him and disagrees with him: ”Our teachers took up the case again, voted, and instructed about property which she inherited before the definitive marriage and then was definitively married, that she should not sell or give away, and if she sold or gave away it is invalid.” It disagrees that the sale is invalid. It agrees that our teachers took up the case again, instructed, and voted. Before they voted, they did not disagree with him.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Simeon differentiates between properties,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, properties known to the husband are real estate, those not known to the husband are movables. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, properties known to the husband are those she inherited in the presence of the husband, those not known to the husband are those she inherited while her husband was overseas. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The following are properties not known to the husband, what she inherited while her husband was overseas.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Simeon differentiates between properties,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, properties known to the husband are real estate, those not known to the husband are movables. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, properties known to the husband are those she inherited in the presence of the husband, those not known to the husband are those she inherited while her husband was overseas. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The following are properties not known to the husband, what she inherited while her husband was overseas.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Simeon differentiates between properties,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, properties known to the husband are real estate, those not known to the husband are movables. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, properties known to the husband are those she inherited in the presence of the husband, those not known to the husband are those she inherited while her husband was overseas. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The following are properties not known to the husband, what she inherited while her husband was overseas.

MISHNAH: If she inherited money; real estate should be bought with it and he eats its yield. For produce cut from the ground, real estate should be bought and he eats its yield; with produce connected to the ground, Rebbi Meïr says one has to estimate how much the property is worth with produce and how much without, for the difference real estate should be bought and he eats its yield. But the Sages say, standing produce is his, cut it is hers; real estate should be bought from it and he eats its yield.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited money; real estate should be bought,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s opinion since Rebbi Meïr considers standing [produce] as if it were cut. Rebbi Yose said, he did not hear that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, Rebbi Meïr said this only for standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested; therefore not unripe produce. But here, even unripe produce. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, are not the arguments of Rebbi Meïr contradictory? There, he did not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut, but here he considers standing [produce] as if it were cut. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Meïr does not consider standing [produce] as if it were cut. But if you see cut grain, you empower the woman; if you see an unseeded field, you empower the man. In case of doubt you estimate how much it is worth unseeded and how much seeded. If before it was seeded it was worth (two denars) and when it was seeded (one denar), with that denar real estate should be bought and he reaps its yield.

MISHNAH: If she inherited old male and female slaves, they should be sold and real estate bought with the proceeds, of which he eats the yield. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, she does not have to sell because they are the glory of her father’s house.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited male and female slaves,” etc. The Mishnah speaks of those who do not work enough for their upkeep. But if they work enough for their upkeep, she does not have to sell because the glory of her father’s house still exists.

MISHNAH: If she inherited old vines or olive trees, they should be sold for their wood and real estate bought with the proceeds, of which he eats the yield. Rebbi Jehudah says, she does not have to sell because they are the glory of her father’s house.

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited old vines or olive trees,” etc. Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: The Mishnah deals with the case that she inherited olive trees but not their ground, vines but not their ground. But if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, she does not have to sell since her father’s house’s glory still exists. But the rabbis here say, even if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, did she not inherit the value of the olive grove, did she not inherit the value of the vineyard? A baraita supports the rabbis there: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the grove’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.”

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited old vines or olive trees,” etc. Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: The Mishnah deals with the case that she inherited olive trees but not their ground, vines but not their ground. But if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, she does not have to sell since her father’s house’s glory still exists. But the rabbis here say, even if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, did she not inherit the value of the olive grove, did she not inherit the value of the vineyard? A baraita supports the rabbis there: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the grove’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.”

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited old vines or olive trees,” etc. Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: The Mishnah deals with the case that she inherited olive trees but not their ground, vines but not their ground. But if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, she does not have to sell since her father’s house’s glory still exists. But the rabbis here say, even if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, did she not inherit the value of the olive grove, did she not inherit the value of the vineyard? A baraita supports the rabbis there: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the grove’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.”

HALAKHAH: “If she inherited old vines or olive trees,” etc. Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: The Mishnah deals with the case that she inherited olive trees but not their ground, vines but not their ground. But if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, she does not have to sell since her father’s house’s glory still exists. But the rabbis here say, even if she inherited olive trees with their ground, vines with their ground, did she not inherit the value of the olive grove, did she not inherit the value of the vineyard? A baraita supports the rabbis there: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the grove’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.”

MISHNAH: If a woman waiting for her levir inherited property, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that if she sells or gives away it is valid. If she died, what shall be done with her ketubah and the properties which enter and leave with her? The House of Shammai say, the husband’s and the father’s heirs shall split it. But the House of Hillel say, the properties are in the hands of the holders; the ketubah in the hands of the husband’s heirs and the properties which enter and leave with her in the hands of the father’s heirs.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” and she inherited properties afterwards, what is the rule? Can a person put a condition on something not in existence? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: From his rights you can infer his obligations. If he had not written to her, would it make any difference, would he not receive its yield? That means, from his rights you can infer his obligations. Rebbi Levi bar Ḥaita asked: If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties which you shall inherit in the future,” what is the rule? Can a person put a condition on something not in existence?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was married to three women,” etc. Samuel said, sharpness of the judges. As in the case of two mortgages written on one field, to whom the court wants to hand it over in possession they hand it over. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If the estate is only 100, they divide equally.” Was this said for the sharpness of the judges? And did we not state: If the heirs inherited an instrument of indebtedness, the male firstborn takes a double portion; and if an instrument of indebtedness was presented to them, the male firstborn pays a double portion. Was this said for the sharpness of the judges? Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: There is no difference, whether two mortgages were written on one field or one mortgage was written on two fields, on whom the court decide they hand it over in possession.

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate. As it was stated: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody who takes them first acquires them and he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not remove from their hands. For Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half? Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables? Rebbi Yudan [ ] there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody marries preliminarily giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts’, water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer, she is married, even if the groom is an Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen.

Does this not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan given before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. He explains it for a documented loan. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan given before witnesses can be collected from heirs, on condition that they inherited real estate. As those from the house of Rav Neḥemiah, who lent money to the public. The case came before the rabbis who said, the public is neither all rich nor all poor.

As the following: Ganiba was lead out to be executed. He said, One should give money to Rebbi Abuna from the wine of Kefar Panaya. They did not give him; they were considering what Rav said, “an heir is like the buyer of encumbered property.” Just as a loan before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. If they did not give it as payment of a debt, they should have given as a gift! They were considering what Rebbi Eleazar said, for Rebbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person? Rebbi Ze‘ira brought Rebbi Isaac from Atosha who stated for him: A gift is like a bill of divorce. Rebbi Abba said to him, perhaps like bills of divorce which one cannot deliver if not delivered during his lifetime, so a gift is not called a gift if not delivered during his lifetime? He said to him, here comes the rabbi with sophistication to let Rebbi Abuna lose money! You cannot, for we have stated there: “Give a mina to X; then he died. One shall give after death.” Following Rebbi Simeon. For Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, they should give him, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan before witnesses can be collected from the heirs on condition that they inherited real estate. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if somebody was with him until the moment of his death. But if he goes in and out, I am saying that already he gave him. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it was not given since Rebbi Ḥanina reported this fact: Levi Parisa was going from place to place when Ganiba’s relatives came to eat with him. He said, the money should be given to Rebbi Abuna; they started quarelling with him.

But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rebbi Joshua in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

HALAKHAH: “A Canaanite slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “They shall be inherited by your children after you, to be possessed as inheritance” This brackets slaves with landed property. Since real estate can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession, so a Canaanite slave can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession.

Then they changed it to clipping. What is clipping? If a man sold his inherited field, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his inheritance. When he brought it back, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his inheritance. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also if a man married an unsuitable woman, his relatives brought amphoras, filled them with roasted kernels and nuts and broke them before children. The children were collecting them and saying, X was clipped from his family. When he divorced her, they were doing the same and saying, X returned to his family.

If it is so, they should have been freed once they were redeemed. It is written (Neh. 8:17): “All the congregation coming from captivity … since the days of Joshua bin Nun.” Why Joshua? Rebbi Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Naḥmani: The verse damaged the reputation of the just person in his grave for the reputation of the just person in his time; it compares their coming in the days of Ezra to the coming in the days of Joshua. As at the coming in the days of Joshua they had been free and became obligated, also at the coming in the days of Ezra they had been free and became obligated. How did they become obligated? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they became obligated by the words of the Torah; that is what is written (Deut. 30:5): “The Eternal, your God, will bring you to the Land that your fathers inherited and you will inherit it.” Just as the inheritance of your fathers was by the words of the Torah, so your inheritance is by the words of the Torah. “He will be good to you and give increase to you more than to your forefathers.” Your fathers had been free and became obligated, also you had been free and became obligated. On your fathers there was no yoke of government, but you [are obligated] even though there is on you the yoke of government. Your fathers did become obligated only after fourteen years, seven they conquered and seven they distributed, but you became obligated [immediately when you entered. Your fathers did become obligated only after they had acquired all, but you become obligated] for every single piece at the moment you acquire it.

How does Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina explain “In view of all this, we execute a contract and sign”? Since they accepted [the obligations] with good grace, the verse credits it to them as if they had accepted it voluntarily. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “more than your forefathers?” He explains it for the future since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your forefathers inherited the land of seven peoples, but you will in the future inherit the land of ten peoples. The three others are (Gen. 15:19) “the Qenites, the Qenizites and the Qadmonites.” Rebbi Jehudah said, [these are] Arabia, Salmaia and Nabataea. Rebbi Simeon says, Asia, Spain, and Damascus. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, Asia, Cartagena, and Thrace. Rebbi says, Edom, Moab, and the best of Ammon. “More than your forefathers”: Your forefathers, even though they were redeemed, were later subjugated again. But you when you are redeemed will not be subjugated again. What is the reason? (Jer. 30:6) “Inquire and see whether a male gives birth.” Just as a male cannot give birth so you, after you are redeemed, will not be subjugated again.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If a man performs preliminary marriage using heaves, or tithes, or gifts to priests, or water for purification, or the ashes of purification, she is married even if he is an Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen.

HALAKHAH: “One who digs a pit in the public domain,” etc. It is written: “If a man open a pit” and “if a man dig a pit.” One pit for damages, the other pit for death. Rebbi Isaac said, both the pit of death and the pit of damages were added from the same verse, but when it comes to the pit of death you say he is not liable for vessels, but when it comes to the pit of damages you say he is liable for vessels! This is not only if he dug, from where if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift? The verse says, “if a man acquire a pit.” Has one the right to abandon his damages in the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah who said, three [handbreadths] close to a domain are like that domain.

MISHNAH: If somebody robbed to feed his children and they inherited from him, they are not liable to pay; if it was mortgageable property they have to pay. One changes money neither from the chest of the publican nor the wallet of the tax collector and one does not accept charity from these, but one accepts from their house or from the market place.

“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs. Explain it if he left them real estate. But might it not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items.

“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs. Explain it if he left them real estate. But might it not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items.

“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs. Explain it if he left them real estate. But might it not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items.

It was stated: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved.

It was stated: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved.

Joshua and Caleb took three parts: Their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab; in addition they took the parts of the spies. This is what is written: “Joshua bin Nun and Caleb ben Yephuneh lived off the men, etc.” But the part of the complainers and Korah’s gang became common property; their sons [inherited] from their paternal and maternal grandfathers. That is what is written: “Korah’s sons did not die.”

Rebbi explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, co-owners who left Egypt. One had nine sons, the other a single son. They inherited ten bet kor. Each of them takes a letekh. They return it to their fathers and then split. It turns out that the single son takes half and the sons of the other take half.

“Segub fathered Jair,” etc. From where did Jair have cities on Mount Gilead? But he married a woman from the daughters of Manasse who died and he inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should not say that “Jair had” but that “Segub had.” Similarly, “Eleazar ben Aaron died.” From where did Phineas have property on the Mountain of Ephraim? But he married a woman from the daughters of Ephraim and inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should say that “Eleazar had” not that “Phineas had.”

“Segub fathered Jair,” etc. From where did Jair have cities on Mount Gilead? But he married a woman from the daughters of Manasse who died and he inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should not say that “Jair had” but that “Segub had.” Similarly, “Eleazar ben Aaron died.” From where did Phineas have property on the Mountain of Ephraim? But he married a woman from the daughters of Ephraim and inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should say that “Eleazar had” not that “Phineas had.”