investigated

“Remove from you,” says he, “grief; for she is the sister of doubt and anger.” “How, sir,” say I, “is she the sister of these? for anger, doubt, and grief seem to be quite different from each other.” “You are senseless, O man. Do you not perceive that grief is more wicked than all the spirits, and most terrible to the servants of God, and more than all other spirits destroys man and crushes out the Holy Spirit, and yet, on the other hand, she saves him?” “I am senseless, sir,” say I, “and do not understand these parables. For how she can crush out, and on the other hand save, I do not perceive.” “Listen,” says he. “Those who have never searched for the truth, nor investigated the nature of the Divinity, but have simply believed, when they devote themselves to and become mixed up with business, and wealth, and heathen friendships, and many other actions of this world, do not perceive the parables of Divinity; for their minds are darkened by these actions, and they are corrupted and become dried up. Even as beautiful vines, when they are neglected, are withered up by thorns and divers plants, so men who have believed, and have afterwards fallen away into many of those actions above mentioned, go astray in their minds, and lose all understanding in regard to righteousness; for if they hear of righteousness, their minds are occupied with their business, and they give no heed at all. Those, on the other hand, who have the fear of God, and search after Godhead and truth, and have their hearts turned to the Lord, quickly perceive and understand what is said to them, because they have the fear of the Lord in them. For where the Lord dwells, there is much understanding. Cleave, then, to the Lord, and you will understand and perceive all things.”

And I investigated all things, and wrote the road of the thunder and of the lightning, and they showed me the keys and their guardians, their rise, the way they go; it is let out in measure (sc. gently) by a chain, lest by a heavy chain and violence it hurl down the angry clouds and destroy all things on earth.

But if they are severally chosen to receive the laver, let them be proved and investigated first, how they have lived while catechumens, if they have honoured widows, if they have visited the sick, if they have walked in all meekness and love, if they were earnest in good works. But let them be borne witness to by those who bring them. And when they hear the Gospel, let a hand be laid on them daily. Let them be exorcised from that day when they are chosen. And let them be baptized in the days of Pascha. And when the days approach, let the bishop exorcise each one of them separately by himself, so that he may be persuaded that he is pure. For if there be one that is not pure, or in whom is an unclean spirit, let him be reproved by that unclean spirit. If then any one is found under any such imagination, let him be removed from the midst [of them], and let him be reproved and reproached that he hath not heard the word of the commandments and of instruction faithfully, because the evil and strange spirit abided in him. Let those who are about to receive the laver be taught on the fifth day of the last week only, to wash and bathe their heads. But if any woman then be in the customary flux, let her also take in addition another day, washing and bathing beforehand. Let them fast both [on] the Friday and [on] the Saturday.

The next subject of inquiry is, whether there was any other world before the one which now exists; and if so, whether it was such as the present, or somewhat different, or inferior; or whether there was no world at all, but something like that which we understand will be after the end of all things, when the kingdom shall be delivered up to God, even the Father; which nevertheless may have been the end of another world,—of that, namely, after which this world took its beginning; and whether the various lapses of intellectual natures provoked God to produce this diverse and varying condition of the world. This point also, I think, must be investigated in a similar way, viz. whether after this world there will be any [system of] preservation and amendment, severe indeed, and attended with much pain to those who were unwilling to obey the word of God, but a process through which, by means of instruction and rational training, those may arrive at a fuller understanding of the truth who have devoted themselves in the present life to these pursuits, and who, after having had their minds purified, have advanced onwards so as to become capable of attaining divine wisdom; and after this the end of all things will immediately follow, and there will be again, for the correction and improvement of those who stand in need of it, another world, either resembling that which now exists, or better than it, or greatly inferior; and how long that world, whatever it be that is to come after this, shall continue; and if there will be a time when no world shall anywhere exist, or if there has been a time when there was no world at all; or if there have been, or will be several; or if it shall ever come to pass that there will be one resembling another, like it in every respect, and indistinguishable from it.

Now, would not any one who investigated with ordinary care the nature of these facts, be struck with amazement at this man’s victory?—with his complete success in surmounting by his reputation all causes that tended to bring him into disrepute, and with his superiority over all other illustrious individuals in the world? And yet it is a rare thing for distinguished men to succeed in acquiring a reputation for several things at once. For one man is admired on account of his wisdom, another for his military skill, and some of the barbarians for their marvellous powers of incantation, and some for one quality, and others for another; but not many have been admired and acquired a reputation for many things at the same time; whereas this man, in addition to his other merits, is an object of admiration both for his wisdom, and for his miracles, and for his power of government. For he persuaded some to withdraw themselves from their laws, and to secede to him, not as a tyrant would do, nor as a robber, who arms his followers against men; nor as a rich man, who bestows help upon those who come to him; nor as one of those who confessedly are deserving of censure; but as a teacher of the doctrine regarding the God of all things, and of the worship which belongs to Him, and of all moral precepts which are able to secure the favour of the Supreme God to him who orders his life in conformity therewith. Now, to Themistocles, or to any other man of distinction, nothing happened to prove a hindrance to their reputation; whereas to this man, besides what we have already enumerated, and which are enough to cover with dishonour the soul of a man even of the most noble nature, there was that apparently infamous death of crucifixion, which was enough to efface his previously acquired glory, and to lead those who, as they who disavow his doctrine assert, were formerly deluded by him to abandon their delusion, and to pass condemnation upon their deceiver.

But again, that it is not the fear of external enemies which strengthens our union, is plain from the fact that this cause, by God’s will, has already, for a considerable time, ceased to exist. And it is probable that the secure existence, so far as regards the world, enjoyed by believers at present, will come to an end, since those who calumniate Christianity in every way are again attributing the present frequency of rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not being persecuted by the authorities as in old times. For we have learned from the gospel neither to relax our efforts in days of peace, and to give ourselves up to repose, nor, when the world makes war upon us, to become cowards, and apostatize from the love of the God of all things which is in Jesus Christ. And we clearly manifest the illustrious nature of our origin, and do not (as Celsus imagines) conceal it, when we impress upon the minds of our first converts a contempt for idols, and images of all kinds, and, besides this, raise their thoughts from the worship of created things instead of God, and elevate them to the universal Creator; clearly showing Him to be the subject of prophecy, both from the predictions regarding Him—of which there are many—and from those traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles.

The Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship Antinous, will, if you compare him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a comparison, Antinous being magnified in their estimation through being classed with these deities; for Celsus is clearly convicted of falsehood when he says, “that they will not endure his being compared with Apollo or Zeus.” Whereas Christians (who have learned that their eternal life consists in knowing the only true God, who is over all, and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent; and who have learned also that all the gods of the heathen are greedy demons, which flit around sacrifices and blood, and other sacrificial accompaniments, in order to deceive those who have not taken refuge with the God who is over all, but that the divine and holy angels of God are of a different nature and will from all the demons on earth, and that they are known to those exceedingly few persons who have carefully and intelligently investigated these matters) will not endure a comparison to be made between them and Apollo or Zeus, or any being worshipped with odours and blood and sacrifices; some of them, so acting from their extreme simplicity, not being able to give a reason for their conduct, but sincerely observing the precepts which they have received; others, again, for reasons not to be lightly regarded, nay, even of a profound description, and (as a Greek would say) drawn from the inner nature of things; and amongst the latter of these God is a frequent subject of conversation, and those who are honoured by God, through His only-begotten Word, with participation in His divinity, and therefore also in His name. They speak much, too, both regarding the angels of God and those who are opposed to the truth, but have been deceived; and who, in consequence of being deceived, call them gods or angels of God, or good demons, or heroes who have become such by the transference into them of a good human soul. And such Christians will also show, that as in philosophy there are many who appear to be in possession of the truth, who have yet either deceived themselves by plausible arguments, or by rashly assenting to what was brought forward and discovered by others; so also, among those souls which exist apart from bodies, both angels and demons, there are some which have been induced by plausible reasons to declare themselves gods. And because it was impossible that the reasons of such things could be discovered by men with perfect exactness, it was deemed safe that no mortal should entrust himself to any being as to God, with the exception of Jesus Christ, who is, as it were, the Ruler over all things, and who both beheld these weighty secrets, and made them known to a few.

And whereas Celsus ought to have recognised the love of truth displayed by the writers of sacred Scripture, who have not concealed even what is to their discredit, and thus been led to accept the other and more marvellous accounts as true, he has done the reverse, and has characterized the story of Lot and his daughters (without examining either its literal or its figurative meaning) as “worse than the crimes of Thyestes.” The figurative signification of that passage of history it is not necessary at present to explain, nor what is meant by Sodom, and by the words of the angels to him who was escaping thence, when they said: “Look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the surrounding district; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed;” nor what is intended by Lot and his wife, who became a pillar of salt because she turned back; nor by his daughters intoxicating their father, that they might become mothers by him. But let us in a few words soften down the repulsive features of the history. The nature of actions—good, bad, and indifferent—has been investigated by the Greeks; and the more successful of such investigators lay down the principle that intention alone gives to actions the character of good or bad, and that all things which are done without a purpose are, strictly speaking, indifferent; that when the intention is directed to a becoming end, it is praiseworthy; when the reverse, it is censurable. They have said, accordingly, in the section relating to “things indifferent,” that, strictly speaking, for a man to have sexual intercourse with his daughters is a thing indifferent, although such a thing ought not to take place in established communities. And for the sake of hypothesis, in order to show that such an act belongs to the class of things indifferent, they have assumed the case of a wise man being left with an only daughter, the entire human race besides having perished; and they put the question whether the father can fitly have intercourse with his daughter, in order, agreeably to the supposition, to prevent the extermination of mankind. Is this to be accounted sound reasoning among the Greeks, and to be commended by the influential sect of the Stoics; but when young maidens, who had heard of the burning of the world, though without comprehending [its full meaning], saw fire devastating their city and country, and supposing that the only means left of rekindling the flame of human life lay in their father and themselves, should, on such a supposition, conceive the desire that the world should continue, shall their conduct be deemed worse than that of the wise man who, according to the hypothesis of the Stoics, acts becomingly in having intercourse with his daughters in the case already supposed, of all men having been destroyed? I am not unaware, however, that some have taken offence at the desire of Lot’s daughters, and have regarded their conduct as very wicked; and have said that two accursed nations—Moab and Ammon—have sprung from that unhallowed intercourse. And yet truly sacred Scripture is nowhere found distinctly approving of their conduct as good, nor yet passing sentence upon it as blameworthy. Nevertheless, whatever be the real state of the case, it admits not only of a figurative meaning, but also of being defended on its own merits.

I do not understand how Celsus, while admitting the existence of Providence, at least so far as appears from the language of this book, can say that there never existed [at any time] either more or fewer evils, but, as it were, a fixed number; thus annihilating the beautiful doctrine regarding the indefinite nature of evil, and asserting that evil, even in its own nature, is infinite. Now it appears to follow from the position, that there never have been, nor are now, nor ever will be, more or fewer evils in the world; that as, according to the view of those who hold the indestructibility of the world, the equipoise of the elements is maintained by a Providence (which does not permit one to gain the preponderance over the others, in order to prevent the destruction of the world), so a kind of Providence presides, as it were, over evils (the number of which is fixed), to prevent their being either increased or diminished! In other ways, too, are the arguments of Celsus concerning evil confuted, by those philosophers who have investigated the subjects of good and evil, and who have proved also from history that in former times it was without the city, and with their faces concealed by masks, that loose women hired themselves to those who wanted them; that subsequently, becoming more impudent, they laid aside their masks, though not being permitted by the laws to enter the cities, they [still] remained without them, until, as the dissoluteness of manners daily increased, they dared [finally] even to enter the cities. Such accounts are given by Chrysippus in the introduction to his work on Good and Evil. From this also it may be seen that evils both increase and decrease, viz. that those individuals who were called “Ambiguous” used formerly to present themselves openly to view, suffering and committing all shameful things, while subserving the passions of those who frequented their society; but recently they have been expelled [from the city] by the authorities. And of countless evils which, owing to the spread of wickedness, have made their appearance in human life, we may say that formerly they did not exist. For the most ancient histories, which bring innumerable other accusations against sinful men, know nothing of the perpetrators of abominable crimes.

Celsus, however, says that it is only “the course of mortal things which, according to the appointed cycles, must always be the same in the past, present, and future;” whereas the majority of the Stoics maintain that this is the case not only with the course of mortal, but also with that of immortal things, and of those whom they regard as gods. For after the conflagration of the world, which has taken place countless times in the past, and will happen countless times in the future, there has been, and will be, the same arrangement of all things from the beginning to the end. The Stoics, indeed, in endeavouring to parry, I don’t know how, the objections raised to their views, allege that as cycle after cycle returns, all men will be altogether unchanged from those who lived in former cycles; so that Socrates will not live again, but one altogether like to Socrates, who will marry a wife exactly like Xanthippe, and will be accused by men exactly like Anytus and Melitus. I do not understand, however, how the world is to be always the same, and one individual not different from another, and yet the things in it not the same, though exactly alike. But the main argument in answer to the statements of Celsus and of the Stoics will be more appropriately investigated elsewhere, since on the present occasion it is not consistent with the purpose we have in view to expatiate on these points.

He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the “power” of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which he believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was amongst the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamne, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met in with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.

Notwithstanding, those who have written in this manner regarding the “chief good” will go down to the Piræus and offer prayer to Artemis, as if she were God, and will look [with approval] upon the solemn assembly held by ignorant men; and after giving utterance to philosophical remarks of such profundity regarding the soul, and describing its passage [to a happier world] after a virtuous life, they pass from those great topics which God has revealed to them, and adopt mean and trifling thoughts, and offer a cock to Esculapius! And although they had been enabled to form representations both of the “invisible things” of God and of the “archetypal forms” of things from the creation of the world, and from [the contemplation of] sensible things, from which they ascend to those objects which are comprehended by the understanding alone,—and although they had no mean glimpses of His “eternal power and Godhead,” they nevertheless became “foolish in their imaginations,” and their “foolish heart” was involved in darkness and ignorance as to the [true] worship of God. Moreover, we may see those who greatly pride themselves upon their wisdom and theology worshipping the image of a corruptible man, in honour, they say, of Him, and sometimes even descending, with the Egyptians, to the worship of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things! And although some may appear to have risen above such practices, nevertheless they will be found to have changed the truth of God into a lie, and to worship and serve the “creature more than the Creator.” As the wise and learned among the Greeks, then, commit errors in the service which they render to God, God “chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and base things of the world, and things that are weak, and things which are despised, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are;” and this, truly, “that no flesh should glory in the presence of God.” Our wise men, however,—Moses, the most ancient of them all, and the prophets who followed him,—knowing that the chief good could by no means be described in words, were the first who wrote that, as God manifests Himself to the deserving, and to those who are qualified to behold Him, He appeared to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob. But who He was that appeared, and of what form, and in what manner, and like to which of mortal beings, they have left to be investigated by those who are able to show that they resemble those persons to whom God showed Himself: for He was seen not by their bodily eyes, but by the pure heart. For, according to the declaration of our Jesus, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

What I have now said, then, is offered not for the purpose of cavilling with any right opinions or sound doctrines held even by Greeks, but with the desire of showing that the same things, and indeed much better and diviner things than these, have been said by those divine men, the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus. These truths are fully investigated by all who wish to attain a perfect knowledge of Christianity, and who know that “the mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment; the law of his God is in his heart.” But even in regard to those who, either from deficiency of knowledge or want of inclination, or from not having Jesus to lead them to a rational view of religion, have not gone into these deep questions, we find that they believe in the Most High God, and in His only-begotten Son, the Word and God, and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.”

Rebbi Yose bar Abun investigated: If you say that two (stars) present a doubt, if someone saw two stars on Friday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, he also saw two stars on Saturday night, was warned, and did forbidden work, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and he would be guilty for the later work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and he would be guilty for the first work. If someone saw two stars on Friday night and harvested about (the volume of) half a fig, in the morning he harvested about half a fig, and he saw two stars on Saturday night and harvested about half a fig, then it is logical to assert that if the first period was daytime the last period was also daytime and one would combine daytime with Saturday night and he would be guilty for his last work; if the last period was nighttime then the first period was also nighttime and one would combine daytime with Friday night and he would be guilty for his first work.

Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda sat together and said, the same rule applies to blowing the Shofar. They went up to Rav’s Yeshivah and heard Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even if one heard it in up to nine hours he fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Zeiïa said: When I was there, this was a problem for me. When I came here, I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Even if one heard it during an entire day, one has fulfilled one’s obligation. But only if one heard it in the correct order. Rebbi Yose investigated: If one needed to hear the first simple tone and another one the final simple tone, one blow of the Shofar serves the requirements of both of them.

Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya investigated: The recitation of Shema‘ with its benedictions, it (the recitation of Shema‘) without its benedictions, its benedictions without it? If he interrupted after a third, interrupted after a second third? Does one estimate by the reader’s speed or by the average speed of all men? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it seems reasonable by the reader’s.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If it was used as bath house in summer but not in the rainy season, what is the rule? He said to him, a bath house even if it is not in use, a toilet even if it does not contain excrement. Mar Uqba said: a pig is a moving toilet. Rebbi Jonah investigated: A pebble on the sea shore, what is the rule? Rebbi Ammi the physician said: Rebbi Jeremiah taught that one may pass it by pylyvs, but one does not trust this ruling.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, rue separates for peah. Rav Ḥisda investigated whether they were used by Joshua to divide the Land. Rebbi Ḥanina asserted in the name of Rav Ḥisda: they were used by Joshua to fix the boundaries of the Land.

HALAKHAH: What are אֹבָּעְיוֹת? Rebbi Abun said, just as you say (Ob. 6): “How was Esau searched out, his hidden places investigated.”

Rebbi Zeïra investigated: If somebody said “until the rain”, until the first rain?

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

Two students of Rebbi Ḥanina went out to chop wood. An astrologer saw them, these two if they go out will not return. When they went out they met an old man who told them, acquire merit by me; for three days I did not eat anything. They had a loaf with them, cut off half of it and gave it to him. He ate and prayed for them; he said to them, may your life be preserved today as you did preserve my life today. They went out in peace and returned in peace. There were people there who had heard his voice and told him, did you not say, these two if they go out will not return? He said, if it is so, this man is a liar and his astrology consists of lies. Nevertheless they went and investigated and found a viper half in this load and half in the other load. They asked, what good deed did you do today? They told him the facts. He said, what can this man do if the Jew’s God is propitiated by half a loaf!

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. Since there, where he qualifies it as an implement, you say that it is permitted, here, where he does not qualify it as an implement, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Also they permitted preparations for making food. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: Following him who permits, only from above. As the following: In the days of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi there was a festive meal in the House of Study. They spread a canopy the day before over four cubits; the next day they were extending it over everything. They were of the opinion that this followed the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi. They investigated and found that it was not according to Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s opinion unless it was spread over most of it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who sets up tents on the Sabbath is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he only is spreading and folding it on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the rule for a spread over a chest? He told him, since it was spread the day before he is like one who unlocks and locks on the Sabbath.

Simeon the Just served Israel as High Priest for forty years, and in the last year he told them, in this year I am going to die. They asked him, whom shall we appoint in your stead? He told them, there is my son Onias before you. They went and appointed Onias. His brother [Simon] was jealous of him, he went and dressed him in an undershirt and girded him with a belt. He told them, look what this one vowed to his sweetheart: when I shall serve as High Priest I shall wear your undershirt and gird myself with your belt. They investigated and did not find [him]. It is said, he fled to King’s Mountain, from there he fled to Alexandria, based himself there and built there an altar, over which he recited this verse, on that day there will be an altar for the Eternal inside the Land of Egypt. Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? See how this one who fled from prominence went to seek it at the end, if one attained it and lost it not so much more? It was stated, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, it was not so but they appointed Simeon; his brother Onias was jealous of him, he went and dressed him in an undershirt and girded him with a belt. He told them, look what this one vowed to his sweetheart etc., as before Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? See how this one who never attained prominence forced Israel to foreign worship, if one attained it and lost it not so much more?

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written, do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals. There, we have stated: “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written, on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement? And did we not state, Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even Torah scrolls they only permitted to be written in Greek. They investigated and found that the Torah may be correctly translated only into Greek. A villager invented for them Aramaic from the Greek. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Akylas the proselyte translated the Torah before Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua; they praised him [and said to him], you are a superhuman beauty. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, why do we not say there is a rule valid for Torah scrolls which does not apply to Tefillin and Mezuzot, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two sheets, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single sheets. Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe asked, a stronger question, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two hides, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single hides. The colleagues said before Rebbi Mana, or should we say, one column of two different hides? Is that not stronger? He said to them, because even scrolls are not written in this way. One suspends in scrolls; one suspends neither in Tefillin nor in Mezuzot. One does not suspend in scrolls which were written as Tefillin and Mezuzot; one suspends in Tefillin and Mezuzot written as scrolls. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi: If he was writing אלא עם, if the paragraph was made in this way it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi bar Ḥinena: The script of scrolls is used as script of Tefillin and Mezuzot.

Rebbi Mana said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean: If one interrupted so that he would have been able to read all of it, he did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The practice follows Rebbi Mana who said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, “if one interrupted.”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: The same applies to Hallel and the Esther Scroll. Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda sat together and said, the same rule applies to blowing the Shofar. They went up to (Rebbi’s) <rav’s> Yeshivah and heard Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even if one heard it in up to nine hours he fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Ze`ira said: When I was there, this was a problem for me. When I came here, I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if one heard it during an entire day, one has fulfilled one’s obligation. But only if one heard it in the correct order. Rebbi Yose investigated: If one needed to hear the initial simple tone and another one the final simple tone, one blow of the Shofar serves the requirements of both of them. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya investigated: The recitation of Shema` with its benedictions, the recitation of Shema` without its benedictions, its benedictions without it? If he interrupted after a third, interrupted after a second third? Does one estimate by the reader’s speed or by the average speed of all men? Rebbi Mattaniah said, is it not reasonable by the reader’s?

Rebbi Mana said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean: If one interrupted so that he would have been able to read all of it, he did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The practice follows Rebbi Mana who said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, “if one interrupted.”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: The same applies to Hallel and the Esther Scroll. Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda sat together and said, the same rule applies to blowing the Shofar. They went up to (Rebbi’s) <rav’s> Yeshivah and heard Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even if one heard it in up to nine hours he fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi Ze`ira said: When I was there, this was a problem for me. When I came here, I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if one heard it during an entire day, one has fulfilled one’s obligation. But only if one heard it in the correct order. Rebbi Yose investigated: If one needed to hear the initial simple tone and another one the final simple tone, one blow of the Shofar serves the requirements of both of them. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya investigated: The recitation of Shema` with its benedictions, the recitation of Shema` without its benedictions, its benedictions without it? If he interrupted after a third, interrupted after a second third? Does one estimate by the reader’s speed or by the average speed of all men? Rebbi Mattaniah said, is it not reasonable by the reader’s?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illai expired on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Dosa expired on the New Month of Nisan. They made them outside. They thought, with the agreement of the rabbis. They investigated and found, not with the agreement of the rabbis. Rebbi Crispus expired on the holiday. They made him outside. They thought, with the agreement of Rebbi Immi. They investigated and found, not with the agreement of Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: Even momentarily, from this: And Miriam died there and was buried there. But we see that the rabbis repeat the words. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the colleagues are careful and they will not deliver eulogies.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illai expired on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Dosa expired on the New Month of Nisan. They made them outside. They thought, with the agreement of the rabbis. They investigated and found, not with the agreement of the rabbis. Rebbi Crispus expired on the holiday. They made him outside. They thought, with the agreement of Rebbi Immi. They investigated and found, not with the agreement of Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: Even momentarily, from this: And Miriam died there and was buried there. But we see that the rabbis repeat the words. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the colleagues are careful and they will not deliver eulogies.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in Rhodes was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Rebbi Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeїra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeїra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity,” which is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. Similarly, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from among his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is under a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for an Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for an Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

There, we have stated: “If somebody was bringing a bill of divorce and lost it, if he found it again immediately, it is valid; otherwise it is invalid.” What is immediately? Rebbi Joḥanan said, as long as less than three people passed by. If a Gentile passed by, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana was bringing a bill of divorce when he lost it. A Saracen found it. The case came before the rabbis and they declared [the bill] valid. That means, if a Gentile passed by, it is valid. May we say that he had an identifying mark on [the bill]? But was it not stated that there are no identifying marks on bills of divorce? That means, two or three lines. But here it had a heh which was pointed. Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana, why should it be invalid in that case? I would say, it was another bill executed for a person with the same name. Think of it, if they investigated and did not find there another person with the same name! It must be that one is very strict in matters of possible incest. But did we not state: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry?” Rebbi Mana said to him: So says Rebbi Shammai, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: This man had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid and one invalid. He lost the valid one after he had thrown away the invalid one. When he found it, I am saying that he found the invalid one.

Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion to follow the standard of Judea in Galilee. Rebbi Yose said to him, is the standard of Judea in Galilee a testimony by biblical standards? No, [one follows] the standard of Judea in Judea and the standard of Galilee in Galilee. If you say, it is not testimony by biblical standards, why appoint them? That the daughters of Israel should not become wanton in immorality. If it is that the daughters of Israel should not become wanton in immorality, even if one appoints, they should not be trustworthy! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: A man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation. If it is that a man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation, even if one does not appoint, he should be believed. Rebbi Hila said, because of one suspicion, because of one immoral person. Where do we hold? If he investigated and found, he found! If he did not find but investigated, did he not investigate? But we deal with the case that he did not investigate and found. She says, it is blood of virginity. He says no, it is a bird’s blood. His case is damaged since he did not follow the procedures. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. It follows what we statedthere: “A virgin and a widow, etc.” All these cases are based on what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful.

Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion to follow the standard of Judea in Galilee. Rebbi Yose said to him, is the standard of Judea in Galilee a testimony by biblical standards? No, [one follows] the standard of Judea in Judea and the standard of Galilee in Galilee. If you say, it is not testimony by biblical standards, why appoint them? That the daughters of Israel should not become wanton in immorality. If it is that the daughters of Israel should not become wanton in immorality, even if one appoints, they should not be trustworthy! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: A man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation. If it is that a man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation, even if one does not appoint, he should be believed. Rebbi Hila said, because of one suspicion, because of one immoral person. Where do we hold? If he investigated and found, he found! If he did not find but investigated, did he not investigate? But we deal with the case that he did not investigate and found. She says, it is blood of virginity. He says no, it is a bird’s blood. His case is damaged since he did not follow the procedures. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. It follows what we statedthere: “A virgin and a widow, etc.” All these cases are based on what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful.

HALAKHAH: “If witnesses said, this is our signature,” etc. It was stated: And similarly, the witnesses who testified whether to declare impure or pure, or to remove or include, or to forbid or permit, or to obligate or absolve, if they say we did invent this before their testimony was investigated by the court, they can be believed; after their testimony was investigated by the court, they are not trustworthy.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been investigated by the court. If they say, these are our signatures, and others say, these are their signatures, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Their [testimony] does not add and does not detract. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or if their signatures are confirmed from another document, they are not trustworthy.”

HALAKHAH: “If witnesses said, this is our signature,” etc. It was stated: And similarly, the witnesses who testified whether to declare impure or pure, or to remove or include, or to forbid or permit, or to obligate or absolve, if they say we did invent this before their testimony was investigated by the court, they can be believed; after their testimony was investigated by the court, they are not trustworthy.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been investigated by the court. If they say, these are our signatures, and others say, these are their signatures, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Their [testimony] does not add and does not detract. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or if their signatures are confirmed from another document, they are not trustworthy.”

HALAKHAH: “If witnesses said, this is our signature,” etc. It was stated: And similarly, the witnesses who testified whether to declare impure or pure, or to remove or include, or to forbid or permit, or to obligate or absolve, if they say we did invent this before their testimony was investigated by the court, they can be believed; after their testimony was investigated by the court, they are not trustworthy.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been investigated by the court. If they say, these are our signatures, and others say, these are their signatures, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Their [testimony] does not add and does not detract. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or if their signatures are confirmed from another document, they are not trustworthy.”

They say, these are our signatures, but others say, not their signatures. Rebbi Mana said, that becomes a document which has been put under acloud. Issi said, only if it had been put under a cloud but was confirmed by the court. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was not confirmed by a court. Rebbi Ila said, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar is, that after the witnesses were confirmed as the signatories of the document, it is as if their testimony had been investigated by the court.

“If she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? It would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage … because a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce, is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. But he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children become bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

“If she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? It would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage … because a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce, is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. But he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children become bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

It was found stated about both cases: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ], does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there, “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow.

“If she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The Elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, it would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, because the Elder uproots the vow from its start. Why did they forbid a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. What is the reason of him who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children became bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

“If she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The Elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, it would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, because the Elder uproots the vow from its start. Why did they forbid a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. What is the reason of him who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children became bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

“If she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The Elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, it would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, because the Elder uproots the vow from its start. Why did they forbid a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. What is the reason of him who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children became bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

MISHNAH: What is a silenced one? Anyone who knows his mother but not his father. But a foundling is one collected from the public domain who knows neither his father nor his mother. Abba Shaul called the silenced one “investigated one”.

HALAKHAH: “What is a silenced one,” etc. What means “investigated one”? Investigate him!

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South had a bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

“Gentile jugs, new ones are permitted even tarred; old are forbidden even if not tarred.” Here you say tarred are permitted and there you say tarred are prohibited. Rebbi Abbahu said, I investigated tarring of jugs; they do not use vinegar while tarring.

MISHNAH: What is an Ashera? Any under which is an idol. Rebbi Simeon says, any which is worshipped. It happened in Sidon that they were worshipping one and there was a mound under it. Rebbi Joshua said to them, investigate the mound! They investigated it and found a figure in it. He told them, since they worship the figure we may permit the tree to them

As was the case of Rava and Rami b. Hama when they were standing before R. Hisda, [first] they ran through the gemara together, and then they investigated the reasons.

The passage beginning “Make known to Jerusalem her abominations” (Ezekiel 16) is both read and translated. This is obvious! This is stated to exclude the view of R. Elazar, as it has been taught: I happened that a man read in the presence of R. Elazar, “Make known to Jerusalem her abominations.” He said to him, While you are investigating the abominations of Jerusalem, go and investigate the abominations of your own mother. They investigated him, and he was found to be illegitimate.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.