insignificant

Abraham, styled “the friend,” was found faithful, inasmuch as he rendered obedience to the words of God. He, in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, and from his kindred, and from his father’s house, in order that, by forsaking a small territory, and a weak family, and an insignificant house, he might inherit the promises of God. For God said to him, “Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, into the land which I shall show thee. And I will make thee a great nation, and will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be blessed. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” And again, on his departing from Lot, God said to him, “Lift up thine eyes, and look from the place where thou now art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, [so that] if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.” And again [the Scripture] saith, “God brought forth Abram, and spake unto him, Look up now to heaven, and count the stars if thou be able to number them; so shall thy seed be. And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him in his old age; and in the exercise of obedience, he offered him as a sacrifice to God on one of the mountains which He showed him.

For there is some edification to be found even in these amusements, for often some desirable lesson is taught by the most insignificant affairs of life. But by practising the utmost propriety in all your actions, you have shown that you are a philosopher and you are honoured by God on account of your virtue.'

But since He is called by the apostle not only the brightness of His glory, but also the express figure of His person or subsistence, it does not seem idle to inquire how there can be said to be another figure of that person besides the person of God Himself, whatever be the meaning of person and subsistence. Consider, then, whether the Son of God, seeing He is His Word and Wisdom, and alone knows the Father, and reveals Him to whom He will (i.e. to those who are capable of receiving His word and wisdom), may not, in regard of this very point of making God to be understood and acknowledged, be called the figure of His person and subsistence; that is, when that Wisdom, which desires to make known to others the means by which God is acknowledged and understood by them, describes Himself first of all, it may by so doing be called the express figure of the person of God. In order, however, to arrive at a fuller understanding of the manner in which the Saviour is the figure of the person or subsistence of God, let us take an instance, which, although it does not describe the subject of which we are treating either fully or appropriately, may nevertheless be seen to be employed for this purpose only, to show that the Son of God, who was in the form of God, divesting Himself [of His glory], makes it His object, by this very divesting of Himself, to demonstrate to us the fulness of His deity. For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous a size as to fill the whole world, and which on that account could be seen by no one; and that another statue were formed altogether resembling it in the shape of the limbs, and in the features of the countenance, and in form and material, but without the same immensity of size, so that those who were unable to behold the one of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and countenance, and even the very form and material, so closely, as to be altogether undistinguishable from it; by some such similitude, the Son of God, divesting Himself of His equality with the Father, and showing to us the way to the knowledge of Him, is made the express image of His person: so that we, who were unable to look upon the glory of that marvellous light when placed in the greatness of His Godhead, may, by His being made to us brightness, obtain the means of beholding the divine light by looking upon the brightness. This comparison, of course, of statues, as belonging to material things, is employed for no other purpose than to show that the Son of God, though placed in the very insignificant form of a human body, in consequence of the resemblance of His works and power to the Father, showed that there was in Him an immense and invisible greatness, inasmuch as He said to His disciples, “He who sees me, sees the Father also;” and, “I and the Father are one.” And to these belong also the similar expression, “The Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

After Celsus has finished speaking of the bees, in order to depreciate (as far as he can) the cities, and constitutions, and governments, and sovereignties not only of us Christians, but of all mankind, as well as the wars which men undertake on behalf of their native countries, he proceeds, by way of digression, to pass a eulogy upon the ants, in order that, while praising them, he may compare the measures which men take to secure their subsistence with those adopted by these insects, and so evince his contempt for the forethought which makes provision for winter, as being nothing higher than the irrational providence of the ants, as he regards it. Now might not some of the more simple-minded, and such as know not how to look into the nature of all things, be turned away (so far, at least, as Celsus could accomplish it) from helping those who are weighed down with the burdens [of life], and from sharing their toils, when he says of the ants, that “they help one another with their loads, when they see one of their number toiling under them?” For he who needs to be disciplined by the word, but who does not at all understand its voice, will say: “Since, then, there is no difference between us and the ants, even when we help those who are weary with bearing their heavy burdens, why should we continue to do so to no purpose?” And would not the ants, as being irrational creatures, be greatly puffed up, and think highly of themselves, because their works were compared to those of men? while men, on the other hand, who by means of their reason are enabled to hear how their philanthropy towards others is contemned, would be injured, so far as could be effected by Celsus and his arguments: for he does not perceive that, while he wishes to turn away from Christianity those who read his treatise, he turns away also the sympathy of those who are not Christians from those who bear the heaviest burdens [of life]. Whereas, had he been a philosopher, who was capable of perceiving the good which men may do each other, he ought, in addition to not removing along with Christianity the blessings which are found amongst men, to have lent his aid to co-operate (if he had it in his power) with those principles of excellence which are common to Christianity and the rest of mankind. Moreover, even if the ants set apart in a place by themselves those grains which sprout forth, that they may not swell into bud, but may continue throughout the year as their food, this is not to be deemed as evidence of the existence of reason among ants, but as the work of the universal mother, Nature, which adorned even irrational animals, so that even the most insignificant is not omitted, but bears traces of the reason implanted in it by nature. Unless, indeed, by these assertions Celsus means obscurely to intimate (for in many instances he would like to adopt Platonic ideas) that all souls are of the same species, and that there is no difference between that of a man and those of ants and bees, which is the act of one who would bring down the soul from the vault of heaven, and cause it to enter not only a human body, but that of an animal. Christians, however, will not yield their assent to such opinions: for they have been instructed before now that the human soul was created in the image of God; and they see that it is impossible for a nature fashioned in the divine image to have its [original] features altogether obliterated, and to assume others, formed after I know not what likeness of irrational animals.

If one wished to obtain means for a profounder contemplation of the entrance of souls into divine things, not from the statements of that very insignificant sect from which he quoted, but from books—partly those of the Jews, which are read in their synagogues, and adopted by Christians, and partly from those of Christians alone—let him peruse, at the end of Ezekiel’s prophecies, the visions beheld by the prophet, in which gates of different kinds are enumerated, which obscurely refer to the different modes in which divine souls enter into a better world; and let him peruse also, from the Apocalypse of John, what is related of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and of its foundations and gates. And if he is capable of finding out also the road, which is indicated by symbols, of those who will march on to divine things, let him read the book of Moses entitled Numbers, and let him seek the help of one who is capable of initiating him into the meaning of the narratives concerning the encampments of the children of Israel; viz. of what sort those were which were arranged towards the east, as was the case with the first; and what those towards the south-west and south; and what towards the sea; and what the last were, which were stationed towards the north. For he will see that there is in the respective places a meaning not to be lightly treated, nor, as Celsus imagines, such as calls only for silly and servile listeners: but he will distinguish in the encampments certain things relating to the numbers that are enumerated, and which are specially adapted to each tribe, of which the present does not appear to us to be the proper time to speak. Let Celsus know, moreover, as well as those who read his book, that in no part of the genuine and divinely accredited Scriptures are “seven” heavens mentioned; neither do our prophets, nor the apostles of Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself, repeat anything which they borrowed from the Persians or the Cabiri.

After the instance borrowed from the Mithraic mysteries, Celsus declares that he who would investigate the Christian mysteries, along with the aforesaid Persian, will, on comparing the two together, and on unveiling the rites of the Christians, see in this way the difference between them. Now, wherever he was able to give the names of the various sects, he was nothing loth to quote those with which he thought himself acquainted; but when he ought most of all to have done this, if they were really known to him, and to have informed us which was the sect that makes use of the diagram he has drawn, he has not done so. It seems to me, however, that it is from some statements of a very insignificant sect called Ophites, which he has misunderstood, that, in my opinion, he has partly borrowed what he says about the diagram. Now, as we have always been animated by a love of learning, we have fallen in with this diagram, and we have found in it the representations of men who, as Paul says, “creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts; ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The diagram was, however, so destitute of all credibility, that neither these easily deceived women, nor the most rustic class of men, nor those who were ready to be led away by any plausible pretender whatever, ever gave their assent to the diagram. Nor, indeed, have we ever met any individual, although we have visited many parts of the earth, and have sought out all those who anywhere made profession of knowledge, that placed any faith in this diagram.

Celsus goes on to say: “Let any one inquire of the Egyptians, and he will find that everything, even to the most insignificant, is committed to the care of a certain demon. The body of man is divided into thirty-six parts, and as many demons of the air are appointed to the care of it, each having charge of a different part, although others make the number much larger. All these demons have in the language of that country distinct names; as Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biou, Erou, Erebiou, Ramanor, Reianoor, and other such Egyptian names. Moreover, they call upon them, and are cured of diseases of particular parts of the body. What, then, is there to prevent a man from giving honour to these or to others, if he would rather be in health than be sick, rather have prosperity than adversity, and be freed as much as possible from all plagues and troubles?” In this way, Celsus seeks to degrade our souls to the worship of demons, under the assumption that they have possession of our bodies, and that each one has power over a separate member. And he wishes us on this ground to put confidence in these demons of which he speaks, and to serve them, in order that we may be in health rather than be sick, have prosperity rather than adversity, and may as far as possible escape all plagues and troubles. The honour of the Most High God, which cannot be divided or shared with another, is so lightly esteemed by him, that he cannot believe in the ability of God, if called upon and highly honoured, to give to those who serve Him a power by which they may be defended from the assaults directed by demons against the righteous. For he has never beheld the efficacy of those words, “in the name of Jesus,” when uttered by the truly faithful, to deliver not a few from demons and demoniacal possessions and other plagues.

Rebbi Jonah, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Blended wool and flax are forbidden. What can one do? One adds more than a pound of camel’s hair and makes it insignificant. Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Blended wool and flax are neutral. Rav said, they are forbidden in mixture. Do they disagree? Rav speaks about the case when he made the material itself into a garment, Rebbi Jeremiah speaks about the case where he wants to mix it with other things.

Rebbi Assi fasted eighty days to see the old Rebbi Ḥiyya. In the end, he saw him, his hands trembled and his eyes were dimmed. If you say that Rebbi Assi was an insignificant person, one weaver came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said, I saw the sky falling but one of your students supported it. He asked him, could you recognize him? He said, if I would see him, I would recognize him. He made all his students pass before him [the weaver], and he recognized Rebbi Assi. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish fasted three hundred fasts to see the old Rebbi Ḥiyya but did not see him. In the end, he stopped feeling bad and said, maybe he did study Torah more than I did. They said to him, he spread Torah more than you did and in addition he went into exile. He said to them, did I not also go into exile? They said to him, you went into exile to study, he went into exile to teach.

Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their ḥallah. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant. The arguments of Ḥizqiah seem inverted. There, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab. And here he says so! Rebbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then kneaded.

Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their ḥallah. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant. The arguments of Ḥizqiah seem inverted. There, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab. And here he says so! Rebbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then kneaded.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass can become insignificant in slaughtered [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass can become insignificant in slaughtered [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass can become insignificant in slaughtered [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement. Ḥilfai said on that of Rebbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert. But Rebbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert. What is the difference between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 100 or is one more lenient, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant?

It was stated: If the heave became a plurality it is as if he had added intentionally. But did we not state: “If it contained 40 seah, he added a seah and removed a seah, it is in order.” How far? Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, up to the larger part of the miqweh. And here you say so? There it was a plurality, you add to it and it is in order. But here, every single seah needs 100 seah. Rebbi Yose said, this means that anything becoming insignificant by biblical law is activated by its own kind to become forbidden.

There, Rebbi Joḥanan said if a seah of heave was lifted from 100 of profane produce, anything will cause it to become insignificant. And here, if he collected and some profane produce fell into it, should it not be permitted? As Rebbi Joḥanan said there, he mills and it is permitted, so also here. There, both kinds came into his hands. But here, only ṭevel came into his hands if he collected from one [lagena]. But if he collected from two, both kinds came into his hands.

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Ammi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery; in addition, the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

Where do they disagree? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in, or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah?

Where do they disagree? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in, or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah?

If he took from it for another place to make it sour, both are forbidden. If he added to the first [dough] and made it insignificant, the main object will be derivative and the derivative the main object. “Heave sourdough which fell into a dough and was lifted, if the dough became sour afterwards, is permitted. Similarly, if a heave fig fell into 100 [figs], one was lifted, and afterwards the heave was recognized, should it be permitted? There, the prohibited [dough] was not identified; here, the prohibited [fig] is identified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, pigments in pigments become insignificant in 200. Fluid dyes in fluid dyes by a majority.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Immi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery because the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put a vessel under the light to catch the oil but when he put it there when it still was daylight it is permitted. One may not use it because it is not prepared,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it burned out when it still was day but he realized it only after it was dark? The colleagues asked: If it burned out on this Sabbath but he realized it only afterwards on the Sabbath? Rebbi Joḥanan said, nothing in its natural form is not prepared except one item. Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is not oil in the lamp in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the lamp. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected: Is not seed grain in its natural form, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the ground. They objected: Are there not eggs used for chicks which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! They were put there from the start to become chicks. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: Are there not Sukkah decorations which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! There is a difference, as Rebbi Abba Mari, Rebbi Yose’s brother, said: For the seven days they become insignificant in the Sukkah. Afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Is not lint which was scattered in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food. Rebbi Nasa objected, are there not figs put out to ferment, which dried but he did not touch, in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden, but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden, but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it.

MISHNAH: Dough in crannies of the baking trough: if there is the volume of an olive at one place one is obligated to eliminate; less than this becomes insignificant. Similarly in matters of impurity, if he is bothered by it it separates; if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough. Deaf dough is forbidden if a similar kind became sour.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. But did we not state, “less than this becomes insignificant”? One if plucked, one if connected. If he reduced it, did it become insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated? How much? They wanted to say, up to most of the trough. How is this? If he reduced most of the trough, the remainder becomes insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated? (There, Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them; and here he says so?).

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. But did we not state, “less than this becomes insignificant”? One if plucked, one if connected. If he reduced it, did it become insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated? How much? They wanted to say, up to most of the trough. How is this? If he reduced most of the trough, the remainder becomes insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated? (There, Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them; and here he says so?).

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. But did we not state, “less than this becomes insignificant”? One if plucked, one if connected. If he reduced it, did it become insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated? How much? They wanted to say, up to most of the trough. How is this? If he reduced most of the trough, the remainder becomes insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated? (There, Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them; and here he says so?).

Some Tannaim state it switched. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other.

Some Tannaim state it switched. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other.

From where the arrangement of the Day of Atonement? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Coals. Why does the verse say, of fire? That it should be insignificant on its coals. “Coals, I could think smouldering; the verse says of fire. If of fire, I could think flames; the verse says coals of fire, from those crackling ones. And from where that the fire should be insignificant on the coals? The verse says, coals of fire.”

From where the arrangement of the Day of Atonement? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Coals. Why does the verse say, of fire? That it should be insignificant on its coals. “Coals, I could think smouldering; the verse says of fire. If of fire, I could think flames; the verse says coals of fire, from those crackling ones. And from where that the fire should be insignificant on the coals? The verse says, coals of fire.”

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Then would Moses sing,” etc. Like a minor who recites the Hallel in school and all repeat every word after him. Moses said, “I shall sing”, and they repeat after him: “I shall sing”. Moses said: “Strength”, and they say: “Strength”. Rebbi Eliezer the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, like an adult who recites the Hallel in the synagogue, and they repeat the first word. Moses said, “I shall sing”, and they repeat: “I shall sing”. Moses said: “My strength”, and they repeat after him: “I shall sing”. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, when our forefathers were in the sea, the toddler was resting on his mother’s knees and the baby was suckling from his mother’s breast; but when they saw the Divine Glory, the toddler lifted his head from his mother’s knees and the baby took away his mouth from his mother’s breast; they opened their mouths in song and praise and said, “that is my God and I shall declare Him Beautiful”. Rebbi Meïr said, even the fetuses were saying a song from their mothers’ wombs, as it is said: “ In choirs praise God, the Eternal from the source of Israel.” Rebbi Nehemiah said, when our forefathers rose from the sea they saw the corpses of the sinners who had subjected them to hard, forced labor, all of them dead corpses thrown on the sea shore. They wanted to sing and the holy spirit rested upon them. Even the most insignificant in Israel sang the song just as Moses did. That is what is written: “ He remembered the days of old, Moses, his people; where is He Who raised them from the sea?” It is not written “the sheeps’ shepherd” but “His sheeps’ shepherd”; this teaches that He turned all of them into shepherds.

”If they died, others should inherit.” Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person can transfer property rights in any language except with an expression of inheritance? One does not have here “they shall inherit” but “they shall take”. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Do they not differ here in matters of a gift? If somebody signed over all his property to two persons at the same time; to one he wrote in the language of gift but to the other in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Eleazar said, since the one acquired in the language of gift, the other one acquired in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that one did acquire in the language of gift but the other did not acquire in the language of inheritance Rebbi Phineas said, there came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar since Rebbi Eleazar stated a docrine but Rebbi Joḥanan said only “it seems”. Rebbi Samuel said, but did not Rebbi Meïr say that and it does not seem reasonable; is that nothing? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Assi: Carded firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned, of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned”? The following Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote any expression of gift either at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his instructions are valid.” There, to one person in an expression of gift and to one an expression of inheritance. But here to each one both in the language of gift and the language of inheritance Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: But does he not prejudice the rights of others? He said to him, if there are no brothers. But does he not prejudice the rights of his paternal uncles? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel: A person prefers the good of his house over his relatives.

Rebbi Yasa fasted eighty days to see the old Rebbi Ḥiyya. In the end, he saw his bier and him sleeping on it. If you say that Rebbi Assi was an insignificant person, one tanner came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said, I saw the sky falling but one of your students supported it. He asked him, could you recognize him? He said, if I would see him, I would recognize him. He made all his students pass before him [the tanner], and he recognized Rebbi Assi. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish fasted three hundred fasts to see the old Rebbi Ḥiyya but did not see him. In the end, he started to feel badly and said, did he study Torah more than I did? They said to him, he spread Torah more than you did and in addition he went into exile. He said to them, did I not also go into exile? They said to him, you went into exile to study, he went into exile to teach.

They were given from one shepherd. The Holy One said, if you heard something from the most insignificant one of Israel and it gave you satisfaction, it should not be in your eyes as if you heard it from an insignificant one but from an important one; and not as if you heard it from an important one but from a Sage; and not as if you heard it from a Sage but from a prophet; and not as if you heard it from a prophet but from a shepherd (and shepherd only means Moses, as it is said: He remembered the days of old, Moses with his people; where is He Who brought them up from the Sea with his people’s shepherd; where is He Who gave His Holy Spirit in its midst); not as if you heard it from a shepherd but from Divinity. They were given from one shepherd, but “One” is only the Holy One, praise to Him, as it is said: Hear, o Israel, the Eternal is our God, the Eternal is One.

They were given from one shepherd. The Holy One said, if you heard something from the most insignificant one of Israel and it gave you satisfaction, it should not be in your eyes as if you heard it from an insignificant one but from an important one; and not as if you heard it from an important one but from a Sage; and not as if you heard it from a Sage but from a prophet; and not as if you heard it from a prophet but from a shepherd (and shepherd only means Moses, as it is said: He remembered the days of old, Moses with his people; where is He Who brought them up from the Sea with his people’s shepherd; where is He Who gave His Holy Spirit in its midst); not as if you heard it from a shepherd but from Divinity. They were given from one shepherd, but “One” is only the Holy One, praise to Him, as it is said: Hear, o Israel, the Eternal is our God, the Eternal is One.

If somebody finds an idol, Rav said, he breaks it limb by limb and it becomes insignificant, but Samuel said, it never can become insignificant.

If somebody finds an idol, Rav said, he breaks it limb by limb and it becomes insignificant, but Samuel said, it never can become insignificant.

MISHNAH: How does one make it insignificant? If he pruned dry branches, green branches, took from it a rod, or a twig, even a leaf, it became in significant. If he planed it for its benefit it is forbidden, not for its benefit it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “How does one make it insignificant,” etc Rav said, for his benefit, both it and its shavings are permitted; for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Samuel said, for its benefit both it and its shavings are forbidden, for his benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted.

Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces. But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds? When they came to study `Orlah did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given) correctly.