isnt

Mary said to Jesus, "Whom are your disciples like?" He said, "They're like little children living in a field which isn't theirs. When the owners of the field come, they'll say, 'Give our field back to us.' They'll strip naked in front of them to let them have it and give them their field. "So I say that if the owner of the house realizes the bandit is coming, they'll watch out beforehand and won't let the bandit break into the house of their domain and steal their possessions. You, then, watch out for the world! Prepare to defend yourself so that the bandits don't attack you, because what you're expecting will come. May there be a wise person among you! "When the fruit ripened, the reaper came quickly, sickle in hand, and harvested it. Anyone who has ears to hear should hear!"

Jesus said, "It's not possible for anyone to mount two horses or stretch two bows, and it's not possible for a servant to follow two leaders, because they'll respect one and despise the other. "No one drinks old wine and immediately wants to drink new wine. And new wine isn't put in old wineskins, because they'd burst. Nor is old wine put in new wineskins, because it'd spoil. "A new patch of cloth isn't sewn onto an old coat, because it'd tear apart."

Jesus said, "It's not possible for anyone to mount two horses or stretch two bows, and it's not possible for a servant to follow two leaders, because they'll respect one and despise the other. "No one drinks old wine and immediately wants to drink new wine. And new wine isn't put in old wineskins, because they'd burst. Nor is old wine put in new wineskins, because it'd spoil. "A new patch of cloth isn't sewn onto an old coat, because it'd tear apart."

Jesus said, "Whoever doesn't hate their father and mother can't become my disciple, and whoever doesn't hate their brothers and sisters and take up their cross like I do isn't worthy of me."

Jesus said, "Whoever has known the world has found a corpse. Whoever has found a corpse, of them the world isn't worthy."

Jesus said, "Whoever has known the world has found the body; but whoever has found the body, of them the world isn't worthy."

Jesus said, "The heavens and the earth will roll up in front of you, and whoever lives from the Living One won't see death." Doesn't Jesus say, "Whoever finds themselves, of them the world isn't worthy"?

The slave seeks only freedom; they don't seek their master's property. But the son isn't just a son; he claims his father's inheritance for himself. Those who inherit the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who inherit the living are themselves alive, and they inherit (both) the living and the dead. The dead can't inherit anything, because how can the dead inherit? If the dead inherits the living they won't die, but the dead will live even more! A gentile doesn't die, because they've never lived in order that they may die. Whoever has believed in the Truth has lived, and is at risk of dying, because they're alive since the day Christ came. The world is created, the cities gentrified, and the dead carried out.

There's one name that isn't uttered in the world: the name which the Father gave to the Son. It's exalted over everything; it's the Father's name, because the Son wouldn't have become father unless he had taken the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but don't say it; and those who don't have it, don't know it. But Truth brought names into the world for us, because it's impossible for us to learn it (Truth) without these names. There's only one Truth, but it's many things for us, to teach this one thing in love through many things.

The superiority of humanity isn't revealed, but exists in what's hidden. So it (humanity) masters animals that are stronger, that are greater in terms of that which is revealed and that which is hidden. This allows them to survive; but if humanity separates from them (the animals), they kill, bite, and eat each other, because they didn't find food. But now they've found food because humanity has worked the earth.

"[My] God, my God, why, Lord, [have] you forsaken me?" He said this on the cross, because he was divided in that place. […] that he was begotten through that which […] from God. The […] from the dead […] exists, but […] he's perfect […] of flesh, but this […] is true flesh […] isn't true, [but …] image of the true.

A bridal chamber isn't for the animals, nor for the slaves, nor for the impure, but it's for free people and virgins.

Isn't it necessary for everyone who has everything to know themselves completely? Some who don't know themselves won't be able to enjoy what they have, but those who've come to understand themselves will enjoy them.

No [one will be able to] know [when the husband] and the wife are intimate with each other, except they themselves, because the marriage of the world is a mystery for those who have married. If the defiled marriage is hidden, how much more is the undefiled marriage a true mystery! It's not fleshly, but pure. It isn't of desire, but of the will. It isn't of the darkness or the night, but it's of the day and the light. If a marriage is stripped naked, it becomes pornography – not only if the bride receives the seed of another man, but even if she leaves the chamber and is seen, she commits adultery. Let her reveal herself to her father, her mother, the best man, and the groom's children. They're allowed to enter the bridal chamber every day. But let the others yearn just to hear her voice and enjoy her perfume, and, like dogs, let them eat the crumbs that fall from the table. Grooms and brides belong to the bridal chamber. No one will be able to see the groom and the bride unless [they become] such.

No [one will be able to] know [when the husband] and the wife are intimate with each other, except they themselves, because the marriage of the world is a mystery for those who have married. If the defiled marriage is hidden, how much more is the undefiled marriage a true mystery! It's not fleshly, but pure. It isn't of desire, but of the will. It isn't of the darkness or the night, but it's of the day and the light. If a marriage is stripped naked, it becomes pornography – not only if the bride receives the seed of another man, but even if she leaves the chamber and is seen, she commits adultery. Let her reveal herself to her father, her mother, the best man, and the groom's children. They're allowed to enter the bridal chamber every day. But let the others yearn just to hear her voice and enjoy her perfume, and, like dogs, let them eat the crumbs that fall from the table. Grooms and brides belong to the bridal chamber. No one will be able to see the groom and the bride unless [they become] such.

A pebble in a loaf or a large globule of salt, or a lupine, or a burnt crust larger than a finger's breadth Rabbi Yose says: whatever is not eaten with the loaf remains clean even when touched by a father of impurity; And it isn't even necessary to say [is this so when touched] by a tevul yom.

But did the Shechinah not descend to earth? Isn't it written, "And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai?" (Exodus 19:20)? That was above ten handbreadths [from the summit]. But is it not written, "And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives?" (Zechariah 14:4)? Above ten handbreadths.

Isn't it this that they argue about: that one master holds the opinion they render the handles susceptible to uncleanliness, while the other master holds the opinion that they do not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness?

But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting? Surely since the latter part [of the baraita] states: They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retroactively?’ And he answered them, ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not] that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?

But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of death? Haven't we learned: R. Judah says, Even another wife was prepared for him, lest his wife die? About this it was stated: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: They adopted a higher standard with regard to atonement.

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

And regarding the Lulav, Rabbi Yehudah does not require beauty? And isn't it taught, "Rabbi Yehudah says [about a Lulav whose leaves are splitting], 'He should tie it on top' [presumably to add beauty]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

And he doesn't require beauty? And isn't it taught, "We only bind the Lulav with its species; the words of Rabbi Yehudah [presumably because it looks nice]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

But regarding a Etrog, does Rabbi Yehudah really require beauty? And isn't it taught, "[Regarding] the four species in the Lulav [bundle], just as we may not take away from them, so too we may not add. If he could not find a Etrog, he should not bring: not a quince, not a pomegranate, and not any other thing. Wilted ones are valid, but dried ones are invalid. Rabbi Yehudah says, "Even dried [plants are valid].

And [a] slit [Lulav] is valid? But isn't it taught, "A bent Lulav,

It was stated: An etrog which has been gnawed by mice: Rav said: It is not "goodly." Is this so? Did not R. Hanina taste a part of it, and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]? But isn't our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina?

Gemara. What is meant by before and what by after? If you say that before refers to the first day of the Festival and after to the last day of the festival, isn't this then the Shabbat of Hol Hamoed?

R' Akiva says, No. This isn't the source, rather it's from the fact that there is no forbidden action, and a sin without an action has no lashes [as a punishment]. It seems from what R' Yehudah explained that a sin without action, there are lashes. From where is this?

What [can be derived] from the common characteristic of the sins, that is a penalty. This isn't a question, because Rebbi Yehuda doesn't hold like Rebbi Akiva [who says that false witnesses is penalty].

Isn't this obvious? You might have thought we would take into account [the possibility] that he had extremely good eyesight. This [Rava] comes to teach us [that we don't worry about that possibility].

Isn't this obvious? You might have thought... we would take into account [the possibility] that he had used an extremely fast method of transport [Lit. a flying camel]. This [Rava] comes to teach us [that we don't worry about that possibility].

But what happened already happened? [and there isn't anything else that we could do either-way] Rather Rava says that this this is what the mishna is saying, If there is only one group it gets executed, if there are more than they don't get executed. But the mishna used the word "belvaad" [only]? It's a question.

GEMARA: We learned [in a beraisa], Beribi says, If the witnesses didn't succeed in having their victim killed they are executed if they did succeed in having him killed they aren't executed. His father asked him, My son isn't this a fortiori? [which would imply the opposite ruling]

He answered him, You taught us, our rebbi, that one cannot derive a punishment from a fortiori. We see this in a beraisa [From what the Torah says,] (Leviticus 20, 17) "If a man should take his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother", I can only derive [that a person is forbidden from] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the prohibition for] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words ערות אחותו גילה.

He answered him, You taught us, our rebbi, that one cannot derive a punishment from a fortiori. We see this in a beraisa [From what the Torah says,] (Leviticus 20, 17) "If a man should take his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother", I can only derive [that a person is forbidden from] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the prohibition for] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words ערות אחותו גילה.

Without these words, I would still be able to derive it [punishment for a full sister] with a fortiori, If one gets punished for the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother], shouldn't he certainly [be punished] for the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? Thus we see that one cannot derive a punishment from a fortiori.

Without these words, I would still be able to derive it [punishment for a full sister] with a fortiori, If one gets punished for the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother], shouldn't he certainly [be punished] for the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? Thus we see that one cannot derive a punishment from a fortiori.

We see [the source for being unable to derive] punishment [from a fortiori], but from where do we derive [the rule of not being able to derive] a scriptural warning [from a fortiori]? The Torah says (Leviticus 18,9) "ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך". [From this] I can only derive [a scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words (Leviticus 18,11) "ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אחותך היא".

We see [the source for being unable to derive] punishment [from a fortiori], but from where do we derive [the rule of not being able to derive] a scriptural warning [from a fortiori]? The Torah says (Leviticus 18,9) "ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך". [From this] I can only derive [a scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words (Leviticus 18,11) "ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אחותך היא".

Without these words, I would still be able to derive it [the scriptural warning for a full sister] with a fortiori, If one gets a scriptural warning for the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother], shouldn't he certainly [be scripturally warned] for the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? Thus we see that one cannot derive a scriptural warning from a fortiori.

Without these words, I would still be able to derive it [the scriptural warning for a full sister] with a fortiori, If one gets a scriptural warning for the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother], shouldn't he certainly [be scripturally warned] for the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? Thus we see that one cannot derive a scriptural warning from a fortiori.

Rebbi Akiva says, The third [witness] isn't coming to make things lenient, but rather to make things more stringent upon him, and make his fate like theirs.

GEMARA: Rav Zutra bar Tuvia said in the name of Rav, From where is it derived that a individual testimon[ies i.e separated]] isn't valid? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 17, 6), "he shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness". What does the Torah mean with the word "one"? If it meant literally one witness, then I would know that from the beginning of the verse which says, "by the mouth of two witnesses". rather what does "one" mean? One and one. [separated]

Abaye answered, It isn't a contradiction. Here [where we retry the case] is in Israel; here [where we do not retry the case] is in Diaspora.

Mishnah: If the iron axe head slipped from its handle and it killed someone, Rebi says he isn't exiled, and the Sages say that he is exiled. If [a wood chip] from the tree broke off [and that wood chip killed someone], Rebi says he is exiled, and the Sages say that he isn't exiled.

Mishnah: If the iron axe head slipped from its handle and it killed someone, Rebi says he isn't exiled, and the Sages say that he is exiled. If [a wood chip] from the tree broke off [and that wood chip killed someone], Rebi says he is exiled, and the Sages say that he isn't exiled.

Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rava: "Is every case where it's written 'when (asher)' an optional action? From this [reasoning], 'When (asher) anyone has become impure fails to purify himself [they will be cut off from their people]' (Numbers 19:20)—if he wants to [touch a corpse], he can be impure, and if he doesn't want to he isn't impure; and a mitzvah corpse (of an unknown stranger) where it is not possible that [the finder] would become impure—would he be exempt [from the penalty of entering the Sanctuary while impure]?"

Mar [the tannah] had just said, 'It was accidentally that the deed came to his hand' Isn't this obvious!? If it was willfully would he be subject to exile? Yes,

Mar Zutra bar Tuvia says in the name of Rav, If a murderer leaves the boundrary and the Goel Hadam finds him and kills him, he [the Goel Hadam] is executed. Who is this in accordance with? It isn't like Rebbi Yossi Hagalili nor like Rebbi Akiva?

If so then not performing a positive commandment should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? "If you do not guard yourself (תשמור)" was written, and [Rav Yitzchak holds] like what Rebbi Avin said in the name of Rebbi Illui, that Rebbi Avin said in the name of Rebbi Illui any place where the Torah uses the words, "השמר", "פן", or "אל", it's referring to a negative commandment.

If so then a prohibition not involving an action should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? (Deuteronomy 28, 58), "to perform" is written.

A prohibition remedied by an positive commandment should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? [All malkus prohibitions must] similar to the prohibition of muzzling (Deuteronomy 25,4). [The prohibition of muzzling did not have a positive commandment to remedy it.]

There [by Pesach and circumcision] that isn't the reason [why one doesn't bring a sacrifice], rather it's because the whole Torah is compared to [the prohibition of] idolatry. Just as idolatry is a "sit and don't do" [a passive prohibition] so to all [times that one is obligated to bring a conciliatory sacrifice] is by a "sit and don't do", which excludes these [Peasch and circumcision] which are each a "get up and do" [an active commandment]

And they both derive their views from [the same statement] of Rebbi Yehudah. For It was taught in a barasia, (Exodus 12, 10) "And do not leave anything over until morning. And anything leftover until morning [must be burned in fire] etc." the Torah comes to give a positive commandment following a negative commandment to teach that he is not liable to malkus. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yochanon expounds thus, the reason [Rebbi Yehudah says that he isn't flogged] is because the Torah comes [with a remedial positive commandment], but if the Torah would not have came then he would be flogged. We therefore see that a questionable warning constitutes as a valid warning.

And Reish Lakash as expounds thus, the reason [Rebbi Yehudah says that he isn't flogged] is because the Torah comes [with a remedial positive commandment], but if the Torah would not have came then he would be flogged. We therefore see that a lav sh'ein bo maiseh is subject to lashes.

Over there, since he is still liable in paying [their value] he isn't flogged and made to pay.

There [he isn't nullifying the remedial commandment] because he is still liable to repay [the proselyte's pledge], it is only the proselyte's claim that stopped.

a Tanna who taught before Rabi Yochanan: [if one made an incision/gash] for the dead, whether it was by hand or by a tool, the person is culpable [for the punishment of lashes]. If the person did it for idolatry, by hand- the person is culpable, by a tool- the person is exempt (patoor) [from the punishment of lashes]. But isn't the opposite written (I Kings 18:28): "And they gashed themselves according to their practices, with knives and spears"? Rather, one should say: if it [the incision/gash] is done by hand, one is exempt [from the punishment] but if done with a tool one is culpable.

MISHNA: One who writes a tattoo, If he inks it without needling or he needles it without inking, he isn't liable unless he both inks and needles [the tattoo] with black ink, blue ink, or anything else that leaves a mark. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon, One is not liable unless he writes the name of HaShem that it is said (Leviticus 19, 28) "And a tattoo you shall imprint in yourselves, I am the Lord".