institution

THAT WOMEN OUGHT NOT TO BAPTIZE, [ili., 9.] Behold we declare unto you that great is the condemnation of those that thus do these deeds. We command you not to do this, for this thing is a transgression of the law. For the head of the woman is the man, who is appointed unto the priesthood. We then ought not to transgress against the Creator, (and) leave the head and follow the member. For the woman is the member of the man, and came forth from him; and from her children are born. Because He said unto her, ‘‘He is thy lord,” as we have already said, suffer not the women to admonish or teach, or execute the office of the priesthood, which is not commanded in the law. And he that doeth thus hath transgressed against God, and is as those that are without knowledge, even those that appoint women to be priestesses to graven images of women. Such women keep far away from the institution of Christ. Wherefore women ought never to baptize anyone. If it were lawful for women to baptize, our Lord Jesus Christ would have been baptized by His mother, and would not have been baptized by John; and He would not have sent us (only) into the world to baptize, but would have sent women to baptize along with us. We too command you that they do no such thing. Even if they are very wise, and have faith, and know the Scriptures, we do not permit them to baptize or preach the Gospel.

Let those that live as remote as the bounds of the land which the Hebrews shall possess, come to that city where the temple shall be, and this three times in a year, that they may give thanks to God for his former benefits, and may entreat him for those they shall want hereafter; and let them, by this means, maintain a friendly correspondence with one another by such meetings and feastings together, for it is a good thing for those that are of the same stock, and under the same institution of laws, not to be unacquainted with each other; which acquaintance will be maintained by thus conversing together, and by seeing and talking with one another, and so renewing the memorials of this union; for if they do not thus converse together continually, they will appear like mere strangers to one another.

When you have pitched your camp, take care that you do nothing that is cruel. And when you are engaged in a siege; and want timber for the making of warlike engines, do not you render the land naked by cutting down trees that bear fruit, but spare them, as considering that they were made for the benefit of men; and that if they could speak, they would have a just plea against you, because, though they are not occasions of the war, they are unjustly treated, and suffer in it, and would, if they were able, remove themselves into another land. When you have beaten your enemies in battle, slay those that have fought against you; but preserve the others alive, that they may pay you tribute, excepting the nation of the Canaanites; for as to that people, you must entirely destroy them., Take care, especially in your battles, that no woman use the habit of a man, nor man the garment of a woman.. This was the form of political government which was left us by Moses. Moreover, he had already delivered laws in writing in the fortieth year [after they came out of Egypt], concerning which we will discourse in another book. But now on the following days [for he called them to assemble continually] he delivered blessings to them, and curses upon those that should not live according to the laws, but should transgress the duties that were determined for them to observe. After this, he read to them a poetic song, which was composed in hexameter verse, and left it to them in the holy book: it contained a prediction of what was to come to pass afterward; agreeably whereto all things have happened all along, and do still happen to us; and wherein he has not at all deviated from the truth. Accordingly, he delivered these books to the priest, with the ark; into which he also put the ten commandments, written on two tables. He delivered to them the tabernacle also, and exhorted the people, that when they had conquered the land, and were settled in it, they should not forget the injuries of the Amalekites, but make war against them, and inflict punishment upon them for what mischief they did them when they were in the wilderness; and that when they had got possession of the land of the Canaanites, and when they had destroyed the whole multitude of its inhabitants, as they ought to do, they should erect an altar that should face the rising sun, not far from the city of Shechem, between the two mountains, that of Gerizzim, situate on the right hand, and that called Ebal, on the left; and that the army should be so divided, that six tribes should stand upon each of the two mountains, and with them the Levites and the priests. And that first, those that were upon Mount Gerizzim should pray for the best blessings upon those who were diligent about the worship of God, and the observation of his laws, and who did not reject what Moses had said to them; while the other wished them all manner of happiness also; and when these last put up the like prayers, the former praised them. After this, curses were denounced upon those that should transgress those laws, they, answering one another alternately, by way of confirmation of what had been said. Moses also wrote their blessings and their curses, that they might learn them so thoroughly, that they might never be forgotten by length of time. And when he was ready to die, he wrote these blessings and curses upon the altar, on each side of it; where he says also the people stood, and then sacrificed and offered burnt-offerings, though after that day they never offered upon it any other sacrifice, for it was not lawful so to do. These are the constitutions of Moses; and the Hebrew nation still live according to them.. On the next day, Moses called the people together, with the women and children, to a congregation, so as the very slaves were present also, that they might engage themselves to the observation of these laws by oath; and that, duly considering the meaning of God in them, they might not, either for favor of their kindred, or out of fear of any one, or indeed for any motive whatsoever, think any thing ought to be preferred to these laws, and so might transgress them. That in case any one of their own blood, or any city, should attempt to confound or dissolve their constitution of government, they should take vengeance upon them, both all in general, and each person in particular; and when they had conquered them, should overturn their city to the very foundations, and, if possible, should not leave the least footsteps of such madness: but that if they were not able to take such vengeance, they should still demonstrate that what was done was contrary to their wills. So the multitude bound themselves by oath so to do.. Moses taught them also by what means their sacrifices might be the most acceptable to God; and how they should go forth to war, making use of the stones [in the high priest's breastplate] for their direction, as I have before signified. Joshua also prophesied while Moses was present. And when Moses had recapitulated whatsoever he had done for the preservation of the people, both in their wars and in peace, and had composed them a body of laws, and procured them an excellent form of government, he foretold, as God had declared to him that if they transgressed that institution for the worship of God, they should experience the following miseries:—Their land should be full of weapons of war from their enemies, and their cities should be overthrown, and their temple should be burnt that they should be sold for slaves, to such men as would have no pity on them in their afflictions; that they would then repent, when that repentance would no way profit them under their sufferings. "Yet," said he, "will that God who founded your nation, restore your cities to your citizens, with their temple also; and you shall lose these advantages not once only, but often.". Now when Moses had encouraged Joshua to lead out the army against the Canaanites, by telling him that God would assist him in all his undertakings, and had blessed the whole multitude, he said, "Since I am going to my forefathers, and God has determined that this should be the day of my departure to them, I return him thanks while I am still alive and present with you, for that providence he hath exercised over you, which hath not only delivered us from the miseries we lay under, but hath bestowed a state of prosperity upon us; as also, that he hath assisted me in the pains I took, and in all the contrivances I had in my care about you, in order to better your condition, and hath on all occasions showed himself favorable to us; or rather he it was who first conducted our affairs, and brought them to a happy conclusion, by making use of me as a vicarious general under him, and as a minister in those matters wherein he was willing to do you good: on which account I think it proper to bless that Divine Power which will take care of you for the time to come, and this in order to repay that debt which I owe him, and to leave behind me a memorial that we are obliged to worship and honor him, and to keep those laws which are the most excellent gift of all those he hath already bestowed upon us, or which, if he continue favorable to us, he will bestow upon us hereafter. Certainly a human legislator is a terrible enemy when his laws are affronted, and are made to no purpose. And may you never experience that displeasure of God which will be the consequence of the neglect of these his laws, which he, who is your Creator, hath given you.". When Moses had spoken thus at the end of his life, and had foretold what would befall to every one of their tribes afterward, with the addition of a blessing to them, the multitude fell into tears, insomuch that even the women, by beating their breasts, made manifest the deep concern they had when he was about to die. The children also lamented still more, as not able to contain their grief; and thereby declared, that even at their age they were sensible of his virtue and mighty deeds; and truly there seemed to be a strife betwixt the young and the old who should most grieve for him. The old grieved because they knew what a careful protector they were to be deprived of, and so lamented their future state; but the young grieved, not only for that, but also because it so happened that they were to be left by him before they had well tasted of his virtue. Now one may make a guess at the excess of this sorrow and lamentation of the multitude, from what happened to the legislator himself; for although he was always persuaded that he ought not to be cast down at the approach of death, since the undergoing it was agreeable to the will of God and the law of nature, yet what the people did so overbore him, that he wept himself. Now as he went thence to the place where he was to vanish out of their sight, they all followed after him weeping; but Moses beckoned with his hand to those that were remote from him, and bade them stay behind in quiet, while he exhorted those that were near to him that they would not render his departure so lamentable. Whereupon they thought they ought to grant him that favor, to let him depart according as he himself desired; so they restrained themselves, though weeping still towards one another. All those who accompanied him were the senate, and Eleazar the high priest, and Joshua their commander. Now as soon as they were come to the mountain called Abarim, [which is a very high mountain, situate over against Jericho, and one that affords, to such as are upon it, a prospect of the greatest part of the excellent land of Canaan,] he dismissed the senate; and as he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them, a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died, which was done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that, because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God.. Now Moses lived in all one hundred and twenty years; a third part of which time, abating one month, he was the people's ruler; and he died on the last month of the year, which is called by the Macedonians Dystrus, but by us Adar, on the first day of the month. He was one that exceeded all men that ever were in understanding, and made the best use of what that understanding suggested to him. He had a very graceful way of speaking and addressing himself to the multitude; and as to his other qualifications, he had such a full command of his passions, as if he hardly had any such in his soul, and only knew them by their names, as rather perceiving them in other men than in himself. He was also such a general of an army as is seldom seen, as well as such a prophet as was never known, and this to such a degree, that whatsoever he pronounced, you would think you heard the voice of God himself. So the people mourned for him thirty days: nor did ever any grief so deeply affect the Hebrews as did this upon the death of Moses: nor were those that had experienced his conduct the only persons that desired him, but those also that perused the laws he left behind him had a strong desire after him, and by them gathered the extraordinary virtue he was master of. And this shall suffice for the declaration of the manner of the death of Moses.

The doctrine of the Essens is this: That all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices because they have more pure lustrations of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life better than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves to husbandry. It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another. They also appoint certain stewards to receive the incomes of their revenues, and of the fruits of the ground; such as are good men and priests, who are to get their corn and their food ready for them. They none of them differ from others of the Essens in their way of living, but do the most resemble those Dacae who are called Polistae [dwellers in cities].

Did we not state: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” If you say it is forbidden from the Torah, it is fine. If you say it is forbidden from their words, is there an institution after an institution? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, because of those far away.

Did we not state: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” If you say it is forbidden from the Torah, it is fine. If you say it is forbidden from their words, is there an institution after an institution? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, because of those far away.

HALAKHAH: “And he says if today is holiday my words should be void but he gives a name to his tithes but does not eat from it. On the second [day] he gives a name to his tithes and eats from it.” Rav’s argument seems inverted. There he treats it as one sanctity but here he treats it as two sanctities. There it is one long sanctity but here one is holy, the other profane. The rabbis’ argument seems inverted. There they treat it as two sanctities, but here they make it one sanctity. There a holiday next to a Sabbath is like weekday next to Sabbath but here both are equal. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about the two days of the New Year which are an institution of the early prophets

HALAKHAH: “How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah? Rav follows Rebbi Joḥanan, (and) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally.

MISHNAH: He handed him over to the one who led him. Everybody is qualified to lead him, but the High Priests made it an institution that they did not let an Israel lead him. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that Arsela from Sepphoris led it, and he was an Israel.

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

HALAKHAH: But only if all conditions are satisfied. It sees but does not hear; for example Jerusalem up high and it below. Hears but does not see; a mountain interrupts. Sees and hears but cannot come; outside the Sabbath domain. Sees, and hears, and is near, but is unable to come; a river separates. Rebbi Jonah asked, if it were able to come by an eruv? Just as you are saying in Jerusalem, that one blows in any village which sees, and hears, and is near, and is able to come, should we not say the same at Jabneh? Jerusalem is by word of the Torah and the nearby villages by word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan would institute according to the words of the Torah. Jabneh is by their words, and the close by villages would be by their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai would institute by their words. Does there exist institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: But only if all conditions are satisfied. It sees but does not hear; for example Jerusalem up high and it below. Hears but does not see; a mountain interrupts. Sees and hears but cannot come; outside the Sabbath domain. Sees, and hears, and is near, but is unable to come; a river separates. Rebbi Jonah asked, if it were able to come by an eruv? Just as you are saying in Jerusalem, that one blows in any village which sees, and hears, and is near, and is able to come, should we not say the same at Jabneh? Jerusalem is by word of the Torah and the nearby villages by word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan would institute according to the words of the Torah. Jabneh is by their words, and the close by villages would be by their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai would institute by their words. Does there exist institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in the name of his father: If there was a daughter, she enables to eat. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because she is able to take her upkeep away from them. Is a wife not also able to take her upkeep away from them? She might request her ketubah be paid or lose her ketubah. This is difficult! The ketubah is a biblical institution, the upkeep of the daughters is rabbinical; do their institutions uproot a word of the Torah? It follows him who said that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [zuz]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me! Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [zuz]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: It is written: “If the Jubilee will happen for the Children of Israel.” If the institution of the Jubilee exists, inheritances return; if the institution of the Jubilee does not exist, inheritances do not return. It is the opposite way, it comes to tell you that even if the institution of the Jubilee exists and inheritances return, inheritance by biblical law does not return!

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: It is written: “If the Jubilee will happen for the Children of Israel.” If the institution of the Jubilee exists, inheritances return; if the institution of the Jubilee does not exist, inheritances do not return. It is the opposite way, it comes to tell you that even if the institution of the Jubilee exists and inheritances return, inheritance by biblical law does not return!

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: It is written: “If the Jubilee will happen for the Children of Israel.” If the institution of the Jubilee exists, inheritances return; if the institution of the Jubilee does not exist, inheritances do not return. It is the opposite way, it comes to tell you that even if the institution of the Jubilee exists and inheritances return, inheritance by biblical law does not return!

“He pays her in coin of the Land of Israel.” This implies that the coins of the land of Israel are the best of all countries. This supports him who says that a woman’s ketubah is from the words of the Torah, against Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: A woman’s ketubah is from the words of the Torah. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a woman’s ketubah is only an institution of the Soferim.

Rebbi Yose asked: If he said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”? Let us hear from the following: “If one said ‘it was written before me’ and another ‘it was signed before me’, it is invalid.” That is, because one said, “it was written before me” and another, “it was signed before me”; this implies that if one said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”, it is valid. Rav Ḥisda asked: half of an institution and half as biblical decree? If he said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”? Let us hear from the following: “If one said ‘it was written before me’ and another ‘it was signed before me’, it is invalid.” That is, because one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”; this implies that if one said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband for an hour,” it is valid.

It was stated: R. Yohanan and R. Joshua b. Levi disagree: One holds that the aravah is an institution of the prophets, the other holds that the aravah is a custom of the prophets. It can be concluded that it was R. Yohanan who said: It is an institution of the prophets since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Yohanan: The rite of the aravah is an institution of the prophets. This is conclusive.

It was stated: R. Yohanan and R. Joshua b. Levi disagree: One holds that the aravah is an institution of the prophets, the other holds that the aravah is a custom of the prophets. It can be concluded that it was R. Yohanan who said: It is an institution of the prophets since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Yohanan: The rite of the aravah is an institution of the prophets. This is conclusive.

It was stated: R. Yohanan and R. Joshua b. Levi disagree: One holds that the aravah is an institution of the prophets, the other holds that the aravah is a custom of the prophets. It can be concluded that it was R. Yohanan who said: It is an institution of the prophets since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Yohanan: The rite of the aravah is an institution of the prophets. This is conclusive.

What is R. Judah's reason? It is as stated in the following Baraita: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: In prescribing the order of sacrifices for the second day, scripture says (Num., 29.18): "and their drink-offerings" (ונסכיהם), in the order for the sixth day (ib., 29.31), the expression is: "and its drink-offerings" (ונסכיה), while in the order for the seventh day (ib., 29.33) we read: "After their ordinance" (כמשפטם), thus obtaining the letters mem, yod, mem, which put together read mayim (מים = water). Here we have a biblical allusion to the institution of water libation.

Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who had it in the name of Rab: Moses instituted for the Israelites eight divisions, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, Samuel brought the divisions up to sixteen; finally, David brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 26. 31): "In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead." An objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted eight divisions for the Israelites, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, David and Samuel (conjointly) brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 9. 22): "Whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office!" This passage is to be understood thus: From the original institution of Samuel the Ramathite the number was increased by David to twenty-four. Another objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted for the Israelites sixteen divisions, eight from the family of Eleazar and eight from that of Ithamar, but when the children of Eleazar became more numerous than those of Ithamar they were redivided into twenty-four, as it is said (ibid., 24.4): "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers' houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers' houses, eight"; further it is said (ibid., 24. 6): "One father's house being taken from Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." Now why does this Baraita add "further it is said"? Because you might otherwise assume that just as the divisions of the sons of Eleazar increased in number (from four to sixteen), so also those of the sons of Ithamar increased (from four to eight), and that originally each had only four divisions. The Baraita therefore calls your attention to the verse: "One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." This Baraita is thus a refutation of the view of R. Ḥisda! R. Ḥisda can answer your objection by saying that there are two different opinions of Tannaim on this matter, and that he agrees with that Tanna (who says that Moses instituted only eight divisions, four of each).